John

Notes on
John
2 0 1 7 E d i t i o n
Dr. Thomas L. Constable
Introduction
WRITER
The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the
Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel, as well as in the
writings of the church fathers, that the writer was the Apostle John.1
The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24, the writer of "these
things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the "disciple whom Jesus loved"
(21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the
disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper,
and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve, since
only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The "disciple whom
Jesus loved" was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely: Peter, James, and
John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10).
James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There
is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also
not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to "John" as the "disciple whom Jesus loved,"
who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory
(1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the
New Testament. This "John" was one of Zebedee's sons, who was a fisherman before
Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.
"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its
author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality
manifested than in John."2
In the article just quoted, the writer showed how John projected his personality into his
writing of this Gospel.
The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel.
Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130-200), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (ca.
A.D. 69-155), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned
1SeeW. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels, pp. 135-38.

2MerrillC. Tenney, "The Author's Testimony to Himself," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September
1963):223.
Copyright 2017 by Thomas L. Constable

Published by Sonic Light: http://www.soniclight.com/
2 Dr. Constable's Notes on John 2017 Edition
that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself
published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."3 Other later church fathers
supported this tradition, including: Theophilus of Antioch (ca. A.D. 180), Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.4 Eusebius (fourth century) also
specifically mentioned that Matthew and John, among the apostles, wrote the Gospels
that bear their names.5
Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept
Johannine authorship. This criticism generally comes from those who hold a lower view
of Scripture. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.6
PLACE OF WRITING
Eusebius also wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had
founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.7 The Isle of Patmos, where John spent some
time in exile, is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). Eusebius wrote that John composed
his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.8 During the first century, that city was one of the
largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world. Antioch of Syria and Alexandria
in Egypt have been suggested as sites of composition, but they do not have as good of
support as Ephesus does.9
DATE
A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as A.D. 45, the date
when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-
4).10 There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have
assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some
doubt about this, since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis
of content, that John selected his material to supplement the material in the Synoptics.
This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early
church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a
later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book
believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died
about A.D. 67. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other
reasons.
3Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1.

4See Edwin A. Blum, "John," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, p. 267; Merrill C.
Tenney, "John," in John-Acts, vol. 9 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, pp. 5-6; and George R.
Beasley-Murray, John, pp. lxvi-lxxv.
5Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, 3:24:3-8.
6For treatment of these views, see Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp. 68-81, and books
on Bible Introduction. For a more complete discussion of authorship, see B. F. Westcott, The Gospel
According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes, pp. v-xxxv.
7Eusebius, 3:24:1.
8Ibid., 3:24:3-8.
9For discussion, see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, pp. 54-55.
10E.g., Edwin R. Goodenough, "John: A Primitive Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part
2:145-82.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on John 3
Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before A.D. 70, because John described
Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).11 This may
be a weak argument, since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe
things in the past. Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to
Jerusalem's destruction in John. However, there could have been many reasons John
chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of
writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.
Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between A.D. 85 and 95,
or close to A.D. 100.12 Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older
man. Moreover, even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel, and believed
that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic
Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own
Gospel suggests that he probably read them, and chose to include other material from
Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.13
The latest possible date would be about A.D. 100, although some more liberal scholars
date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus, which dates from early in
the second century, contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.14 This seems to
rule out a second century date.
It seems impossible to identify the date of writing precisely, as evidenced by the

difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. However, a
date sometime between A.D. 65 and 95 is probable. I favor a date in the 90s.
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES AND PURPOSE
John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of
the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament
studies.15 Compared to the Synoptics, which present Jesus as a historical figure, John also
stressed the deity of Jesus. Darrell Bock described this difference as the Synoptics
viewing Jesus from the earth up, and John viewing Jesus from heaven down.16 Obviously
the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more
strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word
becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, where Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and
"God" (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity.
11E.g., Morris, p. 30; and Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of
the New Testament, pp. 531, 177-205.
12E.g., Westcott, p. xl; William Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:xxi; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the
New Testament, 5:1; Everett F. Harrison, "The Gospel According to John," in The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary, p. 1072; Tenney, "John," p. 9; Blum, p. 268; Carson, p. 82; and Mark L. Bailey, in The New
Testament Explorer, p. 154.
13R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 32.
14Tenney, "John," p. 9; Carson, p. 82. See Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, pp. 386-92, for more
information about papyrus, leather, parchment, and vellum as writing materials.
15E.g., Blum, p. 268.
16Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, p. 24.
It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby
have eternal life.
The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times.
The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon
shows that John wanted to emphasize the importance of active, vital trust in Jesus. Other
key words are: witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life,
darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.17 These words identify important themes in the
Gospel.
John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every
biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing
demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane,
and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus'
private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples.
John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah
(chs. 212).18 He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that
explained their significance. In addition, he featured Jesus' claims that occur in the seven
unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).
About 93 percent of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.19
This fact illustrates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared to the other three, and
explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. For example, John
recorded no story parables of Jesus, though he did include many extended discourses and
personal conversations that the other evangelists omitted.
". . . it is undeniable that the discourses of the Lord which are peculiar to
St John's Gospel are, for the most part, very brief summaries of elaborate
discussions and expositions in relation to central topics of faith."20
"Its [this Gospel's] aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper
report, but to give us what Jesus meant."21
All four Gospels are quite similar, and the three Synoptics are very similar, though each
Gospel has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different
from the others. Specifically, it emphasizes Jesus' deity more strongly than the others do.
It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew
of the Synoptic Gospels.22 I suspect that he did.
17Tenney, "John," p. 12.

18J.Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, 4:365, believed that John included 11 specific
signs.
19Blum, p. 269.
20Westcott, p. lvii.
21Barclay, 1:xxxix.
22For discussion of this issue, see Morris, pp. 43-45, and James D. Dvorak, "The Relationship Between
John and the Synoptic Gospels," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.
Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of
eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely, that the Jews' rejection of their
Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However, the Synoptic
writers focused on the future aspects of eschatology more than John, who put more
emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John
presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not.
However, John did stress the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as
benefits of the New Covenant, which Jesus inaugurated with His death. These include
especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a
shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists.
By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers'
interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf.
chs. 1317).
"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false
teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became
incarnate; everything was 'seeming.' That the docetic heresy did not appear
in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be
embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."23
"A heresy is seldom a complete lie and a complete untruth; a heresy

usually results when one side, one part, one facet of the truth is unduly
emphasised [sic]."24
The Greek word dokein, meaning "to seem," is the origin of the name of this heresy.
"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups
within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme
interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God,
and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii;
also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the
Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this
theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with
their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine;
and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic
outlook), that Jesus was truly human."25
The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four
Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan and less Jewish than
the others.
"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an

enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.
23Morris,p. 31.
24Barclay,1:xxvi.
25Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 101.
"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being

evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and
questioning believer."26
As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.
"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related

in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a
dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The
variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played,
they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The
apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but
which appears in the progress of the composition."27
Tenney identified the major themes as the signs, the sonship and messiahship of Christ,
and eternal life. Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most
profound of the Christian Gospels."28
"The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the
books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most beautiful, John's Gospel is
supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ
here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. . . .
The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are
not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity
challenge and charm us as we linger over it."29
Let me encourage you to read this Gospel through at one sitting some time, if you have
not already done so. I remember the first time that I did, when I was a teenager. The book
made a profound impression on me. Read this way, the impact of Jesus' life is
tremendous. One can hardly escape the conviction that Jesus is the Christ.
ORIGINAL RECIPIENTS
The preceding quotation (from Tenney's commentary on John) implies that John wrote
primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated
purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the
Son of God, and at the same time to give Christianswho faced persecution
confidence in their Savior.30 The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense to
imply that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense to
suggest that pagan readers should believe initially.
27Idem, "The Symphonic Structure of John," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-18.
28Tasker, p. 10.
29Robertson, 5:ix.
30Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. lxxxix.
An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed, all 66 books of
the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for
unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that they
might experience abundant eternal life (10:10). Though most students of this Gospel
have concluded that John's purpose in writing was primarily evangelistic, some have felt
that it was primarily for the growth of believers.31
John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites.
These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers who lived primarily outside
Palestine. Furthermore, the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek
terms. John's inclusion of the Greeks, who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22),
may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes, it
seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and
Gentile unbelievers. Carson argued that John's purpose was specifically to evangelize
Jews and Jewish proselytes.32
"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life
of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not
been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a
new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers
were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to
whom he seemed patriarchal."33
The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his
Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal.
Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia, the capital of which was
Ephesus.34
SUMMARY OF GOSPEL INTRODUCTIONS

Gospel Matthew Mark Luke John
Date 40-70 63-70 57-59 65-95
probably 40s probably 60s probably 50s probably 90s
Origin Palestine Rome Caesarea Ephesus
Audience Jews Romans Greeks Gentiles
Emphasis King Servant Man God
31E.g.,McGee, 4:364.
32Carson, pp. 87-95.
34See Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 225-84, for
extensive discussion of introductory matters.
OUTLINE
I. Prologue 1:1-18
A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5
B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8
C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13
D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18
II. Jesus' public ministry 1:1912:50
A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51
1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28
2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34
3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42
4. The witness of Andrew and Philip 1:43-51
B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12
1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11
2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12
C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:133:36
1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22
2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25
3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21
4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30
5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36
D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42
1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26
2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38
3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42
E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54
1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45
2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54
F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5
1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9
2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18
3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29
4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47
G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:17:9
1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15
2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21
3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59
4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:607:9
H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:1010:42
1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13
2. Jesus' ministry at the Feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44
3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52
[ 4. The woman caught in adultery 7:538:11 ]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59
6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9
7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21
8. The confrontation at the Feast of Dedication 10:22-42
I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 1112
1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44
2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57
3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8
4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11
5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19
6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36
7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50
III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 1317
A. The Last Supper 13:1-30
1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20
2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30
B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:3116:33
1. Jesus' announcement and command 13:31-35
2. Peter's question about Jesus' departure and Jesus' reply 13:36-38
3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24
4. Jesus' promise of future understanding 14:25-31
5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16
6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27
7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24
8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33
C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17
1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5
2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19
3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26
IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 1820
A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11
B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27
1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-
14
2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priest's courtyard and
Peter's first denial 18:15-18
3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24
4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27
C. Jesus' civil trial 18:2819:16
1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32
2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a
3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16
D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30
1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17
2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18
3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22
4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24
5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27
6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30
E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42
1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37
2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42
F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29
1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9
2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18
3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening
20:19-23
4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29
G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31
V. Epilogue ch. 21
A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14
B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23
C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25
MESSAGE
In one sense, the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most
difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and teach for reasons that become evident
as one studies it. For my first experience teaching a series of home Bible studies, I chose
this book, because I thought it would not be too difficult. I soon discovered that
understanding and communicating much of what John wrote was not easy. In another
sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote
that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.35 It is both simple
and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.
What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate
the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it
does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as
the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John
does.
35Morris, p. 3.
The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave
hidden. It is, therefore, an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in
this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of
John plays that part among the Gospels (cf. Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch). It is a
revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it
would be this in his prologue (1:1-18). Though it is an apocalypse in this sense, it does
not contain apocalyptic content, which refers to a particular literary genre describing
cataclysmic end times events.
The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any
time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents
Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. It then stresses the revelation of the
truth about God.
People have constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what
God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus
Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without
divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a
projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself,
however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach.
This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of
what one would expect.
John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see
God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of
Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see
what God hates.
What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential
answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from
Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by
revealing two things about Him: His "grace" and His "truth" (1:14). All that Jesus
revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice
first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.
The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies
a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in
gracious action in this book. Note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs
that John chose to record.
The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The
healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family
unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical
restoration. The feeding of the 5,000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material
needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people
enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's
desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's
grace in providing new life. All of these miracles are revelations of God's love
manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward people in their various needs. These are
only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.
This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that
we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel.
That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is
light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament. The principle of
God's holiness governs the passion of His love.
Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth.
Consider the seven great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of
the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All of these claims point to God as the source of,
and to Jesus as the mediator of, things having to do with truth.
The "bread of life" claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The "light
of the world" claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The "door"
claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The "good shepherd" claim
(ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The "resurrection and the life" claim (ch.
11) points to God as the source of true life. The "way, the truth, and the life" claim (ch.
14) points to God as the source of true authority. The "vine" claim (ch. 15) points to God
as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the
mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of
the truth concerning God.
These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3,
where God said He would reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial
revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and
final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find
their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.
What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel?
First, such a revelation calls for worship. In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself
and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed
Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the
place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship
Him in response. The Son of God is the Person through whom God has now given the
greatest and fullest revelation of Himself, and around whom we now bow in worship (cf.
Heb. 9).
Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship
prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission
for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as
worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is, as we study this Gospel, our reaction
should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every
individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to
his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself.
Even in heaven we shall serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).
As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and
truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be
the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives.
Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not
yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy
graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness.
Jesus illustrated the balance.
This Gospel has a strong appeal to non-Christians as well. John wrote it specifically to
bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness
(20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is, is the key to the knowledge of who
God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain
characteristics, namely, grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content:
who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do
this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31).
Use it as an evangelistic tool. Many people have come to faith just by reading John.36
36Adapted from G. Campbell Morgan, Living Messages of the Books of the Bible, 2:1:57-73.
Exposition
I. PROLOGUE 1:1-18
Each of the four Gospels begins with an introduction to Jesus that places Him in the
historical setting of His earthly ministry. Matthew connected Him with David and
Abraham. Mark associated Him directly with John the Baptist. Luke recorded the
predictions of His birth. John, however, declared Him to be the eternal Son of God. Many
writers have referred to John's prologue as a theological prologue, because this evangelist
stressed Jesus' connection with the eternal God.
As with many introductions, this one contains several key terms that recur throughout the
remainder of the book. These terms include: life and light (v. 4), darkness (v. 5), witness
(v. 7), true (i.e., genuine or ultimate), and world (v. 9); as well as Son, Father, glory, and
truth (v. 14). The Word (as a Christological title, v. 1) and grace (v. 14) are also
important theological terms, but they occur only in the prologue.
"But supremely, the Prologue summarizes how the 'Word' which was with
God in the very beginning came into the sphere of time, history,
tangibilityin other words, how the Son of God was sent into the world to
become the Jesus of history, so that the glory and grace of God might be
uniquely and perfectly disclosed. The rest of the book is nothing other
than an expansion of this theme."37
Some writers have identified a chiastic structure in the prologue. R. Alan Culpepper's is
essentially as follows.38
A The eternal Word with God vv. 1-2

B What came through the Word: creation v. 3
C What we have received from the Word: life vv. 4-5
D John's purpose: to testify vv. 6-8
E The Incarnation and the world's response vv. 9-10
F The Word and His own (Israel) v. 11
G Those who accepted the Word v. 12a
H He gave them authority to become God's
children v. 12b
G' Those who believed in the Word v. 12c
F' The Word and His own (Christians) v. 13
E' The Incarnation and the church's response v. 14
D' John's testimony v. 15
C' What we have received from the Word: grace v. 16
B' What came through the Word: grace and truth v. 17
A' The eternal Word from God v. 18
37Carson, p. 111.
38R. Alan Culpepper, "The Pivot of John's Prologue," New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.
Jeff Staley also saw a chiasm in these verses, though his perception of the parts is slightly
different from Culpepper's.39
A The relationship of the Logos to God, creation, and humanity vv. 1-5
B The witness of John (negative) vv. 6-8
C The journey of the Light/Logos (negative) vv. 9-11
D The gift of empowerment (positive) vv. 12-13
C' The journey of the Logos (positive) v. 14
B' The witness of John (positive) v. 15
A' The relationship of the Logos to humankind, re-creation, and God vv. 16-18
These structural analyses point out that all that John wrote in this prologue centers on
God's gift of eternal life that comes to people through the Word (v. 12). This emphasis on
salvation through Jesus continues to be central throughout the Gospel (cf. 20:30-31).
A. THE PREINCARNATE WORD 1:1-5
John began his Gospel by locating Jesus before the beginning of His ministry, before His
virgin birth, and even before Creation. He identified Jesus as co-existent with God the
Father and the Father's agent in providing creation and salvation.
1:1 The Bible identifies many beginnings. The "beginning" that John spoke of
was not really the beginning of something new at a particular time. It was
rather the time before anything that has come into existence began. The
Bible does not teach a timeless state either before Creation or after the
consummation of all things. This was a pagan Greek philosophical
concept. Origen and Plato held it, as do some modern eastern religions and
some uninformed Christians, but it is not a biblical teaching.
Time is the way God and people measure events in relationship to one
another. Even before God created the universe (Gen. 1:1) there was
succession of events. We often refer to this pre-creation time as "eternity
past." This is the time ("beginning") that John referred to here.40 At the
beginning of this eternity, when there was nothing else, "the Word"
existed. Another view, a less probable one, is that John was referring back
to the same "beginning" that Moses wrote about in Genesis 1:1.41
"John is writing about a new beginning, a new creation, and

he uses words that recall the first creation. He soon goes on
to use other words that are important in Genesis 1, such as
'life' (v. 4), 'light' (v. 4), and 'darkness' (v. 5). Genesis 1
39JeffStaley, "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure,"
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.
40C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the
Greek Text, p. 149; Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 1:19.
41Westcott, p. 2; The Nelson Study Bible, p. 1756.
described God's first creation; John's theme is God's new

creation. Like the first, the second is not carried out by
some subordinate being. It is brought about through the
agency of the Logos, the very Word of God."42
Obviously the word "Word" (Gr. logos; Aram. memra, used to describe
God in the Targums), to which John referred, was a title for God. The
Targums are Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. Later in this verse
he identified the Word as "God." John evidently chose this title because it
communicates the fact that the Word was not only God, but also the
expression of God. A spoken or written word expresses what is in the
mind of its speaker or writer.
The Greeks used the word logos to describe the reason or mind of God.43
Likewise Jesus, the Word (v. 14), was not only God, but He was the
expression of God to humankind. Jesus' life and ministry expressed to
humankind what God wanted us to know (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). The word
"word" had this metaphorical meaning in Jewish and Greek literature
when John wrote his Gospel.
"To the Hebrew 'the word of God' was the self-assertion of

the divine personality; to the Greek the formula denoted the
rational mind that ruled the universe."44
"It has not been proven beyond doubt whether the term
logos, as John used it, derives from Jewish or Greek
(Hellenistic) backgrounds or from some other source. Nor
is it plain what associations John meant to convey by his
use of it. Readers are left to work out the precise allusions
and significance for themselves. John was working with
allusions to the Old Testament, but he was also writing to
an audience familiar with Hellenistic (Greek) thought, and
certain aspects of his use of logos would occur to them.
Both backgrounds are important for understanding this title
as John used it in 1:1, 14."45
John adopted this word "word," and used it as a personification to express

Jesus ("the Word") as the ultimate divine self-revelation (cf. Heb. 1:1-2).
In view of Old Testament usage, it carries connotations of creation (Gen.
1:3, 6, 9; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Isa. 9:8; Jer. 1:4; Ezek. 33:7; Amos 3:1, 8),
deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Isa. 56:1) and wisdom (Prov. 4:5-13; 8:19:2).
42Morris,pp. 64-65.
43Barclay,1:xxii-xxiii.
44Tenney, "John,", p. 28.
45W. Hall Harris, "A Theology of John's Writings," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 190.
See Beasley-Murray, pp. 6-10, for a brief discussion of the origin of the logos concept.
John's description of the Word as "with God" shows that Jesus was in one
sense distinct from God. He was (and is) the second person of the Trinity,
who is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of His
subsistence. However, John was also careful to note that Jesus was in
another sense fully God. He was not less of God than the Father was, or
the Spirit in His essence. Thus John made one of the great Trinitarian
statements in the Bible in this verse. In His essence, Jesus is equal with the
Father, but He exists as a separate person within the Godhead.
There is probably no fully adequate illustration of the Trinity in the natural

world. Perhaps the egg is one of the best. An egg consists of three parts:
shell, yolk, and white. Each part is fully egg, yet each has its own identity
that distinguishes it from the other parts. The human family is another
illustration. Father, mother, and child are all separate entitiesyet each
one is fully a member of his or her own family. Each may have a different
first name, but all bear the same family name.
Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to this verse to support their doctrine that

Jesus was not fully God but the highest created being. They translate it
"the Word was a god." Grammatically this is a possible translation since it
is legitimate to supply the indefinite article ("a") when no article is present
in the Greek text, as here. However, that translation here is definitely
incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than God. Other Scriptures affirm
Jesus' full deity (e.g., vv. 2, 18; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; et al.). Here
the absence of the indefinite article was deliberate. Often the absence of
the article stresses the character or quality of the noun, as here. (cf. Heb.
1:1:2).
"As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when

the subject uses it [cf. vv. 6, 12, 13, 18, et al.]."46
Jesus was not "a god." He was and is God.
"What John is saying is thisthe Word is not of the created

things; the Word was there before creation."47
"John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in

the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the
deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is
blasphemous."48
46A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 767.
See also E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal
of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.
47Barclay, 1:15.
48Barrett, p. 156.
John 1:1 is the first of many "asides" in this Gospel. An aside is a direct
statement that tells the reader something. Asides are never observable
events but are interpretive commentary on observable events. This
commentary reveals information below the surface of the action.
"Some asides function to stage an event by defining the

physical context in which it occurs. Other asides function to
define or specify something. Still other asides explain
discourse, telling why something was said (or was not said,
e.g., 7:13, 30). Parallel to these are others that function to
explain actions, noting why something happened (or did
not happen)."49
Thatcher identified 191 asides and charted them by type.50
1:2 The Word "was in the beginning with God." This statement clarifies
further that Jesus was with God before the creation of the universe. It is a
further assertion of Jesus' deity. He did not come into existence. He
always existed. Further, Jesus did not become deity. He always was deity.
Verse 2 clarifies the revelation of verse 1 that is so concise and profound
(cf. Gen. 1:1-2).51
1:3 John next explicitly declared what was implicit in the Old Testament use
of the word "word." Jesus was God's agent in creating everything that has
"come into" existence (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14). It
was the second person of the Trinity who created the universe and "all" it
contains. However, John described the Word as God's agent. The Word
did not act independently from the Father. Thus John presented Jesus as
under God the Father's authority, but over every created thing in authority.
Jesus' work of revealing God began with the Creation, because all of
creation reveals God (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20).
"In the time of John this kind of belief was widespread.

Men believed that the world was evil and that an evil God
had created it."52
John characteristically stated a proposition positively (part "a" of this

verse), and then immediately repeated it negatively for emphasis and
clarification (part "b" of this verse).
49Tom Thatcher, "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-
December 1994):430.
50Ibid., pp. 434-39.
51See David J. MacLeod, "The Eternality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:637
(January-March 2003):48-64.
52Barclay, 1:19.
1:4 ". . . we move on from creation in general to the creation of

life, the most significant element in creation. Life is one of
John's characteristic concepts: he uses the word 36 times,
whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than
17 times (Revelation; next come Romans with 14 times and
1 John with 13 times). Thus more than a quarter of all the
New Testament references to life occur in this one
writing."53
Jesus was the source of "life." Therefore He could impart life to the things
He created. Every living thing owes its life to the Creator: Jesus. "Life" for
humankind comprises light (knowledge and understanding). Where there
is life there is light, metaphorically speaking, and where there is no light
there is darkness. John proceeded to show that Jesus is the source of
spiritual life and light, as well as physical life and light (cf. 5:26; 6:57;
8:12; 9:5; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; 17:3; 20:31). In the spiritual realm, God's
presence dispels the darkness of ignorance and sin by providing revelation
and salvation (cf. Isa. 9:2). Jesus did this in the Incarnation.
1:5 As light "shines" (present tense for the first time) in the darkness, so Jesus
brought the revelation and salvation of God to humanity in its fallen and
lost condition. He did this in the Incarnation. As the word of God brought
light to the chaos before Creation, so Jesus brought light to fallen
humankind when He became a man.
Furthermore, the light that Jesus brought was superior to and stronger than
the darkness that existedboth physically and spiritually. The "darkness"
(Satan's kingdom) did not overcome (Gr. katelaben, "lay hold of," cf.
6:17; 8:3-4; 12:35; Mark 9:18) and consume the "Light," but the "Light"
overcame the "darkness."
"The word in the Greek is katelaben, meaning actually 'to
take down.' It is the picture of a secretary to whom the boss
is giving dictation, and she stops and says, 'I can't take that
down. I am not able to take it down." The light shines in
darkness and the darkness is not able to take it in."54
John did not view the world as a stage on which two equal and opposing
forces battle; he was not a philosophical dualist. He viewed Jesus as
superior to the forces of darkness that sought to overcome Him but could
not. This gives humankind hope. The forces of Light are stronger than the
forces of Darkness. John was here anticipating the outcome of the story
that he would tell, specifically, Calvary. Though darkness continues to
prevail, the Light will overcome it.55
53Morris,p. 73.
54McGee, 4:373.
55See David J. MacLeod, "The Creation of the Universe by the Word: John 1:3-5," Bibliotheca Sacra
160:638 (April-June 2003):187-201.
"The imagery of John, though limited to certain concepts and expressed in

a fixed vocabulary, is integrated with the total theme of the Gospel. It
expresses the conflict of good with evil, culminating in the incarnation and
death of Christ, who brought light into darkness, and, though He suffered
death, was not overcome by it."56
Tenny's article just quoted contains discussion of about 20 images that John used.
Throughout these introductory verses, John was clearly hinting at parallels between what
Jesus did physically in the Creation, and what He did spiritually through the Incarnation.
These parallels continue throughout the Gospel, as do the figures of "light" and
"darkness." "Light" represents both revelation and salvation. Likewise "darkness" stands
for ignorance and sin (3:19-20; 8:12; 12:35, 46).
B. THE WITNESS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST 1:6-8
John the Apostle introduced John the Baptist because "John" the Baptist bore "witness to
the Light," namely: Jesus. John the Baptist was both a model evangelist, pointing those in
darkness to the Light, and a model witness, providing an excellent example for believers
who would follow him.57 John the Baptist introduced the Light to a dark world. He
inaugurated Jesus' ministry. Therefore mention of him was appropriate at the beginning
of the Apostle John's account of Jesus' ministry.
1:6 In introducing John the Baptist, the writer stressed that "God" had "sent"
him. The name "John" means "God is gracious" or "gift of God." John was
a prophet in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who bore witness
to the light (Exod. 3:10-15; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:4; cf. John 3:17). He was a
man, in contrast to the Word, who was God. The other Gospel writers
described John with the words "the Baptist," but John the Evangelist did
not. He probably called him simply "John," because this is the only John
that the Apostle John mentioned by name in his Gospel.58 He always
referred to himself obliquely: either as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," or
as "the other disciple," or in some other veiled way.
1:7 John the Baptist was the first of many witnesses to the light that John the
Apostle identified in this Gospel (cf. 4:39; 5:32, 36-37, 39-40; 8:18; 10:25;
12:17; 15:26-27; 18:13-18, 37). The Apostle John frequently used
courtroom terminology in his Gospel to stress the truthfulness of the
witnesses to "the Light." John the Baptist bore "witness" to "the light" of
God's revelation, but also to the Person of "the Light of the World" (8:12).
This Gospel stresses the function of John the Baptist as a "witness" to
56MerrillC. Tenney, "The Imagery of John," Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):21.
57See David J. MacLeod, "The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9," Bibliotheca Sacra
160:639 (July-September 2003):305-20.
58See Cornelis Bennema, "The Character of John in the Fourth Gospel," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 52:2 (June 2009):271-84.
("about") "the Light." The writer often emphasized something by simply

repeating it, as he did here with the word "witness." The other Gospels
also identified John the Baptist's origin and character in their introductions
(Matt. 3; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 1:5-24, 57-80).
John the Baptist's ultimate purpose was eliciting belief in Jesus (cf. vv. 35-
37). That was also John the Evangelist's (Apostle's) purpose in writing this
book (20:30-31). Consequently John the Baptist's witness is an important
part of the argument of the fourth Gospel. It was not immediately apparent
to everyone that Jesus was the Light. Both Johns needed to identify Him
as such to them.
"Since the Reformation, theologians have viewed saving

faith as simultaneously encompassing three components
notitia, assensus, and fiducia. In notitia the individual
becomes aware of the conditions, promises, and events that
constitute divine revelation, especially the events
surrounding God's consummate self-revelation in Jesus
Christ. In assensus the individual expresses objective
confidence in the truthfulness of these claims (Rom. 10:9;
Heb. 11:3, 6; 1 John 5:1). In fiducia the individual places
his or her personal trust in Jesus Christ. Central to this
threefold model is a single key assumption: Faith, as
presented in the New Testament, necessarily entails the
recognition and acceptance of specific, objective
content."59
"But it is worthy of remark that St John does not notice

explicitly his [John the Baptist's] call to repentance, nor do
the terms 'repent,' 'repentance' find a place in his Gospel or
Epistles ('Repent' occurs frequently in the Apocalypse)."60
1:8 Perhaps the writer stressed the fact that John the Baptist "was not the
Light," because some people continued to follow John as his disciples
long after he died (cf. 4:1; Mark 6:29; Luke 5:33; Acts 18:25; 19:1-7).61
"A Mandaean sect still continues south of Baghdad which,

though hostile to Christianity, claims an ancestral link to
the Baptist."62
Mandaism was a non-Christian type of Gnosticism.63
59Timothy Paul Jones, "The Necessity of Objective Assent in the Act of Christian Faith," Bibliotheca Sacra
162:646 (April-June 2005):150.
60Westcott, p. 6.
61See Barclay, 1:28-29.
62Blum, p. 272.
63See Morris, p. 57; Beasley-Murray, pp. lvii-lviii.
John the Baptist's function was clearly "to testify" that Jesus was "the
Light." He was not that Light himself.
The reason the writer referred to John the Baptist in his prologue seems obvious. As the
Word came to bring light to all of humanity, so God sent John the Baptist to illuminate
the identity of the Light to individual people.
In this Gospel, there are eight witnesses to Jesus' unique position: (1) God the Father
(5:37; 8:18), (2) Jesus Himself (8:14, 18), (3) Jesus' works (5:36; 10:25; 14:11; 15:25),
(4) the Scriptures (1:45; 5:39, 46), (5) John the Baptist (1:7-8), (6) those with whom Jesus
came into contact (4:39; 9:25, 38; 12:17), (7) Jesus' disciples, including the Apostle John
(15:27; 19:35; 21:24), and (8) the Holy Spirit (15:26; cf. 1 John 5:6).
C. THE APPEARANCE OF THE LIGHT 1:9-13
The first section of the prologue (vv. 1-5) presents the preincarnate Word. The second
section (vv. 6-8) identifies the forerunner of the Word's earthly ministry. This third
section introduces the ministry of the Incarnate Word.
"Two points receive special emphasis: one is the astonishing fact that the
Word of God, true God as he is, took upon him human nature, and the
other is the even more astonishing fact that when he did this, people would
have nothing to do with him."64
1:9 There are two possible interpretations of this verse. One is that the true
Light enlightens every person who comes into the world (Gr. masculine
participle erchomenon, AV, and NASB and NIV margins). The other is
that the true Light comes into the world and enlightens everyone (Gr.
neuter participle erchomenon, NASB and NIV). The second option seems
preferable since the Incarnation is so much in view in the context.
The point is that Jesus as the "true Light" affects everyone. Everyone lives
under the spotlight of God's illuminating revelation in Jesus Christ since
the Incarnation (cf. 1 John 1). His light clarifies the sinfulness and spiritual
need of human beings. Those who respond to this convicting revelation
positively experience salvation. Those who reject it and turn from the light
will end up in outer darkness. They will experience eternal damnation.
". . . the light shines upon every man for judgement [sic], to
reveal what he is."65
The Quakers prefer the first of the two interpretations above. They use this
verse to support their doctrine of the "inner light." They believe that God
has placed some revelation in the heart of every person. A person can
64Morris, pp. 82-83.

65Barrett, p. 161.
elicit that revelation by meditation. This is not general but special

revelation.66 Their view is very close to the belief of some charismatic
Christians that God gives new revelation today. Non-charismatics see no
basis in Scripture for this view. We believe that while God now
illuminates the revelation that He has previously given, He does not give
new revelation now, though He does give guidance and illumination.
The word "true" is one that John used repeatedly in this Gospel. "True"
(Gr. alethinon) here refers to what is the ultimate form of the genuine
article, the real as opposed to the counterfeit. John did not mean that Jesus
was "truthful" (Gr. alethes). Jesus was not only a genuine revelation from
God, but He was also the ultimate revelation (cf. 4:23; 6:32; 15:1; 17:3;
Heb. 1:1-2).
John usually used the word "world" (Gr. kosmos) in a negative sense in
this Gospel (cf. v. 10; 7:7; 14:17, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6,
9, 14). It does not refer to this planet as a planet, but to the inhabited earth
fallen in sin and in rebellion against God. It is the world of humanity
darkened by sin.
1:10 Jesus entered "the world" that He had created at the Incarnation. Yet the
world did not recognize Him for who He was, because people's minds had
become darkened by the Fall and sin (12:37). Even the Light of the World
was incomprehensible to them (cf. Matt. 13:55). The Light shines on
everyone even though most people do not see it because they are
spiritually blind. He shines even on those who have never heard of Him, in
that when He came, He brought revelation of God that is now available to
everyone.
John drew attention to the "world" by repeating this word three times.
However, the meaning shifts a bit from the world and all that is in it, in the
first two occurrences of the word, to the people in the world who came in
contact with Jesus, in the third occurrence.
"The world's characteristic reaction to the Word is one of

indifference."67
1:11 More seriously, when Jesus visited "His own" creation (Gr. idia, neuter),
the ("His own") creatures whom He had created (Gr. idioi, masculine) "did
not receive Him," but rejected Him. The specific people whom Jesus
visited in the Incarnation were the Jews.68 They were "His own" in a
double sense. He had not only created them, but had also "bought" them
for Himself out from the nations. Jesus had created the earth as a house (or
66See Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:9.

67Morris, p. 85. See his additional note on "the world," pp. 111-13.
68Barrett, p. 163.
home), but when He visited it, He found it inhabited by people who

refused to acknowledge Him for who He was. In the Incarnation, Jesus did
not come as an alien; He came to His own "house."
"Here there is the tragedy of a people being prepared for a

task, and then refusing that task."69
1:12 The contrast with rejection is acceptance. Not everyone rejected Jesus
when He came. Some accepted ("received") Him.70 To these He gave as a
gift "the right" or authority (Gr. exousian) "to become" God's "children"
(Gr. tekna). Receiving Jesus consists of believing "in His name."
Believing therefore equals receiving. "His name" summarizes all that He
is. To "believe in His name" means to accept all the revelation, of who
Jesus is, that God has given. Because that revelation includes the fact that
Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice in the place of sinners, belief involves
relying on Jesus for salvation rather than on self. It does not just mean
believing facts intellectually. It involves volitional trust as well.
"In the gospel of John belief is viewed in terms of a

relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with a decision
to accept rather than reject who Jesus claims to be. This
leads to a new relationship with God . . .
". . . in the Johannine writings . . . pisteuo ["believe"] with

eis ["in" or "into"] refers to belief in a person."71
The context determines whether John had genuine or inadequate belief in

view in any given passage.72
In one sense, all human beings are the "children" of God: we are all His
creatures through the Creation. However, the Bible speaks of the "children
of God" primarily as those who are His spiritual children by faith in Jesus
Christ. The new birth brings us into a new family with new relationships.
Clearly John was referring to this family of believers, since he wrote that
believing in Jesus gives people "the right to become" God's children.
The New Testament speaks of the believer as a "child of God" and as a

"son of God." Usually it describes Christians as children by birththe
new birthand as sons by adoption. John consistently referred to
believers only as "children of God" in his Gospel. He did not call us the
"sons of God." In this Gospel, Jesus is the only "son of God." "Children"
69Barclay, 1:39.
70See David J. MacLeod, "The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13" Bibliotheca Sacra
160:640 (October-December 2003):398-413.
71Harris, p. 223.
72Ibid., pp. 225-26. Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 13.
draws attention to community of like nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4), whereas

"sons" emphasizes rights and privileges.
When Christians explain the way of salvation to unbelievers, one

difficulty we encounter is how to make clear what is meant by "receiving"
Jesus Christ as Savior. The following illustration may help. A man is
rushed to the hospital where a doctor examines him and informs him that
he is critically ill. The patient is told that he will die unless he gets proper
treatment. The physician then prescribes medicine for the sick man and
says, "If you will take this, I can assure you with absolute certainty that
you will get well." Now, what should the man do? Should he just lie there
on his sickbed and believe that the doctor knows his business, that he has
diagnosed his illness correctly, and that the prescription will surely make
him well? No, that is not enough. If that is all he does, he will die. To live,
he must take the medicine.
When a person offers you a gift that has cost him or her much, it does not
become yours until you receive it from that person. The beautifully
wrapped package in the outstretched hand of the giver will do the receiver
no good until he or she reaches out and takes it. Likewise, reception of
God's gracious gift of eternal life is necessary before a person can benefit
from it. Receiving a gift from someone else does not constitute a
meritorious act or good work, and the Bible never regards it as a work. It
is simply a response to the work of another.
1:13 The antecedent of "who" is those who believe in Jesus' name (v. 12). Their
new life as children of God comes from God. It does not come because of
their "blood," namely, their physical ancestors (descent). Many of the
Jews believed that because they were Abraham's descendants, they were
automatically the spiritual children of God (cf. ch. 8; Rom. 4; Gal. 3).
Even today, some people think that the faith or works of their ancestors
somehow guarantees their salvation. However, God has no grandchildren.
People become the children of God by personally trusting in Christ.
New life does not come because of physical desire ("will of the flesh"),
either. No amount of wanting it and striving for it with personal effort will
bring it. Neither can one person make another person a Christian. The only
thing that produces new life is belief in Jesus.
"The term 'flesh' (sarx) is not used by John to convey the

idea of sinfulness, as it often does in Paul's writings. . . .
Rather, it is indicative of weakness and humiliation as seen
in 1:14. It simply affirms that in the Incarnation Jesus
became fully human."73
73Harris, p. 206. See also Morris, p. 89.

Third, new spiritual life does not come because of a human decision ("will
of man") either, specifically, the choice of a husband to produce a child.
No one can will himself or herself into becoming a Christian, or simply
determine to become a Christian. New life comes as the result of a
spiritual decision to trust in Jesus Christ. The Greek word for "man" here
is andros, meaning "male." The NIV interpreted it properly as "husband"
here.
New spiritual life does not come from any of these sourcesbut from God
Himself. Ultimately it is the result of God's choice, not man's (cf. Eph.
1:4). Therefore the object of our faith must be God, rather than our
heritage or race, our works, or our own initiative.
This section of the prologue summarizes the theological issue involved in the Incarnation.
It is in a sense a miniature of the whole Gospel.
D. THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD 1:14-18
John's return to the Word in verse 14 (from verse 1) introduces new revelation about
Him. Though still part of the prologue, the present section focuses on the Incarnation of
the Word.
1:14 "The Word," who existed co-equal with God before anything else came
into being, "became flesh"a human being.74 This is the most concise
statement of the Incarnation. He did not just appear to be a man; He
became one (cf. Phil. 2:5-9). Yet He maintained His full deity. The word
"became" (Gr. egeneto) usually implies a complete change, but that was
not true in Jesus' case. He did not cease to be God. "Flesh" in Scripture has
both a literal meaning, namely, material human flesh, and a metaphorical
meaning, human nature. A second, less used, metaphorical meaning is all
that we were in Adam (sinful humans) before our regeneration (cf. Rom.
7:5). Here John used it in the literal and first metaphorical sense. God the
Son assumed a human, though not sinful, nature.
"So staggeringly new and unheard-of was this conception

of God in a human form that it is not surprising that there
were some even in the Church who could not believe it."75
". . . what intelligent meaning can one give to John's

language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary
mother or father ever speaks of a child 'becoming flesh'?"76
74SeeHarris, pp. 189-92, or Morris, pp. 102-11, for fuller discussions of the title Logos.
75Barclay,1:45.
76Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:12.
"John does not say, 'the Word became man,' nor 'the Word
took a body.' He chooses that form of expression which
puts what he wants to say most bluntly. It seems probable
that he was confronted by opponents of a docetic type,
people who were ready to think of Jesus of Nazareth as the
Christ of God but who denied the reality of his humanity.
They thought of him as only appearing to live a human life.
Since God could not, on their premises, defile himself by
real contact with humankind, the whole life of Jesus must
be appearance only. John's strong term leaves no room for
such fancies. He is clear on the deity of the Word. But he is
just as clear on the genuineness of his humanity."77
"If anything like this very great mystery can be found in

human affairs, the most apposite parallel seems to be that
of man, whom we see to consist of two substances. Yet
neither is so mingled with the other as not to retain its own
distinctive nature. For the soul is not the body, and the
body is not the soul. Therefore, some things are said
exclusively of the soul that can in no wise apply to the
body; and of the body, again, that in no way fit the soul; of
the whole man, that cannot referexcept inappropriately
to either soul or body separately. Finally, the characteristics
of the mind are [sometimes] transferred to the body, and
those of the body to the soul. Yet he who consists of these
parts is one man, not many. Such expressions signify both
that there is one person in man composed of two elements
joined together, and that there are two diverse underlying
natures that make up this person."78
Jesus literally lived among His disciples. The Greek word eskenosen,
translated "dwelt" or "lived," is related to skene, meaning "tabernacle." As
God's presence dwelt among the Israelites in the tabernacle, so He lived
among them in the person of Jesus temporarily (cf. Exod. 25:8-9; 33:7,
11).79 The Gospel of John contains the second largest number of
quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the Gospels after
Matthew.80
"John is certainly dependent on the Old Testament, but his

use of it differs from that of other New Testament writers,
and is far from simple. His direct quotations are fewer, and
77Ibid., pp. 90-91.

78John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:14:1.
79See Merrill C. Tenney, "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480
(October-December 1963):300-8, for discussion of the influence of the Hebrew Bible on John's teaching in
this Gospel.
80Ibid., p. 303.
he comparatively rarely uses the 'proof-texts' by which the

earliest Christians often sought to show that Jesus was the
Messiah whose coming was prophesied in the Old
Testament."81
Solomon thought it incredible that God would dwell on the earth (1 Kings
8:27), but that is precisely what He did in Jesus.
For the first time, John equated the Word and Jesus, but this is the last
reference to "the Word" in this Gospel. From now on, John referred to the
Word by His historical name, Jesus, and to the personal terms "Father"
and "Son."
"As the preexistent Son of God, he was the Creator of the

world and the Executor of the will of the Father. As the
incarnate Son of God, he exercised in his human existence
these same powers and revealed effectively the person of
the Father."82
The "glory" that John and the other disciples observed as eyewitnesses
refers to the god-like characteristics of Jesus (cf. Exod. 33:22; Deut. 5:22;
Isa. 60:1; 1 John 1:1-2). God's character and qualities were expressed
through Jesus, as a human son resembles his human father, except that the
likeness in Jesus' case was exact (Phil. 2:6). John, for the other disciples
("we"), wrote that they "beheld" Jesus' "glory." The Greek word translated
"beheld," theasthai, always means "beheld with actual physical sight"
elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. 1 John 1:1-3). The disciples saw
Jesus' glory most fully at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:2-8; Mark 9:2-8;
Luke 9:28-36).
"John has no account of the Transfiguration, for he presents

the whole ministry as a transfiguration, except that the light
he speaks of is moral and spiritual (full of grace and
truth-rather than something visual (cf. Jn 1:17)."83
Jesus' relationship to the Father was unique, and so was His similarity to
the Father. Even though Jesus' relationship to God the Father was unique
(Gr. monogenous, cf. v. 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), even we can become
children of God (vv. 12-13). He is eternal and of the same essence as the
Father. "Only begotten" does not mean that there was a time when Jesus
was not, and then the Father brought Him into being. Monogenes, literally
"one kind," means unique or only (i.e., the only one of its [His] kind), and
the word had come to connote specially beloved.84
81Barrett,p. 27.
82Idem, "John," p. 33.
83Harrison, p. 1074.
84Barclay, 1:55.
"Monogenes (only born rather than only begotten) here

refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in 1:18)
rather than to the Incarnation."85
"The glory of Jesus is thus dependent upon both his

essential relationship with God (1.14) and his obedience."86
Particularly, "grace and truth" characterized the glory of God that Jesus
manifested (cf. Exod. 34:6). "Grace" in this context refers to graciousness
(i.e., goodness, Heb. hesed), and "truth" means integrity (i.e., truthfulness,
Heb. 'emet, cf. v. 17). The Incarnation was the greatest possible expression
of God's grace to humankind. It was also the best way to communicate
truth accurately to human understanding. Nevertheless many people who
encountered Jesus during His ministry failed to see these things (v. 10).
Neither "grace" nor "truth" is knowable apart from God who has revealed
them through Jesus Christ.87
1:15 "John" the Baptist was another witness, besides John the Apostle and the
other disciples of Jesus, who "testified" to ("about") Jesus' person.
"John the Baptist is one of six persons named in the Gospel

of John who gave witness that Jesus Is God. The others are
Nathanael (John 1:49), Peter (John 6:69), the blind man
who was healed (John 9:35-38), Martha (John 11:27), and
Thomas (John 20:28). If you add our Lord Himself (John
5:25; 10:36), then you have seven clear witnesses."88
Even though John the Baptist was slightly older and began his ministry
before Jesus, he acknowledged Jesus' superiority to himself ("He . . . has a
higher rank than I").
"In a society where age and precedence bestowed peculiar

honour, that might have been taken by superficial observers
to mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus."89
Jesus' superiority rested in His preexistence with the Fatherand

therefore His deity. John the Baptist's witness to Jesus' identity was
important to the writer of this Gospel (cf. vv. 6-8, 19-36).

86Barrett,p. 166.
87Morris, p. 95. See also David J. MacLeod, "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14," Bibliotheca Sacra
161:641 (January-March 2004):72-88.
88Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 1:287.
89Carson, p. 131.
1:16 These words, and those that follow, are quite certainly those of the
evangelist and not of the Baptist.90 All the resources of God are present in
Jesus, which constitute His "fullness" (Gr. pleroma; cf. Col. 1:19; 2:29). It
is out of this "fullness" that people receive grace. The glory of God that
Jesus manifested was full of grace and truth (v. 14). From the "fullness" of
that grace, "all" people "have received" one expression of "grace" after
another.
There are several possible interpretations of the phrase "grace upon grace"
(NASB, Gr. charin anti charitos). The problem is the meaning of the
preposition anti here. Some interpreters believe that John was saying grace
follows grace as ocean wave follows wave, washing believers with
successive blessings.91 The NIV "one blessing after another" effectively
expresses this view, and the NASB "grace upon grace" implies it. Another
translation that gives the same sense is "grace to meet every need that
arises (see 2 Cor. xii. 9)."92 It is true that God keeps pouring out His
inexhaustible grace on the believer through Jesus Christ, but is this what
John meant here?
A second view is that John meant that God gives different grace (help) in
different situations.93
A third view is that the Greek preposition anti means "instead of" here, as
it often does elsewhere.94 According to this interpretation, John meant that
God's grace though Jesus Christ replaces the grace that He bestowed
through Moses when He gave the Law. Verse 17 seems to continue this
thought and so supports this interpretation.
I suspect that John may have intended both ideas. He could have been
thinking of God's grace in Jesus Christ superseding His grace through
Moses, and continuing to supply the Christian day by day. This
interpretation recognizes John's mention of the fullness of God's grace, as
well as the contrast in verse 17.
Another, less acceptable view, is that anti means "corresponds to."95 The
grace we receive corresponds in some way to the grace Jesus receives
from the Father. However, anti rarely has this meaning by itself, though it
does occasionally when it combines with other nouns. Furthermore this
interpretation offers no connection with verse 17.
90Westcott, p. 13.
91See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes, p. 43; Robertson, A Grammar
. . ., p. 574; idem, Word Pictures . . ., p. 5:16; Morris, p. 98; Beasley-Murray, p. 15; Zane C. Hodges,
"Grace after GraceJohn 1:16," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45; Bock, p. 415.
92Tasker, p. 48.
93See Barclay, 1:53.
94Carson, p. 132-34.
95J. C. Bernard, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:29.
A fourth view, also inadequate from my viewpoint, is that anti means "in
return for."96 Yet the idea of God giving us grace, in return for grace that
we give to Him, is foreign to the New Testament. God initiates grace to
human beings.
1:17 Whereas "Moses" was the individual through whom God gave His Law to
His people, Jesus Christ is the One through whom He has manifested
abundant "grace and truth." This is John's first use of the human name
"Jesus," which occurs 237 times in this Gospel, more than a quarter of the
total 905 times it appears in the entire New Testament. The compound
"Jesus Christ," however, occurs again only in 17:3 in John. This evangelist
used "Christ" 19 times, more than any of the other Gospel writers (cf.
20:31). This seems reasonable if John wrote late in the first century A.D.,
by which time "Christ" had become a titulary (a title turned proper name).
John's statement shows the superiority of the gracious dispensation that

Jesus introduced over the legal dispensation that Moses inaugurated (cf.
Rom. 5:20-21; Eph. 2:8). The legal age contained grace, and the gracious
age contains laws. For example, each sacrifice that God accepted under
the old economy was an expression of His grace. John was contrasting the
dominant characteristics of these two ages. Law expresses God's
standards, but grace provides help so we can do His will. Surprisingly,
John used the great Christian word "grace" three times in his prologue (vv.
14, 16, 17) but nowhere else in his Gospel.
"What God showed Himself to be through His revelation in

the Torah, so now Jesus shows Himself to be through the
Incarnation. And what was the Torah? It was not handcuffs,
but Yahweh's pointed finger, graciously marking out to the
redeemed the path of life and fellowship with Him [cf.
Deut. 6:1-3]. The point of John 1:17 is not 'Then bad, now
good'; the point is rather, 'Then, wonderful! And now,
better than ever!'"97
This verse clearly contrasts the two dispensations in view. Even non-
dispensationalists acknowledge this and admit that they recognize two
different economies, the Old Testament legal economy and the New
Testament gracious economy. Significantly, Moses' first plague in Egypt
involved turning water into blood (Exod. 7:14-15), whereas Jesus' first
recorded miracle involved turning water into wine (John 2:1-11).
1:18 There are many passages of Scripture that record various individuals
seeing God (e.g., Exod. 33:21-23; Isa. 6:1-5; Rev. 1:10-18). Those
instances involved visions, theophanies, or anthropomorphic
96SeeCarson, p. 131.
97Ronald B. Allen, "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-
March 1996):10.
representations of God, rather than encounters with His unveiled spiritual

essence (cf. Exod. 33:20-23; Deut. 4:12; Ps. 97:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16;
1 John 4:12). The way we know what God is like is not by viewing His
essence. No one can do that and live. God has sent His unique and only
Son (monogenous, cf. v. 14) from His own most intimate presence to
reveal God to humankind.
"In the bosom of is a Hebrew idiom expressing the intimate

relationship of child and parent, and of friend and friend
(cf. xiii. 23)."98
In the system that Moses inaugurated, "no one" could "see" God, but Jesus
"has explained" (revealed) Him now to everyone. Note also here that John
called Jesus "God" ("the only begotten God") again. Though some ancient
manuscripts read "Son" instead of "God," the correct reading seems
clearly to be "God."
Jesus "explained" (NASB) God in the sense of revealing Him. The Greek
word is exegesato from which we get "exegete." The Son has exegeted
(i.e., explained, interpreted, or narrated) the Father to humankind. The
reference to Jesus being in the bosom of the Father softens, and brings
affection to, the idea of Jesus exegeting the Father. The nature of God is in
view here, not His external appearance.
"God is invisible, not because he is unreal, but because

physical eyes are incapable of detecting him. The infrared
and ultraviolet rays of the light spectrum are invisible
because the human eye is not sensitive enough to register
them. However, photographic plates or a spectroscope can
make them visible to us. Deity as a being is consequently
known only through spiritual means that are able to receive
its (his) communications."99
John ended his prologue as he began it, with a reference to Jesus' deity.100 He began by
saying the Word was with God (v. 1), and he concluded by saying that He was at the
Father's side. This indicates the intimate fellowship, love, and knowledge that the Father
and the Son shared. It also gives us confidence that the revelation of the Father that Jesus
revealed is accurate. John's main point in this prologue was that Jesus is the ultimate
revealer of God.101
98Tasker, p. 49.
100For an exposition of verses 15-18, see David J. MacLeod, "The Benefits of the Incarnation of the Word,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 161:642 (April-June 2004):179-93.
101See Stephen S. Kim, "The Literary and Theological Significance of the Johannine Prologue,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 166:644 (October-December 2009):421-35.
". . . John in his use of Logos is cutting clean across one of the
fundamental Greek ideas. The Greeks thought of the gods as detached
from the world, as regarding its struggles and heartaches and joys and
fears with serene divine lack of feeling. John's idea of the Logos conveys
exactly the opposite idea. John's Logos does not show us a God who is
serenely detached, but a God who is passionately involved."102
Later John described himself as reclining on Jesus' bosom (cf. 13:23). His Gospel is an
accurate revelation of the Word, because John enjoyed an intimate fellowship with
Himjust as Jesus was an accurate revelation of God that came from His intimate
relationship with Him.
II. JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY 1:1912:50

The first part of the body of John's Gospel records Jesus' public ministry to the multitudes
in Palestine, who were primarily Jewish.103 Some writers have called this section of the
Gospel "The Book of Signs" because it features seven miracles that signify various things
about Jesus.
"Signs are miraculous works performed or mentioned to illustrate spiritual
principles."104
Often John recorded a lengthy discourse that followed the miracle, in which Jesus
explained its significance to the crowds. This section also contains two extended
conversations that Jesus had with two individuals (chs. 3 and 4).
"The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the
account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress
the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The
first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the
Baptist. 'The next day' we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-
34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-
40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 . . . It tells of
Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and
Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days
after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we
are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth
at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is
attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in
Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the 'In the beginning' that
opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall
Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new
creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity."105
102Morris, pp. 103-4.

103See Appendix 1 "A Harmony of the Gospels" at the end of my notes on Matthew.
104Tenney, "The Symphonic . . .," p. 119. See also idem, "Topics from the Gospel of John," Bibliotheca
Sacra 132:526 (April-June 1975):145-60, for a discussion of the seven signs in John's Gospel.
105Morris, p. 114.
A. THE PRELUDE TO JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY 1:19-51

The rest of the first chapter continues the introductory spirit of the prologue. It records
two events in John the Baptist's ministry and the choice of some men as Jesus' followers.
1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

The writer recorded John the Baptist's witness to Jesus' identity as preparation for his
narration of Jesus' public ministry. He was the first of the Apostle John's witnesses to the
Incarnation.
"For John's Gospel, John is less John the Baptist [or Baptizer] and more
John the Testifier."106
Previously the writer had mentioned that God had sent John the Baptist to bear witness
concerning the Light (vv. 6-8). He also mentioned what John had said about Jesus,
namely, that Jesus had a higher rank than he did (v. 15). Now the evangelist explained
John the Baptist's witness in more detail.
1:19 This verse explains the context in which John the Baptist explained his
own identity in relation to Jesus. As the Synoptics reveal, John's ministry
was so influential that the Jewish religious authorities investigated him
(Matt. 3:5-6). The Sanhedrin probably sent the delegation of "priests and
Levites." The "priests" were descendants of Aaron who took the
leadership in matters of theological and practical orthodoxy, including
ritual purity. The "Levites" descended from Levi, one of Aaron's
ancestors, and assisted the priests in their ministry, mainly in the areas of
temple music and security.107
"The Jews" is a religious term that John used 71 times, in contrast to the
other evangelists who used it rarely. Usually in John it refers to Jewish
people who were hostile to Jesus, though occasionally it occurs in a
neutral sense (e.g., 2:6) or in a good sense (e.g., 4:22). Most often,
however, it refers to the Jews of Judea, especially those in and around
Jerusalem, who constituted the organized and established religious world
apart from faith in Jesus. Consequently it usually carries overtones of
hostility to Jesus.108
1:20 The writer emphasized that John vigorously repudiated any suggestion
that he might be the Messiah: "I am not the Christ." "Christ" (Gr. Christos)
is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Anointed One."
John's ministry consisted of pointing the Messiah out to others so they
would follow Him. Therefore it would have been counterproductive to
allow anyone to confuse him with the Messiah.
106Bock, p. 416.
107Carson, p. 142.
108Morris, p. 115.
1:21 The leaders asked John if he was "Elijah," because messianic expectation
was high at that time, due to Daniel's prediction that dated the appearance
of Messiah for that general time (Dan. 9:25). Malachi had predicted that
Elijah would return to herald the day of the Lord that Messiah would
inaugurate (Mal. 4:5-6).
"Popularly it was believed that Elijah would anoint the

Messiah, and thereby reveal his identity to him and to Israel
(see Justin, Apology 35.1)."109
When John the Baptist denied being Elijah, he was denying being Elijah
himself. His dress, diet, lifestyle, and ministry, however, were very similar
to Elijah's.
The Prophet whom the leaders had in mind, when they asked their third
question, was the Prophet that Moses had predicted would come (Deut.
18:15-18). Merrill pointed out that of the 42 New Testament citations of
Deuteronomy 18:15-19, fully 24 of them appear in John's Gospel.110 This
Prophet would bring new revelation from God, and might lead the
Israelites in a new Exodus and overcome their oppressors. The Jews
incorrectly failed to identify this Prophet with Messiah (cf. 7:40-41). In
contrast, the earliest Christian preachers contended that "the Prophet" was
identical with the Messiah (cf. Acts 3:22). John the Baptist claimed that he
was not that long-expected Prophet any more than he was the Messiah or
Elijah.
1:22-23 In response to the leaders' question, John the Baptist claimed to be a

prophet ("a voice") who was preparing "the way" for the Lord's coming.
He quoted Isaiah 40:3, which is part of a messianic prophecy (cf. Matt.
3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). In that prophecy, Isaiah predicted the
manifestation of God's glory when Messiah appeared (Isa. 40:5; cf. John
1:14). Significantly, John did not claim to be the Word, but only "a voice."
1:24 The NASB translators understood this verse to be parenthetical, describing

the authorities who had sent the delegation that had been questioning John.
The NIV translators interpreted it as identifying some of John's
questioners. Probably the NIV is correct here. It would be unusual for the
writer to interrupt the narrative flow with this relatively insignificant
detail, but for him to identify some of John's examiners as "Pharisees"
makes sense. The "Pharisees" were the strict interpreters of the Jewish
laws, and John seemed close to violating these.111
109Beasley-Murray, p. 24.
110Eugene H. Merrill, "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life," in Integrity of Heart,
Skillfulness of Hands, p. 27.
111See Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:308-35, for an extended discussion of
the differences between the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.
1:25 Their question implied that it was inappropriate for John to baptize. The
Jews practiced baptism for ritual cleansing, but in all cases the baptismal
candidates baptized themselves.112 There was no precedent for John to be
"baptizing" other people, and the Jews did not regard themselves as
needing to repent. This was something Gentiles needed to do when they
converted to Judaism. Evidently, when Gentiles converted to Judaism: the
males of the family underwent circumcision, and all members of the
familyboth sexeswere baptized.113 Mostly, since John was not one of
the prophesied eschatological figures, he appeared to them to lack
authority to do what he did.
1:26-27 John replied by implying that his authority to "baptize" as he did came
from an authoritative Figure who was present ("among you stands"), but
yet unknown. John did not identify Him then. This would have exposed
Jesus to the scrutiny of Israel's leadership prematurely. John only realized
that Jesus was the Messiah after he said these words (cf. v. 31). John
simply referred to this One here, and implied that he himself baptized "in
water" under divine authority. He stressed the great authority of Jesus, by
saying that he himself was unworthy to do even the most menial service
for Him: "not worthy to untie His sandal (strap)." Thus John bore witness
to Jesus even before he identified Him as the Messiah.
"To get the full impact of this we must bear in mind that
disciples did do many services for their teachers. Teachers
in ancient Palestine were not paid (it would be a terrible
thing to ask for money for teaching Scripture!). But in
partial compensation disciples were in the habit of
performing small services for their rabbis instead. But they
had to draw the line somewhere, and menial tasks like
loosing the sandal thong came under this heading. There is
a rabbinic saying (in its present form dating from c. A.D.
250, but probably much older): 'Every service which a
slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his
teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong.' John selects
the very task that the rabbinic saying stresses as too menial
for any disciple, and declares himself unworthy to perform
it."114
1:28 The site of Jesus' ministry was primarily west of the Jordan River.
"Beyond the Jordan" then evidently refers to the east side of that river. The
"Bethany" in view then would be a town different from the site of Mary,
Martha, and Lazarus' home (11:1), which was on the west side of the
Jordan, just east of Jerusalem. Perhaps John mentioned this "Bethany" by
112Carson, p. 145.
113Morris, p. 123.
114Ibid., p. 124.
name, because its site was known when he wrote. It is unknown now. It
may be significant that John recorded Jesus' public ministry, beginning at
one "Bethany," and almost ending at the other (12:1-11). "Bethany" means
"house of depression or misery."115
John the Baptist fulfilled his mission of bearing witness to the Word, first by publicly
declaring his submission to Jesus' authority. The veiled identity of Jesus as the Word
continues from the prologue into this pericope.
2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

John the Baptist continued his witness to Jesus' identity by identifying Him publicly as
the "Lamb of God." This witness is a crucial part of the writer's purpose to promote faith
in Jesus.
1:29 The very next day, John "saw Jesus" approaching himthey had been
together before (vv. 26, 32-33)and publicly identified Jesus as the
Messiah. "Behold" or "Look" (Gr. ide) is a favorite expression of John's.
Of its 29 New Testament occurrences, John used it 15 times. Probably his
questioners had returned to Jerusalem by this time. The title "Lamb of
God" presented Jesus as the Lamb that God had provided as a substitute
sacrifice for people's sins (Isa. 53:7; cf. Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 22:8, 13-14; Exod.
12:3-17; Isa. 53:12; 1 Pet. 1:19).
"It [the title "Lamb"] combines in one descriptive term the

concepts of innocence, voluntary sacrifice, substitutionary
atonement, effective obedience, and redemptive power like
that of the Passover lamb (Exod. 12: 21-27)."116
"The question in the Old Testament is, 'Where is the lamb?'

(Gen. 22:7) In the four Gospels, the emphasis is 'Behold the
Lamb of God!' Here He is! After you have trusted Him,
you sing with the heavenly choir, "Worthy is the Lamb!'
(Rev. 5:12)"117
John spoke of 'sin,' not sins (cf. 1 John 1:9), by which he meant the totality
of the world's sin (all human rebellion against God), rather than a number
of individual acts.118 John seems to have had the common understanding
of Messiah that his contemporaries did. This was that He would be a
political liberator for Israel (cf. Matt. 11:2-3; Luke 7:19). However, he
understood, as most of his contemporaries did not, that the scope of Jesus'
ministry would be spiritual and universal.
115AGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. "bethania," p. 100.

117Wiersbe, 1:287.
118Morris, p. 130.
He would "take away the sin of the world," not just that of the Jews.119
Some interpreters have understood this reference to "the world" as "the
world of believers."120 But such a restriction seems unwarranted in the
light of other passages that indicate that Jesus' death reconciled everyone
to God (i.e., made everyone "savable"; e.g., 2 Cor. 5:19-20; 1 John 2:2).
"He is a very great Savior for He is the Lamb of God. He is

the complete Savior because He takes away sin. He is the
almighty Savior because He takes away the sin of the
world. He is the perpetual Savior because He 'taketh'
awaypresent tense. Anyone can come to Him at any
time."121
1:30 Probably some of those to whom John addressed these words were present
and had witnessed his conversation with the priests and Levites the
previous day. John now identified Jesus ("This is He") as the person he
had hinted at ("of whom I spoke") the day before.
1:31-33 John had not known that Jesus was the Messiah before God revealed that
to him, even though they were relatives (cf. Luke 1:36). John learned who
Jesus really was when he baptized Jesus (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11;
Luke 3:21-22). The Apostle John did not record Jesus' baptism, which
happened before the events he recorded here. John the Baptist further
explained that he carried on his "baptizing" ministry with Messiah's public
identification (manifestation "to Israel") as a goal (cf. Mark 1:4). The
symbolic descent of the Holy Spirit, "as a dove" that "remained on" Jesus,
identified Jesus to John the Baptist as the Messiah, who was predicted to
baptize "with (in) the Holy Spirit" (cf. Isa. 11:2; Ezek. 36:25-26; Mark
1:10; Acts 2:3).
"Two times in John the Baptist's account he made mention

of the Spirit 'remaining' on Jesus (1:32-33). This is
extremely important as a description of the Spirit's
relationship to Jesus because permanence is implied."122
In the Synoptics, the writers only mentioned Jesus seeing the descent of
the Spirit as a dove. John is the only evangelist who recorded that John the
Baptist also saw it. The purpose of Jesus' baptism in this Gospel, then, was
to point Jesus out as the Messiah to John the Baptist, so he could bear
witness to Jesus' identity. All the other disciples were dependent on a
human witness, in John's Gospel, for divine illumination about Jesus' true
119See Christopher W. Skinner, "Another Look at 'the Lamb of God'," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:641 (January-
March 2004):89-104, for a review of nine views of the referent behind the "Lamb."
120E.g., Pink, 1:59.
121McGee, 4:375.
122Harris, p. 197.
identity. Baptism with water was essentially negative, symbolizing

cleansing from something; but baptism with the Spirit was positive,
indicating the imparting of new life from God.
1:34 John fulfilled his purpose by witnessing that Jesus was "the Son of God"
(cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7). This is a title that unambiguously claims deity.
The title "Messiah" did not imply deity to many who heard it in Jesus' day.
They thought only of a political deliverer. Even the Twelve struggled with
this. However, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was God, though
doubts arose in his mind later. "Son of God" does not mean anything less
than deity. It means full deity (v. 18). This verse is the climax of John the
Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus.
"It is significant that in this fourth Gospel we find there are

just seven who bear witness to Christ's Deity. First, John
the Baptist (1:34); second, Nathanael (1:49); third, Peter
(6:69); fourth, the Lord Himself (10:36); fifth, Martha
(11:27): sixth, Thomas (20:28); seventh, the writer of this
Gospel (20:31)."123
The event that identified Jesus as the Son of Godfor John the Baptistwas the
fulfillment of God's promise to him that he would see the Spirit's descent and
continuation on Him. This was the basis for John the Baptist's witness concerning Jesus.
3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42
The writer now turned his attention from John the Baptist's witness to Jesus, to record the
reactions of some men to John's witness. Two of John the Baptist's disciples left him to
follow Jesus when they heard John's testimony about Jesus. One of them recruited his
brother to join them. Jesus did not call these men to follow Him as His disciples now.
That came later (cf. Matt. 4:18-22; 9:9; Mark 1:16-20; 2:13-14; Luke 5:1-11, 27-28). The
Apostle John recorded a preliminary contact that these men had with Jesus.
"The very mixture of Hebrew (Simon, Nathanael) and Greek (Andrew,

Philip) names seems to indicate the representative character of this first
group of disciples . . ."124
1:35-36 Was the writer describing what happened on the same day as what he
recorded in verses 29-34, or the following day? Probably the "next day" in
verse 35 is the next day after the "next day" in verse 29.125 It happened
after John identified Jesus, at least for the second time, as the "Lamb of
God" (v. 29).
123Pink,1:73.
124Westcott,p. 23.
125See my discussion of 2:1 below.
1:37 "Two" of John the Baptist's "disciples" started following Jesus because of
John's witness. This was perfectly proper since John's ministry was to
point others to Jesus. They were not abandoning the Baptist for a more
popular teacher. They were simply doing what John urged his hearers to
do. They began following Jesus in person to learn from Him. They also
took the first steps toward genuine discipleship. This was no tentative
inquiry, but a commitment of themselves to Him as disciples.126
"First meetings are sacred as well as last ones, especially

such as are followed by a momentous history, and
accompanied, as is apt to be the case, with omens prophetic
of the future."127
1:38 Jesus asked these two men why they were walking behind Him. Did they
want something from Him?
"It appears that the Evangelist is writing on two levels. The

question makes sense as straightforward narrative: Jesus
asks the two men who are following him to articulate what
is on their minds. But the Evangelist wants his readers to
reflect on a deeper question: the Logos-Messiah confronts
those who make any show of beginning to follow him and
demands that they articulate what they really want in
life."128
This two-level or dual intention becomes obvious in many places as John's

Gospel unfolds. It is similar to Jesus' purpose in telling parables.
Jesus' question gave the men the opportunity to express their desire to
become His disciples. However, they may not have been quite ready to
make that commitment. They replied by asking "where" He was "staying."
This careful (or non-committal) response may have implied that they
simply wanted to have a preliminary interview with Him.129 Or they may
have been expressing a desire to become His disciples.130 The fact that
John interpreted the word "rabbi" for his readers is clear evidence that he
wrote primarily for Gentiles.
"Staying" translates one of the writer's characteristic words (i.e., Gr. meno,
"to abide"). Here it means to reside, but often it has theological
connotations of continuing on, especially in an intimate relationship.
126Morris, p. 137.
127A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 2.
128Carson, pp. 154-55.
129Ibid., p. 155; and Tenney, "John," p. 40.
130Morris, p. 137; and David A. Montgomery, "Directives in the New Testament: A Case Study of John
1:38," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June 2007):275-88.
These men may have already been wondering if that type of relationship
with Jesus might be possible for them. This word occurs 112 times in the
New Testament, and John used it 66 of those times, 40 times in his
Gospel.131
1:39 Jesus responded by inviting them to accompany Him ("Come"), not just to
"see" where He was staying, but to visit Him. They first had to "come"
with Him, and then they would "see." This statement was also highly
significant spiritually. Only by coming to Jesus could they really
comprehend what they were seeking spiritually. The same thing holds true
today. The two men accepted Jesus' invitation and "stayed with Him" for
the rest of "that day."
Jesus apparently offered His invitation about 4:00 p.m. John was more
precise in his time references than the Synoptic evangelists (cf. 4:6, 52;
19:14).132 The Jews reckoned their days from sunset to sunset, and they
divided both night and day into 12-hour periods.
"To his latest day John never forgot the hour when first he
met Jesus."133
1:40 The writer now identified one of the two men. "Andrew" was important
for two reasons. He became one of the Twelve, and he provided an
excellent example of testifying for Jesus by bringing his brother to Him
(v. 41). John introduced Andrew as "Simon Peter's brother" because when
he wrote his Gospel, Peter was the better known of the two. We do not
know who the unnamed man was. Some students of John's Gospel have
suggested that it may have been the writer himself.134 This is an interesting
possibility, but there is nothing in the text that enables us to prove or to
disprove it. He could have been anyone.
1:41 Andrew "first" sought to bring "his own brother" to Jesus, and was
successful in doing so. Obviously both of them wanted to discover the
Messiah, whom the Old Testament prophets had predicted, and whom
Daniel's timetable encouraged them to believe would appear soon (Dan.
9:25).
"Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the

ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines."135
131William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, s.v. "meno," pp. 504-5.
132See A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra
volume: 478.
134E.g., A. B. Bruce, p. 2.
We should not conclude, however, that because Andrew believed Jesus

was the Messiah, that he also believed He was God. He may have believed
this already, but all the evidence in the Gospels points to the disciples
learning of Jesus' deity after they had been with Him for some time (cf.
Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). Probably Andrew thought of Jesus as
a great prophet who was the messianic deliverer of Israel.
The title "Messiah" means "anointed one." The anointed one in Israel was
originally any anointed priest or king who led the people. As time passed,
God gave prophecies of a coming Davidic king who would liberate the
Israelites and establish God's rule over the whole earth (e.g., 2 Sam. 7; Ps.
2; 110). Thus the idea of a coming Anointed One crystallized into the title
"Messiah."
1:42 Jesus anticipated what Peter would become in the history of the church by
God's grace. He may have had previous contact with him, and known
Peter's reputation, since both men lived only a few miles apart in Galilee.
"Simon" was a common Jewish name, probably derived from "Simeon."
Jesus gave him a nickname that expressed his character, which was not
uncommon.
It is interesting that Simon Peter originally had the same rash and
impulsive character as his ancestor Simeon, the second son of Jacob.
"Cephas" is Aramaic, the common language of Palestine, and means
"Rock." "Peter" is the Greek translation of Cephas. As the record of Peter
unfolds in the Gospels, he appears as anything but a rock; he was
impulsive, volatile, and unreliable. Yet Jesus named Peter in view of what
he would become by the power of God, not what he then was.
"In bringing his brother Simon Peter to Christ, no man did

the church a greater service than Andrew."136
Every time we meet Andrew in this Gospel, he is bringing someone to

Jesus (cf. 6:8; 12:22). Thus he serves as an excellent example of what a
disciple of Jesus should do.
4. The witness of Andrew and Philip 1:43-51

The disciples of John were not the only men who began following Jesus. Andrew
continued to bring other friends to Jesus. This incident preceded Jesus' formal
appointment of the Twelve, but it shows Him preparing those who would become His
disciples.
1:43-44 The "next day" appears to be the day after John the Baptist, the second
time, identified Jesus as the Lamb of God, and two of his disciples, one of
whom was Andrew, started following Jesus. John was evidently baptizing
136Blum, p. 275.
in Perea and Judea near the Jordan River (cf. Matt. 3:1, 5-6; Mark 1:5).137
Now someonehis identity is absent in the Greek text"purposed" to
head north "into Galilee." Probably this person was Andrew rather than
Jesus. There are two reasons for this conclusion. Everyone else in this
chapter who came to Jesus came on the invitation of someone other than
Jesus. Secondly, John (the Gospel writer) seems to have been stressing the
importance of witnessing for Jesus.
Andrew "found Philip" (a Greek name meaning "lover of horses")

somewhere along the way or, most likely, in Galilee. "Philip was from
Bethsaida" Julius (or Julias) in the region of Galilee (12:21). Having come
to Jesus on Andrew's invitation, Philip accepted Jesus' invitation to follow
Him. "Andrew and Peter" had also lived in Bethsaida, evidently before
they moved to Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). These men were all
undoubtedly acquaintances, if not friends, before they became Jesus'
followers.
1:45 Philip then brought his friend "Nathanael" (meaning "God has given" or
"given of God," modern Theodore) to Jesus. Some commentators identify
"Nathanael" with "Bartholomew" (cf. Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke
6:14).138 However, there is no convincing reason to equate these two men.
The witness continued to spread through the most normal lines of
communication, namely, friend to friend, as it still does.
The prophecies to which Philip referred may have included: Deuteronomy

18:15-19; Isaiah 53; Daniel 7:13; Micah 5:2; and Zechariah 9:9. These and
others spoke of the Messiah. Philip's statement suggests that the early
disciples understood messiahship in the light of the Old Testament
background, rather than only in a political sense.139 Philip described Jesus
as Joseph's son, which is how people knew Him before they learned that
He was the Son of God (v. 49).
"In one sense it is legitimate to view Jesus' disciples in the

gospel of John (with the exception of Judas Iscariot) as
believers in Him from near the beginning of His public
ministry. In another sense, however, it is also clear that the
disciples' faith in Jesus grew and developed as they
observed the progress of His public ministry. The course of
this development may be traced in the gospel of John."140
1:46 "Nazareth" had an insignificant reputation, at least for Nathanael, who

came from Cana, a neighboring town (21:2). (Flavius Josephus also lived
137See the map "Palestine in the Time of Jesus" at the end of these notes.
138E.g., A. B. Bruce, p. 6; Westcott, p. 26.
139Harris, p. 188.
140Ibid., p. 215.
in Cana for some time, though after these events.141) Nathanael doubted
that the Messiah could come from such a lowly place as that. He did not
yet understand Jesus' condescension.
"His inward thought was, 'Surely the Messiah can never

come from among a poor despised people such as we are
from Nazareth or any other Galilean town or village!'"142
"The best thing in all the world came out of Nazareth

. . ."143
"This Nathanael is a wiseacre, and he makes a wisecrack

here."144
Philip wisely did not argue with Nathanael. He just invited him to "come
and see" Jesus (cf. v. 39). John doubtless intended that the repetition of
this invitation would encourage his readers to witness similarly. People
just need to consider Jesus. Many who do will conclude that He is the Son
of God (cf. v. 12).
"Honest inquiry is a sovereign cure for prejudice."145
"The words contain the essence of the true solution of

religious doubts."146
1:47 Jesus declared that Nathanael was "an Israelite . . . in whom" there was
"no deceit." Nathanael was the opposite of the original Israel, namely,
Jacob, who was very deceitful (Gen. 27:35-36; 28:12; cf. John 1:51).
Therefore Jesus virtually said that Nathanael was an Israelite in whom
there was "no Jacob." Jesus evidently knew about Nathanael before Philip
brought him to Him, as He knew the other men whom He later formally
called to be His disciples. After all, they all lived in and around
Capernaum.
"The words ["in whom is no guile"] suggest the idea of one

whose heart was pure; in whom was no doublemindedness,
impure motive, pride, or unholy passion: a man of gentle,
meditative spirit, in whose mind heaven lay reflected like
the blue sky in a still lake on a calm summer day. He was a
man much addicted to habits of devotion: he had been
141Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, par. 16.

142A.B. Bruce, p. 7.
144McGee, 4:376.
145Bruce, p. 60.
146Westcott, p. 27.
engaged in spiritual exercises under cover of a fig-tree just

before he met with Jesus."147
1:48 Nathanael acted surprised that Jesus knew who he was. Evidently they had
not met previously. Jesus explained that He had seen Nathanael "under a
(the) fig tree," where he had been "before Philip" had "called" him to
come and see Jesus. Some commentators have interpreted Jesus' reference
to this fig tree figuratively, as an allusion to Nathanael's house. Ancient
Near Easterners sometimes referred to peaceful habitation figuratively, as
resting under one's vine and fig tree (1 Kings 4:25; Isa. 36:16; Zech. 3:10).
However, there seems to be no good reason to prefer a figurative rather
than a literal meaning here.
"This sentence [Jesus' reply], like the former one

[Nathanael's question], points to some secret thought or
prayer, by knowing which the Lord shewed [sic] His divine
insight into the heart of man. He saw not that which is
outward only, but that which was most deeply hidden.
Compare iv. 19."148
Evidently Jesus' insight was prophetic; He had supernatural knowledge of

Nathanael, not just knowledge from previous exposure to him.149
1:49 Jesus' simple statement elicited a most dramatic reaction from Nathanael.
He concluded that the only way Jesus could have seen him when he was
under the fig tree was if Jesus had supernatural knowledge. Evidently
Nathanael knew that he was completely alone, and that no one (except
God) could have seen him when he was under the fig tree.
"The Lord Jesus had two doubters among His apostles. The
one at the beginning was Nathanael; the one at the end was
Thomas. This man, this skeptic, this one who wonders
whether any good can come out of Nazareth, confesses
before the interview is over that Jesus is the Son of God,
the King of Israel."150
Nathanael's reaction appears extreme at first, since even prophets had

knowledge of things other people knew nothing about. Why did Nathanael
think Jesus was the "Son of God," and not just a prophet? The answer
seems to be that even the title "Son of God" did not mean deity to all the
Jews in Jesus' day. It meant that the person in view bore certain
characteristics of God (cf. Deut. 3:18; 1 Sam. 26:16; Ps. 89:22; Prov. 31:2;
Matt. 5:9; John 17:12).
147A.B. Bruce, p. 7.
148Westcott, p. 27.
149Barrett, p. 184.
150McGee, 4:376.
Nathanael appears to have regarded Jesus as the Messiah, who was

considered to have supernatural knowledge (cf. v. 45; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps.
2:6-7; Isa. 11:1-2).151 However, Nathanael spoke better than he knew.
Jesus was the Son of God in a fuller sense than he presently understood.
Another view is that Nathanael was identifying Jesus as God.152
"In recording this estimate John is adding to the evidence

accumulated throughout this chapter that Jesus is indeed the
Messiah. Nathanael expresses this truth differently from the
others, but the essential meaning is the same . . . Nor should
we overlook the fact that Nathanael has just been called an
'Israelite." In calling Jesus 'King of Israel' he is
acknowledging Jesus to be his own King: he is submitting
to him."153
1:50 Jesus replied that Nathanael had not seen anything yet. This demonstration
of supernatural knowledge was small compared to what Nathanael would
see if he continued to follow Jesus as his Rabbi (v. 49). This
straightforward Jew had believed that Jesus was the Messiah because of
very little evidence. Jesus would give him a more solid basis for his faith
in the future (cf. 20:29). John did the same for his readers by recording
several of these "greater things" in the chapters that follow.
Some expositors have concluded that these early disciples became

"believers" in the sense of becoming "saved" at this time.154 However, as
mentioned above, the Gospels seem to present these men as progressively
gaining insight into the person of Jesus as time went by. It is very difficult,
if not impossible, to pin down exactly when they believed enough about
Jesus to be "saved."
1:51 Jesus then made a very important statement that He identified as such with
the phrase "Truly, truly, I say to you" or "I tell you the truth" (Gr. amen
amen lego humin). This phrase occurs 25 times in John's Gospel, and it
always introduces an especially important affirmation.
Jesus used the imagery of Jacob's dream at Bethel to describe the greater
revelation that Nathanael and his fellow disciplesthe "you" in the Greek
text is pluralwould receive. The "opening of the heavens" pictures the
insight that people on earth receive into what God is doing in heaven (cf.
Acts 10:11; Rev. 4:1; 19:11). Jesus would reveal heavenly things, a theme
that John developed throughout this Gospel. The "angels of God" are His
agents that assist humans: by taking their communications up to God
151A. B. Bruce, pp. 9-10.

152E.g., Beasley-Murray, p. 27.
153Morris, p. 147.
154E.g., Pink, 1:63.
above, and by bringing knowledge of divine things down to them (cf.

Heb. 1). The role of the "Son of Man," Jesus' favorite title of Himself that
He used over 80 times (Dan. 7:13), was to make this contact possible.
"In this Gospel the term [Son of Man] is always associated

either with Christ's heavenly glory or with the salvation he
came to bring."155
Similarly, a staircase makes travel and communication between two

physical levels possible. Jesus was promising Nathanael that He would
prove to be the key to access to God and communication with God (cf.
14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). God had revealed Himself to "Israel"the man and the
nationin a dream at Bethel previously (Gen. 28:10-22). Now God would
reveal Himself to a true Israelite, Nathanael, to all Israel, and to the whole
worlddirectly through Jesus.
This first sub-section in the body of the fourth Gospel (vv. 19-51) contains the prelude to
Jesus' public ministry.156 John highlighted John the Baptist's witness to Jesus' identity,
first in a veiled manner and then openly. Then he recorded the response of some of John's
disciples, which was to follow Jesus. Philip's witness resulted in Nathanael's declaration
of faith in Jesus, limited as it may have been, and Jesus' claim to be the revealer of God
and the way to God. The "greater things than these" that Jesus promised (v. 50) follow,
providing an even more solid foundation for faith in Him (cf. 20:31).
At least 16 different names and titles of Jesus appear in chapter one: the Word (vv. 1, 14),
the Light (vv. 7-9), the Only Begotten of the Father (v. 14), Jesus Christ (v. 17), the Only
Begotten God (v. 18), the Lord (v. 23), the Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36), a Man (v. 30), the
Son of God (v. 34), Rabbi (Teacher, vv. 38, 49), Messiah (v. 41), Jesus of Nazareth (v.
45), the son of Joseph (v. 45), the Son of God (v. 49), the King of Israel (v. 49), and the
Son of Man (v. 51). Clearly one of John's purposes in this Gospel was to draw attention
to who Jesus is.
B. THE EARLY GALILEAN MINISTRY 2:1-12
John's account of the beginning of Jesus' public ministry highlights the fact that Jesus
replaced what was old with something new (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). New wine replaced old
water. Later a clean temple replaced a dirty one, a new birth replaced an old birth, living
(flowing) water replaced well water, and new worship replaced old worship.157 The larger
underlying theme continues to be the revelation of Jesus' identity.
155Morris, p. 151. For a good summary of the meaning of the "Son of Man" title, see Carson, p. 164, or
Morris, pp. 150-52.
156See Stephen S. Kim, "The Relationship of John 1:19-51 to the Book of Signs in John 212,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 165:659 (July-September 2008):323-37.
157C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 297.
1. Jesus' first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

The first miracle that Jesus performed, in His public ministry and in John's Gospel, was
semi-public.158 Apparently only Jesus' disciples, the servants present, and Jesus' mother
understood what had happened.
"I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by

supernatural power."159
2:1 "The third day" evidently refers to the third day after the day Nathanael
(Theodore, "the gift of God") met Jesus. John's references to succeeding
days (1:29, 35, 43; 2:1) at least reflect his precise knowledge of these
events. Perhaps this is also a symbolic reference to God's actions coming
to a culmination with this miracle (cf. the Resurrection on the third day).
Jesus fulfilled His promise to Nathanael (1:50-51) very quickly.
John's specific reference to days in chapter 1 and here is unusual for him.
On the first day, John the Baptist gave his veiled witness to Jesus (1:19-
28). The second day he gave his open witness to Jesus (1:29-34). The third
day John's two disciples followed Jesus (1:35-42). The fourth day Philip
and Nathanael met Jesus (1:43-51). On the third day after that, the seventh
day, Jesus did His miracle at Cana. Customarily, the wedding of a maiden
took place on a Wednesday, and that of a widow on Thursday.160 The Jews
regarded periods of seven days as reflecting God's creative activity.
Perhaps John wanted his readers to associate this beginning of Jesus'
ministry with the beginning of the cosmos (Gen. 1), which also happened
in seven days. If so, this would be another witness to Jesus' deity.
Cana was about nine miles north of Nazareth in Galilee.161 John never
mentioned Mary "the mother of Jesus" by name, perhaps to avoid
confusing her with other Marys in his story.162 This is the second of four
public encounters that Mary had with Jesus (cf. Luke 2:41-52; Mark 3:31-
35; John 19:26-27).
2:2 The facts that Jesus received an invitation to a "wedding," and accepted it,
show that He was not a recluse. He participated in the normal affairs of
human life. This included occasions of rejoicing. The Gospels consistently
present this picture of Him. Godliness does not require separation from
human society, though John the Baptist did not mix with people as much
as Jesus did. A Christ-like person can be a socially active person and a
joyful person.
158See Appendix 6 "The Miracles of Jesus" at the end of my notes on Matthew.

159C. S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 15.
160Edersheim, 1:345.
161See the map "Palestine in the Time of Jesus" at the end of these notes.
162Westcott, p. 36. See James M. Howard, "The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 163:649 (January-March 2006):65-69.
In a small village such as Canaprobably modern Khirbet Kanaa

wedding would have been a community celebration.163 Perhaps the hosts
included Jesus because Nathanael was from Cana (21:2), and Nathanael
had recently become a follower of Jesus. Yet probably they knew Jesus,
and invited Him as a friend, since His mother was also there and took
some responsibility for the catering. This event evidently transpired very
early in Jesus' ministry, before He called the Twelve. Consequently the
only disciples present may have been the five to which John referred in
chapter 1.
"Wise is that couple who invite Jesus to their wedding!"164
2:3 Weddings in the ancient East typically lasted several days and often a
whole week.165
"To fail to provide adequately for the guests would involve
social disgrace. In the closely knit communities of Jesus'
day, such an error would never be forgotten and would
haunt the newly married couple all their lives."166
The loss would not only have been shame and social disgrace, however,
but also financial, since grooms had a legal responsibility in that culture to
provide a suitable feast for their guests.
"Our bridegroom stood to lose financiallysay, up to
about half the value of the presents Jesus and his party
ought to have brought."167
Mary undoubtedly told Jesus about the situation, because she knew that
He would do whatever He could to solve the problem. Being a
compassionate person, He would try to help the groom, who was
responsible for the food and drink (v. 9), in order to avoid unnecessary
embarrassment. Clearly Mary expected Jesus to do something (v. 5).
Evidently Jesus had done no miracles before this incident (v. 11).
Consequently it seems far-fetched to suppose that she expected Him to
perform a miracle. Mary knew that Jesus was the Messiah, and she
apparently wanted Him to do something that would show who He was to
everyone present. The wine normally drunk in Palestine at this time was
fermented grape juice diluted with water.168
163For a description of how a typical Galilean wedding was conducted, see Edersheim, 1:354-55.
164Wiersbe, 1:290.
165See Edwin Yamauchi, "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539
(July-September 1978):241-52.
167J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, p. 238.
168See Robert Stein, "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20,
1975):9-11; and Norman Geisler, "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking," Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553
2:4 Westerners would consider anyone addressing his mother as "woman" to

be disrespectful, but this was an acceptable word to use in Jesus' culture
(Gr. gunai, cf. 19:26; 20:15). It did not have negative connotations.169
"That Jesus calls Mary 'Woman' and not 'Mother' probably

indicates that there is a new relationship between them as
he enters his public ministry."170
Similarly the words "What do I have to do with you?" (NASB) sound

arrogant, but they were only a gentle rebuke. They constituted an idiom
that is hard to translate (cf. Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; Matt. 8:29; Mark
1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). "What do we have in common?"meaning:
"Your concern and Mine are not the same"171; or: "Madam, that concerns
you, not Me"172; or: "Woman, what does your concern have to do with
Me?"173captures the spirit of the question. Jesus was not dishonoring
His mother. He was explaining to her that He would handle the situation,
but in His own time and way. Jesus' obedience to His heavenly Father was
more important than His obedience to His earthly mother.
"Christ here showed that His season of subjection to Mary

and Joseph (Luke 2:51) was over, His public ministry had
now commenced and she must not presume to dictate to
Him."174
Jesus elsewhere always spoke of His "hour" (Gr. hora) as the time of His
passion and its consequences (cf. 5:28-29; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1;
17:1).
"It refers to the special time in Jesus' earthly life when He

was to leave this world and return to the Father (13:1), the
hour when the Son of man was to be glorified (17:1). This
was accomplished through His suffering, death,
resurrection (and ascension, though this was not
emphasized by John)."175
When Jesus' "hour" finally did come, He met the need of the entire human
race by dying on the cross. Mary was requesting that He meet a need
immediately. Perhaps Jesus referred to His hour not yet having arrived, in
order to help Mary realize that the meeting of needs was something He
169Derrett, pp. 89-90.

170Morris, p. 158.
171Tasker, p. 60.
172The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1125.
173Charles C. Ryrie, The Miracles of our Lord, p. 15.
174Pink, 1:82.
175Harris, p. 196.
needed to control. Just as it was not yet time for Him to die, so it was not
yet time for Him to meet this pressing need for wine. Probably He meant:
"The time for Me to meet this need has not yet arrived." Throughout this
Gospel, John made it clear that Jesus was on a divine schedule that His
Father controlled.
2:5 Mary accepted Jesus' statement humbly and did not nag Him. She did,
however, urge the servants to cooperate with Him if He acted. She did not
understand what He would do or when, but she had confidence in His
compassion and ability. She demonstrated admirable submission and faith
toward Jesus. She allowed Jesus to take charge and solve the problem, and
she pointed others to Jesus, not to herself. Previously she had approached
Jesus as His mother, and had received a mild rebuke. Now she approached
Him as her Lord, and shortly received satisfaction (cf. Matt. 15:21-28). In
this she provides an excellent example for us.
2:6 The Jews washed before eating to cleanse themselves from the defilement
of contact with Gentiles, and other ritually defiling things, more than from
germs. They needed much water since they washed often (cf. Matt. 15:1-2;
Mark 7:3-4). Each pot held two or three measures (Gr. metretes), namely,
between 18 and 24 gallons.176 Their combined capacity would have been
between 108 and 144 gallons of liquid. Stone pots did not absorb moisture
and uncleanness as earthenware vessels did, so they were better containers
for water used in ceremonial washings.
2:7-8 "Them" (NASB) is the servants to whom Mary had previously spoken
(v. 5). Their obedience is admirable and accounts in part for the full
provision of the need. Normally people did not drink the water in those
pots, but the "headwaiter" (or toastmaster) "did not know" that what the
servant handed him "came from" there. Probably the pots were outside the
house and he was inside.
Most commentators assumed that when the servants had "filled" the pots
"to the brim," the water in them became wine. The servants then drew the
wine out of the pots and served it to the headwaiter. A few writers noted
that the verb "draw" (Gr. antleo, v. 8) usually describes drawing water
from a well.177 This led some of them to envisage a different scenario.
Perhaps the servants filled the pots from a well and then continued
drawing water out of the well that they served to the headwaiter. This
explanation seems unnatural to me.
Many commentators saw the significance of what they understood to have

happened as follows. Jesus' disciples, as well as the servants, and
presumably Mary, knew that "water" had gone into the pots but that
176Barrett, p. 192.
177E.g., Westcott, pp. 37-38; and Carson, p. 174.
"wine" had come out. The only thing that accounted for the change was
Jesus' instructions. The servants had, after all, filled the pots with water
"up to the brim," so that nothing else could have been added. They
realized that Jesus had the supernatural power to change water into wine.
This miracle thus fortified their faith in Him (v. 11).
Advocates of the view that the water the servants presented to the
headwaiter came from the well see the same significance and more.
"Up to this time the servants had drawn water to fill the
vessels used for ceremonial washing; now they are to draw
for the feast that symbolizes the messianic banquet. Filling
jars with such large capacity to the brim then indicates that
the time for ceremonial purification is completely fulfilled;
the new order, symbolized by the wine, could not be drawn
from jars so intimately connected with merely ceremonial
purification."178
I believe it is somewhat tenuous to build this interpretation on the usual

meaning of antleo. Its essential meaning is "to draw" even though this
word usually refers to drawing water from a well or spring (Gen. 24:13,
20; Exod. 2:16, 19; Isa. 12:3; John 4:7, 15). In classical Greek it describes
drawing water out of a ship's bilge.179
Furthermore, the symbolic interpretation that accompanies this view is

questionable. There is nothing in the text that indicates that John intended
his readers to see this miracle as teaching the termination of the old
Mosaic order and the commencement of a new order. Jesus' ministry
certainly accomplished that, but there is no other evidence that this was
the lesson that John was communicating to his readers here.
Perhaps Jesus ordered the pots filled to the brim simply so there would be
enough wine for everyone: approximately 2,400 servings. Filling the pots
to the brim also precluded any possibility of wine being added to only
partially filled pots; Jesus was not just playing a trick.180
"The architriklinos ["headwaiter"] was originally the

superintendent of the dining-room who arranged the
couches and tasted the food, not the toast-master
(sumposiarches)."181
2:9-10 John's point in recording the headwaiter's comments was apparently to

stress the superior quality of the wine that Jesus produced for the guests.
178Ibid.See also Tasker, pp. 55-57.

179AGreek-English . . ., s.v. antleo, pp. 51-52.
180Ryrie, p. 15.
Jesus, as the Creator, produced the best, as He always does whenever He

creates.
"The world (and Satan also) gives its best first, and keeps
the worst for the last. First the pleasures of sinfor a
seasonand then the wages of sin. But with God it is the
very opposite. He brings His people into the wilderness
before He brings them into the promised inheritance. First
the Cross then the crown."182
Jesus' immediate creation of wine, which normally takes time to ferment,

may parallel God's creation of the universe with the appearance of age.183
"Drunk freely" (NASB) and "had too much to drink" (NIV) translate the
Greek word methysko that refers to inebriation. The fact that Jesus created
something that people could abuse should not surprise us. Humans have
consistently abused God's good gifts. Fortunately that does not keep God
from giving them, or make Him responsible for our abuse of them.
"Christ was the One to work the miracle, yet the 'servants'
were the ones who seemed to do everything. They filled the
waterpots, they drew off the wine, they bore it to the
governor of the feast. There was no visible exhibition of
putting forth of Divine power. Christ pronounced no
magical formula: He did not even command the water to
become wine. What was witnessed by the spectators was
men at work, not God creating out of nothing. And all this
speaks loudly to us. It was a parable in action. The means
used were human, the result was seen to be Divine."184
Is there a deeper meaning to this story? Many students of this passage

have identified the wine as symbolic of the joy that Messiah brings. This
harmonizes with the metaphorical use of wine throughout Scripture.
McGee suggested another parallel:
"This [story] holds a great spiritual lesson for you and me.
Jesus uses us as water pots today. We're just beaten and
battered water pots. We're not attractive and ought to be
pushed to the side and covered up. But He wants to use us.
He wants to fill us with water. What is the water? The
water is the Word of God, friend. He wants to fill you and
me with the water of the Word of God. Then, after He fills
us with the water of the Word of God, He wants us to ladle
it out. When we ladle it outI don't know how to explain
182Pink, 1:88.
183Bailey, p. 162.
184Pink, 1:85.
itbut when the water leaves the water pots and gets to
those for whom it is destined, it becomes wine. It becomes
the wine of joy through the working of the Holy Spirit. . . .
The Holy Spirit takes that water and performs a miracle in
the life of an individual."185
Some have seen wine as typical of Christianity, as contrasted with Judaism

(the water).186 These parallels lack Scriptural support. Perhaps there is
some validity to seeing this banquet as a preview of the messianic
banquet, since Jesus' provision of joy is common to them both. However,
Jesus may not have been an official host at this banquet; but He will
certainly be the Host at the messianic banquet.
"Christ began His ministry on this earth at a wedding. He

will conclude it, as far as the church is concerned, with a
wedding. At the marriage supper of the Lamb the church
will be presented to Him as a bride."187
2:11 In conclusion, John mentioned that this miracle was a "sign." It was a
miracle that had significance.188 Its significance appears to be that it
showed that Jesus had the same power to create that God demonstrated in
the Creation. Thus it pointed to Jesus being the Creator God who could
transform things from one condition into another (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).
Since this was the "beginning of His signs," we can rest assured that Jesus
did not perform other miracles before this one. Specifically, he did not
make clay pigeons as a young boy, touch them, and cause them to fly
away, as a popular legend has it.
It was "not merely the first sign but 'a primary sign',
because representative of the creative and transforming
work of Jesus as a whole."189
Note that this act of creation contained the appearance of age, as the
creation of the universe evidently did.
This demonstration of His power to create glorified Jesus in the eyes of

those who witnessed and heard about it.190 Moses had turned water into
blood destructively (Exod. 7:14-24), but Jesus turned water into wine for
185McGee, 4:379.
186E.g.,Blum, p. 278.
187McGee, 4:378.
188See Mark R. Saucy, "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God," Bibliotheca Sacra
153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.
189Barrett, p. 193.
190Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 35.
the blessing and benefit of others (cf. 1:17). This miracle also resulted in
these disciples believing in Him (cf. 1:50), not for the first time, but in a
deeper way than they had "believed" previously (cf. 20:30-31).
"The idea which it [the phrase "believed in Him"] conveys

is that of the absolute transference of trust from oneself to
another."191
John's concluding references to the time and place establish the historicity
of this event, and reduce the possibility of reading it as an allegory or a
legend.
"There is significance in the miracle first for Israel, especially the Israel of
Christ's day. The wedding feast with its new wine portrays the coming of
the kingdom. By this sign the Lord declares He is the Messiah of Israel
who is capable of bringing the predicted kingdom into its glorious
existence. . . .
"The miracle shows the old order had run its course; now was the time for
a new one.
"The significance of this miracle is not for Jews only; it is obviously for
the church as well. The basic truth for Christians is found in the joy of
salvation. . . .
"This miracle portrays not only the joy Christ brings into a person's life
but also the abundance of joy. . . .
"Finally, for the Christian there is a new life in Christ. The old is passed
away and there is a whole new life and perspective in Christ (2 Cor.
5:17)."192
The Greek god Dionysus supposedly discovered wine. He was also credited with
changing water into wine on some occasions when he was worshipped. These instances,
which were first recorded about five centuries before John wrote his Gospel, may have
been known to John's readers.193
2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12
Some time after the miracle just narrated, Jesus went down (topographically) from Cana
to Capernaum. Cana was on a higher elevation than Capernaum, and Capernaum was
about 13 miles northeast of Cana. Some family members (cf. Matt. 12:46; Mark 6:3) and
191Westcott,p. 39.
192Stanley D. Toussaint, "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533
(January-March 1977):50, 51.
193See Barrett, pp. 188-89.
Jesus' "disciples" accompanied Him. Jesus had physical brothers borne by Mary. (The
idea of Mary's perpetual virginity first appeared in the second century.) Evidently this trip
was only for a short stay, since John wrote that "they stayed" in Capernaum "a few days."
Jesus adopted Capernaum as His ministry base in Galilee and moved there from Nazareth
(Matt. 4:13; Mark 1:21; 2:1). That may have happened now, or it may have taken place
after this event. The purpose of this verse in John's narrative is transitional.
C. JESUS' FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM 2:133:36
"It is impossible not to feel the change which at this point comes over the
narrative. There is a change of place, of occasion, of manner of action.
Jesus and Cana, the Passover and the marriage feast, the stern Reformer
and the sympathizing Guest. So too the spiritual lessons which the two
signs convey are also complementary. The first represents the ennobling
of common life, the second the purifying of divine worship. Or, to put the
truth in another light, the one is a revelation of the Son of man, and the
other a revelation of the Christ, the Fulfiller of the hope and purpose of
Israel."194
John is the only evangelist who recorded this trip to Jerusalem and the things that
happened then.
"In distinction from the Synoptics, John's record focuses mostly on events
in Jesus' life that took place in Jerusalem, and especially at the Passover
feasts."195
Josephus indicated that as many as three million Jews occupied Jerusalem during the
Passover feasts.196
1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22
The Synoptics record Jesus' cleansing of the temple after His triumphal entry (Matt.
21:12-13; Mark 11:15-16; Luke 19:45-46). Only John noted this cleansing of the temple
at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. The differences between the two cleansing incidents,
as well as their placement in the chronology of Jesus' ministry, argue for two cleansings
rather than one.197
2:13 John alone recorded that "Jesus went up to Jerusalem," topographically

again, for three separate "Passover" celebrations. He referred to a second
Passover in 6:4, and to a third one in 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; and
194Westcott, p. 40.
195Harrison, 1077; Bailey, p. 164.
196Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 6:9:3; cf. 2:14:3.
197See W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 1:120; Morris, pp. 166-69; and Allan
Chapple, "Jesus' Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 58:3 (September 2015):545-69.
19:14. Some interpreters believe that he mentioned a fourth Passover in

5:1, but this seems unlikely. This first one was evidently the Passover of
April 7, A.D. 30, the first one after Jesus began His public ministry.198 He
celebrated the Passover because He was a Jew who obeyed the Mosaic
Law (Deut. 16:1-8), and He used the opportunity to minister. John's
description of the Passover, as "the Passover of the Jews," supports the
view that he wrote his Gospel late in the first century for a general
audience that was mainly Gentile. It also implies that the church no longer
observed this feast.
2:14-16 Jesus encountered the buying and the "selling" going on "in the temple"
courtyard (Gr. hieron). This was undoubtedly the outer Court of the
Gentiles, not the temple building (Gr. naos).199 Probably the custom of
selling sacrificial animals, and exchanging various types of silver and
copper money (e.g., Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman) for
temple coinage, began as a convenience for pilgrims. The priests accepted
only Tyrian coins because of the purity of their silver.
By Jesus' day, this practice had escalated into a major "business" for the
priests, and had replaced spiritual worship in the courtyard during the
Passover season.200 The priests had transformed this temple area from a
place of quiet prayer into a noisy bazaar. It was virtually impossible for
Gentiles to worship there, the only courtyard accessible to them, with all
the business going on. This was probably where the Ethiopian eunuch
(Acts 8:27), and other Gentiles like him, worshipped when they came to
Jerusalem. The priests set up "tables" for the moneychangers only for
about three weeks leading up to Passover.201
Jesus responded to this situation actively and orally. He claimed that God
was His Father ("My Father's house"), and that He acted for God in what
He did. John's vivid description has inspired many artists who have
painted on canvas what they believed this action-packed scene must have
looked like. John cited that the reason for Jesus' actions was His concern
for the misuse of the temple. He did not mention the corruption that may
have been going on as the priests bought and sold and changed money.
Jesus' expulsion of the temple merchants constituted a major threat to the
financial arrangements for the sacrificial system.202
"The Talmud also records the curse which a distinguished

Rabbi of Jerusalem (Abba Shaul) pronounced upon the
High-Priestly families (including that of Annas), who were
198Herold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, pp. 55-60, 143.
199See the diagram "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.
200See Edersheim, 1:367-70.
201Mishnah Shekalim 1:1, 3.
202Richard Bauckham, "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple," in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of
the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89.
'themselves High-Priests, their sons treasurers (Gizbarin),

their sons-in-law assistant-treasurers (Ammarkalin), while
their servants beat the people with sticks.' (Pes. [Pesiqta] 57
a) What a comment this passage offers on the bearing of
Jesus, as He made a scourge to drive out the very servants
who 'beat the people with sticks,' and upset their unholy
traffic!"203
By claiming God as His "Father," Jesus was citing authority for His
action, not claiming equality with the Father, which He did another time
(5:18). To those present, the issue was clearly Jesus' authority, not His
identity (v. 18).
Though Jesus' action was violent, it evidently did not constitute a threat to
the peace in the temple area. Roman soldiers from the adjoining Antonia
Fortress would have intervened quickly if it had (cf. Acts 21:31-32). Jesus
was forceful but not cruel. There is no indication that He injured anyone
with His fairly harmless scourge of cords (Gr. phragellion ek schoinion).
The Greek masculine plural pantas ("all") argues for Jesus driving the
traders out, not just the animals, which the neuter plural panta would
identify. Schoinion ("cords") elsewhere describes the ropes on a ship (Acts
27:32).
"It is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the
moral power he employed that emptied the courts."204
The Old Testament predicted that Messiah would come and purify the
Levites (Mal. 3:1-3; cf. Zech. 14:21). Jesus' action perhaps recalled these
prophecies to the godly in Israel who may have wondered if Jesus was the
Messiah. His actions here did not fulfill these prophecies, however, which
appear in millennial contexts. Jesus will yet return to the temple that will
be standing in Jerusalem, when He returns at His Second Coming, and
purify the Levites serving there then. This will be preparation for His
messianic reign that will follow. Another view is that Jesus' first coming to
the temple did fulfill Malachi's prophecy.205
2:17 The outstanding impression that Jesus' acts presented to His disciples was
one of "zeal for" the proper use of the temple and ultimately for God's
glory. They may have recalled Psalm 69:9 then, or they may have thought
of it later. John's description does not make this clear. This is the third
most frequently quoted Psalm in the New Testament (cf. 7:3-5; 15:25;
Matt. 27:34, 48; Rom. 11:9-10; 15:3).206 In Psalm 69:9, David meant that
204Morris, p. 171.
205Bailey, p. 164.
206Cf. Bernard, 1:91.
"zeal for" the building of the temple had dominated his thoughts and
actions, and he implied that others had criticized him for it. John changed
the quotation from the past to the future tense, implying that it was a
prophecy concerning David's great Son. He undoubtedly saw it as such.
However, was he not misquoting the verse?
The Hebrew language does not have past, present, and future tenses as
English does. It has a perfect tense, indicating complete action, and an
imperfect tense indicating incomplete action. In Psalm 69:9, the tense of
the Hebrew verb is perfect. One can translate a Hebrew perfect tense with
an English past, present, or future tensedepending on the context. Here
an English past tense was appropriate for David's statement about himself,
but the Hebrew also permits an English future tense that is appropriate for
Messiah: the so-called "prophetic perfect tense."
"We should not miss the way this incident fits in with
John's aim of showing Jesus to be the Messiah. All his
actions imply a special relationship with God. They
proceed from his messianic vocation. The citation from
Scripture is important from another point of view, for it
accords with another habit of this Evangelist. While John
does not quote the Old Testament as frequently as do some
other New Testament writers, it is still the case, as Richard
Morgan says, that 'the Old Testament is present at every
crucial moment in the Gospel.' It is one of John's great
themes that in Jesus God is working his purposes out.
Every critical moment sees the fulfillment of Scripture in
which those purposes are set forth."207
"When Jesus cleansed the temple, He 'declared war' on the

hypocritical religious leaders (Matt. 23), and this ultimately
led to His death. Indeed, His zeal for God's house did eat
Him up!"208
2:18 The spokesmen for "the Jews" present in the courtyard wanted Jesus to
perform some miraculous "sign" (Gr. semeion, cf. 2:11). They wanted
Him to prove that He possessed divine authority to do what He did (cf.
Exod. 4:1-9; Matt. 12:38; 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; 1 Cor. 1:22). The
sin of these Jewish leaders is apparent, in that they did not deal with the
question of the justice of Jesus' indictment. They only inquired about His
"authority" to act as He did.
"We notice here on the occasion of the first public act of

Christ, as throughout St John, the double effect of the act
on those who already believed, and on those who were
207Morris, p. 172.
208Wiersbe, 1:292-93.
resolutely unbelieving. The disciples remembered at the

time (contrast v. 22) that this trait was characteristic of the
true prophet of God, who gave himself for his people. The
Jews found in it an occasion for fresh demands of proof."209
2:19 Jesus gave them a sign, but not the kind they wanted. They wanted some
immediate demonstration of prophetic authority. Instead, Jesus announced
a miracle that would vindicate His authority after He died.
"As for 'the sign,' then and ever again sought by an 'evil and
adulterous generation'evil in their thoughts and ways and
adulterous to the God of IsraelHe had then, as
afterwards, only one 'sign' to give: 'Destroy this Temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.' Thus He met their
challenge for a sign by the challenge of a sign: Crucify
Him, and He would rise again; let them suppress the Christ,
He would triumph. A sign this which they understood not,
but misunderstood, and by making it the ground of their
false charge in His final trial, themselves unwittingly
fulfilled."210
Why was Jesus not more cooperative? First, He controlled when as well as
how He would act under the Father's authority, and the time was not yet
right for a dramatic sign (cf. v. 4). Second, these Jews had already
demonstrated that they had no real interest in justice, but only in
discrediting Jesus (v. 18). They did not sincerely want a sign. They would
not have acknowledged Jesus' authority even if He had performed a
special miracle for them.
The Jews thought that Jesus was offering to rebuild Herod's temple within
"three days" if they would knock it down. His doing this would have been
a miraculous enough sign for any of them. Furthermore it would have
demonstrated His authority to regulate temple service. However, they
were unwilling to fulfill their part of the sign. By suggesting this action,
Jesus was also implying that the old temple and its service had served its
purpose. He had come to establish a new temple and a new way of
worship.
Why did Jesus answer enigmatically (with a riddle) rather than clearly?
Why did He not say: "Destroy My body, and I will raise it up in three
days?" Jesus was replying to unbelief the way He often did, in parabolic
language. He wanted to hide revelation from the unbelieving, but at the
same time reveal it to believers.
209Westcott, p. 41.
The Sanhedrin later used Jesus' words about destroying the temple as a
capital charge against Him at His trial (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58; cf. Matt.
27:40; Mark 15:29). This was dishonest and unfair, however, because
Jesus had said, "[You] destroy this temple," not, "I will destroy the
temple." Furthermore Jesus was speaking of His body, not the temple.
2:20-22 Verse 20 provides an important chronological marker in the life of Jesus.

It enables us to date His visit to the temple here as happening in A.D.
30.211 Work on Herod's temple had been proceeding for 46 years. It was
not completed until A.D. 63.
Jesus' critics assumed that He was speaking of Herod's temple, but John
interpreted His true meaning for his readers. Even Jesus' disciples did not
understand what He meant until after His resurrection. The Scripture they
then believed was Old Testament prophecy concerning Messiah's
resurrection (e.g., Ps. 16:10; 69:9).
Jesus' body was a temple in a unique sense. It was the body in which the
Word had become flesh (1:14). The Father indwelt it, as did the Son
(14:10-11) and the Spirit (1:32-33). It therefore uniquely manifested the
Father. It was also the site where God then manifested Himself on earth,
as He had done previouslythough to a lesser extentin the tabernacle
and temple. Further, it was the center of true worship following the
Incarnation (cf. 4:20-24). In it the ultimate sacrifice would take place.212
Jesus spoke of the temple as a type (i.e., a divinely intended illustration) of

Himself. Later, Christ's body became a metaphorical symbol for the
church (cf. Eph. 1:23; 4:16; Col. 1:18), but that use probably began after
the founding of the church at Pentecost. It seems clear that Jesus was
referring to His physical body here, and not to the church. Yet there may
be an intentional allusion to the ultimate abolition of the Jewish temple
and temple sacrifices.213 Such double entendres are common in this
Gospel.
"The misunderstandings seem to function to highlight the

two levels of understanding that take place in the Gospel.
On the one hand is the spiritual or heavenly level that Jesus
came bringing, to teach the true way to eternal life. On the
other hand is the temporal or earthly level that most people
operate at, including most of Christ's professed disciples,
which leads to darkness and loss of eternal life. John wants
to show that one must cross over from the earthly to the
heavenly, from darkness into light, from death into life. By
211SeeHoehner, pp. 38-43.

212Carson, p. 182.
213Morris, p. 178.
his careful construction of the narratives, John leads his

readers to see and understand what the original participants
could or did not, and thus to believe the claims of Jesus and
avoid the ignorance displayed by the original characters in
the drama."214
2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

John included another summary of Jesus' activities (cf. v. 12). It enables the reader to
gain a more balanced picture of popular reaction to Jesus than the preceding incident
might suggest.
2:23 Jesus did a number of "signs" (significant miracles) while "He was in
Jerusalem" this time. These were probably healings and perhaps
exorcisms. The Synoptics record that Jesus ministered this way virtually
everywhere He went. Consequently "many" people "believed" on Him ("in
His name"). As we have seen in the Synoptics, this does not mean that
they placed saving faith in Him as the Son of God, however. Often the
people who observed His miracles concluded that He was a prophet, but
they were not always willing to acknowledge Him as God.
John usually used the dative case when he described faith in a thing (e.g.,
"they believed the Scripture," v. 22; cf. 4:50; 5:47; 10:38). When he
described faith in a person, he did the same, or otherwise used the verb
"believe" (Gr. pisteuo) with the preposition "into" or "in" (Gr. eis), plus
the accusative (e.g., "believed in His name," v. 23; cf. 8:30-31). These are
synonymous expressions in John. Some interpreters have incorrectly
argued that the former case indicates spurious faith, and the latter, genuine
faith. The context must determine this in every instance.215
2:24-25 Jesus' response to people, in contrast, was not to put His trust (Gr. pisteuo)
in them. He knew people to be essentially untrustworthy. He knew that the
initial enthusiasm and faith, based on miracles, that some people
manifested, would evaporate. Another view is that these were genuine
believers who "were not ready for fuller disclosures from the One they had
just trusted."216 Some who initially believed on Jesus turned against Him
later (6:15, 60, 66). He did not place His destiny in the hands of any
others, though some of the Jews in Jerusalem were willing to place their
lives in His hands (cf. 10:14-15). Further, He did not commit Himself to
"anyone," to "testify" for Him (do public relations work), in the sense that
Jesus was not dependent on human approval.217
214Edwin E. Reynolds, "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel," Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):158-59.
215Carson, p. 183.
216Zane C. Hodges, "Untrustworthy BelieversJohn 2:23-25," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June
1978):148.
217Morris, p. 181.
John may have meant that Jesus knew the nature of human beings, not that
He knew the thoughts of every person He encountered. The Great
Physician could read people better than any human doctor can diagnose
symptoms.218 Besides, Jesus was not just a prophet, but the greatest
Prophetand even "ordinary" prophets often demonstrated supernatural
insight. On the other hand, John could have meant that Jesus, as only God
can, knew the hearts of all people (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; Ps. 139; Jer.
17:10; 20:12; Acts 1:24). The following two chapters particularly illustrate
the truth of both of these statements: Jesus had great human insight as well
as divine insight.
3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

John now presented evidence that Jesus knew people (2:25), as no others did, and that
many believed in His name (2:23). This constitutes further witness that He is the Son of
God. John summarized several conversations that Jesus had with various individuals in
the next few chapters. They were remarkably different types of people, yet they all
responded positively to Jesus. The first man was a representative of Pharisaic Judaism.219
"Narrative is in this section reduced to a minimum. . . . We are made to
hear [in effect] not a conversation between two persons but the dialogue of
church and synagogue, in which (according to the Christian view) the
former completes and fulfills the latter, which is in consequence
superseded."220
3:1 John introduced Nicodemus (lit. conqueror of or victor over the people) as
a Pharisee who was "a ruler of the Jews," namely: a member of the
Sanhedrin (cf. 7:50-51). As a Pharisee, Nicodemus had respect for the
Jewish Scriptures and was nationalistic politically. He would have stressed
the careful observance of Israel's laws and the traditions of the elders. This
was the way of salvation for Pharisees.
"In its own way this chapter does away with 'works of the
law' every bit as thoroughly as anything in Paul.
"The Pharisees had no vested interest in the Temple (which
was rather the domain of the Sadducees). A Pharisee
would, accordingly, not have been unduly perturbed by the
action of Jesus in cleansing the Temple courts. Indeed, he
may possibly have approved it, partly on the general
principle that anything that put the Sadducees down a peg
or two was laudable and partly in the interests of true
religion."221

219See Keith Vande Vrede, "A Contrast between Nicodemus and John the Baptist in the Gospel of John,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57:4 (December 2014):715-26.
220Barrett, p. 202.
221Morris, p. 186.
The Sadducees, in contrast, were more liberal in their theology and were
more politically accommodating. In one sense the Sadducees were more
liberal, in that they denied the existence of angels and the resurrection. But
in another sense they were more conservative, in that they accepted as
authoritative only the Old Testament, and rejected much of the tradition
that the Pharisees regarded as more authoritative than the Old Testament.
Later Jesus mentioned that Nicodemus was a prominent teacher in Israel
(v. 10). John also recorded that he was fair-minded (7:50-51).
3:2 John probably would not have mentioned that Nicodemus called on Jesus
at "night" if that fact was insignificant. Probably the prominent Pharisee
made his call at night to keep his visit private and uninterrupted (cf.
19:39). He may also have come at night because he was ashamed to be
seen with Jesus.222 The Pharisees generally were antagonistic toward
Jesus, and he apparently wanted to avoid unnecessary conflict with his
brethren. Whenever else John referred to night in his Gospel, the word has
moral and spiritual connotations of darkness (cf. 9:4; 11:10; 13:30).
Nicodemus was in spiritual and intellectual darkness, as well as natural
darkness, when he came to Jesus (cf. v. 10).223
Nicodemus addressed Jesus as "Rabbi," a respectful title that recognized

Him as "a teacher." One rabbi was coming to another for discussion.
However, this title also indicated the extent of this man's faith. He did not
address Jesus as the "Messiah," or the "Son of God," or his "Lord." All the
same, he expressed belief that Jesus had "come from God," in contrast to
Satan (cf. 8:48, 52), in view of the miracles ("these signs") that He was
performing (cf. 2:23; 20:30; 21:24-25). This suggests that Nicodemus may
have wanted to determine if Jesus was a prophet as well as a teacher.
To the Jews of Jesus' day, no unusual teaching would have been

acceptable without the evidence of miracles.224 By the way, the Gospels
present no one, friend or foe of Jesus, ever doubting that He performed
miracles; they were so clearly miraculous that everyone acknowledged
Jesus as a miracle worker.
"We" could be a way of saying himself (cf. v. 11). On the other hand,
Nicodemus could have been representing others on the Sanhedrin besides
himself, such as Joseph of Arimathea (cf. 19:38). A third option is that
"we" suggests the current popular opinion about Jesus.225 Note
Nicodemus' courtesy and lack of hostility. These qualities mark him as a
non-typical Pharisee.
222Pink, 1:104.
223E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:157-58; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel:
A Commentary, p. 116.
225Pink, 1:104.
"One of the things which impresses the writer as he reads

the Gospels, is the blessed accessibility of the Lord
Jesus."226
3:3 Jesus' abrupt dogmatic statement cut to the heart of the matter. He
affirmed strongly that "one . . . cannot see the kingdom of God" without a
second birth from above (Gr. anothen, cf. v. 31). Anothen means both
"again" (v. 4; cf. Gal. 4:9) and "from above" (v. 31; 19:11, 23).
"Although Nicodemus understood it to mean 'again,'

leading him to conclude that Jesus was speaking of a
second physical birth, Jesus' reply in verses 6-8 shows that
He referred to the need for a spiritual birth, a birth 'from
above.'"227
The term "kingdom of God"as Jesus used it consistentlyrefers to the

earthly messianic kingdom that will be the earthly phase of God's eternal
heavenly kingdom. To "enter the kingdom of God" means to "obtain
eternal life" (cf. Mark 9:43, 45, 47). John used "kingdom" language rarely
(vv. 3, 5; 18:36). This is the only passage in John that mentions the
"kingdom of God," though Jesus spoke of "My kingdom" in 18:36. He
generally used "life" language instead (cf. 1:12-13). This is
understandable, since he evidently wrote late in the first century, when it
was clear that God had postponed the kingdom. His readers needed to
prepare for the future immediatelyby obtaining eternal life!
The implication of Jesus' illustration of new birth is that life with God in
the future will require completely new equipment. Nicodemus had claimed
to see something of who Jesus was by His "signs." Jesus replied that no
one can see (reach; enter) God's kingdomthe end (goal) in view
without new birth.
"If the kingdom does not dawn until the end of the age [and
it will], then of course one cannot enter it before it comes.
Predominant religious thought in Jesus' day affirmed that
all Jews would be admitted to that kingdom apart from
those guilty of deliberate apostasy or extraordinary
wickedness (e.g., Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1). But here was
Jesus telling Nicodemus, a respected and conscientious
member not only of Israel but of the Sanhedrin, that he
cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born again. . . . The
coming of the kingdom at the end can be described as the
'regeneration' of the world (Mt. 19:28, NIV 'renewal'), but
here what is required is the regeneration of the individual
226Ibid., 1:106.
227Harris, p. 220.
before the end of the world and in order to enter the

kingdom."228
"By the term born again He means not the amendment of a

part but the renewal of the whole nature. Hence it follows
that there is nothing in us that is not defective."229
3:4 Nicodemus asked Jesus to clarify what He meant by being born again. His
question implied that he was an older man. He was quite sure that Jesus
was not referring to reincarnation or a second physical birth. His crassly
literal question may reflect some disdain for Jesus' affirmation, or
Nicodemus may have been speaking wistfully, or he may have been eager
or impatient to hear Jesus' explanation.
"The situation is no different today. When you talk with

people about being born again, they often begin to discuss
their family's religious heritage, their church membership,
religious ceremonies, and so on."230
3:5 Again Jesus prefaced a further affirmation with the statement that
guaranteed its certainty. "Entering the kingdom" and "seeing the
kingdom" (v. 3) seem to be synonymous terms, though the former may be
a bit clearer. There are several views of the meaning of being "born of
water and the Spirit." The verse and its context contribute much to our
understanding of this difficult phrase.
Whatever its meaning, "born of water and the Spirit" must be synonymous
to being born "again" or "from above" (v. 3), since Jesus used this phrase
to clarify the process of the "new birth" for Nicodemus. Second, the
definite article translated "the" before "Spirit" is absent in the Greek text.
The English translators have inserted it to clarify their interpretation of
"spirit" (Gr. pneuma) as the Holy Spirit. A more literal translation would
be simply "born of water and spirit."
Third, the construction of the phrase in the Greek text indicates that the
preposition "of" governs both "water" and "Spirit." This means that Jesus
was clarifying regeneration by using two terms that both describe the new
birth. He was not saying that two separate things have to be present for
regeneration to happen. It has but one Source. Fourth, Jesus' criticism of
Nicodemus for not understanding these things (v. 10) indicates that what
He taught about the Source of regeneration was clear in the Old
Testament.
228Carson,pp. 188-89.
229JohnCalvin, Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John, 1:63.
230Wiersbe, 1:295.
The only view that seems to be consistent with all four of these criteria is
as follows. The Old Testament often used watermetaphoricallyto
symbolize spiritual cleansing and renewal (Num. 19:17-19; Isa. 55:1-3; cf.
Ps. 51:10; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Zech. 14:8). God's spirit (or Spirit) in the Old
Testament represents God's life (Gen. 1:2; 2:7; 6:3; Job 34:14). God
promised that He would pour out His "Spirit" on people as water (Isa.
32:15-16; Joel 2:28-29). The result of that outpouring would be a new
heart for those on whom the Spirit came (Jer. 31:31-34). Thus the
revelation that God would bring cleansing and renewal as water, by
(means of or effected by) His Spirit, was clear in the Old Testament.
Jesus evidently meant that unless a person has experienced spiritual

cleansing and renewal (empowerment) from God's spirit (or Spirit), he or
she cannot enter the kingdom. This is what He meant by being "born from
above" or "again" (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11).231
Another view proposed by many scholars is that "water" is an allusion to

the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother's womb. Other
scholars see it as a euphemistic reference to the semen, without which
natural birth is impossible. In either case, "water" refers to physical or
natural birth, while "spirit" refers to spiritual or supernatural birth.232
These proponents claim that Jesus was saying that natural birth is not
enoughthat one must also experience supernatural birth to enter the
kingdom. However, this use of "water" is unique in Scripture. This view
also assumes that two births are in view, whereas the construction of the
Greek phrase favors one birth rather than two. If two were in view, there
would normally be a repetition of the preposition before the second noun.
Another popular view is that "water" refers to the written Word of God,
and "spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit.233 This figurative use of "water" does
exist in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 5:26), but it is uncommon in the Old
Testament. It is unlikely that Nicodemus would have associated water
with the Word of God, and it would have been unfair for Jesus to rebuke
him for not having done so. This view, as the former one, also specifies
two separate entities, but again, the Greek text implies only one as the
source of regeneration.
Some commentators take the "water" as an allusion to water baptism, and

the "spirit" as referring to the Holy Spirit.234 According to this view,
spiritual birth happens only when a person undergoes water baptism, and
as a result experiences regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Some advocates of
231Carson, pp. 191-96; cf. Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, p. 50; Morris, pp. 191-93; and Barclay,
1:119.
232E.g., Wiersbe, 1:295.
233E.g., Pink, 1:110; McGee, 4:384.
234E.g., R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes, 2:139-141.
this view see support for it in the previous reference to water baptism
(1:26 and 33). However, Scripture is very clear that water baptism is a
testimony to salvation, not a prerequisite for it (cf. 3:16, 36; Eph. 2:8-9;
Titus 3:5). In addition, this meaning would have had no significance for
Nicodemus. He knew nothing of Christian baptism. Furthermore Jesus
never mentioned water baptism again in clarifying the new birth to
Nicodemus.
Others have suggested that the "water" could be a reference to the

repentance present in those who underwent John's water baptism, and the
"spirit" is an allusion to the Holy Spirit.235 In this case, repentance as a
change of mind is necessary as a prerequisite for salvation. According to
advocates of this view, Jesus was urging Nicodemus to submit to John's
baptism as a sign of his repentance, or at least to repent. The weakness of
this view is that the connection between water and repentance is distant
enough to cause misunderstanding.
Nicodemus' response (v. 9) expressed lack of understanding. If the

connection between water and John's baptism were that clear, he would
not have responded this way. It would have been simpler for Jesus just to
say "repentance" if that is what He meant. Repentance, however, in the
sense of the fruit of a mental change, is not necessary as a conditional
prerequisite for salvation, since by that definition repentance is a
meritorious work.
Some scholars believe that "water" refers to the ritual washings of

Judaism, and "spirit" to the Holy Spirit. They think Jesus was saying that
Spirit birth, rather than just water purification, is necessary for
regeneration. However, Jesus was not contrasting water and spirit but
linking them.
Finally, at least one writer understood that when Jesus said "spirit" He
meant it in the sense of wind (Gr. pneuma), and used it as a symbol of
God's life-giving work.236 This view holds that the "wind" is parallel to
the "water," which also symbolizes God's supernatural work of
regeneration. However, this is an unusual, though legitimate, meaning of
pneuma. In the immediate context (v. 6), pneuma seems to mean "spirit"
rather than "wind." This fact has led almost all translators to render
pneuma as "spirit" rather than as "wind" in verse 5, even though it means
"wind" in verse 8.
235F.Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction, 2:49-52; Marcus Dods, The
Gospel of St. John, 1:713; Westcott, p. 50; Tenney, "John," p. 47.
236Zane C. Hodges, "Water and SpiritJohn 3:5," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-
20.
3:6 Here, not in verse 5, Jesus clarified that there are two types of birth, one
physical and one spiritual. "Flesh" again refers to human nature (cf. 1:14):
"all that belongs to the life of sensation."237 The Holy Spirit gives people
spiritual life. We are spiritually dead in sin until the Spirit gives us
spiritual life. Jesus was speaking of a spiritual birth, not a physical one.
Nicodemus should not have marveled at the idea that there is a spiritual
birth in addition to a physical birth, since the Old Testament spoke of it
(cf. Ps. 87:5-6; Ezek. 36:25-28). It revealed that entrance into the kingdom
is a spiritual matter, not a matter of physical descent or merit. This was a
revelation that most of the Jews in Jesus' day, including Nicodemus,
missed.
3:7 Nicodemus needed spiritual life. He needed to experience the new birth.
He had evidently viewed acceptance by God like so many of his Jewish
contemporaries did. He thought that his heritage (ancestry, position,
works, all that made him what he was) was adequate to get him into the
kingdom and make him acceptable to God. He had to realize that he
needed a complete spiritual cleansing and renewalthat only God could
provide by His Spirit! Likewise today, most people are relying on
themselveswho they are and what they have donefor acceptance with
God. They, too, need to know that they need spiritual cleansing and life
that only God can provide. They must be born again, or there is no hope of
their entering God's kingdom.
"There is no evolution from flesh to Spirit."238
The second "you" in verse 7 is plural in the Greek text. It continues the
general reference to "anyone" in verses 3 and 5.
"The fact that Nicodemus used the plural pronoun 'we,'

[v. 2] and Jesus responded with the plural 'ye' . . . may
indicate that Nicodemus was representing the religious
leaders."239
3:8 Jesus used "the wind" to illustrate how the Spirit regenerates. He used
wordplay to present an even closer comparison. The Greek word pneuma
can mean either "spirit" or "wind," though it usually means "spirit." Jesus
said the pneuma (Spirit) operates as the pneuma (wind).
There are three similarities. First, both the Spirit and the wind operate
sovereignly. Man does not and cannot control either one. Second, we
perceive the presence of both by their effects. Third, we cannot explain
their actions, since they arise from unseen and partially unknowable
factors; they are mysterious.
237Westcott,p. 51.
238E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, p. 204.
239Wiersbe, 1:295.
The person "born of the Spirit" is similar to both the Spirit and the wind,
in that it is impossible for unregenerate people to understand or control
him or her. They do not understand his or her origin or final destiny.
Nicodemus should have understood this too, since the Old Testament
revealed the Spirit's sovereign and incomprehensible working (e.g., Ezek.
37).
3:9-10 Nicodemus betrayed his ignorance of Old Testament revelation with his
question (cf. 1 Sam. 10:6; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 11:19; 36:25-28; Jer.
31:33; Joel 2:28-29). Jesus' answer shows that Nicodemus' question
implied that he did not believe what Jesus had said (cf. vv. 11-12). He had
undoubtedly taught many Jews about getting right with God, but what
Jesus now suggested was something new to him. The Jews spoke of
converting to Judaism as a rebirth, and the Greek mystery religions
referred to new birth, so the concept of being "born again" must not have
been unknown to Nicodemus.240
Jesus responded with a question that expressed dismay that Nicodemus did
"not understand" this biblical revelation. His deficiency was all the more
serious because Nicodemus was the leading "teacher of Israel." At least
that was his reputation. His study of the Scriptures should have made him
aware that no one can come to God, in his or her own strength or
righteousness, without the necessity of God's spiritual cleansing (i.e.,
renewal or regeneration).
3:11 For the third time in this conversation, Jesus affirmed a solemn truth (cf.
vv. 3, 5). Nicodemus had begun the conversation by humbly referring to
himself as one of many authoritative figures who believed that Jesus had
come from God (v. 2): "we know." Now Jesus described Himself as one of
several authoritative figures who was speaking the truth: "we know."
Evidently He was referring to the Godhead. Another possibility is that
both men were speaking editorially. Nicodemus probably thought Jesus
was referring to Himself humbly, or possibly to Himself as one of several
teachers.
Jesus claimed to be speaking the truth as an eyewitness, but Nicodemus

was rejecting His witness. The Apostle John later made a similar claim.
He said he wrote his first epistle so that his readers might enter into the joy
of fellowship with God, which the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of
Jesus' ministry, already enjoyed (1 John 1:1-4). John's purpose in this
Gospel, similarly, was that readers would accept his witness that Jesus was
the Christ (20:30-31). Nicodemus had rejected the witness, and Jesus saw
him as representing many others who also did (plural "you"). Nicodemus
had failed to understand (v. 9), but his more serious error was his failure to
believe Jesus' testimony about the new birth. It reflected failure to
240Barclay, 1:115.
acknowledge who Jesus really was, which His signs and insight into
Scripture evidenced.
"Nicodemus represents the half-believing Jews who were

impressed by Jesus' signs but had not reached an adequate
faith in him . . ."241
3:12 The "earthly things" that Jesus had told Nicodemus involved the new
birth. The new birth is earthly in that it occurs on the earth. This teaching
had been elementary. However, Nicodemus had not believed it. Therefore
he could not begin to believe things that Jesus might have told him about
"heavenly things." These things might have included such revelations as
life beyond the grave, life in the kingdom, and the new heavens and new
earth (Isa. 65:17).
If Jesus' response to Nicodemus in this verse was typical, it would mean

that when a person rejects revelation, he or she thereby limits the
revelation that comes to that one from then on. This is really what usually
happens.
Arthur Pink pointed out that Jesus skillfully responded to Nicodemus'

statements by using many of the same words. Thus Jesus met Nicodemus
on his own ground, and "made his own language the channel of approach
to his heart,"242 providing a good example for personal evangelists.
NICODEMUS' STATEMENTS JESUS' RESPONSES

"We know that" (v. 2) "We speak that which we know"
(v. 11)
"You have come . . . as a teacher" "Are you the teacher" (v. 11)
(v. 2)
"Unless God is with him" (v. 2) "Unless one is born again" (v. 3)
"How can a man be born" (v. 4) "Unless one is born" (v. 5)
"He cannot enter" (v. 4) "He cannot enter" (v. 5)
"How can" (v. 9) "How shall" (v. 12)
"These things be" (v. 9) "These things" (v. 10)
3:13 Jesus explained why He could speak authoritatively about heavenly things.
No teacher had "ascended into heaven" and returned to teach about
heavenly things. Evidently Jesus was referring to being personally present
241Barrett, p. 211.
242Pink, 1:123.
in heaven since, obviously, many prophets had received visions of heaven

(e.g., Isa. 6; cf. 2 Cor. 12:2-4; Rev. 1:10-20). However, the "Son of Man
. . . descended from heaven" so He could teach about heavenly things.
The NIV translation implies that Jesus had already ascended into heaven,
but that is not what the Greek text says. The Greek words ei me, translated
"but" or "except," contrast a ("no") human who could have ascended into
heaven, with the God-man who really did descend from heaven. Jesus
here claimed to be the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13-14) who had come "from
heaven" to reveal God to humankind (cf. 1:51).
"Throughout this Gospel John insists on Jesus' heavenly

origin. This is one way in which he brings out his point that
Jesus is the Christ. Here his heavenly origin marks Jesus
off from the rest of humanity."243
3:14 In another sense, Jesus would rise ("be lifted") "up" to heaven. The
Ascension is not in view here. Jesus' enemies lifting Him up toward
heaven, "as Moses lifted up the serpent" on the pole toward heaven, is in
view (cf. Num. 21:4-9). "In the wilderness" God promised the Israelites
that whoever looked on the bronze serpent would receive physical life and
not die.
"Why was not one of the actual serpents spiked by Moses

to the pole? Ah, that would have marred the type: that
would have pictured judgment executed on the sinner
himself; and, worse still, would have misrepresented our
sinless Substitute. In the type chosen there was the likeness
of a serpent, not an actual serpent, but a piece of brass
made like one."244
This is Jesus' earliest recorded prediction of His death. It is an allusion to

death by crucifixion (cf. 8:28; 12:32, 34). Wherever the Greek word
hypsoo ("lifted up") occurs in John's Gospel, and it only occurs in these
four verses, it combines the ideas of crucifixion and exaltation (cf. Isa.
52:1353:12).245 The Synoptic evangelists viewed Jesus' exaltation as
separate from His crucifixion, but John thought of the crucifixion as the
beginning of His exaltation.
God had graciously provided continuing physical life to the persistently

sinning Israelites. It should not, therefore, have been hard for Nicodemus
to believe that He would graciously provide new spiritual life for sinful
humanity.
243Morris, p. 197.
244Pink,1:129.
245Carson, p. 201.
Verse 13 pictures Jesus as the revealer of God who came down from
heaven. Verse 14 pictures Him as the suffering exalted Savior. It was in
His suffering that Jesus revealed God most clearly. These themes cluster
around the title "Son of Man" in the fourth Gospel.
3:15 The purpose of Jesus' uplifting, as was the purpose of the uplifting of the
bronze serpent in the wilderness, was the salvation (deliverance) of those
who believed. By comparing Himself to that serpent, Jesus was teaching
that whoever trusted in Him and His death would receive "eternal life."
This is the first reference to eternal life in this Gospel. "Eternal life" refers
to one's "life" in the age to come, namely: in the kingdom age and forever
after. It is "life" that one experiences, normally after resurrection, that fits
him or her for the kingdom. However, John presented that life as
something that people can experience in measure before the kingdom
begins. The eternal life that people receive at new birth is the life of the
eternal Word (1:4). It comes to them by believing in the person and saving
work of Jesus.
"The life Christians possess is not in any sense independent

of Christ. It is a life that is 'hidden with Christ in God' (Col.
3:3). . . . The Jews divided time into the present age and the
age to come, but the adjective [eternal] was used of life in
the coming age, not that of the present age. 'Eternal life'
thus means 'the life proper to the age to come.' It is an
eschatological concept (cf. 6:40, 54). But as the age to
come is thought of as never coming to an end the adjective
came to mean 'everlasting,' 'eternal.' The notion of time is
there. Eternal life will never cease. But there is something
else there, too, and something more significant. The
important thing about eternal life is not its quantity but its
quality. . . . Eternal life is life in Christ, that life which
removes a person from the merely earthly."246
Some authorities believe that verses 16-21 are the Apostle John's comments, his aside,
rather than a continuation of Jesus' words to Nicodemus.247 Others believe Jesus' words
continue through verse 21.248 (Red-letter editions of John's Gospel reveal the various
translators' preferences.) I prefer the second opinion on this issue. Unfortunately the
Greek text does not contain quotation marks, or any punctuation for that matter, so it does
246Morris, p. 201.
247E.g., Tenney, "John," pp. 49-50; Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:50; Carson, p. 203; Harrison, p. 1079;
Morris, p. 202; Westcott, p. 54; Barclay, 1:129; and Beasley-Murray, p. 51.
248E.g., Tasker, p. 66; J. P. Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 12 vols., vol. 9: The Gospel
According to John, by J. P. Lange, p. 134; Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p.
258; G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to John, pp. 59-60; Wiersbe, 1:298; J. Dwight Pentecost,
The Words and Works of Christ, p. 127; McGee, 4:385; John G. Mitchell, An Everlasting Love: A
Devotional Study of the Gospel of John, p. 57.
not identify quotations for the reader. This section of the text is the heart of John's record
of Jesus' early ministry (chs. 24).
3:16 This best-known verse in the whole Bible expresses the gospel message
more clearly and winsomely than any other. Almost every word in it is
significant.
Jesus' mission in the Incarnation (vv. 13, 17) and the Cross (vv. 14-15)
resulted from God's "love" for human beings. The construction of the
Greek sentence underscores the intensity of God's love. He gave His best:
His unique and beloved Son. The Jews believed that God loved the
children of Israel, but John affirmed that God loved all people regardless
of race.
According to one commentator, no Jewish writer specifically asserted that

God loved His whole world.249 But there is nothing in this verse or in the
context that would limit "the world" to just the world of the elect. This
love of God is amazing, not so much because the world is so big, as
because it is so bad (cf. 1:9). The Father loves the world with His unique
kind of selfless love that provided the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.
Galatians 2:20 reveals that the Cross shows the Son's love.
"The Greek construction puts some emphasis on the

actuality of the gift: it is not 'God loved enough to give,' but
'God loved so that he gave.' His love is not a vague,
sentimental feeling, but a love that costs. God gave what
was most dear to him."250
Christians should not love the world with the selfish love that seeks to
profit from it personally (1 John 2:15-17).
The world stands under the threat of divine judgment because of the Fall
and sin (3:36; Rom. 1:18). God, in His gracious love, has reached out and
chosen some peoplefrom out of the worldfor salvation (15:19; Rom.
6:23). He does not take pleasure in pouring His wrath out on the lost, but
He rejoices when people turn from their wicked ways to Him (Ezek.
18:23). The fact that God allows sinners to perish does not contradict His
love. He has provided a way by which they need "not perish"because
He loves mankind. His ultimate purpose is the salvation of those who
believe in His Son.
The consequences of belief are new birth (vv. 3, 5), eternal life (life with
unlimited time; vv. 15-16), and salvation (v. 17). The alternative is
perishing (v. 16, cf. 10:28), losing one's life (12:25), and destruction
249Odeberg, p. 116.
250Morris, pp. 203-4.
(17:12). To "perish" (Gr. apoletai) does not mean to experience

annihilation, but ruin, failure to realize God's purpose, and exclusion from
His fellowship. The only alternatives are life or perishing; there is no other
final state.
Cessation of belief does not result in the loss of salvation.
"We might say, 'Whoever believes that Rockefeller is a

philanthropist will receive a million dollars.' At the point in
time a person believes this, he is a millionaire. However, if
he ceases to believe this ten years later, he is still in
possession of the million dollars. Similarly, if a man has
believed in Christ, he is regenerate and in possession of
eternal life, even if he ceases to believe in God in the
future."251
3:17 John further clarified God's purpose in sending His Son by explaining
what it was not. It was not "to judge" or condemn (Gr. krino) humankind.
Judging, as John spoke of it here, is the opposite of saving (cf. v. 18:
5:24). God could have condemned human beings without the Incarnation.
Jesus will eventually judge everyone, but that was not God's purpose in
the Incarnation. Rather, it was to provide salvation for everyone through
His death on the cross.
How can we reconcile this verse with 9:39, where Jesus said that He came
into the world for judgment (cf. 5:27)? Judging was a secondary duty
associated with saving, but saving was Jesus' primary purpose (cf. Dan.
7:13-14). Jesus came into an already condemned world to save some. He
did not enter a neutral world to save some and condemn others. Anyone
who brings light casts a shadow, but the bringing of a shadow is only an
attendant circumstance that is inevitable when one brings light.
3:18 The person who believes in Jesus escapes condemnation (cf. 5:24; Rom.
8:1). However, the person "who does not believe" in Jesus stands
condemned "already"with no way of escape (cf. 3:36). The reason for
his or her condemnation, therefore, becomes his or her failure to believe
on the One whom God lovingly and graciously has provided for salvation.
Faith is the instrumental means by which we obtain salvation. Failure to
exercise faith in Jesus will result in spiritual death, just as failure to
believe in the brazen serpent resulted in physical death for the Israelites
(Num. 21:4-9). The difference between belief and unbelief is clear from
here on in this Gospel.252
251Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 200.

252See Michael A. Rydelnik, "The Jewish People and Salvation," Bibliotheca Sacra 165:660 (October-
December 2008):447-62, for defense of the particularist view that Jewish people who do not believe in
Jesus are lost.
3:19 John explained the process of mankind's judgment (Gr. krisis, separating
or distinguishing, not krima, the sentence of judgment). Even though light
("the Light") entered the world, people chose "darkness" over light ("the
Light"). The light ("The Light") in view is the revelation that Jesus as the
Light of the World brought from the Fatherparticularly the light of the
gospelthough in rejecting the "light," they by the same token reject "the
Light" (Christ Himself). The reason people choose darkness over light is
that "their deeds" are "evil." They prefer their darkness to God's light
because of what the darkness hides, namely, their sin.
3:20 Not only do evildoers "love darkness" (v. 19), they also "hate the light" (or
"Light"). The Greek word translated "evil" is phaula, meaning
"worthless." Evildoers avoid the light that Jesus brings, and Jesus Himself
(cf. 1:9-11), because it exposes the vanity of their lives. It shows that they
have no meaning, worthy goal, or hope for the future. They know that
coming to the "light" (or "Light") would convict them. Immorality lies
behind much unbelief.
"People offer many excuses for not accepting Christ. Some

cite the presence of hypocrites in the church. Others claim
inability to believe some of the truths about Christ or the
gospel. [Many say that they cannot accept the fact that God
permits so much suffering in the world.] These are merely
attempts to conceal a heart in rebellion against God. The
ultimate reason people do not come to Christ is that they do
not want to."253
3:21 People who adhere to the truth, on the other hand, "come to the light" and
its source, Jesus (the "Light"). They do not try to cover up worthless
deeds, but they are willing to expose them to the searching light of God's
revelation (cf. 1 John 1:8-9). They also humbly acknowledge that the good
works that they do are really God's production. They do all this, of course,
because God draws them to Himself. One fundamental difference between
believers and unbelievers is their attitude toward the "light" (or "Light"). It
is not their guilt before God. Both are guilty before Him. A minority
interpretation is that Jesus was distinguishing believers who acknowledged
Christ openly, like John the Baptist, and secret believers, such as
Nicodemus, rather than believers and unbelievers.254
Verses 19-21 point out the ultimate danger that each reader of this Gospel
faces. If one tends to do as Nicodemus did and resists Jesus, it is because
he or she "does not" want to "come to the light" for moral reasons ("fear
that" their "deeds will be exposed"). People essentially turn from Jesus
253The Nelson . . ., p. 1764.

254Zane C. Hodges, "Coming to the LightJohn 3:20-21," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December
1978):314-22.
because "the light" that He brings exposes "evil" things about themselves
that they want to remain hidden. Openness to the light is very important.
God's gracious love encourages guilty sinners to open up to the light.
"This [3:19-21] is one of the most important sections in the

gospel of John for understanding the light/darkness
polarization in Johannine theology and also for
understanding John's gospel itself."255
Much of contemporary man's problem with the gospel is anthropological. It arises from a
faulty view of himself. Fallen man generally views human beings as neutral if not good.
Therefore the fact that God sent Jesus, and Jesus came to save sinners, seems only
interesting at best. If man is good and not in need of salvation, he can applaud God's love
as admirable. If man is neutral, he can take salvation or leave it. If he leaves it, God
appears unfair for condemning him. However, man is not good or neutralbut bad! He
already stands condemned and destined to experience God's wrath. Therefore faith in
Jesus becomes a necessary way of escape from that dreadful destiny. The Incarnation is a
manifestation of divine grace, not just divine love.
4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

The writer next noted the parallel ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus in Judea. John
the Baptist readily confessed Jesus' superiority to him, even though they were both doing
the same things. This was further testimony to Jesus' identity. This section constitutes the
very core of the Apostle John's testimony to Jesus' identity in Jesus' early ministry (chs.
24).
3:22 Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus evidently happened in Jerusalem

(2:23), which was within "Judea." After that conversation, Jesus went out
into the Judean countryside. Jesus had not yet commissioned the Twelve.
That commissioning happened after John the Baptist's imprisonment
(Mark 1:14). The disciples who accompanied Jesus may not have been the
Twelve, but they were His followers, and they could have included all or
some of the Twelve.
This is the only record in the Gospels that tells us Jesus engaged in a
"baptizing" ministry similar to John the Baptist's. It was undoubtedly
baptism expressing repentance rather than "Christian baptism." The writer
later explained that Jesus did not do the baptizing Himself, but His
disciples did (4:2). Jesus was also "spending time with" these disciples,
undoubtedly to help them understand and appreciate who He really was.
3:23 The exact location of "Aenon (lit. 'springs') near Salim" is unknown today.
The best evidence seems to point to a site just south of Scythopolis (Old
Testament "Beth-shan").256 The other possible site was a few miles east of
255Harris, pp. 203-4.

256See Tenney, "John," p. 52, and the map "Palestine in the Time of Jesus" at the end of these notes.
Sychar (near Old Testament "Shechem"). The first site is about 15 miles
south of the Sea of Galilee. The second is approximately midway between
the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. Both plausible sites are only a few
miles west of the Jordan River.257 John the Baptist evidently chose the
location, whichever was the actual site, for its abundant "water" that came
from nearby springs. Many people "were coming" to him to express their
repentance by undergoing water baptism.
". . . the importance of the note is to show that John moved
from the south to the north, leaving Jesus to baptize in the
area not distant from Jerusalem."258
3:24 Obviously John continued preaching and baptizing after Jesus began
ministering, and he did so until Herod Antipas imprisoned him. The
Synoptic writers began their narratives of Jesus' public ministry with His
ministry in Galilee. They viewed the beginning of Jesus' ministry as
starting with John the Baptist's imprisonment (Mark 1:14). The Apostle
John began his narrative of Jesus' ministry with His earlier Judean
ministry. From John alone, we learn that between Jesus' temptation and
John the Baptist's arrest, John and Jesus baptized at the same time. His
reference to John the Baptist's imprisonment is important, because it helps
the reader to see that John's account does not contradict the Synoptics. Yet
his primary concern was John the Baptist's witness for Jesus.
3:25 Evidently the "discussion" in view centered on the relation of "John's
baptism" to other ceremonial washings ("purification[s]") that various
other Jewish authorities espoused. These other washings probably
included the practices prescribed in the Old Testament and more modern
rites of purification that some Jewish leaders advocated. This verse
provides the background from which John's disciples approached him in
the next verse.
3:26 One of the contemporary baptism campaigns was the one Jesus and His
disciples were conducting. John's disciples mentioned it to John, implying
that they wanted him to comment on it. They had particular concern that
so many people ("all" as they phrased it) were going to Jesus for baptism.
John's reply (vv. 27-30) suggests that they felt jealous of Jesus' popularity.
They had failed to grasp the purpose of John's ministry.
"It is interesting to note that four of the greatest men in the
Bible faced this problem of comparison and competition:
Moses (Num. 11:26-30), John the Baptist (John 3:26-30),
Jesus (Luke 9:46-50), and Paul (Phil. 1:15-18). A leader
often suffers more from his zealous disciples than from his
critics!"259
257SeeEdersheim, 2:767-69, for further discussion of the location of Sychar.

259Wiersbe, 1:297.
3:27 John replied to the implied question with an aphorism, a general maxim.
He meant that no one "can receive" anything"unless" God, in His
sovereignty, permits it (cf. 6:65; 19:11; 1 Cor. 4:7). Regarding Jesus, this
statement expressed the belief that God had permitted Him to enjoy the
popularity that He was experiencing. It also expressed John's satisfaction
with that state of affairs. John demonstrated an exemplary attitude. He
recognized that God had assigned different ministries to Jesus and himself,
and that it was wrong for him and his disciples to wish things were
otherwise (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-9; 4:1-7; 12:12-31).
3:28 John proceeded to remind his disciples that he never claimed to be the
Messiah ("the Christ"), but only Messiah's forerunnerthe herald "sent
ahead of Him" (1:15, 20, 23, 26-34).
3:29 John's illustration showed that his attitude and behavior were consistent
with normal conduct. In the illustration, Jesus is the "bridegroom" and
John is the bridegroom's "friend" (or "attendant").
"The assistant acted on behalf of the bridegroom and made

the preliminary arrangements for the ceremony."260
". . . groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in

Galilee (Cheth. 25 a)."261
The "bride" is probably a reference to Israel (cf. Isa. 54:5; 62:4-5; Jer. 2:2;
3:20; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:16-20). John was therefore implying that he
played a supporting role in Messiah's union with Israel. This was a
testimony to Jesus' identity as Messiah, whose "voice" John said he
rejoiced to hear.
When John the Baptist spoke these words, the church was an unknown
entity in God's plan, so it is unlikely that it was in his mind. However, the
original readers of this Gospel were probably familiar with the Apostle
Paul's revelations concerning the church being the "bride of Christ" (e.g.,
2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-27, 32). Israel had spurned her bridegroom when
He came for her, and consequently He had taken a different bride for
Himself. John's joy was complete, or full (Gr. pleroun), because he knew
that he was fulfilling his role faithfully. Jesus' increasing popularity filled
John's disciples with resentment, but it filled John with "joy."
3:30 This classic expression of humility arose out of John's perception of, and
acceptance of, his God-given role as Messiah's forerunner. Far from
discouraging people from following Jesus, as his disciples implied he
should, John would continue to promote Himeven sending his own
260Blum, p. 283. See Zola Levitt, A Christian Love Story, for Jewish marriage customs.
261Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ, p. 152.
disciples to Jesus. He viewed this as God's will, and therefore said it

"must" be so. Would that all of us who are God's servants might learn to
view Jesus' positionand ourssimilarly. Submission to God's will, and
the exaltation of Jesusnot prominence in His serviceare what should
bring joy to His servants.
"Humility is not the product of direct cultivation, rather it is

a by-product."262
Unfortunately, some of John's disciples continued to follow him, rather than taking their
rabbi's advice to follow Jesus (cf. Acts 18:24-26; 19:1-7).
5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

This pericope explains why Jesus must become greater. It also unites several themes that
appear in chapter 3. It is not clear whether John the Apostle or John the Baptist is the
speaker.
3:31-32 The incarnate Son of God has come to earth from above (cf. v. 13). The
Apostle John sought to fulfill his purpose of proving that Jesus is the
Christ (20:31), partially by stressing that Jesus' origin was "from above."
Birth from above (v. 3), also called "the new birth," can only come by
faith in Him who is from above. Christ's place of origin illustrates His
superiority over all earthly people that humanity binds to the "earth" (Gr.
ge, this planet), including John the Baptist. Finite humans can only reveal
things that they experience on the earth, but Jesus could reveal things
about heaven.
"He that is earthy in origin is earthy also by nature."263
John the Baptist could call people to repentance, but he could not reveal
divine counsels, as Jesus "who comes from heaven" could, nor could he
provide new life from above. Jesus had previously said that people do not
typically receive His witness (v. 11), and the writer repeated that fact here.
The Greek word martyria, "witness" or "testimony," appears some 47
times in this Gospel.
3:33-34 However, some people do receive His witness. Those who do, thereby
assert their belief that the Father, as well as the Son, is truthful.264 Seals
indicated a personal guarantee, as well as denoting ownership (cf. 6:27).
They also made secure (Matt. 27:66) and concealed (Rev. 22:10). Jesus so
exactly revealed God's words, that to believe Jesus is to believe God, and
to disbelieve Jesus is to disbelieve God (cf. 1 John 5:10).
262Pink,1:149.
263Barrett,
p.225.
264Westcott, p. 62.
All of God's former messengers received a limited "measure" of God's

"Spirit." The Spirit came on the Old Testament prophets only for limited
times and purposes. However, God gave His Spirit to Jesus without limit.
This guaranteed the truth of Jesus' words. The Spirit descended on Jesus at
His baptism and remained on Him (1:32-33; cf. Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). God
gave His "Spirit without measure" only to Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11).
"Thirty-nine times the Gospel of John refers to Jesus being

sent from God (vv. 17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29,
38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28-29; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36;
11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3,
18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). This affirms Jesus' deity and
heavenly origin, as well as God's sovereignty and love in
initiating the Son's Incarnation (cf. Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10,
14)."265
3:35 God not only gave Jesus His Spirit without measure, but He has placed
everything in His hands. The Father has been gracious to the Son because
He loves Him, even as He has been gracious to human beings in providing
salvation because He loves them. Everything that the Father has done,
revealing and redeeming, flows from His love for people through the Son.
This statement also points out the dependence of Jesusin His
humanityon the Father, one of John's major themes.
3:36 In conclusion, John placed the alternatives side by side. Belief "in the
Son" of God results in "eternal life" (1:12; 3:3, 5, 15, 16)life suited for
eternity with God, and enjoyed to a limited extent now. Unbelief results in
God's "wrath" remaining on the unbeliever, and his or her not obtaining
eternal life. John spoke of unbelief as disobedience (rejection, NIV),
because when God offers salvation unbelief becomes disobedience.266
God's wrath is His personal response to unbelief, not some impersonal

principle of retribution.
"It is the divine allergy to moral evil, the reaction of

righteousness to unrighteousness. God is neither easily
angered nor vindictive. But by his very nature he is
unalterably committed to opposing and judging all
disobedience."267
Unbelievers will experience God's wrath primarily in the future (cf. 5:28-
29). This is the only reference to God's wrath in John's Gospel or his
265Blum, p. 283.
266See Brad McCoy, "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life," Grace Evangelical Society News
9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.
267Tenney, "John," pp. 52-53.
epistles, though it appears six times in the Book of Revelation (cf. Rom.
1:183:26).
"'The wrath of God' is a concept that is uncongenial to

many modern students, and various devices are adopted to
soften the expression or explain it away. This cannot be
done, however, without doing great violence to many
passages of Scripture and without detracting from God's
moral character. Concerning the first of these points, . . .
there are literally hundreds of passages in the Bible
referring to God's wrath, and the rejection of them all
leaves us with a badly mutilated Bible. And with reference
to the second, if we abandon the idea of the wrath of God
we are left with a God who is not ready to act against moral
evil. . . . We should not expect it [God's wrath] to fade
away with the passage of time. Anyone who continues in
unbelief and disobedience can look for nothing other than
the persisting wrath of God. That is basic to our
understanding of the gospel. Unless we are saved from real
peril there is no meaning in salvation."268
This verse brings the whole third chapter to a climax, and emphasizes the
significance of the Son for salvation and judgment.
In this pericope, the Apostle John explained that Jesus came from heaven with greater
authority than any former prophet. What He revealed came from His own observations in
heaven. His words accurately and fully represented God. Most importantly, He came
because the Father fully endowed Him with divine authority and assistance, out of love.
Consequently He is to be the object of people's faith. All of these things show that He
was superior to John the Baptist, as well as every other divine representative.
The events in John's narrative of Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem (2:133:36) set the tone
for Jesus' ministry, particularly His later occasions of ministry in Jerusalem (ch. 5; 7:10
10:42; 12:12-50). The conflict between belief and unbelief begins to surface here.
D. JESUS' MINISTRY IN SAMARIA 4:1-42

The writer now showed Jesus moving north, from Judea into Samaria, where He had
another important conversation with a person who was completely different from
Nicodemus. As in the previous chapter, theological explanation follows personal
encounter in this one.
1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

There are several connections between this section and the preceding ones that provide
continuity. One is the continuation of water as a symbol (cf. 2:6; 3:5; 4:10-15). Another is
268Morris, p. 220.
the continuation of discussion in which Jesus reveals Himself as the fulfillment of what
the Old Testament anticipated. There are also significant contrasts: an unnamed woman
who was an ordinary, low-ranking Samaritan and a dissolute sinner, contrasts with a
named man who was a high-ranking, morally upright teacher of the Jews and a Pharisee.
Nicodemus sought out Jesus at night, but the Jesus sought out the Samaritan woman at
noon. Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to do something (be born again), but he offered
the woman a gift (the water of life). Concern over worship (the result of salvation)
replaces concern over the new birth (the condition for salvation).
"Nicodemus was an eminent representative of orthodox Judaism. Now

John records an interview Jesus had with one who stood for a class that
was wholeheartedly despised by orthodox Judaism. From the point of
view of the orthodox Jew there were three strikes against her: she was a
Samaritan, a woman, and a sexual sinner."269
The present section begins with another reference to something that resulted from Jesus'
rising popularity (cf. 3:22-26; 4:1-3). This section as a whole is also a model of
evangelistic ministry.
"The Samaritan woman is a timeless figurenot only a typical Samaritan

but a typical human being."270
4:1-3 This three-verse sentence provides the background for what follows. Jesus
returned to "Galilee" from "Judea," where He had been "baptizing" with
"His disciples," because "the Pharisees" were becoming increasingly
aware of His broadening influence among the Jews. He wanted to avoid
unnecessary premature conflict with themnot for fear of them but
because they would create interference to His ministry and schedule. (John
never referred to the Sadducees or the Herodians by name in his Gospel,
because he viewed the Pharisees as the true representatives of the
unbelieving nation of Israel.271)
This is the first time the writer described Jesus as "the Lord." This was
appropriate, in view of the superiority of Jesus that both Johns had just
established (3:28-30, 31-36).
4:4 The most direct and most popular route from Judea to Galilee went
"through Samaria."272 Even though the Jews and the Samaritans did not
get along, most Galilean Jews chose to travel through Samaria rather than
taking the longer route through Perea, east of the Jordan River, which
Judean Jews preferred.273 The trip from Galilee to Jerusalem via Samaria
269Ibid.,p. 225.
270Tasker, p. 75.
271Westcott, p. 66.
272See Finegan, pp. 309-11; and the map "Two Routes between Judea and Galilee" at the end of these
notes.
273Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20:6:1; Edersheim, 1:394.
normally took three days.274 Therefore, John's statement that Jesus "had
to" pass through Samaria, does not necessarily mean that divine
compulsion alone moved Him to choose that route.275 However, most
students of this passage have believed that one of the reasons Jesus took
this route was to minister to the Samaritans.
Politically, Samaria was part of the Roman province of Judea in Jesus'

day. Nevertheless culturally, there were ancient barriers that divided the
residents of Samaria from the Jews who lived in Galilee and Judea.
Wicked King Omri had purchased the hill on which he built Samaria as
the new capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16:24). Herod
the Great later changed its name to Sabaste.276 The name "Samaria"
eventually came to describe the district in which the city stood, and later
even the whole Northern Kingdom.
After the Assyrians captured the city and terminated the kingdom of Israel
in 722 B.C., they deported the substantial citizens and imported foreigners
who intermarried with the remaining Israelites. Most of these foreigners
continued to worship their pagan gods (2 Kings 1718).
The Jews who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian Exile regarded
the residents of Samaria as racial half-breeds and religious compromisers.
The Samaritans resisted Nehemiah's attempts to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem (Neh. 4:1-2). They built a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim opposite
Shechem about 400 B.C., which they dedicated to Zeus Xenios. Centuries
later, John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean ruler of Judea, destroyed both the
rival Samaritan temple and Shechem about 128 B.C.
These actions all resulted in continued hostility between the two groups.
The Samaritans continued to worship on Mt. Gerizim, and accepted only
the Pentateuch as canonical. A small group of Israelis who claim to be
able to trace their ancestry back to the Samaritans survives to the present
day.
4:5 The site of "Sychar" is fairly certain because of unbroken tradition and the
presence of a water source (v. 6). It was very near the Old Testament
"Shechem," Joseph's burial site, near the base of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim
(cf. Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Josh. 24:32). Today the modern town of Nablus
stands nearby. "Nablus" is the modern form of the name that the site later
received in honor of the Roman imperial family, Flavia Neapolis.
4:6 The Greek words that John used to describe this well were pege (here in
v. 6), meaning "a spring," and phrear (vv. 11, 12), meaning "a cistern":
Cistern Spring. Evidently "Jacob's Well" was both a spring and a well. It
274Josephus, The Life . . ., par. 52.

275Barclay,1:138.
276Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 15:8:5.
was a deep hole that someone had dug in the ground, that was fed by a
spring. The site is still a popular tourist attraction, and the deep spring still
flows. Edersheim estimated (in 1886) that the well was originally about
150 feet deep.277
The "sixth hour" when Jesus arrived would have been "noon." Even
though Jesus was the eternal Word, He became fully man (human), and
shared the fatigue and thirst that all travelers experience (cf. Heb. 4:15-
16).
4:7-8 Jesus took the initiative, typically, to speak to the woman. It was unusual
for "a woman" to come "to draw water" alone, and to come in the heat of
the day. Perhaps this woman's "morality" (immorality) led her to shun the
company of other women, and to seek solitude at the expense of comfort
(cf. v. 18). Normally Jesus' disciples would have drawn the water. Jesus
evidently asked the woman for "a drink," both because she was drawing
water, and in order to initiate conversation with her.
Strict Jews would not have purchased food from Samaritans as Jesus'
disciples were attempting to do. Their willingness to do so may reflect
Jesus' looser views on ceremonial defilement. By "looser," I do not mean
that Jesus viewed the Mosaic Law more loosely than He should have, but
more loosely than most of the Pharisees did.
4:9 The Jews typically regarded the Samaritans as unclean apostates.278

Shortly after this incident, the Jews made a law stating that "the daughters
of the Samaritans are menstruants from their cradle"and therefore
perpetually unclean.279 The Pharisees actually prayed that no Samaritan
would be raised in the resurrection!280 When Jesus' enemies wanted to
insult Him, they called Him "a Samaritan" (8:48).
"The normal prejudices of the day prohibited public

conversation between men and women, between Jews and
Samaritans, and especially between strangers. A Jewish
Rabbi would rather go thirsty than violate these
proprieties."281
This accounts for the woman's shock at Jesus' request. (Note that the
woman's first word to Jesus was "How," and Nicodemus' first word to
Jesus was also "How" [3:4].) At this point, she viewed Jesus simply as "a
Jew." Later, ironically, some Jews would call Him "a Samaritan" (8:48).
277Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:404.

278SeeEdersheim, The Life . . ., 1:401.
279Mishnah Niddah 4:1.
280Wiersbe, 1:299; cf. Edersheim, 1:401.
281Blum, p. 285.
"There was a trace of sarcasm in the woman's reply, as if

she meant, 'We Samaritans are the dirt under your feet until
you want something; then we are good enough!"282
John explained for his readers who were unfamiliar with Palestinian
prejudices that the Jews did not use (Gr. synchrontai) the same objects
(i.e., utensils; or, "have no dealings with") as the Samaritans.283 This was
so they could remain ceremonially clean.
4:10 Jesus ignored the woman's implied insult. She had drawn attention, both to
the gift of water that Jesus was requesting, and to the identity of Jesus as a
Jew. Jesus picked up on both subjects, and used them to whet the woman's
curiosity. Jesus implied that God had a greater gift (Gr. dorea) for her, and
that He had the authority to give it to her. The word that Jesus used for
"gift" occurs only here in the Gospels. It stressed the freeness of God's
gift. Here was another person who did not perceive Jesus' true glory or
identity (cf. 1:14).
Most interpreters understand Jesus' reference to "the gift of God" as a

reference to eternal life, though some believe He was alluding to the
Torah.284 If the latter interpretation is correct, Jesus meant that if the
woman knew her Torah, and who He was, she would have asked Jesus for
something (cf. 3:10; 5:39-40). This interpretation seems unlikely to me,
because her probably very limited knowledge of the Torah would not have
enabled her to ask Jesus for "living water." She did not yet recognize Him
as the Messiah.
The "living water" that Jesus promised has two meanings. Literally it
refers to flowing water in contrast to stagnant water. Metaphorically it
refers to the cleansing and refreshing grace that the Holy Spirit brings as a
result of a proper relationship with God (7:38-39; cf. Isa. 1:16-18; Ezek.
36:25-27; Zech. 14:8; John 3:5). The Old Testament used "water" to
symbolize teaching or doctrine, and "living water" as a metaphor for God
(cf. Ps. 36:9; Isa. 55:1; Jer. 2:13; 17:13).285
Jesus' evangelistic method on this occasion was to start where the woman
was, with something material (earthly or practical) that they both had in
common, namely: the desire for water. He then captured her curiosity by
implying that He was not just whomever He appeared to be, and that He
could give her something very valuablethough free. She would have
wondered: "Who is this, what is this gift of God, and what is this living
water?"

283D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 373-82.
284E.g., Odeberg, p. 150.
285See ibid., pp. 149-69.
"Whenever He witnessed to people, Jesus did not use a

'sales talk' that He adapted to meet every situation. To
Nicodemus, He spoke about new birth; but to this woman,
He spoke about living water."286
4:11-12 The woman responded by trying to find out how Jesus could give her "that
living water," and who He was. She said "that living water" probably to
avoid the embarrassment of asking what "living water" was. Obviously
she thought Jesus was a cheap charlatan. Her question expected a negative
answer. Also, she could not see how He could be "greater than" the
patriarch ("our father") "Jacob."
Even today this is one of the deepest wells in Palestine, being over 75 feet
deep, as local guides delight to point out.287 Her reference to "our father
Jacob" was probably another barb, designed to remind this Jew that Jacob
was the Samaritans' ancestor as well as the Jews'. The Samaritans traced
their descent from Jacob through Joseph and his sons: Ephraim and
Manasseh.288
"There are not now [in the mid-19th century] two hundred
Samaritans, all told, in the world. They themselves mention
one hundred and fifty as the correct census."289
4:13-14 Jesus explained that He was not really speaking about literal water, but a
spiritual source of refreshment and fulfillment that satisfied completely.
To be able to provide such water, Jesus would indeed have to be "greater"
than Jacob. Jesus described this water as "welling (springing) up" within
the individual. Clearly He was referring to the "Holy Spirit" who provides
eternal life (cf. 7:38-39). As in His conversation with Nicodemus (3:5),
Jesus again alluded to the Old Testament passages that promised salvation
pouring forth like satisfying water (e.g., Isa. 12:3; 44:3; 49:10; 55:1-7; Jer.
31:29-34; Ezek. 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-32). The water that Jesus promised
provided satisfaction without hard work to acquire it, in contrast to the
literal water that the woman had to draw out of the well.
4:15 The woman did not pretend to understand what Jesus was talking about,
but she did want to avoid the tiresome work involved in drawing water
from Jacob's well. Since Jesus had offered it, she asked Him to "give" her
whatever it was that He had (cf. 3:4; 6:34).
4:16 So far the woman thought only of her physical need for water and rest.
Jesus now took the conversation in a different direction, to help her realize
that she had greater needs than these that He could meet (cf. 2:24-25).
286Wiersbe,1:300.
287Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden, 3:388.
289W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 2:214-15.
Jesus' instruction to "call" her "husband" was proper, because if He was

really going to give her something valuable, her husband needed to be
present. This was necessary to avoid any misunderstanding about the
reason for the giftespecially in view of Samaritan/Jewish tensions.
4:17-18 The woman wanted Jesus' gift, so she admitted that she had "no husband."
She probably hoped that He would now give it to her. Instead, however,
Jesus gave her a shocking revelation. He knew about her marital relations
intimately, but He related what He knew tastefully. He commended her
twice for telling the truth about her present marital status, but He also
unmasked her past.
We do not know how each of her previous marriages had ended, whether
in death or divorce. However, it would have been very unusual for all five
former husbands to have died. The implication is that some divorce had
torn her marriages apart. This implication is even more probable in view
of the woman's present live-in arrangement with a sixth man. She was not
living by the moral code of her religion. Perhaps this explains her coming
to draw water, alone, and at such an unlikely hour (v. 6).
4:19 Many women would have simply turned and walked away at such a
revelation of their private lives and sins. This woman continued talking
with Jesus. Probably she had become used to dealing with people who
knew about her sinful life, so she coolly observed that Jesus must be "a
prophet." She believed He could not have known these things without
special insight (cf. v. 29; Luke 7:39).
"The word 'prophet' was used to refer to a wide range of

'gifted' people, and at this point may not, in the woman's
mind, denote a full-orbed Old Testament prophet, let alone
a messianic figure."290
"The Samaritans acknowledged no prophet after Moses

other than the one spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:18, and
him they regarded as the Messiah . . . For her to speak of
Jesus as a prophet was thus to move into the area of
messianic speculation."291
4:20 Being a woman of the world, she had probably learned that many
"religious people" enjoy discussing controversial theological issues. She
took the opportunity to divert the conversation, which was becoming
uncomfortably convicting, hoping that Jesus would follow her new
subject. She must have thought that surely He could not resist the
temptation to argue Jewish supremacy in the age-old Samaritan/Jewish
290Carson, p. 221.
291Morris, p. 236. Cf. Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:414.
debate. (Barrett claimed that this view psychologizes the story in a way
that John did not intend.292)
"There are some people who cannot engage in a religious

conversation with a person of a different persuasion
without bringing up the points on which they differ."293
Another view is that the woman sincerely wanted to know the answer to
her question.
"To a Samaritan no question could appear more worthy of a

prophet's decision than the settlement of the religious
centre of the world. Thus the difficulty which is proposed is
not a diversion, but the natural thought of one brought face
to face with an interpreter of the divine will."294
Perhaps both elements figured in her motivation.
Part of the old controversy involved the proper place of worship. In

Deuteronomy 12:5, God had said that His people were to seek the place
that He would choose among their tribes where He would dwell among
them. The Jews, accepting all the Old Testament as authoritative, saw God
doing this later when He commanded David to build the temple in
Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 11:13; 14:21; 2 Chron. 6:6; 12:13).
The Samaritans, who acknowledged only the authority of the Pentateuch,

believed that Mount Gerizim near Shechem was the place that God had
appointed. They based this belief on the fact that God had told the
Israelites to worship Him on Mt. Gerizim after they entered the Promised
Land (Deut. 11:29-30; 27:2-7, 12). In the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
Israelites built their altar on Mt. Gerizim, not on Mt. Ebal (Deut. 27:4).
"Shechem" had long associations as a place where God had met with His
people. It was where God first revealed Himself to Abraham, and where
Abraham first built an altar after entering the Promised Land (Gen. 12:6-
7). The Samaritans believed that Abraham had met Melchizedek on Mt.
Gerizim (Gen. 14:17), and had later offered Isaac there (Gen. 22:2, 9).295 It
was also where Jacob had chosen to live, and where he had buried his
idols after returning from Paddan-aram (Gen. 33:18-20; 35:4).296
292Barrett,
p. 236.
293F.F. Bruce, p. 108.
294Westcott, p. 71.
295The Nelson . . ., p. 1766.
296For more information on Samaritan thought, see R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of
Samaritanism Reconsidered; and J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans.
"They [the Samaritans] had a tradition that Abraham's

offering of Isaac took place on this mountain and they held
that it was here that Abraham met Melchizedek. In fact,
most of the blessed events in the time of the patriarchs
seem to have been linked with Gerizim!"297
4:21 Jesus avoided the temptation to abandon discussion of living water. He

told the woman that the real issue was not where God's people had
worshipped Him in the past, but how they would worship Him in the
future. This was the more important issue since Messiah had come, and
would terminate worship as both the Jews and the Samaritans knew it.
Jesus urged her to "believe" Himafter all, she had already acknowledged
Him as a prophet. This command ("believe Me") was an added guarantee
that what He said was true. The "hour" (Gr. hora) or time that Jesus
referred to was the time of His passion.298 The "Father" was a term for
God that Jesus employed frequently (cf. 2:16; 11:41; 12:27-28; 17:1).
4:22 By "you" Jesus meant the Samaritans (plural "you" in Gr.). They
worshipped a God whom they did "not" really "know." The reason for this
was their rejection of most of His revelation in the Old Testament. On top
of this, the Samaritans had added pagan concepts to their faith that came
from their Gentile forefathers. If the woman truly believed that Jesus was
a prophet, as she claimed, she would have to accept His statement. There
was more and truer information about God that she and her fellow
Samaritans needed to learn than they presently knew. Jesus was providing
that correction and some of that new revelation.
By contrast, the Jews accepted all of God's revelation in the Old

Testament, and therefore knew the God whom they worshipped.
Additionally, they were the people through whom that revelation had
come. Jesus here summarized all Old Testament revelation as being
essentially soteriological. God intended His revelation to result in
salvation for humankind (cf. 3:17). In that sense, "salvation" had come
"from the Jews" (cf. Rom. 3:2; 9:4-5). Salvation also came from the Jews
in that Messiah came from Judah's tribe (Gen. 49:10), whereas the
Samaritans traced their ancestry through Joseph.299
Jesus did not take sides on the question of the place of worship, but He did
clarify the proper basis of authority as being the whole Old Testament.
4:23 The "hour" that was "coming" was the hour of Jesus' passion, when the old
way of worship would end. That "hour" (for a new form of worship) was
already present ("and now is [here]") in the sense that since Messiah had
297Morris,p. 237.
298See my comments on 2:4.
come, His followers could begin to worship according to the new way.
This figure of speech (oxymoron) means that what will characterize the
future is even now present. An oxymoron involves the joining of
contradictory or incongruous terms to make a point.300 The time of unique
privilege for the Jews was ending temporarily. It hinged on their
acceptance of Messiah (cf. 2:19-20).
"True worshippers" are not those who will worship in the future,
contrasted with those who have worshipped in the past. The distinction is
not between Jews and Samaritans, either. "True worshippers" are those
from either time or group that "worship" God "in spirit and truth."
What does it mean to worship "in spirit and truth"? The Greek text has one
preposition ("in") that governs both nouns ("spirit," "truth"), linked by the
conjunction ("and," cf. 3:5; 4:24). This means that Jesus was describing
one characteristic with two nouns, not two separate characteristics of
worship. We could translate the phrase "truly spiritual." This is a
hendiadys, a figure of speech in which the speaker expresses a single
complex idea by joining two substantives with "and," rather than by using
an adjective and a substantive. Though the idea is one, it has two
components.
What is "truly spiritual" worship? It is, first, worship that is spiritual in
every respect: in its source, mediator, object, subject, basis, and method. It
rises from the "spirit" of the worshipper, not just his or her mouth; it is
heartfelt. In addition, truly spiritual worship proceeds from a person who
has spiritual life because of the new birth that the Holy Spirit has effected.
It passes from believers to God through a spiritual mediator, namely: Jesus
Christ. Its object is spiritual, namely: "God" who "is spirit." Its subject is
spiritual matters.
This worship can include physical matters, such as singing and studying,
but it comprehends the spiritual realm as well as the physical. Its basis is
the spiritual work that Jesus Christ did in His incarnation and atonement.
Its method is spiritual as contrasted with physical; it does not consist of
merely physical actions, but involves the interaction of the human spirit
with the divine spirit. Generally speaking, Judaism was a worship of the
letter, not of the spirit.
For example, many people today associate worship primarily with going
to church, as the Jews did with going to Jerusalem. Jesus clarified that
"true" worship transcends any particular time or place. We can and should
worship God 24 hours a day as we set aside (sanctify) every activity as an
expression of our love and service for the Lord.301 That is truly spiritual
worship.
300See Appendix 7 "Some figures of speech in Scripture" at the end of my notes on Matthew.
301See Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pp. 77-84.
"Truth" in this context contrasts with the hypocrisy that characterized so

much of Jewish and Samaritan worship, which is still present in worship
today. Samaritanism was a worship of falsehood, not of the truth. Worship
"in truth" is sincere, God-centered worship, rather than just going through
motions, or worshipping for what we can get out of it, instead of as an
offering to the Lord. It is also worship that is in harmony with the truth
that God has revealed in His Word.
"A true idea of God is essential to a right service of

Him."302
True worship is all about Him, not about us. Matt Redman's song, "Heart
of Worship," expresses this well: "I'll bring You more than a song,
because the song itself is not what You've required. You search much
deeper within than the way things appear. You're looking into my heart."
"The combination 'spirit and truth' points to the need for

complete sincerity and complete reality in our approach to
God."303
Another view of "in spirit and truth," is that "spirit" refers to the realm in
which people must worship God, and "truth" refers to Jesus who is the
"Truth of God" (14:6).304 However, in this context Jesus was apparently
contrasting integrity and reality in worship, with the externalism and
hypocrisy that marked so much worship in His day.
A third view is that "spirit" refers to the heart, and "truth" refers to the
Scriptures. The meaning then is that worshippers must be sincere and
worship God in harmony with His self-revelation in Scripture. This is
good advice, but again the context suggests a slightly different meaning of
"truth" here, suggesting a genuine offering from or of oneself to the real
and actual, one and only, true God.
4:24 The AV has Jesus saying, "God is a spirit." One could infer that He is one
spirit among many. The NASB and NIV have, "God is spirit." The Greek
text has no indefinite article ("a"), but it is legitimate to supply one, as is
often true in similar anarthrous (without the article) constructions.
However, the absence of the article often deliberately stresses the
character to the noun (cf. 1 John 1:5; 4:8). That seems to have been Jesus'
intention here.
The sense of the passage is that God is "spirit" as opposed to "flesh." He is

invisible, divine, and essentially unknowable. Nevertheless He has chosen
to reveal Himself (1:1-18). Since He is a spiritual rather than a corporeal
302Westcott, p. 73.
303Morris,p. 239.
304Blum, p. 286.
being, those who worship Him must do so in a spiritual rather than a

material way. A spiritual (new) birth (3:5) is prerequisite for true spiritual
worship.
The essential reason worship of God must be spiritual is that God is a

spiritual being, not a physical idol. Worship of a spiritual God requires
spiritual worship, not just going through certain acts of worship at special
places of worship. Furthermore, people cannot worship God in any
manner that may seem attractive to them. They must worship Him as He,
by the Spirit, has revealed that we should.
4:25 Jesus' explanation must have made some sense to this woman, who lived
life on a very physical level. Nevertheless she did not pretend to
comprehend all this spiritual talk. One thing she understood clearly, and
she believed Jesus would agree with her about this. "Messiah" was
"coming," and when He arrived, He would reveal divine mysteries and
clarify ("declare," explain) "all" these matters (cf. 16:13). The Samaritans
anticipated Messiah's arrival, as the Jews did, but they viewed Him
primarily as a teacher (Deut. 18:15-19).305 They usually referred to Him as
the Taheb (probably meaning "the Restorer" or possibly "He who
returns").306 Here John translated the meaning of "Messiah" ("He who is
called Christ") for his Gentile readers (cf. 1:38, 41).
4:26 Because the woman was prepared to welcome Messiah in His prophetic
dignity, Jesus then identified Himself to her as the Messiah whom she
hoped for. Jesus did not reveal Himself to the Jews as the Messiah because
of their identification of Messiah, almost exclusively, as a military
deliverer. If He had done so, He may well have ignited a revolution.
However, He did not hesitate to identify Himself as Messiah to this
woman, because as a Samaritan she did not hold the common Jewish view
of Messiah.
The writer used Jesus' own clear testimony here, as another witness to His
identity, so his readers would believe in Him. Jesus' self-revelation here
climaxes John's account of this conversation. This is the only time that
Jesus clearly identified Himself as the Messiah before His trial. However,
Mark 9:41 records that He used the term of Himself on another occasion
indirectly. His self-identification here constituted an invitation for the
woman to come to Him for salvation.
Nicodemus contrasts with the Samaritan woman in many ways. As John portrayed them
in his narrative, they seem to typify Jews and non-Jews as well as the normal reactions of
those groups to Jesus.307
305SeeEdersheim, The Life . . ., 1:402-3, for other things the Samaritans believed.
306Barrett,p. 239; Carson, p. 226.
307Chart adapted from The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, p. 284.
CONTRASTS BETWEEN NICODEMUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN

Nicodemus The Samaritan Woman
Sex Male Female
Race Pure Jewish Mixed Gentile
Social status Highly respected, ruler, teacher Not respected, servant, learner
Place Jewish territory Samaritan territory
Time At night About noon
Condition Darkness Light
Setting Indoors Outdoors
Occasion Pre-planned Spontaneous
Subject New birth Living water
Initiator Nicodemus Jesus
Conversation Faded out Continued strong
Result Unbelief Belief
Consequence No witness to others Witness to others
2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38
Jesus had modeled evangelistic effectiveness for His disciples, though ironically they
were absent for most of the lesson. Now He explained the rewards, urgency, and
partnership of evangelism.
4:27 When Jesus' disciples returned from their shopping trip (v. 8), they were
amazed to see Jesus talking with a woman. Their reaction reflects the
typical Jewish prejudices against Samaritans and women. It was
uncommon for rabbis to speak with women.308 However, they refrained
from questioning her and Him, probably to avoid becoming involved in
this unusual conversation.
4:28 The fact that "the woman left her waterpot" at the well suggests that she
felt such excitement, at having apparently discovered the Messiah, that all
but telling others left her mind. The Apostle John may have included this
detail because her act had symbolic significance. Some commentators
suggested that in her excitement, she abandoned the old "waterpot"
(ceremonial structure) that was no longer necessary (cf. v. 23). I doubt this
interpretation, and tend to view this detail as simply evidence of her
excitement. There is plenty of symbolism in this story already that Jesus
explained.
308For some of their sayings prohibiting conversation with females, see Morris, p. 242; Westcott, p. 74; and
Barrett, p. 240.
It would have been natural for the woman to report her discovery "to the
men" in Sychar, because they (as the spiritual leaders) would have had to
determine if Jesus really was the Messiah.
4:29 Her hyperbole is understandable, and her example as a witness was a good
one for John's readers. What made her think that Jesus could be the
Messiah, was not only His claim, but His ability to know her past, His
words, and His works. She wisely framed her thinking about Jesus in the
form of a question to elicit investigation, rather than as a dogmatic
assertion that others would probably have rejected out of hand (cf. v. 12).
4:30 The "men," probably the community leaders, proceeded "out of the city"
to the well, to investigate Jesus' identity. Some of them may have wanted
the secrets of this woman's past, perhaps secrets involving themselves, to
remain buried.
4:31-32 Jesus showed little interest in eating, even though He was probably hungry
(v. 6). He used the disciples' "urging" of Him to eat, to teach them
something about His priorities. Something was more satisfying to Him ("I
have [special, different, better] food to eat") than physical food. They
showed interest in physical need primarily, but He had more concern for
spiritual need.
4:33-34 The disciples continued to think only on the level of physical food, as the
woman had thought only of physical water (v. 15). They were all
unspiritual in their thinking. Jesus responded that what satisfied Him ("My
food"), more than physical food, was the spiritual nourishment that came
from doing the Father's "will," and advancing "His work" (cf. Deut. 8:3;
Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4; John 5:36; 6:38). That mission involved bringing
eternal life to people (cf. 20:21).
"The Messianic consciousness of Jesus is clear and steady

(5:30; 6:38). He never doubted that the Father sent him."309
"The creative will of God, realized in obedience, sustains

life."310
4:35 Jesus continued to speak of spiritual matters in physical terms. The

whitened "fields" represent humankind in its condition of being "ripe" for
divine judgment. Perhaps as Jesus spoke these words, the disciples
observed the customarily white-clothed men of Sychar, wending their way
through the fields toward them as so much living grain.

310Barrett, p. 241.
Jesus' reference to "four months" was probably proverbial. It was the

approximate time between the last sowing and the earliest "harvest"
reaping.311 His point was that between the spiritual task of sowing the
gospel and reaping belief, the intervening time may be very brief.312
The disciples needed spiritual vision. They could obtain it by lifting their
"eyes" and looking "on the fields" of lost people, that are "white for
harvest," rather than being completely absorbed in their physical needs. As
with physical grain, the opportunity for harvesting spiritually is relatively
brief. If left unreached, like unreaped grain, people die in their sins.
4:36 The reaper ("one who reaps"; harvester) in view was Jesus, and
potentially, His disciples could become reapers too. The "wages" that
reapers receive are the reward for their labor. For Jesus, this was the
exaltation that the Father gave Him, and the "children" (the redeemed, His
bride) He will give Him, for carrying out His will faithfully. For the
disciples, it is the rewards that they, and we, can receive at the judgment
seat of Christ for faithful service. Some of this reward comes immediately,
in the form of satisfaction and perhaps other blessings. The "fruit" is
probably a reference to the people, as harvested grain, who will obtain
eternal life. The person "who sows" is anyone who proclaims the gospel,
but ultimately Jesus (cf. Matt. 13:37).
4:37 "Thus" in the NIV is misleading. It implies that this verse explains the
previous one. However, the Greek term, en touto (lit. in this) can look
forward as well as backward. In this case it looks forward. Verse 37,
which contains a proverb, summarizes verse 38. It means that both sowers
and reapers are necessary to get a good harvest. Sowers must not think that
their work is secondary to reaping, and reapers must remember the
important contribution of those who sow. Today, some Christians do more
sowing than reaping, and others experience more fruitful ministries as
harvesters. Both are essential in God's plan (cf. 1 Cor. 3:6).
"The reaping of people for the granary of God is not the

task of any one group, nor is it confined to one era. Each
reaps the benefit of its forerunners, and succeeding
generations in turn gain from the accomplishments of their
predecessors."313
4:38 This proverb was true in the case of Jesus and His disciples. The purpose
of the disciples' calling was for reaping believers in Jesus. The Apostle
John did not record Jesus commissioning them for that purpose earlier, but
that was His purpose (cf. v. 2). The Old Testament prophets and John the
312Barrett,
p. 241.
Baptist had sowed, but now Jesus and His disciples were reaping (cf.
Acts 2).
3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42
The response of the Samaritans to Jesus was considerably more positive than the
response of the Jews had been (1:11; 2:23-25). This would prove true as Jesus' ministry
continued. Non-Jews normally responded more positively to Jesus than did Jews, both in
the Gospels and in Acts.
4:39 Harvesting followed the arrival of the Samaritans who had come out from
Sychar to see Jesus. "Many of the Samaritans believed" initially "on
Jesus" because of the woman's verbal witness (her "word"). She had
brought them to Jesus. This verse should encourage every believing
reader. God uses the witness of all types of people, concerning Jesus'
identity, to bring others to faith in Him. Bearing witness is the work of
disciples (cf. John the Baptist, and the apostles).
4:40-42 The openness of these Samaritans contrasts with the hostility of so many
of Jesus' Jewish hearers (cf. 1:11). It required considerable humility for
these Samaritans to invite a Jewish rabbi to stay with them (v. 9). During
the following "two days," "many more" Samaritansthan just those who
visited Jesus by Jacob's wellbecame believers in Him.
These additional converts "believed" because of Jesus' "word" (Jesus' own

witness), which confirmed to them what the woman had said about Him.
Jesus' testimony produced certain knowledge in the Samaritans ("we
know," v. 42). Their faith received a firmer foundation than just the
witness of another believer. It rested on personal contact with Jesus. The
joint testimony of believers and the Word of God is a powerful
evangelistic combination. These simple Samaritans understood what
sophisticated Nicodemus could not (cf. Matt. 11:25).
The title "Savior of the world" is unique to John, occurring only here and
in 1 John 4:14 (cf. 1:29, 34; 3:17).
". . . it is a significant fact that this magnificent conception

of the work of Christ was first expressed by a Samaritan,
for whom the hope of a Deliverer had not been shaped to
suit national ambition."314
John's original readers would have been familiar with the title, because the
Greeks and Romans gave it to several of their gods and emperors.315
Nevertheless Jesus was the true "Savior of the world," whom these
314Westcott, p. 77.
315Carson, p. 232.
Samaritans recognized as such. The Old Testament spoke of God in this

role (e.g., Ps. 35:9; Jon. 2:9). Jesus was "God in action," saving the world.
This does not mean that everyone will experience eternal salvation, as the
doctrine of universalism teaches, but that Jesus has made everyone
savable, and that those who believe on Him obtain salvation.
"It is interesting to trace our Lord's movements that brought

Him to Samaria. He was in Jerusalem (John 2:23) and then
came into Judea (John 3:22). From Judea He went into
Samaria (John 4:4), and the Samaritans declared Him to be
'the Savior of the world.' This is a perfect parallel to Acts
1:8'And ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost
part of the earth.' Our Lord has set the example. If we
follow, He will give us the harvest."316
This was the first instance of cross-cultural evangelism that the Gospel evangelists
recorded in Jesus' ministry. Jesus' ministry to Gentiles came later, according to their
records. Jesus later charged the church to continue cross-cultural evangelism (Acts 1:8).
Still later, Philip evangelized in Samaria with great success, perhaps in this very region
(Acts 8:4-8). Jesus' ministry here was not only reaping, but sowing. Philip reaped what
Jesus had sowed.
E. JESUS' RESUMPTION OF HIS GALILEAN MINISTRY 4:43-54
Jesus continued to move north, back into Galilee, where He healed a nobleman's son.
1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45
John again bridged the gap between important events in his narrative with a transitional
explanation of how Jesus moved from one site to another (cf. 2:12; 4:1-3). John typically
focused on clusters of events in Jesus' ministry (cf. 1:19, 29, 35, 43; 2:1). However, this
move completed a cycle in Jesus' movements, and almost completed one in John's
narrative.
4:43 "The two days" in view are those that Jesus spent ministering to the
Samaritans (v. 40). He now resumed the trip that John referred to in
verse 3.
4:44-45 These verses seem incongruous. If "a prophet has no honor in his own
country," why did "the Galileans" welcome Jesus, since Galilee was His
homeland? The Greek word patris translated "country" can mean either
homeland or hometown. The Synoptics always used it to describe
"Nazareth" (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24).
316Wiersbe, 1:302.
One explanation is that John viewed Judea as Jesus' homeland, or possibly

Jerusalem as His hometown.317 Perhaps John regarded Judea and
Jerusalem as Jesus' spiritual homeland and hometown, since He was
David's spiritual heir. The "Jews" is a term that John used particularly of
the Jews in Judea (cf. 1:19; 7:1). However, John frequently referred to
Nazareth as Jesus' physical home (1:45-46; 7:41, 52; 19:19). Besides,
Jesus did not choose where He ministered based on the popular acceptance
He received. He did seek to avoid premature conflict with the religious
leaders in Jerusalem, but the implication of verses 44 and 45 is that Jesus'
"honor" was the determining factor. Furthermore, the reception that Jesus
received in Galilee was not entirely positive.
A second explanation is that patris refers to heaven.318 However, this view

does not explain why John included the proverb as an explanation for
Jesus' going into Galilee from Judea.
Probably patris refers to Galilee in contrast to Samaria, rather than in

contrast to Judea.319 Jesus' own country was Jewish turf rather than
Samaritan territory. On Jewish turf Jesus had not experienced the honor
that He had among the Samaritans (cf. 2:18, 20, 22, 23-25; 3:10; 4:1-3).
The "so" or "therefore" that begins verse 45 does not explain why Jesus
went back into Jewish territory. He did not go there because the Jews
typically rejected Him. The "so" or "therefore" introduces the reason for
the Galileans' reception of Him that follows. The people from the
Prophet's own country (Galilean Jews)only received Him because they
had seen the miracles that He had done at Passover in Jerusalem, not
because they honored Him as a prophet (cf. v. 48). Thus John was
contrasting the unbelief of the Jews with the belief of the Samaritans.
2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54
This incident completes a cycle in John's Gospel. Jesus performed His first sign in Cana
(2:1), and now He returned and did another miracle there (v. 46). There is even a second
reference to Capernaum (2:12; 4:46). John's account of Jesus' first miracle in Cana (2:11)
ended with a reference to the weak faith of the Jews that rested only on miracles (2:23-
25). His account of Jesus' second miracle in Cana (4:54) opens with a similar reference
(4:45, 48).320 In short, this section seems to be an inclusio, framed by two miracles in
Cana, with two conversations occurring between them. Jesus' conversation with
Nicodemus is typical of the reception that the Jews gave Him, but His conversation with
317Westcott, p. 77; Hoskyns, pp. 287-88; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, pp. 200-201.
318Lightfoot,p. 35.
319Brown, 1:187; Carson, pp. 235-36; John W. Pryor, "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63. For several other less probable solutions, see D. A. Carson, "Current Source
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions," Journal of Biblical Literature 97
(1978):424, n. 50.
320See Pink, 1:231-32, for seven comparisons between the two Cana miracle stories.
the Samaritan woman shows the reception that non-Jews more typically gave Him. We
see these two attitudes toward Jesus, not only in the Gospel accounts of His ministry, but
also in Acts. The center section that the structure highlights is essentially an exposition of
Jesus' mission (3:16-36).
A Jesus' first sign in Cana 2:1-11

B A reference to Capernaum, Jesus' headquarters 2:12
C Hostility toward Jesus in Jerusalem 2:13-25
D Nicodemus' response to Jesus 3:1-15
E The importance of Jesus' mission 3:16-36
D' The Samaritan woman's response to Jesus 4:1-38
C' Acceptance of Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42
B' A reference to Galilee, Jesus' major ministry arena 4:43-45
A' Jesus' second sign in Cana 4:46-54
This pericope (4:46-54) constitutes the closing incident in John's account of Jesus' early
public ministry (chs. 24). It shows Him returning to Cana, Nathanael's hometown
(21:2), where He performed another significant miracle. John evidently included it to
show that Jesus' demonstration of His authority resulted in some Jews believing on Him.
"Both the miracles performed at Cana . . . are thus shown to have been
prompted by trust. Mary trusted her Son to do something to relieve the
embarrassment of their host at the wedding. The father of the sick boy was
equally confident that he could rely on Jesus' help. Both miracles are also
shown to have resulted in a personal surrender to Jesus which is full
Christian faith. His disciples believed on Him after the water had been
turned into wine; the father and the rest of his household believed as the
result of the healing of the boy: and in both cases the verb in the original is
an inceptive aorist 'they put their faith in Him'."321
4:46 John's reference to "Cana" and the first miracle seems intended to remind
the reader of that event and to suggest the completion of a cycle. John did
not reveal the reason Jesus returned there. The "royal official" (Gr.
basilikos) was, going by his title, a man who served a king, in either a civil
or a military capacity.322 That "king" was probably Herod Antipas, in view
of where he lived. Antipas was not an official king, but the people
popularly regarded him as one (cf. Mark 6:14). This official was probably
Jewish (v. 48).
Whether this royal official was the "Chuza" who was Herod's steward,
mentioned in Luke 8:3, remains a mystery. Jesus also healed the servant of
a Gentile centurion in Capernaum (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10), but that
321Tasker, pp. 82-83.

was a different individual and a different occasion. An important feature

of this sign was the significant distance between Jesus' location, in "Cana,"
and where the official's son lay ill, in "Capernaum."
4:47 The official appealed to Jesus to make the approximately 13-mile trip
from Cana to Capernaum to heal his son. He obviously believed that Jesus
could "heal" people, but there is no indication that he initially believed
that Jesus was more than a healer.
"Instances are recorded in the Talmud, which may here

serve as our guide. Various cases are related in which those
seriously ill, and even at the point of death, were restored
by the prayers of celebrated Rabbis."323
He must have felt desperate to seek Jesus from such a distance. Jesus' first
sign came in response to a mother's request (2:1-5), but this second one
came in response to a father's request.
"The nobleman believed that Jesus could heal his son, but
he made two mistakes in his thinking: that Jesus had to go
to Capernaum to save the lad, and that if the boy died
meanwhile, it was too late."324
4:48 The official was simply responding like most Galileans would have. Jesus
used the plural "you," indicating that this man's unbelief was typical of
most of his neighbors (cf. 2:24). Jesus' mention of "signs" (Gr. semeia)
pointed to the significance of His miracles. This is the only place in John's
Gospel where "wonders" occurs. This word (Gr. terata) stresses the
wonder or awe that these miracles produced in those who witnessed them.
Jesus' use of the word suggests that the people wanted to see miracles just
so they could marvel at them.
Jesus implied that the man did "not believe" in Him. He did, of course,
believe that Jesus could heal His son, but he had not yet come to believe
that He could heal from a distance. Jesus viewed that second level of
belief as the significant one. The official may well have thought: "What do
You mean I do not believe on You?" The man probably felt rebuked by
Jesus' comment, but Jesus' aim was to bring him to deeper faith in
Himself.
4:49 The officer showed little interest in the reasons people did or did not
believe in Jesus, since his little boy "child" (Gr. paidion) lay at death's
door. He desperately appealed again to Jesus to "come" quickly to
Capernaum("before" his boy died).
323Ibid.
324Wiersbe, 1:303.
4:50 Jesus did not do what the father asked, but He gave him a promise instead:
his son would live. The official seized the promise, and departed for home
alone, demonstrating that he "believed" Jesus could heal from a distance.
If he had refused to go home without Jesus, he would have been
disbelieving Jesus' word. He chose not to insist on receiving evidence, and
exercised faith without tangible proof. Thus he "believed" in Jesus in a
deeper sense than he had at first, because he put his faith in His promise:
"the word that Jesus spoke."
"The official became a model of what it means to believe
apart from signs."325
4:51-53 His servants met him on his way back to Capernaum with good news.
Jesus had made His promise about 1:00 p.m. the day before the official
met his servants. When he met them, he learned that his son's condition
had improved significantlynot just had begun to improve as he had
expectedbut at the very moment Jesus had given His promise. His
recovery was no accident. This resulted in his believing in Jesus to an even
deeper level, though he may not have understood that He was the Son of
God. The members of "his household" believed in Jesus too (cf. 2:11; Acts
10:2; 11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8). He learned that Jesus' word is powerful to
save even at a distance. His faith grew from "crisis faith" (v. 47), to
"confident faith" (v. 50), to "confirmed faith" (v. 53), to "contagious faith"
(v. 53).326
4:54 John, interestingly, called this miracle the "second sign that Jesus
performed," even though He did other miracles in both Galilee and Judea,
after He had changed the water to wine (cf. 2:23; 3:2). Additionally, this is
the "second" of several (seven) miracles that John labeled in his Gospel as
signs, although he himself numbered only the first two. These facts point
to John's regarding of the first and second signs as similar and related to
each other. The structure of this part of John's narrative, as I have sought
to explain it above, accounts for his view of this second sign.
John explained further that Jesus "performed" this sign after "He had
come out of Judea into Galilee." This appears to be another geographical
signpost designed to help the reader follow Jesus' movements. It also
suggests a contrast between the unbelief that marked Judea, and the faith
that was more prominent in Galilee.
This miracle, as the first one that John described in detail, had a limited audience. Only
the family and household servants of the official knew of it at first. This was typical of
Jesus' ministry. While Jesus performed many public miracles, and huge crowds followed
Him because they witnessed them, they had the desired impact on relatively few
individuals (cf. 1:11-12).
325Howard, p. 70.
326Wiersbe, 1:303.
John recorded many witnesses to Jesus' identity in his record of Jesus' early ministry (chs.
24). This part of John's Gospel is a section framed by two miracles in Cana with two
statements about unbelief by Jesus, and two evangelistic conversations of Jesus occurring
between those miracles. The first sign testified to His creative power to change the
quality of things.327 His cleansing of the temple showed His authority over the
institutions of Judaism. Nicodemus testified to Jesus having come from God, and His role
as an authoritative teacher, which was a common Jewish response to Him. John the
Baptist bore witness to Jesus' identity as the Messiah. The Samaritan woman's testimony
implied that Jesus was omniscient. Many other Samaritans acknowledged Jesus as the
Savior of the world, which was a common Gentile response to Him. The official whose
son Jesus healed from afar came to recognize Him as the Healer whose word can
overcome the problem of distance as well as disease.328
The first sign in John's Gospel shows Jesus' power over time, and the second sign shows
His power over space. John the Apostle also called Him the "Son of God," the "Giver of
eternal life," and the "One from heaven." This section of the book, therefore, makes an
important contribution to the advance of John's argument and the fulfillment of his
purpose (20:30-31).
F. JESUS' SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM CH. 5
"In chapters 14 the subject is described from the standpoint of a

spectator, ab extra, and we are thus enabled to see something of the
impression created on others by our Lord as He deals with individuals in
Jerusalem, Samaria, and Galilee. When, however, we turn to chapters 5
10, we cannot but be conscious of a change of standpoint, for we see
Christ as it were from within, from His own point of view, in all the glory
of His self-conscious personal revelation. In each chapter He is seen to
concentrate attention on Himself in various aspects, and men are enabled
to see something of what He claims to be in relation to God and man."329
"Up to the present time the Lord has offered Himself to typical
representatives of the whole Jewish race at Jerusalem, in Judaea, in
Samaria, and in Galilee, in such a way as to satisfy the elements of true
faith. Now the conflict begins which issues in the Passion. Step by step
faith and unbelief are called out in a parallel development. . . . The crises
of its development are the national Festivals. And the whole controversy is
gathered round three miracles. (1) The healing of the impotent man at
Bethesda (v.). (2) The healing of the man born blind (ix.). (3) The raising
of Lazarus (xi.)."330
327Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, p. 312.

328Ibid.
329W. H. Griffith Thomas, "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-
December 1968):319.
330Westcott, p. 80.
Until now John presented Jesus dealing with individuals almost exclusively. This
continues, but now there is more interaction with the Pharisees. The first two signs that
John recorded were done privately, but the next two were public. Furthermore, Jesus did
the miracle recorded in chapter 5 on the Sabbath day, which drew the attention and
opposition of the Pharisees. Reactions to Jesus among the Jews moved from reservation
(e.g., 3:1-15) to outright hostility. Chapters 510 trace the development of this
antagonism. However, the main emphasis in this section is what Jesus revealed about
Himself through His actions and His words.
"Chapters v and vi should probably be grouped together as a single

section. They are connected by a common theme, which may be described
as the nature and causes of Israel's lack of faith in Jesus. Chapter v is
concerned with the form which this unbelief took among the Jews at
Jerusalem, and chapter vi with the expression of it by the peasants in
Galilee."331
In chapter 5, opposition to Jesus began with objection to His healing on the Sabbath. This
led to Jesus explaining His relationship to the Father.
1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

This third sign in John's Gospel signaled Jesus' identity and created controversy that
followed. Particularly it testified to Jesus' authority over time.332
5:1 Some time later, Jesus returned to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the Jewish
feasts and to use that occasion to minister. John did not specify which
"feast" it was. Elsewhere in his Gospel, when John identified the feast in
view, he did so because the events and teaching that followed had
relevance to that particular feast (cf. 2:13; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22; 11:55). Here
they did not. Consequently the identity of the feast is unimportant for the
interpretation of the text. Apparently John mentioned a feast just to
account for Jesus' presence in Jerusalem.333 Hoehner favored one of the
three pilgrim feasts that the Mosaic Law required Jewish males to attend:
Passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles. He preferred the last of these, though
he conceded that certain identification is probably impossible.334
Edersheim believed that this was the Feast of Purim.
"For no other feast could have intervened between

December (John 4:35) and the Passover (John 6:4), except
that of the 'Dedication of the Temple,' and that is specially
designated as such (John 10:22), and not simply as 'a feast
of the Jews.'"335
331Tasker, p. 84.
332Tenney, John: The Gospel. . ., p. 312.
333Barrett, p. 251.
334Hoehner, pp. 58-59.
335Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, p. 332.
John probably only mentioned the feast to explain Jesus' return to, and
presence in, Jerusalem.
5:2 John frequently used the "historic (dramatic) present" tense to describe
past events. Therefore this verse does not prove that he wrote his Gospel
before the fall of Jerusalem. Wallace is one scholar who believed that it
does prove this.336 He pointed out that the equative verb estin, used here,
nowhere else in the New Testament is clearly a historical present. Perhaps
this is the one place where it is.
The Sheep Gate was evidently a gate in the north part of Jerusalem's wall,
just west of its northeast corner (cf. Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39). Various Greek
manuscripts refer to this pool as "Bethesda," Bethsaida, Bethzatha, and
Belzetha, but the first name is probably the correct one. It means "house of
outpouring" or perhaps "house of mercy."337 The modern name is St.
Anne's pool. Evidently there were two pools with a covered colonnade or
portico on all four sides of the complex, and a fifth colonnade that
separated the two pools.338 The pool may have been used for swimming,
since the word "pool" (Gr. kolumbethra, a common word for "swimming
pool" outside the New Testament) is related to the word "swim" (Gr.
kolumbao).339
5:3a Many disabled people used to lie in these porticoes because of the healing
properties in the water.
5:3b-4 This section of the text has doubtful authenticity. No Greek manuscript
before A.D. 400 contains these words.340 Evidently scribes added these
statements later to explain the troubling of the waters that occurred
periodically (v. 7).341 However, these scribal explanations were probably
based on a superstition. They appear to have been common in Jesus' day.
A more probable explanation for the troubling of the water is the presence
of springs that occasionally gushed water into the pools below the surface
of the water.342 Probably the (warm?) water had a high mineral content
that had medicinal benefits for people suffering from muscle and joint
ailments.
5:5 This man's sickness appears to have been paralysis, resulting at least in his
inability to walk (v. 7), which seems to have been a result of sin (v. 14).
Perhaps a severe arthritic condition complicated his ailment. John's
336Wallace, p. 531.
337See the map "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.
338J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence, pp. 95-104.
339Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:78, 162.
340Blum, p. 289; Tenney, "John," p. 62.
341For defense of the authenticity of verse 4, see Zane C. Hodges, "The Angel at BethesdaJohn 5:4,"
342Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 242.
reference to the length of his illness seems to be just to document its

seriousness and the man's hopeless condition. Some commentators tried to
find symbolic significance in the "38 years," but that seems unwarranted
to me, and to others.343 For example, 38 years recalls the period during
which the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, following their rebellion
at Kadesh-barnea, before they entered the Promised Land.
5:6 Jesus could have learned about the man's condition from others, or John
may have written what he did to impress his readers with Jesus'
supernatural knowledge. In Capernaum, Jesus had healed another paralytic
lowered through the roof in front of him (Mark 2:1-12), but at Bethesda,
He reached out to the man as one among many invalids. Jesus' question
may have probed the man to discover if he had a desire for healing, and if
he was willing to put himself in Jesus' hands.
Some people unfortunately are perfectly content to remain in their
miserable condition (cf. 3:19-20). Jesus apparently only delivered people
who wanted His help. Jesus' question also led the man to reflect on his
helpless condition. Evidently this was the only person He healed that day,
even though there were many more whom He could have healed (v. 3; cf.
Acts 3:2). Jesus only saves people who want salvation, and whom He
sovereignly chooses to save (cf. 6:37).
"It is impossible to find any ground in the man himself as a
reason for Christ singling him out for special favor. The
only explanation is the mere sovereign pleasure of Christ
Himself [cf. v. 21]."344
5:7 Obviously the paralytic believed that only the first person to enter the
water after its stirring would experience healing. This was probably the
popular idea that arose from superstition. The man's statement that he had
no one to help him appears to have been a veiled request that Jesus would
volunteer to be that helper. The invalid had the desire for healing but not
the means to obtain it. His statement also shows that he had more faith in
the means of healing than in the Lord, and that he had to do something to
be healed.
"We must feel that, while faith was commonly the
prerequisite of healing, it was not absolutely necessary.
Jesus is not limited by human frailty as he works the works
of God."345
5:8 Jesus' words healed the man (cf. vv. 25, 28-29; 11:43). They also
instructed him (cf. Mark 2:11). Obviously Jesus had given him enough
strength, as well as health, to carry his light mat.
343E.g.,
Westcott, p. 82.
344Pink,1:248.
345Morris, p. 269. Cf. Ryrie, p. 11.
5:9 The invalid experienced healing "immediately." Jesus did instantly what
God normally does slowly. When the man walked away, carrying his mat,
he testified to his healing (v. 11). Normally we cannot immediately use
muscles that we have not used for a long time because they atrophy, but
this man had the full use of his muscles instantaneously. The prophets had
predicted that when Messiah came, He would heal the lame (Isa. 35:1-7).
Here was prooffor all Jerusalem to seethat Messiah had appeared. He
had healed a man whom sickness had bound for 38 years.
"The impotent man met the Omnipotent Man."346
By carrying his pallet on the Sabbath, the man triggered a controversy. By

commanding him to do so, Jesus was responsible for the situation that
followed. Indeed He deliberately created it. This probably explains in part
why Jesus healed this particular man.
2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18
More than once Jesus used His Sabbath activities to make the Jews consider who He was
(cf. Matt. 12:1-14; Mark 2:233:6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6). Here, He wanted them to
realize that He had the right to work on the Sabbath, as His Father did. This is the first
open hostility to Jesus that John recorded.
5:10 According to the prevailing Jewish interpretation of the law, it was not
legitimate to carry anything from one place to another on the Sabbath (cf.
Neh. 13:15; Jer. 17:21-27). Doing so constituted a capital offense that
could result in stoning. The rabbis allowed for exceptional cases, such as
moving a lame person, for compassionate reasons.347 God's intent in the
fourth commandment was to free people from having to work to earn a
living for one day out of seven (Exod. 20:9-11; Deut. 5:12-15). Therefore
this healed paralytic was not breaking the intent of the law, but he was
violating the rabbinic interpretation of it.
5:11-13 The healed man passed off the responsibility, for his disobeying the rabbis'
rule, by blaming Jesus. This was no way to express gratitude for what
Jesus had done for him (cf. v. 15). He probably feared for his life. The
Jewish leaders wanted to know who had dared to contradict the accepted
meaning of the fourth commandment. In their eyes, Jesus was a worse
offender than the man who had carried his pallet.
Significantly, they did not show any interest in the man's cured condition.
That should have shown them that Jesus was the Messiah, but they saw the
Healer as simply an offender.
346McGee, 4:396.
347Mishnah Sabbath 7:2; 10:5.
The man "did not know who" Jesus was. This indicates that it was not his
faith that had elicited the healing, as much as God's grace reaching out to a
needy person. Jesus "had slipped away," probably to avoid premature
confrontation (cf. 6:15; 8:59; 10:39; 12:36).
It is not at all clear whether this man believed on Jesus. We do not know,
either, if he sought a closer relationship with Jesus following his healing.
Many people accept God's gifts but ignore the Giver. Some experience
miracles but do not go to heaven. Apparently it was not the reaction of this
man that John wanted to emphasize, but the lesson on the importance of
believing in Him that Jesus used the occasion of this healing to teach.
5:14 Some time shortly after that, Jesus "found" the man "in the temple"
precincts that stood south of the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem. Evidently
Jesus had been looking for him. He warned the man not to use his healing
as an opportunity to participate in "sin." If he did, "worse" consequences
than his former ailment would befall him (cf. Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor. 11:30;
1 John 5:16). Jesus may have had eternal damnation, as well as immediate
consequences in mind, since the man showed no evidence of possessing
eternal life. Certainly not everyone whom Jesus healed experienced
regeneration. Jesus' point was that the man should regard his new health as
an opportunity to make a new break with sin (cf. Gal. 5:13).
"Sickness is not always the direct result of personal sin

(John 9:1-4), but in this case it apparently was."348
5:15 It seems that the man's motive for telling the authorities about Jesus was
not to glorify Him. He knew that they wanted to find Jesus because they
considered Him a lawbreaker. Clearly the ungrateful man wanted to save
his own skin by implicating Jesus. He did not appreciate Jesus' warning
(v. 14). It is possible that the man was simply stupid. However, the
evidence seems to point more convincingly to a hard heart rather than to a
hard head.
"The lame man is an example of someone who responded

inappropriately to Jesus' signs. . . . Thus he 'represents
those whom even the signs cannot lead to authentic
faith.'"349
5:16 "These things" seem to refer to Jesus' acts of healing the man and
commanding him to take up his mat and walk. Rather than worshipping
Him, or at least considering His claims, the Jewish authorities persecuted
"Jesus" for "doing" what they considered to be work "on the Sabbath."
348Ryrie, p. 26.
349Howard, p. 72. His quotation is from R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Four Gospel: A Study in
Literary Design, p. 138.
Their persecution initially took the form of verbal opposition, as the

following verses clarify.
"This is the first open declaration of hostility to Christ
(though the words and sought to slay him, which are
wrongly added in this verse from v. 18, must be omitted);
and it is based upon the alleged violation of the letter of the
Law with regard to the Sabbath, as in the other Gospels,
Matt. xii. 2 ff. and parallels."350
5:17 Jesus defended Himself by stating that He was doing God's work. The
rabbis regarded God as working on the Sabbath by simply maintaining the
universe and continuing to impart life. They did not accuse Him of
violating the Sabbath.351 Jesus, too, viewed God as constantly at work
("My Father is working until now"). Jesus claimed to be doing Himself
what God was doing ("I Myself am working"). He described His work as
co-ordinate with the Father's, not dependent on it. God did not suspend
His activities on the Sabbath, and neither did Jesus.
This was a virtual claim to deity. Jesus was claiming that His relationship
to the law was the same as God's, not the same as man's. Moreover, by
speaking of God as "My Father," Jesus was claiming a relationship with
Him that was unique from that of the Jews corporately. The work that
Jesus had done was the same kind as the Father's work. He provided
deliverance and a new life for the paralyzed man, as the Father provides
salvation for those whom sin has bound. Obviously Jesus was arguing
differently here than in the instances of Sabbath controversy that the
Synoptics record.
"The most notable feature about Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
. . . is the control He displayed over all persons and
situations."352
5:18 The Jewish leaders did not miss the force of what Jesus was claiming,
namely: equality with God the Father. Liberal interpreters who say that
Jesus never claimed to be God have a difficult time with this passage. John
here noted that these Jews had already been trying to do away with Him.
These claims increased their efforts.
To the contemporary western mind, the idea of "son" connotes a different
person, but the ancient eastern mind thought of a "son" as the extension of
his father. The word connoted identification with, rather than distinction
from. The ancients considered a good son as one who followed in his
father's footsteps exactly.
350Westcott,p. 83.
351Carson,The Gospel . . ., p. 247.
352Tom Thatcher, "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra
153:612 (October-December 1996):448.
Jesus was equal with God in His essence. Both the Father and the Son are
deity. However, Jesus was not equal with the Father in His subsistence.
The Son was subordinate to the Father in this respect. This distinction is
one that the Jewish leaders struggled with, and that Jesus proceeded to
clarify partially.
"It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to
be as God, but whoever made himself as God called down
divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter
category."353
The emphasis in this section of the text is on Jesus being an extension of His Father, and
the legitimacy of His continuing His Father's work, even on the Sabbath.
"A close look shows how similar John's form of the Sabbath argument is
to Jesus' Synoptic claim that he is Lord of the Sabbath. The Synoptics
stress Jesus' position and authority; John stresses the relational foundation
behind such a claim."354
This is the second of seven incidents that the Gospel evangelists recorded in which Jesus
came into conflict with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observance. The chart
below lists them in probable chronological order.
SABBATH CONTROVERSIES
Event Matthew Mark Luke John
The disciples plucked ears of grain in 12:1-8 2:23-28 6:1-5
Galilee.
Jesus healed a paralytic at the Pool of 5:1-18
Bethesda in Jerusalem.
Jesus healed a man with a withered hand in 12:9-14 3:1-6 6:6-11
Capernaum.
Jesus referred to the Jews circumcising on 7:22-23
the Sabbath.
Jesus healed a man born blind in 9:1-34
Jerusalem.
Jesus healed a woman bent over in Judea. 13:10-17
Jesus healed a man with dropsy in Perea. 14:1-6
354Bock, p. 442.
3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29
The preceding controversy resulted in Jesus further clarifying His relationship to His
Father. Jesus proceeded to reply to His enemies' charge that He was not equal with God
the Father. This is the most thoroughgoing statement of Jesus' unity with the Father,
divine commission, authority, and proof of Messiahship in the Gospels. Jesus moved
from clarifying His relationship to the Father, to explaining His function as the Judge of
humanity, to citing the witnesses that established His claims.355
5:19 Jesus introduced His reply with another solemn affirmation. He began by
assuring the Jewish leaders that He was not claiming independence from
the Father. He was definitely subordinate to Him, and He followed the
Father's lead (cf. 4:34; 5:30; 8:28; 12:50; 15:10; Luke 5:17). Jesus
described His relationship to the Father, as similar to that of a son growing
up in a household, who learns a trade from his father while remaining
submissive to him. The Son of God receives authority from the Father,
obeys Him, and executes His will. Jesus would have to be God to do this
perfectly. It was also impossible for the Son to act independently, or to set
Himself against the Father as against another God.
"Equality of nature, identity of objective, and subordination

of will are interrelated in Christ. John presents him as the
Son, not as the slave, of God, yet as the perfect agent of the
divine purpose and the complete revelation of the divine
nature."356
"Some have mistakenly said that Jesus was here

disclaiming equality with the Father. On the contrary, the
whole context argues the opposite (vv. 18, . . . 23, 26). Our
Lord is simply saying that He and the Father work together
(cp. v. 17)."357
5:20 Jesus next clarified why He could do "whatever the Father does." He
could do so because "the Father loves the Son" (cf. 3:36). In addition, the
Father "shows" the Son whatever ("all" the "things that") the Father does.
Continuous disclosure indicates love. The "greater works" than "these"
(i.e., the healing of a paralytic and commanding him to carry his mat on
the Sabbath) include giving life to the dead (v. 21) and pronouncing final
judgment (v. 22). Part of the purpose of these greater works was to face
His critics with His divine authority so they would consider His claims.
355See Stephen S. Kim, "The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus' Miracle in John 5,"
357The New Scofield . . ., p. 1130.
5:21 The fact that the Father discloses everything He does to the Son, and the
Son does whatever the Father does, is clearly proven by the Son's giving
"life" to "the dead." The Jews acknowledged that only God could raise the
dead (2 Kings 5:7; Ezek. 37:13). This involves overcoming the forces of
sin and death. Jesus claimed that authority now, and He demonstrated it
later (11:41-44). His healings were a lesser demonstration of the same
power. The Son's will is so identical to the Father's that His choices reflect
the Father's will. Eternal spiritual life and resurrected physical life are both
in view.
5:22 This verse probably explains the former one rather than restating it, which
the NIV translation implies. The roles of the Father and the Son are
parallel in verse 21, but there is a distinction between them in this verse.
The Father and the Son both give life, but the Father has committed "all
judgment to the Son" (cf. Acts 17:31).
"This was something new to Jews. They held that the

Father was the Judge of all people [cf. Gen. 18:25], and
they expected to stand before him at the last day."358
The Son's giving life is in preparation for His judging. Judgment here
probably includes discriminating (balanced and just review), not just
announcing final condemnation (sentencing). This verse clarifies the roles
of the Father and the Son, whereas 3:17 deals with the primary purpose of
the Son's incarnation.
5:23 The reason for this delegation of judging is so that "all" may "honor the
Son" as they "honor the Father." Subordination usually results in less
honor. The Father has guaranteed that the Son will receive equal honor
with Himself by committing the role of judging entirely to Him. Therefore
failure to honor the Son reflects failure to honor the Father. Conversely
honoring the Son honors the Father (cf. Phil. 2:9-11). God will not share
His honor with another (Isa. 42:8, 10-12). Consequently for Him to share
His honor with the Son must mean that the Son and the Father are one in
essence.
"The 'religious' people who say that they worship God, but
who deny the deity of Christ, have neither the Father nor
the Son!"359
These people include Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and

Unitarian Universalists, if they believe what their churches teach.
358Morris, p. 279.
359Wiersbe, 1:306.
"There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as

teacher and yet deny his claims to worship."360
5:24 Jesus proceeded from talking about His relation to the Father to explaining
His relation to people. He developed one idea from the preceding
argument more fully. He introduced it with a solemn affirmation. Jesus
had just said that He gave life to whomever He pleased (v. 21). He now
described these people as those who "hear My Word" and "believe" the
Father ("Him who sent Me"). They will not experience condemnation or
"judgment" (cf. 3:18; Rom. 6:14; 8:1), but begin already to experience
"eternal life" (cf. 3:36; Eph. 2:1, 5).
"Realized eschatology" is the aspect of future conditions that exist already

in the present. In this case, it refers to the believer's possession of "eternal
life" already. Beasley-Murray called this verse "the strongest affirmation
of realized eschatology applied to the believer in the NT."361 People pass
from one realm to another the moment they believe (cf. 1 John 3:14)
Jesus' word had brought new life to the paralytic (v. 8). His word will also
bring eternal life or eternal death to everyone. His word is the same as the
Father's word, since the Son only says what the Father gives Him to say
(v. 19). Jesus specified the Father as the object of faith because, as He had
just explained, the Son mediates everything from the Fathernot because
Jesus is an inappropriate object of faith (cf. 3:16; 14:1). The Son
represents the Father to humankind, so when we place faith in the Son, we
are placing it in the Father as well.
"The two conditions of eternal life are (1) knowledge of the

revelation made by the Son, and (2) belief in the truth of it,
that is, belief in the word of the Father who speaks through
the Son."362
Therefore the believer's basis of eternal security, and his or her assurance
of eternal life, both rest on the promise of the Son.
"To have eternal life now is to be secure throughout

eternity.
"The words of this verse should not be taken simply as a

statement of fact. They are that. Anyone who hears and
believes has eternal life. But the words also constitute an
invitation, a challenge. They are a call to hear Christ and to
take the step of faith."363

361Beasley-Murray, p. 76. See Harris, pp. 235-37, for a discussion of realized eschatology in John's Gospel.
362Westcott, p. 87.
363Morris, p. 280.
5:25 Jesus continued to describe what believers will experience in the future,
fully, which they already experience now in measure (cf. 4:23), namely:
resurrection "life." They will experience it in the future physically, but
they experience it now spiritually (cf. Rom. 6:13). Jesus' word gives
believers spiritual life now, and it will raise the dead in the future (cf. vv.
28-29; 11:43).
5:26 This verse explains why Jesus can do these things. He can do them
because He "has life" resident "within (in) Himself." He is self-existent,
whereas humans must receive their life from Him, the source of life. This
quality of the Son is another that came to Him by the Father's good
pleasure before Creation (cf. v. 22; 1:4).
5:27 Similarly, God has given the Son "authority" to judge (vv. 21-22). Jesus
revealed an additional reason for this here. It is because Jesus is "Son of
Man" (Dan. 7:13-14). He is the Anointed One whom God has sent, but He
is also fully humanthe only perfect Man who can represent mankind
before God. Jesus can judge humanity because He belongs to it and
understands it (cf. Heb. 2:17). The absence of a definite article before the
title stresses the quality of Jesus as "Son of Man" (cf. Heb. 1:2).364
5:28-29 Jesus urged His hearers "not" to "marvel" that it would be "His voice" that
would summon the dead eventually (cf. 11:43). "All" the dead "will hear"
the Son of Man's "voice" in the future, calling them forth to judgment.
Believers are those who do "good," which involves believing on the Son
(6:29; cf. 3:21). Theirs will be a "resurrection" resulting in eternal "life."
Those who do "evil," by not believing on the Son (3:36; cf. 3:19), will
experience eternal condemnation following their "resurrection." As
always, "judgment" is on the basis of works.
Another view is that only unbelievers are in view in both descriptions.365

However, believers and unbelievers have both been prominent throughout
the foregoing discussion.366
Jesus spoke of three different resurrections in this passage: the dead in sin
who rise to new life spiritually (vv. 24-25), the physical resurrection of
believers (vv. 25, 28-29), and the physical resurrection of unbelievers (vv.
28-29).
4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

Jesus now returned to develop a theme that He had introduced previously, namely: the
Father's testimony to the Son (vv. 19-20). Jesus proceeded to cite five witnesses to His
364H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 149.
365Barrett,p. 263.
366See also Zane C. Hodges, "Those Who Have Done GoodJohn 5:28-29," Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542
(April-June 1979):158-66.
identity, all of which came from the Father, because the Jews had questioned His
authority.
"The train of argument in this section is like a court scene, reminiscent of

the trial scenes in the OT, when witnesses are summoned by Yahweh to
testify on behalf of the gods of the nations in the face of the manifest truth
of the only God, whose witnesses his people are (see esp. Isa 43:8-13;
44:6-11)."367
5:30 This verse is transitional. It concludes Jesus' explanation of the Son's

equality with the Father (vv. 19-29), and it introduces His clarification of
the Father's testimony about the Son (vv. 31-47). Some translations
consider it the conclusion of the preceding pericope (e.g., NIV), and others
take it as the beginning of the next one (e.g., NASB).
Jesus' point was that He could not do anything independently of the Father
("on My own initiative"), because of His submission to Him ("I do not
seek My own will"). His "judgment" is the result of listening to His
Father. His judgment "is just" because the desire for self-glory does not
taint it. The Son's "will" is totally to advance ("seek" only) the Father's
"will."
"Judges often have difficulty in knowing what is law and

what is right, but the Son's task as Judge is simple enough,
the will of the Father which he knows (verse 20)."368
5:31-32 "This second main division of the discourse consists, like

the first, of two parts. The witness to the Son is first laid
open (31-40), and then the rejection of the witness in its
cause and end (41-47)."369
Jesus had said that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father (vv.
19, 30). That includes even bearing witness. Jesus did not mean that if He
said anything about Himself it must be false, though apparently some of
the Jews thought He meant that (cf. 8:13). He meant that the truthfulness
of His claims about Himself did not rest on His own "testimony"
exclusively. Jesus had just explained that He only said and did what the
Father said and did. Therefore Jesus' witness ("testimony") about Himself
must reflect the Father's witness about Him.
The "another" that bore witness about Jesus was the Father. Jesus was not
speaking of the Father's witness as essentially different from His own
367Beasley-Murray, pp. 77-78.

369Westcott, p. 88.
witness. He viewed His own witness as simply an extension of the Father's

witness, since He always faithfully represented the Father's will.370
Some students of John's Gospel have thought that Jesus contradicted what
He said here in 8:14, but there He was speaking about His personal
knowledge as the basis for His testimony about Himself. Here He was
speaking about the Father's witness to His identity.
"The witness of the Father may not be acceptable to the

Jews; it may not even be recognized by them. But it is
enough for Jesus. He knows that this witness is 'true.' . . . It
is the witness of the Father and nothing else that brings
conviction to him."371
5:33 Jesus knew that His critics would not accept the Father's witness to His
identity, even though Jesus claimed that His words accurately represented
the Father's will. He could not prove this claim to their satisfaction.
Therefore He cited another human witness who testified about Jesus'
identity, namely: "John" the Baptist. John came into the world to bear
witness to the light (1:7). Accordingly, he had borne witness about Jesus
to the Jews who had come from Jerusalem to ask who He was (1:19-28).
Furthermore, he had identified Jesus publicly as the Lamb of God (1:29-
34). John had truly "testified to the truth" that Jesus was the divine
Messiah (cf. 1:40-41).
5:34 However, Jesus did not needand did not accepthuman "testimony" to
establish His identity in His own mind. The only witness He needed was
the Father's. He simply mentioned John the Baptist's witness to establish
His identity in His hearers' minds, so that they might believe on Him and
obtain salvation.
5:35 Jesus again gave a brief evaluation of John the Baptist's ministry.
Evidently John's public ministry had ended by this time, since Jesus spoke
of his witness as past. John was not the true light (Gr. phos, 1:8-9), but he
was a lamp (Gr. lychnos) that bore witness (cf. Ps. 132:17; 2 Cor. 4:6-7).
John's ministry had caused considerable messianic excitement.
Unfortunately most of John's hearers only chose to follow his teaching
temporarily (2:23-25). When Jesus appeared, they no longer followed
John. Thus John's witness to Jesus' identity was true, but it had little
continuing impact.
"Ah! dear reader, will the Saviour be able to say of you, in

the coming day, 'He was a burning and shining lamp?'"372
370See Tenney, "Topics from . . .," pp. 229-41, "The Meaning of 'Witness' in John."
371Morris, p. 288.
372Pink, 1:276.
5:36 Jesus had weightier evidence for His identity than John's witness. It came
from His Father, and took several forms. The first of these forms was the
"works" (Gr. erga, not "work," NIV) that Jesus performed (cf. 10:25;
14:11). These works included all of Jesus' activities: His miracles, His life
of perfect obedience, and His work of redemption on the cross. Miracles
alone did not prove Jesus' deity, since Moses, Elijah, and Elisha had done
miracles, too. Everything that Jesus did was simply an extension of the
Father's work (vv. 19-30). Once we understand the Father/Son
relationship, we can see that everything that Jesus said and did was
precisely what the Father said and did.
5:37-38 Another witness to Jesus' identity was the Father's witness apart from
Jesus' works. The form that this witness took (as Jesus thought of it) is not
clear. Perhaps He meant the witness that the Father had given at His
baptism. However, John did not narrate that event in this Gospel, though
he recorded John the Baptist's witness of it (cf. 1:32-34).
Probably Jesus meant the Father's total witness to Jesus, including: Old
Testament prophecies, plus prophetic events and institutionsincluding
His witness at Jesus' baptism. He probably meant all of God's anticipatory
revelation about Jesus (cf. Heb. 1:1).373 Jesus probably did not mean the
Father's witness through the Old Testament exclusively, since He
mentioned that later (v. 39). Another, though improbable meaning, is the
internal witness of the Spirit (6:45; 1 John 5:9-12). That idea seems too far
removed from the present context.
In spite of the Father's witness, Jesus' hearers had not heard it because of
their unbelief. Unlike Moses and Jacob, they had "neither heard" God's
"voice" nor "seen" Him ("His form"; cf. Exod. 33:11; Gen. 32:30-31),
even though Jesus' words were the Father's words, and those who saw
Jesus had virtually seen God (3:34; 14:9-10; 17:8). Furthermore, God's
"word" did not abide in them, as it had in Joshua and the psalmist (cf.
Josh. 1:8-9; Ps. 119:11).
Jesus was the living Word of God, and these Jews had little time for Him.
The Jewish authorities had not grasped the significance of God's previous
testimony concerning the Son, which Jesus summarized here as threefold
evidence. Jesus may have been implying that His critics were not true
Israelites. They had not even done what their forefathers had done
("believe"), even though Jesus was a clearer revelation of God than what
the patriarchs had.
5:39-40 "From the essential elements of revelation, external (voice,
shape) and internal (word), the Lord passes to the record of
Revelation in Scripture. This the Jews misused."374
373Lightfoot, pp. 146-47.

374Westcott, pp. 90-91.
Even though the Jews diligently sought God in the pages of their
"Scriptures," they failed to recognize Jesus for who He was. The Greek
verb translated "search" could be an imperative (AV) or an indicative
(NASB, NIV). The context favors the indicative mood. The Jewish leaders
of Jesus' day were serious students of the Old Testament, but they studied
it for the wrong reason, namely, to earn eternal life through their effort (cf.
Rom. 7:10; Gal. 3:21).
"After the destruction of the temple of Solomon in 586

B.C., the Jewish scholars of the Exile substituted the study
of the Law for the observance of the temple ritual and
sacrifices. They pored over the OT, endeavoring to extract
the fullest possible meaning from its words, because they
believed that the very study itself would bring them life."375
The study of Scripture had become an end in itself, rather than a way of
getting to know God better. Their failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah
testified to their lack of perceiving the true message of Scripture (cf. 1:45;
2:22; 3:10; 5:45-46; 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:15). Eternal life comes through
meeting or encountering Jesus, not through Bible study (vv. 21, 26; cf.
1:4; Rom. 10:4), even though it is through Bible study that one comes to
know Jesus better. Like John the Baptist, the Old Testament pointed away
from itself to Jesus.
"The teaching of the Old Testament is never exhausted. As

we know more of Christ it reveals more to us concerning
Him."376
". . . we know that at the time of the Syrian persecutions,

just before the rising of the Maccabees, the possession of
portions or of the whole of the Old Testament by private
families was common in Israel. For, part of those
persecutions consisted in making search for these
Scriptures and destroying them (1 Macc. i. 57), as well as
punishing their possessors (Jos. Ant. xii. 5, 4)."377
"It is blessed to note the order in which Christ placed the

three witnesses to which He appealed in proof of His
equality with God. First, there was the witness of His own
Divine works. Second, there was the witness which the
Father had borne to Him through the prophets. Third, there
was the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, written by men
moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus in these three witnesses

376Westcott,p. 91.
377Edersheim, Sketches of . . ., pp. 116-17.
there is a remarkable reference made to each of the three

Persons in the Holy Trinity."378
5:41-42 Jesus did not appeal to the testimony of humans to determine His own
identity (v. 35), nor did He receive the praise (Gr. doxa) of people for this
purpose. Jesus' criticisms of His hearers did not arise from wounded pride.
He said what He did to win the Father's praise, not man's. Jesus' critics, in
contrast, behaved to receive praise from one another (cf. v. 44). Jesus
knew them well, but they did not know Him. "Love" for God did not
motivate them as it did Him.
"The Jews worked out their pattern of religion and tried to

fit God into it. They did not seek first the way of God and
then try to model their religious practices on it. They
succumbed to the perennial temptation of religious
people."379
5:43 These critics also failed to come to Jesus for life (v. 40) because they
refused to acknowledge that He had "come" from the Father ("in the
Father's name"). By rejecting Jesus, they had rejected the Father's
Ambassador who had come in His name, and therefore rejected the Father
Himself. If they had known and loved the Father, they would have
recognized Jesus' similarity to the Father. Having rejected the true
Messiah, the religious leaders would follow false messiahs (especially
"another" messiah coming "in his own name"the Antichrist). Rejection
of what is true always makes one susceptible to counterfeits (cf. Luke
23:18-23).
5:44 Jesus' critics could not believe on Him because they preferred the praise of
men to the praise of God. They consistently chose what was popular over
what was true. In contrast, Jesus lived solely for God's "glory," and did not
pander to the praise of people (cf. Rom. 2:29).
5:45-46 These critics' most severe indictment would not come from Jesus, but
from "Moses," whom they so strongly professed to follow but did not.
Moses never taught that the Law was an end in itself. He pointed the
people to the coming "Prophet" and urged them to listen to Him (Deut.
18:15-19). They had refused to do this. Moreover, these Jews had broken
the Law that Moses had urged them to follow. Furthermore Jesus' primary
function was to save, not to judge (3:17).
The Jews typically hoped that they could earn salvation by keeping the
Law, and believed that their relationship to it as Jews gave them a special
advantage with God. They had "set" their "hope" on Moses in that respect.
378Pink, 1:280.
379Morris, p. 294.
They foolishly hoped in Moses rather than in the One to whom Moses
pointed. If they had paid attention to Moses, they would have felt
conviction for their sin and would have been eager to receive the Savior. If
they had really "believed Moses," they would also have believed Jesus
whom Moses "wrote about."
5:47 Jesus' critics did "not believe" Moses' "writings," or they would have
accepted Jesus. Since they rejected Moses' "writings," it was natural that
they would reject Jesus' "words." Both men spoke the words of God, who
was their authority. The Jews' rejection of Moses' writings was essentially
a rejection of God's Word. Jesus believed that Moses wrote the Torah
(Pentateuch), something many critical scholars deny.
This discourse constituted both a condemnation of Jesus' critics and an invitation to

believe on Him. Jesus cited much testimony that God the Father had given that identified
Jesus as the divine Messiah. These witnesses were, besides God the Father: John the
Baptist, all of Jesus' works, all that the Father had previously revealed that pointed to
Jesus, the Old Testament, and specifically the witness of Moses in the Torah
(Pentateuch).
John omitted many events in the life of Jesusbetween John 5:47 and 6:1that the
Synoptic evangelists recorded as happening. These include the resumption of Jesus'
Galilean ministry (Matt. 57; 8:5-13, 18, 23-34; 9:18-35; 10:113:53; 14:1-12; Mark
2:236:30; Luke 6:19:10a).
G. JESUS' LATER GALILEAN MINISTRY 6:17:9
This section of the text records the high point of Jesus' popularity. His following
continued to build, and antagonism continued to increase. This is the only section in John
that narrates Jesus' later Galilean ministry, which occupies so much of the Synoptic
Gospels.
1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15 (cf. Matt. 14:13-23; Mark 6:30-
46; Luke 9:10-17)
The importance of this sign is clear in that all four Gospels contain an account of it.
Apparently John was familiar with the other evangelists' versions of this miracle, as well
as being an eyewitness of the event. His story complements the others (cf. vv. 5, 15). This
miracle demonstrated Jesus' authority over quantity.380 It constitutes further proof that
Jesus was the Son of God.
"The record of a critical scene in Christ's work in Galilee follows the

record of the critical scene at Jerusalem. At Jerusalem Christ revealed
Himself as the Giver of life; here He reveals Himself as the Support and
Guide of life. In the former case the central teaching was upon the relation
380Tenney, John: The Gospel . . ., p. 312.

of the Son to the Father; in this case it is on the relation of Christ to the
believer. . . .
"The two signs, the Feeding of the Five Thousand (1-15), and the Walking
on the Sea (15-21), combine to show Christ as the support of life and as
the guide and strengthener of the toiling. Through His disciples He first
satisfies the multitudes, and then He Himself, at first unseen and
unrecognized, brings His laboring disciples to the haven of rest."381
6:1 "After" an undesignated lapse of time (cf. 5:1), Jesus traveled "to the other
(east) side of the Sea of Galilee." That was the more sparsely populated
side where fewer Jews and more Gentiles lived. It was particularly to the
northeast coast that He went (cf. Matt. 14:13; Mark 6:32; Luke 9:10).
Evidently John's readers knew this lake as the "Sea of Tiberias." Tiberias
was the chief city on its western coast. Herod Antipas had founded it in
A.D. 20, and named it in honor of the current Roman emperor
(Tiberius)who ruled from A.D. 15 to 35.
6:2-3 Multitudes followed Jesus because they wanted to benefit from His
miraculous powers, as well as to hear Him teach (cf. 2:23-25).
"Like the vast majority of men and women, they [these

Galileans] supposed that their needs as human beings were
limited to their physical requirements. They were, in
consequence, very ready to accept Jesus as a political
Christ, who would be a purveyor of cheap food and
establish an economic Utopia, for that would render the
task of satisfying these physical needs less laborious."382
Jesus went up on the mountainside to be alone "with His disciples," who

had just returned from their mission throughout the towns of Galilee
(Mark 6:30-32; Luke 9:10). He had just heard that Herod Antipas had
beheaded John the Baptist (Matt. 14:12-13). The crowd soon found Him,
and He healed many of the people and taught them (Matt. 14:14; Mark
6:33-34; Luke 9:11). Only John mentioned that this happened on a
mountainside. Perhaps he did this so his readers would see a parallel with
what happened on Mt. Sinai (vv. 31-32; cf. Exod. 16:21). Possibly it is just
a detail that he as an eyewitness observed.
6:4 Evidently John identified the nearness of the "Passover" because of Jesus'
later references to Himself as the Bread of Life (vv. 33, 35, 51), and thus
the fulfillment of what the Passover bread typified.
381Westcott, p. 94.
382Tasker, pp. 92-93.
"The people were thinking in terms of blood, flesh, lambs,

and unleavened bread. They longed for a new Moses who
would deliver them from Roman bondage."383
This was John's second reference to a "Passover feast" during Jesus'

ministry (cf. 2:13, 23; 11:55; 13:1). Evidently this event happened two
years after Jesus' first cleansing of the temple, and one year before He died
on the cross. It would have taken place in April of A.D. 32.384
"The movement from the miracle to the discourse, from

Moses to Jesus (vv. 32-5, cf. i. 17), and, above all, from
bread to flesh, is almost unintelligible unless the reference
in v. 4 to the Passover picks up i. 29, 36, anticipates xix. 36
(Exod. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12), and governs the whole
narrative."385
The Passover was an intensely nationalistic celebration in Israel. This

accounts for the extreme zeal that many of the Jews demonstrated when
they sought to draft Jesus as their political deliverer (v. 15).
"If those thousands were all genuine disciples, it was well;

but if notif the greater number were following Christ
under misapprehensionthe sooner that became apparent
the better. To allow so large a mixed multitude to follow
Himself any longer without sifting would have been on
Christ's part to encourage false hopes, and to give rise to
serious misapprehensions as to the nature of His kingdom
and His earthly mission. And no better method separating
the chaff from the wheat in that large company of professed
disciples could have been devised, than first to work a
miracle which would bring to the surface the latent
carnality of the greater number, and then to preach a
sermon which could not fail to be offensive to the carnal
mind."386
6:5-6 John telescoped the events of the day. He omitted mention of Jesus'
teaching and healing ministry (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11), as
well as the disciples' concern for food (Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:35-36; Luke
9:12). Instead he focused on the prominent miracle. His account also
shows Jesus' initiative in solving the food problem. Only John recorded
that Jesus approached "Philip" about the need. This would have been
understandable, since Philip was from Bethsaida, the nearest sizable town
383Blum, p. 293.
384See Hoehner, pp. 55-59, 61, 143.
385Hoskyns, p. 281.
386A. B. Bruce, pp. 124-25.
(1:44). John also explained that Jesus' question was a "test" in Philip's
discipleship training, not an indication that Jesus wondered what to do
initially.
"The 'compassion' of Christ, though noted frequently by the

other Evangelists [e.g., Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34], is never
referred to by John, who dwells upon the dignity and glory
of His Divine person."387
Francesco D'Andria, archaeological excavation director at Hierapolis, in

present-day Turkey, announced in 2011 that he discovered the tomb of the
martyred apostle Philip in a newly excavated church.388
6:7 Philip, too, as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, was thinking only on
the physical level. "Two hundred denarii" represented about eight months'
wages for a working man. Such a large sum might be the minimum they
could scrape by with, but it would "not" provide enough "bread" to satisfy
the peopleeven "a little." Philip, as an accountant, put his mental
calculator to work and concluded that the situation was hopeless.
6:8-9 "Andrew" had discovered a little boy (Gr. paidarion, a double diminutive)
who had "five" small "barley" biscuits and "two" small "fish" (Gr.
opsaria). Probably the fish would have served as a relish to eat with the
bread.389 Barley bread was the food of the poor. One writer called the
boy's food mere "hors d'oeuvres."390 Andrew seems to have felt
embarrassed that he had even suggested such an inadequate solution to the
problem.
John may have intended his unique inclusion of the details of this boy and
his lunch to remind his readers of Elisha's similar miracle (2 Kings 4:42-
44). The same Greek word for "boy" occurs in the Septuagint translation
of that story (2 Kings 4:38, 41). The main point, however, was the lack of
adequate food plus Jesus' ability to feed a multitude with such meager
resources.
6:10 When the disciples had confessed their own inadequacy, Jesus proceeded
to demonstrate His adequacy. He instructed the disciples to seat the
multitude on the comfortable, abundant ("much") "grass." Perhaps we
should picture Jesus as the Good Shepherd here, making His sheep lie
down in green pastures (cf. Ps. 23:2). Perhaps Jesus seated them also to
discourage the people from rushing madly for the food once they realized
387Pink,1:288-89.
388"Philip's Tomb DiscoveredBut Not Where Expected," Biblical Archaeology Review 38:1
(January/February 2012):18.
what was happening. All four evangelists recorded the size of the crowd in
terms of the males present. This was customary, since these people lived
in a predominantly paternalistic culture. The scene also recalls Moses
feeding the Israelites in the wilderness with bread from heaven.
6:11 Jesus first thanked God for the food in prayer, as pious Jews normally did
(cf. v. 23). In this He set a good example. We should give "thanks" for
what we have, and God will make it go further. Evidently Jesus multiplied
the food while He broke it apart and "distributed" it to the people. John
stressed the lavishness of Jesus' supply. The Son of God has always been
the perfectly sufficient Provider of people's needs.
John probably did not intend here that we make connections with the
Lord's Supper. He omitted references that would have obviously
connected the two meals, such as the breaking of the bread and the
distribution of the pieces. And there is no mention of drink. John also
omitted referring to the disciples' role in assisting Jesus by serving the
people, probably to keep Jesus central in the narrative. Obviously there is
nothing in the text to support the popular liberal interpretation that the
miracle consisted of Jesus making the people willing to share their food.391
6:12-13 Everyone had enough to eat. Jesus satisfied everyone's appetite ("they
were filled"). There was even quite a bit of food "left over" that Jesus
instructed His disciples to collect to avoid waste. The "fragments" (Gr.
klasmata) that remained were not crumbs or scraps on the ground, but
pieces broken by Jesus and not consumed.392 All four evangelists noted
that there were "12" large Jewish "baskets" (Gr. kophinos) of bread
"fragments" left over. Commentators have suggested that these baskets
and their number represent either food for the disciples, or food for Israel's
12 tribes. At least this detail proves the abundance of Jesus' provision for
the people who were present. Each of the Twelve had his own evidence of
Jesus' supernatural power and His adequacy.
"The Jews had a custom of leaving something for those that

served."393
"We need never be anxious that there will not be enough

left for our own needs. God never allows a generous giver
to be the loser. It is miserliness which impoverishes. The
disciples had more left at the finish than they had at the
beginning!"394
391See Barclay, 1:206.

393Ibid.
394Pink, 1:301.
6:14 The Jews who enjoyed Jesus' provision concluded that He must be "the
Prophet" whom Moses had predicted (Deut. 18:15-19; cf. John 1:21; 7:40,
52). Jesus likewise fed the Israelites in a wilderness area (Matt. 14:15;
Mark 6:35), as Moses had, with bread that came from heaven.
6:15 Moses additionally had provided military leadership for the Israelites, and
had liberated them from the oppression of the Egyptians. These later Jews
concluded that Jesus could do the same for them, and so they now sought
to secure His political leadership forcefully. This decision marks the
apogee of Jesus' popularity. Jesus realized ("perceiving") their intention,
and "withdrew" from the crowd by ascending the mountainside farther
"by Himself"to pray (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). The time was not right
for Him to establish His kingdom on earth.
This sign demonstrated Jesus' identity as the Son of God, and it prepared for Jesus'
revelation of Himself as the Bread of Life (vv. 22-59).395
". . . the feeding miracle is understood as falling within the fulfillment of

the hope of a second Exodus. This flows together with the thought of the
event as a celebration of the feast of the kingdom of God, promised in the
Scriptures (Isa 25:6-9)."396
Notice that this sign illustrates three solutions to problems that people typically try. First,
Philip suggested that money was the solution to the problem (v. 7). Second, Andrew
looked to people for the solution (v. 9). Third, Jesus proved to be the true solution (v. 11).
A fourth solution appears in the other Gospel accounts of the miracle (Matt. 14:15; Mark
6:36; Luke 9:12): get rid of the problem. The disciples told Jesus to send the people
away, to let them fend for themselves (cf. Matt. 15:23).
In satisfying the need of the people, Jesus used what someone made available to Him. In
this case, as in most others, He used a very insignificant person, in the sight of other
people, with very insignificant resources. Jesus did not create food out of thin air.
"The practical lesson is clear: whenever there is a need, give all that you
have to Jesus and let Him do the rest. Begin with what you have, but be
sure you give it all to Him."397
2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21 (cf. Matt. 14:24-33; Mark
6:47-52)
John probably included this incident for a number of reasons. It accounts for the return of
Jesus and His disciples to the western shore of Galilee where Jesus gave the discourse on
the Bread of Life. Perhaps He did so to continue the Exodus theme (cf. vv. 14-15). It is
395See Stephen S. Kim, "The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus' Passover Signs in
John 6," Bibliotheca Sacra 164:655 (July-September 2007):307-22.
397Wiersbe, 1:309.
primarily further proof that Jesus was the Son of God as He claimed. The disciples went
from the thrill of great success to the agony of great danger. The feeding of the 5,000 was
a lesson, and Jesus' walking on the water was the test following the lesson.
6:16 "Evening" could refer to any time in the late afternoon before sunset. The
feeding of the 5,000 evidently happened on the northeast side of the Sea of
Galilee, south of Bethsaida Julius. This town stood immediately east of the
place where the Jordan River empties into the lake on its northern coast.
Some of the town may have been on the western side of the Jordan.398
6:17-18 The disciples' ultimate destination was "Capernaum," which Mark called
"Bethsaida" (Mark 6:45). Evidently this western Bethsaida ("Fishtown")
was very close to, or even part of, Capernaum.399 When Jesus did not
appear by nightfall, they decided to travel on to Capernaum without Him.
In John's Gospel, darkness often has symbolic significance implying a bad

situation (cf. 3:2; 13:30). Jesus' absence cast another foreboding cloud
over the disciples. To make the occasion even worse, a strong wind came
up and created a storm on the lake. The wind normally came from the
west, the direction in which the disciples headed. Mark described the
disciples as straining at the oars (Mark 6:48).
6:19 The distance the disciples had rowedin the Greek textwas 25 or 30
stadia, which is between two and three-quarters miles and three and one-
half miles. Matthew and Mark wrote that the disciples were in the
"middle" of the lake, probably meaning that they were well out into it
(Matt. 14:24; Mark 6:47). Some scholars, wishing to depreciate this
miracle, have translated the Greek preposition epi as "by" rather than
"on."400 However, the context and the Synoptics clearly present Jesus as
walking on the water, not on the shore beside the water.
Mark reported that the disciples thought Jesus was a ghost (Mark 6:49).
John simply described them as "frightened." This emphasis has the effect
of focusing on Jesus' alleviation of their fear. The fear of the disciples,
plus Jesus' ability to calm their fear, is the point of John's record of this
miracle. Jesus met the disciples between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m. (Matt. 14:25;
Mark 6:48).
"Sometimes we are caught in a storm because we have

disobeyed the Lord. Jonah is a good example. But
sometimes the storm comes because we have obeyed the
Lord. When that happens, we can be sure that our Saviour
will pray for us, come to us, and deliver us. . . . Jesus had
398D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, p. 164.

399Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:3-4. Thomson, 2:30-32, disputed the existence of a second Bethsaida.
400E.g., Bernard, 1:186; Barclay, 1:211-12.
led His people into the green pastures (John 6:10), and now
He brought them into the still waters (Ps. 23:2). What a
wonderful Shepherd He is!"401
"Notice that the disciples did not give up in despairthey

continued 'rowing' (v. 19)! And ultimately the Lord came to
their side and delivered them from the angry tempest."402
6:20 Jesus identified Himself by saying literally "I am" (Gr. ego eimi). This is
sometimes a way Jesus described Himself as God, as John recorded Jesus'
words (e.g., 8:24). However, the clause does not always mean that, since it
is also the normal way of identifying oneself (cf. 9:9). In those instances,
the translation "It is I" gives the intended meaning. Here Jesus was just
identifying Himself to the disciples, though obviously someone who could
walk on water was more than a mere man.
"Look around, and we shall be disheartened. Look within,

and we shall be discouraged. But look unto Him, and our
fears will vanish."403
6:21 When the disciples realized that it was Jesus, they willingly received "Him
into the boat." Perhaps Jesus met the disciples fairly close to their
destination, and so it did not take them long to arrive there. Perhaps with
Jesus in the boat, the remaining trip appeared to them to be a short one
or with the wind subdued, it did not take them long to reach land. Any of
these explanations could account for John's description. Many
commentators believed that John recorded a second miracle in this verse,
and that the boat supernaturally reached Capernaum swiftly
("immediately").404 There seems little point to such a miracle, however,
and there is nothing in the text that explains it.
"The storm on the lake, besides being an apt emblem of the trial of faith,
was for the twelve an important lesson in faith, helping to prepare them for
the future which awaited them. The temporary absence of their Master was
a preparation for His perpetual absence. The miraculous interposition of
Jesus at the crisis of their peril was fitted to impress on their minds the
conviction that even after He had ascended He would still be with them in
the hour of danger."405
The feeding of the 5,000 presents Jesus as the Provider of people's needs. His walking on
the water pictures Him as the Protector of those who trust and obey Him. The second of
these two signs taught the disciples that Jesus had authority over nature (cf. Job 38:8-11;
401Wiersbe, 1:310.
402Pink, 1:309.
403Ibid., 1:310-11.
404E.g., Barrett, p. 281.
405A. B. Bruce, p. 132.
Ps. 29:3-4, 10-11; 65:5-7; 89:9; 107:29).406 John undoubtedly recorded the incident to
teach his readers the same lesson. Both miracles demonstrated Jesus' equality with the
Father, whom Old Testament writers described as doing these very things.
3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

Jesus proceeded to clarify His identity by teaching the crowds and His disciples. He did
so by developing the metaphor of the "Bread of Life," which He claimed to be. Jesus
used the feeding of the 5,000 as a basis for explaining His identity to the multitudes. He
compared Himself to bread.
"Again, it was a ministry of 'grace and truth' (John 1:17). In grace, our
Lord fed the hungry people; but in truth, He gave them the Word of
God."407
"The discourses fall into three groups: vv. 26-40, vv. 41-51, vv. 52-58.
Each group is introduced by some expression of feeling on the part of
those to whom the words are addressed, a simple question (v. 25), a
murmuring (v. 41), a contention among themselves (v. 52). The thoughts
successively dealt with are distinct: (1) the search after life, (2) the relation
of the Son to God and man, (3) the appropriation by the individual of the
Incarnate Son; and it appears that the audience and place do not remain the
same. There are evident breaks after v. 40, and v. 51. The 'Jews' are
introduced in vv. 41, 52, but not before. The last words were spoken 'in
synagogue' (v. 59), but it is scarcely conceivable that the conversation
began there."408
The people's search for Jesus 6:22-25

The multitude on the "other side" must have still been near the northeast shore, after
Jesus had fed the 5,000, south of Bethsaida. They were across the lake from the
northwestern shore (and Capernaum), where Jesus and the disciples were now. They
could not figure out where Jesus could have gone. The "disciples had" left in one boat,
"alone" without Jesus. There was only "one other" boat still there, so they knew Jesus had
not used it to leave the area. While they waited for Jesus to appear, "other boats" with
people "from Tiberias," on the western shore, arrived. Eventually "the crowd" realized
"that Jesus was not there" in that region, so they boarded "the small boats" that had come
from Tiberias, and set out for "Capernaum." They probably thought they could find Jesus
there because Capernaum was His headquarters. When they did find Him, they wanted to
know how He got there.
Why did John bother to relate this seemingly unimportant information? Apparently he did
so to document the fact that Jesus really had crossed the lake by walking on the water.
Another reason could be that his description supports Jesus' statement that the people

407Wiersbe, 1:310.
408Westcott, p. 99.
were looking for Him (v. 26). In view of what these people proceeded to demand of Jesus
(vv. 30-31), it was important that John show that they were the very people who had
witnessed the sign of the miraculous feeding.
Jesus' creating desire for the bread 6:26-34
This section of the text contains Jesus' enigmatic and attractive description of the Bread
of Life. Jesus was whetting His hearers' appetites for it (cf. 4:10). The pericope ends with
them asking Him to give them the Bread (v. 34), but others stopped following Him
(v. 66).
"He spoke . . . with Calvary in view, setting Himself forth as the life of the
world in terms applicable to a sacrificial victim, whose blood is shed, and
whose flesh is eaten by those presenting the offering; not mincing His
words, but saying every thing in the strongest and intensest manner
possible."409
6:26 Jesus' introductory words identified another very important statement (cf.
vv. 32, 47, 53). He did not answer their question (v. 25) and tell them that
He had walked across the surface of the lake. He did not want them to
follow Him primarily because He could do miracles. He understood that
their interest in Him was mainly because of His ability to provide for them
physically. They were not interested in Him or the significance of His
"signs," which identified Him as the "God-man," but because Jesus could
fill their stomachs. Many people today are only interested in Jesus because
of the benefits He could give them. Jesus proceeded to explain what the
miracle they had witnessed signified.
"They were more concerned with hungry stomachs than

with hungry souls."410
6:27 Jesus had previously spoken to the Samaritan woman about living water
(4:10, 14), and now He spoke to these Galileans about "food that endures."
He was, as previously, contrasting physical and spiritual nourishment.
Consequently, the descriptions that follow contain a mixture of literal and
metaphorical language. Jesus wanted His hearers to view the spiritual
aspects of His mission as more important than its physical aspects.
The people apparently understood His reference to bread "that endures to

eternal life" as meaning physical bread that does not become stale and
moldy. As the "Son of Man," Jesus claimed to have authority to give this
food because "God" the "Father" had "set His seal" of approval on Jesus.
The Father had authorized the Son to act for Him (cf. 5:32-47). This was
one of the functions of a seal in Jesus' culture, and God setting His seal on
409A. B. Bruce, p. 136.

something or someone was a common expression for it being true.411 Jesus

was speaking of Himself as the "food" (vv. 35, 53). The Son would give
this food and eternal life, but the people had a responsibility to "work"
(i.e., believe the gospel, v. 29) for it too.
6:28 The "works of God" are the works that God requires to obtain the "food
that remains (endures)," even eternal life. The people were still thinking
on the physical level. They thought Jesus was talking about some physical
work that would yield eternal life. Not only that, they assumed that they
could do it, and that by doing it they could earn eternal life. They either
ignored, or misunderstood, forgot, or disbelieved, Jesus' statement that He
would "give" them "eternal life" (cf. Rom. 10:2-4). There is something
within the fallen nature of human beings that makes working for eternal
life more attractive than receiving it as a gift.
6:29 The only "work" that God requires of people for salvation is "faith in His
Son" (cf. 3:11-17). The work that Jesus specified was not something
physical at all. It was what God requires, namely, trust in Jesus (cf. Rom.
3:28). However, it is a work that He also enables.412 Jesus' reply was a flat
contradiction of the idea that people can earn salvation with their good
deeds. This is another of the many great evangelistic verses in John's
Gospel (1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; et al.). In this discourse, Jesus equated
"believing" (vv. 29, 47) with "coming" to Him (v. 35), and "eating" this
Bread (vv. 50, 51).
6:30-31 Jesus had just plainly told the people what "work" they needed to do to
obtain eternal life (v. 29). Now they asked Him "what work" He would do
("for a sign") to prove that He was God's authorized representative as He
claimed to be (cf. 1 Cor. 1:22). They suggested that producing bread from
heaven as Moses did might convince them. Their unwillingness to believe
the "sign" that Jesus had given them the previous day shows the hardness
of their hearts. No matter what Jesus did, the unbelievers always
demanded more.
Probably Jesus' provision of bread for thousands of people the previous
day led them to ask for this greater miracle. Some of them had concluded
that Jesus might be the Prophet that Moses had predicted (v. 14). If He
was, He ought to be able to do greater miracles than Moses did. The
"manna" that Moses produced spoiled if left uneaten overnight, but Jesus
seemed to be promising bread that would not spoil ("that endures").
The source of the people's loose quotation is probably Psalm 78:24.
However, there are also similarities to Nehemiah 9:15; Exodus 16:4 and
15; and Psalm 105:40.
411Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:28-29.

412SeeSigurd Grindheim, "The Work of God or of Human Beings: A Note on John 6:29," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 59:1 (March 2016):63-66.
"This section of the discourse is to be understood against

the background of a Jewish expectation that, when the
Messiah came, he would renew the miracle of the
manna."413
6:32-33 The people were viewing "Moses" as the source of their blessing in the
past. They believed that the manna was given through his merits, and
ended with his death.414 There is also some evidence that they believed
Moses was interceding for them in the present as well.415 Jesus pointed
them beyond Moses to the true source, namely: "God." He wanted them to
look to God for their needs, not to a human channel of God's blessing.
Jesus also turned the conversation away from the request for a physical
sign, back to the subject of the bread that satisfies. God ("not Moses") had
given manna in the past, but He was giving a new type of bread now.
Jesus described it as coming "down from (out of) heaven" and providing
"life" for the entire "world," not just Israel. With this response, Jesus
effectively took Moses and his sign, which the people had put in a superior
place over Himself, and placed them in an inferior position under Himself.
The "true (Gr. alethinos, genuine or original, cf. 1:9) bread" is the bread
that satisfies ultimately. In this discourse, Jesus mentioned seven times
that He had "come down out of heaven," stressing the fact that He was
God's divine gift (vv. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58).
6:34 Jesus had commended the new bread sufficiently now for the people to
request it of Him, as He had commended the living water for the
Samaritan woman. He had set them up for the revelation that He was that
bread. If they were sincere in their desire for it, they would accept Him.
Yet the people did not realize what they were requesting, as the woman at
the well did not (cf. 4:15). They were still thinking of physical bread. They
wanted some new type of physical bread from then on that would never
spoil.
Jesus' identification of the bread 6:35-40

6:35 Jesus now identified Himself as the bread about which He had been
speaking (cf. v. 47; Isa. 55:1-2). The Jews regarded the real bread from
heaven as the Law.416 Jesus did not say He had the bread of life, but that
He was that bread.
"The Jews asked for something from Christ: He offers them

Himself."417
413Morris,p. 320.
415See Beasley-Murray, p. 79.
417Westcott, p. 102.
He claimed to be able to satisfy completely, as bread and water satisfy

physically. His hearers did not need to return to Him for salvation
repeatedly, as they had assumed (v. 34), since He would also satisfy
permanently (cf. 13:9-10). The "nevers" are emphatic in the Greek text.
"Coming to Jesus" and "believing on Jesus" are synonymous concepts, just
as bread and water together represent total human need. Jesus did not
mean that continual dependence on Him was unimportant (cf. 15:4-5). He
meant that believing on Him for salvation would satisfy the basic human
need and desire for life. Again Jesus linked life with Himself. He is what
sustains and nourishes spiritual life. It is by feeding on Him that we obtain
life initially and continue to flourish spiritually.
"If a man truly has life-giving contact with Jesus he never

ceases to be dependent on him . . . but the initial contact
does not need to be repeated."418
Jesus' claim to be the Bread of Life, three times in this discourse (vv. 35,
48, 51), is the first of seven such claims that John recorded Jesus making
in his Gospel. Jesus used the same expression (Gr. ego eimi, "I am," plus a
predicate) in each case. Two other instances of ego eimi and a predicate
occur (8:18, 23), but they are slightly different in meaning. Ego eimi
without the predicate appears in 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; and 18:6. Each of these
seven "I am" claims expresses Jesus' relationship to humankind's basic
spiritual needs metaphorically.
JESUS' "I AM" CLAIMS

Title Meaning Reference
The Bread of Life Satisfier and sustainer of life 6:35, 48
The Light of the World Dispeller of sin's darkness 8:12
The Gate Entrance into security and fellowship 10:7, 9
The Good Shepherd Protector and guide in life 10:11, 14
The Resurrection and the Life Hope in death 11:25
The Way, the Truth, and the Life Certainty in perplexity 14:6
The True Vine Source of vitality and productivity 15:1, 5
"Jesus is the one who bears the divine name (cf. Ex. 3:14).
For John, this story takes on the character of a theophany,
not unlike the Transfiguration recorded by the
Synoptics."419
418Barrett, p. 293.
419Harris, p. 177.
6:36 Jesus charged these Galileans with unbelief as He had formerly charged
the Judean residents of Jerusalem with it (5:36-38). They had "seen" Him
physically, and on the physical level they had concluded that He might be
the predicted Prophet. However, they had not seen who He was spiritually.
They did "not believe" that He was the divine Messiah. Physical sight and
spiritual insight are two different things.
"At heart, the common people were no more ready for the
Kingdom of Christ than their rulers. The main difference
was that in the case of the rulers there were certain vested
rights at stake, while the people in general thought they had
nothing much to lose in any event."420
6:37 These people's lack of faith did not indicate that Jesus or God's plan had
failed, however. The ability to believe on Jesus requires divine
enablement. It is only those whom "the Father" enables to believe that
"come to" Jesus in faith. These are "all" the people whom "the Father
gives" to the Son as gifts. Jesus viewed the ultimate cause of faith as God's
electing grace, not man's choice.
Jesus promised "not" to turn away ("cast out") anyone who "comes to"
Him in faith. He used a figure of speech (litotes) to stress strongly the
positive fact that all who believe in Him find acceptance and security. In
"litotes," the speaker or writer affirms a positive truth by negating its
opposite. For example, "This is no small matter," is a litotes meaning,
"This is a very significant matter." In the first part of this verse, Jesus
spoke of the elect as a group, and in the second part, He referred to every
individual in the group. Jesus had confidence in the Father drawing the
elect to Him, and the believer may have confidence, too, in the Son
receiving and retaining him or her. How can a person know if he or she is
one of the elect? Let him or her come to Jesus in faith.
6:38-40 Jesus next explained why He would accept all who come to Him and will
preserve them. The purpose of the Incarnation was that the Son would
fulfill the Father's will. The Father's "will" was that the Son should "lose"
not a single individual ("nothing") of all whom the Father gave Him.
Preserving them includes raising them from the dead to "eternal life." The
distant purpose of the Father is the eternal life of those whom He gives to
the Son, namely, those who believe on the Son. Jesus Himself "will raise"
each believer ("him"). This is an added proof of our security.
"This thought is of the greatest comfort to believers. Their

assurance is based not on their feeble hold on Christ, but on
his sure grip on them (cf. 10:28f.)."421
420Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 309.

421Morris, p. 326.
"Here, as in 5.24-9, John balances exactly the two aspects

of the Christian life, in present possession and future hope;
and there is nothing to indicate that he thought one more
important than the other."422
"Beholding the Son" equals believing in Him here. Jesus meant beholding
with the eyes of faith. "The last day" is the day of the resurrection of
believers, whenever it may occur. It is "last" in the sense that it will be the
last day that we experience mortality.
"John 6:37-40 contains Jesus' explanation of the process of personal

salvation. These are among the most profound words He ever spoke, and
we cannot hope to plumb their depths completely. He explained that
salvation involves both divine sovereignty and human responsibility."423
The fact of divine election did not embarrass Jesus or John. Even though God has chosen
the elect for salvation, they must believe on Jesus. Jesus balanced these truths beautifully
in this discourse (cf. 17:1, 6, 9, 24). He likewise affirmed the eternal security of the
believer (cf. 17:11-12). If one believer failed to reach heaven, it would be a disgrace for
the Son, since it would indicate His inability or unwillingness to fulfill the Father's will.
Judas Iscariot may appear at first to be an exception, but God did not choose him for
salvation (vv. 70-71; 17:12), even though Jesus chose him as one of the Twelve.
Jesus' identity as the Bread of Life 6:41-51
Jesus' claim to be the Bread of Life that had come down from heaven was something His
hearers found hard to accept. Consequently Jesus further clarified what He meant.
6:41-42 "This verse [v. 41] seems to mark the presence of new
persons and a new scene, as well as a new stage in the
history. The verses 37-40 were probably addressed
specially to the immediate circle of the disciples. Thus we
can understand how the Jews dwelt on the words in which
Christ identified Himself with the true spiritual food of the
world, while they took no notice of the loftier prerogatives
which followed from this truth, since the exposition of
these was not directed to them."424
Some of Jesus' hearers had known Him all His life. Even more of them
had come to know Him and His family since they had moved to
Capernaum, where Jesus gave this discourse (v. 59). His claim to "have
come down from (out of) heaven" seemed to them to contradict what they
knew about His human origins. Again they were thinking only in physical
422Barrett,
p. 294.
423Wiersbe, 1:312.
terms. If they had known the truth about His virgin birth, they would have
seen that it was consistent with His coming down from heaven.
It is interesting that the Israelites in the wilderness who received the

manna from heaven also grumbled (Exod. 15:24; 17:3; Num. 11:4-6).
Mankind's dissatisfaction with God's good gifts shows the perversity of
the human heart. It was Jesus' claim to a heavenly origin that offended
these people, as it had offended the people of Jerusalem (5:18).
"The Incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus was and

remains the great stumbling block in Christianity for the
Jews."425
In his Gospel, John often used the term "the Jews" to represent the Jews
who opposed Jesus during His ministry (cf. 2:18, 20; 5:16). It became
something of a technical term as he used it. It often means more than just a
racial group in this Gospel.
The New Testament reveals nothing about "Joseph" after Jesus' childhood.
He passed off the scene then, but statements such as this one suggest that
he had lived in Nazareth as Jesus was growing up. Probably Joseph died
sometime before Jesus began His public ministry.
6:43-44 Jesus did not allow the people's confusion about His origin to distress
Him. He rebuked their grumbling dissatisfaction by reminding them of
what God had given themthe offer of salvation. However, He explained
that those whom the Father had chosen for salvation among them would
believe in Him, regardless of their inability to reconcile His earthly and
heavenly origins. The important thing for them to do was believe Him, not
first harmonize all the apparent contradictions they observed.
"The thought of the divine initiative in salvation is one of

the great doctrines of this Gospel, and indeed of the
Christian faith."426
Jesus clarified also that the Father's drawing (Gr. helkyo) is selective (cf.
v. 37). He does not just draw everyone in the general sense of extending
the gospel invitation to them. He selects some from the mass of humanity
and brings them to Himself for salvation. It is that minority that Jesus will
raise up to eternal life on the last day (cf. v. 40). This truth does not
contradict 12:32, where Jesus said that He would draw (Gr. helkyo) all
men to Himself. There He was speaking of all peoples (ethnic groups)
without distinction, not just Jews but also Gentiles. He did not mean all
people without exception.
426Morris, p. 328.
"These words of Christ [in v. 44] make manifest the depths

of human depravity. They expose the inveterate
stubbornness of the human will. They explain the
'murmuring' of these Jews."427
6:45 Jesus clarified what God's drawing involves. He cited recognized authority
for His statement that all whom the Father had chosen would come to
Him. Old Testament "prophets" had revealed that God would teach His
people (Isa. 54:13; cf. Jer. 31:34). Those whom God enlightened about
Jesus' identity would believe in ("come to") Him. That enlightenment
comes primarily through the Scriptures, God's principle tool.
"When he compels belief, it is not by the savage constraint

of a rapist, but by the wonderful wooing of a lover."428
6:46 Jesus further clarified how God draws people to Himself by explaining
how He does not do it. It is not by giving a mystical revelation of Himself
in His unveiled splendor to people. Jesus is the only "One" who "has seen"
God fully (cf. 1:18). He is the only mediator of that knowledge of God,
without which no one can know God. God teaches people about Himself
through Jesus. Listening to Jesus then becomes essential for learning from
God. God draws the elect to Himself by revealing Himself through Jesus.
The Scriptures bear witness to that revelation.
6:47-48 "At this point the discourse takes a fresh start. The
objection of the Jews has been met, and the Lord goes on to
develop the idea set forth in vv. 35, 36, taking up the last
word: 'He that believeth' (omit on me, the phrase stands
absolutely) hath 'eternal' life. The actual existence of true
faith implies the right object of it."429
Jesus introduced His repetition and summary of the essential truth He was
teaching with another strong affirmation. This summary continues through
verse 51. He repeated what He had told Nicodemus more concisely (3:15).
In spite of the truth of the Father's drawing the elect to Himself, it is still
imperative that they believe in Jesus. This is the human responsibility.
However, belief in Jesus is not anything meritorious. It is simply the
proper response to God's working. The result is "eternal" or everlasting
"life," that the new believer begins to enjoy the moment he or she believes
in Jesus. All of this is part of what Jesus meant when He claimed to be the
"Bread of Life." Eternal life was at stake, not just physical life.
427Pink,1:336.
Another interpretation of what Jesus meant, when He said, "He who

believes has eternal life," follows:
"Believing is not the cause of a sinner obtaining Divine life,

rather is it the effect of it. The fact that a man believes, is
the evidence that he already has Divine life within him.
True, the sinner ought to believe. Such is his bounden duty.
And in addressing sinners from the standpoint of human
responsibility, it is perfectly proper to say 'Whosoever
believeth in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life.'
Nevertheless, the fact remains that no unregenerate sinner
ever did or ever will believe. The unregenerate sinner ought
to love God, and love Him with all his heart. He is
commanded to. But he does not, and will not, until Divine
grace gives him a new heart. So he ought to believe, but he
will not till he has been quickened into newness of life.
Therefore, we say that when any man does believe, is found
believing, it is proof positive that he is already in
possession of eternal life. 'He that believeth on me hath
(already has) eternal life': cf. John 3:36; 5:24; 1 John 5:1,
etc."430
Many Bible students, including myself, have difficulty accepting this

view: that regeneration precedes faith. We believe that God gives the elect
the grace to believe the gospel, without which grace no one can be saved,
but that a person is not regenerated until he believes the gospel (cf. Acts
16:31).
6:49-50 Jesus had been speaking of everlasting life, and had claimed that He, as
the Bread of Life, could provide it. Now He clarified the distinction
between the physical bread that God provided in the wilderness, and the
spiritual Bread that He provided in Jesus. The result of eating the manna
was temporary satisfaction but ultimately physical death, but the result of
believing in Jesus was permanent satisfaction and no deathi.e., victory
over physical death and no threat of the second or spiritual death.
"When God gave the manna, He gave only a gift; but when
Jesus came, He gave Himself. There was no cost to God in
sending the manna each day, but He gave His Son at great
cost. The Jews had to eat the manna every day, but the
sinner who trusts Christ once is given eternal life.
"It is not difficult to see in the manna a picture of our Lord

Jesus Christ. The manna was a mysterious thing to the
Jews; in fact, the word manna means 'What is it?' (see Ex.
430Pink, 1:340-41.
16:15). Jesus was a mystery to those who saw Him. The

manna came at night from heaven, and Jesus came to this
earth when sinners were in moral and spiritual darkness.
The manna was small (His humility), round (His
eternality), and white (His purity). It was sweet to the taste
(Ps. 34:8) and it met the needs of the people adequately."431
"This is one of the many, many verses of Scripture which

affirms the eternal security of the believer."432
6:51 This verse contains a final summary of the main ideas in this section. Jesus
is "living" Bread, not manna, but He also "came down" from God ("out of
heaven")as manna did. Those who believe on Him (whoever "eats of
this bread") will experience eternal life ("live forever"). The terms
"coming to Jesus" (v. 35), "listening to Him" (v. 45), and "seeing Him"
(v. 40)all mean "believing on Him" (v. 35). Jesus would "give" His
body as "bread" so the "world" could live spiritually. He referred to His
coming sacrificial death. Not only had the Father given the Bread, but the
Bread would now give Himself. John characteristically emphasized Jesus'
death as being for life rather than for sin.433
"In words dark and mysterious before the event, clear as

day after it, the speaker declares the great truth, that His
death is to be the life of men; that His broken body and
shed blood are to be as meat and drink to a perishing world,
conferring on all who shall partake of them the gift of
immortality."434
The meaning of believing 6:52-59
Jesus introduced a new metaphor for believing on Him, namely, eating His flesh. The
following pericope is highly metaphorical.
6:52 As Jesus' hearers had objected to what He had said about His identity (vv.
41-42), so they now expressed confusion about what He meant by "eating
flesh." An intense argument (Gr. emachonto) erupted among them. They
were struggling to understand His meaning. In what sense would Jesus
give "His flesh to eat" as food?435
431Wiersbe, 1:313.
432Pink, 1:342.
434A. B. Bruce, p. 138.
435See Paul M. Hoskins, "Deliverance from Death by the True Passover Lamb: A Significant Aspect of the
Fulfillment of the Passover in the Gospel of John," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:2
(June 2009):285-99.
6:53-54 This is the fourth and last of Jesus' strong prefaces in this discourse (cf.
vv. 26, 32, 47). It should be obvious to any reader of this discourse by
now, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and not literally. By
referring to His "flesh" and "blood," He was figuratively referring to His
whole person. This is a figure of speech called "synecdoche," in which one
part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating beliefwhat it means to
appropriate Him by faith (v. 40). He expressed the same truth, first
negatively (v. 53), and then positively (v. 54a). He referred again to
resurrection, as well, because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life
(cf. vv. 39, 40, 44).
"This act of receiving Christ is done once for all. I cannot

receive Him a second time, for He never leaves me!"436
Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title
"Son of Man." "Blood" in the Old Testament represented violent death
primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He
connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death. The
idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev. 3:17; 17:10-14).
Jesus' hearers should have understood that He was speaking
metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (vv. 60-61).
Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord's Supper
in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find apparent support here
for their belief that participation in the Eucharist is essential for salvation.
However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion
service. Besides, He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the
communion elements. Most importantly, the New Testament presents the
Lord's Supper as a commemoration of Jesus' death, not a vehicle for
obtaining eternal life. Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the
symbolism of the Eucharist.
"In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it

does expose the true meaning of the Lord's supper as
clearly as any passage in Scripture."437
6:55 This verse explains why Jesus' statements in verses 53 and 54 are true.
Jesus' Person (symbolized by His "flesh" and "blood") is what truly
satisfies and sustains life. This is the true function of food and drink.
"Four times over [vv. 39, 40, 44, and 54] He declared in
express terms that all who partook of this bread of life
should be raised again at the last day. The prominence thus
given to the resurrection of the body is due in part to the
fact that throughout His discourse Jesus was drawing a
436Pink, 1:347.
contrast between the manna which fed the Israelites in the

desert and the true bread of which it was the type. The
contrast was most striking just at this point. The manna was
merely a substitute for ordinary food; it had no power to
ward off death: the generation which had been so
miraculously supported passed away from the earth, like all
other generations of mankind. Therefore, argued Jesus, it
could not be the true bread from heaven; for the true bread
must be capable of destroying death, and endowing the
recipients with the power of an endless existence."438
6:56 Because Jesus' Person is what truly satisfies and sustains life, those who
believe in Him remain (Gr. meno, "abide") in Him. This is a new term in
the discussion, but it is synonymous with having eternal life. Jesus was
saying that believers continue to possess eternal life; they will never lose
it. Believers remain in Christ, and He remains in them. Jesus was not
speaking here to His disciples about the importance of believers abiding in
fellowship with God, as He did later in chapter 15. Here He was speaking
to unbelievers about entering into a saving relationship with God.
6:57 Jesus traced the eternal lifethat the believer receives when he or she
trusts in Jesusback through the Son to the living God (cf. 5:21, 24-27).
This helps us see that eternal life is essentially God's life that He imparts
to believers. It also clarifies Jesus' central role as the Mediator of eternal
life from the Father to humankind.
"The Christian life is a mediated life. John, though he has

been called a mystic, is unaware of any religious life which
is not wholly dependent on Jesus."439
6:58 In conclusion, Jesus returned to His initial claim that He had come from
the Father (v. 29). The Jews often substituted the term "heaven" for "God"
out of respect for God's name, and Jesus did that here. This is a figure of
speech called "metonymy," in which the speaker or writer uses the name
of one thing for that of another associated with or suggested by it. The
Israelites who "ate" the physical "bread" that came down from God "died"
in the wilderness (vv. 30-31), but those who believe in the ("eat this")
spiritual Bread that "came down" from Him "will live forever."
6:59 John now identified the historical context in which Jesus gave this
teaching. Jesus gave this discourse "in the synagogue" in the town of
"Capernaum," that He had adopted as the headquarters of His ministry (cf.
2:12). This verse evidently marks the conclusion of the discussion that
took place within the synagogue.
438A. B. Bruce, pp. 140-41.

439Barrett, p. 300.
Archaeologists have uncovered what they believe may be the foundations

of this synagogue. Visitors to the site of Capernaum may now view a
reconstructed edifice that dates from three or four hundred years later.
The Apostle Paul went to the Jewish synagogues in the towns that he evangelized,
because they were the places where pious Jews normally congregated to listen to God's
Word. We should probably view Jesus' teaching ministry here as similar to Paul's later
practice. Both men announced God's revelations to lost religious Jews, and appealed to
them to believe the gospel.
4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:607:9

Considerable discussion followed Jesus presentation of Himself as the Bread of Life.
John noted the responses of many people who were following Jesus around, then the
response of the Twelve, and finally the response of most of the Jews. What followed
probably happened in the adjoining courtyard, or outside the synagogue, or perhaps
inside after Jesus had concluded His discourse.
"The present paragraph [vv. 60-71] marks the close of the Galilean
ministry of Jesus, and in it John presents, in summary form and in
dependence upon certain significant synoptic incidents, the result of that
ministry. Cf. 12.37-50, where the work of Jesus in Jerusalem, and indeed
his whole public ministry, is similarly summarized."440
The response of many disciples 6:60-65

6:60 Not only "the Jews" (v. 52), but many of Jesus' followers ("disciples"),
found His teaching about the Bread of Life offensive (Gr. skleros,
"difficult" or "hard"). The term "disciple" (lit. "learner") is not
synonymous with "believer," as should be patently clear in the Gospels. In
verse 64, Jesus said that some of these "disciples" did not believe. Some of
Jesus' disciples were believers, but many of them were following Him,
simply to learn from Him, and then decide if He was the Messiah or not.
"Disciples" sometimes refers specifically to the 12 apostles (e.g., Luke
6:13).
This teaching persuaded many in this seeker category to abandon this

Rabbi. Some of them undoubtedly wanted the physical benefits of Jesus'
messianism, but had little interest in spiritual matters (cf. vv. 14-15, 26,
30-31). Others could not see beyond Jesus' humanity to His true identity
(vv. 41-46). Others probably could not accept Jesus' claim to be greater
than Moses (vv. 32-33, 58). Still others may have found Jesus' language
offensive, particularly His references to eating flesh and drinking blood
(vv. 53-54). Earlier, miracles led to faith (2:11, 23; 4:39-42); here they led
to unbelief. Clearly, miracles are an inadequate foundation for faith.
440Ibid., p. 301.
6:61-62 Evidently Jesus spoke these words to a large group of His followers that
included the Twelve. He suggested that He would yet reveal things that
would be even harder for them to accept than what they had heard so far.
He had told them that He had come down from heaven (v. 38), and this
had scandalized (Gr. skandalizei) them. What would they think if they
actually saw Him ascend back into heaven?
Jesus may have been referring to His bodily ascension, but perhaps He
was speaking of His crucifixion (cf. 3:14). This explanation is in harmony
with Jesus' metaphorical language that He had been using throughout the
previous discourse. Jesus' crucifixion was in a sense the first step in His
ascending back to the Father, since it permitted Him to do so. Certainly
Jesus' crucifixion was the most humanly offensive aspect of His entire
ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23 where the same Greek word occurs). Probably
Jesus' crucifixion and ascension are in view.
"The Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, were steps

in the progress of the 'ascending up' through suffering,
which is the great offence of the Gospel."441
6:63 Some of Jesus' disciples turned from Him because they preferred the
material realm to the spiritual realm, for which Jesus had an obvious
preference. He admonished them that "the Spirit gives" real "life" (cf.
Gen. 1:2; Ezek. 37:14; John 3:6), whereas the "flesh" provides "nothing"
of comparable importance. The "words" that Jesus had spoken to them
dealt with spiritual realities and resulted in spiritual "life." Furthermore
they were words that came from God's Spirit. Therefore they were
extremely important.
6:64 In spite of the importance of spiritual life, Jesus said He recognized that
some of His disciples "did not believe" on Him. This was a tragic irony.
They had followed Jesus and had listened to Him, but they did not believe
Him.
John added that Jesus "knew . . . who did not believe" on Him, even "who"
of His disciples "would betray Him" (vv. 70-71), to show that human
unbelief did not take Jesus by surprise.
"Jesus had given ample opportunity for faith to all those

who followed him; yet from the beginning his spiritual
discernment made him aware of those whose faith was
genuine and those whose attachment was only
superficial."442
"The beginning" may be a reference to the beginning of Jesus' ministry,

but it is probably another reference to Jesus' preincarnate existence (cf.
1:1).
6:65 Again Jesus expressed His belief that the human decision to believe or not
believe rested ultimately in God's elective purpose (vv. 37, 44). Thus He
did not view the unbelief of His disciples as an indication that He had
failed. Even so, Jesus did not present the importance of belief on Himself
as something His hearers could take or leave either. It meant the difference
between life and death for them, so He urged them to believe.
The response of the Twelve 6:66-71

6:66 Jesus lost "many of His" followers because of the Bread of Life discourse
(cf. v. 60). His explanation to them following the discourse did not change
their minds. He had made no concessions. They had understood Him
correctly the first time. The Greek phrase ek toutou can mean "from this
time" or "for this reason." Both meanings fit here.
"The sermon on the bread of life produced decisive effects.

It converted popular enthusiasm for Jesus into disgust; like
a fan, it separated true from false disciples; and like a
winnowing breeze, it blew the chaff away, leaving a small
residuum of wheat behind."443
In this passage we see four responses to Jesus: seeking (vv. 22-40),

murmuring (vv. 41-51), striving (vv. 52-59), and departing (vv. 60-71).444
6:67 Jesus' question assumed a negative answer, as is clear from the Greek
construction. He undoubtedly asked it, not because He had questions about
the Twelve's perseverance (v. 64), but because they needed to reaffirm
their commitment. It would have been easy for them to agree with the
crowd. The question also implied that very many of His disciples had
abandoned Jesus, perhaps the majority.
6:68-69 Typically, "Peter" spoke for the Twelve. "Lord" (Gr. kurios) can mean
simply "sir," but here it probably has a deeper meaning. These disciples
were reaffirming their allegiance to the One whom Peter now identified as
the "Holy One of God" (cf. Ps. 16:10; Isa. 41:14; 43:3; 47:4; 48:17; Mark
1:24; Luke 4:34). Peter probably did not mean that they viewed Jesus as
their last resort, but that Jesus was their only hope. They "believed" that
Jesus' teachings ("words") resulted in "eternal life" for those who believed
(v. 63), and they had "believed" in Him as the "holy" Messiah whom
"God" had sent. It is less likely that Peter meant that Jesus' words only
concerned or dealt with eternal life.
443A. B. Bruce, p. 145.

444Wiersbe, p. 311.
"Three anchors, we infer from these words, helped the

twelve to ride out the storm: Religious earnestness or
sincerity; a clear perception of the alternatives before them;
and implicit confidence in the character and attachment to
the person of their Master."445
Peter's confession of faith here is not the same as the one He made at
Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). The content is
different as is the chronology. Probably Peter's confession of Jesus' full
deity occurred first at Caesarea Philippi. Here he evidently meant that the
Twelve believed that Jesus was who He had claimed to be in the preceding
discourse, namely, the Messiah who had come with divine revelation from
God.
"Here the confession points to the inward character in

which the Apostles found the assurance of life: there the
confession was of the public office and theocratic Person of
the Lord."446
Peter referred to Jesus as "the Holy One" later in his preaching on the day
of Pentecost, but that was after receiving much more insight, particularly
from Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:27; 3:14).
6:70 It might appear that the Twelve had chosen Jesus as their rabbi, but really
the choice had been His (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16). He had chosen
them, and they had then believed on Him, even as the Father has chosen
the elect who then later believe on Jesus. Reflecting His knowledge of
those who believed in Him and those who did not (v. 64), Jesus revealed
that even among "the Twelve" there was one unbeliever ("a devil"). Jesus
had chosen him to be one of the Twelve, but God had not chosen Him for
salvation (cf. 13:10-11; 17:12; Acts 1:25; Ps. 41:9).
The Greek word translated "devil" (Gr. diabolos) does not have an article
with it in many reliable ancient Greek manuscripts. This usually indicates
an emphasis on the quality of the noun. Here it probably means that "one"
of "the Twelve" was devil-like (cf. Mark 8:33). The Greek word is the
equivalent of the Hebrew satan, meaning "adversary" or "accuser." It
means slanderer or false accuser, but when it occurs as a substantive it
means "Satan" (e.g., 8:44; 13:2; cf. 13:27). Jesus probably meant that one
of the Twelve was going to behave as Satan because Satan would direct
him. This was the first time that Jesus hinted that one of the Twelve was a
false disciple.
445A. B. Bruce, p. 148. Italic omitted.

6:71 John, not Jesus, identified the "devil" among the Twelve as "Judas." His
devilish act was to be the betrayal of Jesus into His enemies' hands.
"Iscariot" is probably a transliteration of the Hebrew is qeriyot, meaning
"man of Kerioth," a village in southern Judah (Josh. 15:25).
"The record of the great controversy at Jerusalem, during which faith and
unbelief were fully revealed, falls into two parts. The first part ([chs.]
vi.x.) contains the outline of the successive stages of the controversy
itself; the second the decisive judgment (xi., xii.).
"This central section of the whole Gospel [chs. 710] contains events and
discourses connected with two national festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles
and the Feast of Dedication, which commemorated the first possession of
Canaan and the great recovery of religious independence. Thus the
festivals had a most marked meaning in regard to the life of the Jews, and
this, as will be seen, influenced the form of the Lord's teaching.
"There is a clear progress in the history. The discussions at the Feast of

Tabernacles (vii., viii.) are characterized by waverings and questionings
among the people. The discussions at the Feast of Dedication show the
separation already consummated (ix., x.)."447
The response of the Jews 7:1-9

"John 7 has three time divisions: before the feast (vv. 1-10), in the midst
of the feast (vv. 11-36), and on the last day of the feast (vv. 37-52). The
responses during each of those periods can be characterized by three
words: disbelief, debate, and division."448
This section relates the reaction of another significant group of people to Jesus. Generally
they were the Jews, including Jesus' brothers. The section also prepares the reader for the
following presentation of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem that happened at the Feast of
Tabernacles.
"In this Gospel Jerusalem is the storm-centre of the Messiah's ministry,

where He vindicates His claims before consummating His work by
suffering outside its walls."449
7:1 Opposition to Jesus had by now become so strong, particularly "in Judea,"
that He chose to stay and minister around "Galilee." This is a brief
reference to Jesus' later Galilean ministry that the Synoptics describe more
fully. The Jewish leaders were continuing to lay plans for Jesus' execution
(cf. 5:18). John noted their increasing hostility here and in the following
chapters (cf. vv. 19, 30, 32, 44; 8:59; 10:39; 11:8, 53).
447Ibid.,
p. 115.
448Wiersbe, p. 314.
449Tasker, p. 101.
7:2 The Feast of Tabernacles ("Booths") occurred six months after Passover
(6:4). (Matthew 1217 and 21 record some events that happened during
this six-month period, which John passed over without comment.) That
year the Feast of Tabernacles fell on September 10-17, A.D. 32.450 It was a
fall grape and olive harvest festival (Exod. 23:16; Lev. 23:33-36, 39-43;
Deut. 16:13-15). In Jesus' day it was the most popular of the three required
Jewish feasts.451 It commemorated the Israelites' sojourn in the wilderness.
Many devout Jews built temporary shelters out of branches and lived in
them for the week, in order to simulate the wilderness conditions in which
their forefathers had lived.
7:3-5 Jesus' half-brothers advised Him to "go" to the feast, so that His remaining
"disciples" would continue to believe on Him, and so more people would
become His disciples. They evidently supposed that Jesus wanted as large
a following as possible. They believed that He could perform miracles, but
they did not believe that He was who He claimed to be. They encouraged
Him to promote Himself, perhaps because they saw some advantage for
themselves in His doing so. Satan had tempted Jesus similarly (Matt. 4:1-
10). God's plan for Jesus' exaltation was different from theirs and involved
the Cross. It is difficult to tell if these brothers spoke sincerely or
sarcastically. Perhaps some were sincere and others were sarcastic.
Familiarity with Jesus did not and does not guarantee faith in Him (cf. Ps.
69:8). The way unbelievers plan to obtain glory for themselves is
frequently contrary to God's way of doing things (cf. Phil. 2:3-11). Two of
these half-brothers were James and Jude, who later became believers and
wrote the New Testament books that bear their names (cf. Acts 1:14; 1
Cor. 15:7).
7:6 Jesus replied that it was not the right "time" (Gr. kairos) for Him to go to
Jerusalem, i.e., the Father's time (schedule), which Jesus called "My time"
(cf. 2:4). However, they could go to the feast at any time (Gr. kairos).
They were not on a mission and timetable from God as He was.
"John's picture of Jesus is of one steadily moving on to

meet his divinely appointed destiny."452
Another interpretation is that Jesus meant that the time of His death was
not yet at hand. However, the Greek word that Jesus used when referring
to His death and its consequences in John's Gospel is always hora
elsewhere, not kairos (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1).
450Hoehner, p. 143.
452Morris, p. 352.
7:7 Jesus alluded to the opposition that awaited Him in Jerusalem. His
brothers had no particular reason to be careful about when they went to the
feast, but Jesus would be in danger when He went. They were part of "the
world," but Jesus did not belong to it (1:10; cf. 15:18-21; 17:14, 16).
Another reason for the Jews' antagonism was Jesus' convicting preaching
that called for repentance and faith in Him. This verse contains the
explanation for Jesus' statement in the preceding verse.
7:8-9 Having offered His explanation, Jesus encouraged His brothers to go on

"to the feast" without Him. Again He intimated that the Father was setting
His agenda, and He needed to follow it rather than their suggestion (cf.
2:4). God's immediate will for Him was to stay "in Galilee."
The NIV "yet" has weak textual support, though it represents a valid
interpretation. Many old Greek manuscripts do not contain it. Probably
copyists added it to explain what Jesus meant, since He did go to
Jerusalem shortly after He spoke these words (v. 10).
H. JESUS' THIRD VISIT TO JERUSALEM 7:1010:42
This section of the text describes Jesus' teaching in Jerusalem during the Feast of
Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication. John evidently included the teaching in his
narrative because it contains important revelations of Jesus' identity, and because it
explains the mounting opposition to Jesus that culminated in His crucifixion.
1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13
7:10 Jesus proceeded to head for Jerusalem shortly after His half-brothers left,
because the Father led Him to go then. He did not herald His arrival with
great publicity (or "publicly"), as His brothers had recommended, but went
without fanfare. If He had gone sooner, the authorities would have had
more opportunities to arrest Him (v. 1).
7:11 Since John usually used the phrase "the Jews" to describe the Jewish
authorities who were hostile to Jesus (cf. 1:19; 7:13; et al.), that is
probably who was trying to find Him here. Their intentions seem
pernicious.
7:12-13 Jesus was a controversial subject of conversation at the feast. His presence
provoked considerable "grumbling" (Gr. goggusmos, cf. 6:41, 61). Many
of the common people from Judea, however, and pilgrims from elsewhere,
debated His ministry in private, while suspecting that their leaders
opposed Him. According to the Talmud, deceiving the people was a crime
punishable by stoning.453 "The Jews" here clearly refers to Israel's leaders.
453Blum, p. 299.
This pericope provides background for Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem that follows. It helps
the reader sense the atmosphere of public opinion in which Jesus then worked.
2. Jesus' ministry at the Feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

John presented this occasion of Jesus' teaching ministry as consisting of three emphases:
Jesus' authority, His origin and destiny, and the promise of the Holy Spirit. This section
has also been seen as consisting of two cycles: Jesus' teaches (vv. 15-24; 37-39), the
resultant speculation among the people (vv. 25-31; 40-44), and the mission of the Jewish
officials and its consequences (vv. 32-36; 45-52).454
Jesus' authority 7:14-24

7:14 Toward the middle of the week, Jesus began teaching publicly in the
temple, perhaps in the "treasury" in the court of the women.455 This verse
sets the scene for what follows immediately.
". . . all along the inside of the great wall which formed the
Temple-enclosure ran a double colonnadeeach column a
monolith of white marble, 25 cubits high, covered with
cedar-beams."456
7:15 It was quite common for Jewish males to read and write. The people do
not appear to have expressed amazement at Jesus' ability to do that. The
Judean Jews (cf. 1:19) marveled at Jesus' understanding of religious
matters (cf. Matt. 7:28-29; Mark 1:22). They knew He had not had a
formal theological education under the rabbis (cf. Acts 4:13).
"To the Jews there was only one kind of learningthat of

Theology; and only one road to itthe Schools of the
Rabbis."457
"It is sometimes true today that unschooled men in various

walks of life forge ahead of men of lesser gifts with school
training. See the like puzzle of the Sanhedrin concerning
Peter and John (Acts 4:13). This is not an argument against
education, but it takes more than education to make a real
man."458
7:16 Jesus responded by explaining that His knowledge had come from the One
"who" had "sent" Him: God the Father (cf. 5:19-30). It had not come from
Himself. He meant that His was not knowledge that He had dreamed up or
454Barrett,
p. 316.
455Edersheim, The Temple, p. 49.
457Ibid.
458Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:122-23.
arrived at through independent study. Jewish rabbis normally cited other

rabbis as the sources of their information. Jesus avoided giving the
impression that He was an inventive upstart, but He also implied that His
teaching was not simply the continuation of rabbinic tradition. His
"teaching" did not come from the rabbis or from self-study, but directly
from God.
"It is characteristic of many of the outstanding men of the

Bible that they are convinced that they must do what they
are doing, and say what they are saying, because they have
received a divine commission."459
7:17 Jesus further claimed that the key to validating His claim that His teaching
came from God, was a person's determination (willingness) to "do" God's
"will." The normal way that the rabbis settled such debates was through
discussion. However, Jesus taught that the key factor was moral rather
than intellectual. If "anyone" was "willing" to do God's will, not just to
know God's truth, God would enable that one to believe that Jesus'
teaching came from above (cf. 6:44).
"The only condition for understanding the claims of Jesus

is faith. 'Doing the will of God' does not mean ethical
obedience as a preliminary to dogmatic Christianity, but
believing in him whom God sent (6:29 . . .). Such faith
enables the believer to perceive the congruence of the
moral character of Jesus' mission with the divine will."460
The most important thing then is a commitment to follow God's "will."

Once a person makes that commitment, God begins to convince him or her
regarding what is true. Faith must precede reason, not the other way
around.
"His hearers had raised the question of his competence as a

teacher. He raises the question of their competence as
hearers."461
Jesus was not saying that the accuracy of our understanding is in direct
proportion to our submission to God. Some very godly people have held
some very erroneous views. There are other factors that also determine
how accurate our understanding may be. Neither was He saying that if a
person happens to do God's will, he or she will automatically understand
the origin of Jesus' teaching. His point was that submission to God, rather
than intellectual analysis, is the foundation for understanding truth,
particularly the truth of Jesus' teachings (cf. Prov. 1:7).
459Tasker, p. 104.
460Barrett,p. 318.
461Morris, p. 360.
"Spiritual understanding is not produced solely by learning

facts or procedures, but rather it depends on obedience to
known truth. Obedience to God's known will develops
discernment between falsehood and truth."462
7:18 The person who advances his or her original ideas will glorify self. That
may not be his or her underlying motive, though it often is, but that will be
the result. Conversely, the one who advances the ideas of another, ends up
glorifying the other person rather than himself or herself. Jesus claimed to
do the latter, and to desire "the glory of the One who sent Him." That
desire demonstrated His righteousness, and made it unthinkable that He
would be deceiving the people (v. 12).
"In the Palestinian Targum the dutiful son is one 'who has
consideration for the glory ('iqar or 'honour') of his father'
(Gen. 32:7 (8), 11 (12), TJ1; Lev. 19.3 Neofiti)."463
7:19 Jesus had just claimed that God had given Him His teaching, and that He
proclaimed it faithfully as a righteous man. Now He contrasted His critics
with Himself. They claimed that "Moses" had given them his teaching, but
they did not carry it out faithfully as righteous men. Therefore it was
incongruous that they sought "to kill" Jesus (cf. vv. 44-45). They accused
Him of "unrighteousness" (vv. 12, 18), but really they were the
unrighteous ones. They sought "to kill" Him, even though Moses had
taught that God's will was to refrain from murder (Exod. 20:13).
Obviously they had not submitted to God's will as it came through Moses.
It is no wonder that they failed to understand Jesus' teaching.
7:20 Many of Jesus' hearers did not realize the depth of the animosity of Israel's
leaders toward Him. They naively thought He was crazy to think that
someone was trying to kill Him. The Jews of Jesus' day commonly
thought of mental illness, in this case paranoia, as being demon-induced.
This explains their reference to Jesus having "a demon" (cf. 10:20). These
people were not charging Jesus with getting His power from Satan, as
others had (Matt. 9:34; 10:25; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15; cf. Matt.
11:18). There are several cases of demon possession in the Synoptics, but
there are none in John.
7:21 The "one deed" (lit. work, Gr. ergon, i.e., a miraculous work) that Jesus
had done to which He referred, was evidently the healing of the paralytic
at the Bethesda pool (v. 23; 5:1-9). It had caused "all" who heard of it to
"marvel" (5:10-18). Furthermore it had started the controversy about Jesus
in Jerusalem.

463Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament, p. 142.
7:22 The antecedent of "On account of this" (NASB 1973 ed.), "For this
reason" (NASB 1995 ed.), or "Yet" (NIV; Gr. dia touto) is unclear. It
could refer to what precedes. This interpretation would yield a translation
such as "you all marvel because of this."464 However, John consistently
placed this phrase first when he used it in other clauses.465 Probably Jesus
was referring to His healing of the paralytic (v. 21) as symbolizing God's
desire for physical wholeness.
Moses prescribed circumcision for the physical well-being of the

Israelites, as well as for other reasons (Lev. 12:3). The Jews recognized
this, and consequently "circumcised" male infants on the eighth day
following their birthseven if that day was a "Sabbath."466 Normally
observant Jews did no work on the Sabbath.
Jesus' parenthetic reference to the fact that the circumcision legislation

really began with the patriarchs, and not Moses, was probably a slight
depreciation of Moses. Jesus' critics claimed to follow Moses faithfully,
but in keeping the circumcision law, they were not truly honoring him but
Abraham instead (Gen. 17:9-14). Technically Moses only incorporated the
circumcision law into the Mosaic Code, as he did many other older laws.
7:23 Jesus' critics permitted an act "on the Sabbath" that resulted in the health
of part of a person, and an infant at that, on the Sabbath. They should not,
therefore, object to His healing a whole adult ("an entire man") on the
same day. Besides, they performed circumcisions regularly on the
Sabbath, but Jesus had healed only one man on one Sabbath. Circumcision
was an operation designed to ensure good health. The circumcised child
was not even ill. Jesus, on the other hand, had healed a man who had
suffered with a serious handicap for 38 years. Furthermore circumcision
was only a purification rite, but healing a paralytic involved deliverance
from enslavement. Therefore it was unfair for Jesus' critics to be angry
with Him for what He had done.
The Jews had established a hierarchy of activities by which they judged

the legitimacy of performing any work on the Sabbath (cf. Matt. 12:9-10).
They based this hierarchy on necessary need, urgency. Jesus also operated
from a hierarchical viewpoint, but He based His hierarchy on what was
best for people (Mark 2:27).
"Had his opponents understood the implications of the

Mosaic provision for circumcision on the Sabbath they
would have seen that deeds of mercy such as he has just
done were not merely permissible but obligatory. Moses
464F.F. Bruce, p. 177; J. N. Sanders, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, p. 207.
466Mishnah Shabbath, 15.16; 18.3; 19.2; Nedarim 3.11.
quite understood that some things should be done even on

the Sabbath. The Jews had his words but not his
meaning."467
7:24 Jesus concluded by warning His hearers against judging "according to

appearance" or superficially (cf. Deut. 16:18-19; Isa. 11:3-4; Zech. 7:9).
Their superficial "judgment" about what was legitimate activity for the
Sabbath, had resulted in superficial judgment about Jesus' work and
person. He told them to stop doing that. They needed to "judge" on the
basis of "righteous" criteria: what was truly right.
Jesus' origin and destiny 7:25-36
7:25-26 Though many of the Jewish pilgrims in the temple courtyard did not
realize how antagonistic the religious leaders were to Jesus (v. 20), some
of the locals did. They marveled that Jesus was "speaking" out "publicly,"
and that the authorities were not opposing Him. They expected that if
Jesus were a deceiver, the "rulers" would lock Him up, but if He was the
Messiah, they would acknowledge Him as such. The authorities acted as
they did because they feared the people. The situation led some of the
locals to suspect that the leaders might actually believe ("know," if not
accept) that Jesus was the Messiah ("the Christ").
7:27 The people of Jerusalem felt inclined to disbelieve that Jesus was the
Messiah, because they believed that their human Messiah's earthly origins
would be unknown. This belief was a tradition.468 It was certainly not
scriptural, since the Old Testament clearly predicted that Messiah's
birthplace would be Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2).
"It seems to have been expected that Messiah would appear

suddenly (perhaps from Dan. vii. 13, or from Isai. liii. 8),
no one knew whence, while Christ had lived long among
His countrymen in obscurity and yet known to them."469
The common understanding of Jesus' origin was that since He was known
to have grown up in Nazareth, He apparently was born there too. Not only
did they fail to perceive His heavenly origin, but they were also wrong
about His earthly origin. In fact, they did not know Him very well at all.
7:28-29 Whenever John described Jesus as "crying out," an important public

pronouncement followed (cf. 1:15; 7:37; 12:44). Jesus said that His
hearers did "know" Him "and where" He was "from." Probably He meant
that they knew who He was superficially (cf. v. 24), and knew that He had
467Morris,p. 362.
468Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 8:7.
an earthly origin (6:42), but they knew less than they thought. Jesus was
speaking ironically. They did "not know" the One "who" had "sent" Him,
though Jesus did "know Him," because He had "come" from that One.
The One who had sent Jesus was "true" (Gr. alethinos, real). Jesus meant
that God really had sent Him, regardless of what others might think about
His origins. Unfortunately they did "not know" the One who had sent
Him, even though they prided themselves on knowing the true God (cf.
Rom. 2:17-19). They did not know God because they did not know their
Scriptures (cf. 5:46). They did not know Jesus because they did not know
the Father who had sent Him. In verse 16, Jesus had disclaimed originality
for His teaching, and here He now disclaimed responsibility for His
mission.470
"He was once again claiming to be God! He was not simply

born into this world like any other human; He was sent to
earth by the Father. This means that He existed before He
was born on the earth."471
7:30-31 Evidently those Jews who intended "to seize" (arrest; Gr. piazo) Jesus
wanted to restrain (restrict or stop) Him (cf. vv. 32, 44; 8:20; 10:39).
However, they could not do this because "His hour" (Gr. hora), the time
for His crucifixion and its consequences, "had not yet" arrived. God
prevented Jesus' premature arrest. Even though some of the Jews tried to
arrest Jesus, "many" from the multitude "believed on (in) Him." Jesus'
presence provoked a division among His hearers (cf. 1:11-12; 3:18-21).
Some believed because of the "signs" that He had performed. This was not
a strong basis for faith (cf. 2:11, 23; 4:48). They concluded that He was
the Messiah ("the Christ"), but the common understanding of Messiah was
that He would be a powerful human deliverer. Probably few, if any, of
these Jews believed that Jesus was also God Incarnate.
"But throughout this Gospel it is better to believe on the

basis of miracles than not to believe at all, so there is no
condemnation of this faith as inadequate."472
7:32 The Pharisees heard that some of the Jews present were voicing their
belief that Jesus must be the Messiah. These comments moved them to act
immediately to arrest Jesus. When the common people turned to Jesus,
they turned away from the Pharisees and their teachings. Together with the
"chief priests," who were mainly Sadducees and not friendly toward the
Pharisees, the rulers ordered the temple police "officers" to "seize" (arrest)
470Morris, p. 366.
471Wiersbe, 1:317.
472Morris, pp. 367-68.
Jesus. This attempt illustrates the seriousness of the situation as the

authorities viewed it. Probably the arrest warrant came from the
Sanhedrin. The temple police "officers" were Levites responsible to the
Sanhedrin.
7:33-34 Jesus again said that His hour had not yet come, only in different words.
When His hour later passed, He would return ("go") to the Father. The
Jews would search for Him but be unable to "find" Him. He was going
"where" they could "not come," namely, to heaven. Death was not the end.
They could "not come" where He was going because of their present,
unsaved condition. That required regeneration and translation (cf. 8:21;
13:33).
Time was running out: both for Jesus to finish His work, and for the Jews
to believe on Him. The Jews had only "a little while longer" to place their
faith in Him, before Jesus would leave them and depart to heaven ("where
I am [then," i.e., when He would no longer be with them]). After Jesus left
them, many Jews would "seek" their Messiah but "not find" Him. That is
what has been happening ever since Jesus ascended, and it will continue to
happen until He returns to earth at His Second Coming (Zech. 12:10-13;
Rev. 1:7). Jesus was, of course, referring enigmatically to His death.
7:35-36 Again Jesus' hearers thought that He was speaking of physical matters and
earthly places. The "Dispersion" was the term that described the Jews who
had scattered from Palestine and were living elsewhere in the world. They
thought Jesus meant He would be ministering to Jews, or perhaps Gentile
proselytes, who were living outside Palestine. In the New Testament, the
word "Greek" is synonymous with Gentiles (cf. Col. 3:11). This seemed
too far-fetched to them to be a messianic activity.
"Here, as more than once in this Gospel, the Jews are

unconsciously prophesying. The departure of Jesus in death
would indeed be beneficial, but not because it would
remove from the earth a false Messiah, as they supposed,
but because, as a result of the proclamation of the gospel
which would follow His death and resurrection, Gentiles
would be brought into the people of God."473
These Jews did not understand "where" Jesus was going, any more than
they understood where He had come from (v. 27). They were so exclusive
in their thinking that they thought it very improbable that Jesus would
leave Palestine. Ironically, the Christian apostles did go to those very
areasand peoplesto preach the Christ whom the Jews rejected.
473Tasker, p. 106.
The promise of the Spirit 7:37-44
Having announced His departure, Jesus proceeded to offer the Holy Spirit for those who
believed on Him (cf. chs. 1416).
7:37 The Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days (cf. Deut. 16:13). However,
the day following the feast was a "day of convocation" that the people
popularly regarded as part of the feast (cf. Lev. 23:36). It is difficult to tell
if John meant the seventh or the eighth day when he referred to "the great
day of the feast." Edersheim believed it was the seventh day.474 Barrett
believed it was the eighth.475
"For the rabbis 'the last day' of the festival was the eighth
day, but they never spoke of it as the greatest day. Since
the water-drawing rite and the dancing in the light of the
great menoras were omitted on the eighth day, the
description of 'the greatest day' is thought by many to
denote the seventh day, when the priests processed around
the altar with the water drawn from Siloam not once but
seven times. . . . It is also to be recognized that the
invitation [of Jesus] would have been equally relevant on
the eighth day, which was celebrated as a Sabbath with
appropriate ceremonies and was attended by a great
congregation."476
Jesus used the occasion to make another important public proclamation

(cf. v. 28). Perhaps Jesus laid low until this day in order to avoid arrest,
and then presented Himself again publicly. He invited "anyone" who was
spiritually "thirsty" to "come to" Him, and to take what would satisfy and
sustain him or her (cf. 4:10, 14).
Early, on each of the seven mornings of the feast, the high priest would
lead a procession from the Pool of Siloam to the temple. Another priest
would first fill a golden ewer with water from the pool. He would then
carry it through the Water Gate, located on the south side of the temple,
and into the temple courtyard. There he would ceremoniously pour the
water into a silver basin on the west side of the brazen altar, from which it
would flow through a tube to the base of the altar.
Many Jews would accompany the ceremonial priests on those seven feast-
day mornings. Some of them would drink from the pool, while others
would chant Isaiah 55:1 and 12:3: "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the
waters. Joyously draw water from the springs of salvation." This was such

475Barrett,
p. 326.
a happy occasion that the Mishnah stated, "He that never has seen the joy
of the Water-drawing has never in his life seen joy."477
The priest would then pour water into the basin at the time of the morning
sacrifice. Another priest, at the same time, would also pour the daily drink
offering of wine into a different basin. Then they would both pour the
water and the wine out before the Lord. The pouring out of water
represented God's provision of water in the wilderness in the past, and His
provision of refreshment and cleansing in the messianic age. The pouring
out of wine symbolized God's bestowal of His Spirit in the last days.
Every male present would simultaneously shake his little bundle of willow
and myrtle twigs (his lulab) with his right hand, and hold a piece of citrus
fruit aloft with his left hand. The twigs represented stages of the
wilderness journey, marked by different kinds of vegetation, and the citrus
fruit symbolized the fruit of the Promised Land.478 Everyone would also
shout three times: "Give thanks to the Lord!" Worshippers in the temple
courtyard would then sing the Hallel (Ps. 113118).479
This "water rite" had become a part of the Israelites' traditional celebration
of the Feast of Tabernacles. Essentially it symbolized the fertility and
fruitfulness that the rain brought. In the Old Testament, God likened His
blessings in the messianic kingdom to the falling of rain (Ezek. 47:1-7;
Zech. 13:1). The Jews regarded God's provision of water in the
wilderness, and rain in the land, as harbingers of His great blessings on the
nation under Messiah's reign. Thus the water rite in the Feast of
Tabernacles had strong messianic connotations.
Jesus "stood" to announce His invitation. Normally rabbis sat when they
taught. Therefore His standing position, as well as His words, stressed the
importance of what He said. Jesus' claim was even more striking because
on the eighth day no water was ever poured out. When Jesus called out
His invitation, He was claiming to be the fulfillment of all that the Feast of
Tabernacles anticipated. He announced that He was the One who could
provide messianic blessing, that He was the Messiah. Jesus' words
compared His own Person to the rock in the wilderness that supplied the
needs of the Israelites.480
"Here is the Gospel in a single short sentence [cf. Rev.

22:17]."481
477Mishnah Sukkoth 5:1.

478Morris, p. 372.
479Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v., "lithos," by J. Jeremias, 4(1967):277-78; J. W.
Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, p. 348; Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:157-60.
480See also Edersheim, The Temple, pp. 268-87.
481Pink, 1:401.
7:38 Some commentators believed that the end of Jesus' statement did not occur
at the end of this versebut after "Me."482 They saw Jesus saying, "If any
man is thirsty, let him come to Me, and drink he who believes in Me."
This view results in the antecedent of "his innermost being" or "him"
being Jesus, rather than the believer. This view makes Jesus the source of
the living water, which is biblical. However, the punctuation in the NASB
and NIV probably represents the better translation.483
The antecedent of "his innermost being" or "him" is most probably the

believer rather than Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus was saying that
the believer was the source of the living water. The "living water" is a
reference to the Holy Spirit elsewhere in John, and it is Jesus who pours
out the Spirit as living water (4:14). Jesus also spoke elsewhere of the
living water "welling up within" the believer (4:14). The idea is not that
the Spirit will flow out of the believer to other believers. We are not the
source of the Spirit for others. Rather, the idea is that the Spirit from Jesus
"wells up within" each believer, and gives him or her satisfying spiritual
refreshment.
Water satisfies thirst and produces fruitfulness, and similarly the Spirit
satisfies the inner person and enables us to bear fruit. The Greek
expression is ek tes koilias autou (lit. from within his belly). The belly
here pictures the center of the believer's personality. It may imply the
womb, the sphere of generation.484 The belly is that part of a person that
constantly craves and is never really satisfied.
"The believer should not be like a spongetaking in but

not giving outbut like a spring, ever fresh and giving
forth."485
There is no specific passage in the Old Testament that contains the same
words that Jesus mentioned here. Consequently He must have been
summarizing the teaching of the Old Testament (cf. Exod. 16:4; 17:6;
Num. 20; Neh. 8:5-18; Ps. 78:15-16; Isa. 32:15; 44:3-4; 58:11; Ezek.
39:29; 47:1-9; Joel 2:28-32; Zech. 14:8). One writer believed Jesus had
Ezekiel 47:1-11 particularly in view.486 In these passages, the ideas of the
Spirit and the Law, sustaining God's people like manna and water,
converge. Jesus claimed that He alone could provide the satisfying Spirit.
This was an offer of salvation.
482E.g.,Brown, 1:321.
483See Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 323-25.
484Tasker, p. 109.
485Pink, 1:402.
486Zane C. Hodges, "Rivers of Living WaterJohn 7:37-39," Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September
1979):239-48.
7:39 John helped his readers understand that Jesus was referring to the
outpouring of the Holy "Spirit"that happened after Jesus' death,
resurrection, and ascensionon the day of Pentecost (cf. 15:26; 16:7; Acts
1:5, 8; 2). That outpouring was something that God had not done before. It
was similar to what Joel predicted He would do in the last days (Joel 2:28-
32; cf. Acts 2:16-21). "Those who believed in Him" includes all
subsequent believers of the church age, in addition to the believers on the
day of Pentecost (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). Jesus announced that the Holy Spirit
would come on believers in a new way, namely: to baptize, seal, and
indwell them. John frequently spoke of Jesus' death, resurrection,
ascension, and exaltation as all part of His glorification (11:4; 12:16, 23;
13:31; cf. Phil. 2:8-9).487
7:40-42 Jesus' spectacular offer led some people to conclude that He was the
promised "Prophet" (Deut. 18:15, 18; cf. Acts 3:22) or possibly the
Messiah ("Christ"). Evidently it was His claim of providing living water
as Moses had provided physical waterthat led to their associating Jesus
with one of those predicted individuals. Formerly Jesus had provided
bread as Moses had provided manna (6:14).
But apparently these Jews did not equate "the Prophet" with "Messiah."
They apparently looked for two separate individuals to come, since they
seem to have anticipated a suffering servant and a triumphant Messiah in
two different people. Others doubted that Jesus was the Messiah because
of His apparent Galilean origins. One indication that the Jews expected
Messiah to appear soon is the fact that these people could refer to
messianic predictions spontaneously.
"Perhaps this is another illustration of Johannine irony, for

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The very passage that
convinced his critics that he could not be the Messiah was
one of the strongest to prove that he was."488
7:43-44 These opinions divided the people then as they still do today. "Some of
them wanted" to arrest Jesus (cf. vv. 30, 32; 8:20; 10:39), "but no one"
did, undoubtedly because such action was contrary to the Father's
sovereign will.
This concludes John's account of Jesus' teaching on this occasion.
3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

7:45-46 When the "officers" of the temple guard returned to the Sanhedrin without
Jesus, the Sanhedrin members asked "why" they had not arrested
(brought) Him (cf. v. 32). The officers replied that no man (Gr. anthropos,
487See Westcott, p. 123; or Harris, p. 194.

emphatic in the Greek text) had ever spoken as Jesus did (cf. v. 15). They,
too, spoke more truly than they knew. Jesus was more than a man. Jesus'
authority and wisdom obviously impressed them as well as the other
people. They had gone to arrest Jesus with their weapons, but Jesus had
arrested them with His words.
It may seem unusual that these officers would so weakly admit that they
had failed in their mission, but they were not hardened Roman soldiers
who carried out their orders as automatons. They were Levites whose
interests were mainly religious. Their statement is another witness to the
true identity of Jesus.
7:47-48 The Pharisaic leaders implied that the officers were ignorant, that none of
the real thinkers and leaders in the nation had accepted ("believed in")
Jesus. The "rulers" were the Sanhedrin members, and the "Pharisees" were
the official teachers. They implied that all the leaders without exception
believed that Jesus was a deceiver, but that was not true. Already
"Nicodemus" (v. 50) had privately voiced his belief that Jesus was a
teacher who had come from God (3:2), and many others of the leaders
believed in Jesus (cf. 12:42). This was a clear case of intimidation. Again
John's irony is apparent. The proudly wise were clearly the fools (cf.
1 Cor. 1:26-31).
7:49 The rulers claimed knowledge of "the Law" that was superior to that of the
common people (Gr. ochlos, crowd or mob) who accepted Jesus. They
condescendingly judged the officers' opinion of Jesus as worthy only of
the ("accursed") uneducated. The rabbis taught, "It is forbidden to have
mercy on one who has no knowledge."489 If more of these leaders had
taken the time to listen to Jesus, as Nicodemus did, they may have formed
a different opinion of how well He fulfilled the law. Pride in one's
knowledge often results in spiritual blindness. The mob ("crowd") was
supposedly under God's curse ("is accursed") since they did not obey it
(Deut. 28:15). Really it was the leaders who were under His curse for not
believing in Jesus (3:36).
7:50-51 All this blind prejudice became more than "Nicodemus" could bear.
Finally he questioned condemning Jesus out of hand without first listening
to Him (cf. Acts 5:34-39). He did not defend Jesus. That may have been
too threatening. He did raise an objection to his colleagues' procedure on
the grounds of fair play (cf. Deut. 1:16-17). Nicodemus' word of caution
alone does not necessarily indicate that he had become a believer in Jesus,
though he may well have become one (cf. 19:38-39). The most we can say
is that he was willing to defend Jesus' rights.
489Midr. Sam 5.9 (cited by Beasley-Murray, p. 120).

"John's Gospel depicts three stages in the spiritual career of

Nicodemus. In John 3 it is midnight: here in John 7 it is
twilight: in John 19 it is daylight in his soul."490
7:52 Nicodemus' colleagues did not reply rationally but emotionally. They had
already decided Jesus' case without hearing Him. They did not want to
listen to any information that might prove that He was who He claimed to
be. They replied to Nicodemus' challenge with contempt, and accused him
of being a despised Galilean himself since he sought to defend a Galilean.
Unable to refute the logic of Nicodemus' argument, they attacked his
personan old debating tactic designed to win an argument but not
necessarily to arrive at the truth.
It is unclear if they meant that "no prophet" ever came from Galilee, or
that "the Prophet" (Deut. 18:15) would not come from there. Obviously
Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, and other prophets had come "from (out of)
Galilee," so it seems unlikely that they meant "no" prophet. Moses did not
predict where "the Prophet" would come from. As mentioned above, the
Jews of Jesus' day seem to have regarded the Prophet and Messiah as two
different individuals. The messianic Son of David would come from
Bethlehem, but where would the Prophet come from? If the Sanhedrin had
taken the trouble to investigate Jesus' origins thoroughly, they would have
discovered that He had not come "from Galilee" originally.
People still let prejudice (prejudging) and superficial evaluation blind them to the truth.
4. The woman caught in adultery 7:538:11
The textual authenticity of this pericope is highly questionable. Most ancient Greek
manuscripts dating before the sixth century do not contain it. However, over 900 ancient
manuscripts do contain it, including the important early so-called Western text (uncial D).
We have about 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of it. This
number, by the way, contrasts strongly with the number of early copies of the writings of
other ancient writers. For example, we have about 643 copies of the writings of Homer, 8
of Herodotus, 9 of Euripides, 8 of Thucydides, 7 of Plato, 49 of Aristotle, and 20 of
Tacitus. Furthermore, the earliest copy of the New Testament that we have dates about
125 years after its composition, whereas the earliest copy of one of the extra-biblical
writings referred to above dates about 400 years after its composition.
None of the church fathers or early commentators referred to this story in their comments
on this Gospel. Instead, they passed from 7:52 right on to 8:12. Several later manuscripts
identify it as special by using an asterisk or obelus at its beginning and ending. An
"obelus" is a straight horizontal stroke, either simple, or with a dot above and another
below it. Writers of ancient manuscripts used obeli to mark a spurious, corrupt, doubtful,
490Pink, 1:410.
or superfluous word or passage. Some old copies have this pericope placed after 7:36, or
7:44, or 21:25, or Luke 21:38. Its expressions and constructions are more similar to
Luke's writings than they are to John's.491
"This entire section, 7:538:11, traditionally known as the pericope

adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS [manuscripts] and
was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among
modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that
the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the
Gospel."492
The event described here may have occurred, though the passage may represent a
conflation of two different accounts (cf. 21:25).493 Perhaps it was a piece of oral tradition
that later scribes inserted here to illustrate the sinfulness of the Jewish leaders (cf. 7:24;
8:15, 46).
"It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we

now have, it was probably not a part of the original text."494
Then did the Holy Spirit inspire it? Probably He did not. It is similar to some of the
apocryphal stories, which some Christian traditions accept as inspired but which others
do not. How should the modern Christian use this story? Some expositors do not preach
or teach the passage publicly because they believe it is uninspired. However, other
Christians disagree, and accept it as equally authoritative as the rest of Scripture. Roman
Catholics accept it because it was in Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (late fourth
century A.D.), which they regard as authoritative.
If I do not believe it was part of the inspired text of John's Gospel, why have I bothered to
expound it below? I have done so because most English Bibles contain this pericope, and
many Christians have questions about it. It is possible that, though not a part of John's
original Gospel, the Holy Spirit inspired it, though this view has problems connected with
it.495
7:53 The wording of this verse suggests that the story that follows was
originally the continuation of another narrative. "Everyone" apparently
refers to people at a gathering in Jerusalem. This could refer to the
Sanhedrin and the officers mentioned in 7:45-52. However, it could also
refer to other people on a different occasion.
491For a discussion of the evidence, see Hoskyns, pp. 563-64; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament, pp. 219-22; Westcott, pp. 141-42; Bock, pp. 461-62. For an alternative view, see
Zane C. Hodges, "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:538:11): The Text," Bibliotheca Sacra
492The Net Bible note on 7:53. See also Barrett, pp. 589-91.
493See Bart D. Ehrman, "Jesus and the Adulteress," New Testament Studies 34 (1988):24-44.
494Tenney, "John," p. 89. Cf. Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:135-36.
495See Pink, 2:7-9, for a defense of its inspiration based on internal evidence.
8:1 The introductory "But" (Gr. de) is only mild, and contrasts Jesus' action
with that of most people in the temple courtyard. Some scholars have
noted that Jesus spent His nights somewhere on the "Mount of Olives"
during His final Passover celebration (Luke 21:37), but there is no
evidence that He did so at other times.496 However, silence is never a
strong argument. Jesus may have stayed there on His other visits to
Jerusalem without the evangelists noting it.
8:2 This verse also sounds similar to the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus'
activities during His final few days before His crucifixion (cf. Luke 21:37-
38). Yet we know that Jesus taught in the temple courtyard at other times
as well (5:19-47; 7:14-52).
8:3-4 This is the only place in John's Gospel where the writer mentioned "the
scribes and the Pharisees" together, though their association in the
Synoptics is common. This is one reason many scholars doubt that John
wrote this passage. Jesus' critics "brought a woman" whom they claimed
to have "caught . . . in the very act" of committing "adultery," and placed
her "in the center" of the group that Jesus was teaching. They addressed
Him respectfully, though hypocritically, as "Teacher."
We can only speculate about what had happened to the adulteress's partner
in sin. Perhaps he had escaped, or perhaps the authorities had released
him, since their main interest seems to have been the woman. The Mosaic
Law required that both parties involved in adultery suffer stoning (Lev.
20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus did not challenge the scribes and Pharisees'
charge or try to prove it unjust.
8:5-6a Jesus' critics were correct in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law (cf.
Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). However, the Jews of Jesus' day apparently
did not enforce this law often, especially in urban areas.497 The writer said
the authorities wanted to trap Jesus into saying something they could use
against Him (cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). They
appear to have wanted Jesus' execution more than the woman's.
If Jesus advocated not executing the woman, the lawyers and Pharisees
could charge Him with teaching the people to violate the Law. If He
recommended executing her, He would contradict His own reputation for
being gracious and forgiving (cf. Luke 5:20; 7:47; 19:10), and He would
advocate action contrary to Roman law. On top of that, He would alienate
Himself from the Jews. The decision to execute might have gotten Him in
trouble with the Roman authorities, too (cf. 18:31). Essentially, the
problem was how to reconcile justice and mercy.498
496E.g.,Tenney, "John," pp. 89-90; Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 334.

497Ibid.,p. 335.
498Pink, 2:13.
8:6b This is the only mention of Jesus writing in the New Testament, along
with verse 8. The Greek verb katagrapho, used here in the past tense
("wrote"), allows for writing words, drawing pictures, or making signs.499
There have been several suggestions about what Jesus may have written in
the dust, all of which are guesses. Perhaps He wrote the words of Jeremiah
17:13b: "Those who turn away on earth will be written down, because
they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the Lord."500 Perhaps
He wrote Exodus 23:1b: "Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a
malicious witness."501 Perhaps He wrote the sins of the woman's accusers.
Jesus may have written the same words that He proceeded to speak, giving
a visual as well as an audible decision. Incidentally, this is the only record
of Jesus writing that we have in the Bible.
If the account of this incident is complete, the writer must have felt that
what Jesus wrote was secondary to His writing action, since John did not
identify what He wrote. Perhaps Jesus was reminding the scribes and
Pharisees that God had originally written the Ten Commandments with
His finger (Exod. 31:18). Jesus' act reminds the reader of this and so
suggests that Jesus is God. His writing on the ground may have
symbolized His ratification of God's moral law.502 Another possibility is
that as God gave the Old Covenant by writing with His finger, so God
(Jesus) was giving the New Covenant by writing with His finger.
Perhaps Jesus "wrote on the ground" to, at the same time, delay answering
His critics. This would have had the double effect of heightening their
anticipation of His reply and giving them time to repent. His action may
have been simply "a studied refusal to pronounce judgment."503 The
mention of this writing act here anticipates His doing the same thing again
later (v. 8).
8:7 When Jesus finally answered His critics, He cited passages in the Mosaic
Law. Jesus lived under this Law and respected it. These verses required
that in cases of stoning at least two witnesses of the sin, who had not
participated in it, should be the first to throw the stones (Lev. 24:14; Deut.
13:9; 17:7). Jesus did not mean that the accusers needed to be sinless. The
Law did not require that, but they had to be innocent of the particular sin
of the accused.
Jesus meant that they needed to be free from the sin of adultery, or at least
free of complicity in prearranging this woman's adultery. They had asked
Him to pass judgment, and now He was exercising His rightful function as

500McGee, 4:415.
501Derrett, p. 187.
502Pink, 2:14.
503Barrett, p. 592.
the Judge of humankind. Instead of passing judgment on the woman, He

was passing judgment on her judges.
"Christ was here intimating that they, His would-be

accusers, were no fit subjects to demand the enforcement of
the law's sentence."504
Jesus' reply put the dilemma back on His accusers' shoulders. If they
proceeded to stone the woman, they were claiming that they had not
sinned. If they did not stone her, they would be admitting that they had
sinned. Jesus now took the place of the woman's "defense attorney," as
well as her "judge" (cf. 1 John 2:1).
8:8 This is another enigmatic reference. Jesus' second stooping over and
writing on the ground had the result of freeing Jesus' critics from His
convicting gaze. Perhaps the writer mentioned it to show that it was God
who, by the Holy Spirit, would produce conviction through Jesus'
authoritative words, rather than through His physical eye contact (cf. Matt.
7:28-29; John 7:46). By writing on the ground "again," Jesus graciously
gave the scribes and Pharisees another opportunity to rethink their
decision and repent. He also possibly wrote so that He did not need to
speak.
8:9 The scribes and Pharisees' actions "confessed" their guilt. Evidently the
older ones among them had the most tender consciences. They had plotted
to kill the woman by a questionable, probably fraudulent execution, but
her crime only involved committing adultery. Adultery is no insignificant
sin, but next to murder it has less severe consequences. Time and
accumulated wisdom frequently increase one's sense of personal guilt,
unless a person hardens his or her heart completely. Probably we should
understand the text ("He was left alone") as implying that all the critics
had departed, which would have left Jesus, the woman, and perhaps other
onlookers. This left the woman and Jesus with no accusers.
"When one turns on the light, all the rats, the bats, and the
bedbugs crawl away."505
The action of the woman's accusers was remarkable. Jesus' words brought
deep conviction to inveterate opponents remarkably soon. To top it off,
they ended up making a public declaration of their own guilt, and
dropping their charge against the womaneven though she was evidently
guilty of adultery.
504Pink, 2:15.
505McGee, 4:416.
8:10-11 Jesus' addressed the woman respectfully (cf. 2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13). He
asked if "no one" who was condemning her remained. He did not ask her
if she was guilty. Evidently she was. As the acting judge in her case, He
showed more interest in her prosecutors than in her guilt. Without any
prosecutors, Jesus dismissed the case. This was His prerogative as her
acting judge (and her future Judge). He only issued her a warning. She
would have to stand before Him again in the future, but this was not the
time that He wanted to pass judgment on her (cf. 3:17). He gave her mercy
and time to change her ways (cf. 1:14). Thus He was not "easy on sin."
The ultimate reason He could exempt her from condemnation, is that He
would take her condemnation on Himself and die in her place (cf. Rom.
8:1).
"It was not, 'Go and sin no more, and I will not condemn
thee,' for that would have been a death-knell rather than
good news in her ears. Instead, the Saviour said, 'Neither do
I condemn thee.' And to every one who takes the place this
woman was brought into, the word is, 'There is therefore
now no condemnation' (Rom. 8:1). 'And sin no more'
placed her, as we are placed, under the constraint of His
love."506
"This is not strictly forgiveness, because no word about

forgiveness is given, but Jesus' act is gracious in allowing
her the opportunity to recover from her sin."507
"Law and grace do not compete with each other; they

complement each other. Nobody was ever saved by
keeping the Law, but nobody was ever saved by grace who
was not first indicted by the Law. There must be conviction
before there can be conversion."508
This incident is further proof that Jesus was far more righteous, and much wiser, than the
Jewish religious leaders who sought to kill Him. It is also another demonstration of His
patience and grace with sinners.
"Reviewing the case, Jesus brought forth the judgment, 'Stone her.'
Unfortunately for the Pharisees, He had required, as the Law had stated,
that the witnesses be qualified.
"The Pharisees who were accusing the woman, not for the good of Israel
but to trap Jesus, were stuck. They knew they were malicious. Thus they
had to step down or else incur the punishment required of malicious
witnessesthe very stoning they desired for the accused!
506Ibid.,
2:18.
507Bock,p. 464.
508Wiersbe, 1:320.
"Jesus pronounced the final decree. Since He was the only witness left,
and the Mosaic Law required two, she was free. But the Prophet instructed
her to avoid all guilt under the Law, since Deuteronomy 18:15 said the
people were to listen to the Prophet. John 7:538:11 shows in numerous
ways that Jesus is indeed the Prophet of whom Moses wrote."509
Jesus' role as the Judge of human beings is quite clear in this incident, but His role as the
coming Prophet may need clarification. Moses, the prophet through whom God gave the
Old Covenant, had announced that God's will for His people was that they stone
adulterers and adulteresses. Jesus, the Prophet through whom God gave the New
Covenant, now announced a change. God's people were no longer to stone these sinners,
but to show them mercy and leave the judging to God.
What if Jesus' enemies had brought a murderer before Him? Would Jesus have said the
same thing? I think not. God had made His will concerning the punishment of murderers
clear in Genesis 9:5b-6, the Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant continued the same
policy, as does the New Covenant. The way God has told society to deal with adultery
has changed. That is why we do not execute adulterers in the church age. But the way He
has told us to deal with murderers has not changed; we are still to put them to death.
5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59
Following Jesus' claim to be the water of life (7:37-38), official opposition against Him
intensified considerably. The following sections of this Gospel trace this rising
opposition. While some believed on Jesus, most of His own people rejected Him (cf.
1:11-12). This section of the text deals with Jesus' claim to be the Light of the World and
the controversy it generated.
Jesus' testimony about Himself 8:12-20
8:12 The context of the events in this paragraph continues to be the temple
during the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 20, cf. 7:14). Jesus was speaking to the
Jews who had assembled there, some of whom were residents of
Jerusalem, and others, pilgrims from other parts of Palestine and the
world. This teaching may have taken place on the day after the feast,
which was also a day of great celebration.510
Jesus here made the second of His "I am" claims (cf. 6:35). This time He
professed to be the "Light of the World" (cf. 1:4). Incidentally, John used
the word "world" some 77 times in his Gospel, in contrast to the other
three evangelists who used it a total of only 15 times, indicating John's
global perspective and interest.511 The "water of life" and the "bread of
509Charles P. Baylis, "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):184.
511Pink, 2:26.
life" metaphors represent what satisfies and sustains life. The "Light of
life" metaphor stands for what dispels the darkness of ignorance and
death. Jesus was claiming that whoever believes in ("follows") Him will
enjoy "the light" that comes from God's presence and produces life.
The light metaphor was ancient in Israel's history. The Jews associated
light with God's presence. He had created "light" on the first day, and
"lights" on the fourth day of Creation (Gen. 1:3, 14-19). He had revealed
Himself in a flame to Moses on the Midianite desert (Exod. 3). He had
also protectively led the Israelites through the wilderness in a cloudy pillar
of fire (Exod. 13:21-22; 14:19-25; Num. 9:15-23), and He had appeared to
them on Mt. Sinai in fire. These are only a few instances in which God
had associated His presence with fire and light (cf. Ps. 27:1; 36:9;
119:105; Prov. 6:23). Symbolically the light represented various
characteristics of God, particularly His revelation, holiness, and salvation
(cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13, 26-28; Hab. 3:3-4).
Isaiah had predicted that the Servant of the Lord would be a "light to the
nations" (Isa. 49:6). God Himself would illuminate His people in the
messianic age (Isa. 60:19-22; Zech. 14:5b-7; cf. Rev. 21:23-24). However,
in Jesus' day the "light of righteousness" was in mortal conflict with the
"darkness of sin" (1:4, 9; 3:19-21). Many religions contain the "light and
darkness" symbolism, but John presented Jesus as the "true Light."
It is particularly the aspect of "light" as "revelation" that constituted the

focus of the controversy surrounding Jesus' claim. The Jews considered
the Old Testament and their traditions as authoritative revelation, the "true
light." They also spoke of Torah, the temple, Adam, and Johanan ben
Zakkai, one of their leaders, as the light of the world.512 Now Jesus
challenged that authority by claiming to be the "true (final and full, cf. 1:9)
revelation" from God (cf. Heb. 1:1-3). He invited the Jews to "follow"
Him as the "true Light" (1:9; cf. the pillar of fire in the wilderness).
"More important to the immediate context, the theme of

light is not unrelated to the question of truthfulness and
witness in the following verses, for light cannot but attest to
its own presence; otherwise put, it bears witness to itself,
and its source is entirely supportive of that witness."513
Part of the Feast of Tabernacles was the lamp-lighting ceremony. Every

evening during the festival, a priest would light the three huge torches on
the menorah (lampstand) in the women's court (or treasury) of the temple.
These lights would illuminate the entire temple compound throughout the
night. People would bring smaller torches into the temple precincts, light
512See Beasley-Murray, p. 128.

513Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 338-39.
them, and sing and dance sometimes all through the night. It was one of
the happiest occasions of the entire Jewish year.514
"Now the brilliant candelabra were lit only at the beginning

of the Feast of Tabernacles; there is dispute as to the
number of nights on which the illumination took place, but
none as to the fact that at the close of the feast it did not. In
the absence of the lights Jesus' claim to the Light would
stand out the more impressively."515
By the way, in chapters 6, 7, and 8, Jesus claimed that He fulfilled these

wilderness types of God: manna, water, and light.
". . . the Pharisees could not have mistaken the Messianic

meaning in the words of Jesus, in their reference to the past
festivity: 'I am the Light of the world.'"516
". . . 'light' is one of the three things which God is said to

be. In John 4:24 we are told, 'God is spirit.' In 1 John 1:5,
'God is light'; and in 1 John 4:8, 'God is love.' These
expressions relate to the nature of God, what He is in
Himself. Hence, when Christ affirmed 'I am the light of the
world,' He announced His absolute Deity."517
8:13 On another occasion, Jesus had said that if He alone bore witness to His
own identity, His witness would not be admissible under the Mosaic Law
(5:31). The Mosaic Law required at least two witnesses, in order to guard
against only one witness giving biased testimony (cf. Deut. 17:6; 19:15).
The Pharisees now quoted Jesus' statement back to Him. However, they
implied that because Jesus was bearing witness about Himself, seemingly
without a second corroborating witness, therefore His witness could "not"
be "true."
8:14 Jesus corrected His critics' false conclusion. "Even if" Jesus was the only
witness to His own identity, His witness would still be "true." Frequently
only one person knows the facts.
"Stier (Words of the Lord Jesus) argues that one might as

well say to the sun, if claiming to be the sun, that it was
night, because it bore witness of itself. The answer is the
shining of the sun."518
514Shepard, p. 352; Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:165-66.

515Morris, p. 388.
517Pink, 2:25.
Jesus' witness was not false because it stood alone, even though it was
insufficient under Mosaic Law. The Pharisees had misunderstood Him.
Consequently He proceeded to review His former teaching in somewhat
different terms (cf. 5:19-30, 36-37).
Jesus claimed to offer "true" (Gr. alethes, cf. 5:31) "testimony" because
He knew His own origin and destiny (cf. 7:29, 33-34). His critics knew
neither of these things.
8:15 The Pharisees were evaluating Jesus only by using the external facts about
Him that they knew. They were going about the evaluation process in a
typically human way (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16). Jesus used "flesh" (Gr. sarx) here
in a metaphorical sense, meaning human nature. His critics should have
considered the spiritual teaching about Jesus' identity that the Father was
providing through the witness of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, and
Jesus' miracles too. Jesus was "not judging" (Gr. krino) "anyone"
superficially, and they should not either.
Another interpretation is that Jesus meant that He did not come to

condemn anyone but to save them (cf. 3:17).519 However, that view only
involves Jesus playing with words to make a pun. He seems to have been
contrasting His judging with the Pharisees' judging. Another unlikely view
is that Jesus meant that when He did judge people, it would not be He who
was really judging. Rather He would only be executing the Father's will
(cf. 5:27, 45).520 The problem with this view is that the Father has
committed all judgment to the Son (5:27-29), and Jesus will judge
eventually.
8:16 Jesus was not judging "anyone" then. That aspect of His ministry lies in
the future. However, "even if" He did judge then, His "judgment" would
prove right ("true"; Gr. alethine, valid), because in that activity as well He
would be acting under, and with, "the Father" (cf. 5:30). As Jesus
represented the Father faithfully by revealing Him, so He will represent
the Father's will faithfully by judging. He did everything and will do
everything with divine authority.
8:17-18 Therefore Jesus was not really testifying alone. He had the second witness
that the Law demanded, namely: "the Father."
Jesus' reference to "your law" is unusual, since in one sense it was His
law. However, Jesus was in the process of setting aside the Law of Moses.
The revelation that He brought superseded it, so in another sense it
belonged to the Pharisees but not to Him (cf. 7:19, 51).
519F. F. Bruce, p. 189.

520Blum, p. 303.
"No human witness can authenticate a divine relationship.

Jesus therefore appeals to the Father and Himself, and there
is no other to whom He can appeal."521
8:19 Perhaps the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus. They were perhaps continuing
to think on the physical level while He was speaking of spiritual realities.
If so, we should not criticize them too much for this, because Jesus'
teaching that God was His Father was new (cf. 5:18). However, their
request was probably an intentional insult (cf. v. 41).
"In the East, to question a man's paternity is a definite slur

on his legitimacy."522
The Pharisees virtually admitted here, by their revealing question, that

they did "not know" Jesus' originseven though they had claimed they
knew earlier (7:27). Their inability to recognize Jesus as the Son of God
showed that they really did not know God. If they had known Him, they
would have recognized Jesus as His Son. The rest of chapter 8 deals with
the theme of fatherhood.
8:20 John concluded his narrative of this encounter by identifying its setting
(cf. 6:59). The Jews apparently called the Court of the Women, "the
treasury," because it contained 13 shophar (ram's horn) shaped receptacles
for the Jews' monetary offerings (cf. Mark 12:41-42).523 Each one bore an
inscription showing how the priests would use the gifts deposited therein.
Sacred Enclosure O
u
t
Court of Priests s
i
Women's d
Temple Court e
Altar (Treasury)
W
o
Court of Israel r
l
d
Court of Gentiles
521Morris,
p. 393.
522Tenney,"John," p. 93.
523Mishnah Shekalim 2:1; 6:1, 5. See also Barclay, 2:11-12.
The last part of verse 20 makes the point that if they could have, these
leaders would have arrested and executed Jesus immediately. However, it
was "not yet" God's time for His Son to die (cf. 2:4; 7:6, 30). Thus John
stressed the Father's sovereign control over the events that shaped Jesus'
ministry. The Court of the Women was the most public part of the temple
(cf. Mark 12:41-43; Luke 21:1).524
The main point of this section is the increasing animosity that the Jewish leaders felt and
expressed toward Jesus.
Jesus' claims about His origin 8:21-30
Jesus began to contrast Himself and His critics.
8:21 Evidently what follows continues Jesus' teaching in the temple when He
spoke the words that John recorded in the preceding verses. The Greek
word palin ("again" or "once more") indicates a pause, but not a
significant break in the narrative (cf. v. 12). The content of His teaching in
this verse recalls 7:33-34.
When Jesus said He was "going away," He was speaking of His death,
resurrection, and ascension into heaven. The Jewish leaders would not
seek Jesus personally, but they would continue to "seek" the Messiah.
They would "die in" their "sin" (singular) of unbelief, because they
rejected Jesus. Jesus was "going" to His Father in heaven. These Jews
could "not come" there because they had rejected Jesus.
8:22 Jesus' hearers wondered if He was speaking about taking His own life. In
7:34-35, they wondered if He was talking about going on a mission to the
Gentile world. In both cases, they did not grasp that Jesus was speaking of
spiritual, rather than physical, spheres of reality. However, these people
again spoke better than they realized. Jesus' departure would involve His
death, not as a suicide but as a sacrifice for sin. Consequently their words
here are an ironic prophecy of Jesus' death (cf. 11:49-50).525
8:23 Jesus explained their reason for misunderstanding Him as being traceable
to their origin. Jesus was from God "above," whereas they came from His
fallen and rebellious creation "below." The second contrast in this verse
clarifies the first. To understand Jesus' meaning, His hearers needed new
birth (3:3, 5) and the Father's illumination (6:45).
8:24 Jesus' hearers would "die in" their "sins" (plural) "unless" they believed in
Him. Only belief in Him could rescue them from this fate. Here Jesus
525Hoskyns, p. 334.
viewed their manifold sins (plural) as the consequences of their sin

(singular, v. 21) of unbelief.
"The attitude of unbelief is not simply unwillingness to

accept a statement of fact; it is resistance to the revelation
of God in Christ."526
They needed to believe that Jesus was "I am." In context, this phrase has
heavy theological connotations (cf. vv. 28, 58; 13:19). It appeared
enigmatic at first, but later Jesus' hearers realized that He was claiming to
be God (cf. v. 59). The NIV's "the one I claim to be" is an interpretation of
Jesus' meaning that is perhaps more misleading than helpful. Jesus was
alluding to the title that God gave Himself in the Old Testament (Exod.
3:14; Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). Essentially "I
am" means the eternally self-existent being.527 Unless a person believes
that Jesus is God, in contrast with less than God, he or she will die in his
or her sins.
8:25 Jesus' hearers did not understand what He meant at first, and now being
quite confused, were asking Him: "Who are You?" Jesus responded that
He was saying nothing different from "what" He had "been saying" about
His identity since "the beginning" of His ministry.
"That is to say, The question which you ask cannot be

answered."528
"I am" was a new title, but it represented revelation that was consistent
with what Jesus had always claimed about Himself.
8:26 Jesus also claimed to have much more to reveal to His hearers, regardless
of its immediate effect. Part of that would involve judgment for their
unbelief. However, all of what He would say would be "true," because it
would come from God ("He who sent Me"). It would not be simply His
own words spoken independent of the Father (cf. 3:34; 5:19-30; 8:15-16).
8:27 John clarified for his readers that Jesus "had been speaking about" His
"Father" when He mentioned the One who sent Him. John did not want his
readers to suffer from the same confusion as those who originally listened
to Jesus. Jesus had explained earlier that it was God the Father who had
sent Him (5:16-30).

527SeeCharles Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-
March 1985):38-51.
8:28-29 Lifting up (Gr. hypsoo) the Son of Man refers to His crucifixion, which
John viewed as His exaltation (cf. 3:14; 12:23). The title "Son of Man" is
messianic (Dan. 7:13-14), with emphasis on His perfect humanity. Jesus'
enemies would lift Him up. When they did, they would realize that Jesus
was the self-existent God. Jesus did not mean His crucifixion would
convince all of His critics regarding His true identity, but that exaltation
would be the key to many of them believing on Him (cf. 12:32). The
Crucifixion would convince many unbelievers of Jesus' true identity (cf.
Acts 2).
"This concept of the death on the cross of one who was one
with the Father is the great central thought of this
Gospel."529
Jesus again affirmed that everything He said came from and with the
authority of His Father (cf. vv. 16, 18, 26). All that He said and did was
the Father's will, including the Cross. Jesus continually expressed His
dependence on the Father, and gloried in the Father's presence with Him
(cf. 3:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:16; et al.). Even though His own people rejected
Jesus and crucified Him, the Father had never abandoned Him. Jesus'
ultimate purpose was to please His Father.
8:30 John noted that, in spite of the confusion of many that resulted from Jesus'
teaching, "many" others believed on Him because of these words (cf.
7:31). God opened their understanding with His illuminating and life-
giving words. However, in view of the following verses, the faith of some
of them seems to have been quite shallow.
The challenge to professing believers 8:31-47
Jesus next addressed those in His audience who had expressed some faith in Him (v. 30).
8:31 The mark of a "true disciple" is continuation in the instructions of his or

her teacher. A disciple is by definition a learner, not necessarily a believer
in the born again sense. A disciple remains a disciple as long as he or she
continues to follow the instruction of his or her teacher. When that one
stops following faithfully, he or she ceases to be a disciple. He or she does
not lose his or her salvation, which comes as a gift from God. Genuine
believers can "continue" to be disciples of Jesus, or they can cease to be
His disciplestemporarily or permanently. God never forces believers to
continue following Him, though He urges them to do so (cf. 21:15-23).
The disciples, in this context, appear to have believed that Jesus was either
a prophet or the Messiah, as the Jews popularly regarded Messiah. They
apparently did not believe that He was God (cf. 7:39-41). They appear to
529Morris, p. 398.
have been unsaved, in view of what Jesus proceeded to say about them.
This then is another of the many passages in the Gospels in which Jesus
taught the conditions of discipleship.
Some interpreters have sought to differentiate two types of believers in
verses 30 and 31. The first, they say, were genuine believers, which the
Greek phrase pisteuo eis plus the accusative ("believe in Him" or "put
their faith in Him") identifies. The second group was only professors,
which the Greek phrase pisteuo plus the dative ("believed Him") in verse
31 identifies. This linguistic distinction does not hold up, however. The
first construction, allegedly describing genuine faith, describes spurious
faith in 2:23; and the second construction, that supposedly always
describes superficial faith, describes genuine faith in 5:24.
Other interpreters see verse 31 as introducing Judaizing Christians: Jewish
believers who genuinely believed in Jesus as their Savior, but also
believed that Christians need to obey the Mosaic Law (cf. Gal. 1:6-9).
However, there is nothing in the context to support this view. The context
deals primarily with Jesus' identity, not the place of the Mosaic Law in the
believer's life.
Still others believe that Jesus was teaching that perseverance is the mark
of true faith, that genuine believers will inevitably continue to follow Jesus
as His disciples.530 This view contradicts the teaching of other Scriptures
that view true believers as capable of not following Jesus faithfully. Many
Scriptural injunctions urge believers to follow the Lord faithfully, rather
than turning aside and dropping out of the Christian race (e.g., 1 Tim.
1:18-20; 4; 6:11-21; 2 Tim. 1:6, 13; 2:3-7, 12-13, 15-26; 3:14-17; 4:1-8;
Titus 3:8). This verse is talking about discipleship, not salvation; and
rewards, not regeneration.
This last view misunderstands the teaching of Scripture regarding
perseverance. The Bible consistently teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who
perseveres within the believer, keeping him or her securely saved. It does
not teach that believers inevitably persevere in the faith, but that believers
can defect from the faith while remaining saved (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim.
1:15; 4:10, 16). It is the Savior who perseveres with the saints, not
necessarily the saints who persevere with the Savior (2 Tim. 2:13).531
This view also incorrectly reads "believer" for "disciple" in the text. These
are two different terms describing two different groups of people in
relation to Jesus. Disciples may or may not be genuine believers, and
believers may or may not be genuine disciples. Today we sometimes
describe a believer who is also a disciple as a growing Christian, and a
believer who is not a disciple as a backslidden Christian.
530E.g., John Murray, RedemptionAccomplished and Applied, p. 152.

531See Dillow, pp. 7-23.
"Those who have believed Jesus, that is, accepted his word,
must continue in it if they are to be true disciples and to
know the truth."532
8:32 Disciples who continue to abide (Gr. meno) in Jesus' word (v. 31) come to
"know the truth." Jesus' words are "truth" because He is the incarnation of
Truth (1:14; 14:6). This truth, Jesus' words, sets people free when they
understand His teaching. It liberates them spiritually from ignorance, sin,
and spiritual death.
". . . their own tradition had it, that he only was free who
laboured in the study of the Law. Yet the liberty of which
He spoke came not through study of the Law, but from
abiding in the Word of Jesus."533
Many people misapply this verse. It occurs as a motto in numerous public

libraries in the United States, for example, with the implication that any
true information has a liberating effect. That is only true to a degree. In the
context, Jesus was speaking about spiritual truth that He revealed. Thus
people in our day have the same problem with Jesus' words as people in
Jesus' day. Many take them as referring to physical rather than spiritual
things. It is spiritual truth that Jesus revealed that is in view here. Jesus
was speaking particularly of the gospel.
8:33 Jesus assumed that His hearers were slaves, but they emphatically denied
being such. They could not have meant that they had never been physical
slaves, since the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Syrians, and
most recently the Romans, had all "enslaved" them. Probably they meant
that they had never been spiritual slaves. They viewed themselves as
spiritually right with God because of their descent from Abraham, with
whom God had made a special covenant (cf. Matt. 8:12; Mark 2:17; John
9:40). They denied that they had any significant spiritual need for
liberation. Here were superficial believers in Jesus, believers in His
messiahship only perhaps, who were resisting His teaching. They were not
abiding in His word and being true disciples of His (v. 31).
8:34 Jesus proceeded to clarify what He meant. He prefaced His declaration

with a strong affirmation of its truth (cf. vv. 51, 58). "Everyone who
commits" acts of "sin" becomes sin's "slave." The Greek present participle
poion ("who commits sin" or "who sins") implies continual sinning rather
than an occasional lapse. This is a general truth that applies to both
believers and unbelievers (cf. Rom. 6:16). People who continually commit
sin become the slaves of sin. Sin tends to become habit-forming and is
532Barrett, p. 344.
addictive, "like the worst narcotic".534 This type of slavery is more

fundamental and personal than mere political slavery.
How does this revelation harmonize with Paul's teaching about the
believer's relationship to sin that he wrote in Romans 6? In Romans 6,
Paul explained that at regeneration God broke the chain that makes the
believer the slave of sin. Sin does not have the power to enslave us that it
did before we believed in Jesus. However, believers can become sin's
slaves by practicing sin (Rom. 6:16). We do not need to be its slaves any
longer, since God has broken its enslaving power over us. We are no
longer its slaves, but we can still choose to live as its slaves by repeatedly
submitting to temptation. Sin gains power over us when we yield to
temptation.
Similarly, a heroin addict cannot break his or her addiction without radical
treatment. The treatment can result in total rehabilitation, but the former
addict can choose to become a slave again by returning to his or her habit.
However, he or she does not have to return, since liberation has taken
place. Another illustration is Israel in the Old Testament. Having
experienced liberation from the Egyptians, the Israelites chose to return to
slavery under the Assyrians and Babylonians, though they did not need to
do that. By continually sinning, they set themselves up for these strong
enemies to take them captive.
8:35 These Jews thought of themselves as occupying a privileged and secure
position, as sons within God's household, because they were "Abraham's
descendants" (v. 33). Jesus now informed them that they were not sons but
slaves. The implication was that they did not enjoy a secure position but
could lose it. This is what actually happened after the Jews (as a nation)
refused to receive Jesus (cf. Rom. 911). They lost their privileged
position in the world temporarily. Jesus was not speaking in this context
about the loss of personal salvation, but of the loss of Israel's national
privilege.
"The son" in Jesus' explanation stands for Himself (v. 36). The Greek
word for "son" here is huios, which John consistently used to describe
Jesus. He referred to believers as God's "children" (Gr. tekna).
8:36 The Son of God, like the illustration's slave-owner, also has the authority
to liberate slaves, in this case spiritual slaves, from their bondage to sin
and its consequences. Real freedom consists of liberty from sin's
enslavement to do what we should do. It does not mean that we may do
just anything we please. We are now free to do what we ought to do: what
pleases God, which we could not do formerly. When we do what pleases
God, we discover that it also pleases us. Hope for real freedom, therefore,
does not rest on Abrahamic ancestrybut Jesus' action.

8:37 Jesus acknowledged that the Jews listening to Him were "Abraham's
descendants," but only on the physical level (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6, 8; Gal.
3:29). Their desire "to kill" Himbecause they rejected His teaching
("word")did not evidence true spiritual kinship with Abraham. Abraham
had welcomed God's three angel representatives who visited him with
revelations from above (Gen. 18:1-22). Jesus' hearers had not done that.
8:38 Jesus claimed to be God's Son, while the Jews claimed to be Abraham's
children.
"Jesus was not simply a man telling other men what he

thought about things; He was the Son of God telling men
what God thought about things."535
As these Jews' conduct showed, they were not Abraham's true children; by
contrast Jesus' words proved that He was God's true Son, because His
conduct backed His words. Jesus' point was that conduct reveals paternity.
He was hinting that their "father" was not God, since they wanted to kill
Him.
8:39-41a The Jews stubbornly insisted that they revealed their ancestry to Abraham
by doing as he did. By claiming Abraham as their father at this stage in the
discussion, they were saying that they were as good as Abraham.
". . . no principle was more fully established in the popular

[Jewish] conviction, than that all Israel had part in the
world to come (Sanh. x. 1), and this, specifically, because
of their connection with Abraham. . . . Abraham was
represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any
Israelite who otherwise might have been consigned to its
terrors."536
Jesus proceeded to repeat the difference between them and Abraham (cf.
Gal. 3:16-29). He also implied again that someone other than Abraham
was their spiritual father.
8:41b The Jews rejected Jesus' claim that they were not genuine children of
Abraham. Their reference to "fornication" may have been a slur on Jesus'
physical paternity.
"The Jews put it about that Mary had been unfaithful to

Joseph; that her paramour had been a Roman soldier called
Panthera; and that Jesus was the child of that adulterous
union."537
535Barclay, 2:30-31.
537Barclay, 2:32-33.
Who was Jesuswith His questionable pedigreeto deny their ancestry?

They then claimed that, on the spiritual level, "God" was their "father"
(Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1-2). They apparently believed that Jesus surely
could not deny that, though He disputed their connection to Abraham.
8:42 However, Jesus was not even willing to grant them that they were God's
children in the spiritual sense. How could they respond to Him as they did,
and still claim to be behaving as God? If they were God's true children,
they "would love" Jesus rather than be trying to kill Him. They would
acknowledge that God had "sent" Him.
8:43 These Jews were having difficulty believing what Jesus was saying,
specifically about Himself. Jesus identified the source of this difficulty as
within them ("you cannot hear My word"), not in His ability to
communicate clearly. It lay in their inability to accept the truth that He
spoke because of their presuppositions, prejudice, and parentage (v. 44).
Hearing here does not mean mere understanding, but responding
positively.
8:44 Finally Jesus identified the "father" of these Jews to whom He had been
alluding (vv. 38, 41). Their attitudes and actions pointed to "the devil" as
their father for two reasons. First, they wanted to kill Jesus, and Satan was
"a murderer from the beginning" of his career as a fallen angel. He
indirectly murdered Adam and then Abel. Second, they had abandoned
"the truth" for "lies," and the devil ("a liar and the father of lies") had
consistently done the same thing throughout history (cf. Gen. 2:17;
3:17).538
"Here, Jesus is as directly confrontational as anywhere in

John."539
". . . as believers are recognized as the children of God

because they bear his image, so are those rightly recognized
to be the children of Satan from his image, into which they
have degenerated [I John 3:8-10]."540
In one sense, every human being is a child of the devil, since we all do the
things that he does, out of our sinful human nature. We usually think of
this sinful behavior as identifying fallen Adam as our father, but Satan was
behind the Fall. However, the believer is also a child of God by faith in
Jesus Christ. Consequently we are always manifesting the traits of one
spiritual father or the other. This phenomenon is the result of walking
either by the flesh or by the Spirit.
538See Gregory H. Harris, "Satan's Work as a Deceiver," Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June
1999):190-202.
539Bock, p. 467.
540Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 1:14:18.
8:45 Liars not only speak untruth, but they also reject the truth. These Jews
rejected Jesus partially because He spoke the truth. The only way children
of the devil can believe and welcome the truth is if God draws them and
teaches them the truth (6:44-45).
8:46-47 Obviously many of Jesus' critics thought He was guilty of committing sin
(cf. 5:18). Jesus asked if any of them could prove Him guilty "of sin" (cf.
18:23). This was one of Jesus' clearest claims to being God. Not one of
His critics could prove Him guilty because He was not guilty. No mere
mortal could risk making such a challenge as Jesus did here.
The Qu'ran does not say that Jesus was sinless, but Muslims believe that
He was sinless because the Qu'ran never says He sinned. They believe He
was a sinless man, but not God.
"The perfect holiness of Christ is in this passage

demonstrated, not by the silence of the Jews, who might
have ignored the sins of their questioner, but by the
assurance with which His direct consciousness of the purity
of His whole life is in this question affirmed."541
Jesus again claimed that His hearers did not accept His words because
they did not belong to God.
The violent response of Jesus' critics 8:48-59
8:48 Since "the Jews" could not refute Jesus' challenge, they resorted to verbal
abuse (cf. 7:52). Perhaps they called Him "a Samaritan" because He had
questioned their ties to Abraham. This may have been a Samaritan attack
against the Jews as well.542 Perhaps they also said this because He took a
lax view of the tenets of Judaism as they understood them. This is the only
record of this charge in the Gospels.
However, there are several other instances of the Jews claiming that Jesus
had "a demon," or was "demon-possessed" (cf. 7:20; 8:52; 10:20). Perhaps
these superficial "believers" concluded that only a demon-possessed
heretic would accuse them as Jesus did.543 Jesus had claimed that their
father was the devil, and now they accused Him of being the devil's agent.
This charge came after Jesus' repeated statements that He had come from
God, and it illustrates the unbelief of these "believing" Jews (v. 31).
541Godet,2:350.
542F.F. Bruce, p. 199; J. Bowman, "Samaritan Studies," Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):306-8.
8:49 Jesus soberly denied their charge. His claims resulted from His
faithfulness to His Father, not from demonic influence. Jesus' aim was to
"honor" His Father by faithfully carrying out His will. The Jews' goal was
to disgrace ("dishonor") Jesus. They tried to do this by rejecting the
testimony that the Father sent through Him.
8:50 Jesus did not try to justify Himself. He sought the Father's "glory," not His
own. What others thought of Him on the human level was relatively
immaterial. God's approval was all that mattered to Him because God, not
man, was His "judge" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:2-5).
8:51 The central purpose of Jesus' mission was not glory for Himself, but glory
for His Father, by providing salvation for humankind. Jesus' introduction
of this strong statement shows its vital importance. "Keeping" Jesus'
"word" is synonymous with believing on Him (cf. 5:24; 8:24). The "death"
in view is eternal death (cf. 11:25).
"The assurance relates to life which physical death cannot

extinguish, and so to the death of the spirit; the believer
receives eternal life, i.e., the life of the kingdom of God,
over which death has no power and which is destined for
resurrection."544
8:52 The Jews interpreted Jesus' statements as referring to physical death. They
did not believe that all people are spiritually dead because of the Fall.545
They judged that only a demoniac would claim that his words were more
powerful than the revelations that Abraham and the prophets had received
and passed down after they "died." "Tasting death" means experiencing
the "second" death (separation from God in hell; cf. Heb. 2:9).
8:53 If Jesus' words had the power to prevent death, then Jesus must have been
claiming to be "greater" than anyone who had "died." The Jews' question
in the Greek text expects a negative answer. Certainly Jesus could not
mean that He was greater than these men, could He? Ironically He was.
They asked who Jesus was proudly claiming to be (cf. 5:18; 10:33;
19:7).546 They missed the point that He had been stressing throughout this
discourse and throughout His ministry, namely, that He did not exalt
Himself at all. He simply did the deeds and said the words that His Father
had given Him (vv. 28, 38, 42, 50).
"Observe that this is more than asking, 'Who does he think

he is?' It is a case of what he is exalting himself to be."547
546Morris, p. 416-17.
Jesus rarely asserted His deity. He did not promote Himself. Instead He
chose to live a godly life before people and let them draw their own
conclusions as God gave them understanding (cf. Matt. 16:13-17). Yet He
wanted people to believe in Him.
8:54 Jesus then refuted His critics' accusation that He was glorifying Himself.
Any "glory" apart from glory that God bestows amounts to "nothing" (cf.
Heb. 5:5). Rather, Jesus said that it was the "Father who" was glorifying
Him. Ironically His critics, who claimed to know God, failed to perceive
that this was what God was doing.
"Their relation to God was formal; his was familial."548
8:55 Jesus next identified these superficial believers as unbelievers. They had
not yet come to believe that He was God (to "know Him"), even though
some of them thought that He was a crazy prophet. For Jesus to deny
knowing God would be as much of a lie as His critics' claim of knowing
God. The proof that Jesus really did "know" God was His obedience to
Him ("I keep His word").
Jesus knew (Gr. oida) God inherently and intuitively, but His critics did
not know (Gr. ginosko) God by experience or observation. We should not
put too much emphasis on the differences between these two Greek words
though, since John often used synonyms without much distinction.549
8:56 Jesus was, of course, referring to "Abraham" as the physical ancestor of

His hearers, not their spiritual father. The occasion of Abraham's rejoicing,
to which Jesus referred, is unclear. The commentators have suggested
various incidents in his life that Moses recorded (i.e., Gen. 12:2-3; 15:17-
21; 17:17; 21:6; 22:5-14). I think the most likely possibility is Genesis
12:3, the prediction that God would bless the whole world through
Abraham.
In any case, Jesus said that Abraham anticipated His "(My) day" ("the
entire dispensation of Christ"550). Jesus was claiming that He fulfilled
what Abraham looked forward to. We need to be careful not to read back
into Abraham's understanding of the future what we know from revelation
that God gave after Abraham died. Clearly Abraham did know that his
seed would become the channel of God's blessing to the entire world.
The Hebrew and Greek words translated "seed" (Heb. zera, Gr. sperma)
are collective singulars, as is the English word. It is not clear from the
word whether one or more seeds are in view. The Bible uses the phrase

549Ibid.
550Pink, 2:55.
"seed of Abraham" to refer to four entities: Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16),

Abraham's spiritual children (believers, Gal. 4:6-9, 29), his physical
descendents (the Jews, Gen. 12:1-3, 7; et al.), and his physical and
spiritual posterity (saved Jews, Rom. 9:6, 8; Gal. 6:16).
8:57 The Jews did not understand Jesus' meaning because they disregarded the
possibility of His deity. To them it seemed ludicrous that Abraham could
have seen Jesus' day, in any sense, since millennia separated the two men.
Evidently they chose "50 years old, as a round number symbolic of the
end of an active life (cf. Num. 4:3). Jesus was obviously not that old, since
He began His public ministry when He was about 30 (Luke 3:23), and it
only lasted about three and a half years. According to Hoehner's
chronology, Jesus would have been in His mid-thirties at this time.551
8:58 This was the third and last of Jesus' solemn pronouncements in this
discourse (cf. vv. 34, 51). If Jesus had only wanted to claim that He
existed before Abraham, He could have said: "I was." By saying, "I am,"
He was not only claiming preexistencebut deity (cf. vv. 24, 28; 5:18;
Exod. 3:14; Isa. 41:4; 43:13).552
"It is eternity of being and not simply being that has lasted
through several centuries that the expression indicates."553
"The meaning here is: Before Abraham came into being, I

eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be."554
Jesus existed "before Abraham" came into being (Gr. genesthai).
8:59 The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. They prepared to
stone ("picked up stones to throw at") Him for making what they
considered a blasphemous claim (5:18; Lev. 24:16). Such treatment,
without a trial, was an accepted form of punishment when someone
supposedly defied the Mosaic Law or the traditions of the elders (cf. Luke
4:29; John 10:31; Acts 7:58; 21:31).555 However, Jesus "hid Himself"
because His hour had not yet come (2:4; 7:6, 8, 30, 44; 8:20; 18:6). Then
He departed "from (out of) the temple." He did not protest or retaliate,
another indication of His submission to the Father.
This concludes Jesus' "light of the world" discourse (vv. 12-59). The Light of the World
now symbolically abandoned the Jews by leaving the temple, and went out to humanity
in general, represented by the man born blind.
551Hoehner, p. 143.
552See John A. Witmer, "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-
56.
553Morris, p. 420.
554Barrett, p. 352.
555Edersheim, The Temple, pp. 66-67.
6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

This chapter continues the theme of Jesus as the Light of the World (8:12; 9:5). When the
Light shone, some received spiritual sight, as this blind man, who received both physical
and spiritual sight. However, the Light blinded others (vv. 39-41). This chapter shows the
continuing polarization of opinion that marked Jesus' ministry, while the differences
between those who believed on Him and those who disbelieved became more apparent.
"This short chapter expresses perhaps more vividly and completely than
any other John's conception of the work of Christ."556
"There are more miracles of the giving of sight to the blind recorded of
Jesus than healings in any other category (see Matt. 9:27-31; 12:22-23;
15:30-31; 21:14; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke 7:21-22). In the Old
Testament the giving of sight to the blind is associated with God himself
(Exod. 4:11; Ps. 146:8). It is also a messianic activity (Isa. 29:18; 35:5;
42:7), and this may be its significance in the New Testament. It is a divine
function, a function for God's own Messiah, that Jesus fulfills when he
gives sight to the blind."557
The healing of the man 9:1-12

The exact time of this miracle and Jesus' resultant discourse is unclear. Evidently these
events transpired sometime between the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 10; September 10-17,
A.D. 32.) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22-39; December 18, A.D. 32.).558 Westcott
believed that 10:22 locates the time of the events in 9:110:2, as well as those in 10:22-
39, during the Feast of Dedication.559 Robertson believed that this incident did not take
place at this feast.560 This sixth of John's seven select signs shows Jesus' power over
misfortune.561
9:1 Probably Jesus healed this man in Jerusalem (8:59), perhaps on the day
following the events just narrated in or near the temple.562 John apparently
noted that the man had been "blind from birth" to prove his helpless
condition, and perhaps to compare him with those who were spiritually
blind from birth (cf. vv. 39-41; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:1-3). While the
Synoptics record several instances in which blind people received their
sight, this is the only case of this happening to a man who was born blind.
In fact, this is the only miracle recorded in the Gospels in which the
sufferer is said to have been afflicted from birth.563 The miracle also
illustrates the origin and development of faith.
556Barrett,p. 354.
557Morris,p. 422.
558Hoehner, p. 143; cf. Brown, 1:388-90.
563Barclay, 2:43.
9:2 The Jews regarded blind people as especially worthy of charity.564 The
disciples' question reflected popular Jewish opinion of their day. Clearly
the Old Testament taught that sin brings divine punishment (e.g., Exod.
20:5; 34:7; Ezek. 18:4). This cause and effect relationship led many of the
Jews, as well as many modern people, to conclude that every bad effect
had an identifiable sinful cause.565 That conclusion goes further than the
Bible does (cf. Job; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 4:13). Sin does lie behind all the
suffering and evil in the world, but the connection between sin and
suffering is not always immediate or observable.
The disciples, like their contemporaries, assumed that either one or both of
the blind man's "parents" had sinned, or he had, and that some such sin
was the cause of his blindness.566 Some of the Jews believed in pre-natal
sin and or the pre-existence of the soul.567
"It is not absolutely certain they were thinking of the

possibility of the man having sinned in a pre-natal
condition. As R. A. Knox points out, they may not have
known that the man was born blind, and the Greek might be
understood to mean, 'Did this man sin? or did his parents
commit some sin with the result that he was born
blind?'"568
Some of the Jews believed in reincarnation, so that may have been in the
back of the disciples' minds.569
"The disciples did not look at the man as an object of

mercy but rather as a subject for a theological discussion. It
is much easier to discuss an abstract subject like 'sin' than it
is to minister to a concrete need in the life of a person."570
9:3 Neither of the disciples' options was the reason for this man's blindness.
Rather, God had permitted it so He might display His work ("works") in
this man's life. It is wrong to conclude that every instance of suffering
springs immediately from a particular act of sin. It is also wrong to
conclude that God permits every instance of suffering because He intends
to miraculously relieve it. Jesus was talking about that particular man's
case. He did not reveal all the reasons for the man's condition, either.

565Cf.Talmud tractates Shabbath 55 a, and Nedarim 41 a, quoted in Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:494.
566Idem, Sketches of . . ., p. 163.
567Barclay, 2:44.
568Tasker, p. 126. The source mentioned is Ronald A. Knox, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ newly translated from the Vulgate Latin . . ., 1945 ed.
569Pink, 2:64-65.
570Wiersbe, 1:324.
"Only God knows why babies are born with handicaps, and
only God can turn those handicaps into something that will
bring good to the people and glory to His name."571
Notice the positive viewpoint of Jesus. The disciples viewed the man's
condition as an indication of divine displeasure, but Jesus saw it as an
opportunity for divine grace.
There is no punctuation in the Greek text, so it may help to understand

Jesus' meaning to omit the period at the end of verse 3 and to read verses 3
and 4 as follows. "But that the works of God might be displayed in him,
we must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day."
9:4-5 Jesus' "we" probably refers to Himself alone, though He could have meant
Himself plus the disciples. Jesus later spoke of His disciples continuing
His work (14:12; cf. 20:21). The "day" in view is probably a reference to
the spiritual daylight generated by the Light of the World's presence on the
earth. Darkness would descend when He departed the earth and returned to
heaven (cf. 12:35). The nighttime "when no one can work" may refer to
the spiritual darkness that would engulf the world after Jesus departed this
earth and returned to heaven. I doubt that this is a reference to the
Tribulation.
9:6 The healing of the blind man that followed shows the Light of the World
dispelling darkness while it was still day. Perhaps Jesus "spat on the
ground" so that the blind man would hear what He was doing. Jesus
applied His saliva directly when He healed the deaf man with the speech
impediment in the Decapolis (Mark 7:33) and the blind man near
Bethsaida (Mark 8:23). Here He mixed His saliva with soil from the
ground "and made clay." Applying the moist "clay" to the blind man's
"eyes" would have let him feel that Jesus was working for him. Jesus may
have intended these sensory aids to strengthen the man's faith. Jesus may
have varied His methods of healing so people would not think that the
"method" was more important than the "Man" doing the healing.
Perhaps Jesus also used saliva and clay to associate this act of healing with
divine creation (Gen. 2:7).572 Another suggestion is that by covering the
man's eyes with mud, Jesus was making his blindness even more intense
to magnify the cure (cf. 1 Kings 18:33-35).573 Some students of this
passage have suggested that Jesus was using something unclean, to effect
a cure, in order to show His power to overcome evil with good.574 Another
571Ibid.
572Lindars,
p. 343; Blum, p. 307.
573Calvin,
Calvin's Commentaries . . ., 1:241.
574D. Smith, "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective," Trinity Journal 6NS:2
(Autumn 1985):151-56; cf. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo.
view is that Jesus introduced an irritant so the man would want to irrigate
his eyes.575 Compare the Holy Spirit's ministry of conviction that leads to
obedience. Another view is that Jesus used the methods and customs of
His day, since spittle, especially the spittle of some distinguished person,
was believed by some to have curative properties.576
"It was not that Jesus believed in these things, but He

kindled expectation by doing what the patient would expect
a doctor to do."577
"The blind man, introduced as the theme of a theological

debate, becomes the object of divine mercy and a place of
revelation."578
9:7 Jesus then instructed the blind man to "go" to the "pool of Siloam" in
southeast Jerusalem and "wash" the mud off his eyes.579 He obeyed Jesus,
received his sight, and departed from the pool "seeing." His obedience
evidenced faith that something good would come of obeying Jesus.
It is probably significant that Jesus sent the man to that particular source
of water. John interpreted the meaning of "Siloam" as "sent" for his
readers. Jesus had sent the man, he obeyed, and he received sight.
Similarly, all who obeyed Jesus' command to believe on Him received
spiritual sight. Westcott believed that the interpretation of the name of the
pool ("sent") connects the pool with Christ, not with the man. It was when
the man went to Him who had been "sent" from the Father, which the
name of the pool reflected, that he was healed.580
"Sight was restored by clay, made out of the ground with

the spittle of Him, Whose breath had at first breathed life
into clay; and this was then washed away in the Pool of
Siloam, from whose waters had been drawn on the Feast of
Tabernacles that which symbolized the forthpouring of the
new life by the Spirit."581
9:8-9 John's record of the conversation of the blind man's "neighbors" is

interesting. It shows that the change in him was so remarkable that even
some people who knew him well could not believe that he was the same
man! The former beggar's personal testimony settled the debate. No one
could argue with that.
575Wiersbe, 1:324.
576Barclay, 2:48-49.
577Ibid., 2:49.
578Barrett, p. 358.
579See the diagram "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.
"The change wrought by regeneration in the converted

Christian is so great that other people often find it difficult
to believe he is the same person; so it was with the physical
change effected by Jesus in the blind beggar."582
Evidently this man had been a "beggar" out of necessity rather than by
choice. He later demonstrated a sense of humor, knowledge of history and
Scripture, the ability to withstand intimidation, and facility in arguing
logically (cf. vv. 27, 30-32). These traits show that he was far from
mentally incompetent.
9:10-12 Jesus had not accompanied the man to the pool, so he could not point Him
out to the crowd as his Healer. Here is further evidence that Jesus was not
promoting Himself to gain glory, but was simply doing the work that God
had given Him to do.
When questioned about the miracle, the former blind man could only
report the facts of his case, and the name of "Jesus," whom he had not yet
seen. The crowd obviously wanted to find Jesus. The man's description of
Jesus gives no indication that he was a true believer. Jesus did not perform
this healing because the man believed that He was God's Son or even the
Messiah. It was simply an expression of God's grace that became an
opportunity for teaching.
The Pharisees' first interrogation 9:13-23
"John evidently wants us to see that the activity of Jesus as the Light of the
world inevitably results in judgment on those whose natural habitat is
darkness. They oppose the Light and they bring down condemnation on
themselves accordingly."583
9:13 The formerly blind man's neighbors probably "brought" him to their
religious leaders just to hear their opinion of what had happened to him.
9:14 John now introduced the fact that Jesus had healed the man on "a
Sabbath," because it became the basis for much of the discussion that
followed. Most of the "Pharisees" would have regarded Jesus' action as
inappropriate work that violated Sabbath ordinances (cf. 5:9, 16; 7:21-24).
He had, after all: healed a man, made clay, and anointed the man's eyes.
9:15 When the Pharisees asked the man "how he" had "received his sight," he
explained the method that Jesus had used.
582Tasker, p. 124.
583Morris, p. 429.
9:16 Jesus' caused a "division" among the people again (cf. 7:40-43). Some of
them ("Pharisees"), offended by Jesus' violation of traditional Sabbath
laws, concluded that He could not represent "God," who had given the
"Sabbath" laws. Their argument was a priori, beginning with the Law and
working forward to Jesus' action.
Others found the evidence of a supernatural cure most impressive, and

decided that Jesus must not be a common sinner, but Someone special
who could do divine acts. Their argument was a posteriori, beginning with
the facts and working back to Jesus' action. Ironically, the second group
had the weaker argument, since miracles do not necessarily prove that the
miracle-worker is from God. Still, their conclusion was true, whereas the
conclusion of the first group with the stronger argument was false. At least
some of the Pharisees considered the possibility that Jesus had come from
God (cf. 3:2).
9:17 Faced with having to decide if Jesus was from God or not, the healed man
concluded that He was "a prophet" similar to other miracle-working Old
Testament prophets (e.g., 2 Kings 2:19-22; 4:18-44; 5:1-14). This was an
advance over his previous description of Jesus as simply "the man called
Jesus" (v. 11). His faith was growing.
9:18-19 The "Jews" in view are the Pharisees (v. 13). Evidently they chose to
interview the healed man's "parents," because they could not unite on a
decision about Jesus. They wanted more information from people closer to
him than just his neighbors (v. 8). Only his parents could affirm that he
had been truly blind from birth. If he had not been, the Pharisees could
have disputed Jesus' miracle.
9:20-21 The man's parents confirmed that he was indeed their "son," and that he
had been "blind" from birth, so they testified that a genuine miracle had
happened. Yet they were unwilling to give their opinion about "how" their
son became able to see, or to identify Jesus as his Healer. They probably
knew the answers to these questions, since John proceeded to explain that
they had other reasons for hedging (vv. 22-23). They suggested that the
investigators question their son on these points, since he himself was
capable of giving legal testimony. Jewish boys became responsible adults
at the age of 13. The age of this man is unknown, but in view of his
confident responses to the Pharisees that follow, he appears to have been
at least in his twenties.
9:22-23 The reason for the parents' silence was their fear of excommunication
from their local "synagogue" for affirming that Jesus was the Messiah.
"The Jews had three types of excommunication: one lasting

30 days, during which the person could not come within six
feet of anybody else; one for an indefinite time, during
which the person was excluded from all fellowship and

worship; and one that meant absolute expulsion forever.
These judgments were very serious because no one could
conduct business with a person who was
excommunicated."584
"For a Jew to be put out of the synagogue meant that he

was ostracized by everyone."585
We now learn that the official position about Jesus was that He was not
the Messiah, and anyone who affirmed that He was, suffered religious
persecution (cf. 7:13). Some scholars have argued that such a test of
Christian heresy was impossible this early in Jewish Christian relations.586
However, other scholars have rebutted these objections effectively.587
"'Already the Jews had decided' does not necessarily

indicate a formal decree of the Sanhedrin. It might well
mean that some of the leading men had agreed among
themselves to take action against the supporters of Jesus,
perhaps to exclude them from the synagogues, perhaps to
initiate proceedings in the Sanhedrin."588
Interestingly, the Apostle John considered confession of Jesus as the

Messiah to be a litmus test that identifies genuine Christians (1 John 5:1).
In 1 John 5:1, the title "Christ" (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
"Messiah") comprises all the biblical revelation about Messiah,
specifically that He was divine as well as human. During Jesus' ministry,
however, confessing Jesus as the Messiah did not necessarily involve
believing in His deity (cf. 1:41; Matt. 16:16). It meant at least believing
that He was the promised messianic deliverer of Israelthe popular
conception of Messiah.
Some of John's original readers, who had become Christians from a

Jewish background, and had been put out of their synagogues because of
their faith in Jesus, would have identified with the blind man.
The Pharisees' second interrogation 9:24-34
The Pharisees, who considered themselves enlightened, now tried to badger the formerly
blind man into denying that he saw the light.
584The Nelson . . ., p. 1780. Cf. Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:166.

585The New Scofield , p. 1139.
586E.g., Barrett, p. 361; et al.
587E.g., Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 369-72.
588Morris, p. 435.
9:24 The Pharisees proceeded to question the healed man again. They had
already decided that Jesus was not the Messiah, but they had to admit that
He had done a remarkable miracle. Having failed to prove Jesus a sinner,
they now hoped the healed man would cave in to pressure from the
authorities and testify that Jesus was "a sinner." Not only that, they
suggested that the man would be glorifying God by speaking the truth, if
he agreed with their verdict (cf. v. 15; Josh. 7:19). Another evidence of
Johannine irony appears. The Pharisees assumed that glorifying God and
glorifying Jesus were mutually exclusive, when actually to glorify the Son
is to glorify the Father.
Their disdain for Jesus comes through in their calling Him only "this
man." A sinner in the Pharisees' eyes was someone who broke the oral
traditions as well as the Mosaic Law. They hoped the restored man would
point to some instance of Jesus' disobedience that would confirm their
conclusion. Notice that these "judges" prejudiced everyone against Jesus
from the start, by announcing that they had already determined ("we
know") that He was "(is) a sinner."
9:25 The healed man refused to speculate on Jesus' sinfulness. He left that to
the theological heavyweights. However, he refused to back down and deny
that Jesus had given him sight. Here is another of many instances in the
fourth Gospel of personal testimony, which John consistently presented as
important and effective. Regardless of a believer's understanding of
Christology, he or she can always testify to the change that Jesus Christ
has effected in one's life.
9:26 The Pharisees hoped that as the man repeated his story, he would either
contradict himself or in some other way discredit his own testimony. This
is the fourth time that the Pharisees asked how the miracle had happened
(vv. 10, 15, 19, 26). People are often more curious about the mechanics of
miracles than they are about the person who performs them. Likewise,
people are often more concerned about identifying whom they can blame
than they are in really helping people.
9:27 The restored blind man refused to review the obvious facts. He now knew
that the Pharisees did not want the truth, but information they could use
against Jesus. They had not listened to him in the sense of believing him
the first time (cf. 5:25). He sarcastically suggested that perhaps the reason
they wanted "to hear" about Jesusone more timewas because they
wanted to follow Him as "His disciples." This response indicates that the
man felt no intimidation from his accusers. He knew that he stood on solid
ground with his testimony, so much so that he could jibe his examiners
with a bit of humor.
9:28-29 The Pharisees saw nothing funny in the man's reply, however. They were
deadly serious in their attempt to execute Jesus. They undoubtedly
realized that this former beggar had seen through their veiled attempt to
condemn Jesus unjustly. They met his good-natured prod with insult. They
turned his charge back on himself and presented following Jesus as
irreconcilable with following Moses. Of course, the Pharisees were not the
"disciples of Moses" that they claimed to be. Ironically, Jesus was. Failure
to know where Jesus came from amounted to failing to know where He
received His authority. Moses had come from God, but Jesus' critics
claimed not to know whether He came from God or from Satan (v. 16; cf.
7:27). Most of them suspected the latter.
"The Pharisees were cautious men who would consider

themselves conservatives, when in reality they were
'preservatives.' . . . A 'preservative' simply embalms the
past and preserves it. He is against change and resists the
new things that God is doing."589
We see here an essential difference between Judaism and Christianity (cf.

1:17). The Jews continue to profess allegiance to Moses, as the Pharisees
did here, while Christians claim to follow Jesus, which is what they
charged the restored man with doing. Following Jesus involves accepting
Moses' revelation as authoritative, since Jesus authenticated Moses'
writings.
Earlier, Jesus' enemies said they knew "where" He came from, namely,
Galilee (7:27). They were wrong in their assessment of Jesus' earthly
origin, just as they were wrong about His heavenly origin. Here they were
speaking of His authoritative origin, specifically who had sent Him.
9:30-31 The healed man not only possessed a sense of humor but also common
sense. It seemed remarkable ("amazing") to him that the Pharisees could
not see that Jesus had come from God ("not know where He is from").
Their unbelief in view of the evidence was incredible to him. The proof
that Jesus had come from God was His ability to perform such a powerful
and constructive miracle as giving sight to the blind. A fundamental
biblical revelation is that God responds positively to the godly ("hears the
God-fearing"), but He "does not hear" (in the sense of granting the
requests of) those who sin (Job 27:9; 35:13; Ps. 34:15-16; 66:18; 145:19;
Prov. 15:29; 28:9; Isa. 1:15). Obviously not all miracle-workers had come
from God (cf. Exod. 7:22; 8:7), but there had been exceptions to the rule.
The former blind man showed considerable spiritual insight.
"It is always risky to identify spiritual power with divine

power. But such theological niceties do not trouble the
healed man. His spiritual instincts are good, even if his
theological argumentation is not entirely convincing."590
589Wiersbe, 1:326.
9:32-33 The man was correct that Scripture recorded no former ("since the
beginning of time" it had "never been heard") healing of a man "born
blind." Evidently Jesus had not healed anyone in this condition previously,
either. At least this restored man had not heard of any such cases. He
concluded that Jesus must have come "from God." Jesus did not qualify as
the "sinner" that the Pharisees were making Him out to be.
9:34 Scorn has often served as a final resort when evidence fails, and it served
the Pharisees this way here. They implied that this man's congenital
blindness was the result of a sinful condition ("you were born entirely in
sins") that rendered him incapable of intellectual insight (cf. v. 2). By
saying this, they unintentionally admitted that Jesus had cured a man blind
from birth.
He [the blind man] had not only taught the rabbis, but had
utterly routed them in argument."591
"How could anybody be steeped in sin at birth? Everybody

is born with a sinful nature (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12), but a
baby can hardly commit numerous acts of sin moments
after it is born!"592
The Pharisees did not argue the exceptions to the rule that the man cited,
nor did they offer any other possible explanations. No one seems to have
remembered that when Messiah appeared, He would open the eyes of the
blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7).
This poor man lost his privilege of participating in synagogue worship for
taking his stand supporting Jesus (cf. v. 22). Many other Jewish believers
followed him in this fate throughout the years since this incident
happened. This is the first persecution of Jesus' followers that John
recorded.
"The Rabbinists enumerate twenty-four grounds for

excommunication, of which more than one might serve the
purpose of the Pharisees."593
". . . how many a preacher there is today, who in his fancied

superiority, scorns the help which ofttimes a member of his
congregation could give him. Glorying in their seminary
education, they cannot allow that an ignorant layman has
light on the Scriptures which they do not possess. Let a
Spirit-taught layman seek to show the average preacher 'the

592Blum, p. 308.
way of the Lord more perfectly,' and he must not be

surprised if his pastor saysif not in so many words,
plainly by his bearing and actions'dost thou teach us?'"594
Spiritual sight and blindness 9:35-41
"John is interested in the way the coming of Jesus divides people."595
9:35 The healed man had responded positively and courageously to the light
that he had so far, but he did not have much light. Therefore Jesus took the
initiative and sought him out with further revelation designed to bring him
to full faith.
"How true it is that those who honor God are honored by

Him. . . . He [Jesus] cheered this man with gracious words.
Yea, He revealed Himself more fully to him than to any
other individual, save the Samaritan adulteress. He plainly
avowed His deity: He presented Himself in His highest
glory as 'the Son of God [cf. 5:25; 10:36; 11:4].'"596
Jesus' purpose was not just to provide physical healing for the man, but to
bring him to salvation. So when Jesus found him, He asked him: "Do you
believe (place your trust) in the Son of Man?" Some early manuscripts and
modern translations have "Son of God," but "Son of Man" has the better
support. This personal response to God's grace is essential for salvation.
"You" is emphatic in the Greek text. Jesus probably chose this title for
Himself because it expressed the fact that He was the Man who had come
from God (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28).
Furthermore it connotes Jesus' role as Judge, which He proceeded to
explain (v. 39).
In other words, Jesus was asking the man if he trusted in the God-man,
though Jesus did not identify Himself as that Man. The no-longer blind
man, ironically, had never before seen Jesus, so he did not know Him by
sight.
9:36 The man replied by asking Jesus to point the Son of Man out to him. He
seemed ready to "believe in Him," and evidently thought that Jesus was
going to identify his healer. "Lord" (Gr. kyrie) means "Sir" in this context.
Once again, someone spoke better than he knew, since this man's
questioner was "Lord" in a larger sense than he first realized (cf. v. 38).
594Pink, 2:94.
595Morris, p. 439.
596Pink, 2:96.
"He asks that faith may find its object. His trust in Jesus is
absolute."597
9:37-38 Jesus then identified Himself, introducing Himself ("He is the one who is
talking with you") as the Son of Man (cf. 4:26). Perhaps He told the man
he had "seen Him," in order to connect the miracle with the miracle-
worker. The man may have suspected that Jesus was his healer because of
the sound of His voice, but seeing Him made the identification certain.
The man had "seen Him" with the eyes of faith previously, but now he
also saw Him physically, with recognition. Similarly modern believers see
Him by faith, but in the future faith will give way to sight.
Jesus removed all possibility of misunderstanding when He identified

Himself as the One who now spoke to the man. The beggar confessed his
faith in Jesus, and appropriately proceeded to prostrate himself (Gr.
proskyneo) in worship before Him. This is the only place in this Gospel
where we read that anyone "worshipped" Jesus. Now the respectful
address "Lord" took on deeper meaning for him (v. 36). However, the man
still had much to learn about the full identity of Jesus and its implications,
as all new believers do. This man was no longer welcome in his
synagogue, but he took a new place of worship at Jesus' feet. Worship
means acknowledging and ascribing worthiness to someone or something.
This blind man's pilgrimage from darkness to light is clear from the terms
he used to describe Jesus. First, he called Him "the man called Jesus"
(v. 11). Second, he referred to Jesus as "a prophet" (v. 17). Third, he came
to believe that Jesus was a prophet who had come "from God" (v. 33).
Finally, he acknowledged Jesus as "Lord" (v. 38). This man's progress,
from dark unbelief to the light of faith, is very significant in view of John's
stated purpose of bringing his readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ
(20:31). It shows that this process sometimes, indeed usually, involves
stages of illumination. It is also interesting that the problems that this man
had with the Pharisees, were what God used to "open his eyes" to who
Jesus really was. It is often through difficulties that God teaches us more
about Himself.
9:39 Jesus concluded His comments to the man by explaining something of His
purpose in the Incarnation.
"The last three verses of chapter ix make it clear that this

incident has been recorded primarily because it is an acted
parable of faith and unbelief, and therefore of judgment, a
theme that is never absent for long from this Gospel."598
598Tasker, p. 126. Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 161.
Jesus' primary purpose was to save some, but in doing so He had to pass
judgment (Gr. krima, cf. 3:17-21, 36; 12:47). Judging was the result of His
coming, not the reason for it. The last part of the verse consists of two
purpose clauses. Jesus was evidently alluding to Isaiah 6:10 and 42:19.
His coming inevitably involved exposing the spiritual blindness of some,
so that they might recognize their blindness, turn to Jesus in faith, and
"see" (cf. vv. 25, 36). Conversely, His coming also involved confirming
the spiritual blindness of those who professed to see spiritually, but really
did not because of their unbelief (cf. vv. 16, 22, 24, 29, 34). Jesus is the
pivot on which all human destiny turns.599 Jesus explained that what had
happened to this man and the Pharisees was an example of what His whole
ministry was about.600
". . . a certain poverty of spirit (cf. Mt. 5:3), an abasement

of personal pride (especially over one's religious opinions),
and a candid acknowledgment of spiritual blindness are
indispensable characteristics of the person who receives
spiritual sight, true revelation, at the hands of Jesus . . ."601
"By willfully confining their vision men lose the very

power of seeing."602
9:40-41 Some Pharisees had been listening in on Jesus' conversation with the
restored man. They suspected that Jesus might be referring to them when
He spoke of the spiritually blind (v. 39). They wanted to make sure that
Jesus was not accusing them of spiritual blindness, since they considered
themselves the most enlightened among the Jews.
Jesus replied to them using irony. He said that if they were spiritually
"blind," and realized their need for enlightenment, they would not be
guilty of sin, specifically unbelief, because they would accept Jesus'
teaching. However, they did not sense their need, but felt quite satisfied
that they understood God's will correctly. Consequently they did not
receive the light that Jesus offered. They were wise in their own eyes, but
really they were fools (Prov. 26:12). Their "sin" of unbelief remained with
them, and they remained in their sin and under God's condemning wrath
(3:36). Light causes some eyes to see, but it blinds other eyes. Jesus'
revelations had the same effects.
"By contrast [with the increasing perception of the man

born blind] the Pharisees, starting with the view that Jesus
is not from God (v. 16), question the miracle (v. 18), speak

600See Stephen S. Kim, "The Significance of Jesus' Healing the Blind Man in John 9," Bibliotheca Sacra
167:667 (July-September 2010):307-18.
of Jesus as a sinner (v. 24), are shown to be ignorant

(v. 29), and finally are pronounced blind and sinners
(v. 41)."603
"If the Pharisees had been really blind, if they had had no
understanding of spiritual things at all, they would not have
sinned in acting as they did (cf. Rom. 5:13). They could not
be blamed for acting in ignorance [cf. 1 Tim. 1:13]. They
would then not have been acting in rebellion against their
best insights. But they claim to see. They claim spiritual
knowledge. They know the law. And it is sin for people
who have spiritual knowledge to act as they do."604
The deceitfulness of sin often makes those people, who are in the greatest
need of divine revelation and illumination, think that they are the most
enlightened of human beings. Only the Spirit of God, using the Word of
God, can break through that dense darkness, to bring conviction of
spiritual blindness, and to create openness to the truth (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16).
". . . it is precisely when men say that they see, and because
they say that they see, that their sin remaineth. They
continue to be guilty men, however unconscious of their
guilt."605
"Some of the most dogmatic people today are the atheists

and the cultists. They say they see, but they are blind. They
reject the Lord Jesus Christ, and so their sin remains.
Although they are not walking around with a white walking
stick, they are blind."606
This chapter advances the revelation of Jesus' true identity, which was one of John's
primary objectives in this Gospel. It also shows that as the light of this revelation became
clearer, so did the darknessbecause some people prefer the darkness to the light (3:19).
"This miracle is a sign that Jesus can open the eyes of the spiritually blind
so that they can receive the complete sight which constitutes perfect faith.
Faith means passing from darkness to light; and to bring men this faith, to
give them the opportunity of responding when the divine Spirit draws
them to Himself, is the primary purpose for which Jesus has been sent into
the world."607
603Morris, p. 432.
604Ibid.,
p. 442.
605Tasker, p. 126.
606McGee, 4:428.
607Tasker, pp. 122-23. See also Howard, pp. 73-75.
7. The Good Shepherd discourse 10:1-21
Evidently this teaching followed what John recorded in chapter 9 (v. 21), but exactly
when between the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 14, 37) and the Feast of Dedication (v. 22) it
happened, is unclear. The place where Jesus gave it appears to have been Jerusalem
(v. 21). Probably this teaching followed the preceding one immediately. The thematic as
well as the linguistic connections are strong. The blind beggar had just been put out of the
fold of his synagogue (9:34), so Jesus spoke of His fold, which the beggar had now
entered (cf. 9:35-38).
"A signal instance of the failure of hireling shepherds has been given;
instead of properly caring for the blind man, the Pharisees have cast him
out (9.34). Jesus, on the other hand, as the good shepherd, found him
(9.35, heuron auton) and so brought him into the true fold."608
"In a sense, the chapter break here is unfortunate. This event really is a
commentary on the conflict of John 9 (10:19-21)."609
Jesus' presentation of the figure 10:1-6
This teaching is quite similar to what the Synoptic evangelists recorded Jesus giving in
His parables, but there is a significant difference. John called this teaching a figure of
speech (Gr. paroimian) rather than a parable (Gr. parabole). Parables generally stress
only one or a few points of comparison, but the sustained metaphors that follow develop
many similarities. John did not include any Synoptic-style parables in his narrative.
Jesus evidently chose the figure of a "good shepherd" to contrast Himself with the bad
shepherds who were misleading God's sheep. Many Old Testament passages castigated
Israel's shepherds who failed in their duty (cf. Isa. 56:9-12; Jer. 23:1-4; 25:32-38; Ezek.
34; Zech. 11). God was Israel's Shepherd (cf. Ps. 23:1; 80:1; Isa. 40:10-11). The shepherd
metaphor also was a good one to picture Jesus' voluntary self-sacrifice for His people.
"The shepherd was an autocrat over his flock, and passages are not lacking
where the shepherd imagery is used to emphasize the thought of
sovereignty. Jesus is thus set forth in this allegory as the true Ruler of his
people in contrast to all false shepherds."610
10:1 Jesus again stressed the importance of this teaching with a strong
introductory preface to it. He then proceeded to point out several things
about first-century shepherding that illustrated His ministry. John's
original readers would have understood these similarities easily since
shepherding was widespread.
608Barrett,p. 367.
609Bock, p. 473.
610Morris, pp. 443-44. Cf. Rev. 2:27.
Jesus described a flock of "sheep" in a "fold" or pen that had solid walls
and only one "door" (gate). Evidently the "fold" in view was a large
enclosure some distance from any human dwelling place. Customarily,
several families who owned sheep would feed their sheep in nearby
pastures, and hire a watchman to guard the gate to such an exposed
enclosure. The watchman would admit authorized individuals, but would
exclude the unauthorized ones who might want to steal or kill some of the
sheep.611 The words "thief" (Gr. kleptes, stressing trickery; cf. Luke 11:52)
and "robber" (Gr. lestes, stressing violence; cf. Matt. 21:13) are quite close
in meaning.
God in the Old Testament frequently compared His relationship with

Israel to that of a Shepherd and His sheep (e.g., Ps. 80:1; Isa. 40:11; Ezek.
34:10-16; cf. Ps. 23:1). He also called Israel's unfaithful leaders "wicked
shepherds" of His people (e.g., Isa. 56:9-12; Jer. 23:1-4; 25:32-38; Ezek.
34:4; Zech. 11). Additionally, God predicted that one day a descendant of
David would shepherd the nation properly (Ezek. 34:23-25; 37:24-28).
Thus these figures all had special meaning for the Jews to whom Jesus
first addressed this teaching. The "sheepfold" stands for Judaism.
In verse 1, the thieves and robbers clearly refer to the religious leaders
who were unfaithful to God, and were seeking to harm His sheep for
personal gain (cf. 9:41). Their rejection of Jesus, as the Shepherd whom
God had sent, branded them for what they were.
10:2 In contrast to these plunderers, an approved "shepherd" would enter the

pen through its gate rather than over its wall. The "door" represented the
lawful way of entrance into Judaism for the shepherd. (The Latin word for
"shepherd" translates as "pastor.")
"Several flocks were often gathered into one fold for

protection during the night. In the morning each shepherd
passed into the fold to bring out his own flock; and he
entered by the same door as they."612
Jesus was saying figuratively that He came to Israel as God's authorized

representative, the Messiah. The religious leaders, on the other hand, did
not have divine sanction for their dealings with Israelthat were
essentially destructive as well as selfish.
10:3 The "doorkeeper" was the person hired to protect the sheep from their
enemies. In the case of Jesus' ministry, this person corresponded to John
the Baptist. However, all of the guardians of the flock throughout history
may be in view: Moses, John the Baptist, God the Father, the Holy Spirit,
611See Pink, 2:102-3.

et al.613 Normally there were sheep from several different flocks,

belonging to several different owners, that stayed together in these large
pens.
The "pen" in the metaphor symbolized Israel or Judaism. Upon entering

the pen, a shepherd would call his own sheep to come out from the others,
and he would lead them out to pasture. Normally shepherds did this with a
distinctive call or whistle. This shepherd, however, called each sheep by
its own name, which evidently was not uncommon in Jesus' day (cf. 1:43;
11:43; Luke 19:5).614 The scene thus pictures Jesus calling every
individual, whom the Father had given Him, to follow Him out from the
non-elect Jews (cf. Num. 27:15-18; John 14:9; 20:16, 29; 21:16). Jesus'
sheep listen to His voice and follow Him (cf. 5:24).
"The Pharisees threw the beggar out of the synagogue, but

Jesus led him out of Judaism and into the flock of God!"615
10:4-5 Many shepherds drove their sheep before them, and some of them used
sheep dogs to help them herd the sheep. However this shepherd, as many
others did, went "ahead of" his sheep, and led them where he wanted to
take them. This description reflects the style of Jesus' leadership. He led
His disciples, who followed Him wherever He went in obedience to His
lead and command (cf. Gal. 5:18).
His "sheep follow Him because they know His voice." They recognize
Him for who He is, namely, their Shepherd. Conversely, they will not
follow false shepherds, because their voice or teaching is strange to them.
Jesus was describing what is typical behavior in such relationships, not
that every individual sheep always behaves this way in every instance, as
experience testifies.
"Alas and alas, if only our modern pastors had the sheep
(old and young) so trained that they would run away from
and not run after the strange voices that call them to false
philosophy, false psychology, false ethics, false religion,
false life."616
Some people appeal to these verses to prove that true Christians will
inevitably follow Christ and will never apostatize. This seems wrong for at
least three reasons. First, Jesus said that His sheep follow Him, not a
stranger, because they know the Good Shepherd's voice (what He says,
His teaching). Sheep normally do follow their shepherd because they
613Ibid.
614Blum, p. 309; Tenney, "John," p. 108.
615Wiersbe, 1:329.
know his voice, but there are exceptions among sheep and among
Christians.
Second, if following false teachers were impossible for Christians, why

are there so many warnings against doing precisely that in the New
Testament? Third, John identified this saying of Jesus as a figure of
speech (or compressed thought, v. 6). Illustrations typically make a main
point, so we should not expect this illustration to correspond to reality in
every detail, much less to teach doctrine in all its parts.
The point of these verses is how God forms His flock. People come to
Jesus because He calls them, and they follow Him because they belong to
Him. Many of the Jews who heard Jesus' voice disregarded Him, because
they considered Abraham or Moses or some famous rabbi to be their
shepherd.
10:6 Many of the Jews who heard these words "did not understand" what Jesus
was talking about. They did not respond to the Shepherd's voice. They
could hardly have failed to understand the relationship between shepherds
and sheep, which was so common in their culture. Nevertheless they did
not grasp Jesus' analogy of Himself as Israel's true Shepherd.
The Greek word paroimia ("figure of speech") occurs elsewhere in John's

Gospel (16:25, 29) but never in the Synoptics.
"It suggests the notion of a mysterious saying full of

compressed thought, rather than that of a simple
comparison."617
A similar word, parabole ("parable"), appears often in the Synoptics but

never in the fourth Gospel. Both words, however, have quite a wide range
of meanings encompassing many kinds of figurative language.
Jesus' expansion of the figure 10:7-18
The difference between this teaching and Jesus' parables in the Synoptics now becomes
clearer. Jesus proceeded to compare Himself to the pen gate, as well as to the shepherd.
He also described Himself leading His sheep into the fold as well as out of it. Jesus was
using the illustration to teach more than one lesson.
10:7-8 Jesus introduced another of His "I am" claims. He professed to be "the
door" or gate of the sheepfold (cf. 1:51; 14:6). In relation to the fold,
Christ is "the Door," to which He gives admission; in relation to the flock,
he is "the Good Shepherd," to which He gives care and guidance.618 Some
618Ibid., p. 153.
commentators have pointed out that some ancient Near Eastern shepherds
slept in the gateways of their sheepfolds and so served as human gates.619
This may seem to alleviate the incongruity of Jesus being both the
Shepherd and the gate. However, the other differences in the two pictures
of the fold, presented in verses 1-5 and 7-18, argue for separate though
similar illustrations, rather than one harmonious illustration. This pericope
does not simply explain the previous illustration, but it develops certain
metaphors in that illustration.
"The 'door of the sheep' is to be distinguished from the

'door of the sheepfold' in v. 1. The latter was the Divinely-
appointed way by which Christ had entered Judaism, in
contrast from the false pastors of Israel whose conduct
evidenced plainly that they had thrust themselves into
office. The 'door of the sheep' was Christ Himself, by
which the elect of Israel passed out of Judaism."620
Jesus contrasted Himself, as the gate, with the "thieves and robbers" who
preceded Him. He provided protection and security for His sheep, whereas
the others sought to exploit them. The thieves and robbers in this context
refer to the religious leaders of Jesus' day (cf. v. 1). They are obviously not
a reference to Israel's faithful former leaders, such as Abraham, Moses,
and other true prophets.
10:9 Jesus described Himself as a passageway (cf. 14:6). His sheep could enter
and leave the sheepfold through Him. Obviously the sheepfold here does
not refer to Israel as it did previously (vv. 1-5). People could not "go in
and out" of Judaism, at will, through Jesus. It probably represents the
security that God provides, and the pasture outside stands for what
sustains their spiritual health and growth. Jesus provides for His people's
security needs and for all of their daily needs 24 hours a day.
"The fullness of the Christian life is exhibited in its three

elementssafety, liberty, support."621
"The 'door' in v. 1 was God's appointed way for the

shepherd into Judaism. The 'door' in v. 7 was the Way out
of Judaism, by Christ leading God's elect in separation unto
Himself. Here in v. 9 the 'door' has to do with salvation, for
elect Jew and Gentile alike."622
619E.g.,Beasley-Murray, p. 169; Barclay, 2:67.

620Pink, 2:109-10.
622Pink, 2:112.
10:10 Impostors' aims are ultimately selfish and destructive, but Jesus came to
give "life," not take it.
"The world still seeks its humanistic, political savioursits

Hitlers, its Stalins, its Maos, its Pol Potsand only too late
does it learn that they blatantly confiscate personal property
(they come 'only to steal'), ruthlessly trample human life
under foot (they come 'only . . . to kill'), and
contemptuously savage all that is valuable (they come 'only
. . . to destroy')."623
Jesus, on the other hand, not only came to bring spiritual life to people, but
He came to bring the best quality of life to them. The eternal life that Jesus
imparts is not just long, but it is also rich. He did not just come to gain
sheep, but to enable His sheep to flourish and to enjoy contentment, and
every other legitimately good thing possible.
10:11 Verses 7-10 expand the idea of the gate from verses 1-5, and verses 11-18
develop the idea of the Shepherd from those verses.
"Two points are specially brought out in the character of

'the good shepherd,' His perfect self-sacrifice (11-13), and
His perfect knowledge (14, 15), which extends beyond the
range of man's vision (16)."624
Here is another "I am" claim. Jesus is the Good Shepherd in contrast to the
bad shepherds just described (vv. 8, 10a). Rather than killing the sheep so
He might live, as the bad shepherds did, Jesus was willing to sacrifice His
life (Gr. psyche, the total self) so the sheep might live. It is this extreme
commitment to the welfare of the sheep that qualified Jesus as the Good
Shepherd. The other titles, "Great Shepherd" (Heb. 13:20-21) and "Chief
Shepherd" (1 Pet. 5:4), stress different aspects of Jesus' character as a
shepherd. Good shepherding involves protecting, providing, and
sacrificing.
"Good" (Gr. kalos) connotes nobility, attractiveness, and worth, not

merely gentleness. It contrasts Jesus with the unworthy and ignoble
shepherds that He proceeded to describe (vv. 12-13). Laying down His life
is a uniquely Johannine expression that describes a voluntary sacrificial
death (cf. vv. 17, 18; 13:37-38; 15:13; 1 John 3:16). Likewise the
preposition hyper ("for") usually connotes sacrifice (cf. 13:37; 15:13;
Luke 22:19; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:3). Most shepherds do not intend to die
for their sheep but to live for them; they only die for their sheep
accidentally. Yet Jesus came to die for His sheep purposely. Of course,
Jesus also came to die for the whole world (6:51; 11:50-52).

10:12-13 Thieves and robbers are wicked, but "hired" hands are typically just
selfish. They take care of sheep for what they can get out of it, not for the
sake of the sheep themselves. While a good shepherd may be willing to
sacrifice himself for the safety and welfare of his sheep, a hireling will
save himself, and "flees" when danger arises (cf. Jer. 10:21-22; 12:10;
Zech. 11:4-17). This is understandable since the shepherd, who owns his
sheep, has a vested interest in them, whereas a "hired hand" does not.
Israel's leaders acted like hirelings when they tried to preserve their own
positions and willingly sacrificed Jesus. Christian leaders behave like
hired hands when they put their own needs ahead of those they serve (cf.
1 Pet. 5:2-3). Attitude is the crucial difference between a true shepherd
and a hireling.
10:14-15 The mutual knowledge between the shepherd and the sheep (knowing each
other) is very important. Therefore Jesus stressed His identity as the
"Good Shepherd" again. The sheep must "know" their Shepherd, and they
can know Him like the Son knows the Father. The Son must know the
Father to follow His will, just like the sheep must know the Shepherd to
follow Him faithfully. Jesus taught that the relationship the sheep enjoy
with Himself is unique, as His relationship with His Father is unique. Yet
each person maintains his own identity. Man does not become God, as the
New Age movement, for example, teaches.
"Christ first took our nature that we might afterwards

receive His."625
The repetition of the Shepherd's sacrificial death ("I lay down My life") in
this verse also stresses that knowing the Shepherd involves appreciating
the extent of His love.
"'Know' (ginosko) in this Gospel connotes more than the

cognizance of mere facts; it implies a relationship of trust
and intimacy."626
John also used the word this way in 1 John (4:7, 8, 16; 5:20) where he
expounded the importance of, not just believing in, but abiding in Jesus
Christ.
10:16 The "other sheep" in view refer to Gentiles outside the "fold" of Israel who
would believe in Jesus (cf. vv. 3-4). This is one of a few intimations in the
Gospels that a new body of people would replace Israel as the people of
God in the present age (cf. 17:20; Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6). These sheep, with
those from Israel, would compose "one fold (flock)," namely: the church
(cf. 1 Cor. 10:32). This rules out the possibility of a Jewish church and a
625Ibid., p. 155.
626Tenney, "John," p. 109. See also Wiersbe, 1:330.
Gentile church. That new fold (flock) would have "one Shepherd," namely
Jesus, who would become, to change the figure, the Head of the church.
Jesus knew these other sheep (vv. 14-15) as well as He knew those who
would believe on Him in Israel: "this fold" (cf. Ps. 100:3).
10:17 Having declared the intimate knowledge that the Father and the Son share,
Jesus now explained why the Father loved Him as He did. Jesus did not
mean that the Father's love resulted from the Son's performance. It would
still have existed if Jesus had failed to obey Him completely. The Father
loved the Son unconditionally from the beginning. However, the Son's full
obedience to the Father's will resulted in the Father having a special love
for the Son that obedience under testing elicited. Similarly, God loves all
believers unconditionally, but when they obey Him, they enjoy an
intimacy with Him that only obedience brings out (cf. 15:14).
Jesus died sacrificially with His resurrection and glorification in view. He

did not die thinking that He would remain dead. His death was one event
in a larger chain of events, with the big picture always in view as Jesus
anticipated the Cross.
10:18 Superficially, observers could have concluded that Jesus died because the
Jews conspired against Him. However, Jesus revealed that behind that
instrumental cause was the efficient (effectual) cause of God's purpose (cf.
Acts 4:27-28). God had given Jesus the "authority" to offer Himself as a
sacrifice for humankind's sins, and the authority to rise from the dead.
Nevertheless the Son remained submissive to the Father in the triune
hierarchy. Jesus willingly offered Himself; no human took His life from
Him. However, He offered Himself in obedience to the Father's will.
"It was not the nails, but the strength of His love to the
Father and to His elect, which held Him to the Cross."627
Anyone can lay his or her life down in death sacrificially, but only Jesus
could "lay it down" and then "take it up (back) again" in resurrection. The
New Testament writers attributed Jesus' resurrection to all three members
of the Trinity: the Father (Rom. 6:4), the Son (John 2:19), and the Spirit
(Rom. 8:11).
The division among Jesus' hearers 10:19-21
Again Jesus' claims resulted in some of His hearers believing in Him and others
disbelieving (cf. 7:12, 43; 9:16). Here the expression "the Jews" refers to the Jewish
people generally, not specifically to the religious leaders, as it usually does in this
Gospel. Evidently it was the apparent contradiction between Jesus' claim to be the
coming Shepherd of Israel, and His claim that He would die for the sheep, that caused the
627Pink, 2:131.
cleavage. Some even concluded that He was "demon-possessed," and therefore insane
(cf. 7:20; 8:48). Others concluded that He was sane and sober, because of His gracious
revelations and His ability to cure the man born blind (9:1-12). John continued to stress
the two opposite conclusions that people continued to draw, even though Jesus' witness to
His deity was sufficiently consistent and clear. This should be an encouragement to all of
us who testify for Him. Not even Jesus Himself convinced everyone that He was God's
Son.
8. The confrontation at the Feast of Dedication 10:22-42
The present section of the fourth Gospel is strongly Christological and focuses on Jesus'
identity. In this subdivision of the text, Jesus presented Himself as the Messiah (vv. 22-
30) and as the Son of God (vv. 31-39). This resulted in the climax of hostility against
Him.
"It becomes clear that people must either recognize that Jesus stands in
such a relation to the Father as no one else ever did, or else reject him
entirely."628
The final few verses are transitional and describe Jesus' withdrawal from Jerusalem and
the fact that many people believed on Him (vv. 40-42).
Jesus' claim to be the Messiah 10:22-30
10:22-23 "At that time" (NASB) is a general reference to the proximity of the "Feast
of Dedication" and the events narrated in the previous pericope. It does not
mean that the events in the preceding section occurred exactly before that
feast. The NIV "Then came" gives the sense better.
". . . His Peraean Ministry, which extended from after the

Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding the last
Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief visit of
Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication. Thus,
each part of the Peraean Ministry would last about three
months; the first, from about the end of September to the
month of December; the second, from that period to the
beginning of April. Of these six months we have (with the
solitary exception of St. Matthew xii. 22-45), no other
account than that furnished by St. Luke, although, as
usually, the Jerusalem and Judaean incidents of it are
described by St. John. After that we have the account of
His journey to the last Passover, recorded, with more or
less detail, in the three Synoptic Gospels."629
628Morris, p. 458.
The eight-day Feast of Dedication, now called "Chanukah" (or

Hanukkah), the Feast of Lights, was not one of the feasts prescribed in the
Mosaic Law. The Jews instituted it during the inter-testamental period (cf.
1 Macc. 4:36-59; 2 Macc. 1:9, 18; 10:1-8). Besides the Mosaic feasts, the
Jews of Jesus' day also celebrated the Feast of Esther, or Purim.630
"Christ's testimony at Hanukkah, and its place in the

Gospel of John, which stresses the theme of light, is a
testimony to Christians that Hanukkah emphasizes His
great work of providing salvation to a spiritually blind
world."631
This feast commemorated the purification and rededication of the temple

by Judas Maccabeus ("Judas the Hammer") on the twenty-fifth of Chislev
(modern late December and early January), 164 B.C. The Syrian invader
Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) had profaned the temple, three years earlier, by
replacing the brazen altar with a pagan one, on which he offered a pig as a
sacrifice to Jupiter. Antiochus attempted to Hellenize Judea, but the
Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus was able to lead a guerilla revolt that has
borne his name ever since. After three years he defeated the Syrians and
liberated the Jews.
"It was the last great deliverance that the Jews had known,
and therefore it must have been in people's minds a symbol
of their hope that God would again deliver his people."632
In warmer weather, Jesus would have taught in one of the open-air

courtyards of the temple. Because "it was winter," He taught what follows
in Solomon's colonnade, on the temple courtyard's eastern side. Perhaps
John mentioned this detail because it was in Solomon's colonnade that the
first Christians gathered regularly (Acts 3:11; 5:12). One writer opined
that John may have included reference to "winter" because of the spiritual
climate, namely, the generally frigid spirits of the Jews.633 John may have
made other references to times and seasons with such allusions in mind
(e.g., 13:30).
10:24 Jesus had often hinted at being the Messiah when He spoke publicly to the
Jews. Still He had not "plainly" claimed to be the Messiah ("Christ"), as
He had when conversing with the Samaritan woman (4:26). The reason the
Jews wanted Jesus to make His claim clear, here, appears to have been so
they could accuse and eventually kill Him. This motivation is more
630Idem, The Temple, p. 197.

631JerryR. Lancaster and R. Larry Overstreet, "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10," Bibliotheca
Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):332-33.
632Morris, p. 459.
apparent, when we notice how Jesus responded to their request, than it is

when we examine what they said.
Jesus did not give them the unambiguous answer that they requested. He
had made clear claims about His identity, and many of the Jews had
believed on Him. It was His critics' determined unbelief that made His
claims obscure to them, not His inability or unwillingness to reveal
Himself. Furthermore, for Jesus to have claimed to be the Jews' Messiah
publiclywould have encouraged a political movement that He did not
want to fuel.
10:25-26 Jesus did not mean that He had claimed publicly to be the Messiah. He
had not. He meant that He had "told" the Jews that He was the Messiah by
His "works" (cf. 5:16-47; 6:32-59; 7:14-30). His miracles proved who He
was, namely, God's Son, sent to fulfill the Father's prophesied willbut
the Jews generally rejected that testimony because they wanted a different
type of Messiah. The ultimate reason they did not understand Jesus was
that they were "not of" the "sheep" the Father had given to the Son (cf. vv.
1-18; 6:37). This condition did not excuse their unbelief, but it explained
it.
"From the human standpoint, we become His sheep by

believing; but from the divine standpoint, we believe
because we are His sheep. . . .
"In the Bible, divine election and human responsibility are

perfectly balanced; and what God has joined together, we
must not put asunder."634
10:27-28 Verse 27 repeats revelation Jesus had previously given (vv. 3-5, 14). The
"eternal life" that Jesus gives is made possible through His own life.
Consequently it is impossible for His sheep to ever "perish." Their
ultimate security rests with the Good Shepherd, who promised here that
"no one" would be able to "snatch them out of" His handno thief (v. 10),
no robber (v. 8), no wolf (v. 12), no one (cf. Rom. 8:35-39).
The construction of the Greek clause "they shall never perish," with a
double negative (ou me apolontai eis ton aiona), stresses the impossibility
strongly (cf. 3:16). Jesus had previously said that part of the task, that the
Father had given Him to do, was to preserve all those whom the Father
gave Him (6:37-40). Thus we can see that it is impossibleeven for one
of the sheepto wriggle out of the Good Shepherd's grasp.
"We should notice that the teaching of this verse is not that
believers will be saved from all earthly disaster, but that
634Wiersbe, 1:332. See also C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 52-53.

they will be saved, no matter what earthly disaster may

befall them."635
This is one of the clearest promises of the eternal security of the believer
that God has given us in His Word. It is also a clear statement of the fact
that eternal life comes to us as a gift, not as wages we earn (cf. Eph. 2:8-
9).
"Faith rests upon election, not upon human choice."636
"A dear little lady talking about the assurance of her

salvation once said, 'Nobody can take you out of His hand.'
Someone replied, 'Well, you might slip through His
fingers.' And she replied, 'Oh my no, I couldn't slip through
His fingers; I am one of His fingers.' That is true, friends.
We are members of the body of Christ."637
10:29 Jesus strengthened this promise of security. He reminded His hearers that,
because what He did was simply to execute the Father's willit was the
"Father," as well as Himself, who would keep His sheep secure (cf.
17:12).
"The 'hand of Christ' (v. 28) is beneath us, and the 'hand' of
the Father is above us. Thus are we secured between the
clasped hands of Omnipotence!"638
"The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground

of [basis for] the safety of the flock."639
No one can steal from God. No one has superior strength or wisdom to
overpower or outwit Him (cf. Col. 3:3). No one will snatch them from God
(v. 28), and no one can do so either.
10:30 Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the
Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form
of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of
the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their
action. This explanation also harmonizes with the context, since Jesus had
said that He would keep His sheep safe (v. 28), and that His Father would
keep them safe (v. 29).
635Morris, p. 463.
636Barrett,p. 378.
637McGee, 1:248-49.
638Pink, 2:144.
This verse has been at the center of serious discussions about Jesus' nature
that have taken place over the centuries. Those who believe that Jesus was
fully God and fully man (the orthodox), and those who believe that Jesus
was not fully God (Arians), have appealed to it to support their positions.
Unitarians have limited this oneness to unity of will and design. Therefore
we need to look at it carefully.
First, Jesus' claim to "oneness" here does not in itself prove the Son's unity
in essence with the Father. In 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might
be "one" as He and the Father were "one," namely: in their purpose and
beliefs. Second, other passages in the Gospel declare that the Father and
the Son "are one" in more than just their purpose and beliefs (cf. 1, 18;
8:58; 12:41; 20:28).
Third, the context of this verse also implies that Jesus did everything His
Father did (cf. 5:19), and that Jesus and the Father united in fulfilling a
divine will and a divine task. Fourth, this Gospel has consistently
presented Jesus as a unique Son of God, not one of many sons. Fifth,
17:55 uses the Father/Son unity as the basis for the disciple/disciple unity
in the analogy, not the other way around, implying that the former is the
more fundamental unity.640
". . . in order to prove that none can pluck them out of HIS
hand [v. 28], He adds, 'I [the Shepherd of the sheep] and
the Father [the Owner of the sheep] are one.' One in what?
unquestionably in the work of power whereby He protects
His sheep and does not suffer them to be plucked out of His
hand."641
In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same
essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father.
However the context, and other statements in this Gospel, show that His
unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unityand did involve
essential metaphysical unity.
The Jews had asked Jesus for a "plain" statement about His messiahship.
Jesus gave them far more: a claim that He fully and completely carried out
the Father's willwhich strongly suggested Jesus' deity. This statement is
the climax of the preceding discussion (vv. 22-29; cf. 5:18; 8:59).
Jesus' claim to be God's Son 10:31-39

"He [Jesus] presented Himself to the nation and He was rejected: His
works were rejected in John 5:16; His words were rejected in John 8:58-
59; and His Person was rejected in John 10:30-31."642
640Carson,The Gospel . . ., pp. 394-95.

641John
Brown, quoted by Pink, 2:145.
642McGee, 4:435.
10:31-33 Clearly the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming more than simple
agreement with God in thought and purpose: equality with the Father as
deity. They prepared to "stone Him" for "blasphemy." This is the first
explicit charge of blasphemy (though cf. 8:59). They believed Jesus was
blaspheming because He was claiming "to be God" (cf. 5:18; 8:59; Mark
14:61-64). Before they could act, Jesus asked them "for which" of His
"many good (noble, beautiful) works" (Gr. erga kala) they were stoning
Him.
Jesus' question confronted the Jews with the incongruity of executing a

man for restoring people who had suffered from handicaps. Jesus' miracles
testified that He was doing divine work. However, the Jews did not think
this through, but responded that it was not for His worksbut for His
wordsthat they were going to kill Him. The reader should realize by
now that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be: one with the Father,
and more than a mere mortal. A man was not making himself out to be
GodGod had made Himself a into a Man (1:1, 14, 18)!
If Jesus was not really claiming to be God, He could have easily corrected
the Jews' misunderstanding here. The fact that He did not, is further proof
that the Jews correctly understood that He was claiming to be God.
10:34 Jesus proceeded to point out that the Jews' authoritative revelation, the Old
Testament, proved His claim. He cited Psalm 82:6 to show that the Old
Testament used the word "gods" (Heb. elohim) to refer to persons other
than God Himself. If God spoke of people as "gods," why should the Jews
object if Jesus implied that He was a god?
The identity of the people whom God addressed as "gods" in Psalm 82:6 is
debatable. The most popular and probable view is that they were Israel's
judges, who were functioning as God's representatives, and so were in that
sense "little gods" (Ps. 82:1-4; cf. Exod. 21:6; 22:8).643 Another view is
that these "gods" were angels.644 This seems unlikely, since the contrast in
view in the psalm is between God and mere man, not angels. A third view
is that God was addressing the whole nation of Israel when He gave them
the Law. There He spoke to the people as His "sons," and in this sense was
calling them gods in the psalm.645 However, the context, that involves a
contrast between God as the true Judge (Ps. 82:1, 8), and the people whom
He rebuked for judging falsely (Ps. 82:2-7), seems to favor the first view.
10:35-36 The clause "the Scripture cannot be broken" means that man cannot annul
it, set it aside, or prove it false.
643Blum, p. 312.
644J.A. Emerton, "Some New Testament Notes," Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.
"It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by

being shown to be erroneous."646
Jesus' statement affirms the unity, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture.

Jesus held a very high view of Scripture. His point was that it was
inconsistent for the Jews to claim the Old Testament as their authority
(v. 34), and then to disregard something that it said because they did not
agree with it. It was inconsistent for them, specifically, to stone Jesus for
claiming to be God and the "Son of God," when the Old Testament spoke
of humans as "gods" and as "God's sons."
"In the singular he graphe usually means a single passage

of Scripture, and the verb translated broken (luo) is used in
v. 18 of disregarding the letter of the law. The meaning
here is 'this passage of Scripture cannot be set aside as
irrelevant to the matter under discussion'."647
Jesus did not use this argument to claim that He was God. He used it to
stall His critics. He wanted them to see that the divine terms that He was
using to describe Himself were terms that the Old Testament itself also
used of human beings. They could not logically accuse Him of blasphemy,
for the simple reason that the Father (God) had set Him aside and sent
Him into the world with a special mission. He was a legitimate "Son of
God" for this reason.
As the Jews had sanctified their temple after its desecration by Antiochus
Epiphanies, so God had sanctified His Son. The Jews celebrated the
sanctification of their physical temple with the Feast of Dedication, but
they were unwilling to accept the spiritual temple that replaced it, namely:
Jesus.
10:37-38 Jesus next identified the evidence that His critics should consider, namely,
His "works," including His miracles (cf. v. 25). He acknowledged that
verbal claims were not sufficient in themselves. The Jews should learn
from them, and continue to learn from them, that He was doing the same
kinds of good works that God the Father did. Jesus manifested divine
compassion and divine power in His works, the same traits that showed in
God the Father's works.
10:39 Jesus' critics correctly understood His latest words (v. 38) as a claim to
equality with the Father. Therefore they "again" tried "to seize Him." Jesus
"eluded" them again because it was not yet time for His passion (cf. 7:30;
8:20). This act was the climax of official antagonism during this period of
Jesus' ministry so far.
646Morris, p. 468.
647Tasker, p. 136.
Jesus' withdrawal from Jerusalem 10:40-42
10:40 John presented Jesus' departure from Jerusalem as the result of official
rejection of Him. The event had symbolic significance that the evangelist
probably intended. Jesus withdrew the opportunity for salvation from the
people there because they refused to accept His gracious offer of salvation.
Evidently Jesus went from Jerusalem back to Bethany in Perea, on the east
side of "the Jordan" River, where the Jewish rulers had no authority to
pursue Him (cf. 1:28).
10:41-42 John the Baptist was by this time dead. However, many people from Perea
recognized that Jesus was fulfilling what "John" the Baptist had predicted
of Messiah. Their attitude contrasts with the hatred and unbelief of many
in Jerusalem. They accepted John the Baptist's testimony about Jesus,
because it proved to be "true" so far, not because the forerunner had
performed signs, which he had not done. The witness of John the Baptist
continued to bear fruit even after his death, because he pointed people to
Jesus, and Jesus did not disappoint them.
The Apostle John probably identified Jesus' destination as he did, in order to imply the
ending of Jesus' public ministry that John the Baptist had introduced. References to John
the Baptist form an inclusio which brackets the record of Jesus' public ministry to the
multitudes in this Gospel (1:1910:42).
I. THE CONCLUSION OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY CHS. 1112
The major theme of the Gospel, Jesus' identity as the Son of God, continues dominant. It
was just as important for Jesus' disciples to grow in their understanding of who He was,
and to grow in their faith in Him, as it was for the general public to do so. This section of
the Gospel shows Jesus withdrawing from Jerusalem (11:112:11), and then returning to
it for His triumphal entry, plus His final appeal to the people to believe on Him (12:12-
50). This section also takes the reader to the climax of belief and unbelief in Jesus' public
ministry.
1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44
Jesus had presented Himself as the Water of Life, the Bread of Life, and the Light of
Life. Now He revealed Himself as "the Resurrection and the Life." This was the seventh
and last of Jesus' miraculous signs that John recorded, and it was the most powerful
revelation of His true identity.648 It shows Jesus' authority over humankind's greatest and
last enemy: Death (cf. 5:21, 25, 28). Some scholars view Jesus' own resurrection as one
of His signs. Others prefer to view it in a different class from the miracles Jesus
performed while He was living on the earth.649 I favor the second option.
648See Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:308.

649E.g., Westcott, p. 163.
"The claim of Jesus to be working in complete and conscious union with

His Father led the Jews to attempt unsuccessfully to stone Him [10:31].
But it was His claim to bestow upon believers the gift of eternal life by
raising them from spiritual death which led, according to the Johannine
narrative, to His crucifixion [11:53]."650
"Physical death is the divine object lesson of what sin does in the spiritual
realm. As physical death ends life and separates people, so spiritual death
is the separation of people from God and the loss of life which is in God
(John 1:4). Jesus has come so that people may live full lives (10:10)."651
There are some similarities between the first and the seventh signs: The context of both
miracles was family life. Both were performed to strengthen faith (2:11; 11:15). And both
are said to have been manifestations of divine glory (2:11; 11:4, 40).
"Mark records the raising of Jairus' daughter, but she had only just died.
Luke tells of the raising of the widow's son of Nain, but he had not been
buried. But here, in the case of Lazarus, not only had the dead man been
placed in the sepulcher, but corruption had already begun to consume the
body. . . .
"The same climactic order is to be seen in connection with the state of the
natural man which John's 'signs' typically portray. 'They have no wine'
(2:3), tells us that the sinner is a total stranger to Divine joy (Judges 9:13).
'Sick' (4:46), announces the condition of the sinner's soul, for sin is a
disease which has robbed man of his original health. The 'impotent man'
(5:7), shows us that the poor sinner is 'without strength' (Rom. 5:6),
completely helpless, unable to do a thing to better his condition. The
multitude without any food of their own (6:5), witnesses to the fact that
man is destitute of that which imparts strength. The disciples on the storm-
tossed sea (6:18), before the Saviour came to them, pictures the dangerous
position which the sinner occupiesalready on the 'broad road' which
leadeth to destruction. The man blind from his birth (9:1), demonstrates
the fact that the sinner is altogether incapable of perceiving either his own
wretchedness and danger, or the One who alone can deliver him. But in
John 11 we have that which is much more solemn and awful. Here we
learn that the natural man is spiritually dead, 'dead in trespasses and sins.'
Lower than this we cannot go. Anything more hopeless cannot be
portrayed. In the presence of death, the wisest, the richest, the most mighty
among men have to confess their utter helplessness. Thus, this is what is
set before us in John 11."652
650Tasker., p. 137.
651Blum, p. 312.
652Pink, 2:154-55.
Lazarus' death 11:1-16
In this pericope, John stressed Jesus' deliberate purpose in allowing Lazarus to die, and
the reality of his death.
11:1-2 "Lazarus" probably is a variant of "Eleazar," meaning "God helps."653 The

Synoptic writers did not mention him, which is probably why John
identified him as Mary and Martha's "brother." These sisters appear in
John's Gospel for the first time here, but they appear in all the Synoptics
that preceded the fourth Gospel (cf. Matt. 26:6-12; Mark 14:3-9; Luke
10:38-42).
The "Bethany" in view is the one almost two miles east of Jerusalem
(v. 18), not the one in Perea to which the writer referred earlier (1:28).
John's further description of "Mary" in verse 2 alludes to the later event he
would narrate in 12:1-8. Perhaps he believed that his original readers
would have heard of this incident already (cf. Matt. 26:6-12; Mark 14:3-
9), or he may have just been tying his two references to Mary together.
11:3 The title "Lord" (Gr. kyrie) was respectful, and did not necessarily imply
belief in Jesus' deity. Obviously Jesus had had considerable contact with
Lazarus and his two sisters, so much so that the women could appeal to
Jesus' filial love (Gr. phileis) for their brother ("him whom You love")
when they urged Him to come. They also believed that Jesus could help
their brother by healing him (cf. v. 21; Ps. 50:15). They must have realized
that Jesus was in danger anywhere near Jerusalem (v. 8).
"The verse now before us plainly teaches that sickness in a

believer is by no means incompatible with the Lord's love
for such an one. There are some who teach that sickness in
a saint is a sure evidence of the Lord's displeasure. The
case of Lazarus ought forever to silence such an error. Even
the chosen friends of Christ sicken and die. How utterly
incompetent then are we to estimate God's love for us by
our temporal condition or circumstances! . . . The Lord
loves Christians as truly when they are sick as when they
are well."654
11:4 Jesus meant that Lazarus would not die in the final sense, though "this
sickness" did prove fatal. Lazarus' soon death would give way to
resurrection, and the revelation of Jesus "glorified" as God's "Son" (cf.
9:3). In this Gospel, God's "glory" is usually a reference to His self-
revelation, rather than the praise that comes to Him from others (cf. 1:14-
653Brown, 1:422.
654Pink, 2:159-60.
18; 5:23; 12:28; 17:4).655 Ironically this miracle not only displayed Jesus'
identity as God's Son, but it also led to His deathwhich was the ultimate
manifestation of His identity and glory.
"The purposes of a sovereign God in suffering are seen in

three specific accounts in John's Gospel. With the healing
of the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5), Jesus
taught that sin may be the cause of suffering and sickness.
In healing the man born blind, Jesus stated that the reason
for the man's blindness was neither his sin nor his parents'
sin, but that the work of God might be shown (9:3). And
Jesus intentionally delayed his arrival at Bethany so that he
and his Father would be glorified when he raised Lazarus
from the dead (11:4)."656
11:5-6 John dispelled any doubt about Jesus' true "love" (Gr. agape) for this
family. His delay did not show disinterest but divine purpose (cf. 2:4; 7:3-
10). His delay in moving toward Jerusalem, and His death, was entirely
self-determined (cf. 2:3-4; 7:3-9).
"Let us learn from this that when God makes us wait, it is

the sign that He purposes to bless, but in His own way
usually a way so different from what we desire and expect
[cf. Isa. 30:18]."657
"Friend, sometimes He allows our loved ones to die. We

need to recognize that He has a reason, and His ways are
perfect. Jesus never moves by sentiment. That is what
spoils people and that is how parents spoil their children.
He is motivated by love, and that love is for the good of the
individual and for the glory of God."658
11:7-8 Jesus' decision to return to the Jerusalem area in Judea seemed foolhardy
to the disciples, who reminded Him that the Jews there had recently tried
"to stone" Him (10:31, 39). They obviously did not yet appreciate the
Father's protection of His Son until His appointed hour, or the inevitability
of Jesus' death.
11:9-10 The Jews and the Romans commonly regarded the total daylight "hours"
as "twelve," and the nighttime hours as the other "twelve." Literally Jesus
was referring to the daylight hours. Metaphorically the daylight hours

656Mark L. Bailey, "A Biblical Theology of Suffering in the Gospels," in Why, O God? Suffering and
Disability in the Bible and the Church, p. 163.
657Pink, 2:164.
658McGee, 4:437-38.
represented the Father's will. Jesus was safe as long as He did the Father's
will. For the disciples, as long as they continued to follow Jesus, the
"Light of this World," they would "not stumble." Walking "in the night"
pictures behaving without divine illumination or authorization. Living in
the realm of darkness (i.e., evil) is dangerous (cf. 1 John 1:6).
"When there is darkness in the soul, then we will stumble

indeed."659
". . . men must not follow a supposed inner light, but accept
Jesus as the light of the world (8.12; 9.5)."660
11:11-13 Jesus explained further why He needed to go to Bethany. "Sleep" was a

common Old Testament metaphor for death (e.g., someone "slept with his
fathers"; cf. Mark 5:39). However, the idea that people would awaken
from this sleep, while revealed in the Old Testament (Dan. 12:2), was not
the common perception of the outcome of death. Normally people thought
of those who fell asleep in death as staying asleep (dead). Thus the
disciples' confusion is understandable, as is John's clarification of Jesus'
meaning. The New Testament writers commonly referred to death as
"sleep" for the Christian, because his or her resurrection to life is a
prominent revelationand is sure (cf. Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:6, 20, 51;
1 Thess. 4:13-18).
"In the Bible the word sleep is used of physical rest

(Genesis 2:21-22), of laziness and indifference (Romans
13:11), of an unsaved condition (Ephesians 5:14), and of
death (Daniel 12:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:14."661
Pink pointed out seven things that the figure of "sleep" suggests: (1) Sleep
is perfectly harmless. (2) Sleep comes as a welcome relief after the
sorrows and toils of the day. (3) In sleep we lie down to rise again.
(4) Sleep is a time of rest. (5) Sleep shuts out the sorrows of life. (6) One
reason perhaps why death is likened to a sleep is to emphasize the ease
with which the Lord will quicken us. (7) Sleep is a time when the body is
fitted for the duties of the morrow.662
That Jesus was not teaching "soul sleep" should be clear from Luke 16:19-
31. The doctrine of "soul sleep" is the teaching that at death the soul,
specifically the immaterial part of man, becomes unconscious until the
resurrection of the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus, in Luke
659Morris, p. 481.
660Barrett,p. 392.
661Ryrie, p. 160.
662Pink, 2:174-76.
16, shows that people are conscious after death and before their
resurrection.663
11:14-15 Apparently Jesus was "glad" that He had not been present when Lazarus
died, because the disciples would learn a strong lesson from his
resurrection that would increase their faith. The sign that Lazarus' death
made possible would be the clearest demonstration of Jesus' identity so
far, and would convince many people that He was God's Son.
"The disciples did already believe in one sense (ii. 11, vi.
69). But each new trial offers scope for the growth of faith.
So that which is potential becomes real. Faith can neither
be stationary nor complete."664
11:16 This is the first reference in the Gospels to "Thomas" saying something.
John described this member of the Twelve (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke
6:15; Acts 1:13) further as the one called "The Twin." The name
"Thomas" evidently comes from the Hebrew tom and the Aramaic toma,
both of which mean "twin." "Didymus" is the Greek equivalent of "Twin."
We do not know for sure who Thomas' twin brother or sister may have
been. Usually Peter was the spokesman for the Twelve, but here, as later,
John presented Thomas as speaking out (cf. 14:5; 20:24-29; 21:2).
"We do not know whose twin he was, but there are times
when all of us seem to be his twin when we consider our
unbelief and depressed feelings!"665
Most Christians tend to think of Thomas as a doubter because of His

unwillingness to believe in Jesus' resurrection later (20:24-29). However,
here his devotion to Jesusand his couragestand out! He did not
understand how safe or unsafe the disciples would be, going up to
Bethany, since they were with Jesuswho was walking in obedience to
His Father (vv. 9-10). Neither did Thomas understand that the death that
Jesus would die, was a death that His disciples could not readily
participate in with Himat least not yet (cf. 1:29, 36). Nevertheless he
spoke better than he knew. John probably recorded his well-intended
challenge because it was a symbolic call to disciplesto take up their
cross and follow Jesus (cf. 12:25; Mark 8:34; 2 Cor. 4:10).
"Though he was lacking in intelligence, he was deeply

attached to the person of the Lord Jesus."666
663See ibid., 2:155, for contrasts between the two Lazaruses.

665Wiersbe, 1:335.
666Pink, 2:180.
The revelation of the resurrection and the life 11:17-29

The scene now shifts from the region near Bethany of Perea (1:28; 10:40) to the Bethany
in Judea. Both towns became sites where people believed on Jesus.
11:17 There is some evidence that the later Jewish rabbis believed that the spirit
of a person who had died lingered over the corpse for three days, or until
decomposition of the body had begun. They believed that the spirit then
abandoned the body because any hope of resuscitation was gone. They
apparently felt that there was still hope that the person might revive during
the first three days after death. Other scholars question whether this is
what the Jews believed as early as this event.667 In either case, the fact that
Jesus raised Lazarus after he had been dead for "four days" would have
left no question that Jesus had truly raised the dead. Customarily, the Jews
buried a corpse the same day the person died, due to the warm climate and
the relatively rapid rate of decay it caused (cf. Acts 5:5-6, 10).668
"Not only the rich, but even those moderately well-to-do,

had tombs of their own, which probably were acquired and
prepared long before they were needed, and treated and
inherited as private and personal property. In such caves, or
rock-hewn tombs, the bodies were laid, having been
anointed with many spices, with myrtle, aloes, and, at a
later period, also with hyssop, rose-oil, and rose-water."669
It is impossible to reconstruct an exact timetable of events day by day,

though most commentators offered their views, all of which involve some
speculation. We do not know exactly how long it took the messenger to
reach Jesus, or how long Lazarus lived after the messenger came and told
Jesus that Lazarus was dying (v. 3). We do not know how long it took
Jesus to reach Bethany of Judea from where He was, either.
". . . it was the practice to visit the grave, especially during

the first three days."670
11:18-19 "Bethany" was about "15 stadia" (approximately one and three-quarters
miles) east of Jerusalem. John implied that "many" family friends came
from Jerusalem "to console" Mary and Martha. Prolonged grieving often
lasting several days was customary in the ancient Near East.671 Therefore
many people from Jerusalem either witnessed or heard about Jesus'
miracle.

669Ibid., 2:318.
670Ibid., 2:323.
671Cf. ibid., 2:320-21.
11:20 This picture of Martha as the activist, and Mary as the more passive of the
two sisters, harmonizes with Luke's presentation of them (Luke 10:38-42).
11:21-22 Martha addressed Jesus respectfully, but probably not reverentially, as

"Lord." Some readers of the story have interpreted verse 21 as containing
a rebuke, but Martha's words there do not necessarily imply criticism.
They at least convey Martha's great grief, and her confidence in Jesus'
power to heal people. In view of verses 24 and 39, verse 22 probably does
not mean that Martha believed that Jesus could raise Lazarus back to life.
More likely, Martha was reaffirming her personal confidence in Jesus that
her severe loss had not shaken. Her words in both verses expressed what
many others who had faith in Jesus also believed. Her words probably,
however, reveal that she believed that Jesus' power was limited by
distance. And yet, Jesus had healed both a centurion's servant and a
nobleman's son at a distance by His spoken word.
11:23-24 Jesus' response was also typical of Him. His words had an obvious literal
meaning, but they were truer than anyone present realized at the moment.
This is typical of John's ironical style, in which he used words with double
meaning.672 Jesus offered Martha comfort, based on the Old Testament
assurance that God would resurrect believers (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; cf.
John 5:28-29). Martha, as the Pharisees, believed this Old Testament
revelation, though the Sadducees did not (cf. Acts 23:7-8).673 The "last
day" refers to the end of the present age as the Jews viewed history,
namely, just before Messiah would inaugurate the new kingdom age (cf.
6:39-40, 44, 54; 12:48).
"When we find ourselves confronted by disease,

disappointment, delay, and even death, our only
encouragement is the Word of God."674
11:25 Jesus proceeded to make another of His "I am" claims. He meant that He
would personally effect "resurrection," and provide eternal "life" (cf. 5:21,
25-29). He wanted Martha to think about the Person who would do the
resurrecting, rather than the event itself. Jesus' own power raises people to
life, just as Jesus' own Person satisfies people spiritually like bread
satisfies physically, and He Himself is, therefore, the essential element in
"resurrection." Without Him there is no resurrection or life. This was
really a double claim. Jesus meant that He is "the Resurrection"
(overcomer of death), and that He is also "the Life" (sustainer of life). This
is clear because He dealt with the two concepts of "resurrection" and "life"
separately in the discussion that followed.
672Barrett, p. 395.
673See Josephus, The Wars . . ., 7:8:7, for evidence that many first-century Jews believed in the immortality
of the soul.
674Wiersbe, 1:334.
Whoever "believes in" Jesus "will live" spiritually and eternally, even if he
or she dies physically (cf. 5:21). Jesus imparts eternal life to those who
believe in Him. He Himself is the "life" in the sense that He is the source
and benefactor of each believer's ongoing spiritual existence. Whereas He
will effect "resurrection" after death, for those who believe and die
physically, He bestows eternal "life" during one's earthly lifetime, and it
begins for the believer at salvation, before he or she dies physically.
"When you are sick, you want a doctor and not a medical
book or a formula. When you are being sued, you want a
lawyer and not a law book. Likewise, when you face your
last enemy, death, you want the Savior and not a doctrine
written in a book. In Jesus Christ, every doctrine is made
personal (1 Cor. 1:30)."675
11:26 Furthermore, every living person who "believes in" Jesus will "never"
experience eternal (spiritual) death (cf. 8:51; Rev.20:6). This is another
promise of salvation, but also of eternal security. Robertson translated
"shall never die" as "shall not die for ever."676
Jesus then asked Martha to affirm her faith in Him, as the One who will
raise the dead and who now gives eternal life. He was questioning her
faith in Him, not her faith in doctrines. She had already expressed her faith
in the doctrine of the resurrection (v. 24).
11:27 Martha confessed that she did indeed believe that Jesus was the
resurrection and the life. Her answer focused on His person, not just on the
teachings of Judaism (cf. 20:28, 30-31). That she truly understood and
believed what Jesus revealed about Himself is clear from her reply. She
correctly concluded that if Jesus was the One who would raise the dead
and impart spiritual life: He must be the Messiah. She clarified that what
she meant by "Messiah" was not the popular idea of a revolutionary
leader, but the biblical revelation of a God-man whom God had promised
to send from heaven (cf. 1:9, 49; 6:14). This saving faith first rested on
facts about Jesus that were true, but then Martha went on to place personal
trust in Him to fulfill His claims.
Martha's confession of faith is a high point in the fourth Gospel, as Peter's

was in the first Gospel (cf. Matt. 16:16). This is the clearest expression of
saving faith thus far in this book. Doubtless John recorded it because it
advances his major purpose of convincing his readers that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, so they might obtain eternal life by believing in
Him (20:31).
675Ibid., 1:336.
11:28 Martha's reaction is another good model. Having come to faith in Jesus
herself, she proceeded to bring others to Him, knowing that He could help
them too (cf. 1:40-45; 4:28-29). As Andrew had done (1:41-42), Martha
brought her sibling to the Savior. She described Jesus to her sister as "the
Teacher," as they both had known Him best. She did it "secretly," in order
to enable Mary to meet with Jesus privately. Jesus had expressed interest
in Mary coming (had been "calling for" her to come) to Him, and Martha
became the agent who brought her to Him. Rabbis did not normally
initiate contact with women, but Jesus was no ordinary rabbi.
11:29 Mary responded to Jesus' invitation to come to Him. This does not mean
she became a believer in Jesus right then. Nevertheless it seems clear that
she did trust in Him at some time, as Martha did (cf. Matt. 26:6-12; Mark
14:3-9).
The revelation of Jesus' compassion 11:30-37
The emphasis in this pericope is on Jesus' compassion in the face of sin's consequences.
11:30-32 Mary's physical response to Jesus was more emotional than Martha's had
been, perhaps reflecting her temperament. Again we find Mary at Jesus'
"feet" (cf. Luke 10:39). Her words were identical to Martha's (v. 21). She
"met" Jesus in a public place "where Jesus was" outside "the village,"
whereas Martha had talked with Him privately. This probably accounts in
part for Jesus' different responses to the two women.
"Mary is found three times in the Gospel record, and each

time she is at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:39; John 11:32;
12:3). She sat at His feet and listened to His word; she fell
at His feet and poured out her sorrow; and she came to His
feet to give Him her praise and worship. Mary's only
recorded words in the Gospels are given in John 11:32, and
they echo what Martha had already said (John 11:21)."677
"In Luke 10, at Christ's feet she owned Him as Prophet,

hearing His word (v. 39). Here in John 11 she approaches
Christ as Priestthat great High Priest that can be 'touched
with the feeling of our infirmities,' who shares our sorrows,
and ministers grace in every time of need. In John 12:3
Mary, at His feet acknowledged Him as 'King'this will
appear if we compare Matt. 26:7, from which we learn that
she also anointed 'the head' of the rejected King of the
Jews!"678
677Ibid.
678Pink, 2:197.
11:33 The phrase "deeply moved" translates the Greek word enebrimesato. It
invariably describes an angry, outraged, and indignant attitude (cf. v. 38;
Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5). These emotions mingled in Jesus' spirit as
He contemplated the situation before Him. John also described Jesus as
"troubled" (Gr. etaraxen). This is another strong verb that describes
emotional turmoil (cf. 5:7; 12:27; 13:21; 14:1, 27).
Though John's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' deity, it also includes several

unique statements about His humanity: He was "wearied from His
journey" (4:6); He was "deeply moved" and "troubled" (here); He wept
(11:35); and He thirsted on the cross (19:28).
Jesus was angry, but at what? The context provides some help in
identifying the cause of His anger. Evidently as Jesus viewed the misery
that death inflicts on humanity and the loved ones of those who die, He
thought of its cause: sin. Many of "the Jews" present had come from
Jerusalem, where Jesus had encountered stubborn unbelief. The sin of
unbelief resulted in spiritual death, the source of eternal grief and
mourning. Probably Jesus felt angry because He was face to face with the
consequences of sin, and particularly unbelief.
Other explanations for Jesus' anger are that Jesus resented being forced to
do a miracle (cf. 2:4).679 However, Jesus had waited to go to Bethany so
He could perform a miracle (v. 11). Another idea is that Jesus believed the
Jews' mourning was hypocritical, but there is nothing in the text that
indicates that the mourners were insincere. Others believe that John meant
that Jesus was profoundly "moved" by these events, particularly the
attitude of the mourners who failed to understand His Person.680 Another
view is that it was the unbelief of the Jews and Mary that provoked His
indignation.681
11:34-35 "Jesus wept" (Gr. dakryo, lit. shed tears; cf. Isa. 53:3). His weeping
doubtless expressed outwardly the sorrow that contemplation of sin and its
consequences produced in His heart. Jesus' "tears" are proof of His
compassion for fallen humanity (cf. Luke 19:41). He could not have been
weeping over the loss of His friend Lazarus, since He was about to restore
him to life. Likewise it is unlikely that He was just weeping
compassionately with Martha and Mary, since He was about to turn their
grief into rejoicing. Nevertheless empathy undoubtedly played some part
in Jesus' weeping.
Martha had just testified to Jesus' deity (v. 27), and now Jesus' tears
witnessed to His humanity.
679Barrett, p. 399.
680Morris, p. 494.
681Barrett, p. 398.
Jesus wept three times, according to the New Testament: (1) here, (2) over
Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), and (3) in Gethsemane (Heb. 5:7).
11:36-37 The Jewish onlookers interpreted Jesus' angry tears in two ways. They
took them as evidence of Jesus' great love for Lazarus. They did reflect
that, but not as the Jews thought. Jesus was not weeping because death had
separated Him from His friend. The Jews also wrongly concluded that
Jesus' tears reflected the grief He felt over His supposed inability to
prevent Lazarus from dying. This deduction revealed unbelief, as well as
ignorance, of Jesus' Person. Jesus' healing of the man born blind had
occurred several months earlier, but it had obviously made a strong
impression on the people living in Jerusalem, since they referred to it now.
Lazarus' resurrection 11:38-44
Jesus proceeded to vindicate His claim that He was the One who would raise the dead
and provide life (v. 25).
11:38 Jesus again felt the same angry emotion as He approached Lazarus'
"tomb" (cf. v. 33). Tombs cut into the limestone hillsides of that area were
common. Today several similar caves are visible to everyone. Normally a
large round "stone" sealed the entrance against animals and curious
individuals.
11:39 Even though Martha had confessed her belief that Jesus would raise the
dead, she did not understand that Jesus planned to raise her brother
immediately. Jesus had given her no reason to hope that He would. The
Jews customarily wrapped the bodies of their dead in cloth, and added
spices to counteract the odors that decomposition produced. They did not
embalm them as thoroughly as the Egyptians did.682
Interestingly Martha did not appeal to Jesus on the basis of the ritual
uncleanness that contact with a dead body would create for the Jews.
Perhaps she had learned that ritual uncleanness was not something that
bothered Jesus. Her concern was a practical one in harmony with her
personality as the Gospel writers presented it.
11:40-41a Jesus' reply summarized what He had said to Martha earlier (vv. 23-26).
He viewed raising someone to life as an act that glorified God by
revealing His Son. Martha's willingness to allow the removal of the stone
testified to her confidence in Jesus. When the stone was away from the
tomb's entrance, every eye must have been on Jesus to see what He would
do.
682Sanders, p. 274, footnote 1.

11:41b-42 Jesus addressed God in prayer, characteristically, as His "Father." He

spoke as though the raising of Lazarus was something that the Father had
already decreed, which was true (cf. v. 11). His prayer was not a request
for Lazarus' resurrection. Such a prayer would have glorified the Father.
Rather it was a prayer of thanksgiving for what the Father would shortly
do: "I thank You that You have heard Me." It had the effect of focusing
attention on the Son as God's Agent (God the Father) in performing the
miracle. Jesus' prayer also had the effect of drawing the onlookers into His
intimate relationship with the Father, and proving that He really did do
nothing independently of the Father (cf. 5:19-47; 1 Kings 18:36-37).
Jesus' public prayer here is a good reminder that all leaders in public
prayer should take those present into account when they pray. We should
do so, not by "playing to the gallery" (cf. Matt. 6:5), but by voicing
prayers that are appropriate in view of who is present.
11:43-44 The dead man heard the voice of the Son of God and lived, as Jesus had
predicted (5:25, 28-29). If Jesus had not specified "Lazarus" by name,
every dead person might have arisen at His command. Jesus probably
"cried out" loudly to make clear that this resurrection was not an act of
magic. Wizards typically muttered their incantations and spells quietly (cf.
Isa. 8:19).683 Furthermore such a loud command emphasized Jesus'
authority.
Elijah and Elisha also raised the dead, but they had to labor over these
miracles. Jesus, in contrast, raised Lazarus with a word (cf. Gen. 1:3, et
al.).
"While our Lord used different methods to perform His

miracles of healing, his method of raising the dead was
always the same. He called to them and spoke to them as if
they heard Him. Do you know why He did that? Because
they heard Him! I think that when He returns with a shout,
every one of us [believers who have died] will hear his own
name because He will call us back from the dead."684
The Jews did not wrap their dead so tightly in their grave clothes that
Lazarus would have had difficulty doing what John wrote that he did:
"came forth."
"The corpse was customarily laid on a sheet of linen, wide

enough to envelop the body completely and more than
twice the length of the corpse. The body was so placed on
the sheet that the feet were at one end, and then the sheet
683Morris, p. 498.
684McGee, 4:436.
was drawn over the head and back down to the feet. The
feet were bound at the ankles, and the arms were tied to the
body with linen strips. The face was bound with another
cloth . . . Jesus' body was apparently prepared for burial in
the same way (cf. 19:40; 20:5, 7). A person so bound could
hop and shuffle, but scarcely walk."685
While there are similarities between Lazarus and Jesus' resurrections, we

must also remember their significant differences. Lazarus came to life
only to die again later, as a mortal, whereas Jesus arose never to die again,
as an immortal. Lazarus arose with the same physical body that went into
his tomb, but Jesus arose with a spiritual body that could pass through
solid objects (1 Cor. 15). Thus Lazarus' resurrection was only a pale
anticipation of the resurrection of Jesus that was to come. Nevertheless it
was the greatest of Jesus' signs.
"If Jesus Christ can do nothing about death, then whatever

else He can do amounts to nothing [cf. 1 Cor. 15:19]."686
This miracle illustrated Jesus' ability to empower people with new life (cf. 14:6). He had
previously raised the widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:15), and brought Jairus' daughter
(Matt. 9:25; Mark 5:42; Luke 8:55) back to life, but Lazarus had been dead four days.
There could now be no doubt about Jesus' ability to raise the dead. Physically He will do
this for everyone at the resurrections yet future. He will raise Christians at the Rapture
(1 Thess. 4:16), Old Testament and Tribulation saints at the Second Coming (Dan. 12:2;
Rev. 20:4, 6), and unbelievers at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:5). Spiritually Jesus
gives life to all who believe on Him the moment they trust in Him (5:24).
". . . the resurrection of Lazarus therefore is an acted parable of Christian

conversion and life."687
"In some respects the story of Martha and Mary prepares the reader for the
challenge to believe in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. His
intentional delay also reveals that God often uses suffering as an
opportunity for divine intervention, even though it is difficult in such
situations to believe."688
"Just as the preincarnate Word gave physical life and light to humankind
in creation (1:2), so Jesus as the Word Incarnate gives spiritual life and
light to people who believe in Him."689

686Wiersbe, 1:334.
687Barrett, p. 395.
688Howard, p. 77.
689Harris, p. 178.
There are many questions that John's account of this miracle leaves unanswered that
tantalize our imaginations, such as what Lazarus reported to his friends. These things the
evangelist deliberately avoided in order to focus the reader's attention on Jesus.
"The miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead authenticated Jesus'

authority to grant eternal life to those who believe in Him. In raising
Lazarus from the dead, Jesus was also demonstrating the validity of His
own claims that He would rise again, and that He had the power and
authority to do so. This miracle also illustrates Jesus' claims that He will
raise people at the eschatological resurrection."690
2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57
Again Jesus' words and works divided the Jews (cf. 6:14-15; 7:10-13, 45-52; 10:19-21).
The popular response 11:45-46
Even this most powerful miracle failed to convince many that Jesus was God's Son.
"Many" who had come to console Mary "believed in Him," but the depth of their faith
undoubtedly varied. A faith based on miracles is not the strongest faith, but John viewed
it as better than no faith at all (cf. 2:23).691 John's reference to "Mary," rather than to
"Martha and Mary," may imply that these people had greater affection for Mary.
Alternatively, they may have viewed her as needing more emotional support than her
sister (cf. v. 19). Other observers of this miracle "went to the Pharisees." The contrast
suggests that they disbelieved, and went to inform the Pharisees so these leaders would
take action against Jesus.
The official response 11:47-53
The raising of Lazarus convinced Israel's leaders that they had to take more drastic action
against Jesus. John recorded this decision as the high point of Israel's official rejection of
God's Son so far. This decision led directly to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.
11:47-48 John's "Therefore" or "Then" ties this paragraph directly to what precedes
in a cause and effect relationship. The "chief priests," who were mostly
Sadducees, and the "Pharisees," who were mostly scribes, assembled for
an official meeting. The chief priests dominated the Sanhedrin, but the
Pharisees were a powerful minority. The third and smallest group in the
Sanhedrin was the "elders," who were landed aristocrats with mixed
theological views.
The Sanhedrin members felt that they had to take some decisive action
against Jesus, because the more miracles He performed, the greater His
690Stephen S. Kim, "The Significance of Jesus' Raising Lazarus from the Dead in John 11," Bibliotheca
Sacra 168:669 (January-March 2011):62.
691Morris, p. 500.
popular following grew. Ever more of the Jews were concluding that Jesus
was the Messiah. Their present tactics against Jesus needed adjusting, or
He might destroy them (their position and power).
It is interesting that they admitted privately that Jesus had performed

"many signs," though publicly they had earlier asked Him to produce
some to prove His claims (2:18; 6:30). Later, someone in the Sanhedrin,
perhaps Nicodemus, must have reported to the disciples this confession of
their selfish reasons for killing Jesus.
"It has always been the case that those whose minds are
made up to oppose what Christ stands for will not be
convinced by any amount of evidence."692
The reference to "our place" was probably to the position of authority they
occupied. A popular uprising, resulting from the Jews' belief that Israel's
political deliverer had appeared, might bring "the Romans" down hard on
Israel's leaders and strip them of their power. Another possibility is that
"our place" refers to the temple693 and the city of Jerusalem.694 These
rulers viewed Israel as their nation rather than God's nation, and they did
not want to lose control of it or their prestige as its leaders (cf. King Saul).
No one mentioned the welfare of the people in such an event (cf. 10:8).
"The rich man in hades had argued, 'If one went unto them
from the dead, they will repent' (Luke 16:30. Lazarus came
back from the dead, and the officials wanted to kill him!"695
11:49 Caiaphas' remarks reflect the frenzy that characterized this meeting. He
addressed his colleagues rather unflatteringly as ignoramuses ("you know
nothing"). Caiaphas had received his office of high priest from the
Romans in A.D. 18. His father-in-law Annas had preceded him in the
office, and Annas continued to exercise considerable influence. However,
it was "Caiaphas" who had the official power at this time. He was,
nonetheless, answerable to the Sanhedrin.696
John's reference to "that year" (v. 49) was probably with the year of Jesus'
death in mind (cf. v. 51; 18:13). Another possibility is that John may have
been hinting at the tenuous nature of the high priestly office, in those days,
when Rome arbitrarily deposed and appointed leaders with little
warning.697 Caiaphas' insulting statement to his fellow Sanhedrin
members, "You know nothing at all!" presents him as a rude boor.
692Ibid., p. 502.
695Wiersbe, 1:338.
697J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 28-29.
11:50 Caiaphas solution to the problem that Jesus posed was to get rid of Him
permanently. He seems to have felt impatient with his fellow rulers for
hesitating to take this brutal step. He viewed Jesus' death as a sacrifice that
was necessary ("expedient") for the welfare of "the nation," by which he
meant its leaders. Jesus' sacrificial death was precisely God's intention,
though for a different reason. Caiaphas viewed Jesus as a scapegoat whose
sacrifice would guarantee the life of Israel's leaders. God viewed Jesus as
a lamb who would die to guarantee the life of believers. Ironically, Jesus'
death would condemn these unbelieving leaders, not save them. Further, it
did not save them from losing their power to the Romans, who dismantled
the Sanhedrin when they destroyed the city in the war of A.D. 66-70.
11:51-52 John interpreted Caiaphas' words for his readers. He viewed Caiaphas'
statement as a prophecy. He spoke God's will as the high priest, even
though he did not realize he was doing so. Caiaphas' motive was, of
course, completely contrary to God's will, but God overruled to
accomplish His will through the high priest's selfish advice (cf. Gen.
50:20; Num. 2224).
"God is able to speak through an unwilling agent
(Caiaphas) as well as through a willing one (Jesus)."698
Caiaphas unknowingly "prophesied" that Jesus would "die" as a substitute
"for the (Israelite) nation" (cf. Isa. 53:8). The outcome of His death would
be the uniting of God's children scattered abroad, non-members of Israel
as well as Jews, into one body, namely, the church (cf. 4:42; 10:16; Eph.
2:14-18; 3:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). Ultimately it would unite Jewish and Gentile
believers in the messianic kingdom (cf. Isa. 43:5; Ezek. 34:12).
11:53 The result of this apparently formal meeting was the Sanhedrin's official
decision "to kill" Jesus. This decision constituted another climax in the
ongoing opposition against Jesus that John traced in this Gospel (cf. Matt.
26:3-4). Obviously, in light of this information, the later trials of Jesus
before the high priests and the Sanhedrin were simply formalities,
designed to give the appearance of justice. The leaders had already tried
Jesus and sentenced Him to die (cf. Mark 14:1-2). All that remained was
to decide when and how to execute His sentence.
John did not record Jesus' trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, as the
Synoptic writers did. He may have viewed this meeting of the Sanhedrin
as the real trial of Jesus.
Jesus' reaction 11:54-57

This pericope summarizes the situation at this stage of Jesus' ministry. The leaders had
determined to kill Him, and Jesus withdrew to the town of Ephraim.
698Barrett, p. 407.
11:54 Jesus may have learned of the Sanhedrin's decision from a sympathetic
member such as Nicodemus. He withdrew to a private place and "no
longer" ministered "publicly." The town of "Ephraim" may have been Old
Testament "Ephron," about four miles northeast of Bethel and twelve
miles from Jerusalem (2 Chron. 13:19).699 However, this location would
not have removed Him very far from Jerusalem. The only two
wildernesses mentioned in the Gospels are: the wilderness of Judea, south
and east of Jerusalem, and the wilderness north of Perea, where John
baptized. The second of these two sites seems to be the more probable
place of Jesus' retreat.700
11:55 This is the third and final "Passover" that John mentioned in his Gospel
(cf. 2:13; 6:4), and probably the fourth one during Jesus' public ministry.
John mentioned the first, third, and fourth of these.701 The Mosaic Law
required that the Jews who had become ritually unclean had "to purify
themselves" for one week before participating in this feast (Num. 9:6-14).
Therefore "many" of them "went (up) to Jerusalem" at least one week
"before" the feast began to undergo purification. Brown estimated that
between 85,000 and 125,000 pilgrims were added to the normal Jerusalem
population of 25,000.702
11:56 These pilgrims wondered if Jesus would attend that Passover, since
official antagonism against Him was common knowledge (v. 57; cf. 7:11).
He habitually attended the required feasts and taught in the temple while
He was in Jerusalem. However, there had been unsuccessful attempts to
stone Him there, so many people wondered whether He would appear at
this feast.
11:57 There was a warrant out for Jesus' arrest. The reader can hardly miss the
point that Israel's leaders had deliberately rejected their Messiah.
3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8 (cf. Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9)

In contrast to the hatred that the religious leaders manifested, stands the love that Mary
demonstrated toward the One she had come to believe in. Her act of sacrificial devotion
is a model for all true disciples. This is the climax of belief in this section of the Gospel
that records Jesus' public ministry (1:1912:50). Chapter 12 records Jesus' last teaching
before the general public.
It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that John began his account of Jesus' public
ministry with a domestic scene (the wedding at Cana, 2:1-11) and ended it with another
one (here).
699Bock,p. 482.
700SeeEdersheim, The Life . . ., 2:127.
701Hoehner, p. 143.
702Brown, 1:445.
12:1 The day when Jesus arrived in "Bethany" was evidently Saturday.703
"St John appears to mark the period as the new

Hexaemeron, a solemn period of 'six days,' the time of the
new Creation. His Gospel begins and closes with a sacred
week (comp. i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1)."704
As noted before, John frequently grouped the events he recorded around

the Jewish feasts and related them to those feasts. At this Passover, the
Lamb of God would die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. John's
reference to "Lazarus" helps the reader identify which of the two
Bethanys, that John previously mentioned, is in view here. It also shows
that Lazarus was still alive, another testimony to the reality of the
resurrection miracle that Jesus had performed.
12:2 The dinner (Gr. deipnon) was evidently the evening meal ("supper") on
Saturday. Those who hosted it must have included Martha, Mary, Lazarus,
and Simon, the former leper in whose house the meal took place (Matt.
26:6; Mark 14:3). John's repeated reference to "Lazarus" implies that he
was of special interest, undoubtedly because of his recent resurrection.
Lazarus had become something of a celebrity (v. 9). He appears to have
retreated from the public spotlight, following his resurrection, but made
this uncommon appearance to honor Jesus (cf. v. 9).705
In chapter 11, we see Jesus weeping with those who weep. In chapter 12,
we see Him rejoicing with those who rejoice (Rom. 12:15).
12:3 Mary anointed Jesus with a litre of ointment. The Greek litre equaled
about 11 ounces and was a lavish amount to pour out on someone. Its
quantity indicates Mary's great love and high regard for Jesus. The act of
anointing often symbolized consecration to a divine work, as it did here.
The ointment "spikenard," an Indian oil that came from the roots (i.e.,
spikes, therefore "spikenard") of the nard plant.706 Matthew and Mark used
the more generic word muron (myrrh), translated "perfume" in the NASB
(Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). It was "pure" ointment, and therefore of a high
quality, as well as importedand consequently very expensive (cf. v. 5).
Matthew and Mark noted that the liquid was in an alabaster flask, the neck
of which Mary broke to pour it out on Jesus (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3).
John wrote that Mary proceeded to anoint Jesus' "feet" with the perfume
ointment. The Synoptic accounts say that she anointed His head (Matt.
26:7; Mark 14:3). Probably she did both. There was enough ointment to
703Hoehner, p. 91.
704Westcott,p. 176.
706Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper, 5:502.
anoint not only Jesus' head and feet, but also His hands, arms, and legs as
well (cf. Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Perhaps Matthew and Mark mentioned
Jesus' head to present this act as one that honored Jesus. John might have
mentioned Jesus' "feet" in order to stress Mary's humility and devotion, in
contrast to the Sanhedrin's pride and the disciples' pride (cf. 13:1-17).707
Only John noted that Mary wiped Jesus' "feet with her hair," another act of
humility. Normally Jewish women never unbound their hair in public,
since loose hair was a sign of loose morals. Evidently Mary's love for
Jesus overrode her sense of propriety. She probably wiped the ointment in,
and the excess off, with her hair. It would have been convenient for Mary
to anoint Jesus' feet. The guests normally reclined on mats on the floor,
with their heads and hands close to the table, and their feet extending out
in the opposite direction.
The fact that the "fragrance" of the perfume "filled" the "house" shows
again how lavish Mary's display of love was. In that culture, when the
male head of the household died, and left only female survivors, the
women usually had great difficulty making ends meet and often became
destitute. If this was the situation that Lazarus' death created for Mary and
Martha, we can appreciate how grateful they must have been to Jesus for
restoring their brother to them. Even if they were rich, and the cost of
Mary's ointment suggests that they may have been, the restoration of a
beloved brother was reason enough for great gratitude and festivity.
"Friend, if we would learn to sit at His [Jesus'] feet, we

would give more to Him, too."708
McGee saw in Lazarus, Mary, and Martha three essentials in the church
today, respectively: "new life in Christ, worship and adoration, and
service."709
12:4-5 "Judas," as well as some other disciples who were present (Matt. 26:8;
Mark 14:4), objected to what seemed to be an extravagant waste. "Three
hundred denarii" was a full year's wages for a working man in that culture.
Mary would not give to the Lord what cost her nothing (cf. 2 Sam. 24:24).
Real worship always costs the worshipper; it always involves a sacrifice.
"When she came to the feet of Jesus, Mary took the place
of a slave. When she undid her hair (something Jewish
women did not do in public), she humbled herself and laid
her glory at His feet (see 1 Cor. 11:15). Of course, she was
misunderstood and criticized; but that is what usually
707Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 427, 428.

708McGee, 4:444.
709Ibid., 4:443.
happens when somebody gives his or her best to the

Lord."710
12:6 John knew Judas' real motive ("he was a thief") for objecting (cf. 10:13).
Judas' selfish materialism helps us understand why he was willing to
betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.
"His remonstrance over the gift of the ointment revealed

that he had a sharp sense of financial values and no
appreciation of human values."711
Evidently the other disciples learned of their treasurer's larcenous behavior

after he betrayed Jesus.
"The question has been asked why the office, which was
itself a temptation, was assigned to Judas? The answer, so
far as an answer can be given, seems to lie in the nature of
things. Temptation commonly comes to us through that for
which we are naturally fitted. Judas had gifts of
management, we may suppose, and so also the trial which
comes through that habit of mind. The work gave him the
opportunity of self-conquest."712
12:7 By "Let her . . . keep it," Jesus probably meant that the disciples should
permit Mary to keep the custom of anointing for burial, since Jesus'
"burial" was not far away. There is no indication that Mary realized Jesus
would die soon, any more than the other disciples did. However, she was
anointing Jesus out of love, as mourners anointed the bodies of loved ones
who had died.713 It was not uncommon to do this at lavish expense. Jesus
viewed her act as a pre-anointing for His death and burial, though Mary
may not have viewed it as such (cf. 11:51). If she did, perhaps this is why
she did not go to Jesus' tomb with the other women to anoint His body.
It is a good idea to express our love for people we appreciate to them

before they die. Flowers at a funeral are nice, but flowers before the
funeral are even better.
12:8 Unless Jesus was the Son of God who was due the same honor as His
Father (5:23), this statement would have manifested supreme arrogance.
Jesus was not encouraging the disciples to regard poverty as inevitable
and, therefore, to avoid doing anything to help those in need. He was
comparing the unique opportunity, that His impending death presented,
710Wiersbe, 1:339.
713A. B. Bruce, p. 299.
with the continual need that the poverty of some will always present (cf.
Mark 14:7).
"If language means anything, this explicit statement of

Christ's ["you do not always have Me (with you)"]
positively repudiates the dogma of His 'real presence,'
under the forms of bread and wine at the Lord's Supper. It
is impossible to harmonize that blasphemous Romish
doctrine with this clear-cut utterance of the Saviour."714
John's Gospel has been contrasting the growing belief of some people and the growing
unbelief of others. This incident contrasts the great love of one disciple with the great
apathy of another disciple.
"Mary of Bethany is in fact another of the timeless, representative figures

so wonderfully portrayed in this Gospel. She is a type of the true Christian
worshipper, even as the sinful woman in the very different anointing story
in Luke vii. 36-50 is a type of the true Christian penitent."715
4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11
To make the contrast between belief and unbelief even more striking, John returned from
Mary's love to the chief priests' hatred (cf. 11:47-57).
12:9 Jesus had disappeared after Lazarus' resurrection, and had not yet shown
Himself in Jerusalem for Passover (11:54-57), but now the news came that
He was in Bethany. The appearance of the resurrected "Lazarus"
intensified the curiosity of many Jerusalem residents and pilgrims, who
traveled to Bethany hoping to "see" both men. They were the subjects of
much controversy.
Martha had worked for the Lord by serving the supper (v. 2), Mary had
worshipped Him (v. 3), and Lazarus witnessed for Him (v. 9). These
secondary characters in John's story are model disciples.
12:10-11 The huge numbers of people, that were heading for Bethany to see Jesus
and Lazarus, led the Sanhedrin members to conclude that they would have
to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus. Many of the Jews believed on Jesus when
they heard about Lazarus' resurrection and or saw him. The man born
blind, whom Jesus had healed earlier, had also become a problem for the
Sanhedrin. They had dealt with him differently because Jesus' popularity
then was not as great (9:34).
714Pink, 2:243.
715Tasker, p. 144.
The hatred of the Sanhedrin contrasts with Mary's love for Jesus. The intensity of both
feelings, shared by many other people, pointed to the inevitability of a major conflict
soon.
5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19 (cf. Matt. 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke
19:29-40)
The importance of this incident in Jesus' ministry is evident from the fact that all four
Gospel evangelists recorded it. Matthew and Mark placed this event before Mary's
anointing of Jesus in Simon's house (vv. 1-8). However, John's order is probably the
chronological one, in view of his time references, plus the fact that Matthew and Mark
frequently altered the chronological sequence for thematic purposes.
The scene now shifts from a quiet dinner with a few close friends in the small town of
Bethany. We see next a noisy public parade through the streets of Jerusalem. This was
the only public demonstration that Jesus allowed during His earthly ministry.
12:12 The "next day" would have been Sunday (cf. v. 1). The great multitude
("large crowd"), that had come to Jerusalem for the Passover feast,
undoubtedly included many pilgrims from Galilee, where Jesus had His
greatest following. The crowd evidently surrounded Jesus, since Matthew
and Mark wrote that there were many people in front of Jesus and many
behind Him (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9).
12:13 The waving of date "palm" fronds (i.e., "branches") had become a
common practice at national celebrations in Israel (Lev. 23:40). "Palm"
fronds had become a symbol of nationalistic hope (cf. 1 Macc. 13:51;
2 Macc. 10:7).716 They appear on the coins that the Jewish nationalists
produced during the war with the Romans in A.D. 66-70.717 Used on this
occasion, they probably signaled popular belief that Israel's Messiah had
appeared (cf. Rev. 7:9).
"Hosanna" is the transliteration of a Hebrew phrase that means "give
salvation now." The Jews commonly used this word in their praise at the
feasts of Tabernacles, Dedication, and Passover. It was part of the Hallel
(Ps. 113118) that the temple choir sang at these feasts (Ps. 118:25).718
"Blessed is He . . ." is the very next statement in Psalm 118 (Ps. 118:26).
The Jews of Jesus' day regarded the phrase "He who comes in the name of
the Lord" as referring to Messiah (cf. 11:27). Originally it referred to
pilgrims who went to Jerusalem for the feasts and, perhaps in the first
instance, to the Davidic king whose coronation the psalmist wrote the
psalm to honor. "Even the King of Israel" is not in Psalm 118. It was the
people's identification of Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Luke 19:38; John 1:49;
18:37; 19:19).
716Bock, p. 484.
718Ibid.
"I imagine that some of the Roman soldiers must have

smiled at the 'Triumphal Entry,' because it was nothing like
their own 'Roman triumph' celebrations in the city of
Rome.
"Whenever a Roman general was victorious on foreign soil,
killing at least 5,000 of the enemy, and gaining new
territory, he was given a 'Roman triumph' when he returned
to the city. It was the Roman equivalent of the American
'ticker-tape parade,' only with much more splendor. The
victor would be permitted to display the trophies he had
won and the enemy leaders he had captured. The parade
ended at the arena where some of the captives entertained
the people by fighting wild beasts. Compared to a 'Roman
triumph,' our Lord's entry into Jerusalem was nothing."719
12:14-15 The Synoptic writers gave more detail than John about Jesus securing the
"young donkey." John simply reported that He entered Jerusalem riding on
it, and thereby fulfilled Zechariah's prophecy about how Messiah would
present Himself to the nation (Zech. 9:9).
". . . a king came riding upon a horse when he was bent on
war; a king came riding upon an ass when he was coming
in peace."720
"Fear not" comes from Isaiah 40:9, which addresses those to whom good
news about Zion comes. "Daughter of Zion" is a common Old Testament
description of the people of Jerusalem as the oppressed people of God (cf.
Isa. 1:8; Jer. 4:31; Lam. 2:4; Mic. 4:8; Zeph. 3:14; Zech. 2:10; et al.). The
context of Zechariah 9:9 is worthy of examination, since it describes more
about Messiah's reign. Even though Messiah had appeared, His reign
would not begin then. He would not "give salvation now" because of
Israel's rejection of her King.
12:16 Jesus' "disciples" did not realize all the implications of Jesus' entry into
Jerusalem at this time ("at the first"). After Jesus' resurrection and
ascension, when He was "glorified, then" they did (cf. 2:17, 22).
Obviously they and the crowd realized that Jesus was the Messiah, as they
perceived the Messiah. However, they did not then understand the nature
of His messiahship, the necessity of His death, or the plan for His
kingdom. For example, they may not have understood the significance of
His riding a donkey's colt rather than a war-horse. John's statement here
helps the reader understand the difference between the disciples'
understanding (and comments) before the Cross, and their conduct (and
teaching) after that event.
719Wiersbe, 1:340.
720Barclay, 2:137.
"The Passion and the Resurrection were keys in unlocking

the mystery of Jesus' person."721
12:17-18 John noted another witness to Jesus' person, namely, the crowd ("people")
that had observed Jesus' resurrection of "Lazarus," and had accompanied
Jesus from Bethany to Jerusalem. The multitude that had come out of
Jerusalem to welcome Jesus, joined the other peopleboth physically,
and as witnesses to Jesus' true identity. The raising of Lazarus was a
miracle that very many people regarded as a "sign" that Jesus was the
Messiah.
12:19 Yet many other people did not believe. The "Pharisees" looked on in
unbelief, frustrated by Jesus' popularity and unable to do anything to stop
Him at the moment. Hyperbolically, they said "the whole world" had
"gone after" Jesus. This is another ironic comment that John recorded for
His readers' instruction. Actually, relatively few people had genuinely
believed on Jesus (vv. 37-43), but the whole world would go after Jesus,
as the Savior of the world, to a greater degree than the Pharisees believed
then (cf. 3:16-17).
The Pharisees' "unaware" prophecy (cf. Caiaphas' unaware prophecy in

11:50) received a partial fulfillment almost immediately, in the request of
some Greeks to see Jesus (vv. 20-22). The Pharisees later found it just as
impossible to curtail the spread of Christianity, as they did to restrict Jesus
in Person (cf. Acts 34).
6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36
"In John 11 we have seen a remarkable proof that He [Jesus] was the Son
of God: evidenced by His raising of Lazarus. Next, we beheld a signal
acknowledgment of Him as the Son of David: testified to by the jubilant
Hosannas of the multitudes as the king of Israel rode into Jerusalem. What
is before us now concerns Him more especially as the Son of man. As the
Son of David He is related only to Israel, but His Son of man title brings
in a wider connection. It is as 'the Son of man' He comes to the Ancient of
days, and as such there is 'given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom,
that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him' (Dan. 7:14)."722
One example that Jesus was attracting people from other parts of the world follows.
These individuals contrast with the Pharisees. Westcott noted that as the Magi brought
Jesus into fellowship with the Gentile world at the beginning of His life, so these Greeks
did the same at the end of it.723

722Pink,2:262.
"This rather curious incident is rather peculiar to John. I say 'rather

curious' because it is unusual that we encounter Greeks in a narrative of
events at Jerusalem, because the other Evangelists do not mention the
incident, and because the Greeks simply say, 'Sir, we would like to see
Jesus' and then disappear from the narrative. Clearly John regards their
coming as significant but he does not treat their presence as important.
Jesus recognizes in their coming an indication that the climax of his
mission has arrived. Immediately when he hears of them he says, 'The
hour has come,' and goes on to speak of his glorification and of death. In
this Gospel we see Jesus as the world's Savior, and evidently John means
us to understand that this contact with the Greeks ushered in the climax.
The fact that the Greeks had reached the point of wanting to meet Jesus
showed that the time had come for him to die for the world. He no longer
belongs to Judaism, which in any case has rejected him. But the world,
whose Savior he is, awaits him and seeks for him."724
"This narrative presents interesting points of affinity with that contained in

the fourth chapter of John's Gospel,the story of the woman by the well.
In both Jesus comes into contact with persons outside the pale of the
Jewish church; in both He takes occasion from such contact to speak in
glowing language of an hour that is coming, yea, now is, which shall usher
in a glorious new era for the kingdom of God; in both He expresses, in the
most intense, emphatic terms, His devotion to His Father's will, His faith
in the future spread of the gospel, and His lively hope of a personal reward
in glory; in both . . . He employs, for the expression of His thought,
agricultural metaphors: in one case, the earlier, borrowing His figure from
the process of reaping; in the other, the later, from that of sowing."725
The kernel of wheat teaching 12:20-26

12:20 The New Testament writers frequently referred to any Gentiles who came
from the Greek-speaking world as "Greeks" (cf. 7:35; et al.). We do not
know where the Gentiles in this incident came from. They could have
lived in one of the predominantly Gentile areas of Palestine such as
northeastern Galilee or the Decapolis, or they could have come from
farther away (cf. Matt. 2:1-12). These were God-fearing Gentiles who
worshipped Yahweh along with the Jews (cf. the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts
8:27). They may or may not have been Jewish proselytes (i.e., full-fledged
converts to Judaism). These Gentiles were permitted to participate in
synagogue worship and the annual feasts, and they would have
worshipped in the temple court of the Gentiles.
12:21-22 It may have been Philip's Gentile name, or the fact that he "was from
Bethsaida" in a Gentile area of Galilee, specifically Gaulanitis, that
attracted these Gentiles to him. The Pharisees had said, "the world has
724Morris, p. 524.
725A. B. Bruce, p. 317.
gone after Him" (v. 19). Now certain Greeks were saying, "we wish to see
Jesus" (cf. Hag. 2:7).
"The Greek was characteristically a seeker after truth. It

was no unusual thing to find a Greek who had passed
through philosophy after philosophy, and religion after
religion, a Greek who had gone from teacher to teacher in
the search for the truth. The Greek was the man with the
seeking mind."726
"Philip," who was a Jew, appears to have had some hesitation about
introducing these Greeks to Jesus at first (cf. Matt. 10:5-6; Luke 18:15-
16). "Andrew" favored bringing them to Jesus for an interview (cf. 1:40-
42). Perhaps Philip sought Andrew's help because introducing Gentiles to
Jesus was difficult for these Jewish disciples, and Philip needed
encouragement to do so. Another possibility is that Philip remembered
Jesus' earlier instruction to His disciples, when He had sent them on a
preaching tour throughout Galilee: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles,
and do not enter any city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5). The important
revelation of this verse is that the disciples continued to bring people to
Jesus, which continues to be the responsibility of Jesus' disciples.
12:23 Jesus' visit with these Gentiles was the occasion of His revelation that the
time for His death, resurrection, and ascension was at hand (cf. v. 27;
13:1; 17:1). Until now, that "hour" had not been near (cf. 2:4; 4:21, 23;
7:30; 8:20). As mentioned earlier, Jesus' references to His glorification in
the fourth Gospel are references to His death, resurrection, and ascension.
The title "Son of Man" was Jesus' favorite title for Himself. It connoted
suffering and glorification, and it avoided the misunderstanding that the
use of some other messianic titles entailed.
John mentioned nothing more about these Greeks. Evidently he only

referred to them at all, because they represented Gentiles who were
expressing interest in Jesus, and because their visit was the occasion for
Jesus' revelation. Their presence at the announcement of Jesus' impending
death hints at the union of Jews and Gentiles, in the benefits of that death,
and in the body of believers after that death.
12:24 Jesus announced another important revelation with His characteristic

introductory clause. He described His body as a kernel ("grain") "of
wheat" that someone sows in the ground (plants "into the earth"). By
dying, He would produce a great harvest. His death was necessary for that
harvest. The illustration also implies the humility of Jesus' death. Jesus'
sacrificial death would result in eternal life for many other people (cf.
1 Cor. 15:36-38).
726Barclay, 2:139.
12:25 Jesus now applied the principle in the illustration for His followers. This
was a principle that He had taught them on at least three separate
occasions previously (cf. Matt. 10:39; Mark 8:36; Luke 14:26). Obviously
it was very important.
Anyone who selfishly lives for himself or herself ("loves his life") "loses"
his or her life in the sense that he or she wastes it. Nothing really good
comes from it. Conversely, anyone "who hates his" or her "life," in the
sense of disregarding one's own desires to pursue the welfare of another,
will gain something for that sacrifice. He or she will gain true ("eternal")
life for oneself, and blessing for the other person. Jesus contrasted the
worthlessness of what one sacrifices now with the infinite value of what
one gains, by describing the sacrifice as something temporal and the gain
as something eternal.
"People whose priorities are right have such an attitude of

love for the things of God that all interest in the affairs of
this life appear by comparison as hatred."727
Obviously Jesus did not mean that we gain justification by living

sacrificial lives. The Bible describes eternal life in some places as a gift
(e.g., 3:16; 5:24; 6:40), and in other places as a reward (e.g., Matt. 19:29;
Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Rom. 2:7; 6:22; Gal. 6:8). It is the life of God,
but we can experience that life to a greater or lesser degree depending on
our obedience to God (cf. 10:10; 17:3).728
On one level, Jesus was talking about how eternal life comes to people:
through the sacrifice of the Son of Man (v. 24). On another level, He was
speaking of how to gain the most from life now: by living sacrificially
rather than selfishly (v. 25). The general principle is a paradox. Death
leads to life.
Over the centuries, the church has observed that the blood of Christian
martyrs has indeed been the seed of the church. Their literal deaths have
led to the salvation of many other people. Even more disciples have
discovered that any sacrifice for Jesus yields blessings for othersand for
themthat far exceed the sacrifice.
12:26 For disciples of Jesus, self-sacrifice does not just mean putting others
before themselves. It also means putting Jesus first (cf. 10:4). The disciple
who wants to "serve" Jesus "must follow" Him. He or she must go where
Jesus goes and do what He does. True servants stay close to their masters.
727Morris, p. 527.
728See Dillow, pp. 135-36.
Jesus said these words on the way to the Cross and His glorification.
Likewise His servants, who follow Him, could then and can now count on
death, figuratively if not literally, but beyond that they can anticipate glory
("honor") from the "Father" (cf. 17:24). The true disciple's life will
essentially duplicate the experiences of his or her Lord.
The importance of believing now 12:27-36
12:27 Anticipation of the death that had to precede the glory "troubled" Jesus
deeply (Gr. tataraktai, cf. 11:33; 14:1; Mark 14:32-42). It troubled Him
because His death would involve separation from His Father, and bearing
God's wrath for the sins of the world.
"The 'soul' (psyche, Vulg. anima) is the seat of the human

affections: the 'spirit' (pneuma, Vulg. spiritus) is the seat of
the religious affections, by which man holds converse with
God."729
The sentence following, "What shall I say?" could be a question (NASB,

NIV) or a prayer. The Greek text permits either translation. In either case,
the meaning is almost the same. If Jesus meant it as a question, He
resolved the difficulty at once.730 If He meant it as a prayer, it is the
expression of His agony (cf. Mark 14:36). Immediately Jesus voiced His
continuing commitment to His Father's will: "For this purpose I came to
this hour." We see here the conflict that Jesus felt, between His desire to
avoid the Cross and His desire to obey the Father completely.
"Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and

naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders
to the will of God in both experiences."731
"Jesus instructed His disciples on the cost of commitment

to the Father's will by disclosing His emotions."732
John did not record Jesus' struggle with God's will in Gethsemane, as the
Synoptics did (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). He narrated that
struggle on this occasion instead.
12:28-29 More than deliverance from the hour of the Cross, Jesus wanted God's
glory (cf. 7:18; 8:29, 50; Matt. 26:39).
729Westcott,p. 181.
730Morris,pp. 528-29.
732Blum, pp. 317-18.
"The whole of his life's dedication is concentrated in this

statement."733
"In the hour of suffering and surrender, there are only two
prayers we can pray, either 'Father, save me!' or 'Father,
glorify Thy name!'"734
"We tend to whimper and cry and complain and ask God
why He lets unpleasant things happen to us. With Christ,
we should learn to say, 'Father, through this suffering and
through this pain, glorify Thyself.'"735
The Father answered Jesus' petition "from (out of) heaven" audibly. The
Gospels record three instances of God doing this. The other two were at
Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:21-22) and transfiguration
(Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). The Synoptics record those events, and
only John recorded this one. In the first instance, apparently only John the
Baptist and Jesus heard the voice. In the second instance, only three
disciples and Jesus heard it. And in the third instance, a multitude and
Jesus heard it. In all of these cases, the purpose of the voice was to
authenticate Jesus as God's Son in a dramatic way, and in all cases, the
voice had some connection with Jesus' death.
However, this was a veiled revelation, as were all of God's revelations

about Jesus. Its purpose was to strengthen the disciples' faith, and to
remove all excuses from unbelievers.736 The people present could not
understand the words clearly, though Jesus could (cf. Acts 9:7; 22:9). God
had already "glorified" Himself through the Incarnation and Jesus'
ministry. He would "glorify" Himself "again," through Jesus' death,
resurrection, and ascension.
Some of those present gave a supernatural explanation for what had

happened: "An angel has spoken to him." Others gave a natural
explanation: "it . . . thundered."
"That is the same reaction many people still have today.

They say God's Word is full of errors and the miracles
recorded can't be accurate. Because they don't believe in
them, they say it just 'thundered.'"737

734Wiersbe, 1:342.
735McGee, 4:448.
736Pink, 2:272.
737McGee, 4:448.
12:30 Jesus explained that the heavenly "voice" had sounded for the people's
benefit more than for His. In that the voice assured Jesus, who was to die
for their sins, it was for their "sake." They probably did not appreciate that
it was a confirmation of Jesus until after the Resurrection. The more
spiritually sensitive among them must have sensed that it signaled
something important. Jesus proceeded to explain the implications of what
God had said in the next two verses.
12:31-32 Jesus' passion would constitute a "judgment on the world." The Jews
thought they were judging Jesus when they decided to believe or
disbelieve on Him. In reality their decisions brought divine judgment on
themselves. By crucifying Jesus, they were condemning themselves. Jesus
was not saying that this would be the last judgment on the world. He
meant that because of humankind's rejection of Him, God was about to
pass "judgment" on the world for rejecting His Son (cf. Acts 17:30-31).
"We believe, then, the first stage in the 'casting out' of

Satan occurred at the Cross, the next will be when he is
'cast out' of heaven into the earth (Rev. 12:10); the next,
when he is 'cast into the bottomless pit' (Rev. 20:3); the
final when he is 'cast into the lake of fire and brimstone'
(Rev. 20:10)."738
Jesus' passion would also result in the casting out of "the ruler of this
world." This is a title for Satan (14:30; 16:11; cf. Matt. 4:8-9; Luke 4:6-7;
2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 6:12). The death of Jesus might appear to be a victory
for Satan, but really it signaled his doom. The Cross defeated Satan. He
only functions as he does now because God permits him to do so. His
eternal destruction is sure even though it is still future (Rev. 20:10). God
will cast him out of His presence, and out of the earth, into the lake of fire
forever (cf. Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30).
Jesus' passion would involve His enemies lifting Him up on a crossbut

also His exaltation to God's presence. The Cross would bring people to
faith in Him, and His exaltation would involve others coming into God's
presence around Him. Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension would
"draw all" people ("men") without distinction (ethnic or social), not all
without exception, to Himself. It would make all people savable in the
sense that His death would reconcile the world of humanity to God (cf.
Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2).
"Jesus is not affirming that the whole world will be saved;

he is affirming that all who are saved are saved in this way.
And he is speaking of a universal rather than a narrowly
nationalistic religion."739
738Pink, 2:273.
739Morris, pp. 531-32.
All these things would happen "now," not in the eschatological future.
They are all the immediate consequences of Jesus' work on the cross.
12:33 John explained that Jesus was speaking of His "kind of death"
crucifixionso his readers would not think only of His exaltation to
heaven.
12:34 Jesus' prediction of His death puzzled His listeners. They were probably
thinking of the passages in the Old Testament that spoke of Messiah and
or His kingdom enduring "forever" (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:12-13, 16; Ps. 89:26-
29, 35-37; Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus had been speaking of His dying. How
could Jesus be the Messiah and die? What kind of "Son of Man" was Jesus
talking about?
"We should not overlook the fact that this is the last
mention of the crowd in Jesus' ministry. To the end they
remain confused and perplexed, totally unable to appreciate
the magnitude of the gift offered to them and the
significance of the Person who offers it."740
12:35-36a Jesus did not answer their question. He already had done so when He
explained that He and the Father were One (cf. 5:18). The paradox of His
dying and living forever would become clear with His resurrection.
Instead of answering, Jesus urged His hearers to "walk (in) the Light" (the
brilliance of His earthly presence) while they had it. If they would do that,
"the darkness" would not overpower them when "the Light" departed (cf.
Isa. 50:10). If they did not do that, they would be lost. They needed to
"believe in" Him as soon as possible, before the Cross. After the Cross,
when the Light was no longer present with them, it would be harder for
them to believe. If they believed, they would become "sons of Light,"
namely, people who display the ethical qualities of "light" (cf. Eph. 5:8;
1 Thess. 5:5).
"The Semitic idiom 'sons of' describes men who possess the
characteristics of what is said to be their 'father'. In our
idiom, we should probably say 'men of light', cf. our
expression 'a man of integrity'."741
These last recorded words of Jesus to the world were an exhortation and a
promise.742
740Ibid.,
p. 533.
741Tasker,p. 153.
12:36b Jesus had just told His hearers that the Light would not be with them much
longer. He withdrew from them again, giving them a foretaste of what He
had just predicted (cf. 8:59; 11:54). His departure should have motivated
them to believe on Him. So ends John's account of Jesus' public ministry.
7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

This section of the Gospel contains the writer's explanation of the significance of the
events so far in Jesus' ministry. John first explained the conflict between belief and
unbelief, and then He recorded Jesus' final appeal for decision. This is the final climax of
the decision theme before Jesus' passion (cf. 1:10-11). The key word in this section is
"believe," which appears six times.
The explanation of Israel's unbelief 12:37-43

12:37-38 The majority of the Jews did not believe on Jesus, despite the many
miracles ("signs") that He performed demonstrating His messiahship (cf.
1:11).
"Signs do not suffice if God does not give men eyes to

see."743
John again attributed Israel's unbelief to God's will, though he balanced

that again with the Jews' human responsibility in verse 43. He viewed
Isaiah 53:1 as predicting Israel's rejection of her Messiah. The verse
originally referred to the Gentiles' rejection of "Israel, the servant of the
Lord." However, in another sense, it predicted Israel's rejection of the
"Servant of the Lord" (Messiah), whom God would send. The "report" or
message, that the people had rejected, was Jesus' teaching, and the
evidence of the Lord's "arm" or power was Jesus' miracles.
"John 12 records the second major crisis in the ministry of

our Lord as seen by John the apostle. The first occurred
when many of His disciples would no longer walk with
Him (John 6:66), even though He is 'the way' (John 14:6).
In this chapter, John tells us that many would not believe in
Him (John 12:37ff), even though He is 'the truth.' The third
crisis will come in John 19: even though he is 'the life,' the
leaders crucified Him."744
12:39 John again affirmed that most of the Jews did "not believe" on Jesus
because "they could not." God had judicially "hardened their heart(s)"
because they had refused to believe Him previously (cf. Exod. 9:12; cf.
2 Thess. 2:8-12).
743Barrett, p. 430.
744Wiersbe, 1:338.
12:40 Isaiah 6:10 is the prophecy that predicted this hardening (cf. Acts 28:26-
27). Originally God had told Isaiah that the people to whom he ministered
would not welcome his ministry, because God would harden their hearts.
Now John explained that this verse also revealed the reason for the Jews'
rejection of Jesus' ministry. Prophecy not only described Israel's unbelief
(v. 38), but it also explained it.
". . . the historic Israel was unable to move forward on its

own level and so enter the kingdom of God (see on 3.3-5).
It had to be regenerated through the Word of God and the
Spirit; and this regeneration it refused."745
The apostle Paul gave the definitive answer to the problem of God's
fairness that His predestination poses in Romans 911.
12:41 In the vision that Isaiah recorded in Isaiah 6, the prophet wrote that he
"saw" God's "glory" (Isa. 6:3). Now John wrote that Isaiah "saw" Jesus'
"glory" and "spoke of" Jesus ("Him"). Obviously John regarded Jesus as
God (cf. 1:18; 10:30; 20:28; Col. 2:9). Isaiah had spoken of Jesus in that
he had revealed many messianic prophecies. Earlier Jesus had claimed that
Moses had written about Him (5:46).
These quotations justify interpreting the Old Testament servant of the

Lord passages as referring to the Messiah. There has long been a debate
within Judaism and liberal Christianity about whether these passages refer
to a personal Messiah or only to Israel.
12:42-43 Even though most of the Jews rejected Jesus, some "believed on (in) Him"
(cf. 1:10-13). "Many, even" some "of the rulers" did, though the content of
their faith doubtless varied. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea seem to
have been such people (cf. 7:50-52; 19:38-39). Most of them did not admit
that they believed in ("were not confessing") Him, however, because of
"fear" of exclusion from "synagogue" worship (cf. 9:22).
Public confession of faith in Jesus is the normal expression of belief in

Him (Rom. 10:9-10). However, public confession is not a condition for
salvation. Obviously mutes and other people can believe, but for one
reason or another may not be able to confess their faith publicly with their
mouths.
The final exhortation to believe 12:44-50
John added Jesus' words that follow as a climactic appeal to his readers to believe on
Jesus. This exhortation summarizes and restates some of the major points that John
recorded Jesus teaching earlier. These themes include faith, Jesus as the One sent by the
745Barrett, p. 431.
Father, light and darkness, judgment now and later, and eternal life. Jesus evidently gave
it to the crowd as a final challenge. He probably delivered it during His week of teaching
in the temple during the Passover season.
12:44-45 The fact that Jesus shouted out these words shows their importance. Jesus
again claimed to be God's Representative, and so closely connected with
God, that to believe in Jesus constituted believing in God. There is both a
distinction between the Son and the Father in their subsistence, and a unity
between them in their essence (cf. ch. 5).
"Precisely because Jesus is the obedient Son and envoy of

the Father, to see him is to see the Father, just as to believe
in him is to believe in God. Cf. 1.18; 14.9."746
12:46 Jesus again claimed to have come to dispel "darkness." He did this by
revealing God (cf. 1:18).
12:47-48 Disobedience to (not keeping) Jesus' words may indicate the absence of
saving faith (cf. 3:36). The same message that brings life to those who
believe it will result in condemnation for those who reject it. The "last
day" is the day unbelievers will stand before God in judgment, namely, at
the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). God's purpose in the
Incarnation was essentially positive, however. He wanted people to
believe and experience salvation, not condemnation.
12:49-50 Jesus did not "speak" a message that He had devised, but one that He had
received from the Father (cf. Deut. 18:18-19). What God had commanded
Him to say resulted in eternal life for those who believed it. Consequently
Jesus was careful to convey this message exactly ("just") as He had
received it.
This exhortation explains what John recorded of Jesus' public ministry.
"The great subject of chap. 12 is the meaning of the death and resurrection
of Jesus."747
III. JESUS' PRIVATE MINISTRY CHS. 1317
The Synoptics integrate Jesus' ministry to the masses and His training of the Twelve, but
John separated these two aspects of His ministry. There is obviously some overlapping in
the fourth Gospel, but the present section contains ministry that Jesus directed almost
exclusively to the Twelve. The Synoptics contain more of Jesus' teaching of the Twelve
during His public ministry, whereas John gave us more of His teaching in the upper
746Ibid., p. 433.
room. This instruction was specifically to prepare the Twelve for leadership in the
church. Jesus gave it after Israel's official and final rejection of Him resulted in the
postponement of the messianic kingdom.
"There are eighty-nine chapters in the four Gospels. Four of these chapters
cover the first thirty years of the life of Jesus and eighty-five chapters the
last three years of His life. Of these eighty-five chapters, twenty-seven
deal with the last eight days of His life. So about one-third of the gospel
records deal with the last few days and place the emphasis on the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ."748
In the first major section of this Gospel, Jesus customarily performed a miracle and then
explained its significance. In this section He did the reverse. He explained the
significance of His death, and then went to the cross, and arose from the dead.
"The division which we call the Upper Room Discourse is about the
subject of love. He loves His own. The last part of the gospel, from
chapters 18 to 21, are [sic is] about life. He came to bring us life, and that
life is in Himself. Our life comes through His death."749
A. THE LAST SUPPER 13:1-30
Jesus concluded each of His prolonged stays and ministries in a district with an important
meal.
"At the first 'Supper,' [i.e., the feeding of the 5,000, at the end of the
Galilean ministry, mainly to Jews] the Jewish guests would fain have
proclaimed Him Messiah-King; at the second [i.e., the feeding of the
4,000, at the end of the Decapolis ministry, mainly to Gentiles], as 'the
Son of Man,' He gave food to those Gentile multitudes which having been
with Him those days, and consumed all their victuals during their stay
with him [sic Him], He could not send away fasting, lest they should faint
by the way. And on the last occasion [i.e., the Last Supper, the Judean
ministry, to the Twelve], as the true Priest and Sacrifice, He fed His own
with the True Paschal Feast, ere He sent them forth alone into the
wilderness. Thus the three 'Suppers' seem connected, each leading up, as it
were, to the other."750
John recorded more of what Jesus said and did in the upper room than any of the other
Gospel evangelists. Much of this was a discourse on the disciples' future. Jesus prefaced
this instruction with other lessons for them.
748McGee, 4:441.
749Ibid.,
4:450.
John's description of the time of the Last Supper seems to conflict with that of the
Synoptics. They present it as happening on Thursday evening, but many students of the
fourth Gospel have interpreted John as locating it on Wednesday evening (13:1, 27;
18:28; 19:14, 31, 36, 42). Resolution of the apparent contradictions that these seven
verses pose will follow in the exposition of them. The Last Supper was a Passover meal
that took place on Thursday evening.
John's omission of the institution of the Lord's Supper has disturbed some readers of the
fourth Gospel, especially sacramentalists, those who believe that the sacraments have
some part in salvation. We can only suggest that John did so because the earlier Gospels
contained full accounts of it, and he wished to record new material rather than repeating.
Obviously John did not record many other things that his fellow evangelists chose to
include. Each evangelist chose his material in view of his distinctive purpose.
1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20
Jesus began His farewell address (cf. Moses, Deut. 3133; Joshua, Josh. 2324; Paul,
Acts 20) with an object lesson.
The act of foot-washing 13:1-11
"In the Synoptic account of the events of this evening we read of a dispute
among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. John does
not record this, but he tells of an action of Jesus that rebuked their lack of
humility more strikingly than any words could have done."751
The emphasis in verses 1-3 is on what the Lord knew, and in verses 4-5 it is on what He
did.
13:1 This verse contradicts the Synoptic accounts of the Passover (e.g., Mark
14:12) only if it introduces everything in chapters 1317. Evidently it
introduces only the account of foot-washing that follows.
"As the first Passover had been the turning point in the
redemption of the people of God, so the Cross would be the
opening of a new era for believers."752
The word "world" (Gr. cosmos) is an important one in this section of the
Gospel, where it appears about 40 times (ch. 1317). "The world" in this
verse represents the mass of lost humanity, out of which Jesus had called
His disciples, and from which He would depart shortly when He returned
to heaven. Jesus "loved His own," who believed on Him, and who would
remain "in the world." "He loved them to the end" (Gr. eis telos), or
utmost, the demonstration of which was His sacrificial death on the cross.
751Morris, p. 544.
"The end" can also refer to the end of Jesus' earthly life, though this
interpretation seems less fitting.
Jesus' realization that "His hour had come" (12:23) led Him to prepare His
disciples for that hour, and what it would mean for them. The double
emphasis on "love" sets the tone for the whole Upper Room Discourse.
13:2 The "supper" (Gr. deipnon) in view was the evening meal (v. 30). It was a
Passover meal.753 Jesus evidently washed the disciples' feet just after the
meal had been served (vv. 4, 26). The fact that Jesus washed Judas' feet,
after Judas had determined "to betray Him," shows the greatness of His
love (v. 1). John's reference to Satan's role in Judas' decision heightens the
point even further.
13:3-5 Jesus washed "the disciple's feet" while fully aware of His authority from
the Father, His divine origin, and His divine destiny. John's mention of
this awareness stresses Jesus' humility and love still further. Washing feet
in such a situation was the role of the most menial of servants (cf. 1:27).754
Here, Jesus reversed normal roles, and assumed the place of a servant
rather than that of a rabbi. His act demonstrated love (v. 1), provided a
model of Christian conduct (vv. 12-17), and symbolized cleansing (vv. 6-
9).
Jesus even dressed Himself as a slave (cf. Phil. 2:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:5). His
humble service would take Him even to death on the cross (Phil. 2:8).
Normally a servant would have been present to perform this task, but there
were none present in the upper room since it was a secret meal. The
disciples did not want to wash each other's feet, since they had just been
arguing about which of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24).
"We today, just like the disciples that night, desperately

need this lesson on humility. The church is filled with a
worldly spirit of competition and criticism as believers vie
with one another to see who is the greatest. We are growing
in knowledge, but not in grace (see 2 Peter 3:18). 'Humility
is the only soil in which the graces root,' wrote Andrew
Murray.755
"In the preceding chapter, you will remember, we saw that

the feet of Jesus were anointed. Here, the feet of the
disciples are washed. What a difference! As the savior
passed through this sinful world, He contracted no
defilement whatsoever. He was holy, harmless, and
753SeeEdersheim, The Temple, pp. 389-401.

754Carson,The Gospel . . ., p. 462; Beasley-Murray, p. 233.
755Wiersbe, 1:345.
undefiled. The feet speak of the walk of a person, and the

anointing of Jesus' feet with spikenard tells of the sweet
savor of the walk of our Lord."756
13:6-7 Most of the disciples remained silent as Jesus washed their feet, but
"Peter" could not refrain from objecting. The Greek construction of what
he said stresses the contrast between Jesus and himself. Jesus encouraged
Peter to submit to having his feet washed, with the promise that he would
understand later why Jesus was washing them (cf. vv. 12-20). Just as the
disciples did not understand that Jesus would die, they did not understand,
either, the lessons that led up to His death. They would "understand" after
He aroseand the Holy Spirit enlightened their minds.
13:8-9 This promise did not satisfy Peter, who objected to Jesus' act in the
strongest terms. Peter viewed the situation as totally unacceptable socially.
Jesus' replied on the spiritual and symbolic level. He was speaking of
spiritual cleansing, as the context clarifies. Peter understood Him to be
speaking on the physical level. If failure to submit to Jesus' washing meant
the termination of their relationship, Peter was willing to submit to a more
thorough cleansing. Peter's words reflect his impetuous nature, and his
high regard for Jesus, as well as his failure to understand, and his self-will.
"The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender."757
13:10-11 Jesus distinguished the two types of spiritual cleansing that believers
experience: forensic and family forgiveness. When a person believes in
Jesus as Savior, God removes all the guilt of that person for sins
committed in the past, present, and future (cf. Rom. 5:1; 8:1; et al.). Jesus
spoke of this forensic or legal forgiveness as a total "bath" (Gr. louo).
After a person believes in Jesus as Savior, he or she commits sinsand

those sins hinder the believer's fellowship with God (cf. Matt. 6:12, 14-15;
Luke 11:4; et al.). Jesus compared this family forgiveness to "washing
(Gr. nipto) the feet," which become dirty while walking through life.
Therefore, Jesus was illustrating the importance of believers obtaining
spiritual cleansing from Godperiodicallywhen He washed the
disciples' feet. We obtain this cleansing by confessing our sins to God
(1 John 1:9; cf. 1 John 2:24; 5:13). The basis for both types of forgiveness
is Jesus' work on the cross.
A second view is that Jesus was referring to the daily consecration of the
disciple's life to a service of love, following Christ's example.758 A third
view is that the foot-washing was symbolic of the complete cleansing that
756McGee, 4:450-51.
757Westcott,p. 191.
had already taken place or would take place. This last view less probable,
since Jesus said that, although Peter already had experienced a spiritual
bath, he still needed his feet washed.
"A subterranean passage, lit on both sides, led to the well-

appointed bath-rooms [under Herod's Temple] where the
priests immersed themselves. After that they needed not all
that day to wash again, save their hands and feet, which
they had to do each time, however often, they came for
service in the Temple. It was, no doubt, to this that our
Lord referred in His reply to Peter: 'He that is washed
needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every
whit.'"759
"Is it not most significant that nothing is said in this chapter

about the washing of the disciples' hands? Does it not point
[to] a leading contrast between the Mosaic and the
Christian dispensations? Under the law, where there was so
much of doing, the priests were required to wash both their
hands and their feet (Ex. 30:19); but under grace all has
been done for us, and if the walk be right, the work will be
acceptable!"760
The "unclean" disciple was Judas, who had not believed that Jesus was
God's Son.761 Jesus' washing Judas' feet, therefore, was not a lesson in
believers' securing spiritual cleansing, but an offer of initial cleansing for
him. There is nothing in the text that would warrant the conclusion that
Jesus omitted washing Judas' feet.
The explanation of foot-washing 13:12-20

13:12 Jesus now returned to His role as the disciples' teacher, which His change
of clothing and physical position indicated. He began to explain the
significance of what He had done, though full comprehension would come
to the disciples later (v. 7). His question prepared them for the lesson that
followed.
13:13 "Teacher" translates the Hebrew "Rabbi" (Gr. didaskalos) and "Lord," the
Aramaic "Mari" (Gr. kyrios). The title "Lord" took on deeper meaning
after the Resurrection, as Christians began to understand better who Jesus
is (cf. 20:28; Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11). Both titles were respectful and
acknowledged Jesus' superiority over His disciples. They were ordinary
titles of respect given to a rabbi.762
759Idem,The Temple, p. 149.

760Pink,2:306.
761See Harrison, p. 1102.
762The Nelson . . ., p. 1791.
13:14-15 Jesus had given the Twelve a lesson in humble service of one another.
Specifically, He took a lower role than theirs for their welfare. Similarly,
Jesus' disciples shouldwillingly and happilyput meeting the needs of
others before maintaining their own prestige (cf. Phil. 2:1-11).
"The world is full of people who are standing on their

dignity when they ought to be kneeling at the feet of their
brethren."763
"The world asks, 'How many people work for you?' but the
Lord asks, 'For how many people do you work?'"764
Some Christians believe that Jesus' command here is binding on the

church in a literal sense. They practice "foot-washing" as an ordinance of
the church, along with water baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Grace
Brethren and certain Mennonite churches, among others, view foot-
washing as a third ordinance. Most Christians believe that Jesus meant that
His disciples should follow His "example" of serving humbly, rather than
specifically, and literally, washing each other's feet. But nowhere else in
the New Testament do the writers treat foot-washing as another ordinance.
Instead, 1 Timothy 5:10 speaks of it as an example of humble service

("good works"), not as an ordinance of the church. Moreover, the attitude
of humilitythat disciples should have toward one anotherwas Jesus'
point, not simply the performance of a ritual (cf. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke
6:40). Furthermore, Jesus called foot-washing "an example" (Gr.
hypodeigma, pattern), implying that there are other examples of the same
attitude. This was an appropriate example of humble service in a culture
where people wore sandals and soiled their feet easily. If Jesus were
giving an example in modern North American culture, He probably would
have selected another humble act.765
13:16 Jesus again introduced a statement with a strong asseveration (affirmation)

to indicate its importance. He put it in the form of an aphorism (cf. 15:20;
Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; 22:37). An "aphorism" is a concise definition or
statement of a principle. By common consent, "a slave (or servant)
occupies" an inferior role to that of "his (or her) master," and messengers
(Gr. apostolos) do the same to those who send them. This, by the way, is
the only occurrence of apostolos in the fourth Gospel. Jesus was
contrasting roles, not essential worth. His point was that no disciple of His
should think it beneath him or her to serve otherssince He, the master
and sender, had humbled Himself to serve.
763Barclay,2:162.
764Wiersbe, 1:347.
765See Pink, 2:317-18, for more reasons to take Jesus' words non-literally.
Jesus had repeatedly referred to the fact that the Father had sent Him, and
that He had come from the Father. Likewise He would send the disciples
(20:21).
13:17 Knowing what one ought to do, and actually doing it, are frequently two
different things. Jesus promised God's favor (blessing) on those who
practice humble service, not on those who simply realize that they should
be humble (cf. 8:31; 12:47-48; Heb. 12:14; James 1:22-25). This is one of
only two beatitudes in John's Gospel (cf. 20:29).
"There is a form of religious piety that utters a hearty

'Amen!' to the most stringent demands of discipleship, but
which rarely does anything about them."766
13:18-19 Again Jesus directed what He had said to those disciples who truly
believed on Him (v. 10; cf. 6:71; 12:4; 13:2). He made this statement so
that when the disciples would later remember His words, they would not
think that He had been mistaken about Judas. Instead they would believe
that Jesus was "I am," connoting deity (Exod. 3:14; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; cf.
John 8:24, 28, 58). He wanted the disciples to believe His claims, before
His crucifixion seemingly invalidated them, and before His resurrection
confirmed them.
Jesus chose Judas as one of the Twelve to fulfill Psalm 41:9. The Son of
David experienced treason from a close friend, just as the original David
had. Perhaps the betrayer of David in view was Ahithophel, who also
committed suicide (2 Sam. 15:12; 16:15-23; 17:3-4, 14, 23). Betrayal by
one who had received table hospitality was especially heinous in the
ancient Near East. "Lifting up the heel against" someone was probably a
way of saying that one had walked out on his friend.767 Other possibilities
are that the expression derived from the lifting up of a horse's hoof
preparatory to kicking,768 or that it alluded to shaking off the dust from the
feet as an insult (cf. Luke 9:5; 10:11).769
"When Christ said, 'I know whom I have chosen' it is

evident that He was not speaking of election to salvation,
but to the apostolate. Where eternal election is in view the
Scriptures uniformally [sic] ascribe it to God the Father.
But where it is a question of ministry or service, in the New
Testament, the choice and the call usually proceed from the
Lord Jesussee Matt. 9:30 [sic 13]; 20:1; 28:18-20; Acts
1:24; 26:16; Eph. 4:11, etc. His words here in 13:18 are

767F.F. Bruce, pp. 287, 296, footnote 14.
768Tasker, p. 161.
769Morris, p. 553.
parallel with those in 6:70: 'Have not I chosen you twelve?

and one of you is a devil?'"770
13:20 Another strong asseveration underlined the statement that followed. In

view of Jesus' claim to be the "I am," the disciples needed to appreciate
that they enjoyed an intimate relationship with Jesus as His messengers
("whomever I send"). This relationship was similar to the one that Jesus
enjoyed with His Father (cf. 5:19). Jesus was preparing them for the Great
Commission (20:21; cf. v. 16). He was also warning Judas of the greatness
of the sin that he anticipated committing.
2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30 (cf. Matt. 26:21-25; Mark

14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23)
Jesus had spoken only briefly about His betrayal until now (cf. 6:70; 13:10, 18). Now He
gave the Twelve more specific information.
13:21-22 The prospect of His imminent betrayal and death upset Jesus visibly (Gr.
etarachthe, cf. 11:33; 12:27). Clearly the Twelve had not understood that
"one of" them would "betray" Him (cf. Matt. 26:21-22; Mark 14:18-19;
Luke 22:21-23). Judas had been a successful hypocrite. Jesus' solemn
announcement now forced Judas to act quickly or to repent. Jesus was
speaking as a prophet here.
13:23 This is John's first reference to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved"
or the "beloved disciple" (cf. 19:26-27; 20:2-9; 21:1, 20-25; Mark 14:47,
51). He enjoyed an intimate relationship with Jesus, similar to the one
Jesus, enjoyed with His Father (cf. 1:18). John was not claiming that Jesus
loved him more than the other disciples by describing himself this way.
Rather, the description reveals his appreciation for God's grace in loving
him as He did. He focused the reader's attention on Jesus more forcefully
by omitting his own name.
"Like the other John at the very beginning of the Gospel,

the first witness to Jesus, he is only a voice. The identity of
the speaker does not matter: what matters is the witness that
he gives."771
"It was customary to sit at most meals. Reclining at table, a

hellenistic custom, was reserved for special meals. When
first introduced into the Jewish world, it was probably a
sign of extreme decadence (Am. 6:4-7), but by New
Testament times it was normal at important banquets and
feasts, and therefore was virtually required at the Passover
770Pink, 2:320-21.
771L. Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel, p. xiii.
celebration, almost as a mark of unhurried celebration and

freedom, in self-conscious contrast with the haste with
which the first Passover was eaten on the night of the
exodus (Ex. 12:11; cf. B. Pesahim 108a; NewDocs 1. 1;
2. 26). In short, the posture of Jesus and his men is a
small indicator that they were in fact eating the Passover
meal . . ."772
". . . the left elbow was placed on the table, and the head
rested on the hand, sufficient room being of course left
between each guest for the free movements of the right
hand. This explains in what sense John 'was leaning on
Jesus' bosom,' and afterwards 'lying on Jesus' breast,' when
he bent back to speak to Him."773
13:24-25 Evidently "Peter" was somewhere across the table from Jesus, since John
noticed when Peter "gestured to him." Peter was unable, because of his
position, to ask Jesus privately to identify the betrayer. John must have
reclined on his left elbow immediately to Jesus' right. By leaning back
against Jesus' chest, John could have whispered his request quietly.
Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper is a masterful painting, but it does
not represent the table arrangement as it would have existed in the upper
room.
13:26 Jesus identified "Judas" as the betrayer to John. The "morsel" or piece of
bread (Gr. psomion) was probably a piece of unleavened bread that Jesus
had "dipped" into the bowl of paschal stew. Passover participants
normally did this early in the meal. The host would customarily pass a
morsel of dipped bread and meat to an honored guest.774 Jesus did this to
Judas. He would then hand each person present a morsel.775
Judas must have sat near enough to Jesus for Jesus to do this conveniently
(cf. Matt. 26:25). Possibly Judas reclined to Jesus' immediate left. If he
did, this would have put him in the place of the honored guest,
immediately to the host's left.776
Perhaps it was the apparently high honor that Jesus bestowed on Judas, by
extending the morsel to him first, that counteracted what Jesus had just
said to John about the betrayer. Could Jesus really mean that the disciple
772Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 473. "B. Pesahim" refers to the Pesahim section of The Babylonian Talmud,
and "NewDocs" is an abbreviation for G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity,
vols. 1 and 2, sections 2 and 26 respectively.
774Pink, 2:332.
776See ibid., 2:493-95, for a description and a diagram of the probable seating arrangement.
who was the guest of honor would betray Him? This apparent
contradiction may explain John's lack of response to Jesus' words to him
about the betrayer.
Jesus' act of friendship to Judas triggered Judas' betrayal of Jesus'

friendship.777 This was Jesus' final gesture of supreme love for Judas (cf.
v. 1).
Only Matthew recorded Judas' hypocritical question, "Surely it is not I,

Rabbi?" and Jesus' reply, "You have said it yourself" (Matt. 26:25).
13:27 Judas accepted Jesus' food but not His love. Instead of repenting, Judas
continued to resist. This resistance opened the way for "Satan" to take
control of him in a stronger way than he had done previously (cf. 3:16-19).
Evidently Satan himself, rather than just one of his demonic assistants,
"entered into" Judas. This is the only mention of Satan by name in this
Gospel.
Undoubtedly Satan took control because he wanted to destroy Jesus. We

should not conclude that Satan necessarily or directly controls everyone
who opposes God's will. Judas' case was particularly significant in view of
the situation. The text does not use the term "possession" to describe
Satan's relationship to Judas, but certainly his influence on the traitor must
have been very strong.
The opportunity for repentance had passed, due to persistence in unbelief.

Therefore Jesus did not appeal to Judas to change his mind at that point,
but to get on with his evil work "quickly" (Gr. tacheion). Jesus' hour had
come, and it was essential that Judas not thwart God's plan by delaying.
The Gospels do not clarify whether Jesus selected Judas as one of His
disciples fully knowing that he would betray Him. The answer lies in the
mysterious realm of the God-man's knowledge, part of which He gave up
in the Incarnation (Phil. 2:5-7). At least one conservative scholar believed
that Jesus chose Judas not knowing that he would betray Him.778
13:28 "No one" present knew what Jesus meant when He told Judas to do what
he had to do quickly. John must have known that Judas was the betrayer,
but even he did not know that Jesus was referring here to Judas'
arrangements to betray Him.
". . . the Passover, or rather the 15th of Nisan, was to be

observed like a Sabbath, no manner of work being allowed.
There was, however, one most important exception to this
777Blum, p. 321.
778Edersheim, The Life . . .2:503.
rule. It was permitted to prepare the necessary articles of

food on the 15th of Nisan. This explains how the words of
Jesus to Judas during the Paschal (not the Lord's) Supper
could be misunderstood by the disciples as implying that
Judas, 'who had the bag,' was to 'buy those things' that they
had 'need of against the feast.'"779
"There is nothing in the narrative to show that Jesus meant

that betrayal was imminent. From all that has been said so
far it may well have been far in the future."780
13:29 The fact that Judas "had the money box" and was the treasurer of the
Twelve, shows that the other disciples trusted him implicitly. He was a
consummate hypocrite. Jesus' trust of him shows the Savior's grace.
The "feast" in view (v. 29) must have been the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
that followed Passover immediately, since Jesus and the Twelve were now
celebrating the Passover. Giving alms "to the poor" was a common
practice in Jerusalem on Passover evening.781
13:30 Judas, ironically and tragically, obeyed Jesus' command (v. 27) and left
the upper room "immediately." He missed most of the meal, including the
institution of the Lord's Supper. John's reference to it being "night" would
be redundant, if all he wanted to do was give a time reference. In view of
his "light and darkness" motif, it seems that he wanted to point out the
spiritual significance of Judas' departureboth for Judas and for Jesus (cf.
Luke 22:53; John 1:4-5; et al.).
"As the Light of the world was about to depart and return to
the Father, the darkness had come at last (cf. Luke 22:53).
Again the contrast in imagery is clear. For John, Jesus is
the Light of the world, and those who believe in Him come
to the light and walk in the light. At the opposite extreme is
Judas Iscariot, who rejected Jesus, cast in his lot with the
powers of darkness, departed into the darkness, and was
swallowed up by it."782
"Judas was enveloped in an unilluminated night, never to

be relieved. He was on the way to his own place (Acts
1:25)."783
779Idem, The Temple, p. 226.

780Morris, p. 558.
781J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p. 54.
782Harris, p. 204.
"Judas was the representative of that spirit of wilful [sic]

self-seeking which was the exact opposite of the spirit of
Christ."784
B. THE UPPER ROOM DISCOURSE 13:3116:33
Judas' departure opened the way for Jesus to prepare His true disciples for what lay ahead
for them. This teaching was for committed disciples only. Some writers have noted that
in the Old Testament, as well as in ancient Near Eastern literature generally, the farewell
sayings of famous individuals receive much attention (cf. Gen. 47:2949:33; Josh. 23
24; 1 Chron. 2829).785 This discourse preserves Jesus' last and most important
instructions in the fourth Gospel. One significant difference is that in His "farewell
discourse" Jesus promised to return again (14:1-3).
1. Jesus' announcement and command 13:31-35
Jesus began His instructions by announcing His departure and by commanding His
disciples' to love one another as He had loved them.
Jesus' announcement of His departure 13:31-33
13:31-32 Judas' departure to meet with the chief priests signaled the beginning of
the Son of Man's glorification, which John recorded Jesus as consistently
regarding as beginning with His arrest (cf. 12:23). Note the Savior's
positive, albeit troubled, attitude toward the events that lay before Him
(v. 21). The title "Son of Man" unites the ideas of suffering and glory, as
mentioned previously. This is the last of 12 occurrences of this title in
John's Gospel.
"In its general usage it is the title of the incarnate Christ

who is the representative of humanity before God and the
representative of deity in human life."786
Jesus explained that His "glorification" (i.e., His crucifixion, resurrection,

ascension, and glorification in heaven)which He regarded neither as a
martyrdom nor a disgracewould mean glory for the Father (by the Son's
complete obedience), who would in return "glorify" the Son (by the
resurrection and ascension of the Son). Thus Jesus continued to stress His
unity with the Father, to help His disciples appreciate both His individual
identity and His essential deity. The disciples would not have to wait long
to see the Son's glory.
784Westcott,p. 196.
785E.g.,A. Lacomara, "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:3116:33)," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.
How did Jesus "glorify" the Father? He explained how later: by finishing
the work the Father gave Him to do (17:4). That is also how we glorify the
Father.
13:33 "Glorification" for Jesus involved temporary separation from His

believing disciples. Jesus used a tender term for His disciples that showed
His strong affection for them as members of His family. "Little children"
(Gr. teknia, dear children) occurs only here in the fourth Gospel, but John
used it seven times in 1 John, mirroring Jesus' compassionate spirit
(1 John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; cf. Gal. 4:19). Death and ascension
to heaven would both separate Jesus from His close disciples.
Jesus' command to love one another 13:34-35
13:34 Having announced their inevitable separation, Jesus now began to explain
what He expected of His disciples during their absence from Him. They
were to "love one another" as He had "loved" them. They had seen His
love for them during His entire earthly ministry, and most recently in His
washing of their feet; but they would only understand its depth through the
Cross.
The command to "love one another" was not completely new (1 John 2:7-
8), but in the Mosaic Law the standard was "as you love yourself" (Lev.
19:18). Now there was a new and higher standard, namely, "as I have
loved you." It was also a new (Gr. kainen, fresh rather than different)
commandment, in that it was part of a new covenant that Jesus would
ratify with His blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Under that new
covenant, God promised to enable His people to "love" by transforming
their hearts and minds (Jer. 31:29-34; Ezek. 36:24-26). It is only by God's
transforming grace that believers can "love one another" as Jesus has
"loved" them. The Greek words for "love" appear only 12 times in John
112, but in chapters 1321 we find them 44 times.
13:35 That supernatural love would distinguish disciples of Jesus. "Love for one
another" would identify them as His disciples. It is possible to be a
disciple of Jesus without demonstrating much supernatural love. However,
that kind of love is what bears witness to a disciple's connection with
Jesus, and thereby honors Him (cf. 1 John 3:10b-23; 4:7-16). John's first
epistle is really an exposition of the themes that Jesus set forth in the
Upper Room Discourse.787 Every believer manifests some supernatural
love, since the loving God indwells him or her (1 John 3:14). However, it
is possible to quench and or to grieve the indwelling Spirit, so that we do
not manifest much love (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19; Eph. 4:30).
787See John R. Yarid Jr., "John's Use of the Upper Room Discourse in First John" (Ph.D. dissertation,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002).
Jesus taught His disciples to love their enemies in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:43-
47). Here He taught us to love one another. These instructions do not contradict one
another or present two different standards. They simply distinguish different people to
love.
2. Peter's question about Jesus' departure and Jesus' reply 13:36-38 (cf.
Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:31-34)
Peter next declared his love for Jesus indirectly.
13:36 Peter returned to the subject of Jesus' departure (v. 33; 8:21). He was
unclear about "where" Jesus meant He would go. Jesus did not answer him
unambiguously, probably because such an answer would have created
even more serious problems for him. It was not God's will for Peter to
"follow" Jesus through death into heaven then ("now"), but it would be
later (21:18-19). Jesus' answer implied that Peter had asked his question so
he could accompany Jesus wherever He was going. Peter's statement was
an indirect expression of affection for and commitment to Jesus.
13:37-38 Peter resisted the idea of a separation from Jesus. He felt willing even to
die with Him if necessary, rather than being parted from Him.
Nevertheless Peter grossly underestimated his own weakness, and what
Jesus' death entailed. Peter spoke of laying down his life for Jesus, but
ironically Jesus would first lay down His life for Peter (cf. 10:11, 15;
11:50-52). Peter's boast betrayed reliance on the flesh. Perhaps he
protested so strongly to assure the other disciples that he was not the
betrayer about whom Jesus had spoken earlier (v. 21).
"Sadly, good intentions in a secure room after good food
are far less attractive in a darkened garden with a hostile
mob. At this point in his pilgrimage, Peter's intentions and
self-assessment vastly outstrip his strength."788
"Judas' betrayal of Jesus was absolutely deliberate . . . But
there was never anything in this world less deliberate than
Peter's denial of Jesus."789
Mark recorded that Jesus mentioned the rooster crowing twice, but the
other evangelists wrote that He just mentioned the rooster crowing (Matt.
26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34). Mark's reference was more specific, and
the others were more general.
3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

Peter's question was only the first of several that the disciples proceeded to ask Jesus. The
questions show their bewilderment and discouragement. They should have been

789Barclay, 2:175-76.
comforting Him in view of what lay ahead of Him (12:27; 13:21), but instead Jesus
graciously proceeded to comfort them by clarifying what lay ahead of them.
"Chapter 14 deals largely with specific encouragements to counterbalance

the departure of Jesus, the defection of Judas, and the predicted failure of
Peter. These are: the ultimate provision of the Father's house; the return of
Christ for his own; the prospect of doing greater works; unlimited prayer
possibility; the gift of the Holy Spirit; and the provision of Christ's
peace."790
Jesus' promise to return 14:1-4
14:1 Jesus was troubled because of what lay before Him, and the Eleven were
"troubled" (Gr. tarassestho) because they did not understand what lay
before them. Jesus had just told them that He was going to leave them
(13:33), but they had forsaken all to follow Him. Jesus had said that Peter
would deny Him, implying that some great trial was imminent (13:38).
God's revelations about the future should have a comforting and

strengthening effect on His people (cf. 1 Thess. 4:18). This verse
introduces a short section of revelation that has given much comfort to
God's people as they think about the future (vv. 1-4). It is a favorite
passage at funerals.
Jesus explained how to calm their "troubled heart(s)." The verb "believe"
or "trust" (Gr. pisteuo), which occurs twice, can be either in the indicative
or the imperative mood in each case. The spelling of the words in both
moods is identical in the Greek text. Probably in both clauses Jesus meant
to give an imperative command: "Believe in God; believe also in Me."791
This makes the most sense in the context, as most of the modern English
translations have concluded.
"Everything seemed on the verge of collapse."792
Jesus meant, "Stop being troubled." He was telling the disciples (plural
"your") to trust in God and to trust in Him just as they trusted in God. This
was a strong claim to deity and a great comfort. They could rely on what
He was about to tell them as coming from God.
The NASB translates the singular "heart" (Gr. kardia) that Jesus used
collectively, whereas the NIV interpreted it to mean each of their "hearts"
individually. The heart is metaphorically the center of personality.
"In a very short time life for the disciples was going to fall
in. Their sun was going to set at midday and their world
was going to collapse in chaos around them. At such a time
there was only one thing to dostubbornly to hold on to
trust in God."793
14:2 Jesus next explained the reason the disciples should stop feeling troubled
at the thought of His leaving them. He was departing "to prepare a place
for" them, and He would return for them and take them there later (vv. 3,
28).
The "Father's house" is heaven. This is the most obvious and simple
explanation, though some commentators understood it to mean the church.
However, the fourth Gospel never uses the house metaphor for the church
elsewhere, and the phrase "the Father's house" occurs nowhere else in
Scripture as a figure of the church. Neither can it refer to the messianic
kingdom, since Jesus said He was about to go there. The messianic
kingdom did not exist, and will not exist, until Jesus returns to the earth to
set it up (cf. Dan. 2:44; et al.)
"To-day the average 'home' is little more than a boarding-

housea place to eat and sleep in. But 'home' used to
mean, and still means to a few, the place where we are
loved for our own sakes; the place where we are always
welcome; the place whither we can retire from the strife of
the world and enjoy rest and peace, the place where loved
ones are together. Such will Heaven be. Believers are now
in a strange country, yea, in an enemy's land; in the life to
come, they will be at Home!"794
There are many dwelling places (Gr. mone, cognate with the verb meno,
meaning "to abide" or "remain") in heaven. The Latin Vulgate translated
the noun mansiones that the AV transliterated as "mansions." The NIV
"rooms" is an interpretation of mone. The picture that Jesus painted of
heaven is a huge building with many rooms or suites of rooms in which
people reside. The emphasis is not on the lavishness of the facility, as
much as its adequacy to accommodate all believers. Other revelation about
heaven stresses its opulence (e.g., Rev. 21:122:5).
"The imagery of a dwelling place ('rooms') is taken from

the oriental house in which the sons and daughters have
apartments under the same roof as their parents."795
793Ibid.,
2:177.
794Pink,2:349-50.
"This truth may reflect the marriage custom of the

bridegroom, who would go to the bride's house and bring
her to his father's house, where an apartment would have
been built for the new couple."796
"The glories and blessedness of Heaven are brought before

us in the New Testament under a variety of representations.
Heaven is called a 'country' (Luke 19:12; Heb. 11:16); this
tells of its vastness. It is called a 'city' (Heb. 11:10; Rev.
21[)]; this intimates the large number of its inhabitants. It is
called a 'kingdom' (II Peter 1:11); this suggests its
orderliness. It is called 'paradise' (Luke 23:43; Rev. 2:7);
this emphasizes its delights. It is called the 'Father's house,'
which bespeaks its permanency."797
Jesus assured His disciples that if heaven were otherwise, He "would have
told" them in what way it was different. This assurance recalls verse 1,
where Jesus urged them to trust Him.
"The disciple is warranted in assuming an adequate divine

provision even when it is not stated [here]."798
Jesus had previously spoken of His departure as including His death, His
resurrection, and His ascension (13:31-32, 36). Consequently He probably
had all of that in view when He spoke about going to prepare a place for
believers. His death and resurrection, as well as His ascension and return
to heaven, would prepare a place for them.799 The "place," which is the
Father's house or heaven, already existed when Jesus spoke these words.
Jesus would not go to heaven to create a place for believers there. Rather,
everything that He would do, from His death to His return to heaven,
would constitute preparation for believers to join Him there ultimately.
The idea that Jesus is presently constructing dwelling places for believers
in heaven, and has been doing so for 2,000 years, is not what Jesus meant
here. Jesus' going (i.e., to the Cross), itself, prepared the place.
14:3 The commentators noted that Jesus spoke of several returns for His own in
this Gospel. Sometimes Jesus meant His return to the disciples following
His resurrection and before His ascension (vv. 18-20; 21:1). Other times
He meant His coming to them through the Holy Spirit after His ascension
and before His bodily return (v. 23).800 Still other times He meant His
796Bailey, in The New . . ., p. 184. See Levitt for more information aboiut Jewish wedding customs.
797Pink, 2:349.
799Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:514; Westcott, p. 201.
800R. H. Gundry, "'In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)," Zeitschrift fr die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.
eschatological return at the end of the inter-advent age. Some interpreters

view this return as the Rapture, and others believe Jesus was referring to
the Second Coming. Another view is that Jesus was really speaking about
the believer's death figuratively.801 Many interpreters believe some
combination of the above views is most probable.802
Since Jesus spoke of returning from heaven to take believers there, the
simplest explanation seems to be that He was referring to an
eschatological bodily return (cf. Acts 1:11). Though these disciples
undoubtedly did not realize it at the time, Jesus was evidently speaking of
His return for Christians at the Rapture, rather than His return at the
Second Coming.
"John 14:3 is the only verse in the Gospels that is

commonly accepted by contemporary pretribulationists and
posttribulationists alike as a reference to the rapture."803
Other Scripture clarifies that when Jesus returns at the Rapture it will be to
call His own to heaven immediately (1 Thess. 4:13-18). John 14:1-3 is one
of three key New Testament passages that deal with the Rapture, the
others being 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. In
contrast, when Jesus returns at the Second Coming, it will be to remain on
the earth and reign for 1,000 years (Rev. 19:1120:15).
". . . it is important to note that Jesus did not say that the
purpose of this future coming to receive believers is so that
He can be where they areon the earth. Instead, He said
that the purpose is so that they can be where He isin
heaven."804
". . . here in John xiv the Lord gives a new and unique
revelation; He speaks of something which no prophet had
promised, or even could promise. Where is it written that
this Messiah would come and instead of gathering His
saints into an earthly Jerusalem, would take them to the
Father's house, to the very place where He is? It is
something new. . . . He speaks then of a coming which is
not for the deliverance of the Jewish remnant, not of a
801E.g., R. H. Lightfoot, pp. 275-76.

802E.g., Barrett, p. 457; R. H. Strachen, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment, p. 280; and
Westcott, p. 201.
803Wayne A. Brindle, "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630
(April-June 2001):139.
804Renald E. Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church, p.
158. Cf. 1 Thess. 4:17. His entire eighth chapter, pp. 154-75, deals with this passage and various
interpretations of it.
coming to establish His kingdom over the earth, not of a

coming to judge the nations, but a coming which concerns
only His own."805
The emphasis in this prediction is on the comfort that reunion with the
departed Savior guarantees (cf. 1 Thess. 4:18). Jesus will personally
"come" for His own, and He will "receive" them to Himself. They will
also "be" with Him where He has been (cf. 17:24). Jesus was stressing His
personal concern for His disciples' welfare. His return would be as certain
as His departure. The greatest blessing of heaven will be our ceaseless
personal fellowship with the Lord Jesus there, not the splendor of the
place.
14:4 Jesus could say that the Eleven knew "the way" to the place "where" He
was "going"because He had revealed that faith in Him led to eternal life
(3:14-15). This had been a major theme of His teaching throughout His
ministry. However, they did not understand Him as they should have
(v. 5).
These four verses answered Peter's initial question about where Jesus was going (13:36).
They also brought the conversation back to the subject of the glorification of the Father
and the Son (13:31-32).
Thomas' question about Jesus' departure and Jesus' answer 14:5-7

14:5 Thomas voiced the disciples' continuing confusion about Jesus'
destination. Apparently the "Father's house" did not clearly identify
heaven to them. Without a clear understanding of the final destination
("where"), they could not be sure of the route ("the way") there. Thomas'
question was a request for an unambiguous explanation of Jesus' and their
destination, and how He and they would get there.
"For us generally a clear apprehension of the end is the

condition of knowing the way. But in spiritual things faith
is content to move forward step by step. There is a
happiness in 'not seeing,' xx. 29"806
14:6 Jesus again gave an enigmatic answer. He had already said plainly, at least
three times, that He would die and rise again (cf. Mark 8:31-32; 9:30-32;
10:32-34). Nevertheless the disciples' preconceptions of Messiah's
ministry did not allow them to interpret His words literally.
The words "way," "truth," and "life" are all coordinate in Jesus' answer;
Jesus described Himself as "the way, and the truth, and the life." The
"way" is slightly more dominant, in view of Thomas' question and its
805Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John, p. 268.

relative position to the "truth" and the "life." Jesus is "the way" to God,
because He is "the truth" from God and "the life" from God. He is the truth
because He embodies God's supreme revelation (1:18; 5:19; 8:29), and He
is the life because He contains and imparts divine life (1:4; 5:26; 11:25; cf.
1 John 5:20). Jesus was summarizing and connecting many of the
revelations about Himself that He had previously given the Eleven.
"He not only shows people the way (i.e., by revealing it),
but he is the way (i.e., he redeems us). In this connection
'the truth' . . . will have saving significance. It will point to
Jesus' utter dependability, but also to the saving truth of the
gospel. 'The life' (see on 1:4) will likewise take its content
from the gospel. Jesus is both life and the source of life to
believers."807
"He himself goes to the Father by way of crucifixion and

resurrection; in [the] future he is the means by which
Christians die and rise. . . . Because Jesus is the means of
access to God who is the source of all truth and life he is
himself the truth and the life for men (cf. vv. 7, 9)."808
Jesus was not saying that He was one way to God among many. He was
not saying that He pointed the way to God, either. He said that "no one
comes to" God "the Father but through" faith in Himself. This means that
religions that assign Jesus a role that is different from the one that the
Bible gives Him do not bring people to God or eternal life. This was an
exclusive claim to being the only way to heaven (cf. 10:9; Acts 4:12;
1 Tim. 2:5).
"He says the only way to God is through Him. That is a

dogmatic statement! Years ago a student out at UCLA told
me he didn't like the Bible because it is filled with
dogmatism. I agreed with him that it is. He especially
selected this verse and said, 'That's dogmatic.' I said, 'It sure
is, but have you realized that it is characteristic of truth to
be dogmatic? Truth has to be dogmatic.'
"I had a teacher who was the most dogmatic, narrow-

minded person I've ever met. She insisted that 2 plus 2 =
4. . . . Friend, let me say to you that one of the
characteristics of truth is its dogmatism."809
807Morris,
p. 569.
808Barrett,
p. 458.
809McGee, 4:460.
"There is a mistaken idea today that you can come to Him

your way. This isn't your universe; it's His universe. You
and I don't make the rules. He makes the rules. And He
says that no man comes to Him except through Christ
. . ."810
It is only because of Jesus Christ's work on the cross that anyone can enter
heaven. Since He has come, it is only through faith in the promise of
Godthat Jesus' death on the cross of Calvary satisfied the Fatherthat
anyone experiences regeneration (1:12; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; et al.). Since He
has come, rejection of God's revelation through Him results in eternal
damnation (3:36).
This is the sixth of Jesus "I am" claims (cf. 6:48; 8:12; 10:9, 11; 11:25;
15:1).
"We should not overlook the faith involved both in the

utterance and in the acceptance of those words, spoken as
they were on the eve of the crucifixion. 'I am the Way,' said
one who would shortly hang impotent on a cross. 'I am the
Truth,' when the lies of evil people were about to enjoy a
spectacular triumph. 'I am the Life,' when within a matter
of hours his corpse would be placed in a tomb."811
"It does not follow that every one who is guided by Christ
is directly conscious of His guidance."812
14:7 The construction of the first clause in the Greek text suggests that the
condition was true for the sake of the argument. We could translate this
"first class condition" as "Since . . ." The Eleven had come to know (had
"known") by personal experience (Gr. ginosko) who Jesus really was. This
knowledge was the key to their coming to "know" God the "Father" as
well.
Since they had come to know ("known") who Jesus really was, they had
also come to know ("known") God. Their knowledge of God virtually
amounted to seeing God. John used "knowing God" and "seeing God"
synonymously in 1 John as well (cf. 1 John 2:3-11; 3:2-3). "From now on"
(Gr. ap arti) also means "assuredly." Since the Eleven had come to know
who Jesus really was, they had assuredly come to know the Father as well.
Jesus was probably assuring the Eleven with this sentence, rather than
rebuking them, as some translations suggest.
810Ibid.,
4:676.
811Morris,p. 570.
Philip's request to see the Father and Jesus' answer 14:8-14
14:8 The Eleven regarded Jesus very highly. Even so, they did not yet realize
that He was such an accurate and full revelation of God the Father, that to
see Jesus was to see the Father. "Philip" asked for a clear revelation of
"the Father" that would satisfy the Eleven. He apparently wanted Jesus to
give them a theophany (Exod. 24:9-10; Isa. 6:1). People throughout
history have desired to see God as He really is (cf. Exod. 33:18). Jesus, in
His Incarnation, made that revelation of the Father more clearly, fully, and
finally than anyone else ever had (1:14, 18; 12:45; cf. Heb. 1:1-2).
14:9 Philip and the other disciples had not yet completely realized who Jesus
was. They did not understand what John revealed in the prologue of this
Gospel, namely, that the Son is the exact representation of the Father (cf.
1:18). God is exactly like Jesus. Long exposure to Jesus should have
produced greater insight in these disciples. Still, that insight is only the
product of God's gracious enlightenment (cf. Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:6-16).
"No material image or likeness can adequately depict God.

Only a person can give knowledge of him since personality
cannot be represented by an impersonal object."813
This was another clear claim to deity.
14:10 Jesus repeated again that He and the Father were the same in essence (cf.
5:19; 8:28; 10:30, 38; 12:49). The mutually "abiding" terminology that
Jesus used expressed this unity without destroying the individual identities
of the Father and the Son. Jesus did not just represent God to humankind
as an ambassador would. He said everything the Father gave Him to say,
and He did everything the Father did (5:19). Besides, ambassadors do not
refer to those who send them as "their father," or claim that whoever has
seen them has seen the one they represent. They do not affirm mutual
indwelling with the one who sent them either.
14:11 Jesus cited another proof of His union with the Father besides His words,
namely: His "works" (Gr. erga). Specifically He meant His miracles (cf.
5:36; 10:25, 37-38; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30-31). Jesus' miracles were signs
that signified His divine identity (cf. 2:11). What we regard as a miracle
was nothing more than a normal act for Jesus.814
14:12 Jesus prefaced another startling and important revelation with His
customary phrase that John noted often in his Gospel. He re-emphasized
the importance of believing what He had revealed about His divine

814For a discussion of Jesus' "works," see Morris, pp. 607-13.
identity, by unveiling the startling and enormous consequences of

believing that He was the divine Messiah.
The interpretation of the same "works" that those who believe on Jesus
would do, which commentators have found difficult, depends on how
Jesus described them. He said that the basis for these worksand "greater
works"would be His going to the Father. After Jesus ascended into
heaven, the Father sent the Holy Spirit to indwell every believer (Acts 2:3;
cf. Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13). This divine enablement empowered believers
to do miracles that only Jesus Himself could do previously. The Book of
Acts records the apostles doing many of the same miracles that Jesus had
done in the Gospels.
The disciples would do even "greater works" than Jesus had done, in the
sense that their works would have greater extensive, numerical results than
His total works had numbered.815 During Jesus' earthly ministry, relatively
few people believed on Him, but after His ascension many more did. The
miracle of regeneration multiplied after Jesus ascended to heaven and the
Father sent the Holy Spirit. Three thousand people became believers in
Jesus on the day of Pentecost alone (Acts 2:41). The church thoroughly
permeated the Roman Empire during the apostolic age, whereas Jesus'
personal ministry did not extend beyond Palestine. The whole Book of
Acts is proof that what Jesus predicted here happened (cf. Acts 1:1-2, 8).
The mighty works of conversion are more in view here than a few
miracles of healing.
Jesus probably did not mean that His disciples would do more stupendous
miracles than He did. Feeding multitudes from a small lunch and raising
people from the dead are hard miracles to supersede. We should not
assume, either, that Jesus meant that these miracles would continue
throughout church history as they occurred in the apostolic era. Church
history has shown that they died out almost entirely after the apostolic age,
and the New Testament, while it did not specifically predict that, implied
that they would (1 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 2:3-4).
"His position with the Father would be related to the

greater works in two ways: answering the prayers of his
own, and sending the Paraclete as the unfailing source of
wisdom and strength. The works, then, would not be done
in independence of Christ. He would answer prayer; he
would send the Spirit."816
14:13-14 Jesus next extended His promisebeyond miraclesto anything that the
disciples might desire. This apparently blank check type of promise has a
condition that many often overlook. It is "in my name." Believers
815Barrett, p. 460.
misapply this condition, because many Christians think it simply means

making their request and adding the phrase "in Jesus' name" at the end.
Praying in Jesus' name means coming to the Father in prayer as Jesus'

representative who is doing His business. Jesus introduced the idea of
representing Him in verse 12. When we pray in Jesus' name, we claim to
be acting for Him. Someone who prays that way will always ask only what
is God's will, or what is subject to God's will, since that is always how
Jesus related to His Father. It is impossible to truly pray "in Jesus' name"
and ask for something contrary to God's will. These two acts are mutually
contradictory.
"In both cases [Jesus' two promises in verses 13 and 14]

prayer 'in the name of Jesus' denotes petition with
invocation of his name or appeal to his name; while there
are evident differences of nuance, accordingly as prayer is
addressed to Jesus or the Father, the fundamental factor is
the role of Jesus as mediator between God and his
people."817
". . . here is direct prayer to Jesus taught as we see it

practiced by Stephen in Acts 7:59 and in Rev. 22:20."818
The purpose of our praying must always be God's glory (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31),
as it always was, and always will be, the Son's purpose (5:41; 7:18; 8:50,
54; 12:28). Thus Jesus promised here to grant petitions prayed in His
name"so that the Father" might receive glory from ("be glorified in")
"the Son."
Jesus repeated this promise, probably because it is so great that it is almost

unbelievable (cf. 15:16; 16:23-24). One of John's stylistic characteristics
was to restate with only slight variations. In these cases, the meaning is
not significantly different. John expounded this promise in his first epistle,
where he clarified that "in my name" means "according to His (God's)
will" (1 John 5:14-15).
The New Testament teaching on prayer is that: believers normally address

the Father in prayer, in the Son's name, and with the Spirit's help.
However, this is not a rigid requirement. In view of the unity of the
Godhead, we can understand occasional instances of prayers addressed to
the Son or to the Spirit in the New Testament (e.g., v. 14; Acts 7:59; 9:10).
However, these prayers are atypical.
Jesus' provision to enable obedience 14:15-21

At the end of His answer to Peter's question (13:36), Jesus moved the conversation back
to the general theme of preparation for His departure (v. 4). He did the same thing after
answering Philip's question (v. 8). Obedience to the will of God is not only a condition
for getting answers to prayer; it is also an evidence of love for God. Love for God is the
controlling idea in the following verses (vv. 15-21).
"The thought of love follows that of faith (v. 12)."819
14:15 This is Jesus' first reference in this Gospel to the believer's "love" for
Himself. Typically, Jesus first reached out in love to others, and then
expected "love" as a reasonable response (cf. 13:1; Rom. 12:1-2). The
conditional sentence in the Greek text is "third class," which assumes
neither a positive nor a negative response. Love for Jesus will motivate the
believer to obey Him (cf. vv. 21, 23; 15:14; 1 John 5:3). In the context,
Jesus' commands are His total revelation viewed as components, not just
His ethical injunctions (cf. 3:31-32; 12:47-49; 13:34-35; 17:6).
"To John there is only one test of love, and that test is
obedience [cf. 1 John 5:3]. It was by His obedience that
Jesus showed His love of God; and it is by our obedience
that we must show our love to Jesus."820
The greatness of our love for God is easy to test. It corresponds exactly to
our conformity to all that He has revealed (cf. 1 John 5:3).
14:16 Love for Jesus would result in the disciples' obedience to His commands.
It would also result in Jesus requesting "another (Gr. allon, another of the
same kind) Helper" to take His place in His absence from them (cf. v. 26;
15:26; 16:7-15; 1 John 2:1). The Greek word translated "Helper" or
"Counselor" is parakletos. Both of these English words have connotations
that are absent from the Greek word. "Helper" connotes an inferior, which
the Holy Spirit is not. "Counselor" can call to mind a camp counselor or a
marriage counselor, whereas a legal counselor is more in harmony with
the Greek idea.821
In secular contexts, parakletos often referred to a legal assistant, an

advocate, or simply a helper (e.g., a witness or a representative in
court).822 The verbal form of this word, parakaleo, literally means "to call
alongside" and, therefore, "to encourage" or "to strengthen." Muslims
typically believe that Mohammed is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that
He would send another counselor.
820Barclay, 2:193.
821For further study of the term "paraclete," see Morris, pp. 587-91.
822H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. parakletos.
Jesus directly referred to the Trinity, though not by that name, in the
following relationships. The "Son" would request that the "Father" send
the "Spirit" to take the Son's place as the believer's encourager and
strengthener. It was hard for these Jewish believers, who had grown up
believing that there is but one God, to grasp that Jesus was God. It must
have been even more difficult for them to think of the Spirit of God as a
Person, rather than as God's influence. Nevertheless New Testament
revelation is clear that there are three Persons within the Godhead (e.g.,
2 Cor. 13:14). Most non-Christian religions deny the tri-unity of God (e.g.,
Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al.).
The Spirit of God had come on Old Testament believers temporarily to

give them strength, but normally He did not remain with them (cf. Ps.
51:11). What Jesus spoke of here was an abiding (permanent) relationship,
in which the Spirit remained with believers for the rest of their lives (cf.
Rom. 8:9). This new relationship to the Holy Spirit is one of the
distinctive differences between the church age and former dispensations. It
is a blessing that few Christians appreciate as they should.
14:17 Jesus now identified the Helper as the "Spirit of truth" (cf. 15:26; 16:13),
that is, the truthful Spirit who would bear witness to (confirm or
corroborate) and communicate the truth (cf. v. 6; 1:32-33; 3:5-8; 4:23-24;
6:63; 7:37-39).823
"To be filled with the Spirit is the same as to be controlled

by the Word. The Spirit of Truth uses the Word of truth to
guide us into the will and the work of God."824
The unbelieving "world cannot receive" Him, because it cannot see Him
and knows nothing of Him. The disciples, on the other hand, knew Him
because He empowered Jesus. The Spirit had been with them in this way,
as well as strengthening them occasionally as they needed help when they
preached and performed miracles. However in the future, after Jesus
returned to the Father, the Spirit would not only be with them, but in them
as well. This is another distinctive ministry of the Spirit in the present age.
He indwells believers (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13). That ministry began on
Pentecost when the church began (Acts 2:4; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:15).825 The
Spirit also has a ministry to the world, but Jesus explained that later (16:7-
11).
14:18-19 Jesus changed the metaphor, from the disciples being without a Helper, to
their being orphans without a parent. He would not leave them in this
823Barrett,
p. 463.
824Wiersbe,1:352.
825See Johnstone G. Patrick, "The Promise of the Paraclete," Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-
December 1970):333-45.
traditionally destitute and vulnerable position. He would come back to

them. Which coming did He have in mind here (cf. v. 3)?
In view of the context that describes the Spirit's coming (vv. 16-17, 25-
26), we might conclude that His coming in the Spirit is in view (cf. v. 23).
However, the passage seems to present Jesus as offering the disciples His
personal presence. He had described the coming of the Spirit, but what
about His personal return to them (cf. v. 3)? This question, which would
have been in the disciples' minds (cf. v. 22), is what Jesus appears to have
been addressing here.
Jesus seems to have been referring to a post-resurrection appearance to the

disciples (21:1-14). Support for this view is Jesus' assurance that His
resurrection would be a pledge of their own resurrection (v. 19). Physical
resurrections seem to be in view: "because I live, you shall live also."
According to the Book of Acts, Jesus appeared only to believers after His
resurrection ("the world will behold Me no more").
14:20 Jesus' post-resurrection appearances would convince the Eleven of His

deity. He described this condition as His mutual abiding with the "Father"
(cf. vv. 10-11). Additionally, these appearances would convince them of
their permanent union with Jesus, by confirming Jesus' promises of their
union with Him (vv. 13-14). Jesus expounded both abidings later (vv. 23-
24; ch. 17).
Some interpreters take the day in view as referring to Pentecost.826

However, because of the flow of the argument, "that day" seems to refer to
Easter rather than Pentecost.
14:21 Love for God makes the believer more obedient to God. Not only that,
obedience results in a more intimate relationship with God, which God's
personal "love" for the believer and His self-disclosure to the believer
confirm.
The believer's obedience does not make God love him or her more than He
would otherwise. God's love for all people is essentially as great as it can
be. However, in the family relationship that Jesus was describing, the
believer's obedience results in God expressing His love for him or her
without restraint. When there is disobedience, God does not express His
love as fully because He chooses to discipline the believer (cf. Heb. 12:4-
13).
In the context (vv. 18-20), this was a promise that Jesus would disclose
Himself to the Eleven after His resurrection, and an encouragement for
them to continue obeying Him and loving Him. However, that disclosure
826E.g., Tenney, "John," p. 147; and Blum, p. 324.

was only typical of many others that would come to believerswho obey
and love Jesusincluding the one that happened on Pentecost.
Some believers love Jesus more than other believers do. This results in
some believers obeying Him more than others, and enjoying a more
intimate relationship with Him, and a greater understanding of Him, than
others enjoy. The way to become a great lover of Jesus is by learning to
appreciate the greatness of His love for us (cf. Matt. 18:21-35; 1 John
4:19).
Judas' question about Jesus' self-disclosure and Jesus' reply 14:22-24
14:22 There were two members of the Twelve named "Judas." The one who
voiced this question was "Judas the son (or brother) of James" (Luke 6:16;
Acts 1:13). He is probably the same man as Thaddaeus (cf. Matt. 10:2-4;
Mark 3:16-19).
Judas' question reflects the disciples' understanding that, as Messiah, Jesus

would manifest Himself publicly, which He had taught them (cf. Matt.
24:30). The disciples did not understand that Jesus would rise again bodily
(20:9), much less that the Holy Spirit would come to indwell them.
Therefore it is unlikely that Judas was asking Jesus to clarify the manner
of His appearing. Judas wanted to know what Jesus meant when He had
said, earlier, that He was not going to disclose Himself publicly, but just
privately to the Eleven. Judas and his fellow disciples failed to realize that
Jesus would reveal Himself to them privately, after His resurrection,
before He would later reveal Himself publiclyat His second advent.
14:23 Jesus did not clear up Judas' misconception, apparently because He

wanted to stay on the subject of the importance of loving and obeying
Him. He did not deny an eschatological return, but He restated what He
had just said about His post-resurrection appearance to the Eleven. Jesus
stressed the principle that loving obedience always results in intimate
fellowship. He was speaking here about the relationship with Him that
believers could have following Pentecost. In the process, He again stressed
His union with the Father.
Jesus had begun this instruction by referring to abiding places (Gr. monai,
plural) that He would prepare for His disciples in heaven (v. 2). He now
revealed that He and His Father would first make their home or "abode"
(Gr. monen, singular) in believing disciples on the earth. These are the
only two occurrences of this word in the New Testament. They bracket
this section of Jesus' discourse and indicate its unity.
"Salvation means we are going to heaven, but submission

means that heaven comes to us!
"This truth is illustrated in the experiences of Abraham and

Lot, recorded in Genesis 18 and 19. When Jesus and the
two angels visited Abraham's tent, they felt right at home.
They even enjoyed a meal, and Jesus had a private talk with
Abraham. But our Lord did not go to Sodom to visit Lot,
because He did not feel at home there. Instead, He sent the
two angels. . . .
"Charles Spurgeon said, 'Little faith will take your soul to

heaven, but great faith will bring heaven to your soul.' Your
heart can become a 'heaven on earth' as you commune with
the Lord and worship Him."827
14:24 In conclusion, Jesus restated the ethical point He had made in verses 15
and 23ain the negative. Lack of love for Jesus will result in lack of
obedience to His teachings, which are the revelations of God the Father
(cf. 12:49; 14:10).
In summary, Jesus revealed that He would depart from the Eleven shortly. He would
leave in order to prepare a place for His believing disciples, so they could dwell with Him
eventually in heaven. He would prepare this place by going to the cross, rising from the
dead, and ascending to heaven. Then He would return for them and take them to that
place. However, in the meantime, He would dwell in them by His Spirit. He would also
come back to see them before He departed for heaven.
4. Jesus' promise of future understanding 14:25-31
Jesus realized that the Eleven did not fully understand what He had just revealed. He
therefore encouraged them with a promise that they would fully understand His words
later.
14:25-26 Jesus had made these revelations to His disciples "while abiding with"
them, but when the "Holy Spirit" came to abide in them, the Spirit would
enable them to understand them.
Jesus now identified the Helper whom He had promised earlier as the
Holy Spirit (cf. vv. 16-17). He is the Spirit characterized by holiness as
well as by truth (v. 17).
The "Father" would "send" the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus' "name" (i.e., as
Jesus' emissary and with exactly the same attitude toward God's will that
Jesus had). The Son had come as the Father's emissary, and soon the Spirit
would come as the Son's emissary.
827Wiersbe, 1:353.
The Spirit would "teach" them "all things," which in the context refers to
all the things that were presently obscure, about which the various
disciples kept raising questions (13:36; 14:5, 8, 22). He would do this
partially by bringing to their memories ("remembrance") the things that
Jesus had said would become clear in the light of His "glorification" (cf.
2:19-22; 12:16; 20:9).
Notice that the particular ministry of the Spirit that is in view is teaching.
The illumination that Jesus promised here was specifically to the Eleven
and their contemporaries. It was a promise to those who had heard His
teaching before the Cross, but did not understand it until after the
Resurrection. However, this promise did not find complete fulfillment in
the apostolic age.
The Holy Spirit continues His teaching ministry today, by enlightening

disciples as they study Jesus' teachings. In this sense, the Holy Spirit is the
true Teacher of every Christian, and human teachers serve a secondary
role (cf. 1 John 2:27). The role of the Scriptures in the process is
fundamental, since they contain all that Jesus personally taught and
approved.
This is one of many verses that contain proof that the Holy Spirit is a
Person: He teaches.
14:27 The disciples' uneasiness, at the prospect of Jesus leaving them without
clarifying what they did not yet understand, elicited this word of comfort
from their Teacher.
"Peace" (Gr. eirene, Heb. shalom) was a customary word of both greeting
and farewell among the Jews. Jesus used it here as a farewell, but He used
it the next time as a greeting, after the Resurrection (20:19, 21, 26). Jesus
probably meant that He was bequeathing "peace" to the Elevenas an
inheritancethat would secure their composure and dissolve their fears
(cf. Phil. 4:7; Col. 3:15).
The "world" cannot give true peace. That can only come from the "Prince
of Peace," a messianic title (Isa. 9:6-7). He is the only source of true
personal and social peace. The world cannot provide peace because it fails
to correct the fundamental source for strife, namely, the fallen nature of
humankind. Jesus made peace possible by His work on the cross. He will
establish universal peace when He comes to reign on earth as Messiah. He
establishes it now in the hearts and lives of those who believe on Him
and submit to Himthrough His representative, the indwelling Spirit
(v. 26). Later in this discourse, Jesus promised His love (15:9-10) and His
joy (15:11), in addition to His peace.
The peace Jesus spoke of was obviously not exemption from conflicts and
trials. He Himself felt troubled by His impending crucifixion (12:27).
Rather, it is a settled confidence that comes from knowing that one is right
with God (cf. Rom. 5:1). As the believer focuses on this reality, he or she
can experience supernatural peace in the midst of trouble and fear, as
Jesus did.
"Most of us in the modern world confuse the

encouragement of our successes and accomplishments with
'God's peace.'"828
14:28 Jesus' impending departure still disturbed the Eleven. He explained that
their fear was also a result of failure to love Him as they should. They
should have "rejoiced" that, even though His departure meant loss for
them, it meant glory and joy for Him. We experience a similar conflict of
emotions when a believing friend dies. We mourn our loss, but we should
rejoice more that our loved one is with the Lord.
"True love for Jesus, which they did not yet possess, would
have made the disciples rejoice in his exaltation just as true
understanding would have enabled them to see that his
departure was for their advantage."829
It should be obvious by now, that Jesus did not mean He was less than
God, or an inferior god, when He said that God ("the Father") was
"greater" than He was. Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and other Arians
interpret Jesus' words here this way. Arius was a heretic in the early
church who denied Jesus' full deity. Jesus was not speaking ontologically
(i.e., dealing with His essential being, His nature), since He had affirmed
repeatedly that He and the Father were one ontologically (1:1-2; 10:30;
14:9; 20:28).
Rather, He was speaking of the Father's relative glory compared to Jesus'

glory. Jesus had laid His heavenly glory aside in the Incarnation, but the
Father had not done so, and consequently enjoyed greater glory than the
Son during Jesus' earthly ministry. However, now Jesus was about to
return to the Father, and to the greater glory that He would again share
with the Father. This glorification should have caused the disciples to
rejoice, but they sorrowed instead, because they focused on themselves too
much.
This interpretation of the Father's superiority does not negate the

functional superiority of the Father over the Son within the Godhead.
However, that distinction does not seem to be primary in the logic of this
verse.
828See J. Lanier Burns, "John 14:1-27: The Comfort of God's Presence," Bibliotheca Sacra 172:687 (July-
September 2015):314.
829Barrett, p. 468.
". . . the Son, being begotten of the Father, is 'inferior' to

Him in the sense that He that is begotten is secondary to
Him who begets (see i. 14)."830
14:29 Jesus' reason for saying what He did was not to cause the disciples
embarrassment, but to strengthen their faith. Their faith would grow
stronger after the Resurrection and Ascension (cf. 13:19). The disciples
would then view Jesus' teaching here as fulfilled prophecy.
John stressed the importance of believing throughout his Gospel (cf. 1:50;
3:12, 15; 4:21, 41; 5:24, 44, 46; 6:29, 35, 47, 64; 7:38; 8:24, 45; 9:35;
10:38; 11:25, 41; 12:37, 44; 13:19; 14:1, 11; 16:31; 17:20; 20:27). Jesus'
statement here returns to that theme. Both Jesus and John wanted to build
faith in disciples of Jesus.
14:30-31 Jesus would "not speak much longer" with the disciples because His
passion was imminent. He probably did not mean that His present
discourse was almost over. Satan, the being who under God's sovereign
authority controlled the present course of events, was about to crucify
Jesus (cf. 6:70; 13:21, 27). "He has nothing in Me" or "He has no hold on
me" translates a Hebrew idiom and means Satan has no legal claim on me.
"There was in Christ nothing which the devil could claim

as belonging to his sovereignty."831
Satan would have had a justifiable charge against Jesus if Jesus had
sinned. Jesus' death was not an indication that Satan had a claim on Jesus,
but that Jesus loved His Father, and was completely submissive to His will
(Phil. 2:8).
Many commentators interpreted the final sentence in this verse as an

indication that Jesus ended His discourse here, and that He and the Eleven
left the upper room immediately. They viewed the teaching and praying,
that we find in chapters 1517, as happening somewhere on the way to
Gethsemanebefore Jesus' arrest (cf. 18:1).832 However, it seems more
probable to many interpreters, including myself, that this sentence did not
signal a real change of locationbut only an anticipated change, in view
of 18:1. Anyone who has entertained people in their home, knows that it is
very common for guests to say they are leaving, and then stay quite a bit
longer before really departing.
Why would John have recorded this remark if it did not indicate a real
change of location? Perhaps he included it to show Jesus' great love for
830Tasker, p. 173.
832E.g., ibid., p. 211; Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:256; McGee, 4:464.
His followers that the following three chapters articulate.833 Another view
is that when Jesus got up from the table, He prefigured His resurrection,
and what follows in this discourse deals with post-resurrection realities:
"There must be resurrection-life before there can be resurrection-fruit."834
The time of departure from the upper room is not critical to a correct
interpretation of Jesus' teaching.
"As the first part of the discourse ends, Jesus has reassured his disciples
that his departure is not a defeat. On the contrary, it will enhance the union
that he has with them and allows the provision of the Spirit to guide them
into a deeper appreciation of what Jesus taught and did. The explanation
helps us understand why John sees the death and resurrection of Jesus as a
glorification."835
5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16
Jesus continued to prepare His disciples for His departure. He next taught the Eleven the
importance of abiding in Him, which would result in their producing much spiritual fruit.
He dealt with their relationships to Himself, one another, and the world around them in
chapter 15. Their responsibilities were to abide, to love, and to testify respectively.
"If in the Discourse recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel
the Godward aspect of Christ's impending departure was explained, in that
of the fifteenth chapter the new relation is set forth which was to subsist
between Him and His Church. And this . . . may be summarized in these
three words: Union, Communion, Disunion [i.e., separation from the
world]."836
". . . the broad distinction between John 14 and 15 is that in the former we
have the grace of God unfolded; in the latter Christian responsibility is
pressed."837
". . . the theme is no longer coming but abiding."838
"Now 'abiding' always has reference to fellowship, and only those who
have been born again are capable of having fellowship with the Father and
His Son."839
833Carson, The Gospel . . ., 479.

834Pink, 2:393.
835Bock, p. 505.
837Pink, 3:8.
838Barrett, p. 470.
839Pink, 2:394.
The vine and the branches metaphor 15:1-8
Jesus often used a grapevine to describe the nation of Israel (cf. Matt. 20:1-16; 21:23-41;
Mark 12:1-9; Luke 13:6-9; 20:9-16). The vine as a symbol of Israel appears on coins of
the Maccabees.840
"Two-leaved doors, with gold plating, and covered by a rich Babylonian

curtain of the four colours of the temple ('fine linen, blue, scarlet, and
purple'), formed the entrance into the Holy Place [of the Temple]. Above
it hung that symbol of Israel, a gigantic vine of pure gold, and made of
votive offeringseach cluster the height of a man [cf. Ps. 80:8; Jer. 2:21;
Ezek. 19:10; Joel 1:7]."841
Here Jesus used the vine metaphorically of Himself. One can hardly escape the inference
that Jesus viewed Himself as the fulfillment of Israel. Covenant theologians like to think
of the church as the fulfillment of Israel, but there is no scriptural warrant for this
conclusion except the similarities between the two entities. However, the differences
between them make dispensational theologians conclude that the church only
superficially fulfills Israel.
This is not a parable in the Synoptic sense, since there is no plot. It is more of an
extended metaphor, similar to the shepherd and sheepfold metaphors in chapter 10.
"The whole usage of the Lord leads to the belief that the image of the vine
was suggested by some external object."842
"It is possible that if the text of this discourse was spoken as they walked
from the upper room in Jerusalem down into the Kidron Valley and across
to the Mount of Olives, they could have seen the great golden vine, the
national emblem of Israel, on the front of the temple."843
15:1 This is the last of Jesus' "I am" claims in this Gospel.844 Jesus and His
Father occupy different roles in this extended metaphor.
Jesus is the "true (Gr. alethinos, "real, all that a vine should be in a
spiritual sense"845; cf. 1:9; 6:32) vine." The Old Testament writers
frequently used this plant to describe Israel (Ps. 89:9-16; Isa. 5:1-7; 27:2;
Jer. 2:21; 12:10; Ezek. 15:1-8; 17:1-21; 19:10-14; Hos. 10:1-2). The
nation's failure to produce fruit, and its consequent impending divine
840Morris, p. 593.
844See John C. Hutchinson, "The Vine in John 15 and Old Testament Imagery in the 'I Am' Statements,"
judgment, are in view whenever the vine represents Israel in the Old
Testament.846 Because of this identification and emphasis, it is clearly with
unfruitful and guilty Israel that Jesus contrasted Himself as the "true" vine.
He would produce good fruit as God intended (cf. Ps. 80:7-9, 14-17). No
vine can produce good fruit unless it is good stock.
The Father "dresses" the vine as a farmer (Gr. georgos) cultivates his
vineyard. The idea of functional subordination within the Godhead
appears again here. No vine will produce good fruit unless someone who
is competent cares for it.
15:2 Jesus earlier taught about the mutually indwelling believers within
Himself (14:20). Therefore it seems clear that Jesus was speaking here of
genuine believers such as the Eleven, not simply professing believers.847
"The phrase 'in Me' is used 16 times in John's Gospel (6:56;

10:38; 14:10 [twice], 11, 20, 30; 15:2, 4 [twice], 5-7; 16:33;
17:21, 23). In each case it refers to fellowship with Christ.
It is inconsistent then to say the phrase in 15:2 refers to a
person who merely professes to be saved but is not. A
person 'in Me' is always a true Christian."848
". . . his primary thought was of apostate Christians."849
This identification finds support in the illustration itself. "Branch(es)" (Gr.

klema, lit. tendrils) of a vine share the life of the vine.
Jesus taught that some believers in Him do not bear fruit (cf. Luke 8:14).
Fruit-bearing is the normal but not the inevitable consequence of having
divine life. This is true of grapevines too. Grapevines have branches that
bear fruit, but they must also have some branches that presently bear no
fruit, but are growing stronger so they will bear fruit in the future.850 There
can be genuine life without fruit in a vine, and there can be in a Christian
as well.
No plant produces fruit instantaneously; it takes time for a plant to grow

strong enough to bear fruit. The New Testament teaches that God effects
many changes in the life of every person who trusts in Jesus for salvation.
Lewis Sperry Chafer noted 33 things that happen to a person the moment

847Westcott, p. 217. Interpreters who argue for professing believers include J. Carl Laney, "Abiding is
Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6," Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-
66; and John F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus, pp. 166, 170-71.
848Joseph C. Dillow, "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6," Bibliotheca
Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53. Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 272.
849Barrett, p. 473. Italics added.
850Gary W. Derickson, "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6," a paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.
he or she trusts Jesus Christ as Savior.851 However, these are all invisible
changes.
"Fruit" is what a plant produces on the outside that other people can see
and benefit from. It is the visible evidence of an inner working power.
Jesus probably included every kind of benefit that the Christian
demonstrates, when He referred to "fruit," though some commentators
have limited this to evangelistic fruit.852
Thus a true believer, who experiences the inner transforming work of the
Spirit at conversion, may not necessarily give external testimony to that
transformation by his or her character or conduct immediately. It would be
very rare for a Christian to resist the Spirit's promptings so consistently
and thoroughly that he or she would never bear any fruit, but Jesus
allowed for that possibility here. The form of His statement argues against
interpreting it as hyperbole.
It is also possible for a grapevine to stop bearing fruitas a result of

running to leaf, disease, or old age.853
What happens to the believer who bears no fruit? The Greek word airo
can mean "to take away" or "to lift up." Those who interpret it here as
meaning to take away (in judgment), believe that either the believer loses
his or her salvation, or the believer loses his or her reward, and possibly
even his or her life, or the opportunity to serve the Lord. Those who
interpret airo to mean "to lift up," believe that these branches get special
attention from the vinedresser so they will bear fruit in the future.854
The second alternative seems better, since in the spring, vinedressers both
"lifted up" unfruitful branches, and "pruned" (or "cleansed," Gr. kathairo)
fruitful branches of grapevines. "Cleansing" the branches involves
washing off deposits of insects, moss, and other parasites that tend to
infest the plants.855 Jesus gave this teaching in the spring when farmers did
what He described in this verse.856
"Many commentators discuss only one pruning and

incorrectly assume that all non-fruit bearing branches are
removed and burned at that time. We have demonstrated
from both historical and current cultural practices that such
851L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 3:234-65.

852E.g., A. B. Bruce, pp. 413, 419.
853Pink, 2:399.
854Pentecost, p. 441; The Nelson . . ., p. 1794.
855Pink, 2:400.
856See Gary W. Derickson, "Viticulture and John 15:1-6," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March
1996):34-52.
is not the case and only serves to confuse the biblical

record and our understanding of the Lord's intended
message. The spring pruning actually encouraged the
maturation of non-fruit bearing branches so they could bear
fruit the following year. The fall pruning excised all of the
leafy vegetation and much of the 'brush-wood' (as Pliny
termed it), and it was then in the fall of the year that the
significant burning occurred to eliminate the woody
branches as they prepared the vine for the winter dormant
period."857
Assuming that this is the correct interpretation, Jesus was teaching that the
Father gives special support to believers who are not yet bearing fruit. In
viticulture, this involves lifting the branch off the ground, so it will not
send secondary roots down into the ground, which would prove
unhealthful. Lifting the branch off the ground onto a pole, or trellis, also
enables air to dry the branch, and prevent it from getting moldy and
becoming diseased and unfruitful.
The Father also prunes (Gr. kathairo), or cuts back the branches that bear
fruit, so they will produce even more fruit. This apparently corresponds to
the disciplining process that God has consistently used to make His people
more spiritually productive (Num. 14:22-24; Heb. 12:4-11; et al.). It does
not involve removing the believer's life, but rather his or her sinful habits,
and purifying his or her character and conduct, often through trials (James
1:2-4). No fruit-bearing branch is exempt from this important though
uncomfortable process. The Father's purpose is loving, but the process
may be painful.
"Increased fruitfulness is the end of discipline, and to this

all care is directed."858
"The fruit of Christian service is never the result of

allowing the natural energies and inclinations to run
riot."859
Grapevines, in contrast to other types of wood, do not have many uses.

Their total value is that they can produce fruit, specifically grapes. Vines
do not yield timber from which people can make other things (Ezek. 15).
They are "good for either bearing or burning, but not for building."860
Similarly, the only reason believers exist on the earth is to bear spiritual
fruit.
857John A Tucker, "The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 Part II," Journal of
Dispensational Theology 15:45 (August 2011):52.
859Morris, p. 594.
860Wiersbe, 1:355.
15:3 Jesus assured His disciples that they were indeed "already clean." The
Father's treatment of them was not to make them clean. Jesus again used
the figure for possessing eternal life that He had used earlier when He had
washed these disciples' feet (13:10). Divine care and discipline follow the
granting of eternal life. Jesus did not want the Eleven to conclude, as
many people do, that the absence of fruit or the presence of difficulties
indicates the absence of salvation.
"The ancients spoke of pruning as a 'cleansing' of the

branches, just as we speak of 'cleansing' the land."861
15:4 The first sentence in this verse is capable of three different interpretations.
It may be a conditional statement. In this case, Jesus meant that if His
clean (i.e., saved) disciples abode in Him, He would abide in them. I
believe this is the best interpretation. Earlier Jesus had presented abiding
in (in contrast to departing from) Him as a real possibility for His
believing disciples (cf. 8:31-32; 15:10). He did not speak of abiding as the
inevitable condition of believers.
Jesus' described His relationship with believers as more or less intimate,

depending on their love and obedience to Him (14:23-24). He did not
present "abiding" and "not abiding" as white and black categories, as
being either completely in or completely out of fellowship. Rather, He
presented our relationship to Him much more realistically, namely, as
having a more or less intimate relationship.
Second, the sentence may be a comparative statement. The meaning would

then be that the disciples should abide in Jesus as He abode in them.
Obviously Jesus wanted His disciples to abide in Him, but the use of "and"
(Gr. kago, from kai ego) is unusual. A comparison would usually contain
"as" rather than "and." Further, the verb "abide" (Gr. meinate) is an
imperative, and the possibilities surrounding this verse indicate that not
abiding is a real possibility for a believer. Jesus, on the other hand, would
always abide in the believer by His Spirit, even if the believer did not
abide in Him (14:17; cf. 2 Tim. 2:12-13).
Third, this may be an imperative statement. If it is, Jesus meant that the
disciples and He should commit themselves to abiding in one another. The
idea would be: "Let us commit to abiding in one another." The problem
with this view is that Jesus had already committed Himself to abiding
within His believing disciples (14:17). Furthermore, the strong second
person imperative in the first clause of the sentence argues against a
mutual exhortation. It puts the emphasis primarily on the believer's
responsibility.
861Tasker, p. 175.
The branches then should make a deliberate effort (indicated by the

imperative verb "abide") to maintain a close personal relationship to the
true vine. We should do this not because failure to do so will result in our
losing the life of God that we possess. Jesus promised that He would never
withdraw that from us (6:37-40; 10:28-29). We should do it because the
extent of our fruitfulness as believers is in direct proportion to our
intimacy with Jesus. Divine life depends on connection with the true vine
by exercising saving faith in Him, but fruitfulness depends on abiding in
the vine by exercising loving obedience toward Him.
Much confusion has resulted from failing to recognize that Jesus spoke of
"abiding" in two senses. He used it as a synonym for saving faith (6:56).
Some interpreters have imported that meaning into this verse.862 However,
He also used it to describe the intimate relationship, that those who have
exercised saving faith in Christ, need to cultivate with God (8:31). All
believers abide in Jesus in the first sense, but all do not abide in Him in the
second sense (cf. v. 10; 1 John 3:24). It is in this second sense that Jesus
spoke of abiding here (cf. vv. 9-10). He stressed the importance of
believers abiding in Him by using the word meno ("abide") three times in
this verse alone. It occurs 11 times in this chapter and 27 times in John's
epistles, where John expounded Jesus' teaching on this subject further.
"The imagery of the vine is stretched a little but the point is

clear: continuous dependence on the vine, constant reliance
upon him, persistent spiritual imbibing of his lifethis is
the sine qua non of spiritual fruitfulness."863
Some interpreters have concluded that Jesus meant that His disciples
should abide in His teaching; they should not depart from it.864 However,
"Abide in Me" seems to be more inclusive than just remaining orthodox,
in view of the context, though abiding in Him would certainly include
doctrinal fidelity.
15:5 Jesus continued to stress the importance of believers abiding in Him (i.e.,
cultivating intimacy through loving obedience, 14:23; 15:10) to bear much
fruit. The negative alternative illustrates the positive truth. No contact with
the vine results in no fruit. Jesus had spoken of no fruit (v. 2), some fruit
(v. 2), more fruit (v. 2), and now He spoke of "much fruit" (v. 5).
Obviously it is impossible for a branch to bear any fruit if it has no contact

with the life-giving vine. Many unbelievers appear to bear the fruit of
godly character and conduct, but their fruit is phony. It is similar to plastic
fruit that one could hang on trees to give them the appearance of being
862E.g., Blum, p. 325.

864E.g., A. B. Bruce, p. 414.
healthy and productive. It is natural, though not inevitable, that a branch

that has vital connection with the vine bear some fruit. The way to bear
much fruit is for the branch to maintain unhindered fellowship with the
vine, by allowing the vine to have its way with the branch. The alternative
would be resisting the Holy Spirit's work by neglecting and disobeying
God.
Lack of fruit in the life, therefore, may not necessarily be an indication

that the branch has no vital relationship to the vine (i.e., that the person is
unsaved). It may indicate that the branch, though connected to the vine, is
not abiding in it (i.e., that the believer is not cultivating an intimate
relationship with the Savior).
"How strange that in our day and time we have been told so
often that fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is
unsaved. Certainly we did not get this idea from the Bible.
Rather, the Bible teaches that unfruitfulness in a believer is
a sure sign that one is no longer moving forward, no longer
growing in Christ. It is a sign that the Christian is
spiritually sick, and until well again, cannot enjoy spiritual
success."865
15:6 Jesus appears to have been continuing to speak of abiding in the sense of
believers remaining close to Himself. The "anyone" in the context would
be any believer. Therefore what He said applies to believers, not
unbelievers.
It is not proper to conclude that non-abiding disciples are all unbelievers.

Many interpreters, who believe that all genuine believers will inevitably
persevere in the faith and good works, tend to do this. They tend to impose
their doctrine on this verse, and make the verse fit their theology, rather
than interpreting the verse in its context. This is an example of allowing
theology to determine exegesis, rather than allowing exegesis to determine
theology. Jesus was speaking, in this context, of abiding and non-abiding
disciple believers, and gave no hint that He was speaking about
unbelievers.
Many interpreters have taken verse 6 as an exposition of verse 2.

However, the viticulture process that Jesus described in verse 6 took place
in the fall, whereas the process He mentioned in verse 2 happened in the
spring.866 In the fall, the vinedresser would prune (Gr. kathairo) the vines
for the winter by cutting off the dead wood. He would not cut off the
unfruitful branches that could produce grapes the next season, but only the
branches that did not have a healthy connection to the vine. The point of
865Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! p. 118.

866Derickson, "Viticulture and . . .," pp. 50-51.
the verse is that branches with other serious problems, not just non-fruit-
bearing branches (v. 2), also experience pruning.
What happens to these branches? Jesus said the vinedresser disposes of

them. This has led some interpreters to conclude that they lose their
salvation and go to hell, especially since He mentioned burning in "fire."
"Since the subject is the bearing of fruit and not eternal life,
the burning is a judgment upon fruitlessness, not an
abandonment to eternal destruction."867
Others, secondly, believe He implied that believers who do not abide in

Christ will suffer the loss of gifts and opportunities that they failed to use
(cf. Matt. 5:13; Luke 8:18; 2 John 8). Others, thirdly, believe that they will
lose some reward at the judgment seat of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15, where
fire appears in connection with the judgment of believers; 2 Cor. 5:10).
"Fire" is a common symbol that occurs throughout Scripture to describe
the judgment of both believers and unbelievers (cf. Gen. 19:24-26; Num.
11:1; Isa. 9:19; Ezek. 15:1-8; et al.).
Still others, fourthly, think the mention of "fire" is only incidental, since
vinedressers burned the branches they cut off in the fall pruning. They
believe Jesus' point was that some Christians are as useless to God as these
branches were to vine-growers. The point is their uselessness, according to
view, not their judgment. Pruning may involve premature death, or some
other form of divine discipline, but certainly not loss of salvation, and
perhaps not even loss of reward.
"I know many who have been set aside today because they
were no longer effective for God. . . . Sometimes this
removing from the place of fruit-bearing is by death,
physical death."868
I prefer view four ("fire" is incidental), but I concede that view two (loss
of opportunity) or view three (loss of reward) may be correct. All
interpreters believe Jesus mentioned this pruning to encourage His
disciples to abide in Him. Then they would bear much fruit.869
15:7 Here the second use of "abide" is obviously in view, namely, its use as a
synonym for fellowship rather than salvation. Jesus addressed His
believing disciples and told them what would happen "if" they did "abide"
in Him. He had already explained that believers may or may not abide in
867Harrison,p. 1107.
868McGee, 4:466. Paragraph division omitted.
869See also John A. Tucker, "The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 Part I,"
Journal of Dispensational Theology 15:44 (April 2011):51-68.
Him (vv. 3-5). Not only do abiding disciples bear much fruit (v. 5), but
they also receive what they "ask" God for in prayer.
This verse has also been a stumbling block to some sincere Christians. It
appears to be a blanket promise to grant any request that any disciple may
petition. Really it is a blanket promise to grant any request that an abiding
disciple may petition. An abiding disciple will ask for only those things
that are in harmony with, or subject to, God's willas Jesus did. The
wishes of abiding disciples are the same as Jesus' wishes. To ask anything
else would make the praying believer a non-abiding disciple.
"This astounding command and promise . . . is not without

conditions and limitations. It involves such intimate union
and harmony with Christ that nothing will be asked out of
accord with the mind of Christ and so of the Father."870
Putting this revelation together with what Jesus said earlier, we can see
that abiding disciples pray in Jesus' name, and praying in Jesus' name
requires abiding in Christ (14:13-14).871 Perhaps we can understand better
now what Jesus meant, when He said earlier that He wanted His disciples
to experience the same unity with Himself that He enjoyed with His Father
(14:20-21).
"To remain in Christ and to allow his words to remain in

oneself means a conscious acceptance of the authority of
his word and a constant contact with him by prayer."872
15:8 The granting of petitions to abiding believers glorifies the Father, as does
bearing "much" fruit (cf. Mark 4:20). Answered prayer is one form of
fruitfulness. All fruitfulness springs ultimately from the Son: the Vine.
Therefore it is really the Son who is bringing glory to the Father through
His abiding disciples (cf. 13:31; 14:13; 17:4). The believer's fruitfulness is
one means by which the Son glorifies the Father.
"There are four relationships that need to be distinguished.

Life in Christ is salvation. Life with Christ is fellowship.
Life by Christ is fruit-bearing. Life for Christ is service.
The 'fruit' is Christ manifested through us."873
"The Father is glorified in the Sonin his obedience and

perfect accomplishment of his work. It is therefore but a
short step to see the glorification of the Father in the

871See Thomas L. Constable, Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer, pp. 175-76.
873Pink, 3:14.
obedience and fruitfulness of those who are united to the

Son."874
Fruit-bearing demonstrates that a believer is one of Jesus' disciples (cf.

Matt. 7:20; Luke 6:43-44). Notice that Jesus did not say that a believer
will inevitably produce fruit. It is possible for a believer to give little or no
outward evidence of being a believer in Jesus (v. 2). This is one of the
greatest problems in the church today: genuine Christians who make little
or no attempt to follow God's will for their lives. However, the presence of
fruit in a believer's life shows others that a disciple really does possess
eternal life.
Some expositors argue that fruit is inevitable in the true Christian's life by
appealing to Matthew 7:20: "You will know them by their fruits."
However, in the context of that verse, Jesus was talking about false
teachersnot believers.
The exposition of themes in the metaphor 15:9-16
Jesus proceeded to expound further on some of the themes that He had introduced in His
teaching on the vine and the branches (vv. 1-8). We observed the same pattern in Jesus'
teaching about the Good Shepherd in chapter 10. The subject moves, generally, from the
believing disciple's relationship with God, to his or her relationship with other believers.
15:9-10 Jesus proceeded to explain that obedience is the key to abiding (cf. v. 7).
The relationship between the Father and the Son is again the paradigm for
the relationship between the Son and the believer. The idea is not that we
can withdraw from the circle of God's love by being disobedient. God
does not stop loving His disobedient children (cf. Luke 15:11-24). It is
rather that we can withdraw from the enjoyment and blessings of His love.
John stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father in this Gospel (4:34; 5:19;
6:38; 8:29, 55; 10:17-18; 12:27-28; 14:31). Now Jesus called His disciples
to follow His example: "abide" in His "love" by keeping His
"commandments."
"Alas, how many err on this point. We are living in an age

wherein lawlessness abounds. Insubordination is rife on
every hand. In many a place even professing Christians will
no longer tolerate the word 'commandments.' Those who
would urge the duty of obedience to the Lord, are regarded
as enemies of the faith, seeking to bring Christians into
bondage. Satan is very subtle, but we are not ignorant of his
devices. He seeks to persuade sinners that they must keep
God's commandments in order to be saved. He tries to
make saints believe that they must not keep God's
874Barrett, p. 475.
commandment, otherwise they will be putting themselves

'under law,' beneath a yoke grievous to be borne. But let
these specious lies of the Devil be tested by Scripture, and
their falsity will soon appear [cf. 13:34; 14:15; Matt. 28:20;
Rom. 7:22-25; 13:10; 1 Cor. 9:21]."875
15:11 The disciple's faithfulness is the product of loving obedience, but "joy" is
its result. The fullness of believers' joy was John's purpose for writing his
first epistle, as it was Jesus' purpose in giving this discourse (1 John 1:4).
Specifically, Jesus had told His disciples that "joy" would follow their
obedience to His teachings (v. 10). He intended His teachings to produce
freedom and joy, not bondage and grief (cf. 10:10; Matt. 11:30).
"How can we tell when we are 'abiding in Christ'? Is there a

special feeling? No, but there are special evidences that
appear and they are unmistakably clear. For one thing,
when you are abiding in Christ, you produce fruit (John
15:2). . . . Also, you experience the Father's 'pruning' so
that you will bear more fruit (John 15:2). The believer who
is abiding in Christ has his prayers answered (John 15:7)
and experiences a deepening love for Christ and for other
believers (John 15:9, 12-13). He also experiences joy (John
15:11)."876
McGee described the results of abiding in Christ in verses 7, 8, and 11 as

being "prayer effectual," "fruit perpetual," and "joy celestial,"
respectively.877
15:12 Jesus summarized His teaching with the command to "love one another,
just as" He had "loved" them (cf. 13:34-35; 1 John 3:16). This was
especially relevant because of the disciples' earlier arguments about who
of them was the greatest, and their unwillingness to wash each other's feet.
"Though He does not say it in so many words, He [Jesus]

evidently means the disciples to understand that abiding in
each other by love is just as necessary to their success as
their common abiding in Him by faith. Division, party
strife, jealousy, will be simply fatal to their influence, and
to the cause they represent."878
15:13 "Love" for a friend (or "friends") reaches its zenith when one willingly
sacrifices his or her life for that friend(s). Jesus had spoken of His love for
875Pink, 3:15.
876Wiersbe, 1:355.
877McGee, 4:466.
878A. B. Bruce, p. 423.
His disciples (v. 12). He would shortly show them how great it was by
making the supreme sacrifice for them. After that, they would not only
have His command to obey, but also His example to follow.
Actually, Jesus did more than lay down His life "for His friends"He
even died for His enemies (cf. Matt. 5:43-47; Rom. 5:8-10)! However, in
the context of this audience, His statement was true on its own. The most a
person can do for a friend is to die for him or her.
15:14-15 "Friend" is another relative term such as "abiding" or "fellowship." A

person can be a casual friend, a close friend, or an intimate friend
depending on his or her love and loyalty. Likewise, all believers are God's
"friends" in one sense, but abiding believers are His special "friends" on a
deeper level, because they seek to obey Him consistently (cf. Ps. 25:14).
"Are we doing what Jesus has commanded us to do?

Obedience is essential to abiding."879
A good servant (Gr. doulos, lit. slave) also obeys his master. What then is
the difference between a servant of God and an intimate friend of God?
Jesus proved to His disciples that they were His "friends" as well as His
servants, but He pointed out that a master shares his plans with his friends
but not with his slaves. He had told them what was coming, and thereby
was treating them as His friends. Abraham and Moses, the only Old
Testament characters whom God called His friends, also received
revelations of God's plans from Him (cf. Gen. 18:17; Exod. 33:11;
2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23). Jesus also referred to Lazarus as
"our friend" (11:11).
"The friends of the king were those who had the closest and
the most intimate connection with him, and who had the
right to come to him at any time."880
"Slaves" customarily receive orders without any explanations or reasons

for their orders. One of the differences between friends and slaves is the
degree of intimacy they share with their Master. Jesus raised His disciples
from the level of being used as "tools" to the position of being "full
partners" with Him in His work (cf. 2 Cor. 5:206:1).
Jesus said that He "no longer" called His disciples "slaves," implying that
He had done so in the past. One of the common titles God used for the
prophets in the Old Testament was "my servants the prophets" (e.g., Jer.
7:25; 25:4; 29:19; et al.). In former times God had not revealed His mind
fully to His people (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). However, with the coming of
879McGee, 4:467.
880Barclay, 2:208.
Jesus, He revealed His plans as to "friends" rather than as to servants. This

is another indication that Jesus viewed His Incarnation as the culmination
of divine revelation. The revelation that Jesus gave through the apostles,
following His ascension, was a continuation of that revelation (cf. Acts
1:1-2).
15:16 Again Jesus stressed that the initiative in the relationship between Him
and His disciples lay with Himself, not them (cf. 1:39, 42-43; 6:70; 10:27).
He probably did this because of their tendency to think too highly of
themselves, and since, in their culture, it was common for disciples to
choose their rabbi. Even today, students love to seek out the teacher of
their choice, and to attach themselves to him or her.
He had chosen them to be His friends, but He had also "appointed" them
to a specific task. They had a job to do as His servants, a mission to fulfill.
Part of His purpose for them was that they "bear fruit," and that their fruit
would have lasting effects. Evidently the "fruit" of their missionary
outreach was particularly in Jesus' mind, since He linked going with
bearing fruit. In this case, new converts are the "fruits" in view (cf. 20:21).
Asking the Father in prayerin Jesus' namewas necessary for fruit-

bearing to happen. Jesus linked prayer and fruit-bearing in a cause and
effect relationship. Prayer plays an essential role in the believer's
fruitfulness (cf. James 4:2).
The NIV translation is misleading. It implies that answers to prayer will be

the disciples' reward for effective fruit-bearing. In the Greek text there are
two purpose clauses each introduced by hina: "that you should go and bear
fruit," and "that whatever you ask the Father . . . He may give you." These
purposes are coordinate, but logically, praying precedes fruit-bearing (cf.
14:12-14; 15:7-8).
"Five characteristics of genuine love are detailed in verses 13-16. True

love is sacrificial; it is demonstrated in obedience in Christ; it always
communicates truth; it takes the initiative in meeting the legitimate needs
of others; and it will always bear fruit with abiding results."881
6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27
Jesus had discussed the Father's unity with the Son, the Son's unity with His disciples,
and the disciples' unity with one another, as recorded in this chapter. It was natural then
that He should also address the disciples' relationship with the world. His reference to
their mission led Him into this subject (v. 16).
881Bailey, in The New . . ., p. 186.

"This study [15:1-16] began in the vineyard and ended in the throne room!
The next study will take us to the battlefield where we experience the
hatred of the lost world."882
"He [Jesus] had just declared that His disciples are His friends; now He
turns to describe His and their enemies. He had set before the apostles the
proofs of His love for them; now He warns them of the world's hatred."883
15:17 Again Jesus repeated the absolute importance of His disciples loving one
another (cf. 13:34; 15:10, 12, 14; Rom. 12:10; Eph. 4:2-3, 32; Col. 3:13; 1
Pet. 1:22; 2:17; 3:8; 4:8). This was not only a repetition for emphasis, but
it set the stage for Jesus' teaching on the world's opposition that follows.
15:18 Jesus wanted to prepare His disciples for the opposition that they would
face after His departure. To do this, He announced first that they would
encounter opposition from "the world" (cf. 1 John 3:13). Here the world
(Gr. kosmos) refers to the mass of unbelievers. The conditional sentence in
the Greek text ("If the world hates you . . .") assumes the reality of what
Jesus stated for the argument's sake. The world would hate them. A person
cannot be an intimate friend of Jesus (i.e., an abiding believer) without
drawing hatred from His enemies.
The world "hates" Jesus because He testified that its deeds are evil (7:7).
His abiding disciples draw hatred from the world because they associate
with Him and His teachings, and because they seek to advance His
mission. Remembering the world's hatred for the Master makes bearing
that hatred easier for His disciple.
"It is as truly the nature of the world to hate as it is the

nature of the Christians to love. Because the Christians are
in Christ, hatred of them is hatred of Christ, and hatred of
Christ is hatred of the Father who sent him. The
unpopularity of Christians in the world is due ultimately to
the attitude of the world to God."884
"The inexperienced Christian supposes that the hatred of

the world against him is a reproach. He thinks that he is to
blame for it. He imagines that if only he were kinder, more
gentle, more humble, more Christlike, the enmity of
unbelievers would be overcome. This is a great mistake.
The truth is, the more Christlike we are the more shall we
be antagonized and shunned. The most conclusive proof of
882Wiersbe, 1:359.
883Pink,3:25.
884Barrett, p. 479.
this is found in the treatment which our blessed Saviour

received when He was in the world."885
15:19 Believers are aliens in, and "not of," "the world," because Jesus has called
them to fulfill His plans and purposes, rather than simply living for
themselves (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1). The world does not hate believers because they
are superior, but because they are servants of the Lord whom it has
rejected.
15:20 Jesus reminded the disciples of the principle that He had mentioned ("a
slave is not greater than his master") when He washed their feet (13:16).
Then He used this principle to encourage them to serve one another. Now
He used it to explain why they would experience persecution.
People normally treat a person's servants as they would treat the servants'
master. Since unbelievers "persecuted" Jesus, His disciples should expect
persecution too. Conversely, if some people in the world followed Jesus'
teachings, some would also follow His disciples' teachings. This is a more
likely interpretation, than the one that sees Jesus saying that since they had
rejected His teaching, they would also reject the disciples' teaching (e.g.,
NEB). Some in the world did indeed believe Jesus' teachings, and some
would believe the disciples' teachings.
15:21 Ultimately the disciples would experience opposition because of Jesus.
"My name's sake" is the equivalent of "Me." Responses to the lives and
witness of Jesus' disciples really hinge on who He is, not on who the
witnesses are. Obviously we can aggravate and provoke persecution by
our inept or carnal conduct, but Jesus was explaining the basic theological
reason for the opposition we face, not the secondary sociological reasons.
People rejected Jesus because they did "not know" God, who had "sent"
Him. They were ignorant of Him because they were spiritually blind (cf.
Rom. 1:28). Consequently they could not rightly evaluate the Messenger
whom God had sent. Jesus stated that the haters would also reject His
disciples, because they likewise would not know God, who was sending
them. Again the close unity between the Father and the Son, and between
the Son and abiding believers, comes through.
15:22-23 Jesus obviously did not mean that it would have been better for the world
if He had remained in heaven. His point was that by coming into the
world, and by preaching and working miracles, He had confronted people
with their rebellion against God (cf. Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 11:31-32).
Jesus' words and works were the Father's who had sent Him. Therefore the
world's rejection of Jesus' words and works constituted rejection of God
the Father. To hate Jesus amounted to hating God. This is another strong
implication of Jesus' deity.
885Pink, 3:26-27.
"Men cannot treat the Father in one way and the Son in
another."886
15:24-25 These verses amplify the former two. They also add the idea that the
world's hatred did not jeopardize God's redemptive plan. Its hatred was
part of what God predicted would accompany Messiah's mission. The
Jews' own Scriptures condemned their unbelief. Probably the quotation
comes from Psalm 69:4. David experienced hatred for no reason. How
much more would the Son of David experience it?
"In many ways, the remark of John 15:24 summarizes the

book of signs [chs. 212] in John's Gospel."887
15:26-27 Even though the world rejected Jesus, "the Spirit" characterized by "truth"
would bear witness that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. 14:16-17, 26). He
would do this when He came on the day of Pentecost. After that, the
disciples would also "testify," similarly empowered by the same Spirit.
The basis of their testimony would be their long association with, and
intimate knowledge of, Jesus (cf. Acts 1:21-22).
These verses explain how the conflict between Jesus and the world would
continue after He departed to heaven. The crux of the conflict would
continue to be who Jesus was.
Verse 26 also contains a strong testimony to the deity of the Holy Spirit,
whom Jesus described as proceeding "from the Father" as He had done
(cf. 14:26).888 It refers to all three members of the Trinity, and reveals
something of their functional relationships to one another. "The
beginning" is the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, when the disciples
first accompanied Him.
"The use of the latter preposition (para) in this place seems

therefore to shew [sic] decisively that the reference here is
to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, and not to the
eternal Procession."889
7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

Jesus proceeded to review things that He had just told His disciples, but He now gave
them more information. Particularly the ministry of the Holy Spirit is the subject of this
section of the discourse, though Jesus also clarified other matters about which He had
spoken, namely: the new relations arising from His departure.
887Bock, p. 510.
888See Gerald Bray, "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We
Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.
Jesus' method of teaching in the Upper Room Discourse was not to give a thorough
explanation of one subject, then a thorough explanation of another subject, and so on. It
was rather to introduce several subjects initially, then return to them and give a little more
information, then return again and give even more information. This is, of course,
excellent teaching methodology. This is also the method that John employed in writing
his first epistle.
The reason for this revelation 16:1-4
Jesus introduced this teaching by explaining further why He was telling His disciples
these things.
16:1 The phrase "These things I have spoken to you" (Gr. tauta lelaleka hymin)
brackets this subsection of the discourse and highlights a reason for it (cf.
14:25; 16:25, 33; 17:1). Jesus did not want His disciples to stumble (Gr.
skandalethron, be caught unaware) in their discipleship after His
departure, when the events that followed would take them completely by
surprise (cf. Matt. 5:10-12). Even though they did not understand
everything Jesus told them immediately, they would remember them and
understand them more fully later (cf. 14:20, 25-26).
"The word 'offended' presents the idea of stumbling

because of an obstacle in the path rather than because of an
inner tendency to defection."890
"The greatest danger the disciples will confront from the

opposition of the world is not death but apostasy."891
"Apostasy," from the Greek apostasis, meaning "to stand away from," is a
word that describes people's relationship to Jesus and or His truth. It is a
term that identifies departure from a position formerly held, whether the
person in view is a believer or an unbeliever. It does not necessarily
identify an unbeliever. It is possible for believers to depart from the Savior
and His truth, as well as unbelievers (cf. 15:4, 7; 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3). Jesus
gave this present teaching so His believing disciples would not depart
from Him, and what He had taught them, when persecution assailed them
following His departure from them (cf. Matt. 10:33; Mark 8:38; 2 Tim.
2:12; Rev. 3:8).
16:2 Jesus announced that these disciples would experience excommunication

from their Jewish synagogues (cf. 9:22, 34; Acts 18). The first strong
opposition that the early Christians faced would come from the Jews,
because most of them were themselves Jews (Acts 2:11, 14, 22).
"No man could hate like a religious Jew of the apostolic

age: he was renowned for his diabolic capacity of hating.
Even a Roman historian, Tacitus, commemorates the
'hostile odium' of the Jewish race against all mankind
. . ."892
Unfortunately, Christians have persecuted the Jews too. Jesus also hinted
that some of them would die as martyrs (cf. Acts 7:59; 9:1-4; 12:2).
Church history indicates that all the Eleven were martyred, though there is
some division of opinion about the death of John. Worse yet, those who
would kill the disciples would not do so, believing themselves to be
criminals, or that they were culpable for taking their lives, but thinking
that they were glorifying God by doing so (cf. 12:10; Acts 9:1-2; 22:5, 19;
26:9-11).
"The world that is most opposed to Christ, Antichrist itself,

is to be found not in heathendom, but in Christendom; not
among the irreligious and the skeptical, but among those
who account themselves the peculiar people of God."893
Jesus credited the Jews with good motives, even though their actions were
wrong (cf. Rom. 10:2). However, opposition that arises from religious
conviction is often the most severe and brutal type. Ironically, the Jews
were opposing God by persecuting Jesus' disciples, rather than serving
Him (cf. Saul of Tarsus, Acts 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11).
16:3 The opponents of the disciples would do these things because they had not
come to know ("not known") the Father or the Son. Theirs would be a sin
of culpable ignorance.
16:4 "Their hour" (NASB) refers to the time when the disciples' persecutors
would control their fate. Ironically their hour would appear to be the time
of their greatest victory, but really it would be the time of their greatest
defeat. Conversely Jesus' "hour," His passion, would appear to be the time
of His greatest defeat, but really it would be the time of His greatest
victory.
The memory that Jesus had forewarned His disciples would enable them
to realize that things were not out of control when they seemed to be. This
remembrance would actually strengthen their faith in Jesus, rather than
weakening it.
Jesus had not revealed the extent of the opposition His disciples would face, earlier,
because He was "with them," and because He was the focus of unbelieving hostility.
892A. B. Bruce, p. 429.

893Ibid.
However, now that He was preparing to depart from them, they needed to be aware of
what lay ahead for them.
The ministry of the coming Spirit 16:5-15

16:5 Jesus again pointed out that the revelation of His departure had made the
disciples sad rather than happy. They now had little interest in "where" He
was going. What concerned them was the sorrow that His departure
produced for them. Peter and Thomas had previously asked Jesus where
He was going (13:36; 14:5), but Jesus evidently had not regarded those
questions as expressing genuine interest in Himself but themselves. He
apparently regarded them as superficial protests against His departure.894
16:6-7 The disciples were full of grief (Gr. lype, cf. vv. 20, 21, 22) because they
did not realize how good it would be for them when the Holy Spirit
("Helper") came to indwell them. Really it was to the disciples'
"advantage" (Gr. sympherei) that Jesus should leave them. Consequently
Jesus proceeded to give them more information about what the Spirit's
coming would mean for them. Some of the benefits of the New Covenant
that Jesus ratified by His death, into which all believers entered at
Pentecost, required the indwelling presence of God's Spirit (Jer. 31:33-34).
Some Christians wish that they could have lived during Jesus' earthly
ministry, and accompanied Him around Palestine hearing His teachings
firsthand, and beholding His miracles with their own eyes. This would
have been a treat, but Jesus here clearly affirmed that believers would be
better off after the Spirit's coming than they were before.
"It is important to note that the Spirit comes to the church

and not to the world. This means that He works in and
through the church. The Holy Spirit does not minister in a
vacuum. Just as the Son of God had to have a body in order
to do His work on earth, so the Spirit of God needs a body
to accomplish His ministries; and that body is the
church. . . . The Spirit does not 'float' in some ghostly way
up and down the rows of a church building, seeking to win
the lost. The Holy Spirit works through the people in whom
He lives."895
16:8 The Spirit's coming would result in heightened conviction among

unbelievers concerning "sin," "righteousness," and "judgment."896 Note the
tenses implied in these nouns: past sin, present righteousness, and future
894C.H. Dodd, pp. 411-13, n. 1; Beasley-Murray, p. 279.

895Wiersbe, 1:362.
896See Chafer, 3:210-24: "The Convicting Work of the Spirit"; and John Aloisi, "The Paraclete's Ministry
of Conviction: Another Look at John 16:8-11," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47:1 (March
2004):55-69.
judgment. Before Pentecost, that conviction had come mainly from the
Old Testament, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples' personal
influences.
What did Jesus mean when He said the Spirit would "convict" (Gr.
elenxei) the world? This Greek verb occurs 18 times in the New Testament
(Matt. 18:15; Luke 3:19; John 3:20; 8:46; 16:8; 1 Cor. 14:24; Eph. 5:11,
13; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15; Heb. 12:5; James 2:9;
Jude 15, 22; Rev. 3:19). In each case, it involves showing someone his or
her sin with a view to securing repentance.897
"In John 16:8 the Holy Spirit is involved in pointing out sin
in order to bring about repentance. The legal idea suggested
by some seems to have been derived from the use of the
term in extrabiblical literature, whereas the biblical writers
used elenxo primarily to describe correction, not
prosecution or conviction."898
Wherever the Greek preposition peri ("concerning" or "in regard to")

occurs after elenxei ("convict"), as here, some evil or source of evil
follows (cf. 8:46; Luke 3:19; Jude 15). The Spirit would not just accuse
people of "sin," but would bring an inescapable sense of guilt before God
upon them (cf. 2 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 51:4).899 This sense of guilt is an
indispensable prerequisite for salvation.
The title paraclete (i.e., one called alongside to help, cf. 15:26) is an
appropriate one for the Spirit. He acts as a prosecuting attorney, by
pointing to the guilt of those whom Jesus accused with His teaching.
Earlier Jesus had spoken of the Paraclete as the defender of believing
disciples (14:16-18), but now the Eleven learned that He is also the
prosecutor of unbelieving sinners. Believers are witnesses, the Holy Spirit
is the prosecuting attorney, and the lost are guilty sinners.
16:9 There is some question about the correct interpretation of "because" or "in
regard to" (Gr. hoti) in these verses. Was Jesus identifying the cause for
the conviction in each case, as "because" suggests (e.g., NASB 1972 ed.,
NKJV), or was He identifying the specific subject of conviction, as "in
regard to" suggests (e.g., NIV) or "concerning" (NASB 1995 ed.)?
Normally hoti introduces a causal clause, and that is evidently what Jesus
897Cf. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "elenchos," by F. Bchsel, 2(1964):473-74.
898Robert A. Pyne, "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June
1993):208. For the legal idea, see Paul Enns, "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's
Instruction" (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), pp. 296-97; or Rudolph Bultmann,
The Gospel of John: A Commentary, pp. 564-65.
899Tenney, "John," p. 157. Cf. Donald A. Carson, "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11," Journal
of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.
intended here. However, He could have meant both things. This may be
another instance of double meaning, which is quite common in this
Gospel.
Failure to believe on Jesus after He had come is the great damning sin
(3:18, 36). If people believed Jesus, they would believe what He said
about their guilt, and they would turn to Him in repentance. In spite of
their unbelief, the Spirit graciously convicts unbelievers of their
sinfulnessso that they will believe on Jesus. He may convict them of the
individual sins they have committed, but a person can clean up his life and
still go to hell. It is the sin of unbelief in Jesus Christ that condemns
people.
"The man today, whoever he is, if he is rejecting Jesus

Christ, is, in the sight of God, the greatest sinner."900
"A court can convict a man of murder, but only the Spirit
can convict him of unbelief."901
16:10 The Spirit would also convict the world of "righteousness." Normally
"righteousness" (Gr. dikaiosyne, which occurs only here in John's Gospel)
refers to truly righteous conduct and standing before God. The world does
not have that. It also can refer to the righteousness that people profess to
have, which is far inferior to the righteousness that they need for
acceptance with God (Matt. 5:20; Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6-9; Titus 3:5). This
self-righteousness, which Isaiah compared to a filthy menstrual cloth (Isa.
64:6), is apparently the negative side of what Jesus had in mind. The Spirit
would convict the world of the inadequacy of its false "righteousness," and
move the unsaved to seek the true righteousness that only Jesus Christ
provides.
The Spirit would convict the world of its lack of righteousness because
Jesus was going "to the Father"through crucifixion and deathwith the
result that His disciples would "see Him no longer." Jesus had convicted
those He contacted of their inadequate righteousness during His earthly
ministry, but that source of conviction was about to depart. The Spirit
would continue this ministry.
Jesus' reference to the disciples' future inability to see Him (His absence)
implies the need for them to become the instruments through whom the
Spirit would exercise this ministry. Furthermore, Jesus' ascension would
testify that His righteousness is the standard for divine acceptance (cf.
Acts 3:14-15; 1 John 3:5).
900McGee, 4:473.
16:11 Third, the Spirit would convict the world of "judgment" coming on it for
its sins, which culminated in the rejection of Jesus. The Jews of Jesus' day
generally judged Him to be a false pretender to Messiah's throne. That
"judgment" was wrong, and the Spirit would convict many of them of the
error of their judgment (cf. Acts 2:36-37). The Cross and the Resurrection
would be compelling proofs that would change the minds of many.
The Spirit would do this because God had already judged Satan (by divine
decree in heaven), and would soon judge him in "real time" on earth at the
Cross (cf. 12:31). The resurrection of Jesus constituted a condemnation of
the devil (cf. Col. 2:15). Since the ruler of the world stands condemned,
his children can expect the same treatment unless they believe in Jesus (cf.
14:30).
"When a lost sinner is truly under conviction, he will see

the folly and evil of unbelief; he will confess that he does
not measure up to the righteousness of Christ; and he will
realize that he is under condemnation because he belongs to
the world and the devil (Eph. 2:1-3). . . . There can be no
conversion without conviction, and there can be no
conviction apart from the Spirit of God using the Word of
God and the witness of the child of God."902
The explanation of verses 8 through 11 above is based on the belief that

Jesus meant that the Spirit would do a subjective work of convicting the
hearts of unbelievers. However, some interpreters have concluded that
Jesus was referring to the objective conviction that the Spirit's presence
after Pentecost would produce.903 They believe that these verses do not
describe what the Spirit does, but the consequences of His being here. If
the world had not sinned by rejecting Jesus, the Spirit would not have
come.
It is the Spirit's presence on the earth that establishes Christ's

righteousness, the evidence of which is that Christ has gone to the Father.
And the Spirit's presence testifies to the judgment of the "ruler of this
world," since the Spirit would not be here if Christ had not judged Satan
and the world on the Cross and then ascended to heaven. I do not prefer
this explanation. Verses 8 through 11 seem to describe the Spirit's
subjective ministry to unbelievers, and verse 13 describes His subjective
ministry to believers.
16:12-13 These verses begin the fifth and final paraclete passage in the Upper
Room Discourse (14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15). The passage
focuses on the completion of the revelation that Jesus brought from the
902Wiersbe, 1:362.
903E.g., Pink, 3:50-54.
Father (cf. 1:1, 14; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1-4). The New Testament
consistently views the revelation, that Jesus gave the apostles through the
Spirit following His ascension, as a continuation of Jesus' revelation.
Jesus never acted on His "own initiative," but only in obedience to the
Father. "The Spirit," who would reveal "the truth," would do the same.
This description implies the Spirit's complete equality with Jesus in the
Godhead. The Spirit would not give revelation that conflicted with what
Jesus had taught. The source of both the Son's and the Spirit's teaching
was the Father.
Specifically, the Spirit would reveal things still future ("what is to come").
While this revelation would include yet unknown facts about the future
(i.e., eschatology), the expression covers all that would be ahead for the
disciples following Jesus' separation from them. This would include the
full significance of Jesus' passion (cf. 14:26) as well as all the revelation
now contained in the New Testament.904
16:14-15 The Spirit would "glorify" the Son by expounding Him, as the Son had
glorified the Father by expounding Him. The Spirit would actually be
taking what the Father had given the Son to teach and do, and explain its
significance to the disciples, unpacking it. The Eleven are particularly in
view. They were the individuals who were presently unable to understand
further revelations, and they had been with Jesus since the beginning of
His ministry (v. 12; cf. 14:26; 15:27).
"The Spirit worked in the apostles' minds so that they could

perceive, understand, and teach about the Savior."905
Many of the later New Testament writings, written by some of these same
apostles plus Paul, expounded on the teachings of Jesus (e.g., Romans,
Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation; et al.).
Notice that it is not the Spirit's function to attract attention to Himself or to

promote Himself. As with John the Baptist, His purpose is to make Jesus
increase in prominence. This fact should make suspect any human attempt
to glorify the Spirit above the Son. Such an emphasis is not in harmony
with the Spirit's purpose.
"I listened to a man on a radio program saying, 'We are

having a Holy Ghost revival; the Holy Ghost is working;
the Holy Ghost is doing this and that.' The minute he said
all those things, I knew the Holy Ghost was not working.
Why? Because the Lord Jesus made it very clear that the
904See Harrison, p. 1110.

905Blum, p. 328.
Holy Ghost will not speak of Himself. Then how can you
tell when the Holy Spirit is working? He will glorify Christ.
My friend, when in a meeting or a Bible study you
suddenly get a glimpse of the Lord Jesus and He becomes
wonderful, very real, and meaningful to you, that is the
working of the Holy Spirit."906
Jesus revealed that the Spirit would have a threefold ministry when He came: He would
convict the world (vv. 8-11), enlighten the disciples (vv. 12-13), and glorify Jesus (vv.
14-15).
The reappearance of Jesus 16:16-24
Jesus next turned the disciples' attention from the Spirit's future ministries to His own
reappearance.
16:16 As the following verses show, Jesus was referring here, first to His
imminent departure in death, and secondly to His return to the disciples
shortly after His resurrection. The first "little while" was only a few hours
in duration, and the second "little while" was only a few days. Other
"returns" that Jesus had mentioned in this discourse included His return in
the person of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and His bodily return at the
Rapture.
Another view is that Jesus was using "see" in two different ways in this
verse. In the first case, He meant "see" in the physical sense, and in the
second, He meant "see" in the spiritual sense.907
16:17-19 This announcement prompted the disciples to voice their confusion again
(cf. 13:36; 14:5, 8, 22), though this time they kept quizzing (Gr. imperfect
tense) "one another" rather than Jesus. They still did not understand what
He meant by saying He was leaving (cf. v. 12). Evidently they did grasp
that Jesus had been talking about returning to His Father (14:28), but how
could He do that and then reappear "in a little while"?
Jesus' references to "a little while" especially perplexed them (v. 18). The
fact that John recorded the repetition of "a little while" five times in these
three verses shows that he regarded it as very significant.
16:20 Again Jesus did not answer the disciples' question directly, because they
would not have been able to understand Him if He had (v. 12). What He
did say was very important, however, as His introductory asseveration
indicated.
906McGee, 4:474.
907A. B. Bruce, p. 437.
Jesus' departure would mean great sorrow for His disciples, but great joy
for the world. This was the situation when Jesus died on the cross. Later
the disciples' sorrow ("grief") would turn "to (into) joy." This was the
result of Jesus' resurrection (20:20). Some commentators viewed the
second part of this verse as referring to the Lord's return at the end of the
age. However, what Jesus said about the disciples being essentially joyful
during the inter-advent period argues against this view (15:11).
16:21 Jesus compared how the disciples would feel, to the feelings ("labor"
pains, "anguish") of a pregnant woman at her delivery. This was an Old
Testament illustration of how God's people would feel when Messiah
appeared (cf. Isa. 21:3-5; 26:16-21; 66:7-14; Jer. 13:21; Mic. 4:9-10).
Jesus again used the word "hour" (Gr. hora, 2:4; et al.) to focus the critical
time of both painful experiences: His death and the woman's delivery.
What issues from the painful experience is so wonderful, in both cases,
that the resulting "joy" replaces the former sorrow ("grief").
16:22 Jesus applied the illustration to His disciples. Their sorrow ("grief") had
already begun with the news of His departure. Yet He would return to
them. Jesus again stressed that the initiative rested with Him. The joy that
that reunion would kindle within them would remain in them, in spite of
the persecution that Jesus had predicted they would encounter (cf. Isa.
66:14).
16:23 The context indicates that the day in view ("that day") is the time when the
disciples' joy had become "full" (v. 24). That would be after Jesus'
resurrection and ascension (cf. Luke 24:50-53). The disciples would ask
Him no questions ("not question" Him "about anything") then, because He
would be bodily absent from them. They would have to request answers to
their questions from the Father in prayer (cf. Acts 1:14).
Jesus encouraged the disciples to "ask the Father" for whatever they
needed, however. He did this by repeating His promise that the Father
would grant petitions that they would offer "in Jesus' name" (cf. 14:13-14;
15:16).
Some commentators made much of the two different Greek words for
asking in this verse. The first one that occurs, erotao, usually means to ask
a question, whereas the second one, aiteo, means to ask for something.
However, John often used erotao to describe asking for something (4:31,
40, 47; 14:16; 16:26; 17:9). Consequently we should probably not make
too much of this difference. John frequently used synonyms with no great
distinction in mind.
16:24 The disciples had not appealed to the Father in Jesus' name before now.
As Old Testament believers, they had undoubtedly grounded their
petitions on God's promises in the Old Testament. However, the access
that Jesus now provided them to the Father would assure an even warmer
response to their prayers than Old Testament saints received.
Jesus urged His disciples a second time to "ask" the Father. The verb in
the Greek text is a present imperative (aiteite, from aiteo). He also gave
them assurance that they would "receive" what they requested "in His
name" (cf. 1 John 5:14-15). The consequence of answered prayer would
be fullness of "joy" for them (cf. 15:11; 16:22).
"The joy the world gives is at the mercy of the world. The
joy which Christ gives is independent of anything the world
can do."908
Jesus brought many of the themes of chapter 15 together in this

concluding promise: loving obedience, asking, receiving, joy, and fruit-
bearing.
8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33
16:25 "These things I have spoken unto you" (NASB 1973 ed.) indicates another
transition in the discourse (cf. 14:25; 16:1, 4, 33; 17:1). Jesus
acknowledged that He had not been giving direct answers to His disciples'
questions. He had been speaking enigmatically or cryptically. The Greek
phrase en paroimias has this meaning elsewhere (cf. 10:6). Jesus was
referring to His entire discourse, not just His illustration about the woman
(v. 21). He evidently did this to avoid presenting what lay ahead in such
stark reality that the disciples could not accept it (v. 12).
The "coming hour," when Jesus would no longer speak figuratively to

them but clearly (Gr. parresia, cf. 10:24; 11:14), probably refers to the
time following His resurrection and ascension. Then He and the Spirit
would help the disciples understand the meaning of what He had said
earlier (cf. Acts 1:3).
Jesus used parables to teach the multitudes because they were not ready to
receive clear teaching (Mark 4:33-34). He interpreted some of His
parables for the disciples, because they could receive some clear teaching.
However, He also used enigmatic language with the disciples, because
even they were not yet ready to understand some things.
16:26-27 After Jesus' ascension, the disciples would pray ("ask") in Jesus' name to
the Father (cf. 14:13-14, 26; 16:23-24). The Father would grant their
requestin the context that this was a request for understanding of Jesus'
former teachingsbecause the Father loved them in a special sense. They
had "loved" His Son and had "believed" on Jesus. This was a second
908Barclay, 2:232.
reason the disciples could take comfort in Jesus' promise that they would
understand better in the future. The first reason was that the Father would
grant them answers to their prayers because they prayed in Jesus' name.
Jesus was not denying that He would intercede for His disciples with the
Father (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; cf. 1 John 2:1). His point was that the
Father's love for them would move Him to grant their petitions, in addition
to Jesus' intercession and sponsorship (cf. 15:9-16). Believers have a
direct relationship with the Father, as well as with the Son and the Spirit
(cf. Rom. 5:2).
16:28 "The promise of plain speech is now adumbrated in a terse

utterance which is at once a summary of Johannine
Christology and the heart of this Gospel."909
This was Jesus' clearest statement yet about where He was going. What
Jesus explained here should by now have become clear to the reader of
this Gospel (cf. 1:10-11, 14; 3:16-17; 14:19). However, to the disciples
who first heard these words, they were fresh, clear revelation. This
statement really summarized Jesus' entire mission, from the Incarnation to
the Ascension.
"No phrase could express more completely unity of essence

than the true original of these words (exelthon ek ["I came
forth from"])."910
16:29-30 The disciples now felt that Jesus had "plainly" answered their questions
about where He was going. This revelation helped them to believe
("know") that Jesus knew what He was talking about ("You know all
things") when He taught them about God and His ways. It also helped
them to "believe" that Jesus had indeed come "from God." However, they
did not yet understand the full meaning and significance of what Jesus had
said, though they may have thought they did. Jesus had just told them they
would not fully understand His meaning until a future time (vv. 25-26).
"Had the disciples really possessed the understanding they

claim, they would have reacted very differently when the
crisis came."911
16:31-32 Jesus questioned the assertion that the disciples now fully believed
because of what He had just explained: "Do you now believe?" The NIV
translation"You believe at last!"is an interpretation that the reader
should understand as ironical. The events surrounding Jesus' arrest and
911Morris, p. 631.
crucifixion would show that their faith was still weak. They would desert
Him ("be scattered") in His "hour" of testing.
That hour was "coming" very soon, but Jesus could speak of it as already
present ("now here"), because Judas was even then planning with the
religious leaders for His arrest. Jesus' confidence in His Father comes
through, in that He found consolation in the strong hope that the Father
would not desert Himeven though the disciples would. Jesus gave this
gentle rebuke because the disciples again overestimated themselves (cf.
13:38).
It is true that Peter (and probably John) followed Jesus into the courtyard
of the high priest. It is also true that John stood near Jesus' cross during
His crucifixion (18:15; 19:26-27). Nevertheless all the disciples
abandoned Jesus at His arrest (left Him "alone"), and returned to their
"own" things ("each to his own") temporarily (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50;
John 18:17, 25-26; 21:3). It is also true that the Father abandoned Jesus on
the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). However, that too was only
temporary. The Father remained with Jesus throughout all His trials, and
only departed from Him when He judged sin, which Jesus took on Himself
as our Substitute (2 Cor. 5:21) while on the cross.
16:33 The structural marker "these things I have spoken to you" (cf. 14:25; 16:1,
4, 25; 17:1) identifies the conclusion of this section of the discourse. The
ultimate reason for Jesus' revelations about His departure, as far as His
immediate disciples were concerned, was that they might experience
"peace" in their relationship with Him (cf. 14:27). "In Me" probably
alludes back to the vine-and-branches intimacy that Jesus revealed in
chapter 15.
The disciples' relationship with "the world" would result in turmoil

("tribulation") because of the opposition that would come against them
from unbelievers. However, the proof that the "peace" that Jesus would
give them would "overcome" the turmoil that the world would create, was
Jesus' victory over ("I have overcome") "the world" on the cross, i.e.,
through His death (12:31; 1 Cor. 15:57; 1 John 2:13-14; 4:4; 5:4-5). This
was probably another statement that the disciples did not understand
immediately.
Jesus closed this discourse with a word of encouragement. The Greek

word thareso, translated "take courage" or "take heart," is one that only
Jesus used in the New Testament (cf. Matt. 9:2, 22; 14:27; Mark 6:50;
10:49; John 16:33; Acts 23:11). Jesus was the great encourager. The Holy
Spirit continues His ministry in (and to and through) us today.
The tension that the victory of Christ and the opposition of the world pose
for the Christian is not one that we can escape in this life. Despite this, it is
still possible for us to be more peaceful than distressed, as we appropriate

and believe the promise that Jesus has already won the victory (v. 11; cf.
Rom. 8:37).
". . . if Jesus had not foretold the weakness of the disciples,

when they realized afterwards how they had failed Him and
forsaken Him and abandoned Him, it might well have
driven them to utter and absolute despair. But He warned
them before it happened."912
The Upper Room Discourse ends here (13:3116:33). The rest of Jesus' private ministry
(chs. 1317) consisted of prayer.
C. JESUS' HIGH PRIESTLY PRAYER CH. 17
This part of Jesus' private ministry has many connections with the preceding Upper
Room Discourse. In the Old Testament, prayers often accompanied important farewell
discourses (cf. Gen. 49; Deut. 3233). The main theme is Jesus' desire for the Father's
glory and the disciples' welfare. However, many of the other themes that have run though
this Gospel reach a new climax here, too. These themes include: Jesus' obedience to the
Father, the revelation of God through the Son, the calling of the disciples out of the
world, their mission, their unity, and their destiny.913
The similarities between the content of this prayer and the Upper Room Discourse, plus
John's notation at its end (18:1), seem to indicate that Jesus prayed it before He entered
Gethsemane. He probably prayed it in the upper room,914 though He may have done so
somewhere else in Jerusalem. Westcott believed that He prayed it in the temple court.915
"Whether He prayed it in the Upper Room or en route to the Garden, this

much is sure: it is the greatest prayer ever prayed on earth and the greatest
prayer recorded anywhere in Scripture. John 17 is certainly the 'holy of
holies' of the Gospel record, and we must approach this chapter in a spirit
of humility and worship."916
Though labeling this prayer "Jesus' high priestly prayer" is a bit misleading, I know of no
better way to describe it. Obviously Jesus had not yet entered into His high priestly
ministrywhich He began when He ascended into heavenwhen He prayed this prayer
(cf. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1). This prayer, nevertheless, represents a foretaste of
that intercessory ministry.
912Barclay,2:237-38.
916Wiersbe, 1:367.
"We so often understand this prayer as though it were rather gloomy. It is

not. It is uttered by One who has just affirmed that he has overcome the
world (16:33), and it starts from this conviction. Jesus is looking forward
to the cross, but in a mood of hope and joy, not one of despondency."917
1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5
17:1 "These things Jesus spoke" (NASB, Gr. tauta elalesen Iesous) clearly
connects what follows with what Jesus had just been saying (cf. 14:25;
16:1, 4, 25, 33). "Lifting up the (His) eyes to heaven" indicated prayer, as
did Jesus' words (cf. Ps. 121:1; 123:1; Ezek. 33:25; Dan. 4:34; John
11:41). This posture symbolized Jesus' elevation of His heart to God, His
reverence for God, and His confidence in God.918 Perhaps John also
included the detail of Jesus lifting His eyes toward heaven to help the
reader visualize His continuing submission to His Father.
The title "Father" was, of course, Jesus' common way of referring to God's
relationship to Himself and His affection for God (11:41; 12:27; cf. vv. 5,
11, 21, 24, 25). "The hour" in view was the hour (the time for) the Son's
glorification through death, resurrection, and ascension (cf. 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30;
8:20; 12:23, 27-28, 31-32; 13:1, 31). The inevitability of an impending
event did not lead Jesus simply to accept it fatalistically. This is how some
believers respond in similar situations. Instead it moved Him to petition
the Father that what was coming would result in God's glory.
"As so often in Scripture, emphasis on God's sovereignty

functions as an incentive to prayer, not a disincentive."919
Jesus asked His Father to "glorify" Him so that He could "glorify" the
Father. To "glorify" in this context means to clothe in splendor (cf. v. 5).
The only way this could happen was for Jesus to endure the Cross. Thus
this petitionthe only personal petition in this prayeris a testimony to
Jesus' commitment to do the Father's will, even to the point of dying on
the cross. His request for glory, therefore, was unselfish. It amounted to a
request for the reversal of the conditions (of lost and fallen humanity) that
resulted in the Incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:6-11). Jesus requested God's help
(i.e., grace) in His sufferings, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, and
His ascension. All of this was ultimately for the glory of the Father. It
would magnify His wisdom, power, and love.
More immediately, the Father glorified the Son by sending an angel to

strengthen Him in Gethsemane, through Pilate's testimony as to Jesus'
innocence, the salvation of the thief on the cross, the tearing of the temple
917Morris, p. 634.
918Pink,3:93-94.
veil, and the confession of the centurion that Jesus was the "Son of
God."920
17:2 The Father had glorified the Son by giving Him the "authority" to "give
eternal life" to "all" individuals whom the Father had "given" to the Son
(cf. Matt. 28:18). The Father had given Him this authority before Creation
(cf. Ps. 2). It was the basis for Jesus' request in verse 1. Both verses 2 and
3 are explanatory, and consequently somewhat parenthetical. Jesus
referred to believers five times in this prayer as "those whom the Father
had given Him" (vv. 2, 6 [twice], 9, 24).
17:3 Jesus proceeded to define the essence of "eternal life." Eternal life is
essentially to "know" (Gr. ginoskosin, cf. Gen. 4:1 LXX; Matt. 1:25)
"God" experientially through faith in "Jesus Christ" His Son (cf. 3:5; Jer.
31:34; Hab. 2:14; Heb. 8:11). This is "the great New Testament definition
of eternal life."921 Jesus described eternal life in terms of relationship
rather than duration. Everyone will live forever somewhere. However, the
term "eternal life" as Jesus used it means much more than long life.
"Life is active involvement with environment; death is the

cessation of involvement with the environment, whether it
be physical or personal. The highest kind of life is
involvement with the highest kind of environment. A worm
is content to live in soil; we need not only the wider
environment of earth, sea, and sky but also contact with
other human beings. For the complete fulfillment of our
being, we must know God. This, said Jesus, constitutes
eternal life. Not only is it endless, since the knowledge of
God would require an eternity to develop fully, but
qualitatively it must exist in an eternal dimension."922
Jesus described the Father here as "the only true God." This does not mean
that Jesus was acknowledging that the Father was God and that He (Jesus)
was not God, as Unitarians believe. Rather it means that Jesus was
acknowledging that there is only one true God, in contrast to the many
idols and so-called "gods." Jesus had claimed equality with the Father
many times earlier in his earthly ministry (e.g., 10:30, 38; et al.).
God is knowable only through "Jesus Christ" whom He "sent" (cf. 1:18;
Matt. 11:27). We sometimes say that it is a blessing and an inspiration to
know certain people. This is all the more true when we know God.
Knowing Him changes us, and introduces us into a different quality of
living.923
920Pink,3:97.
921Barclay, 2:243.
923Morris, p. 637.
"It is worthy of note that this is the only place in the New
Testament where our Lord called Himself 'Jesus Christ.' In
so doing He affirmed that He, Jesus the Son of man, and
Son of God was the only true Christ (Messiah): thereby He
repudiated every false notion of the Messiah, as in the
previous clause He had excluded every false god [cf.
1 John 5:1]."924
17:4-5 Jesus had "glorified" the Father by all that He had done in His incarnation.
He had "accomplished the work which [the Father]" had given Him to do
(cf. Luke 2:49; Heb. 10:7; John 19:30). Jesus probably was including His
death, resurrection, and ascension, to which He referred proleptically (in
advance) here (cf. 19:30). Jesus' crucifixion was a foregone certainty
because of His commitment to do the Father's will (Phil. 2:8).
"There is only one way to glorify God, and that is to obey

God."925
Now Jesus asked the Father to "glorify" the Son by all that the Father
would do in exalting the Son. Thus Jesus essentially restated the request of
verse 1. He wanted to return to the condition (of heavenly glory) in which
He existed "with" His Father "before" His incarnation (and "before the
world was").
This request presupposes Jesus' preexistence with the Father and His
equality with the Father (10:30). Really Jesus requested His own re-
glorification, to His original status: with all the authority, powers,
splendor, and privileges of deity. But more may be involved in this
glorification:
"The glory of Christ, and of the Father in Christ, was to be

realized by the continuance and completion of that which
He had begun in men."926
2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

Jesus' glorification depended on the well-being of those whom the Father had given to
Him (v. 2). Consequently Jesus prayed for them too. He made several requests for them,
but first expressed the reasons He was praying for them, and why He wanted the Father
to grant His requests.
The length of this section of the prayer suggests that Jesus had greater concern for His
disciples' welfare than for His own.
924Pink,3:103.
925Barclay,2:241.
"Jesus prayed for His disciples before He chose them (Luke 6:12), during
His ministry (John 6:15), at the end of His ministry (Luke 22:32), here
(John 17:6-19), and later in heaven (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25)."927
Most of all, in view of their weaknesses, they were in great need of God's grace to sustain
them in the future. It was God's keeping power, rather than their strength, that made Jesus
confident as He prayed for them.
The bases for these requests 17:6-11a

17:6 Jesus viewed these disciples as those ("the men") whom God had given to
Him "out of the world" (cf. 6:37; 15:19; Ps. 22:22), not as those who had
chosen to follow Him. This viewpoint accounts for Jesus' confidence as
He anticipated their future. "They" had belonged to God ("were Yours"),
and God would therefore protect them. Jesus had revealed God
("manifested Your name") to them. The "name" of God summarizes
everything about Him (cf. Exod. 3:13-15; Isa. 52:6). Manifesting the name
of God to people means revealing His essential nature to them. The Eleven
had "kept" God's "word" by believing on and following Jesus, even though
they were not consistently obedient.
17:7-8 There was much that the Eleven did not yet understand, but they did
believe that Jesus had come from God, and that Jesus' utterances (Gr.
rhemata) were God's "words." Commendably, they accepted ("received")
Jesus' teachings even though they did not understand them fully, and what
they understood they "believed." Jesus' unusual phrasing stresses His unity
with the Father.
"As long as we stay with the figure of the Galilean Jesus

(perhaps romanticizing over the beauty of his holiness and
lowliness) so long we miss what really matters. What is
central is that all that we see in him is of God. It is not so
much the Man of Galilee as the eternal God on whom our
attention should rest."928
"It is one of the most uplifting things in the world to think

that Jesus put His trust and confidence in men like
ourselves. We too must never be daunted by human
weakness or by the small beginning. We too must go
forward with Jesus' confident belief in God and in men. If
we believe in God and in men we will never be pessimists,
because with these two beliefs the possibilities of life are
infinite."929
927Blum, p. 331.
928Morris,p. 641.
929Barclay, 2:249.
17:9-10 Because the Eleven had believed on Him, Jesus made His request for
them, "not" for "the world," at this point. Jesus did not pray for the world,
because the world has set itself outside the purposes of God.930 Elsewhere
Jesus did pray for the world (i.e., unbelievers; Luke 23:34), but in this
instance Jesus prayed specifically for his believing disciples. The basis for
Jesus' request was that these disciples belonged to God, so their welfare
was His special interest. Those who belong to the Father belong equally to
the Son. Thus Jesus claimed equal concern for the Eleven to the Father's
concern. This is another claim of equality with the Father. Jesus had "been
glorified" through the faith of the Eleven, but He received no glory from
"the world."
17:11a Jesus also explained that He was praying for these disciples as He was,
because He was about to depart from them ("I am no longer in the
world"), and return to the Father ("I come to You"). They needed the
Father's added grace, because they would no longer have the Son's
encouraging presence with them as they lived in the hostile world.
The request for protection 17:11b-16
17:11b The title "Holy Father" appears only here in the fourth Gospel, and is a
reminder of both aspects of God's nature. It balances ideas of ultimate
purity with intimate paternity, and so prepares them for what lies ahead,
namely: the need for loving sanctification (vv. 17-19). The Father's
holiness serves as a model for the holiness of disciples (cf. Lev. 11:44;
Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:16). The reason Jesus and disciples can be holy is that
the Father is holy.
Jesus asked His Father to "keep" these disciples "in your name" (Gr. en to
onomati sou). The NIV interpreted this phrase to mean "by the power of
your name" (cf. Ps. 20:1; 54:1; Prov. 18:10).931 However, the preposition
en may be locative instead of instrumental in mood. In that case, the idea
would be "keep them in your name," meaning keep them loyal to you.932
Some commentators argued that both ideas were in Jesus' mind.933 The
context favors the second view. Loyalty seems to be the objective of the
keeping, and the dominant idea, not the means to it, namely, not the
Father's power. The "name" that the Father had "given" to the Son
probably refers to the revelation of God's character that Jesus had
manifested (vv. 6-8; cf. 1:18; 14:9).
The ultimate purpose of God in keeping these disciples loyal to the

revelation that Jesus had given them was that they might experience unity.
930Barrett,p. 506.
931F.F. Bruce, p. 332.
932Lindars, p. 524.
933E.g., Brown, 2:759.
They would "be one" with one another, as well as "one" with the Son and
the Father, if they remained loyal to Jesus' revelations. Projecting this idea
further, we can see that the Scriptures are the basis for the unity of
believers with one another and with God.
17:12 Jesus had kept these disciples loyal to God, and had protected ("guarded")
them from external attacks while He was with them. The only exception
was Judas Iscariot, who was the inevitable traitor that the Old Testament
had predicted would betray the Messiah (Ps. 41:9; 69:25; 109:6-8; cf. John
13:18). His defection did not prove Jesus a failure, but rather proved
Scripture trustworthy. Jesus did not include Judas in His requests for the
Eleven.
The term "son of perdition" (Gr. ho huios tes apoleias, NIV "the one
doomed to destruction") could describe Judas' character (cf. Isa. 57:4) or
his destiny (Ps. 35:4-8). He had a damnable character and would end in
perdition, but the second idea seems to be stronger in the context.
"Perdition" in the New Testament usually refers to eschatological
damnation (cf. Matt. 7:13; Acts 8:20; Rom. 9:22; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Tim.
6:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:7; Rev. 17:8, 11).
The only other occurrence of the title "son of perdition" occurs concerning
the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3). This fact has led some interpreters to
conclude that the Antichrist will be the resurrected Judas Iscariot.
However, God will not resurrect unbelievers until the end of the
Millennium (Rev. 20:11-15), but the Antichrist will appear and carry out
his work during the Tribulationwhich will precede the Millennium (cf.
Rev. 13:1-10; 19:19-21).
17:13 Jesus had protected the Eleven while He was with them in the world, but
now He was about to leave them and return to the Father ("now I come to
You"). Therefore He gave these teachings and offered these petitions
("these things I speak in the world")so that they might share the fullness
of His "joy" after He had departed (cf. 15:11; 16:22, 24).
"It is blessed to mark how solicitous the Saviour was over

the happiness of His people. . . . A miserable Christian is
therefore a self-contradiction. A joyless Christian is one
who is out of communion with the Father: other objects
have engaged his heart, and in consequence he walks not in
the light of His countenance. What is the remedy? To
confess our sins to God; to put away everything which
hinders our communion with Him; to make regular use of
the means which He has graciously provided for the
maintenance of our joythe word, prayer, meditation, the
daily occupation of the heart with Christ, dwelling
constantly on the glorious future that awaits us,

proclaiming to others the unsearchable riches of Christ."934
"Now I come to Thee" may mean: "Now I address you in prayer," so

perhaps both thoughts were in Jesus' mind.935
17:14 The revelations and teachings that Jesus had given the Eleven would be
the basis for their remaining loyal, safe, and joyful. Nevertheless "the
world would hate ("has hated") them" because they were no longer "of the
world," even as the world hated Jesus because He was "not of the world."
The idea is not so much that the disciples' outlook was different from the
world's, but that their origin and character were different because they had
believed in Jesus.936 Jesus spoke of the Father and the world as opposing
loyalties (cf. 1 John 2:15).
Jesus was apparently saying some of these things in prayer for the
disciples' benefit, as He had earlier prayed with the onlookers at Lazarus'
tomb in mind (cf. 11:42).
17:15-16 Jesus was not asking the Father to remove the Eleven from the hostile
world as He was about to leave it. He was petitioning Him to keep them
loyal to Himself while they continued to live in it. Jesus repeated the
thought of verse 14b, in verse 16, in order to reiterate the disciples'
essential distinction from the world. It was, therefore, protection from "the
evil" (Gr. ek tou ponerou) in the world that they needed. This phrase could
mean "evil," generally, or it could be a reference to "the Evil One": Satan.
Other occurrences of the phrase, elsewhere, encourage us to interpret it as
referring to "the devil" here (cf. Matt. 6:13; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-
19). However, both ideas may have been in Jesus' mind.937 Even though
Satan now stands condemned, he still rules the world by influence and
deception (1 John 5:19).
Throughout church history, Christians have sought relief from the world's
hatred by withdrawing from it socially, and in other ways, or by
compromising with it. Some individuals tend to withdraw from a
disagreeable and dangerous environment, while others prefer to blend into
it. Jesus' will, however, was that His disciples should do neither of these
things. He wanted them to remain loyal to God, while actively serving as
His ambassadors to the unsaved living in a fallen world. Our sense of
mission and our sense of identity should control our desire for comfort.
934Pink, 3:128.
935Ibid.,3:126.
936Morris, p. 646.
937Pink, 3:131.
"It was Jesus' insistence that it was in the hurly-burly and

the rough and tumble of life that a man must live out his
Christianity."938
"Christians must not take themselves out of the world but

remain in meaningful contact with it, trusting in God's
protection while they witness for Jesus."939
"Three of the only prayers not granted to saints, recorded in

Scripture, are the prayers, of Moses, Elijah, Jonah to be
'taken out of the world."940
The request for sanctification 17:17-19

17:17 "To sanctify" (Gr. hagiazo) means to set apart for God's service (cf. Exod.
28:41; Jer. 1:5). Jesus is the perfect example of a sanctified person. He
devoted Himself completely and consistently to God's will for Him.
Sanctification in John's Gospel is always for a mission.941 The means of
the disciples' sanctification was "the truth," which Jesus explained was
God's Word. Jesus came to reveal God's "word" to humankind (1:1, 14;
14:6), and the Spirit would help His disciples understand it (15:13). It is
both personal and propositional. It comes to us through the living Word of
God, Jesus Christ, and the written Word of God, Scripture.
"The word of God is not only 'true,' but 'truth,' and has a
transforming virtue."942
The way Jesus asked the Father to "sanctify" the disciples was by using
His "word." This means that it is essential for disciples to know,
understand, believe, and obey the revelation that God has given us. The
words of God that Jesus revealed, and that stand recorded in the Bible, are
the key to believers' practical sanctification. Practical sanctification
involves separation unto God (dedicated to God's purposes and apart)
from: the world, the Evil One who rules it, and the lies that he propagates
throughout the deceived world.
"With the mind, we learn God's truth through the Word.

With the heart, we love God's truth, His Son [cf. 14:6].
With the will, we yield to the Spirit [of truth, cf. 14:17;
16:13] and live God's truth day by day. It takes all three for
a balanced experience of sanctification."943
938Barclay,2:252.
939Blum, pp. 332-3.
940Bishop Ryle, quoted by Pink, 3:130-31.
943Wiersbe, 1:370.
17:18 Jesus next explained the purpose of the sanctification that He requested for
His disciples. He had "sent them into the world" with a mission (cf. 13:20;
15:26-27; 20:21). Similarly, the Father had "sent" the Son "into the world"
with a mission (10:36). In both cases, sanctification was essential for the
success of the mission.
"Christianity was never meant to withdraw a man from life;
it was meant to equip him better for life. Christianity does
not offer us release from problems; it offers us a way to
solve our problems. Christianity does not offer us an easy
peace; it offers us a triumphant warfare. Christianity does
not offer us a life in which troubles are escaped and
evaded; it offers us a life in which troubles are faced and
conquered. . . . The Christian must never desire to abandon
the world; he must always desire to win the world."944
Comparison with verse 20 shows that in verses 6-19, Jesus was praying
specifically for the Eleven. However, we should not regard what He
requested for the Eleven as restricted to them exclusively. The change that
takes place in verse 20 is not from one group of believers to another, as
though they were in separate containers. It is rather a broadening of the
field, from the Eleven to those that would follow them. Thus it is
understandable that when Jesus prayed for the Eleven, He would pray for
some things that not only they but their successors would need. Clearly all
subsequent believers would need sanctifying by God's Word so they could
achieve their mission, just as the Eleven did.
17:19 Jesus did not mean that He intended to make Himself more holy than He
already was, since that would have been impossible. He set Himself apart
to do God's will partially for the "sake" of His disciples. He is our example
of perfect sanctification, and His sanctification makes ours possible.
Without the sacrificial death of Jesus there would be no salvation and no
mission for us. There would be no sanctification for us, either. One of the
purposes of Jesus' death was to set believers apart to God, and His
mission, in order for them to function as priests in the world (cf. 1 Pet.
2:9).
3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

As Jesus thought about the disciples that would believe on Him through the witness of
the Eleven, He requested two things for them from His Father: unity and glorification.
The request for unity 17:20-23

17:20 Jesus now identified future believers as the objects of His intercession, as
well as the Eleven. He described them as those "who" would "believe . . .
through" the witness of the Eleven ("their word").
944Barclay, 2:252.
"As parents provide for their children's children yet unborn,

so did the Lord Jesus remember future believers, as well as
those of the first generation."945
All Christians have come to Jesus Christ, either directly or indirectly,

through one or another of the original disciples or apostles. As we have
seen, John had a special interest in stressing the importance and
effectiveness of the witness of believers. This witness is the concrete
expression of the mission to which Jesus had been referring (vv. 18-19).
Even though the Eleven would fail Jesus soon, they would return to follow
Him and would carry on the mission that He gave them.
17:21 Jesus prayed for the unity of "all" believers, as well as for the unity of the
Eleven (v. 11). This unity rests on adherence to God's truth, and it reflects
the unity that exists between the Father and the Son. Furthermore, it is
union with the Father and the Son: "that they also may be in Us" (cf. ch.
15). God answered this prayer initially on the day of Pentecost, when He
united believers with Himself in the body of Christ, the church (cf. 1 Cor.
12:13).
The purpose of this unity is "that the world" might "believe" that the
Father "sent" the Son, namely: that Jesus was God's Son. The display of
mutual love among Jesus' disciples shows that they are His disciples.
Their love for one another shows that they really do follow His teachings
and possess His life. This gives evidence that Jesus really was who He
claimed to be. It vindicates His teaching and so glorifies Him.
"From the beginning of the believer's spiritual life to his

final glorification the fatherhood of God is the basis for the
believer's experience. . . . This relationship of God to men,
perfectly exemplified in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, is
both the highest expression of His consciousness of His
relation to God and the fullest attainment that man can
reach through union with Him."946
This verse is a favorite of promoters of the ecumenical movement.

However, as the content and context of this verse clarify, Jesus was not
speaking about institutional unity but personal unity among genuine
believers (cf. Eph. 2:15). He was praying that "all" true believers would
"be one" in their love for one another, their submission to the authority of
Scripture, and their commitment to their mission. Disunity among
professing Christians has frustrated Jesus' purpose that the world might
believe on Him. Nevertheless, the solution to this problem is not to impose
an artificial institutional unity that ignores the bases of true unityand
945Pink, 3:142.
946Tenney, "Topics from . . .," p. 46.
presents a hypocritical facade of oneness. It is to promote love for one

another among genuine believers.
17:22 Jesus continued to explain the nature of the unity that He requested from
His Father. In what sense do all believers share God's "glory"? Jesus
probably was speaking of His bringing the full knowledge of God to them.
The revelation of God results in glory for God. When believers understand
and believe the revelation of God that Jesus brought, they become
partakers of that "glory." This is something else they share in unity with
one another, that the Father and the Son also share with one another.
Another view is that the glory in view refers to Jesus' work of redemption,
but that subject is not as prominent in the context as the revelation of God.
17:23 This verse advances the thought of verse 21. Jesus wanted the "unity"
among believers to be so great and so clear that "the world" would believe
("know") Jesus' message. The world would also see that God had poured
out His love on believers as well as Jesus. Notice that Jesus implied that
He would indwell believers as the Father indwelt Him ("I in them and You
in Me"). All three members of the Godhead indwell the Christian (14:23;
Rom. 8:9; Col. 1:27). God's indwelling presence unites Christians in the
body of Christ and glorifies God.
The request for glorification 17:24-26

17:24 Here Jesus' request clearly included the Eleven with all the elect. He
wanted them all to "see" or observe (Gr. theorosin) the "glory" that the
Father would restore to the Son following His ascension (v. 5; cf. 1 John
3:2). This appears to be a reference to Jesus' essential preexistent "glory"
("My glory . . . before the foundation of the world"). His humiliation in the
Incarnation was only temporary.
Glorification will begin for Christians initially at death or the Rapture,

whichever comes first (cf. 14:2-3; 2 Cor. 5:6-8). Our glorification includes
being with Jesus forever (cf. Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:17). Since Jesus' "desire"
or will (Gr. thelo) was identical with the Father's will (cf. 4:34; 5:30;
6:38), we can know that the Father will grant this request.
"The ordinary language of prayer breaks down because

Jesus is speaking, as it were, within the Godhead."947
This is one of the clearest passages in the New Testament that sets forth
the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24, 28;
Eph. 3:21; Phil. 2:9-11).948
947Barrett,p. 514.
948See John V. Dahms, "The Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
37:3 (September 1994):351-64.
17:25-26 Jesus concluded His prayer as He began it, by addressing His Father by
name (cf. vv. 1, 11). By calling God His "righteous Father," Jesus was
affirming His belief that God would do what was right in granting the
petitions that He was presenting. This included glorifying the Son, and
bringing His believers safely to heaven where they would behold His
glory.
Jesus' mission had not resulted in the whole world coming to know God
experientially. Nevertheless Jesus Himself knew the Father, and the
Eleven had come to believe that Jesus was the revelation of the Father.
Jesus would continue to reveal the Father, so that the Father's "love"
would remain in them ("may be in them"). It would abide because Jesus
Himself would remain in them ("I in them"). Probably en ("in") here
means both "in" and among.949
". . . in this Prayer the Lord Jesus renders an account of His work to the
Father, and this in seven particulars: First, He had glorified the Father on
earth (17:4). Second, He had finished the work which had been given Him
to do (17:4). Third, He had manifested the Father's name unto His own
(17:6[, 26]). Fourth, He had given them the Father's words (17:8, 14).
Fifth, He had kept them as a shepherd keeps his sheep (17:12). Sixth, He
had sent them forth into the world (17:18). Seventh, He had given them
the glory which the Father had bestowed upon Him (17:22)mark the 'I
have' in each verse [in the AV]."950
"Seven things Christ asked the Father for the whole company of His
redeemed. First, He prayed for their preservation: 'Holy Father, keep
through thine own name those whom thou hast given me' (17:11). Second,
for their jubilation: 'that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves'
(17:13). Third, for their emancipation from evil: 'that thou shouldst keep
them from the evil' (17:15). Fourth for their sanctification: 'sanctify them
by thy truth' (17:17). Fifth, for their unification: 'that they all may be one'
(17:21). Sixth, for their association with Himself: 'that they all, whom
thou hast given me, be with me where I am' (17:24). Seventh, for their
gratification [italics added]: 'that they may behold my glory' (17:24).
"A careful analysis of the Prayer reveals the fact that just as the Lord
urged the one petition which He made for Himself by seven pleas, so He
supported the seven petitions for His people by seven pleas. . . .
"It is also to be observed that in this Prayer believers are contemplated in a

sevenfold relation to the world. . . .
949Barrett, p. 515.
950Pink, 3:125.
"There are seven 'gifts' referred to in this chapter: four of which are
bestowed upon the Mediator, and three upon His people. . . ."951
So concludes Jesus' great intercessory prayer for His believing disciples. This was an
important part of His private ministry of preparing His disciples for what lay ahead of
them. We could summarize its main points as follows: Jesus asked for Himself:
glorification (vv. 1, 5), that the Father might be glorified (v. 1). He asked for the Eleven
(and their successors): faithfulness (v. 11). The results of their faithfulness would be their
unity (v. 11) and their joy (v. 13). The means to their faithfulness would be their
protection (from evil; v. 15) and their sanctification (v. 17). He asked for future believers:
unity (vv. 21, 22, 23) in the present, that the world might believe (vv. 21, 23), and heaven
(v. 24) in the future, that believers might see His glory (v. 24), and fully experience God's
love (v. 26).
McGee summarized what this prayer says about believers and the world: (1) they are
given to Christ out of the world (v. 6), (2) left in the world (v. 11), (3) not of the world
(v. 14), (4) hated by the world (v. 14), (5) kept from the evil one (v. 15), (6) sent into the
world (v. 18), and (7) manifested in unity before the world (v. 23).952
He also summarized Christ's requests for His own: (1) preservation (v. 11), (2) joy
fullness of the Spirit (v. 13), (3) deliverance from evil (v. 15), (4) to be set apart
(sanctified, v. 17), (5) unity (v. 21), (6) fellowship with Christ (v. 24), and (7)
satisfactionbehold His glory (v. 24).953
This section of Jesus' ministry began with a call for present humility (13:1-12), and ended
with an assurance of future glory (17:24-27). In between, Jesus gave revelations of the
importance of love, the ministry of the coming Holy Spirit, the promise of answers to
prayer, and instruction about the importance of abiding in Christ.
IV. JESUS' PASSION MINISTRY CHS. 1820
There are several features that distinguish John's account of Jesus' passion from the ones
in the Synoptic Gospels. First, the Romans feature slightly more prominently in John's
Gospel, but they do not constitute such a large presence that they overpower the other
characters who opposed Jesus. Second, John pictured Jesus as more obviously in control
of His destiny. For example, John did not record Jesus' agony in Gethsemane. This is in
harmony with His emphasis on Jesus as God's divine Son. Third, John included material
that the Synoptics omitted. This, too, reflects emphases that John wanted to make in view
of his purposes for writing. What these emphases were will become clearer as we
consider what he included.
951Ibid., 3:139-41.
952McGee, 4:482.
953Ibid.
John emphasized three things in his account of Jesus' Passion: (1) The voluntariness of
Christ's sufferings (cf. 18:4, 8, 11; 36; 19:28, 30). (2) The fulfillment of a divine plan in
His sufferings (cf. 18:4, 9, 11, 19:11, 24, 28). (3) The majesty that shone through His
sufferings (cf. 18:6, 20-23, 37; 19:11, 26-27, 36-37).954
"Man will do his worst, and God will respond with His very best. 'But
where sin abounded, grace did much more abound' (Rom. 5:20)."955
A. JESUS' PRESENTATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS ENEMIES 18:1-11 (CF. MATT.

26:47-56; MARK 14:43-52; LUKE 22:47-53)
18:1 "These words" evidently refer to all of what Jesus had said in chapters
1317, all of which He may have spoken in the upper room. The Kidron
Valley formed the eastern boundary of Jerusalem. "The Kidron"
("Cedars") was also a wadi, or dry streambed, that contained water only
when it rained hard. The Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane
lay across the Kidron to the east. John simply mentioned Gethsemane as
being the site of Jesus' arrest. He did not record Jesus' praying there (cf.
Matt. 26:30, 36-46; Mark 14:26, 32-42; Luke 22:39-46). The verbs that
John used to describe Jesus entering and leaving Gethsemane suggest that
it may have been a walled garden (cf. v. 13).
"The present Gethsemane is only some seventy steps

square, and though its old gnarled olives cannot be those (if
such there were) of the time of Jesus, since all trees in that
valleythose also which stretched their shadows over
Jesuswere hewn down in the Roman siege, they may
have sprung from the old roots, or from the odd kernels."956
"The traditional site, which may be the true one, dates from
the time of Constantine, when 'the faithful were eager to
offer their prayers there' (Euseb. 'Onom.' s. v.)."957
The parallels between Jesus' experiences and David's, at this point, are
striking. Both men crossed the Kidron, having been rejected by their
nation, and betrayed by someone very close to themand hangings
followed both incidents (cf. 2 Sam. 15; 18:9-17; Matt. 27:3-10; John 18:1-
3).
18:2 John apparently recorded this detail because it shows that Jesus was not
trying to avoid arrest. Instead, He deliberately went to a "place" where
954Westcott, p. 249. See pp. 249-50 for other comparisons with the Synoptic evangelists' accounts of Jesus'
Passion.
955Wiersbe, 1:372.
"Judas" evidently anticipated ("knew") that He would go (cf. Luke 21:37;

22:39).
"This probably means that he and the disciples used to

bivouac, sleeping in the open air, and probably in this very
garden."958
18:3 Only John mentioned the presence of Roman soldiers. A Roman "cohort"
(Lat. cohors) normally consisted of 600 soldiers. However, sometimes the
Greek word speira, translated "cohort" or "detachment," referred to a
smaller group of only 200 men.959 John did not use a precise term to
describe the number of soldiers that Judas brought, and it is possible that
less than 200 soldiers were present. The Romans stationed troops in the
Fortress of Antonia during the Jewish feasts. It stood just north of the
temple. Normally these troops resided in Caesarea on the Mediterranean
coast, the Roman provincial capital. Herod the Great had built a beautiful
city with an extraordinary harbor there.960
The "officers" of the Jewish temple police accompanied the Roman

soldiers. Thus John presented both Gentiles and Jews as playing a part in
Jesus' arrest. They carried "lanterns and torches" to find Jesus. Apparently
they thought He might try to hide. Passover always took place when the
moon was full. They also had "weapons" to restrain anyone who might
oppose their plan to arrest Jesus. Judas served as their guide. He had no
authority over them.
18:4 John noted that when Jesus approached the leaders of the soldiers, He
knew their intentions (cf. 10:14, 17-18). He consistently presented Jesus'
death as a voluntary self-sacrifice. Earlier in His ministry, Jesus had
withdrawn from conflict with officials because His hour had not yet come
(10:40; 11:54), but now His hour had arrived (17:1).
18:5-6 Perhaps John chose not to record the fact that Judas identified Jesus by
kissing Him, in order to strengthen the force of Jesus' question: "Whom do
you seek?" He mentioned Judas' presence, nonetheless, since he was a
primary figure in Jesus' arrest. John stressed Jesus' complete control of the
situation. He identified Himself as the person they sought, rather than
being identified by his betrayer.
Jesus responded with the clause, "It is I" (Gr. ego eimi). As we have noted
elsewhere, this was a claim to deity when Jesus uttered it in certain
situations (e.g., 8:24, 28, 58). However, it was also a normal way to
958Morris, p. 656. See Wiersbe, 1:372, for contrasts between what happened in the Garden of Eden and the
Garden of Gethsemane.
960See Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 15:8:5; and 15:9:6.
answer the soldiers here (cf. 9:9). Some interpreters have concluded that
John's description of the soldiers' response to Jesus' identification of
Himself indicates that they viewed His words as a claim to being God (cf.
Ps. 27:2). However, on other occasions when Jesus' hearers understood
that He was claiming to be God, they tried to stone Him.
At this point the temple guards momentarily "drew back and fell to the
ground," stood up again, and proceeded to arrest Him. Perhaps John was
hinting to his readers that the soldiers responded better than they knew by
falling backwards. However, it seems unlikely that they took Jesus' words
to be a claim to deity in this context. They probably "drew back and fell"
because, being shocked, they could not believe that the man they had
come out for, expecting to have to hunt for, was virtually surrendering to
them. Rather than having to hunt down a fleeing peasant, they found a
commanding Leader who confronted them boldly.961 Another possibility is
that they "drew back and fell" because they were uncertain about how He
would respond to them.962
Another view is that, since it was customary for rabbis to kiss their
disciples firstbut here Judas kissed Jesus firstthis insult to Jesus'
person so shocked the soldiers that they fell back.963
A third view follows:
"It may well be that in verses 5-6 John recorded an incident

in which the opponents of Jesus recoiled from surprise or
abhorrence of what they perceived to be blasphemy. But for
the reader of the gospel, who already knows who Jesus is
and that His claim to identification with God is true, the
reaction of the enemies is highly ironic. The betrayer Judas
himself fell down at Jesus' feet before the soldiers led Him
away to His trial and crucifixion"964
"They didn't fall forward to worship Him. They fell

backward in fear and in absolute dismay."965
"The mere speech of Jesus (perhaps because expressed in

language proper to God himselfsee on 8.24) is sufficient
to repel his adversaries."966

962Bock, p. 368.
963C. S. Mann, Mark, p. 596.
964Harris, p. 182.
965McGee, 4:484.
966Barrett, p. 520.
18:7-9 Jesus seems to have been more intent on protecting His disciples than on
making a claim to be God (cf. 10:11). Being the commanding Leader He
was, Jesus first made sure that His disciples would be safe before He
allowed His captors to lead Him away (17:12; cf. 6:38-39; 10:28). This
was a preview of His work for them on the cross.
"A difficulty arises as to the reconciliation of the incidents

described in this passage [vv. 5-8] with the narrative of the
betrayal in the Synoptists. In the Synoptists the arrest
follows close upon the kiss of Judas, which St John does
not mention (Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 45 f., yet see Luke
xxii. 48 ff.). It is very difficult to believe that the kiss either
preceded v. 4, or came after v. 8. Perhaps it is simplest to
suppose that the unexpected appearance of the Lord outside
the enclosure discomposed the plan of Judas, who had
expected to find the whole party resting within the garden,
and that for the moment he failed to give the appointed
sign, and remained awestricken in the crowd (v. 5). This
being so, the event of v. 6 followed, and afterwards Judas,
taking courage, came up to Christ (Matt. xxvi. 49 f.; Mark
xiv. 45), who then repelled him (Luke xxii. 48) and again
addressed the hesitating multitude.
"Others suppose, with somewhat less probability, as it

seems (but see Matt. xxvi. 49, note), that the kiss of Judas
immediately preceded the first question, Whom seek ye?
and that, touched by his Master's reproof (Luke xxii. 48),
he fell back into the crowd. Either view presents an
intelligible whole; but the phrase in v. 5 (was standing) is
more appropriate to the attitude of one who hesitates to do
that which he has purposed to do, than of one who has been
already repulsed."967
The repetition of the soldiers' question and Jesus' answer underlines Jesus
independence and authority.
18:10 All the Gospels record this incident, but John is the only one that names
"Peter" and "Malchus." The mention of their names makes the story more
concrete. John was an eyewitness of Jesus' sufferings, so it is not unusual
that he would mention these names. The small "sword" (Gr. machaira)
that Peter used was probably little more than a dagger. His action was
foolish, but it illustrates his courage and commitment to Jesus (cf. 13:37).
"It was forbidden to carry weapons on a feast-day."968
968Ibid., p. 254.
Nevertheless, the disciples had two swords or knives in their possession

(Luke 22:38). They were anticipating trouble in Jerusalem (cf. 11:16).
18:11 Jesus' response, as John recorded it, focuses the reader's attention on Jesus.
The Cross was necessary, and Jesus had committed Himself to enduring it.
Peter's brave, though misdirected act, showed that he still failed to realize
that Jesus' death was necessary. Zeal without knowledge is dangerous.
Therefore Jesus rebuked Peter, even though this disciple showed
remarkable loyalty to his Teacher. The "cup" to which Jesus referred was
the symbol of His lot in life (cf. Matt. 20:22-23), which in this case
involved bearing God's wrath (cf. Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15;
Ezek. 23:31-33; Matt. 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; Rev. 14:10; 16:19).
"Peter had a sword in his hand, but our Lord had a cup in
His hand. Peter was resisting God's will but the Saviour
was accepting God's will."969
John's account focuses on Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies. This was an
essential step in His voluntary self-sacrifice for the sins of humankind. It was not
surrender as such, since that word implies that the person surrendering is guilty or
defeated. It was not a request for arrest, either, since that would have removed some of
the guilt, for His death, from His captors.
B. JESUS' RELIGIOUS TRIAL 18:12-27
John is the only evangelist who recorded Jesus' interrogation by Annas. It was
preliminary to His appearances, before Caiaphas next, and then before the Sanhedrin
(v. 24).
JESUS' RELIGIOUS TRIAL

Matthew Mark Luke John
Before Annas 18:12-14, 19-24
Before Caiaphas 26:57-68 14:53-65 22:54, 63-65
Before the Sanhedrin 27:1 15:1 22:66-71
JESUS' CIVIL TRIAL
Before Pilate 27:2, 11-14 15:1-5 23:1-5 18:28-38
Before Herod Antipas 23:6-12
Before Pilate 27:15-26 15:6-15 23:13-25 18:3919:16
969Wiersbe, 1:374.
1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14
John began his account of Jesus' trials, first with a brief description of His arrest, and then
identifying the chief religious leaders who examined Him.
18:12 The "commander" (Gr. chiliarchos, cf. Acts 22:24, 26, 27, 28; 23:17, 19,
22) in view was the officer in charge of the Roman cohort soldiers. He
was evidently the person with the most official authority on the scene.
However, the Jewish "officers" (i.e., temple police) also played a part in
Jesus' arrest. Perhaps John noted that they "bound" Jesus, in view of
Isaiah's prophecy that Messiah's enemies would lead Him as a lamb to the
slaughter (Isa. 53:7). Jesus' disciples abandoned Him when His enemies
took Him into custody (cf. Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50).
18:13 The soldiers evidently led Jesus to the residence of the high priest. The
location of this building is uncertain, though the traditional site is in the
southern part of old Jerusalem just west of the Tyropoeon Valley.970
Both high priests evidently occupied the same building. One was "Annas,"
the former high priest whom the Jews still regarded as the legitimate high
priest, since the high priesthood under the Mosaic Law was for life. Annas
served as the official high priest from A.D. 6 to 15, when the Roman
procurator Valerius Gratus deposed him. Five of Annas' sons, plus his son-
in-law Caiaphas, succeeded him in this office.971 Consequently it was
natural that the Jews regarded Annas as the patriarch and the true high
priest, and that he continued to exert considerable influence throughout his
lifetime. The other "high priest" was "Caiaphas," Annas' son-in-law whom
the Romans had placed in the office in A.D. 18, where he remained until
A.D. 36. Annas was the first of the two men to interview Jesus.
"That year" refers to the fateful year of Jesus' death (i.e., A.D. 33).
THE HIGH PRIESTS OF ISRAEL

(ca. A.D. 6-36)
ANNAS (ca. A.D. 6-15) Unofficial high priest with Caiaphas during
Jesus' trial (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24)
Unofficial high priest who, with Caiaphas,
tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
ELEAZAR (ca. A.D. 16-17) Son of Annas whose name does not appear in
the New Testament
CAIAPHAS (ca. A.D. 18-36) Son-in-law of Annas
Official high priest during Jesus' earthly
ministry (Luke 3:2; Matt. 26:3, 57; John
11:49-50)
With Annas tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
970See the map "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.
18:14 John doubtless identified "Caiaphas" the way he did here, to remind his
readers of the prediction of Jesus' substitute sacrifice (11:50), not just to
mention his name. This identification also makes unnecessary a full
recording of the deliberations that led to the Sanhedrin's verdict. That
record was already available in the Synoptics, and was therefore
unnecessary in John's Gospel.
"Annas exercised his power through those who were like
him."972
2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priest's courtyard and
Peter's first denial 18:15-18 (cf. Matt. 26:57-58, 69-70; Mark 14:53-
54, 66-68; Luke 22:54-57)
Like the other evangelists, John alternated his account of the events surrounding Jesus'
religious trial. He described what was happening in the courtyard (vv. 15-18), then what
was happening inside (vv. 19-24), and finally what happened outside again (vv. 25-27).
This literary technique contrasts Jesus with Peter.
18:15-16 Evidently "Peter" and "another disciple" had followed the arresting party
from Gethsemane back into Jerusalem to the high priest's palace (Gr. aule,
"court" or "courtyard," cf. 10:16).
Traditionally commentators have understood the "other disciple" to have
been John, the "beloved disciple" (cf. 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-9; 21:1, 20-
23, 24-25). However, because John described this "other disciple" as
someone who had a close relationship with the high priest (Gr. gnostos, cf.
2 Kings. 10:11; Ps. 55:13; Luke 2:44), many modern interpreters question
the traditional view. It has seemed incredible, to some of them, that a
fisherman from Galilee would have had the close relationship with the
high priest (i.e., Caiaphas, v. 13) that this passage presents. Nevertheless,
it is entirely possible that John, as the son of a supposedly prosperous
fisherman (cf. Mark 1:19-20), did indeed have such a relationship.
"Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus'
mother (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40), and would have
been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband,
Zechariah, was a priest (Luke 1:36)"973
Furthermore, the New Testament presents Peter and John as having the
close relationship that this passage describes (e.g., 13:23-24; 20:2-10;
21:20-24; Acts 3:1, 11; 4:13; et al.). Therefore the traditional view may be
correct.974 The correct identification of the "other disciple" is not essential
to a correct interpretation of the events, however.
974Cf. Frans Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel StudiesEtudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays, pp. 335-64.
18:17 The "slave-girl," who was also the "doorkeeper," recognized the "other
disciple" as one of Jesus' disciples (v. 16). She asked "Peter" if he was not
one of "this man's disciples" too, expecting a negative reply, as the Greek
text makes clear. Her question reflected some disdain for Jesus.
"She made it easy for Peter to say no."975
Peter succumbed to the pressure of the moment and denied his association
with Jesus (13:37). Peter denied that he was one of Jesus' disciples ("I am
not"), not that Jesus was the Messiah. Perhaps what he had done to
Malchus made him more eager to blend into his surroundings.
"St John, who remained closest to the Lord, was
unmolested: St Peter, who mingled with the indifferent
crowd, fell."976
18:18 Peter not only denied Jesus, but he also stood with Jesus' enemies, as they
warmed themselves in the courtyard of the high priest's large residence.
The detail that the "fire" was a "charcoal" (Gr. anthrakia) one, will feature
later in John's narrative (21:9). Such a fire would not have generated much
light or heat, so those who wanted to stay warm had to stand close
together.
"His [Peter's] fall reads a lesson to all who, without seeking counsel of
God or disregarding counsel given, enter on undertakings beyond their
strength."977
3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

John's version of Peter's denial is quite similar to those of the other Gospel writers, but
his revelation of Jesus' interrogation by Annas is unique. None of the other evangelists
mentioned it.
18:19 Clearly Annas was the (unofficial) "high priest" who conducted this initial
questioning, or informal inquiry (cf. v. 24). He probably asked Jesus
"about His disciples" to ascertain the size of His following, since one of
the religious leaders' chief concerns was the power of Jesus' popularity.
Annas' interest in His teachings undoubtedly revolved around who Jesus
claimed to be (cf. 7:12, 47; 19:4). Both subjects were significant, since
many of the Jews suspected Jesus of being a political insurrectionist.
18:20-21 Jesus affirmed that He had "always taught . . . openly." He had not
promoted sedition secretly. He had no secret teaching to hide. Obviously
He was not denying that He had taught His disciples privately. He was
assuring Annas that His teachings were not subversive. He did not have

976Westcott,p. 256.
977A. B. Bruce, p. 487.
two types of teaching: a harmless one for the multitudes, and a

revolutionary one for His disciples.978 He invited Annas to "question" His
hearersnot just His disciplesto determine if He had indeed taught
anything for which someone might accuse Him of being disloyal. The
testimony of witnesses was an indispensable part of any serious trial in
Judaism.
18:22-23 The officer (Gr. hypereton) who "struck" Jesus was probably one of the
Jewish temple police (cf. v. 3). He interpreted Jesus' response as
discourteous and used it as an excuse to strike Him. The Greek word
rhapisma, translated "blow" (NASB 1973 ed.), and "struck" (NASB 1995
ed.), means a sharp blow with the palm of the hand. Jesus' response to this
attack was logical rather than emotional or physical. He simply appealed
for a fair trial (cf. Acts 23:2-5). The man who struck Him was not treating
Him fairly. This was a case of police brutality. Jesus had shown no
disrespect for Annas.979
"The truth is always objectionable to those who are
concerned to establish a case at all costs. It is easier and
more effective to answer it with blows than with
arguments."980
18:24 Annas could not produce anything for which the Sanhedrin could
condemn, or even charge, Jesus. Therefore he "sent" Jesus "to Caiaphas."
The descriptions of Jesus' hearings in the Gospels alternate between Jesus'
interrogations and Peter's denials. It seems clear, therefore, that Annas and
Caiaphas lived and interviewed Jesus in different parts of the same large
residence (or palace). Caiaphas had to interview Jesus in order to legally
bring charges against Him before the Sanhedrin, since Caiaphas was the
current official high priest. John noted that Jesus remained "bound" as a
criminal, even though He had done nothing to warrant physical restraint.
John did not record what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas and, later,
before the Sanhedrin (cf. Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71). Perhaps he
omitted these aspects of Jesus' three-part religious trial, because the previously written
Synoptic Gospels contained adequate accounts of them. Maybe John considered the
meeting of the Sanhedrin that he described in 11:47-53 as Jesus' official condemnation.
4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27 (cf. Matt. 26:71-75;
Mark 14:69-72; Luke 22:58-62)
John took his readers back to the courtyard where Peter stood warming himself with the
high priest's servants and officers (v. 18).
978Morris, p. 670.
979See Laurna L. Berg, "The Illegalities of Jesus' Religious and Civil Trials," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643
980Barrett, p. 529.
18:25 Under pressure again, Peter denied for a second time that he, like the
"other disciple," was one of Jesus' disciples (cf. Matt. 10:33; Luke 12:9).
The person who voiced the question was another girl (Matt. 26:71; Mark
14:69).
"John has constructed a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus

stands up to his questioners and denies nothing, while Peter
cowers before his questioners and denies everything."981
18:26-27 The third questioner was a "relative" of Malchus, "whose ear Peter had cut
off" in Gethsemane (v. 10). Only John recorded the relationship. This fact
supports the view that the "other disciple" was John. He knew the
relationships of people within the high priest's household.
This third accuser also identified Peter as a Galilean (Matt. 26:73; Mark
14:70; Luke 22:59). His question expected a positive answer, in contrast to
the former two that expected a negative answer. This question posed the
greatest threat to Peter's security.
"Peter was in dire peril now of arrest himself for attempt to

kill [his apparent attempted murder of Malchus]."982
Peter responded by uttering his most vehement denial of the three.

Immediately a rooster crowed (for the second time, Mark 14:72), fulfilling
the prediction that Jesus had spoken just hours earlier (13:38). John also
omitted Peter's oaths and curses (cf. Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71), Jesus'
convicting look (Luke 22:61), and Peter's bitter tears of contrition (cf.
Matt. 26:75; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:62). The effect is that the fulfillment of
Jesus' prediction receives the emphasis.
"After the third watch [12:00 midnight to 3:00 a.m.] the

guard was changed and to mark the changing of the guard
there was a trumpet call at 3 a.m. That trumpet call was
called in Latin gallicinium and in Greek alektorophonia,
which both mean cockcrow. It may well be that Jesus said
to Peter: 'Before the trumpet sounds the cockcrow you will
deny me three times.'"983
The encouraging record of Peter's restoration to ministry usefulness follows later in

chapter 21.
981Brown, 2:842.
983Barclay, 2:268-69.
C. JESUS' CIVIL TRIAL 18:2819:16

John reported much more about Jesus' trial before Pilate than did any of the other Gospel
writers. He omitted referring to Jesus' appearance before Herod Antipas, which only
Luke recorded (Luke 23:6-12). He stressed Jesus' authority, particularly His authority as
Israel's King (cf. v. 36; 19:11, 14), but also His universal kingship.984 John apparently
assumed that his readers knew of the other Gospel accounts of Jesus' passion. This
supports the view that this was the last Gospel written. The other Gospels stress the legal
aspects of this trial. John presented it more as an interview between Jesus and Pilate,
similar to His interviews with: Nicodemus (ch. 3), the Samaritan woman (ch. 4), and the
blind man (ch. 9).985 The interview proceeded as Pilate asked four questions: "What
accusation do you bring against this Man?" (18:29), "Are You the King of the Jews?"
(18:33), "Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?" (18:39), and "Where are You
from?" (19:9).
1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32 (cf. Luke 23:1-2)

John began his version of this civil trial by narrating the initial public meeting of Pilate
and Jesus' accusers.986
18:28 "They" (NASB) refers to all the Jewish authorities (cf. Matt. 27:1-2; Mark
15:1; Luke 23:1). They "led Jesus from Caiaphas" in the sense that he was
the head of the Sanhedrin that had passed sentence on Jesus (cf. Matt.
27:1-2; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). The Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus
for blasphemy (Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64), which was a capital
offense in Israel (Lev. 24:16). However, the Sanhedrin could not pass the
death sentence for this offense without Roman agreement, and there was
little hope of Pilate giving it. Therefore the Jewish leaders decided to
charge Jesus with sedition against Rome.
The word "Praetorium" transliterates the Latin praetorium, which

identified either the headquarters of the commanding officer of a Roman
military camp, or a Roman military governor's headquarters.987 Pilate was
this kind of governor. The Gospels use the generic term "governor,"
though technically Pilate was the "prefect" of Judea, or its "procurator," as
the historian Tacitus identified him.988
Pilate's normal headquarters were at Caesarea, the capital of the Roman

province of Judea. However, during the Jewish feasts, Pilate came to
Jerusalem with Roman troops to discourage uprisings. He also had
984See Mavis M. Leung, "The Roman Empire and John's Passion Narrative in Light of Jewish Royal
Messianism," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:672 (October-December 2011):426-42.
986For helpful background material on this trial, see R. Larry Overstreet, "Roman Law and the Trial of
Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.
988Tacitus, Annals 15:44:4.
headquarters in Jerusalem, either in Herod's former palace on the western

wall of the city, or in the Fortress of Antonia, immediately north of the
temple enclosure. The traditional site is the Fortress of Antonia, the
beginning of the Via Dolorosa or "way of sorrow" that Jesus traveled from
the Praetorium to Golgotha.989 However, most modern commentators
believed Pilate probably interviewed Jesus in Herod's former palace.990
It is not clear just when Jesus first appeared before Pilate on Friday
morning. John said that it was "early" (Gr. proi). This may be a reference
to the technical term that the Romans used to describe the night watch,
that began at 3:00 a.m. and ended at 6:00 a.m. Probably it is just the
normal use of the word "early," that would not necessarily require a time
before 6:00 a.m. It would have been early nonetheless, perhaps between
6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Roman officials customarily began their work around
sunrise, and often finished their day's business by 10:00 or 11:00 a.m.991
John wrote that Jesus was still in Pilate's presence later in the morning
(19:14).
The Jews who brought Jesus to Pilate stayed outside the Praetorium
because they wanted to avoid ceremonial defilement. The Jews thought
that merely entering a Gentile's dwelling made them ceremonially unclean
(cf. Acts 10:28).992 This was because the Gentiles did not take precautions
to guarantee kosher (i.e., proper) food as the Jews did. Specifically,
Gentiles might have yeast in their homes, which would have made
participation in the "Passover" Feast unlawful for a Jew (cf. Exod. 12:19;
13:7).993 The Jews considered themselves "defiled" if they entered a
dwelling from which all leaven had not been scrupulously removed.994
Ironically, these Jews were taking extreme precautions to avoid ritual

defilement, while at the same time preparing to murder the Lamb of God
who takes away the sins of the world (cf. 2 Sam. 11:4).
". . . they are anxious to avoid external defilement in order

to observe a festival whose real significance was that, as
well as reminding God's people of the ancient deliverance
from Egypt, it pointed forward to the true Passover Lamb,
whose sacrifice would bring to an end all distinctions
between what was ceremonially clean and unclean, and
989Westcott, pp. 258, 268.

990See, e.g., Unger's Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Pretorium," p. 881; Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:566; Robertson,
Word Pictures . . ., 5:290; and Barrett, p. 531.
991A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 45.
992Mishnah Oholoth 18:7, 9. See also Dan Duncan, "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth," Exegesis
and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.
993F. F. Bruce, p. 349.
effect an inward cleansing; and it was the death of that true

Passover Lamb that the Jews at this moment are anxious to
bring about."995
These Jews' superficial commitment to the Mosaic Law resulted in it

becoming more difficult for them to truly obey that Law. Their
punctiliousness separated them from Jesus. Pilate had to shuttle between
the Jews, outside his headquarters, and Jesus inside, as his examination
proceeded.
We have already drawn attention to the evidence that Jesus ate the
Passover with His disciples in the upper room on Thursday evening (cf.
13:1, 27).996 Why then were these Jews concerned that entering Pilate's
Praetorium might preclude them from eating the Passover? Had they too
not already eaten it the night before? The "Passover" was the name that the
Jews used to describe both the Passover proper, and the entire festival that
followed it, which included the Feast of Unleavened Bread (cf. Luke
22:1).
Evidently it was their continuing participation, in this eight-day festival,

that these Jewish leaders did not want to forfeit by entering a Gentile
residence. Part of the feast was the offering of two peace offerings, called
"the Chagigah"one on Nisan 14, and the other on Nisan 15, the latter
being the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jewish law was very
strict that no one who was defiled could offer the Chagigah.997 It was this
second Chagigah, not the offering of the paschal lamb on Nisan 14, which
the Jews who refused to enter Pilate's Praetorium wanted to be qualified to
offer.998
18:29 Pilate evidently addressed the Jews who had assembled outside his
headquarters, or perhaps in its courtyard, from a balcony or overlook. He
wanted to know their formal charge ("accusation") against Jesus. Pilate
probably knew something of Jesus' arrest, since Roman soldiers had
participated in it (vv. 3, 12). Not only that, but Jesus was a popular figure
in Galilee and Jerusalem. The high priest may well have communicated
with Pilate about Him before Jesus appeared on Pilate's doorstep.
"St John appears to emphasize the fact the Pilate 'went forth
without' his own praetorium, as if it were symbolic of the
whole proceeding."999
995Tasker,pp. 200-1. Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 328; and Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:565.
996Morris,pp. 684-95, discussed this issue quite fully.
997Mishnah Pesahim 6:3.
998Edersheim, The Temple, pp. 218, 252-53, 255.
18:30 The spokesmen for the Jews eventually evaded Pilate's question. Luke
recorded that they initially charged Jesus with misleading Israel, with
forbidding the Jews to pay their taxes to Caesar, and with claiming to be
Israel's king (Luke 23:2). However, they could not impress Pilate
sufficiently with those charges.
They hesitated to bring the charge of blasphemy against Jesus, because

Pilate might dismiss it as unworthy of his consideration (cf. Acts 18:12-
16). They evidently did not accuse Him of treason, either, because this too
would have incited His many followers, and they would have had
difficulty proving it. Consequently they did not name the charge, but they
assumed it was serious, and implied that Pilate should trust them and
"rubber stamp" their decision.
"If the Lord Jesus were really opposing the authority and
rights of the Emperor, why had not the Roman power taken
the initiative? Where were the Gentile witnesses against
Him?"1000
Perhaps the fact that Pilate had provided troops to arrest Jesus encouraged
them to think that he had already judged Jesus guilty. They did not
appreciate Pilate's question, since it suggested that they would have to go
through a formal trial from beginning to end.
"It is possible that they were taken by surprise at Pilate's

indication that he would try the case himself. They had had
his cooperation in making the arrest; now they apparently
expected that he would take their word for it that the man
the Romans had helped to arrest was dangerous and should
be executed."1001
Pilate realized that the Jewish leaders had determined to do away with
Jesus (cf. Matt. 27:18), but he had no evidence that Jesus had done
anything worthy of death.
18:31 Since the Jews did not charge Jesus formally, there was nothing Pilate
could do except hand Him back to them for discipline in their courts. The
Jews' response explained why that was an unacceptable alternative: "We
are not permitted to put anyone to death." They wanted Jesus executed,
but they did not have the authority to execute Him themselves.1002
1000Pink, 3:196.
1001Morris, p. 676.
1002See ibid., pp. 695-97, for a fuller explanation of the Jews' right to inflict the death penalty; and Barrett,
pp. 533-35, for further discussion.
"The Pilate disclosed in the [ancient] historical documents

almost certainly acted like this not so much out of any
passion for justice as out of the ego-building satisfaction he
gained from making the Jewish authorities jump through
legal hoops and recognize his authority."1003
18:32 John noted that the Jews' admission that they could not put anyone to
death was in harmony with the sovereign plan of God. Jesus had predicted
that He would die by crucifixion, not by stoning (cf. 12:32-33). The
Romans were the only ones who could condemn a person to death by
crucifixion. The Jews did stone people to death for blasphemy (e.g., Acts
6:11; 7:58), but these seem to have been instances of mob violence rather
than independent legal action. They probably also wanted Jesus crucified
because the Mosaic Law regarded such a death as proof of God's curse
(Deut. 21:22-23).
"Ironically, the death that the Jewish hierarchy regarded as

a final negation of Jesus' claims became the means of
justification apart from the law (Gal 3:13)."1004
"It was necessary for three reasons for Jesus to be crucified

by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews: (a) to fulfill
prophecies (e.g., that none of His bones be broken; cf.
19:36-37); (b) to include both Jews and Gentiles in the
collective guilt for the deed (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27); (c) by
crucifixion, Jesus was 'lifted up' like 'the snake in the
desert' [3:14] . . ."1005
2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a (cf. Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2;
Luke 23:3)
Having heard the Jews' charges, Pilate returned to the inside of his headquarters and
began interrogating Jesus. His questioning centered on the issue of Jesus' kingship.
18:33 The Jews' accusations motivated Pilate's question. He asked Jesus if He

was claiming to be the "King of the Jews." Messianic expectation was
running high in Jesus' day, and many people were saying that Jesus was
the Messiah. The Jewish leaders had charged Jesus with claiming to be
this king (Luke 23:2). Now Pilate wanted to hear if Jesus Himself claimed
to be this king.
18:34 The Synoptics reported that Jesus replied, "It is as you say" (Gr. sy legeis,
Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3). John also recorded that Jesus gave

1005Blum, p. 337.
that answer (v. 37), but he included additional conversation first. This
added material included Jesus' explanation of the nature of His kingship
(v. 36).
Jesus asked Pilate His question to determine how He would answer him. If
his question had arisen from his own understanding and curiosity, Jesus
presumably would have dealt with him as a sincere inquirer. If Pilate was
merely trying to clarify the essence of the Sanhedrin's charge, Jesus would
need to answer differently. If Pilate meant, "Are You a political king
conspiring against Caesar?" the answer would be, "No." If he meant, "Are
You the messianic King of Israel?" the answer would be, "Yes." The
object of interrogation, Jesus, became the interrogator temporarily. The
fact that Jesus questioned Pilate at all was pure grace, in that it allowed
Pilate to explain his motivationand possibly reduce his culpability.
18:35 Pilate's reply clarified that he had no personal interest in Jesus' kingship,
and he was indignant that Jesus would suggest such a thing. He simply
wanted to understand what Jesus was claiming in view of the Sanhedrin's
accusation. Beyond that, he wanted to discover why the Jewish leaders
were so intent on doing away with Jesus. His question, "Am I a Jew?"
sarcastically denied that Jewish matters such as Jesus' kingship were of
any interest to him personally.
"The gulf between Jew and Gentile yawns wide here."1006
Ironically, Jesus was Pilate's King.1007 Pilate's comment about Jesus' "own
people (nation)" handing Him over to him confirmed John's introductory
statement that: Jesus came unto His own, but His own did not receive Him
(1:11).
"This answer of Pilate conveyed the full proof of the guilt

of Israel. In the mouth of him who represented the power of
the world at that time, the thing was established, that Israel
had disclaimed their King and sold themselves into the
hand of another."1008
18:36 Jesus explained that He was indeed a king, as He claimed. However, His
"kingdom" was not the type of kingdom that would compete with Caesar's
kingdom by waging war. Jesus was not denying that His kingdom was an
earthly kingdom. He was not saying it was only the spiritual rule of God
over the hearts of His people. He was not saying that His kingdom had
nothing to do with this world, either.1009 This should be clear from Jesus'

1007Cf. P. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 129-30.
1008J. G. Bellett, quoted by Pink, 3:199.
other references to His kingdom as being an earthly kingdom. His point

was that He and His kingdom were not a present threat to Rome (cf.
18:10-11). It was non-threatening because God had postponed the
messianic kingdomdue to Israel's unbeliefthough Jesus did not
explain this to Pilate.
Jesus' kingdom is "not of this realm" or "from another place" (Gr. ouk
enteuthen, lit. not from this place) in another sense. It will come down
from heaven to the earth rather than originating from the earth. It will
begin when Jesus comes down from heaven to earth at His Second
Coming.
18:37 Pilate did not understand the distinctions between Jesus' kingdom and
Caesar's that Jesus was making. He did understand that Jesus was claiming
to have a kingdom. Consequently he next tried to get Jesus to claim
unequivocally that He was a king. Jesus admitted that He was "a king,"
but He needed to say more about His reign if Pilate was to understand the
nature of His kingship. Jesus had defined His kingdom negatively (v. 36).
Now He defined His mission as a king positively.
The main reason Jesus had come into the world was to bear witness "to the
truth." By this He meant that He came to reveal God (cf. 14:6). Jesus
produced subjects for His kingdom by revealing God, by calling on people
to believe on Him, and by giving them eternal life. This prepared them to
participate in His kingdom. Everyone who truly wanted the truth followed
Jesus because His teachings had the ring of truth. Jesus' words were an
invitation for Pilate to listen to Him and to learn the truth. Jesus showed
more interest in appealing to Pilate than in defending Himself. This desire
for the welfare of others marks all of Jesus' interviews in the fourth
Gospel.1010
18:38a Obviously Pilate was not one who truly sought the truth. He turned away
from Jesus' offer to reveal it, with a cynical comment that implied that the
"truth" was unknowable.
"The question of Pilate does not deal with absolute Truth

the Truth as oneof which the Lord had spoken (e
aletheia), but simply with truth in any particular case
(aletheia)."1011
Undoubtedly, Pilate's experience as a Roman official to whom others

constantly lied, and his personal desire to use the truth to accomplish his
own ends, accounted for his cynicism. The very idea that someone would

aim his whole life at revealing truth was, from his perspective, both
foolish and improbable.
Other views of Pilate's statement interpret it as despairing, impatient, or

sincere. However, the context seems to imply that it was facetious and
scornful. Pilate turned away from the One who, not only claimed to reveal
the truth, but was in fact "the Truth" in Person, plus the Way and the
Lifewithout waiting for an answer.
3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40 (cf. Matt. 27:12-21; Mark
15:3-11; Luke 23:4-19)
John condensed the scene in which: Pilate declared Jesus innocent, the Jews accused
Jesus further, Jesus replied nothing, and Pilate marveled at Jesus' silence (Matt. 27:12-14;
Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-6). He simply related Pilate's verdict (v. 38b): "I find no guilt in
Him." John also omitted the account of Jesus' appearance before Herod Antipas, that
followed this verdict and preceded Pilate's offer to release Barabbas in Jesus' place (Luke
23:6-12). The result of this selection of material is that John kept the focus of the reader's
attention on Jesus and Pilate.
18:38b Pilate returned to the Jews, who had assembled outside his headquarters,
and announced his verdict. Jesus had done nothing worthy of punishment
by Rome (cf. Luke 23:14). He was guiltless of any activity that constituted
a threat to Rome. Apparently Pilate concluded that Jesus was not a king, at
least not in the normal sense, but simply an idealist. This witness to Jesus'
innocence was another important testimony in view of John's purpose in
this Gospel (20:30-31).
18:39 "Having displayed a lack of interest in truth, Pilate then

revealed a lack of commitment to justice. He lacked the
courage of his convictions. If Jesus was innocent of all
charges, then Pilate should have set Him free. Instead,
Pilate began a series of compromising moves to avoid
dealing with an inconvenient truth in a difficult
circumstance. First, when Pilate found out Jesus was from
Galilee, he sent Him to Herod (Luke 23:6-7). Second,
Pilate tried to appeal to the crowd (John 18:38), hoping to
bypass the desire of the chief priests and elders."1012
Why did Pilate refer to this "custom," rather than simply releasing Jesus?
Apparently he referred to it to draw attention to his generosity in releasing
Jesus. He wanted the Jews to realize that he was being good to them by
honoring this custom. However, Pilate made a horrible mistake by
referring to it. He opened the door to the possibility that the Jews did not
want him to release Jesus. They would not accept Jesus as the "prisoner
1012Blum, p. 338. For a list of the violations of custom in Jesus' Jewish trials, see Westcott, pp. 262-63.
select," whose release would make it possible for Pilate to honor their
custom. By referring to Jesus as the "King of the Jews," Pilate was further
insulting the Jewish leaders. They had rejected the idea that Jesus was
their King. Pilate's own ill-advised question set him up for rejection.
About this time, Pilate's wife warned him to have nothing more to do with
Jesus, because He was a "righteous man" (Matt. 27:19).
18:40 John described Barabbas as a "robber" (Gr. lestes, lit. one who seizes
plunder). However, Barabbas seems also to have participated in bloody
insurrection as a terrorist and guerrilla fighter (cf. Mark 15:7). The chief
priests normally had nothing to do with Zealots and other freedom fighters
who sought to overthrow the Roman yoke with violence. However, here
they preferred such an individual over Jesus, who had not actively
opposed Rome, but whom they regarded as a threat to their security. The
irony of their decision is obvious to the reader, and must have also been
obvious to Pilate. Evidently Barabbas had a popular following among the
people, as Jesus did, but for different reasons.
The release of a proven enemy of Rome, which John did not record, showed Pilate's poor
judgment. This decision would not have stood him in good stead with his superiors.
Evidently it was the pressure of the Jewish mob that encouraged him to act against his
own, as well as Jesus', interests.
4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16 (cf. Matt. 27:22-26; Mark 15:12-15;

Luke 23:20-25)
There is quite a bit of unique material in this pericope. This includes the details of the
Roman soldiers' abuse of Jesus (vv. 1-5), plus the situation instigated by Pilate's
discovery that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (vv. 7-14). John omitted Pilate's
handwashing ritual (Matt. 27:24), and the Jews' taking the responsibility for Jesus' death
(Matt. 27:25). He also did not mention the release of Barabbas (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15;
Luke 23:24-25) and Jesus' most severe scourging (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15).
19:1 Pilate incorrectly hoped that if he scourged (Gr. emastigosen) Jesus, this
would satisfy the Jews (cf. vv. 4-6; Luke 23:16). Perhaps he thought that
this action would increase popular support for Jesus against the chief
priests, and then Pilate could release Him.
"From him [John] we learn that Jesus was not scourged in

order to be crucified but in order to escape crucifixion."1013
There were three forms of flogging (scourging) that the Romans

administered. The lightest of these, the fustigatio, was a light whipping
that only hooligans experienced. The second, the flagellatio, was a severe
1013Lenski, p. 1243.
flogging that criminals who were guilty of more serious crimes received.
The third, the verberatio, was the most brutal. The worst criminals,
including those sentenced to crucifixion, underwent this scourging.1014
Evidently Jesus received the first or second of these floggings at this time,
namely, before His sentencing. He received the third type after His
sentencing (v. 16; cf. Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15).
19:2-3 The "crown of thorns" that the Roman soldiers wove and placed on Jesus'
head probably came from a local date palm tree.1015 Some Roman coins
pictured various emperors wearing such wreath "crowns" that appeared to
radiate glory from their heads.1016 However the palm fronds, when turned
inward instead of outward on such wreath "crowns," proved to be painful
spikes. Perhaps John wanted his readers to connect these "thorns" with the
symbol of the consequences of sin (Gen. 3:18).
Likewise the reddish "purple" garment, perhaps a trooper's coat, that the
soldiers placed over Jesus' shoulders, was an obvious attempt to mock His
claim of being a king (cf. Matt. 27:28; Mark 15:17). Vassal kings wore
purple in Jesus' day.1017 The soldiers also struck Jesus in the face with the
palms of their hands (cf. 18:22), contradicting their feigned verbal respect
with violent brutality.
The Roman soldiers viewed Jesus as a pretender to the throne of Israel,

and despised Him as a loser. The Sanhedrin members would have been
equally happy to see Jesus ridiculedand beatenfor what they
considered to be His fraudulence. The Jews who followed Jesus would
have felt outraged and hurt by Jesus' treatment. The believing reader sees
the irony in the situation because Jesus really was the King of the Jews (cf.
Isa. 50:6; 52:1453:6).
"One question springs from the heart on reading thisHow

could it be! Where is the lauded Roman justice in this
scourging of a bound prisoner of whom the judge says, 'I
find no fault in him!' Why is an uncondemned one given
into the rude hands of Roman soldiers for them to mock
and smite at their pleasure? Where is the cool judgment of
Pilate, that a little while ago refused to take action lest
injustice be done? Why is Jesus treated in a way wholly
unparalleled so far as we know?"1018

1015H. St. J. Hart, "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5," Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):71-74;
Beasley-Murray, p. 336.
1016The article by Hart, cited above, contains photographs of such radiate crowns and palm thorns (plate 2).
1017D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in Matthew-Luke, vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 573.
1018Malachi Taylor, quoted by Pink, 3:207-8.
19:4-5 Jesus received the abuse that John just described inside the Praetorium,
Pilate's headquarters. Now Pilate brought Him "out" so the Jews could see
their King in His humiliation. First, he announced that he had found Jesus
not guilty.
"First, Judas declared 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed

the innocent blood' (Matt. 27:4). Second, Pilate declared, 'I
find no fault in him' (John 18 [sic 19]:4). Third, of Herod
Pilate said, 'No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and,
lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him' (Luke 23:15).
Fourth, Pilate's wife entreated, 'Have thou nothing to do
with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day
in a dream because of him.' (Matt. 27:19). Fifth, the dying
thief affirmed, 'We receive the due reward of our deeds: but
this man hath done nothing amiss' (Luke 23:41). Sixth, the
Roman centurion who glorified God, said, 'Certainly this
was a righteous man' (Luke 23:47). Seventh, those who
stood with the centurion acknowledged, 'Truly this was the
son of God' (Matt. 27:54)!"1019
Undoubtedly guffaws of laughter were mingled with gasps of horror as the

Jews beheld the Man who had done them nothing but good. Pilate cajoled
the Jewish leaders to "Behold the Man" (Lat. Ecce homo) whom they
feared so much, but who was now a beaten and pathetic figure. The
governor meant: "Look at this poor fellow whom you regard as a rival
king!" John urged his readers to "behold" Him whom God had predicted
would die voluntarily as a sacrifice for humankind's sins as the Lamb of
God (cf. 1:29, 36).
"This exclamatory introduction of Jesus in mock coronation

robes to the mob was clearly intended to excite pity and to
show how absurd the charge of the Sanhedrin was that such
a pitiable figure should be guilty of treason. Pilate failed
utterly in this effort and did not dream that he was calling
attention to the greatest figure of history, the Man of the
ages."1020
19:6 If Pilate thought that the sight of Jesusbruised and bleedingwould

satisfy Israel's rulers, he was wrong. The sight of His blood stirred their
appetites for even greater revenge. They cried out repeatedly for the
ultimate punishment: Crucifixion!
"Well-meaning preachers have often said that the crowd

that on Palm Sunday shouted 'Hosannah!' turned right
around and shouted 'Crucify Him!' on Good Friday.
1019Pink, 3:210.
However, it was two different crowds. The Palm Sunday

crowd came primarily from Galilee where Jesus was very
popular. The crowd at Pilate's hall was from Judea and
Jerusalem where the religious leaders were very much in
control."1021
Pilate's reply reflected his disgust with the Jewish leaders. It was really an
expression of frustration and exasperation with them. They had brought
Jesus to him for a decision, he had given it, and now they refused to accept
it. Pilate knew that the Jews could not crucify Jesus without his
permission.
19:7 The Jewish leaders' objections to Jesus were both political and religious.
Until now, they had been stressing the political implications of Jesus'
claims to Pilate. Sensing that they were not going to receive the desired
sentence against Jesus with this approach, they shifted their emphasis to
the religious claims that Jesus had made.
"A careful comparison of the Gospel records reveals the

fact that the Jews preferred [pressed] just seven indictments
against Christ. First, they charged Him with threatening to
destroy the temple (Matt. 26:61); second, with being a
'malefactor' ([criminal;] John 18:13 [sic 30]); third, with
'perverting the nation' (Luke 23:2); fourth, with 'forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar' (Luke 23:2); fifth, with stirring up
all the people (Luke 23:5); sixth, with being 'a king' (Luke
23:2); seventh, with making Himself the Son of God (John
19:7). This sevenfold indictment witnessed to the
completeness of their rejection of Him!"1022
Jesus had claimed to be the "Son of God," they announced, which

constituted blasphemy under normal circumstances. The penalty for
blasphemy under the Mosaic Law was death (Lev. 24:16). This charge of
blaspheming had been the major issue in Jesus' religious trial (cf. Matt.
26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64). John noted a growing conviction among the
Jews that Jesus was blaspheming (cf. 5:18; 8:58-59; 10:33, 36). Their
rejection of Jesus was a fully conscious and deliberate denial of the
evidence that He was deity, not simply a political Messiah.
19:8 John did not say specifically that Pilate was fearful before this verse. It
seems obvious, however, that the predicament in which he found himself
would have given him reason to fear. He had compromised his position as
Rome's representative by considering freeing a convicted insurrectionist
named Barabbas. He had displeased the Jewish rulers by failing to hand
1021Wiersbe, 1:381.
1022Pink, 3:213.
down a guilty verdict, and he had alienated many of the Jewish people by
abusing and ridiculing one of their popular heroes.
The Romans viewed certain people as demigods. They believed that their
gods were super-humans. Pilate evidently understood Jesus' claim to being
God's Son as a claim to being one of these creatures who wielded
supernatural powers. If he had heard much about Jesus, he would have
heard that Jesus had the very powers that the Greeks and Romans
attributed to these divine beings. Consequently Pilate may now have
begun now to fear that Jesus would take some type of revenge on him for
the unjust treatment that he had given Him (cf. Matt. 27:19). Jesus'
uncommon poise probably unnerved Pilate further.
"In pagan mythology the Olympian deities frequently

consorted with men and women, and their semi-divine
offspring, such as Hercules, had appeared on the earth and
performed miraculous deeds. Hardened as he was, Pilate
feared lest he should offend one of these visitors. . . . If
Jesus really was a supernatural being, Pilate did not wish to
be responsible for mistreating him. Divine judgment would
certainly be the inevitable consequence."1023
19:9 This explains why Pilate asked Jesus where He had come from. Jesus did
not answer him. Jesus' silence undoubtedly increased Pilate's uneasiness.
Jesus had earlier refused to answer questions from Caiaphas, Pilate, and
Herod (Matt. 26:63; 27:14; Mark 14:61; 15:5; Luke 23:9; cf. Isa. 53:7). He
probably did not respond here because Pilate had already shown that he
had no real interest in the truth (cf. 8:25). He only wanted to do what was
personally expedient.
Besides, the answer to this question in Jesus' case was quite complex.
Pilate had shown little patience with Jesus' explanation about His other-
worldly kingdom. He would hardly have been more receptive now to what
Jesus might say about His other-worldly origin. The decision Pilate faced
was clear-cut. Should he release this innocent Man or not? The question of
Jesus' origin was irrelevant.
"This was the sixth question Pilate asked Christ, and it is

deeply interesting to follow his changing moods as he put
them. First, he had asked 'Art thou the king of the Jews?'
(18:33)asked, most probably, in the spirit of sarcasm.
Second, 'Am I a Jew?' (18:35)asked in the spirit of
haughty contempt. Third, 'What hast thou done?' (18:35)
a pompous display of his authority. Fourth, 'Art thou a king
then?' (18:37)indicating his growing perplexity. Fifth,

'What is truth?' (18:38)asked out of contemptuous pity.

Sixth, 'Whence art thou?'
"First, we think that Pilate was genuinely puzzled and

perplexed. . . . [Second,] Pilate hoped that here was a way
out of his difficulty. If Christ were really from Heaven,
then obviously he could not think of crucifying Him."1024
19:10 Pilate did not appreciate Jesus' silence and the superior attitude that it
implied. Consequently Pilate threatened Him by reminding Him of his
"authority" or power (Gr. exousia) to take or spare Jesus' life. This was
Pilate's seventh and last question of Jesus, probably asked in a spirit of
sarcasm and resentment combined.1025
"Carefully analyzed his words can only meanI am above

the law: innocent or guilty, I can do with you as I
please."1026
19:11 Jesus reminded the bullying governor that there was a higher "authority"
than his. Pilate only had authority because God had "given" it to him (cf.
Rom. 13:1). Probably the higher authority over Pilate that came to his
mind was Caesar, because he immediately sought to set this just Man free,
and thereby avoid trouble with the Emperor over a breach of justice
(v. 12).
"Typical of biblical compatibilism, even the worst evil

cannot escape the outer boundaries of God's sovereignty
yet God's sovereignty never mitigates the responsibility and
guilt of moral agents who operate under divine sovereignty,
while their voluntary decisions and their evil rebellion
never render God utterly contingent (e.g. Gn. 50:19-20; Is.
5:10ff.; Acts 4:27-28)"1027
Who did Jesus have in mind when He spoke of the one who had handed
Him over to Pilate? Some interpreters believe that Jesus meant
Caiaphas.1028 This seems most probable, since it was Caiaphas who had
sent Jesus bound to Pilate (18:28). Another possibility is Judas Iscariot (cf.
6:71; 13:21; 18:2). However, Judas did not hand Jesus over directly to
Pilate but to the Jewish authorities. Obviously Jesus did not mean that God
was responsible, since by His statement, He viewed the act of handing
1024Pink, 3:213-14.
1025Ibid., 3:216.
1026Ibid., 3:217.
1028Morris, p. 705; Blum, p. 338; Tenney, "John," p. 177; Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 601-2; Beasley-
Murray, p. 340.
Him over as a blameworthy sin. Satan might be in view, but Jesus was
apparently speaking of another human being. The Jewish rulers do not
qualify, because Jesus spoke of another person (singular) delivering Him
to Pilate.
Both Pilate and Caiaphas were guilty of treating of treating Jesus

horrendously. However, Caiaphas was guilty of a "worse (greater) sin,"
since Caiaphas had received greater power from God than Pilate had. God
had given Caiaphas the authority to lead God's people as Israel's high
priest. Pilate had only received power (Gr. exousia) to govern politically.
Specifically Jesus seems to have been referring to Pilate's power to judge
Him. Thus the reason for the "greater sin" of Caiaphas was his abuse of
the greater privilege and power that God had given him.
19:12 Jesus' reminder of the authority over Pilate moved the governor to press
for Jesus' "release." However, the Jewish leaders reminded Pilate that
anyone who set free someone who claimed to be a king would not receive
Tiberius Caesar's approval. They placed Pilate on the horns of a dilemma.
It seemed that whatever decision he made, he could get into trouble with
Caesar. The solution to Pilate's problem, of course, was to do what was
right, but Pilate was too much a man of the world to settle for that. He
wanted to assure his own future with his boss. He cared less about his
relationship with God.
The title "friend of Caesar" (Lat. amicus Caesaris) was originally a badge
of honor that was frequently given to provincial governors. It meant that
the honoree was a loyal supporter of the emperor.1029 Later this title
became an official designation of an intimate friend of the emperor. At the
time of Jesus' trial, it was probably at least a semi-technical term that
denoted the second thing. Pilate had been the protg of Aelius Sejanus, a
highly influential prefect in Rome.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote: "The closer a man is with Sejanus, the
stronger his claim to the emperor's friendship."1030 Thus it is possible that
the Jewish leaders were implying that if word of Jesus' release reached
Tiberius, Pilate would lose his privileged relationship with the emperor.
Bad reports about Pilate had already arrived in Rome, and another one
might end his career and possibly his life.1031
The Jewish leaders presented themselves as loyal subjects of Caesar,

which was far from the truth. However, ironically, they were slaves of
Rome and of sin (cf. 8:33-34). They appeared to be a greater threat to
Pilate and to Rome than Jesus was.
1029Westcott,p. 271.
1030Tacitus,Annals 6:8.
1031Cf. Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 602, 607.
19:13 It was evidently the "friend of Caesar" threat that inclined Pilate to decide
to execute Jesus. Again self-interest, rather than commitment to justice,
influenced his decision (cf. v. 1). Pilate "brought Jesus out" again where
the Jews could see Him, and he took his seat for Jesus' formal sentencing.
"It is striking to note that the trial of Christ before Pilate

was in seven stages. This is seen by noting carefully the
following scriptures, which speak of the Governor passing
in and out of the judgment-hall. The first stage was on the
outside: 18:28-32. The second on the inside: 18:33-37.
Third, on the outside: 18:38-40. Fourth, inside: 19:1-3.
Fifth, outside: 19:4-7. Sixth, inside: 19:8-11. Seventh,
outside: 19:12-16."1032
The "judgment seat" (Gr. bema, cf. Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10) was the
place where a powerful ruler pronounced his official verdicts in Roman
culture.
Pilate had his chair of judgment placed on a piece of courtyard called "the
pavement" (Gr. lithostrotos). Archaeologists have unearthed what many of
them believe was this site in the area of the Antonia Fortress. Some of the
pavement stones in this approximately 3,000 square foot area have
markings on them that indicate that soldiers played games there.1033
However, Barrett claimed that, "The buildings and pavement in question
belong to the second century and have nothing to do with the events of the
gospel."1034 John gave the Aramaic (popular Hebrew) name of "the
pavement" as gabbatha, meaning either "height," or more probably, "open
space."
Another view is that gabbatha derives from gab baitha, and meant "the
ridge (back) of the house" (i.e., the temple).1035 He may have done so
because it may have been a site in Jerusalem that was well known to his
Gentile readers by its Aramaic name when he wrote.
The irony of the scene again stands out. Here was a corrupt Roman official
sitting in judgment on the Person into whose hands God the Father had
committed all judgment (cf. 5:22).
19:14 John has appeared to many readers of his Gospel to be contradicting the
Synoptics and his own account of Jesus' observance of the Passover meal
with His disciples (cf. 13:1, 27). However, the phrase "the day of
1032Pink,3:223-24.
1033International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand, 2:373.
1034Barrett, p. 545.
preparation" normally described the day before the Sabbath.1036 The day in
view, then, would be Friday. Likewise, "the Passover" can refer to the
whole eight-day Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, as well as the
Passover day (cf. 18:28; Luke 22:1).1037 The day of preparation for the
Passover, therefore, evidently refers to the Friday of the eight-day feast.
This harmonizes with the other chronological references to the Passion
Week.
Why did John make this chronological reference here? Apparently he did
so to encourage the reader to connect Jesus with the Passover lamb.
Secondarily, this reference helps to explain why the Jews wanted the body
of Jesus removed from the cross prematurely (vv. 31-37). It was the day
before the Sabbath, and this was a special Sabbath since it fell during
Passover week. A similar early reference to a Sabbath, followed by a later
explanation of the significance of that reference, is in 5:9 and 16-18.
Mark wrote that the soldiers placed Jesus on the cross "about the third
hour" (i.e., 9:00 a.m., Mark 15:25). Here John wrote that Pilate sentenced
Jesus about "the sixth hour." Obviously Jesus' sentencing preceded His
crucifixion. What is the solution to this apparent contradiction?
One explanation is that John used the Roman method of reckoning time,
whereas Mark and the other Synoptic writers used the Jewish method.1038
In the Roman method, the sixth hour would be 6:00 a.m. The problem
with this view is that apparently this Roman system of reckoning time was
not common. The only documentary evidence that the Romans used it
appears in a few legal documents.1039 Nevertheless this seems to be the
best explanation.
Another explanation is that a scribe miscopied the Greek numerals, and

inadvertently substituted "six" for "three."1040 However, there is no
manuscript evidence to support this theory. A third view is that both
evangelists intended only approximate time references, and did not expect
their readers to be too fussy about the differences.1041 Nevertheless, time
references, as well as other factual statements, are usually capable of
harmonization in the Bible. A high view of inspiration has led most
conservative interpreters to conclude that Mark and John meant just what
they said.
1036C. C. Torrey, "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel," Journal of Biblical
Literature 50:4 (1931):241; A. J. B. Higgins, "The Origins of the Eucharist," New Testament Studies 1
(1954-55):206-8; Westcott, p. 272; Hoehner, p. 70.
1037Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 14:2:1; 17:9:3.
1038E.g., Westcott, p. 282; and Tasker, p. 209.
1039Morris, p. 708.
1041Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 605; Tenney, "John," p. 178; Morris, pp. 708-9; A Dictionary of the Bible,
"Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume: 479.
A fourth view is that the Synoptic writers used a Galilean method of

reckoning time, that began the day with sunrise, while John used a Judean
method that began it with sunset.1042
Before passing sentence on Jesus, Pilate presented Him to the Jews as

though this was a mock coronation ceremony. He knew that the Jews did
not acknowledge Caesar as their king, even though they had just professed
to do so (v. 12). His announcement was therefore an expression of
contemptfor both Jesus and the Jews. Ironically Jesus was their King.
Pilate spoke more truly than he knew. As Jewish Caiaphas had earlier
unwittingly announced a prophecy about Jesus (11:49-50), so now Gentile
Pilate did as well.
"Unlike the presentation of Jesus in 19:4-6, this

[presentation] was not intended to ridicule Jesus. Since that
occasion, Pilate had been moved by Jesus and defeated in
his attempt to rescue him. Now he makes the moment of his
decision the moment of decision for the Jews. They have a
final and crucial opportunity of declaring their mind on
Jesus and recanting, if they will, on their unjust and bitter
accusations of him."1043
19:15 The Jewish mob, led by their leaders, shouted their rejection of their King.
They went even further than that, and demanded His crucifixion! They
also hypocritically professed their allegiance to "Caesar" as their only
"king" (Gr. basilea). This was going way beyond merely rejecting Jesus.
They were now repudiating Israel's messianic hope, including the
messianic kingdom, and rejecting Yahweh's sovereignty over their nation
(cf. Judg. 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:7).1044 The chief priests probably went to this
extreme in order to persuade Pilate to grant their requestand to crucify
Jesus (cf. Matt. 27:25).
"The chief priests . . . were Sadducees, who had no

Messianic hope like that of the Pharisees. So to carry their
point against Jesus they renounce the principle of the
theocracy that God was their King (I Sam. 12:12)."1045
The Jewish hierarchy had accused Jesus of blaspheming, but now these
men were themselves guilty of blasphemy (cf. 1:11). Such an extreme,
hostile, and total rejection helps us understand why God turned from
Israeltemporarilyto continue His dealings with humankind through
the church (cf. Rom. 911).
1042Hoehner, pp. 77-90.

1044See Westcott, pp. 272-73.
"On this occasion they spoke in terms of cynical

expediency. But they expressed the real truth. Their lives
showed that they gave no homage to God."1046
19:16 Pilate's action constituted his sentence against Jesus. By the words "to
them," John evidently meant that Pilate "handed" Jesus "over" to the
Roman soldiers to satisfy the demands of the Jews. He omitted any
reference to the most brutal and sometimes lethal form of scourging (the
verberatio), that the Roman soldiers now gave Jesusas preliminary
punishment before His crucifixion (cf. Matt. 27:27-30; Mark 15:15-19).
"He was slapped in the face before Annas (John 18:22), and
spat on and beaten before Caiaphas and the council (Matt.
26:67). Pilate scourged Him and the soldiers smote Him
(John 19:1-3); and before they led Him to Calvary, the
soldiers mocked Him and beat Him with a rod (Mark
15:19). How much He suffered for us!"1047
The NASB and NIV translators divided the material in verses 16 and 17
differently, but the content is the same.
In his account of Jesus' civil trial, John stressed the divine kingship of Jesus and the Jews'
rejection of Him. The Gentiles also rejected Him through the person of their
representative: Pilate.
"From the human standpoint, the trial of Jesus was the greatest crime and
tragedy in history. From the divine viewpoint, it was the fulfillment of
prophecy and the accomplishment of the will of God. The fact that God
had planned all of this did not absolve the participants of their
responsibility. In fact, at Pentecost, Peter put both ideas together in one
statement! (Acts 2:23)"1048
"'Pilate was blackmailed into assenting to the death of Christ, because his
previous mistakes had made it impossible for him to defy the Jews and to
keep his post. Somehow one cannot help being sorry for Pilate. He wanted
to do the right thing; but he had not the courage to defy the Jews and to do
it. Pilate crucified Jesus in order to keep his job."1049
"Nowhere in Scripture, perhaps, is there a more striking and vivid

demonstration of the sovereignty of God than Pilate's treatment of the
Lord Jesus. First, Pilate was assured of His innocency [sic],
acknowledging, no less than seven times, 'I find no fault in him.' Second,
1046Morris, p. 710.
1047Wiersbe, 1:379.
1048Ibid., 1:381.
1049Barclay, 2:280. See ibid., 2:276-80, for a summary of Pilate's previous unwise dealings with the Jews.
Pilate desired to release Him: 'Pilate therefore willing to release Jesus'

(Luke 23:20); 'I will let him go' (Luke 23:22); 'Pilate sought to release
him' (John 19:12); 'Pilate was determined to let him go' (Acts 3:13), all
prove that unmistakably. Third, Pilate was urged, most earnestly by none
other than his own wife, not to sentence Him (Matt. 27:19). Fourth, he
actually endeavored to bring about His acquittal: he bade the Jews
themselves judge Christ ([John] 18:31); he sent Him to Herod, only for
Christ to be returned (Luke 23:7); he sought to induce the Jews to have
him convict Barabbas in His stead (19:39 [sic 18:39-40; Luke 23:18-20]).
Yet in spite of all, Pilate did give sentence that Christ should be
crucified!" [cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28].1050
D. JESUS' CRUCIFIXION 19:17-30
The unique material in John's account of Jesus' crucifixion includes the controversy about
the superscription over Jesus' cross (vv. 19-22) and several references to the fulfillment
of prophecy (vv. 24, 28-29; cf. vv. 36-37). John was also the only Gospel writer to record
Jesus' care for His mother (vv. 25-27), His sixth cry before His death (v. 30), and the
piercing of His side (v. 34).
1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17 (cf. Matt. 27:31-34; Mark 15:20-23;

Luke 23:26-33a)
John omitted the detail that Simon carried Jesus' cross (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke
23:26), which might have detracted from John's presentation of Jesus as the divine
Savior. He also made no reference to Jesus' sufferings on the way to Calvary that Luke,
who had a special interest in Jesus' humanity, stressed (Luke 23:27-32).
The soldiers led Jesus from Pilate's judgment seat to Golgotha. Normally an execution
squad consisted of four legionnaires plus a centurion (cf. v. 23).1051 John did not
comment on Jesus' painful journey to the cross, probably because he wanted to stress His
deity. He did mention the fact that Jesus bore His own cross, however, probably for the
same reason (cf. Gen. 22:6; Heb. 13:11-13).
Criminals condemned to crucifixion, such as Jesus, normally carried their entire cross or
only the crossbeam (Lat. patibulum) of their cross.1052 This was common procedure in
crucifixions, as John's original readers undoubtedly knew. Jesus evidently carried the
crossbeam.1053
All the Gospel writers identified the place of Jesus' crucifixion as "the place of the skull."
All but Luke gave its Aramaic title, namely, golgolta ("skull") the transliteration of which
is Golgotha. "Calvary" is the transliteration of the Latin calvaria meaning "place of a
1050Pink,3:205.
1052Morris, p. 711.
1053Bock, p. 535.
skull." Why the place bore this name remains a mystery, though it may have been a
common place for executions. The place probably received its name from its appearance.
There is a tradition that it was the place where Adam's skull was buried.1054 Most modern
scholars believe that the site was the traditional one over which the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher now stands. There is little support for the fairly recent suggestion that Gordon's
Calvary was the correct location. The idea that Golgotha was on a hill came more from
hymns than from Scripture.
2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18 (cf. Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke
23:33b)
The horrors and shame of crucifixion are difficult for people who have grown up hearing
pleas against "cruel and unusual punishment" to appreciate. It was a deliberately long and
excruciating form of death that humiliated the sufferer as well as torturing him. Its
purpose was to discourage others from rebelling against Rome, the main reason for
crucifixion. John's original readers would have been only too familiar with it, which
probably accounts for his lack of elaboration.
"It was so brutal that no Roman citizen could be crucifed [sic] without the
sanction of the Emperor. Stripped naked and beaten to pulpy weakness
. . ., the victim could hang in the hot sun for hours, even days. To breathe,
it was necessary to push with the legs and pull with the arms to keep the
chest cavity open and functioning. Terrible muscle spasm [sic] wracked
the entire body; but since collapse meant asphyxiation, the strain went on
and on. This is also why the sedecula [a piece of wood that served as a
small seat in some cases] . . . prolonged life and agony: it partially
supported the body's weight, and therefore encouraged the victim to fight
on."1055
"Crucifixion was probably the most diabolical form of death ever

invented."1056
"Popular piety, both Protestant and Catholic, has often emphasized the
sufferings of Jesus; it has reflected on what happened and has dwelt on the
anguish the Savior suffered. None of the Gospels does this. The
Evangelists record the fact and let it go at that. The death of Jesus for
sinners was their concern. They make no attempt to play on the
heartstrings of their readers."1057
All the Gospel writers mentioned the "two other men" crucified with Jesus (Matt. 27:38,
44; Mark 15:27, 32; Luke 23:32-33, 39-43). They were evidently robbers (Gr. lestai) and
terrorists, as was Barabbas (cf. 18:40). John may have mentioned them to remind his
1054Barrett,p. 548.
1055Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 610. Cf. M. Hengel, Crucifixion.
1056Tenney, "John," p. 181. For an extended description of crucifixion, see ibid, pp. 180-81.
1057Morris, p. 713.
readers of the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7 and 12.1058 Their mention also prepares the reader
to understand John's recording of the breaking of their legs but not Jesus' legs (vv. 32-33).
3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22 (cf. Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26;
Luke 23:38)
John evidently included the controversy about the inscription on Jesus' cross, because it
underlines not only the Jews' deliberate and conscious repudiation of, but also the true
identity of God's Son.
19:19-20 Normally the judge of a person sentenced to crucifixion would order that a
placard (Lat. titulus), with "an inscription" identifying his crime, would
accompany him to the place of his execution. This would inform
onlookers who the criminal was, and why he was suffering such a terrible
fate, as they passed him. The soldiers would then affix the sign to the
criminal's cross for the same purpose.1059
The Gospels all report slightly different inscriptions. Probably what Pilate
really wrote was the sum of all these variations, and the Gospel writers
each just quoted a part of the whole. Perhaps some or all of the evangelists
paraphrased the inscription. Another possibility is that the Gospel writers
may not have been translating the same language since Pilate ordered the
charge written in three different languages.1060
Aramaic (popular "Hebrew") was the common language spoken by the

Jews in Palestine. "Latin" was the official language that the Romans,
including the soldiers, spoke. "Greek" was the lingua franca (common
language) of the empire. Pilate continued to insult the Jewish hierarchy
for forcing his handby identifying Jesus this way for all to take note.
However, his trilingual notice was God's sovereign way of declaring to the
whole world who His Son really was, the Jewish king whose rule is
universal.
Clearly Pilate regarded Jesus as guilty of sedition, the political charge that
the Jews had brought against Him, rather than the religious charge of
claiming to be the Son of God (18:33). By identifying Jesus as the Jews'
king and then crucifying Him, Pilate was boasting Rome's superiority over
the Jews and flaunting its authority.
19:21-22 The chief priest's emendation of the title would have robbed Pilate of this
last chance to humiliate the Jews. He had already conceded once to their
request, but he refused to give them the satisfaction of robbing him of this
revenge: "What I have written I have written." Ironically, what Pilate let
1058However see D. J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, pp. 154-55.
stand was the exact truth. He had unwittingly become God's herald of His
redemptive purpose.
4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24 (Matt. 27:35-36; Mark

15:24; Luke 23:34)
Normally the executioners of a criminal received his clothes following his death.1061 John
spoke of the soldiers dividing Jesus' garments (plural). The Greek word translated
"garments" is himatia. Usually when this word occurs in the singular it refers to the outer
robe that most Jews wore. Here, because he used the plural, John evidently had in mind
all of Jesus' "outer garments," including His robe, sandals, belt, and head covering.1062
This would have resulted in each of the four soldiers receiving one piece of clothing. The
"tunic" (Gr. chiton) that remained was a garment worn next to the skin, but it was not
what we would think of as underwear. It was more like a long shirt. Since Jesus' tunic had
been "woven in one piece," the soldiers decided to "cast lots" to determine who would get
it.
John alone among the evangelists noted that this procedure was another fulfillment of
prophecy (Ps. 22:18). The poetic parallelism in the prophecy found literal fulfillment in
this event. Men continued to carry out God's foreordained plan of salvation though
unknowingly. This is another tribute to God's sovereignty. Even as Jesus' humiliation
reached its depths, as enemies took even His clothes from Him, the Father controlled His
destiny.
"That Jesus died naked was part of the shame which He bore for our sins.
At the same time He is the last Adam who provides clothes of
righteousness for sinners."1063
". . . the sinful first Adam was clothed by God; the sinless last Adam was
unclothed by wicked men."1064
"It seems very unlikely that there is an allusion to Joseph, with his coat,
his brothers (prefiguring the disciples), and his two fellow-prisoners."1065
5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

John is the only evangelist who recorded this incident.
19:25 The four women "standing by the cross" contrast with the four soldiers.
Morris assumed that the four women were believers and the four soldiers
were unbelievers.1066 While the soldiers behaved callously and profited
1061Tenney, "John," p. 181; Beasley-Murray, p. 347.

1063Blum, p. 339.
1064Pink, 3:233.
1066Morris, p. 717.
immediately from Jesus' death, the women waited faithfully and patiently
for what God would do. It was apparently common for friends and
relatives, as well as enemies, to stand at a short distance ("nearby," v. 26)
around the crosses of crucified criminals.1067 Only John mentioned that
Jesus' "mother" was present at His crucifixion.
SOME WOMEN WHO OBSERVED THE CRUCIFIXION

Matthew 27:56 Mark 15:40 John 19:25
Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene
Jesus' mother (Mary)
Mary the mother of Mary the mother of Mary the wife of Clopas
James and Joseph = James the Less and
Joses =
Mother of Zebedee's Salome = Jesus' mother's sister
sons =
It is interesting that John did not refer to his own mother, either, by name
(Salome), or as the mother of Zebedee's sons. John never named himself,
or his brother James, or any other member of his family. He evidently
wanted to play down his mother's identity, as well as his own, since he did
not directly mention himself in this Gospel, either. By referring to his
mother as "the sister of Jesus' mother," John set the scene for Jesus' action
in verses 26-27. John was Jesus' cousin on his mother's side. As such, he
was a logical person to assume responsibility for Mary's welfare. Judging
from their absence at His cross, Jesus' physical half-brothers may not have
become believers until after His resurrection.
19:26-27 Jesus addressed His mother by saying, "Dear woman" (Gr. gynai, cf. 2:4).
This was an affectionate and respectful way of speaking to her. Mary's
grief must have been very great (cf. 2:38). Even as He hung dying an
excruciatingly painful death, Jesus compassionately made provision for
His mother.
"Here also is an example of how disciples relate to one

another with care that is not limited by biological
connections."1068
The language Jesus used was legal and quite similar to the terms used
commonly in adoption proceedings.1069 His action indicates that He was
1067E.Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, pp. 111, 179, footnote 1.

1068Bock, p. 537.
the person responsible for His mother, implying that Joseph was no longer
alive and that He was her eldest son. Most Bible scholars assume that
Joseph had died by now. Jesus' act also placed Mary under John's
authority, a position that some Roman Catholics have found very
uncomfortablein view of their doctrine of Mary's supremacy.
This was Jesus' third recorded saying from the cross.
JESUS' WORDS ON THE CROSS

Matthew Mark Luke John
"Father, forgive them." 23:34
"Today you shall be with me in
23:43
paradise."
"Woman, behold your son,"
19:26-27
and "Behold, your mother."
"My God, my God, why have
27:46 15:34
you forsaken me?"
"I thirst." 19:28
"It is finished." 19:30
"Father, into your hands I
27:50 23:46
commend my spirit."
6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30 (cf. Matt. 27:48-50; Mark 15:36-37; Luke
23:46)
John did not mention the darkness that came over the land, as the other evangelists did
(cf. Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44-45). This is noteworthy, in view of John's
interest in the light and darkness motif. Perhaps he did not want to detract attention from
the Person of Jesus. He also omitted Jesus' heart-rending lament that the Father had
withdrawn from Him (cf. Matt. 27:46-47; Mark 15:34-35). This is understandable, since
throughout this Gospel John stressed the Son's essential unity with the Father. The
Father's temporary separation from the Son in judgment did not ultimately vitiate
(nullify) their essential unity.
19:28 "All things" necessary for the fulfillment of the Scriptures predicting the
provision of redemption were almost "accomplished" (Gr. teleiothe). John
was speaking proleptically again (cf. 12:23; 17:1, 4); his writing
anticipated what would happen next. Obviously Jesus still had to die. As
the moment of His death drew nearer, Jesus said He was "thirsty." This
authenticated His true humanity, which Gnostics and Docetists denied. A
man in Jesus' physical condition would at this point be suffering the
tortures of dehydration. It is paradoxical that the Water of Life should
confess thirst (cf. 4:4:14; 7:38-39). The obvious answer to this is that Jesus
had referred to Himself as the source of spiritual rather than physical
water.
"One may no more assume that John's emphasis on the

cross as the exaltation of Jesus excludes his desolation of
spirit than his emphasis on the deity of the Son excludes the
Son's true humanity."1070
"By accepting the physical refreshment offered Him, the

Lord once more indicated the completion of the work of
His Passion. For, as He would not enter on it with His
senses and physical consciousness lulled by narcotised [sic]
wine, so He would not pass out of it with senses and
physical consciousness dulled by the absolute failure of
life-power. Hence He took what for the moment restored
the physical balance, needful for thought and word. And so
He immediately passed on to 'taste death for every
man.'"1071
The Scripture that spoke of Messiah's thirst may be Psalm 22:15 (cf. v. 24)
and or Psalm 69:21 (cf. 2:17; 15:25). Jesus' mention of His thirst resulted
in the soldier callously giving Him vinegar (sour wine) to drink, which
Psalm 69:21 predicted. Thus John stressed that Jesus' death not only
fulfilled God's will, but also prophetic Scripture.
19:29 It may have been customary to offer "sour wine" or wine-vinegar (Gr.
oxos) to the victims of crucifixion, since John described the "jar" of it as
"standing there" or "set there." Another possibility is that the soldiers had
brought this wine to the crucifixion for their own refreshment. Only John
mentioned that the soldiers "put the (a) sponge" soaked with ("full of")
wine-vinegar on "a branch of hyssop," which they extended to Jesus
("brought . . . up to His mouth"). Hyssop was readily available, since it
grew out of many rocky crevices as a weed. The "hyssop" reference may
simply be a detail in the testimony of an eyewitness to Jesus' crucifixion.
However, it may hint at Jesus being the Lamb of God, since the Jews used
hyssop to sprinkle blood on their doorposts and lintels at Passover (cf.
Exod. 12:22; 1 Cor. 5:7).
The "sponge" was evidently small enough that Jesus could put at least
some of it in His mouth. The hyssop branch was obviously strong enough
to remain erect under the sponge's weight. Jesus was probably not very
high above ground level as He hung on the cross, contrary to many famous
paintings (cf. 3:14). Evidently the soldiers gave Jesus the drink out of
compassion.1072
19:30 Jesus' reception of the "sour wine" did not relieve His torment, though it
did moisten His parched throat so He could speak. It also fulfilled
Scripture (Ps. 32:4; 69:21).
"The 'vinegar' was probably the cheap sour wine the

legionnaires drank. Though it provided some refreshment,
it was a strong astringent that could contract the throat
muscles and prevent the condemned victim from crying out
with pain.1073
Nevertheless Jesus cried out with a loud voice (Mark 15:37): "It is
finished!" (Gr. tetelestai). He probably shouted this with an exclamation
of triumph. The verb teleo denotes the completion of a task. Jesus was not
just announcing that He was about to die. He was also declaring,
proleptically (in advance), that He had fulfilled God's will for Him (cf.
17:4). The use of the perfect tense, here, signified proleptically that Jesus
had finished His work of providing redemption completely, and that it
presently stood finished. Nothing more needed, or ever needs, to be done.
This finished work of Jesus Christ is the basis for our salvation (cf. 2 Cor.
5:21).
"Papyri receipts for taxes have been recovered with the

word tetelestai written across them, meaning 'paid in
full.'"1074
Having thus spoken, Jesus handed over (Gr. paredoken) "His spirit" to His
Father (cf. Luke 23:46), and "bowed His head" in peaceful death.
Normally victims of crucifixion experienced the gradual ebbing away of
life, and then their heads would slump forward. All four evangelists
presented Jesus as giving up His life of His own accord. No one took it
from Him (cf. 10:10, 14, 17-18). He did this voluntarily, and in harmony
with His Father's will (cf. 8:29; 14:31).
". . . He 'bowed his head'; the plain intimation is that, up to

this point, His head had been held erect. It was no impotent
sufferer who hung there in a swoon. Had that been the case,
His head had lolled helplessly on His chest, and He would
have had no occasion to 'bow' it."1075
1074Blum, p. 340.
1075Pink, 3:246.
John did not record Jesus' final utterance from the cross (Luke 23:46). He
evidently ended his account of Jesus' death, as he did, to stress the
completion of the work of redemption, which Jesus triumphantly
announced with His sixth saying. John also stressed Jesus' divine
sovereign control over His own destiny, all the while staying in
submission to His Father's will.
"The death of Christ may be viewed from five main viewpoints. From the
standpoint of God the Cross was a propitiation (Rom. 3:25-26), where full
satisfaction was made to His holiness and justice. From the standpoint of
the Saviour, it was a sacrifice (Eph. 5:2), an offering (Heb. 9:14), an act of
obedience (Phil. 2:8). From the standpoint of believers, it was a
substitution, the Just suffering for the unjust (I Peter 3:18). From the
standpoint of Satan it was a triumph and a defeat: a triumph, in that he
bruised the heel of the woman's Seed (Gen. 3:15); a defeat, in that through
His death Christ destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the
Devil (Heb. 2:14). From the standpoint of the world it was a brutal murder
(Acts 3:15). It is with this last-mentioned aspect of the death of Christ that
our present passage principally treats."1076
E. THE TREATMENT OF JESUS' BODY 19:31-42
John recorded two incidents that happened following Jesus' death and before His
resurrection. They both deal with the treatment that His dead body received.
1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37
This pericope is unique to the fourth Gospel.
19:31 The "day of preparation" was Friday, the day before the Sabbath
(Saturday, cf. v. 14; Mark 15:42). The Jews considered sundown the
beginning of a new day. In this case, the new day was a special Sabbath.
This Sabbath was an extra special day because it fell during Passover
week. The Jews wanted to get the bodies down off their crosses so they
would not defile the land. The Mosaic Law instructed the Jews to allow no
one to remain hanging on a gibbet overnight, because this would defile the
land. Such a person was under God's curse (cf. Deut. 21:22-23; Josh.
8:29). To allow someone to remain overnight on a Passover Sabbath
would be especially inappropriate.
Normally the Romans left victims of crucifixion hanging until they died,
which sometimes took several days. Then they would leave their corpses
on their crosses until the birds had picked the flesh off them. If they had to
hasten their deaths for some reason, they would smash their legs, breaking
the bones with an iron mallet. This prevented the victims from using their
1076Ibid., 3:220.
legs to push themselves up to keep their chest cavities open, allowing

them to breathe. Death by asphyxiation, loss of blood, and shock would
soon follow.1077 Archaeologists have found the remains of a victim of
crucifixion with his legs smashed in Israel.1078
"Thus the 'breaking of the bones' was a sort of increase of

punishment, by way of compensation for its shortening by
the final stroke that followed."1079
19:32-33 The Roman soldiers therefore "broke the legs" of the two terrorists whom
they had crucified with Jesus, because they were still alive. They "did not
break" Jesus' "legs" since He was "already dead."
"The punishment was abolished, together with crucifixion,

by the first Christian emperor Constantine (Lipsius, III.
14)."1080
19:34 Whatever led "one of the soldiers" to "pierce" Jesus' "side" with his
"spear" (Gr. longche) is unclear and unimportant. Perhaps it was just
another senseless act of brutality, or he may have wanted to see if he could
get some reaction from Jesus.
It is also unclear why the wound produced a sudden flow of "blood and
water" (cf. 1 John 5:6). Probably the spear pierced Jesus' heart and its
surrounding pericardial sac that contains water. The fluids could have
drained out as John described if the spear had entered the body near the
bottom of the chest cavity.1081 Apparently the soldier pierced Jesus' side
before His blood congealed into a solid. This eyewitness testimony
stresses the fact that Jesus really did die and that He was a genuine man
(cf. 1:14).
By the end of the first century, when John probably wrote this Gospel,
Docetism and Gnosticism were on the rise. Both of these heresies denied
that Jesus was a real man. Docetists claimed that Jesus only seemed (Gr.
dokeo, "to seem," therefore the name "Docetist") to be fully human.
Muslims take a similar view of Jesus.1082 Muhammad's knowledge of
Christianity came through docetic sources.1083

1078N. Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar," Israel
Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.
1081See A. F. Sava, "The Wound in the Side of Christ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.
1082Koran, Sura 4:156.
1083F. F. Bruce, p. 382, footnote 38.
Some interpreters have suspected that John was alluding to the Lord's
Supper and baptism when he mentioned this "blood and water."1084
However, there are no clues in the text that this was John's intention.
Others have seen the blood and water as symbolic of the life and cleansing
that metaphorically flow from Jesus' death.1085 Again it would be hard to
prove or disprove that this was in John's mind from what he wrote. Still
others view it as referring to the Holy Spirit. However, these are at best
interpretations that rest on similarities. Others have seen a fulfillment of
Psalm 69:20 here: "Reproach has broken my heart." Yet John did not
make this connection, and Jesus did not die literally of a broken heart.
Several hymn writers have, however, developed this symbolism. For

example, Fanny Crosby wrote, "Jesus, keep me near the cross. There a
precious fountain, free to all, a healing stream, flows from Calv'ry's
mountain."1086 Other non-literal interpretations see the water as an allusion
to Exodus 17:6. Augustus Toplady wrote, "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let
me hide myself in Thee. Let the water and the blood, from thy wounded
side which flowed, be of sin the double cure. Cleanse me from its guilt and
power."1087 I do not mean to denigrate these worthy hymns, but am simply
pointing out that they go beyond the teaching of this passage.
19:35 Lest the reader miss the point of verse 34, John explained that he had
personally witnessed (had "seen") what he narrated, and that he was not
lying ("is telling the truth"). Furthermore, the purpose of his reliable
eyewitness "testimony" was that his readers might "believe" what he
wrote, and what it meant, namely: that Jesus was God's Son (cf. 20:30-31;
21:24).
Some commentators suggested that the eyewitness was someone different

from John. Suggestions range from the soldier who pierced Jesus' side, to
an unknown eyewitness whom John did not identify, to an unknown
editor, to Jesus, and to God the Father. However, the most probable
solution is to identify John himself as the eyewitness, in view of the
context and the parallel statements that follow (20:30-31; 21:24; cf. 1:14;
12:23).
19:36-37 "These things" refer to the facts that the soldiers did not break Jesus'
bones, but did pierce His side. Here were two more fulfillments of Old
Testament prophecy.
In verse 36, John could have had any of three passages in mind: Exodus
12:46; Numbers 9:12; and or Psalm 34:20. The first two specify that the
Israelites were not to break the bones of their Passover lambs. Elsewhere,
1084E.g.,
Brown, 2:946-53; cf. Westcott, p. 279.
1085E.g.,
Dodd, p. 428; cf. Morris, p. 725; Harrison, p. 1118.
1086Fanny Crosby, "Near the Cross."
1087Augustus Toplady, "Rock of Ages."
Paul and Peter described Jesus as the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet.
1:19), and this figure is prominent in John's Gospel as well (cf. 1:36; et
al.). Psalm 34:20 describes the righteous man by saying that God would
not allow anyone to break his bones (cf. Luke 23:47). The first passage
seems best since its fulfillment was more literal, though admittedly it
involves the Passover typology.
This quotation has spawned the theory that Jesus died at the same time the
Jews were slaying their Passover lambs. This view seems untenable since
all the evangelists presented the Last Supper as a Passover meal. There
have been several attempts to harmonize these views and to explain how
there could have been two Passovers on successive days.1088 None of these
explanations is convincing to me. It seems better to view the Passover
meal as happening on Thursday evening, Thursday being the fourteenth of
Nisan, which was the normal day for the Passover. Even though Jesus'
death fulfilled the Passover typology, it apparently did not coincide
exactly with the Jews' sacrifice of their lambs for their Passover meals.
That happened the afternoon before Jesus died.
Wednesday Thursday Friday

Midnight April 2 Midnight April 3
3:00 a.m. 3:00 a.m.
6:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m.
April 1 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Jesus was
crucified
Noon Noon
3:00 p.m. The Jews slew 3:00 p.m.
Jesus died
their Passover
lambs
14 Nisan 6:00 p.m. 15 Nisan 6:00 p.m. 16 Nisan

The Jews ate
their Passover
lambs
Midnight Midnight
In verse 37, the prophecy in view is clearly the one in Zechariah 12:10 (cf.
Rev. 1:7). Jesus quoted this verse in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:30).
There He stressed a different part of it. The piercing of God's coming
Shepherd happened when Jesus died on the cross (cf. 10:11). The Gentile
nations will "look on Him whom they [have] pierced" when He returns at
1088See Hoehner, pp. 81-90.

His Second Coming (cf. Rev. 1:7). Both Jews and Gentiles were
responsible for Jesus' death.
2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42 (cf. Matt. 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke
23:50-54)
19:38 All four evangelists mentioned "Joseph of Arimathea," but only in regard
to Jesus' burial. The Synoptics tell us that he was a rich God-fearing
member of the Sanhedrin, who was a follower of Jesus, and who had not
voted to condemn Jesus. Only John identified him as a "secret disciple"
who feared "the Jews," namely: the unbelieving Jewish leaders. Jesus had
warned His disciples about trying to hide their allegiance to Him (12:42-
43). Finally Joseph came out publicly, by courageously requesting Jesus'
"body" from Pilate.
Normally the Romans placed the bodies of crucified offenders, whose

bodies they did not leave to rot on their crosses, in a cemetery for
criminals outside the city.1089 Family members could not claim the bodies
of people who had undergone crucifixion as punishment for sedition.1090
Thus Jesus' corpse would normally have ended up in the grave of a
common criminal, but for Joseph's intervention. Pilate probably "granted"
his request for Jesus' body, because he realized that Joseph wanted to give
Jesus an honorable burial. That would have humiliated the Jews further.
Joseph's courageous act doubtless alienated him from many of his fellow
Sanhedrin members. We do not know what the ultimate consequences of
his action were for him. Evidently it was Jesus' death that caused Joseph to
face up to his responsibility to take a stand for Jesus.
19:39 Only John mentioned that "Nicodemus" also played a part in burying
Jesus (cf. 3:1-15). He also was probably a member of the Sanhedrin (cf.
3:1). He, too, was now taking a more visible position as a disciple of Jesus
(cf. 7:50-52). Nicodemus brought about 65 pounds (100 litrai, cf. 12:3) of
spices ("myrrh and aloes") with which to prepare Jesus' body for burial.
This was a large quantity, and reflected Nicodemus' great respect for
Jesus. Evidently these two wealthy rulers decided to honor Jesus together.
They apparently divided their responsibilities, with Joseph securing
Pilate's permission and Nicodemus preparing the spices.
"Myrrh" was a fragrant resin that the Jews turned into powder, and then
mixed with "aloes," which was powdered sandalwood.1091 The purpose of
covering a corpse with this aromatic powder was to dry it out and to lessen
the foul odor that putrefaction caused.

1091Ibid., p. 630.
19:40 The Egyptians removed some internal parts of the body before
embalming, and the pagans typically burned human corpses. The burial
custom of the Jews was to place the corpse on a long sheet with the feet at
one end. Next, they would cover the corpse with thick layers of spices.
They would then fold the cloth over the head and back down to the feet,
which they would tie together. They would also tie the arms to the body
with strips of cloth. Normally a separate cloth covered the face.1092 John's
interest was not in the manner of the burial, as much as the honor that
Joseph and Nicodemus bestowed on Jesus by burying Him in "linen" cloth
("wrappings," Gr. othonia). Their work had to be hasty, because sunset
was approaching quickly, and all work had to cease when the Sabbath
began at sunset on Friday.
The NIV translation of othonia as "strips of cloth" has seemingly

contradicted the view that Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus in a single
piece of cloth, which the Synoptics suggest (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46;
Luke 23:53). One writer believed the custom was to wrap the body in
long, bandage-like strips rather than in a shroud.1093 However, this Greek
word does not necessarily mean narrow strips of cloth. It can describe one
or more large pieces of cloth.1094 The burial customs of the Jews are still
obscure enough that it is unwise to insist dogmatically that Jesus had only
one shroud covering Him. The shroud of Turin is such a piece of cloth,
though whether it was the real burial shroud of Jesus is the subject of
considerable controversy.
19:41 John is the only evangelist who recorded that "there was a garden" and an
unused "new tomb" near "the place" of Jesus' crucifixion. The tomb was
probably an artificial cave in the limestone, several examples of which are
observable in Palestine today. Matthew noted that the garden and its tomb
belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:60). John's mention of the garden anticipates
his later reference to a gardener (20:15). His reference to the "tomb" being
"new" and unused sets the stage for the Resurrectionat which no other
corpse would be in the tomb (20:8, 12).
"The fall of the first Adam took place in a garden; and it

was in a garden that the second Adam redeemed mankind
from the consequences of Adam's transgression."1095
The site was probably not the "Garden Tomb" near Gordon's Calvary,
since Jesus' tomb would have been closer to the crucifixion site that the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher now covers. Jesus' tomb could have been
quite similar in appearance to this "Garden Tomb," however.
1092Seemy note at 11:44; and Westcott, p. 281.

1093Morris, p. 730.
1094Brown, 2:942.
1095Tasker, p. 219.
19:42 John implied that the burial of Jesus was hasty. Mark and Luke described
similar circumstances, by writing that three of the women came to anoint
Jesus' corpse, on Sunday morning, with additional spices that they had
prepared (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56). Joseph and Nicodemus' work had
necessarily been swift because the "day of preparation" before the Sabbath
(i.e., Friday) was about to end with sundown.
John did not mention the fact that some of the women visited Jesus' tomb late Friday
afternoon (cf. Matt. 27:61-66; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55-56). He also omitted that Joseph
rolled a stone over the mouth of the tomb (Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46). What follows in
chapter 20 assumes these facts. John did not mention, either, that Pilate sealed the tomb
and posted soldiers to guard it (Matt. 27:62-66).
"While we now recognize that all four Evangelists are theologians in their
own right, the Fourth Evangelist has labored more than all to bring to the
clear light of day the theological significance of the passion narrative
handed on to the churches."1096
F. JESUS' RESURRECTION 20:1-29

"If the Gospel of John were an ordinary biography, there would be no
chapter 20. I am an incurable reader of biographies, and I notice that
almost all of them conclude with the death and burial of the subject. I have
yet to read one that describes the subject's resurrection from the dead! The
fact that John continued his account and shared the excitement of the
Resurrection miracle is proof that Jesus Christ is not like any other man.
He is, indeed, the Son of God."1097
John viewed Jesus' resurrection as part of His exaltation. Jesus' exaltation would have
been incomplete without His resurrection. Because of John's viewpoint, I have outlined
the Resurrection as part of the passion ministry of Jesus, even though in another sense,
the Passion ended with His death.
"For John, as for all the early Christians, the resurrection of Jesus was the
immutable fact upon which their faith was based; and their faith in large
part depended on the testimony and transformed behaviour of those who
had actually seen the resurrected Jesus. Their Master was not in God's
eyes a condemned criminal; the resurrection proved that he was vindicated
by God, and therefore none less than the Messiah, the Son of God he
claimed to be [cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-17]."1098
"In each of the following [resurrection appearances] we will discover a
pattern with the following features: (1) The beneficiaries of the appearance
are engulfed in a human emotion (Mary, grief; the disciples, fear; and
Thomas, doubt). (2) The risen Christ appears to them in the midst of their
1097Wiersbe, 1:387.
condition. (3) As a result, their condition is transformed (Mary, mission;

the disciples, gladness; Thomas, faith)."1099
"With Mary, the emphasis is on love; with the ten, the emphasis is on
hope; and with Thomas, the emphasis is on faith."1100
1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9 (cf. Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8;
Luke 24:1-8)
John omitted the earthquake, the angel rolling away the stone that covered the tomb
entrance, and his sitting on the stone (Matt. 28:2-3). He also did not include the
appearance of two angels to the women who visited the tomb early Easter morning,
before Peter and John did, and the women's reactions (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:5-8; Luke
24:4-8).1101
20:1 "The first day of the week" was Sunday. It is interesting that all four
Gospel writers referred to the day of Jesus' resurrection this way, rather
than as "the third day after His death." The latter description would have
connected the Resurrection with Jesus' predictions of it more directly.
Perhaps they did this to associate Easter more clearly with a new
beginning.1102 John may have mentioned the darkness of the night to
associate darkness with Mary's limited understanding then (cf. 13:30).1103
Alternatively this may simply have been a detail that adds credibility to
the narrative.
The other evangelists noted that several women came to the tomb.1104
Women Who Visited the Tomb Easter Morning

Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1 Luke 24:10 John 20:1
Mary Mary Mary
Mary Magdalene
Magdalene Magdalene Magdalene
Mary the Mary the mother
The other Mary = mother of of James
James
Salome
Joanna
others
1099R. Kysar, John, p. 299.

1100Wiersbe, 1:387.
1101See Westcott, pp. 287-88, for other unique features of John's account of the Resurrection, and for a
table of the possible order and time of the events that took place on the first Easter Sunday.
1103Ibid.
1104See Zane C. Hodges, "The Women and the Empty Tomb," Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-
December 1966):301-9.
"Mary Magdalene" evidently came first with the other women (cf. v. 2;
Prov. 8:17). Another possibility is that she came first and the other women
followed shortly, but this seems less likely in view of the other evangelists'
descriptions. John wrote that she saw (Gr. blepei) the open tomb of Jesus.
He implied that she did not enter it. Perhaps John mentioned Mary
Magdalene, and none of the other women, because of the testimony that
she gave after she had seen Jesus (v. 18).
20:2 It would have been natural for Mary, and perhaps others of these women,
to report the incident to the leading male disciples. The "other disciple"
was probably John himself (cf. 13:23; et al.). Mary first assumed that
grave robbers had stolen Jesus' body ("they have taken away the Lord").
Evidently robbing graves was not uncommon around Jerusalem (cf. Matt.
28:13-15). Obviously Mary meant that some of Jesus' enemies had stolen
His body, but exactly who she thought they may have been remains a
mystery.
A decree of Emperor Claudius, who reigned shortly after this event (A.D.
41-54), made it a capital offense to destroy tombs, remove bodies, or
displace the sealing stone or other stones.1105 Mary's reference to "the
Lord" could not have been as full of meaning now as it was after His
resurrection appearances. Here Mary perhaps used the title only in great
respect.
20:3-4 The detail of "John" outrunning "Peter" to the tomb was probably just to
confirm it was an eyewitness report. It also shows that these disciples had
not removed Jesus' body. There is no basis in the text for allegorizing
these "two" men, and making them stand for the Gentile church and the
Jewish church, as some theologians have done.1106
20:5 John "saw (Gr. blepei, cf. v. 1) the linen wrappings" (ta othonia, cf.
19:40), that had formerly covered Jesus' body, "lying" in the tomb. If
grave robbers had removed the body, they would have undoubtedly taken
the expensive cloth with which Joseph and Nicodemus had prepared it for
burial. John may have at first assumed that Jesus' body was still there,
especially if the light was bad at that hour. Perhaps John "did not" enter
("go in") the tomb because he did not want to violate its sanctity or incur
ritual defilement.
20:6-7 When "Peter" arrived at the tomb, he "entered" in, probably because he
wanted to know exactly how things stood regardless of the consequences.
He also "beheld" (Gr. theopei, beheld intently) not only "the linen" burial
clothes (Gr. ta othonia), but also the "face-cloth" that had covered Jesus'
head (Gr. soudarion, cf. 11:44). Evidently John could not see this from his
1105See C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background, Selected Documents, p. 15.

1106E.g., Bultmann, p. 685.
vantage point. Its distance from the other clothes, and the care with which
someone had positioned it, were unusual. Jesus was obviously not there,
but someone had been there.
That Person who had "rolled up . . . the face-cloth" had apparently been
the resurrected Jesus. A grave robber would not have taken the time to
fold the head covering neatly, but would have left it lying in a heap.
Neither would friends who might have removed the body done this; they
would have hurried away from the tomb as quickly as possible to avoid
being apprehended. It is not clear whether the head covering lay where
Jesus' head had lain. What is clear is that someone had folded ("rolled") it
up carefully.
20:8 Encouraged by Peter's boldness, John "also" proceeded into the tomb.
There he "saw" (Gr. eiden, perceived intelligently) this evidence "and
believed" what it implied. He believed that Jesus was alive. In this chapter,
John carefully recorded that the disciples who saw the resurrected Jesus
believed on Him (cf. vv. 16, 20, 25, 29). The writer did not explain what
John believed here, but in the context of this chapter it seems clear that he
believed that Jesus was alive (cf. 2:22; 11:25; 16:22). The evidence of
Jesus' resurrection convinced John even before he met the risen Jesus.
Disciples since John can believe in Him because of this evidence, too,
even though they have not yet seen the risen Jesus (cf. v. 29; 1 John 1:1-
4).
The writer did not say that Peter also believed. This omission does not
necessarily mean that Peter failed to believe. The writer was simply
confessing his own belief, not contrasting it with Peter's reaction.
Nevertheless John seems to have understood the significance of the empty
tomb and the orderly grave clothes better than Peter did (cf. Luke 24:12).
Neither of them confessed their belief to others at that time (v. 9; cf. vv.
10-18).
Jesus had passed through the grave clothes and through the rocky tomb.
The angel opened the tomb to admit the disciples, not to release Jesus
(Matt. 28:2).
20:9 John's faith rested on the evidence that he had seen.1107 Later he and the
other disciples would have additional reasons for believing that Jesus had
risen, namely, the prophetic Scriptures that the Resurrection fulfilled (e.g.,
Lev. 23:11; Ps. 16:10-11; 110:1, 4; Isa. 53:11-12; Hos. 6:2; cf. Acts 2:24-
31; 1 Cor. 15:3-7). John's faith took a step forward here, but it was not yet
as strong as it would be (cf. Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-47).
1107See Zane C. Hodges, "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts," Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496
(October-December 1967):339-48.
"The empty cross and the empty tomb are God's 'receipts'
telling us that the debt has been paid."1108
The Scriptures attribute Christ's resurrection to each of the members of the

Trinity; all three played a part in it: the Father (Rom. 6:4), the Son (John
10:17), and the Spirit (Rom. 8:11).
2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18 (cf. Mark 16:9-11)

"Someone has called this story the greatest recognition scene in all
literature."1109
This is the first of four of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances that John included in his
Gospel. It is very difficult to place these appearances in exact chronological order. The
New Testament simply does not give enough detailed information to do so. Consequently
the major value of the chart below is that it places the post-resurrection appearances that
the New Testament writers mentioned in general chronological order.
Jesus' Post-resurrection Appearances

Easter morning
to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:10-18)
to other women (Matt. 28:9-10)
to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5)
Easter afternoon
to two disciples on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:13-32)
Easter evening
to about 12 disciples excluding Thomas (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-
23)
The following Sunday
to 11 disciples including Thomas (John 20:26-28)
The following 32 days
to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-23)
to 500 people including the Eleven at a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20;
1 Cor. 15:6)
to His half-brother James (1 Cor. 15:7)
to His disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:3-8; 1 Cor. 15:7)
to His disciples on Mount Olivet (Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12)
1108Wiersbe, 1:387.
1109Barclay, 2:312.
In addition, after His ascension, the Lord also appeared to Stephen (Acts 7:56), to Saul of
Tarsus (Acts 9:4-5), and to John on the Island of Patmos (Rev. 1:1).
20:10 This is a transitional verse. The NASB joins it to verses 1-9, whereas the
NIV connects it with verses 11-18. Since verse 11 begins with "but," it
seems natural to view verse 10 as beginning a new paragraph.
The translation "to their homes" implies that Peter and John had
permanent residences in Jerusalem. That seems unlikely. The Greek
phrase eis ta idia literally means "to their own" (cf. 1:11). Since the
gender is neuter, John may have meant that these disciples returned to
their own friends or temporary lodgings (cf. Acts 12:12).
20:11 Apparently Mary Magdalene had returned to the empty tomb after she had
informed Peter and John about it. Perhaps she returned with them. The
other women had evidently left by then. John presented her as lingering
there after Peter and John departed. She was still grieving over the death,
and "weeping" now over the missing body of Jesus. She had not yet
realized what John did. She then peered into the tomb for the second time
(cf. Mark 16:5).
"I recall Proverbs 8:17'I love them that love Me; and
those that seek Me early shall find Me. . . . Another verse
comes to mindPsalm 30:5, 'Weeping may endure for a
night, but joy cometh in the morning.'"1110
20:12 The Gospel writers did not describe the structure of the interior of the
tomb in detail. It is of little importance. It was obviously large enough to
accommodate "two" man-sized "angels," "sitting" at either end of the
place "where" Jesus' "body" had lain. The presence and positions of the
two angels were of more consequence. It is interesting that cherubim stood
at either end of the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:17-
19).
This is the only place in Scripture where angels are described as "sitting."
Evidently Mary had seen the angels earlier (Matt. 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7;
Luke 24:4-7). Their white apparel distinguished them as angels (cf. Acts
1:10), but Mary apparently did not recognize them as such. She responded
to them as she would have responded to human beings, probably because
she was in the shock of grief and was weeping (cf. v. 15).
20:13 The angels asked Mary "why" she was "weeping," because weeping was
inappropriate in view of Jesus' resurrection. However, Mary did not yet
comprehend that Jesus had risen. Her answer revealed that she still
thought that someone had removed Jesus' body from the tomb. She still
1110Wiersbe, 1:389.
doubted the Resurrection, in spite of the angels' earlier announcement that

Jesus had risen from the dead. That earlier announcement had produced
some initial enlightenment and joy (Matt. 28:6, 8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6,
8). Mary still wanted to mourn over Jesus' body, but did "not know where"
it was. Perhaps her inconsistent behavior is more understandable if we
remember that many people in that part of the world still express their
grief almost uncontrollably.
20:14 Mary's near hysteria could also account for her failing at first to recognize
Jesus. She apparently backed out of the tomb, "turned around," and "saw"
(Gr. theorei, cf. v. 6) "Jesus standing" outside it. She beheld Him
attentively, but she did not recognize Him for who He was.
"The fact that He appeared to Mary rather than to Pilate or

Caiaphas or to one of His disciples is significant. That a
woman would be the first to see Him is an evidence of
Jesus' electing love as well as a mark of the narrative's
historicity. No Jewish author in the ancient world would
have invented a story with a woman as the first witness to
this most important event. Furthermore, Jesus may have
introduced Himself to Mary first because she had so
earnestly sought Him. She was at the cross while He was
dying (John 19:25), and she went to His tomb early on
Sunday morning (20:1)."1111
20:15 Jesus addressed this heartbroken disciple by respectfully calling her

"woman" (Gr. gynai), as had the angels (v. 13; cf. 2:4; 19:26). He also
asked the same question they had asked (v. 13). Jesus' first recorded post-
resurrection words were these, in which He combined compassion and
mild rebuke. He also asked "whom" she was "seeking"as preparation for
His self-revelation to her. He meant: What type of Messiah did she think
Jesus was? or: Which Messiah are you looking for?
Mary did not answer either of Jesus' questions. Her grief had made her
somewhat irrational (cf. 11:21, 32). However, there seems to have been
something about Jesus' resurrection body that made immediate recognition
of Him difficult for many people (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:16; John 21:4; cf.
1 Cor. 15:35-49). Perhaps this was due partially to the terrible beatings
that He had received. Instead of answering, she asked this apparent
"gardener" for Jesus' body, and promised to assume care of it. Her request
revealed her devotion to Jesus. She thought that the "gardener" had
removed it for some reason. Her "sir" (Gr. kyrie) here obviously was a
courteous address, not a confession of faith.
20:16 Mary recognized Jesus when He called her by name (cf. 10:3-4).
1111Blum, p. 342.
"The Shepherd had called his sheep by name, and the sheep
heard and joyfully responded (John 10:3)."1112
She responded by calling Him by the name she had undoubtedly used to
address Him numerous times before: "Rabboni!" John accommodated his
readers by translating the Aramaic word. This title probably did not reflect
insight into Jesus' true identity. It simply expressed the joy of a restored
relationship that she had concluded had ended. Mary swung from the
depths of despair, in her emotions, to the height of joyin one brief
second.
"Never was there a one-word utterance more charged with

emotion than this."1113
"The men were quicker to grasp, intellectually, the meaning

of the empty tomb, but Mary was the more devoted, and
this Christ rewarded. Mary exemplifies the case of those
whose hearts seek Christ, but whose minds are ill-informed.
It is the heart God ever looks at. We may know much truth
intellectually, but unless the heart is absorbed with Christ,
He will not reveal Himself to such an one in the intimacies
of love and communion."1114
20:17 Jesus' next words help us understand that Mary also embraced Jesus. Mary
probably lowered herself before Jesus and embraced His lower legs (cf.
Matt. 28:9).
Jesus' words are very difficult to interpret. The translators rendered them,
"Touch me not" (AV), "Stop clinging to me" (NASB), and "Do not hold
on to me" (NIV). The meaning depends to some extent on what Jesus
meant when He said: "For I have not yet ascended to the Father."
One view is that Jesus' second statement connects with what follows it,
rather than with what precedes it.1115 Since Jesus had not yet ascended to
His Father (Gr. anabebeka, perfect tense), Mary should go to the disciples
and tell them that He was not yet ascending (Gr. anabaino, present
tense).1116 According to this view, the initial prohibition against touching
Jesus stands alone. The weaknesses of this view are two. First, there is no
other example of this anticipatory use of "for" (Gr. gar, translated "since")
in the New Testament. Second, it fails to explain any reason for Jesus'
prohibition.
1113Tasker, p. 221.
1114Pink, 3:279.
1115S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, p.
356.
1116E.g., Barclay, 2:314-15.
Advocates of a second view understand Jesus as telling Mary to release

Him because she must go to the disciples with a message.1117 However, it
is very unusual for the preposition "for" (Gr. gar) to link a prohibition and
an imperative.1118 Furthermore, this reading makes "for I have not yet
ascended to the Father" a rather meaningless parenthetical remark.
A third view is that it was inappropriate for Mary to hold onto Jesus, since
He had not yet ascended to the Father, but it was later appropriate for
Thomas to touch Jesus (v. 27). Therefore, Jesus must have ascended to the
Father and returned between His appearances to Mary and Thomas.1119
Yet there is no biblical evidence that Jesus ascended to the Fatherand
returned from Himbetween these two appearances. Not only that, it is
unclear why ascending to the Father should make any difference in the
disciples' physical contact with Jesus' body.
A fourth view regards Jesus' statement as not expressing temporal

sequence. Advocates regard it as a theological point instead. Jesus was
contrasting His passing presence, in His post-resurrection state, with His
permanent presence through the Spirit. What Jesus meant was that Mary
should refrain from touching Him because, even though He had not yet
ascended to the Father, He would do so shortly. The resurrection had
introduced a new relationship between Jesus and His disciples, in which
physical contact was inappropriate.1120
This view puts more emphasis on Jesus' exaltation in His passion than the
New Testament writers did themselves, including John. Besides, it is
impossible to dissociate Jesus' statement from a sequence of eventssince
His death, resurrection, and ascension did happen in sequence (cf. vv. 28-
29). Finally, this view fails to explain why Jesus permitted Thomas to
touch Him (v. 27), but did not allow Mary to do so.
The best explanation seems to be that Mary was holding onto Jesus as
though she would never let Him go (cf. Matt. 28:9). As Barrett put it, ". . .
she is trying to recapture the past."1121 Jesus either told her to stop doing
that or, if He knew she was about to do it, He was telling her not to do it.
He was almost ready to disappear permanently. The reason she should
release Him was that He had not yet ascended to the Father. He had other
work to do first. Only in heaven would it be possible for loving believers
1117M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, pp. 159-60, 476.

1119Chafer, 4:118; 5:262-63; 7:20.
1121Barrett, The Gospel . . ., p. 565.
such as Mary to maintain contact with Jesus forever.1122 This view makes
good sense of the text and harmonizes with Jesus' invitation to Thomas
(v. 27). Thomas needed to touch Jesus to strengthen his faith. Mary
needed to release Him because she had no reason to fear losing Him. This
view is very similar to view four above.
The message that Mary was to carry to the disciples was that Jesus was
going to return ("ascend") to the "Father." She would obviously report that
Jesus was alive, but Jesus wanted her to communicate more than that.
Jesus had spoken of His ascension before (e.g., 7:33; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 10,
17, 28). His disciples needed to understand that His death and resurrection
had not wiped out these earlier predictions. Whereas the Resurrection was
the fulfillment of one aspect of Jesus' ministry, it was the beginning of
another. Jesus' return to His Father was the climax of events following His
resurrection, not His resurrection.
Jesus described the Father in a new way. He was Jesus' Father, but He was
also the disciples' Father. Jesus did not say "our" Father. He and His
disciples had a different relationship to the Father. Nevertheless, they were
all sons of the Father, albeit in a different sense (cf. 1:12-13, 18; 5:19-30).
Therefore Jesus called the disciples His "brothers" ("My brethren") here.
This is the first time in the Gospels that Jesus called his disciples "My
brethren."
The context clarifies that Jesus was referring to the disciples, and not to
His physical half-brothers (v. 18). Likewise, Jesus' relationship to God
was similar to, though not exactly the same as, the disciples' relationship
to God. The emphasis in Jesus' statement was on the privileges that His
disciples now shared with Him because of His death, resurrection, and
ascension (cf. Rom 8:15-16; Heb. 2:11-12).
20:18 As an obedient disciple, Mary went "to the other disciples" and told them
that Jesus was alive ("I have seen the Lord"), plus the message that Jesus
had given her. Again, "the Lord" probably meant "Jesus" to her at this
time, but she spoke better than she knew. Later she would understand
more about the implications of that title. Mark mentioned that the disciples
were weeping and mourning when Mary met them, and they failed to
believe that Jesus was alive (Mark 16:10-11).
John did not mention Jesus' appearance to the other women that followed His appearance
to Mary Magdalene (Matt. 28:9-10). He also omitted Matthew's account of how the
guards at Jesus' tomb reported to the Jewish rulers that it was empty (Matt. 28:11-15).
1122Cf.Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 644-45; Tenney, "John," p. 191; Blum, p. 342; Morris, pp. 742-43;
Wiersbe, 1:390; Beasley-Murray, p. 376; Bock, pp. 544-45.
Likewise he passed over Jesus' appearances to the two disciples on the Emmaus road
(Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32) and to Peter (Luke 24:33-35; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5).
3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-

23 (cf. Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:36-43)
This pericope contains another post-resurrection appearance of Jesus that bolstered the
disciples' faith. It also contains John's account of the Great Commission.
20:19 John took his readers directly from the events of Easter morning to what
occurred that "evening."
"The seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, commemorates

God's finished work of Creation (Gen. 2:1-3). The Lord's
Day commemorates Christ's finished work of redemption,
the 'new creation.' . . .
"For centuries, the Jewish Sabbath had been associated

with Law: six days of work, and then you rest. But the
Lord's Day, the first day of the week, is associated with
grace: first there is faith in the living Christ, then there will
be works."1123
Apparently the Elevenexcept Thomaswere present (cf. Mark 16:14;

John 20:24). How much Thomas missed because he did not meet with the
other disciples on the Lord's Day (cf. Heb. 10:22-25)! He had to endure a
whole week of fear and unbelief unnecessarily. The disciples had gathered
in a secure room because they feared the Jewish authorities. The Jewish
authorities had crucified their Rabbi, so it was reasonable to think that
they might come after the Rabbi's disciples as well. Contrast their
boldness following Jesus' ascension just a few weeks later.
John implied that Jesus appeared miraculously, since the disciples had
"shut" up (Gr. kekleismenon, i.e., "locked" NIV) "the doors" (cf. v. 26).
Jesus' resurrection body had passed through grave clothes and a rocky
tomb. Now it passed through the walls of this structure.
Jesus' greeting was common enough (i.e., Heb. shalom 'alekem). However,
He had previously promised His disciples His "peace" (14:27; 16:33).
Consequently He was imparting "peace," rather than just wishing peace on
them. This seems clear because Jesus repeated the benediction two more
times (vv. 21, 26). "Shalom" summarized the fullness of God's blessing,
not just the cessation of hostility (cf. Rom. 5:1; Phil. 4:7).
1123Wiersbe, 1:391, 392.

"Never had that 'common word' [Shalom] been so filled

with meaning as when Jesus uttered it on Easter evening.
. . . His 'Shalom!' on Easter evening is the complement of 'it
is finished' on the cross, for the peace of reconciliation and
life from God is now imparted. 'Shalom!' accordingly is
supremely the Easter greeting. Not surprisingly it is
included, along with 'grace,' in the greeting of every epistle
of Paul in the NT."1124
20:20 Evidently Jesus "showed" the disciples "His hands" and "His side"with
His scarsto convince them that it was really He and not just a phantom
(cf. Luke 24:37-40). Luke added that He showed them His feet too (Luke
24:39). "Then" these disciples "rejoiced" because they saw (Gr. idontes,
i.e., perceived intelligently, cf. v. 8) Jesus as He really was.
"Thus the disciples were forced to grasp what became a

central confession of the church: the risen Lord is none
other than the crucified sacrifice."1125
The disciples' initial reaction to Jesus' unexpected appearance was terror

(Luke 24:37). However, upon examining His wounds, their fear turned to
faith. The disciples' joy was the proof of their perception and the
testimony to their faith.
"Christian joy has been born, the joy of the redeemed,

which Jesus had promised would be theirs after the travail
pangs had passed (see xvi. 20-22)."1126
Clearly Jesus' resurrection body resembled His former body, but perhaps
His beatings and crucifixion had so scarred Him that even His closest
friends could hardly recognize Him (cf. Isa. 52:14). His resurrection body
also possessed properties of immortality that enabled Him to pass through
solid objects, and to materialize and dematerialize at will, though it was
not ethereal (ghostly).
20:21 Jesus repeated His benediction (v. 19). He then commissioned His
disciples for their mission from then on.1127
". . . the Lord first said 'Peace be unto you' before 'I send
you.' We are constantly disposed to look for peace as the
earned reward of service: what a travesty! and how

1126Tasker, p. 222.
1127See John E. Johnson, "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity," Bibliotheca Sacra
152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.
worthless! Such 'Peace' is but a transient self-complacency

which cannot deceive any one but the self-deluded
hypocrite. The truth is that peace is the preparation for
service . . ."1128
He expressed this commission in terms of the relationships that John

recorded Jesus teaching extensively in this Gospel. Jesus was sending His
disciples on a mission ("I also send you"), just as His Father had sent Him
on a mission (cf. 17:18). The emphasis here is on the sending, and the
authoritative Person doing the sending. Thus Jesus' disciples became
apostles (lit. sent ones) in a new sense. However, John never referred to
the disciples as "apostles" in this Gospel. The New Testament writers used
the term "apostle" in a technical and in a general sense. In the general
sense, it refers to all Christians (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25).
In the technical sense, it refers to the original 12 apostlesMatthias took
Judas Iscariot's place (Acts 1:26)plus Paul.
Each Gospel plus Acts records a different version of the Great

Commission (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-48; John 20:21-
23; Acts 1:8). Jesus apparently gave this commission on at least four
separate occasions. The first recorded commission chronologically was
evidently the one in John 20:21-23. The second was the one recorded in
Mark 16:15-16. Matthew 28:19-20 appears to be another account of a later
event. Likewise, Luke 24:46-48 and Acts 1:8 seem to be two versions of
one incident: the last giving of the commission. The reader of the Gospels
can scarcely escape its crucial importance. Each Gospel closes with a
commission from the risen Lord. It expresses God's will for every believer
in the present age.
Some Christians believe that Jesus intended this commission only for His
original disciples. They point to the fact that the writers of the New
Testament epistles never referred to it. However, even though they did not
refer to it explicitly, they clearly presupposed its validity for the whole
church.1129 First, they simply cast it in different terminology (e.g., 2 Cor.
5:20). Second, the universal scope of the commission also argues for its
continuation. Third, the repetition of this commission five times suggests
that Jesus intended all of His disciples to carry it out. Finally, this was the
last charge that Jesus gave His disciples before He returned to His Father
(Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:8). This fact also suggests that He intended it for
all succeeding generations of disciples.
Clearly, on this occasion, Jesus was presenting His mission as a model for
His disciples' mission. Many Christians have concluded, therefore, that
what characterized Jesus' ministry must characterize the church's ministry.
1128Pink, 3:285.
1129See Barrett, The Gospel . . ., p. 568.
They see this mission including healing the sick, casting out demons, and
feeding the hungry. They believe that the church's mission is much
broader than just preaching the gospel, baptizing, teaching, and planting
churches. I believe this understanding is correct.
However, the emphasis on Jesus' mission in John's Gospel has been,

primarily, that Jesus always carried out God's will in perfect obedience (cf.
5:19-30; 8:29). Even before His crucifixion, Jesus stressed the importance
of the believer's obedience as the fulfillment of this paradigm (15:9-10).
The purpose of Jesus' incarnation was the spiritual salvation of the world
(1:29). That is also the believer's primary, though not our exclusive,
purpose (cf. Gal. 6:10). As Jesus always operated in dependence on the
Father with the Spirit's enablement, so should His disciples (cf. 1:32; 3:34;
4:34; 5:19; 6:27; 10:36; 17:4). As He was a Son of God, so are His
disciples sons of God (cf. 1:12-13; 3:3, 5; 20:17).
Since believers no longer belong to the world (15:19), it was necessary for
Jesus to "send" His disciples back into the world to complete the mission.
Our mission does not replace Jesus' mission, however. He carries out His
present mission through us. We must consider all the versions of the Great
Commission that Jesus gave in order to understand our mission correctly,
not just this one.
". . . what is central to the Son's missionthat he came as

the Father's gift so that those who believe in him might not
perish but have eternal life (3:16), experiencing new life as
the children of God (1:12-13) and freedom from the slavery
of sin because they have been set free by the Son of God
(8:34-36)must never be lost to view as the church defines
her mission."1130
Jesus and John reminded all disciples of these central issues in the verses
that follow (cf. vv. 23, 30-31).
20:22 These disciples needed supernatural spiritual power to carry out such a
task, but what did Jesus really do next? There are several views.
One view is that Jesus gave these disciples a temporary infusion of His
Spirit.1131 The act of breathing on them recalls the Creation, in which God
breathed His life into Adam (Gen. 2:7; cf. Ezek. 37:9). Thus Jesus may
have been suggesting that He was doing a new creative work by filling
these men with His "Holy Spirit."1132 Later Jesus explained that the Spirit

1131Blum, p. 343; cf. Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries . . ., 2:205; Morris, pp. 747-48.
1132Barrett, The Gospel . . ., p. 570. Cf. B. B. Findlay, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," in The
Expositor's Greek Testament, 2:938.
would come upon these disciples again (Acts 1:8). This present act of
Jesus, then, may have represented a preliminary and temporary enabling,
that helped the disciples understand what they could expect more fully,
and permanently, later. That baptizing came on the day of Pentecost (Acts
1:5; 2:4; 11:15).
Some problems with this view are as follows. Two bestowals of the Spirit
seem unusual, in view of Jesus' earlier promises to send (not impart) the
Spirit (7:39; chs. 1416), and the importance in Acts of the Spirit's
coming at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:4; 11:15). Also, opponents of this view
claim that there is no indication that this temporary infusion with the
"Spirit" had any effect on the disciples. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that when Thomas returned to the scene, Jesus gave him the Spiritas one
would expect if the Spirit's presence was essential for the disciples then (v.
26-29).
Many readers of the Greek text have noted that "Holy Spirit" (Gr. pneuma
hagion) here does not have a definite article preceding it. This has led
some of them to conclude that the Holy Spirit is not in view, but the breath
(Gr. pneuma) of God is. They take this breath of God to be symbolic of
God's gift of spiritual power in an impersonal sense.1133 However, John
earlier referred to the personal Holy Spirit without the article (7:39). That
seems to be his meaning here as well. The absence of an article before a
noun often has the effect of stressing the quality of the noun. In this case it
would be the holiness of the Spirit.
Some modern scholars view this verse as John's account of Pentecost.1134

However, this view does not take seriously the chronological sequence of
events that these books present. Clearly the occasion that John described
here, and the events of the day of Pentecost, were different.
Still others believe that Jesus was giving these disciples a symbolic and
graphic memorable introduction to the Spirit, who would come upon them
later. It was a demonstration of what Jesus would do after He returned to
the Father, and which He did do on Pentecost. He was not imparting the
Spirit to them in any sense here.1135 This interpretation accounts for
Thomas not receiving the Spirit before Pentecost. It also explains why this
event may have had no permanently changing effect on the disciples
comparable to that of Pentecost. Evidently there was only one coming of
the Spirit on these disciples, and that happened on Pentecost. This view
seems to me to be more defensible, and I prefer it.
1133G. Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, p. 11.

1134E.g., Beasley-Murray, pp. 380-82.
1135E.g., Harris, p. 201; Tenney, "John," p. 193; Harrison, p. 1120; Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 651-55;
idem, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, pp. 140-44.
Another view is that this gift, to the whole group of believers present, was
the necessary condition for the descent of the Spirit on the day of
Pentecost. This was a "quickening," and what happened on Pentecost was
an "endowing." This was the action of the risen Christ, and the other was
the action of the ascended Christ. This gift prepared and enabled them to
receive the other gift.1136
Still another view is that this impartation of the Spirit resulted in His
indwelling the disciples and empowered them from this time on. The last
events recorded by Luke and John, and the first chapter of Acts,
supposedly prove that the disciples were changed men after this
"breathing," and before Pentecost. What happened on Pentecost was a
baptism of "power," not the coming of the Spirit to permanently indwell
the disciples.1137 Even though this "breathing" experience may have
resulted in the disciples gaining joy, unity, peace, and insight into
Scripture, the Book of Acts credits Pentecost, not this present experience,
as being the event when the Spirit "came upon" believers uniquely.
20:23 The Great Commission not only requires supernatural power to carry it out
(v. 22), but it also involves the forgiveness of sins (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Matt.
26:28). In the similar passages in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the context is
church discipline. Here the context is evangelism.
The second part of each conditional clause in this verse is in the passive
voice and the perfect tense in the Greek text. The passive voice indicates
that someone has already done the forgiving or retaining. That person
must be God, since He alone has the authority to do that (Matt. 9:2-3;
Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). The perfect tense indicates that the action has
continuing effects; the sins stand forgiven or retained, at least temporarily,
if not permanently.
Jesus appears to have been saying that when His disciples went to others
with the message of salvation, as He had done, some people would believe
and others would not. Reaction to their ministry would be the same as
reaction to His had been. He viewed their forgiving and retaining the sins
of their hearers as the actions of God's representatives.
If people ("any" or "anyone," plural Gr. tinon) believed the gospel, the
disciples were given the authority to tell these new believers that God had
forgiven their sins. If they disbelieved, they could tell them that God had
not forgiven but retained their sins. Jesus had done this (cf. 9:39-41), and
now His disciples would continue to do it. Thus their ministry would be a
continuation of His ministry relative to the forgiveness of sins, as it would
be in relation to the Spirit's enablement. This, too, applies to all
1136Westcott, pp. 294-95.

1137Pink, 3:286-87.
succeeding generations of Jesus' disciplessince Jesus was still talking

about the disciples' mission.
"How can you and I remit sins? By telling the gospel!"1138
". . . all who proclaim the gospel are in effect forgiving or

not forgiving sins, depending on whether the hearer accepts
or rejects the Lord Jesus as the Sin-Bearer."1139
"When Christ enjoins the apostles to forgive sins, He does

not convey to them what is peculiar to Himself. It belongs
to Him to forgive sinsHe only enjoins them, in His name,
to proclaim the forgiveness of sins."1140
This resurrection appearance has threefold importance in John's Gospel. It validated

again Jesus' bodily resurrection, and it provided the setting for the commissioning of
Jesus' disciples. It also provided the background for Jesus' appearance when Thomas was
present, and Thomas' climactic statement of faith that followed (vv. 24-29).
4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29
The last witness to Jesus' resurrection in John's Gospel is Thomas, and the record of it has
two parts. The first part sets the scene for the second (cf. ch. 21). John is the only
evangelist who recorded this post-resurrection appearance. Thomas' confession is John's
climactic argument for belief in Jesus as the divine Messiah, the Christ.
Thomas' initial unbelief 20:24-25
John gave his readers both the Aramaic and Greek names of this member of the Twelve,
now the Eleven: "Thomas" and "Didymus" respectively (cf. 11:16; 14:5). John's previous
pictures of this disciple present him as a loyal and courageous, though somewhat gloomy
and pessimistic, follower of Jesus. His more common identification as a doubter comes
only from the present event.
Thomas had no doubts that Jesus had died. This is another evidence that Jesus really did
die. However, he refused to believe the other disciples' reportthat Jesus was alive
without personal physical proof. He insisted on touching Jesus, and specifically His
crucifixion wounds, not just seeing Him. No one else in the New Testament made
demands like these before believing.1141 The Greek text clarifies that the other disciples
kept saying (Gr. elegon, imperfect tense) that Jesus was alive. They evidently sought him
out and shared the good news with him (cf. Gal. 6:1).
1138McGee, 4:499.
1139Tenney, "John," p. 193. Cf. Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:314-15.
1140John Calvin, quoted by Pink, 3:288. Cf. Harrison, p. 1120.
1141Morris, p. 752.
In spite of this repeated verbal testimony by those who knew Him best, Thomas refused
to believe (cf. 4:48). He had become so thoroughly convinced that Jesus was dead, as
evidenced by his references to Jesus' wounds, that he could not see how Jesus' crucifixion
could be overcome. This is the only place in the New Testament where we learn that
"nails" pierced Jesus' hands and feet (cf. Ps. 22:16). Sometimes the Romans only bound
the victim's hands and feet with cords.
"Thomas made one mistake. He withdrew from the Christian fellowship.

He sought loneliness rather than togetherness. And because he was not
there with his fellow Christians he missed the first coming of Jesus. We
miss a great deal when we separate ourselves from the Christian
fellowship, and when we try to be alone. Things can happen to us within
the fellowship of Christ's Church which will not happen to us when we are
alone. When sorrow comes to us, and when sadness envelops us, we often
tend to shut ourselves up and to refuse to meet people. That is the very
time when, in spite of our sorrow, we should seek the fellowship of
Christ's people, for it is there that we are likeliest of all to meet Him face
to face."1142
Thomas' final belief 20:26-29
20:26 John located this post-resurrection appearance on the eighth day after
(seven days later) Easter Sunday, namely, the following Sunday. His
"eight days" (Gr. hemeras okto) evidently included both Sundays. Perhaps
he identified the day because, by the time John wrote, Sunday had become
the day of worship for Christians, when they commemorated Jesus'
resurrection. They worshipped Him on Easter Sunday, then again the
following Sunday, and then on succeeding Sundays from then on (cf. Acts
20:7). However, Sunday worship has its roots in tradition rather than
commandment.
The disciples were still meeting behind closed doors because they feared
the Jewish authorities (cf. v. 19). Jesus again materialized in the presence
of these disciples as He had a week earlier (v. 19). He also repeated His
benediction (v. 21). Perhaps Jesus did these things because He knew that
the disciples had told Thomas He had appeared this way and said these
things. Thus repeating the miraculous appearance would have bolstered
Thomas' faith.
20:27 Jesus then invited Thomas to satisfy himself that He really was the
crucified Jesus, as Thomas had said he would have to do if he was to
believe Jesus was alive. Jesus knew what Thomas had said, even though
He had not been physically present when Thomas had said it. This is a
further implication of Jesus' deity. The purpose of this test was not just to
satisfy Thomas' curiosity, however. It was to bring him to faith that Jesus
1142Barclay, 2:321.
was the resurrected Messiah. We could render Jesus' statement literally:

"Do not be unbelieving, but believing" (NASB).
20:28 Evidently Thomas did not take up Jesus' offer. The sight of his Savior
seems to have been enough to convince him (cf. v. 29). Thomas then
uttered one of the most profound declarations of saving faith in Scripture.
For a Jew to call another human being "my Lord and my God" was
blasphemy under normal circumstances (cf. 10:33). Yet that is precisely
who Thomas believed Jesus was. It is also who John presented Jesus as
being throughout this Gospel. Both titles were titles of deity in the Old
Testament. Thomas had come to believe that Jesus was his lord (master) in
a fuller sense ("Lord") than before, and he now believed that Jesus was
fully God.
"The repeated pronoun my does not diminish the

universality of Jesus' lordship and deity, but it ensures that
Thomas' words are a personal confession of faith. Thomas
thereby not only displays his faith in the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, but points to its deepest meaning; it is nothing
less than the revelation of who Jesus Christ is. The most
unyielding sceptic [sic] has bequeathed to us the most
profound confession."1143
Now Thomas believed as his fellow disciples had come to believe (cf.
v. 25). His confession is a model that John presented for all future
disciples. It is the high point of this Gospel (cf. 1:1, 14, 18). John's other
witnesses to Jesus' deity were John the Baptist (1:34), Nathanael (1:49),
Jesus Himself (5:25; 10:36), Peter (6:69), the healed blind man (9:35),
Martha (11:27), and John the Apostle (20:30-31).
"Nobody has previously addressed Jesus like this [in the

Gospels, i.e., as "God"]. It marks a leap of faith. In the
moment that he came to see that Jesus was indeed risen
from the dead Thomas came to see something of what that
implied. Mere men do not rise from the dead in this
fashion. The One who was now so obviously alive,
although he had died, could be addressed in the language of
adoring worship."1144
20:29 Jesus did not object to what Thomas had said; it was perfectly true (cf.
Acts 10:26; 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9). We could translate Jesus' first sentence
either as a question or as a statement. It confirmed the reality of Thomas'
belief in either case, and it set up the beatitude that followed (cf. 13:17),
the last of the Lord's beatitudes. "Blessed" (Gr. makarios) does more than

1144Morris, p. 753.
just describe the person in view as happy. It also declares him or her
acceptable to and favored by God (cf. Matt. 5:3-12).
Most believers have believed on Jesus because of sufficient evidence,

without the physical confirmation that Thomas required (cf. v. 8; 1 Pet.
1:8-9). Those were the people whom Jesus had in view when He made this
statement. This beatitude does not make believers who live after Jesus'
ascension superior to those who saw Him in the flesh. But it does
guarantee their blessing by God.
"He [Jesus] would have those who must believe without

seeing, understand that they have no cause to envy those
who had an opportunity of seeing, and who believed only
after they saw."1145
"Thomas's declaration is the last assertion of personal faith recorded in this

Gospel. It marks the climax of the book because it presents Christ as the
risen Lord, victorious over sin, sorrow, doubt, and death. It also presents
the faith that accepts not only the truth of what Jesus said but also the
actuality of what he wasthe Son of God. In the experience of Thomas,
the writer has shown how belief comes to maturity and how it changes the
entire direction of an individual life."1146
"The growth of belief depicted in the Gospel of John thus moves from an
initial acceptance on the testimony of another to a personal knowledge
marked by loyalty, service, and worship; from assumption of the
historicity and integrity of Jesus to a personal trust in Him; from an
outward profession to an inward reality; from attending to His teachings to
acknowledging His lordship over life. Full belief may not be attained
instantly; yet the incipient and tentative belief is not to be despised."1147
G. THE PURPOSE OF THIS GOSPEL 20:30-31
John followed the climactic proof that Jesus is God's Son with an explanation of his
purpose for writing this narrative of Jesus' ministry. This explanation constitutes a
preliminary conclusion to the book.
20:30 "Therefore" ties this statement to what immediately precedes it. John
wrote his Gospel because those who believe on Jesus without seeing Him
in the flesh are acceptable to God. He wrote, therefore, that people "may
believe" and so enjoy eternal "life" (v. 31). There were "many other"
evidences ("signs") of Jesus' deity that John could have presented.
However, he chose those that he recorded here ("but these have been
1145A. B. Bruce, p. 513.

1147Idem, "Topics from . . .," p. 357.
written," v. 31) to lead his readers to the type of faith that Thomas just
articulated ("that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ," v. 31), and that
Jesus just commended. That was John's confessed strategy in composing
this Gospel under the Holy Spirit's inspiration.
What did John have in mind when he referred to other "signs"? Some
interpreters have concluded that he meant other post-resurrection signs,
since John wrote that Jesus performed them "in the presence of the
disciples."1148 Most interpreters believe that John meant the same kind of
signs as the seven miracles that he featured, the significance of which
Jesus usually explained in the context (chs. 212). These, too, were done
in the presence of Jesus' disciples.
A SUMMARY OF THE SEVEN SIGNS IN JOHN

Sign Significance Belief Unbelief Reference
Changing Jesus' power The disciples 2:1-11
water to wine over quality
Healing the Jesus' power The official 4:46-54
official's son over space and his
household
Healing the Jesus' power The The Jews 5:1-9
paralytic over time paralytic?
Feeding the Jesus' power Some people 6:1-15
5,000 over quantity in the crowd
Walking on Jesus' power The disciples 6:16-21
the water over nature
Healing a Jesus' power The blind The 9:1-12
man born over misfortune man Pharisees
blind
Raising Jesus' power Martha, The Jewish 11:1-16
Lazarus over death Mary, and authorities
many Jews
20:31 This verse unites many of the most important themes in the fourth Gospel.
It summarizes John's theology as well as articulating his purpose. John's
purpose was clearly evangelistic. His Gospel is an excellent portion of
Scripture to give to an unbeliever. It is probably the most effective
evangelistic tool available. Its impact on the reader is strongest when one
reads it through at one sitting, which takes most people less than two
hours. This document can also deepen and establish the faith of any
believer, and John undoubtedly wrote what he did to accomplish that end
as well.
1148Pink, 3:302.
The implication of this primary evangelistic purpose is that John meant

unbelievers when he wrote "you." Did he have a particular group of
unbelievers in mind, or was he addressing any unbelieving reader? Some
commentators have tried to identify a particular audience from statements
in the text. Yet it seems more probable that John wrote for a general
audience, since he did not identify his intended audience, specifically. His
presentation of Jesus as the divine Son of God certainly has universal
application.
"There cannot be any doubt but that John conceived of

Jesus as the very incarnation of God."1149
John's purpose was not academic; it was not simply that people might
believe intellectually that Jesus is the divine Messiah. It was rather that
they might believe those foundational truths, so they might receive
salvation and experience the life of God fully (cf. 10:10).
". . . that very assent itself . . . is more of the heart than of

the brain, and more of the disposition than of the
understanding."1150
This divine life affects the whole person, not just the intellect. Even more
than this, it affects him or her forevernot just during that person's
present lifetime.
John's clear purpose statement concludes the body of this Gospel. I regard 20:31 as the
key verse in John's Gospel.
V. EPILOGUE CH. 21
This Gospel began with a theological prologue (1:1-18), and it ends with a practical
epilogue. John concluded his narrative, designed to bring unbelievers to faith in Jesus
Christ, in chapter 20. Chapter 21 contains instruction for those who have come to faith in
Him, and explains how they are to serve Him as they carry out their mission (20:21-23).
Many of the prominent themes in the rest of the Gospel recur here.
"Some critics have argued that this chapter is anticlimactic after the great
conclusion in chapter 20, and therefore was written by another
(anonymous) writer. But the linguistic evidence does not support this
notion. In addition, other great books of Scripture have appendixes after
reaching a grand climax (cf. e.g., Rom. 16 following Rom. 15:33). Thus
John 21 is neither without value nor out of harmony with other Bible
books."1151
1149Morris,p. 756.
1150Calvin,Institutes of . . ., 3:2:8.
1151Blum, p. 344. Cf. Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 665-68.
The structure of this chapter is similar to the rest of the Gospel's. John first narrated an
event (vv. 1-14), and then related Jesus' teaching based on that event (vv. 15-23). Finally
he concluded his Gospel (vv. 24-25).
A. JESUS' APPEARANCE TO SEVEN DISCIPLES IN GALILEE 21:1-14
21:1 John recorded still another post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to His

disciples. It undoubtedly occurred during the 32-day period between
Thomas' confession (20:28) and Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:9). Exactly when
is unimportant. John was the only New Testament writer to refer to the
Sea of Galilee as the "Sea of Tiberias" (cf. 6:1). Evidently most of his
original readers would have known it by this Roman name. John stressed
the fact that Jesus "revealed (manifested) Himself" throughout this Gospel
(cf. 1:31; 2:11; 9:3; 17:6; 21:14; et al.; 1 John 1:2; 2:28; 3:2, 5, 8; 4:9).
Now Jesus gave another revelation of Himself to these disciples. They
were to learn something new about Him from this revelation.
21:2 John evidently identified all the disciples who were present on this
occasion, five of them by name or patronym, and two others anonymously.
"Simon Peter" was the disciples' leadereven after his denial of Jesus.
"Thomas" was now obviously a believer (20:28), perhaps suggesting that

what follows has special importance for believing disciples. John
mentioned "Nathanael" earlier (1:45-51), but here alone he identified this
disciple as from "Cana in Galilee." Perhaps he did so to remind the readers
of Jesus' early signs that happened in Cana (2:1-11; 4:46-54), since Jesus
was about to perform another miracle.
The "sons of Zebedee" were James and John, though John had not
identified them this way before. Perhaps this was John's way of hinting at
his own presence, as an eyewitness of what followed, without drawing too
much attention to himself. The "two" unnamed "disciples" brought the
total to seven.
The exact number may be another detail designed to add credibility to the
account, or John may have been hinting that a complete number of
disciples was present. "Seven" was a number that symbolized
completeness to the Jews (cf. Gen. 2:2-3; et al.). He may have been
implying that the lesson Jesus taught here was applicable to the full
complement of disciples.
21:3 Some expositors have interpreted Peter's words as a renunciation of his

calling as Jesus' disciple. They believe he meant that he intended to return
to his former occupation as a fisherman permanently.1152 However, there is
no basis for this conclusion in the text. After all, when Peter later learned
1152E.g., Hoskyns, p. 552.

that Jesus was standing on the shore, he jumped right into the water to get
to Jesus as quickly as he could (v. 7).
Peter's words simply expressed his intention to do some "fishing," not to

change his vocation.1153 He probably found it very difficult to sit around
doing nothing while he and his friends waited for Jesus to appear. Jesus
had instructed the disciples to return to Galilee, and to wait for Him there
(cf. Matt. 28:7; Mark 14:28; 16:7). So Peter did something he probably
enjoyed doing, and presumably did well. Alternatively, he may have been
returning to his former vocation temporarily, only to earn some money so
he could feed his family.1154
Another view is that Peter was operating in the flesh, when he decided to
go fishing. Jesus had told His disciples that he would meet them at a
mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16), but they went out on the sea instead.
He had called them to fish for men, not for fish.1155 I do not prefer this
interpretation.
This was not the first time that Peter had met Jesus after the Crucifixion.
Jesus had appeared to Peter, evidently on Easter morning (1 Cor. 15:5),
and undoubtedly on Easter evening (20:19-23; cf. Mark 16:14). Peter had
also seen Jesus the following Sunday, when Thomas made his profession
of faith (20:26-29). Therefore we should not conclude that Peter would
have been reluctant to see Jesus now, because of his denial in the high
priest's courtyard. Peter's moment of reconciliation with Jesus had already
passed.
Peter's companions followed his lead and joined him: "We will also come
with you." Apparently they launched out on the lake just before or during
the "night," a popular time to fish. John identified their boat specifically as
"the boat." Probably this was Simon's boat that he had formerly used when
he was a professional fisherman (cf. Luke 5:3). The disciples' failure to
catch anything set the stage for Jesus' miracle that followed.
"They are coming to grips with the resurrection, but they

still have not learned the profound truth that apart from
Christ they can do nothing (15:5) . . ."1156
In view of Jesus' commission, these disciples' activity seems

inappropriateeven if it was not rebellious. It contrasts with their
behavior following Pentecost, when they began to carry out their mission
zealously and joyfully. Therefore John's reference to nighttime may again
have symbolic overtones (cf. 13:30).
1153F.F. Bruce, p. 399; Westcott, p. 300.

1155Pink, 3:307-8.
21:4 Similarly, the "breaking" of this new "day" is perhaps symbolic of the new
era that was opening up for them as Jesus' disciples, though they did not
appreciate that yet. Jesus' instruction would change the course of their
lives forever. Likewise, Jesus being on the shore, and the disciple on the
sea, may symbolize His present separation from His servants: Him being
unseen in heaven, and they being on the earth.
The disciples could not recognize ("did not know that it was") Jesus as He
"stood on the shore (beach)," within shouting distance from where they
fished (v. 8). This may have been due to the twilight, the distance, Jesus'
altered appearance, or some other reason (cf. Luke 24:16).
21:5 Jesus addressed the disciples with an affectionate masculine greeting (Gr.
paidia). The translation "boys" ("lads," Brit.) captures the spirit of His
word (cf. 1 John 2:13, 18). The form of Jesus' question in the Greek text
assumed a negative answer; He expected, based on the fact that He knew,
that they had caught nothing. Why did Jesus ask them this question, since
He knew the answer? He probably did so to elicit a confession of failure
from them, so that they would clearly see that what would follow would
be Jesus' work and not theirs.
Jesus' words could have been understood as a question from someone who
wanted to buy what they had: fish. One can sense the discouragement and
mild embarrassment in the disciples' "No." Jesus was in the process of
teaching these men about their personal inadequacy, even in the type of
work they knew best and had most experience with. It was important that
they articulate (admit) their failure.
21:6 Their nets had been hanging over the left (port) side of the fishing boat.
The unknown "authority" on the shore now promised that if they would
"cast the net on the right-hand [starboard] side," they would catch some
fish ("will find a catch"). Such a suggestion must have seemed ludicrous
to these seasoned fishermen. The idea that such an insignificant change
would accomplish anything was laughable. Yet amazingly the disciples
followed Jesus' orders. Perhaps it was the authoritativeness of Jesus'
command that explains their readiness. This is the last recorded miracle of
our Lord, and the only one recorded after His resurrection.
Barclay offered a less miraculous explanation. He believed that Jesus saw

a shoal of fish, from His position on the shore, that the disciples could not
see, from their position in the boat.1157
Why did the disciples follow Jesus' orders without questioning? Perhaps
they remembered another night of unsuccessful fishing when Jesus had
told Peter, James, and John to lower their nets. They had encountered such
1157Barclay, 2:326-27.
a large school of fish that their nets began to break (Luke 5:1-11).1158 That
had been the time (incidental but probably not coincidental), when Jesus
first called these same disciples to follow Him. They had responded by
leaving their fishing trade to follow Jesus full-time as His disciples.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that even after they obeyed the unknown
"armchair fisherman" on the shore, this dark morning, they still did not
realize that He was Jesus.
The reason for the disciples' obedience is not as important as the fact of it.
Had they not obeyed Jesus' command, they would have failed to catch any
fish. However, because they obeyed, they experienced overwhelming
success, success far exceeding their natural ability. They even had trouble
managing the results of their success ("were not able to haul it in")
because it was so "great." This is the only miracle that Jesus performed
after His resurrection, according to the Gospel evangelists.1159
These men would reflect on this experience, and realize that Jesus had
been teaching them how important it was to obey His word. Obedience to
Jesus was the key to supernatural success. In fact their obedience to His
word, even though they did not yet know it was His word, yielded an
unbelievable reward!
21:7 The reader has already suspected that "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
was John himself. This identification fits because John was one of the
disciples in the boat (v. 2). Again John realized something about Jesus
before Peter did (cf. 20:8). Probably he sensed that a miracle had
happened, and likely he remembered that a few years earlier Jesus had
performed a similar miracle (Luke 5:1-11). True to the pictures we have of
them in the New Testament, John exhibited quick insight and Peter quick
action.
"And what a lesson is here again for the Lord's servants:

when He grants success to our labours, when the Gospel-
net in our hands gathers fishes, let us not forget to own 'It is
the Lord!'"1160
Peter had learned that John's instincts about these things were better than
his. He accepted John's conclusion and jumped into the water ("threw
himself into the sea"). Apparently he wanted to get to Jesus faster than his
boat and net, now full of fish, would allow. He showed no concern for the
fish; he willingly let them go. His only desire was to get to Jesus. That his
action was thoughtful, rather than impulsive, is clear from the fact that "he
put his outer garment on" before jumping overboard.
1158See Pink, 3:317, for a comparison of these two miracles.

1159See ibid, 3:306, for a comparison of Jesus' first and last miracles in John's Gospel.
1160Ibid., 3:311.
Fishermen usually worked in their light undergarments (Gr. chiton, long

shirts, not underwear). Peter evidently "put on his outer garment" (Gr.
ependytes), so that when he reached land, he would be properly clothed
albeit soaking wet. Normally people take unnecessary clothing off before
going swimming. Peter's somewhat irrational behavior seems to be
another indication of his strong desire to get to Jesus quickly. He was
again demonstrating his characteristic extravagant loyalty to his Lord (cf.
20:6).
21:8 The other disciples behaved more calmly. John was one of these whom
Peter left to struggle with the "net full of fish." His record of the distance
(lit. about 200 cubits, or 100 yards), and the labor ("dragging the net")
involved in this task, corroborates his claim to being an eyewitness of
these events (v. 24).
21:9 While the other disciples struggled to get their catch to shore, Jesus was
preparing breakfast for them. John noted that it was a "charcoal fire" (Gr.
anthrakia) that Jesus had laid. The reader may remember that it was
specifically a charcoal fire at which Peter had stood when he denied Jesus
(18:18). Jesus was setting the stage for a lesson He was about to teach the
disciplesespecially Peter. The traditional site of this event is Tabgha, on
the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee between Capernaum and
Gennesaret.
"Bread" and "fish" were common staples, but again they recall earlier
miracles that Jesus had performed. He had miraculously provided meals
for 5,000and later 4,000 males plus women and childrenwith bread
and fish. Notice that He had already provided a fish for them, in addition
to cooking it for themflame-broiledeven before the disciples got out
of their boat and pulled the fish they had caught to shore.
Before His crucifixion, Jesus had served His disciples by washing their
feet (13:1-17). Now He continued to serve them as their risen Lord by
providing them with a warm fire and breakfast (cf. v. 13).
21:10 Even though there was already one "fish" (Gr. opsarion, singular) on the
fire, Jesus instructed the disciples to "bring some of the fish" (plural) that
they had "caught." He would not provide for their physical needs by
multiplying the food miraculously, as He had done in the past. Now He
would use the product of their labor to satisfy their need. Nevertheless it
was clear that their fish had been the result of His miraculous provision.
Perhaps this was all symbolic of how Jesus would carry out His mission
through His disciples in the future, compared with how He had done it
during His pre-cross ministry.
"I believe our Lord's object was to show the disciples that
the secret of success was to work at His command, and to
act with implicit obedience to His word."1161
21:11 Peter did not leave his fellow disciples to struggle with the nets while he
stood by. He helped them pull the huge catch of fish that Jesus had
provided to land. Another interpretation sees Peter pulling the fish ashore
by himself:
"What six men had been unable to do in their own strength

[cf. v. 6], one man now did when he went to his work from
the feet of Christ! . . . The place of strength is still at the
feet of the Saviour, and strength will be imparted exactly in
proportion as we are in conscious fellowship with Him and
drawing from His infinite fullness."1162
There have been many allegorical explanations of the meaning of the

"153" fish.1163 Most of these are much too involved to explain here.1164
Many of these involve gematria. Gematria is the discipline of deriving a
word or words from the Hebrew, or in this case the Greek, letters that also
represent numbers in their respective languages. One of the more credible
explanations of the 153 fish is as follows. Jesus formerly told His disciples
that they would become fishers of men, an obvious metaphor (Mark 1:17).
If the fish here represent the converts that Jesus would miraculously
provide for His disciples to "catch," perhaps their large number represents
many converts (cf. Matt. 13:47-50). The fact that "the net was not torn"
may symbolize the capability of the gospel to "catch" many people
without failing.1165
Perhaps John simply recorded the number as a detail to lend authenticity

to his testimony (cf. 2:6). He was, after all, a fisherman himself. Most
fishermen know exactly how many fish they have caught whenever they
catch some, and this was a very unusual catch. Probably the disciples
divided the catch, and so had to count the fish.
21:12 Jesus, as the host, invited the disciples to dine with Him. Perhaps He was
reminding them of their last meal together in the upper room, just before
His arrest. In the ancient Near East, a host who extended hospitality to
others and provided food for them, was implying that He would defend
them from then on. Consequently Jesus' invitation may have been a
promise of commitment to them like the kind offered at the oriental
1161Ibid.,3:313.
1162Ibid.,3:314.
1163See Barclay, 2:329-30, for a few.
1164See the commentaries, or for a brief overview, Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 672-73; or Bock, p. 552.
1165F. F. Bruce, pp. 401-2.
covenant meal. Such a meal involved acceptance, forgiveness, and mutual

commitment. By accepting His invitation the disciples were implying that
they were committing themselves to Jesus afresh.
"Three 'invitations' stand out in John's Gospel: 'Come and

see' (John 1:39); 'Come and drink' (John 7:37); and 'Come
and dine' (John 21:12). How loving of Jesus to feed Peter
before He dealt with his spiritual needs. He gave Peter
opportunity to dry off, get warm, satisfy his hunger, and
enjoy personal fellowship. This is a good example for us to
follow as we care for God's people. Certainly the spiritual
is more important than the physical, but caring for the
physical can prepare the way for spiritual ministry. Our
Lord does not so emphasize 'the soul' that He neglects the
body."1166
Apparently these disciples longed to ask Jesus if the Person standing with
them was truly He, but they did not dare do so. This tension within them
helps us understand that Jesus' resurrection was a challenge to the faith of
even those who knew Him best. Had the beatings and His crucifixion so
marred His form that He scarcely resembled the Jesus they had known, or
was His resurrection body so different that He looked like a stranger?
Probably we shall have to wait to see Him for ourselves to get answers to
these questions. In spite of everything, the disciples, "knowing that it was
the Lord" from the undeniable evidence, could only conclude that the One
who stood among them really was Jesus.
21:13 Jesus provided for the physical needs of His own, as He had done before
(cf. 6:11-13); He acted as the host. Hopefully the disciples recalled the
significance of His feeding the multitudes earlier. Jesus could take meager
human resources, multiply them, and so produce supernatural blessing.
This was an important lesson for these believers to remember, as they
began to embark on the challenging mission that Jesus had given them.
21:14 John concluded the narration of this incident, by identifying it as the

"third" instance of Jesus' self-manifestation to His disciples "after" His
resurrection. This verse forms an inclusio with verse 1, that sets off this
incident as distinct.
John said that this was the third post-resurrection appearance "to the
disciples" (i.e., the apostles, cf. 20:19-23, 26-29). Chronologically this was
at least Jesus' seventh post-resurrection appearance (cf. 20:11-18; Matt.
28:8-10; 1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:13-32; John 20:19-23, 26-29). Nevertheless
it was the third appearance to the disciples, and the third appearance to the
disciples that John recorded.
1166Wiersbe, 1:397.
John viewed this appearance as further proof of Jesus' resurrection.

Perhaps he viewed it as completing a full complement of testimonies,
since he drew attention to its being the "third" appearance to the disciples.
The number three in Scripture sometimes connotes fullness or
completeness (e.g., the three Persons of the Trinity). However, by calling
this appearance a "manifestation" (Gr. ephanerothe, cf. v. 1), John
indicated that he also viewed it as a revelation of Jesus' true character.
So far Jesus had reminded these disciples of lessons that He had taught them previously,
that were important for them to remember in view of their mission. He had also set the
stage for an even more important lesson that would follow.
B. JESUS' TEACHINGS ABOUT MOTIVATION FOR SERVICE 21:15-23
Jesus now proceeded to use the miracle that He had just performed as the background for
important instruction. John presented Jesus doing this many times in this Gospel. The
repetition of this pattern in the epilogue is evidence that the epilogue was an original part
of the Gospel. Jesus focused His teaching on Peter, but clearly He wanted all disciples to
view Peter as their representative.
21:15 Education again followed eating, as it had often done before, for example,
in the upper room (chs. 1317). The following conversation may have
taken place as Jesus and Peter walked along the shore, with John within
earshot close behind (cf. vv. 20-21). It seems, however, that it took place
in the presence of the other six disciples.
Jesus began by addressing Peter as "Simon son of Jonas (John)." In the

Gospels, Jesus addressed Peter this way on only the most important
occasions. These were: Peter's call to follow Jesus (1:42), his confession
of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt. 16:17), and as he slept in Gethsemane
(Mark 14:37). When Jesus addressed Peter this way here, Peter probably
realized that what Jesus was about to say to him was extremely important.
"The mention of St Peter's natural descent here ["son of

John"] (comp. i. 42; Matt. xvi. 17) appears to direct
attention in the first place to the man in the fulness [sic] of
his natural character, as distinguished from the apostle."1167
Jesus used a word for "love" (Gr. agapas), in His question, that many
scholars have understood to refer to total commitment to another person.
Other equally competent scholars, however, do not believe it had this
strong meaning.1168 Nevertheless most scholars recognize that agapao
expresses a somewhat stronger love than phileo does.
1168E.g., R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 38-42.
In his Gospel, John did not usually make fine distinctions in meaning on
the basis of synonym differences.1169 Generally he treated synonyms as
having essentially the same meaning. For example, John used both agapao
and phileo to describe the Father's love for the Son (3:35; 10:17; 5:20),
Jesus' love for Lazarus (11:5, 3, 36), and Jesus' love for the beloved
disciple (13:23; 20:2). Also, he used three different Greek words to
describe "fish" in this passage: prosphagion, ichthus, and opsarion.
However, many expositors have concluded that Jesus was making a

distinction between the meanings of the synonyms for love that He used
here.1170 Because of the debate over the meaning of agapao and its
synonyms, it seems wise not to put too much emphasis on this distinction.
"His [Peter's] actions had shown that Peter had not wanted
a crucified Lord. But Jesus was crucified. How did Peter's
devotion stand in the light of this? Was he ready to love
Jesus as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be?"1171
Jesus asked Peter if he had more love for Jesus than he had for "these
things" (Gr. pleon touton). What did Jesus have in mind? Was it the
fishing boats and nets that Peter had returned to, or was it the other
disciples? The comparison seems more likely to have been with the "love"
of the other disciples for Jesus, since Peter had earlier professed complete
devotion to Jesus in the upper room (cf. 13:37; 18:10). Peter had claimed
that his love for and commitment to Jesus were so strong, that even if all
the other disciples forsook Him, he would not (Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29;
Luke 22:33). Yet Peter had denied that he was one of Jesus' disciples, and
that he even knew Jesusthree times. Thus Jesus' question was
reasonable. He wanted Peter to think about just how strong his love for
Jesus really was.
Peter replied by professing his love for Jesus, but he used a different word
for love than Jesus had used (Gr. philo). Expositors who believe that philo
expresses weaker love than agapao, think that Peter apparently could not
bring himself to claim complete devotion to Jesusin view of his three
denials. Those who view philo and agapao as essentially synonymous,
understand Peter as professing that he really did love Jesus. Peter wisely
appealed for proof of his love to Jesus' knowledge ("You know that I love
You"), not to his own former behavior.
1169Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 676-77; Tenney, "John," p. 201; Morris, p. 770.
1170E.g.,
K. L. McKay, "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17," Novum Testamentum
27 (1985):319-33; Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 4:
"Golden Nuggets from the Greek New Testament" (by the author, 1940; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 60-63; and Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, p. 227.
1171Morris, p. 768.
"Experience had taught St Peter to distrust his own

judgment of himself. Even when the fact is one of
immediate consciousness he rests his assertion on the
Lord's direct insight."1172
Jesus responded graciously by giving Peter a command, not Jesus

responded graciously by giving Peter a command, not criticism. He told
Peter to "tend" (Gr. boske, feed) His "lambs" (Gr. arnia). Three more pairs
of synonyms, in addition to agapao and philo, occur in this passage. Bosko
(feed, vv. 15, 17) and poimaino (tend, or take care of, v. 16) may be
significantly different, but they are probably not. Likewise arnia (lambs,
v. 15) and probata (sheep, vv. 16, 17) create the same interpretive
problem. The third pair is oidas (know intellectually, vv. 15, 16) and
ginoskeis (know experientially, v. 17).
Previously Jesus had referred to Himself as the Good Shepherd (10:14).

Now He was committing the care of His flock to this disciple who had
failed Him miserably in the past. Jesus had formerly called Peter to be a
fisher of men, an essentially evangelistic ministry (Matt. 4:19). Now He
was broadening this calling to include being a shepherd of sheep, a
pastoral ministry.
21:16-17 Jesus proceeded to ask Peter essentially the same question two more times.
Peter gave virtually the same answer each time. Peter felt grief (contrition)
after Jesus' third question because Jesus asked the same question a "third
time," which is the reason for Peter's grief that the text givesnot the use
of His word for "love." Some commentators suggested that Peter was also
grieved because this time, Jesus used the same word for love that Peter
had used (Gr. philo).1173
"In His first question the Lord challenged the superiority of

Peter's love. In His second question the Lord challenged
whether Peter had any love at all. Here, in His third
question the Lord now challenges even his affection! Most
searching was this! But it had the desired effect. The Lord
wounds only that He may heal."1174
Morris noted that the original conversation between Jesus and Peter
probably took place in Aramaic, so when John translated what they said
into Greek, he may have been using synonyms for variety rather than to
express nuances of difference.1175 Furthermore, earlier (5:20), Jesus also
used philo (philei), not agapao, to describe the Father's great love for the
Son.
1173E.g.,
Ibid.
1174Pink,3:324.
1175Morris, p. 770.
Jesus probably intended that Peter's threefold profession of love would

correspond to, and in a sense counteract, his former threefold denial. Peter
had denied his Lord in the presence of witnesses, near a charcoal fire,
three times (18:17, 25, 27). Now he affirmed his love for his Lord in the
presence of witnessesalso near a charcoal firethree times. The Great
Physician was restoring Peter's soul. Jesus had previously restored Peter to
fellowship with Himself (Luke 24:34). Peter's eagerness to get to Jesus
(v. 7) is evidence of that.
"There can be little doubt but that the whole scene is meant
to show us Peter as completely restored to his position of
leadership. . . . It is further worth noting that the one thing
about which Jesus questioned Peter prior to commissioning
him to tend the flock was love. This is the basic
qualification for Christian service. Other qualities may be
desirable, but love is completely indispensable (cf. 1 Cor.
13:1-3)."1176
"We may know much, and do much, and talk much, and
give much, and go through much, and make much show in
our religion, and yet be dead before God for want of love,
and at last go down to the Pit [i.e., the Grave]. Do we love
Christ? That is the great question. Without this there is no
vitality about our Christianity. We are no better than
painted wax-figures: there is no life where there is no
love."1177
Some failures in ministry may bar a believer from serving the Lord in
particular ways from then on (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-16). Other
failures may only require temporary suspension from service until
restoration is complete (cf. Acts 15:38; 2 Tim. 4:11). However, regardless
of one's failures, he or she can always serve the Lord in some capacity (cf.
2 Tim. 2:20-21).
Peter had learned not to make rash professions of great love. Therefore he
did not compare his love for Jesus to the love of the other disciples, as he
had done before. He simply appealed to Jesus' knowledge of his heart.
Throughout this interchange, Jesus consistently referred to the "sheep" as

"His (My) sheep," not Peter's sheep. Not only that, Jesus described Peter's
ministry in terms of acts, not in terms of an office. Years later, Peter wrote
to elders urging them to apply these same viewpoints to their pastoral
ministry (1 Pet. 5:1-4).1178
1176Ibid.,p. 772.
1177Bishop Ryle, quoted by Pink, 3:323.
1178C. K. Barrett, Essays on John, pp. 165-66.
Jesus may have been giving Peter the same commission three times, only
in different words (vv. 15, 16, 17). However, the differences may be
significant.
"The first portrayed here is the simplest and humblest

[v. 15]. The little ones in Christ's flock need support, which
they cannot obtain of themselves; this the apostle is
charged to give them. . . .
"The lambs require to be fed; the sheep require to be guided

[v. 16]. The watchful care and rule to be exercised over the
maturer Christians calls for greater skill and tenderness
than the feeding of the young and simple. . . .
"The mature no less than the young Christians require their

appropriate sustenance [v. 17]. Provision must be made for
their support as well as for their guidance. And this is the
last and most difficult part of the pastor's office."1179
Perhaps Jesus repeated His first question verbatim to help Peter lift
himself to a higher plane.1180
"It is only those who truly love Christ that are fitted to
minister to His flock! The work is so laborious, the
appreciation is often so small, the response so discouraging,
the criticisms so harsh, the attacks of Satan so fierce, that
only the 'love of Christ'His for us and ours for Himcan
'constrain' to such work."1181
Some Roman Catholic scholars have used this passage to support their
view that Peter was the first pope. Some of them do this mainly because,
in the Old Testament, the shepherd was a figure for a kingly ruler (e.g.,
2 Sam. 5:2). However, other revelation, in the New Testament, does not
exalt Peter to a place of authoritative rule over other under-shepherds
(Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Matthew 16:13-20 establishes Peter's role in the
founding of the church, but it does not assign him the role of ruling over
the other apostles.
21:18-19 Jesus then gave the last of the many important statements that He
introduced with a strong affirmation. It was a prediction of the type of
death that Peter would die. Peter had just said to Jesus, "You know all
things" (v. 17), and now Jesus demonstrated that He did.
1180McGee, 4:504.
1181Pink, 3:325-26.
Jesus contrasted the freedom that Peter had enjoyed in his youth, with the
constraint that he would experience in later life. He was describing
crucifixion. The phrase "stretch out your hands" (v. 18) was a euphemistic
reference to crucifixion in the Roman world.1182 This stretching took place
when the Roman soldiers fastened the condemned person's arms to the
crosspiece of his cross. This often happened before they led him to the
place of crucifixion and crucified him.1183
"The crucifixion of St Peter at Rome is attested by
Tertullian ('Scorp.' 15) and later writers. Origen further
stated that he was crucified with his head downwards at his
own request (Euseb. 'H. E.' III. 1)."1184
Peter had been learning how his self-confidence led to failure, and how he
needed to depend on Jesus more (i.e., "You know . . ."; vv. 15, 16, 17).
Jesus reminded Peter that as time passed, he would become increasingly
dependent on others, even to the point of being unable to escape a martyr's
death. Therefore, Jesus implied, Peter should commit his future to God
rather than trying to control it himself as he had formerly tried to do.
"The long painful history of the Church is the history of
people ever and again tempted to choose power over love,
control over the cross, being a leader over being led."1185
Peter later wrote that Christians, who follow Jesus Christ faithfully to the
point of dying for Him, bring glory to God by their deaths (1 Pet. 4:14-
16). He lived with this prediction hanging over him for three decades (cf.
2 Pet. 1:14). Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 96) wrote that Peter died by
martyrdom (1 Clement 5:4; 6:1).1186 According to church tradition, Peter
asked for crucifixion upside down because he felt unworthy to suffer as
Jesus had.1187 There is little corroborating support for this tradition,
however. Traditionally Peter died in Rome about A.D. 67 A.D.
". . . I do not quarrel with the notion that he died there; but I
cannot be persuaded that he was bishop, especially for a
long time."1188
Jesus then repeated His original command to Peter, to "follow" Him (cf.
Mark 1:17). This is a present imperative in the Greek text, meaning:
"Keep on following Me."
1182Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2:226-27; Barrett, The Gospel . . ., p. 585.
1185Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership, p. 60. This book deals
with this episode in Peter's life most helpfully, especially for Christian leaders.
1186Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers, 1:11.
1187The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, 2:25; 3:1.
1188Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 4:6:15.
"Obedience to Jesus' command, Follow Me, is the key issue

in every Christian's life. As Jesus followed the Father's will,
so His disciples should follow their Lord whether the path
leads to a cross or to some other difficult experience."1189
Was Jesus saying that the Rapture would not occur before Peter died?
Other New Testament writers, who wrote before Peter's death, wrote as
though the Lord could return for the church at any moment (e.g., Phil.
3:11, 20-21; 1 Thess. 4:16-18; cf. 2 Thess. 2). Probably we should
understand references to future events, such as Peter's death, as being
contingent on the larger purposes of Godincluding the Rapture (cf. Acts.
27:24). One writer believed that Peter and the early church did not
understand Jesus' words, here, as meaning that Peter would live a long life,
but only that he would die a martyr's death.1190 If John wrote this Gospel
late in the first century, as seems likely, Peter may already have died when
the first readers read this story.
21:20-21 Why did John identify himself as he did in these verses? Perhaps he did so
because this description highlights his intimacy with Jesus. That intimacy
was evidently a factor in Jesus' plans for John to which He proceeded to
refer (vv. 22-24). These plans included his writing this Gospel (v. 24).
Therefore by presenting the writer as an intimate of Jesus, John was
establishing his credentials as a reliable eyewitness of what he reported. A
second reason may be that this description also reminds the reader of
John's intimacy with Peter. This helps us understand Peter's question about
Jesus' will for John. Peter evidently wanted to know what would happen to
his young friend, since he himself was going to suffer crucifixion.
Peter was not the only Christian who wanted to know God's will for
another believer's life. Many Christians since him have wanted the same
information, but not for reasons as altruistic as Peter presumably had (cf.
1 Pet. 4:15). Some interpreters view Peter's question as fleshly.1191
21:22 Jesus essentially told Peter that John's future was none of his business.
Rather than concerning himself with God's will for other people, even
those closest to him, Peter should concentrate on following Jesus faithfully
himself. The "you" in the Greek text is emphatic. Even if it was Jesus' will
for John to "remain" alive "until" He returned, that was not to be Peter's
concern.
"The main business, even of the chief under-shepherds, is
not to make others follow Christ, but to follow Him
themselves."1192
1189Blum, p. 345.
1190Gerald B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour, pp. 113-14.
1191E.g., Pink, 3:330.
1192A. B. Bruce, p. 528.
The reference to Jesus' return is probably a reference to the Rapture, rather

than the Second Coming, in view of what Jesus had promised these
disciples in 14:1-3.
21:23 Jesus' statement here led to a rumor that John "would not die" before Jesus
returned. This is one of the earliest instances of people setting a date for
the Lord's return. All such attempts to identify exactly when Jesus will
return go beyond Scriptural revelation.
"This verse makes an epilogue to the story, which also

points its application to the readers. They too must cease to
indulge in wild speculations about the Beloved Disciple
and attend to their own discipleship. For indeed that is
John's object in creating this character in the first place. His
reticence about him has a definite purpose. It is his hope
that each reader will be so drawn by the Gospel to believe
in Jesus and to follow him, that he will discover himself in
the true discipleship of the Beloved Disciple."1193
"My friend, there are a lot of things that you won't know.
There are many things that you don't need to know. There
are things that are not your business to know. The
important thing is to follow Him."1194
John clarified what Jesus actually said, in order to squelch the rumor,
which was evidently circulating when he wrote this Gospel. This
clarification was important, because when John died, some people might
have falsely concluded that Jesus had not been faithful to His promise to
return. Others might conclude that John's Gospel was not trustworthy.
However, Jesus had spoken of a hypothetical possibility. This was not a
promise.
"In view of the fact that in this Gospel slight variations

when statements are repeated are almost universal, it is
noteworthy that here the statement is repeated exactly from
verse 22. The precise words used are significant, and the
writer is at pains to be accurate."1195
"The author's explanation of Jesus' announcement may be

taken as evidence that the disciple was still living at the
time this Gospel was written and that he was the source of
its content. Obviously, if he had died early, the rumor
would have had no credence."1196
1193Lindars, p. 640.
1194McGee, 4:505.
1195Morris, p. 775.
It is interesting and significant that the last words of Jesus that John
recorded were about His return. This is the great hope of His believing
disciples.
C. THE WRITER'S POSTSCRIPT 21:24-25
Some commentators refer to this ending as a colophon. A "colophon" is the finishing

stroke and crowning touch to a document. It is an inscription placed at the end of a book
or manuscript that contains basic information about it, such as the title, writer's name, and
date and place of writing. However, it is more similar to a postscript because it contains
only hints of the writer's identity. Mainly it claims that this Gospel is a reliable, though
partial, record of Jesus' actions.
21:24 Most careful students of this Gospel have deduced from this, and other
oblique references in the book, that the Apostle John is the writer in view.
This description of the writer stresses the reliability of his witness.1197
"These things" probably refers to the whole Gospel, not just what
immediately precedes. The statement is general, and it occurs at the end of
the book (cf. 20:30-31).
The identity of the "we" is less clear. They could be scribes who recorded
John's verbal witness as he dictated the material in this Gospel to them.
They could be editors of the Gospel. Some scholars view these people as
the elders of the Ephesian church where John traditionally served late in
his life.1198 Others believe that they were influential men in his church,
though not necessarily in Ephesus.1199 Another view is that this is an
indefinite reference similar to "as is well known."1200 Probably John
himself wrote this statement in the plural, as authoritative people
sometimes do. It would then be an editorial "we" (cf. 1:14; 3:2, 11; 20:2; 1
John 1:2, 4, 5, 6, 7; 3 John 12). Since the next verse returns to the first
person, this option seems most probable to me.
21:25 This final verse, along with the one preceding it, returns to the broad
perspective with which this Gospel began in its prologue (1:1-18). The
prologue presented the Word humbling Himself, and entering the world
through the Incarnation. This verse presents "the world" as not able to
"contain" all the revelation ("books") that the Word disclosed. John's final
word was that what he wrote, and what everyone else could write, would
be only a small part of what could be written to bring honor to Jesus
Christ.
1197See Thomas D. Lea, "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.
1198E.g., Westcott, p. 306.
1199E.g., Bultmann, pp. 717-18.
1200C. H. Dodd, "Note on John 21, 24," Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.
End Maps
*Sidon Damascus*
PALESTINE IN SYRIA
THE TIME OF ^Mt. Hermon
JESUS PHOENICIA
*Caesarea
*Tyre Philippi
GALILEE GAULANITIS
Korazin*
Capernaum* *Bethsaida Julias
Magdala*
Mt. Carmel^ Cana* * Tiberias
Nazareth* ^Mt. Tabor
*Nain *Gadara
DECAPOLIS
*Caesarea
SAMARIA
^Mt. Ebal
*Sychar
^Mt. Gerizim
*Joppa
PEREA
Emmaus* Jericho*Bethphage
Jerusalem**
*Bethany
Bethlehem*
JUDEA
*Gaza Hebron*
En Gedi* NABATAEA
IDUMEA Masada+
*Beersheba
JERUSALEM IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES
Pool of
Bethesda
Kidron Valley
Antonia
Fortress Gethsemane
Golgotha +
Mount of Olives
Temple
Area
Herod's
Palace Sanhedrin Kidron Valley
Chambers?
Hinnom Valley
Tyropoeon Valley
Home of
Caiaphas?
Upper Pool of
Room?
Kidron Valley
Siloam
Hinnom
Valley
Hinnom Valley
TWO
ROUTES GALILEE
BETWEEN
JUDEA AND
GALILEE
SAMARIA
Sychar*
PEREA
JUDEA
Jerusalem*
Bibliography
Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra
153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.
Aloisi, John. "The Paraclete's Ministry of Conviction: Another Look at John 16:8-11."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47:1 (March 2004):55-69.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1873.
Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1957.
The Babylonian Talmud. 10 vols. Translated and edited by Michael L. Rodkinson.
Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918.
Bailey, Mark L. "A Biblical Theology of Suffering in the Gospels." In Why, O God?
Suffering and Disability in the Bible and the Church, pp. 161-81. Edited by Larry
J. Waters and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville:
Word Publishing, 1999. Reissued as Nelson's New Testament Survey. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed.
Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.
Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.
_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1978.
_____. The New Testament Background, Selected Documents. London: SPCK, 1957.
Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays
on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by
Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.
Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater
Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Second ed. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word
Books, 1987.
Bennema, Cornelis. "The Character of John in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 52:2 (June 2009):271-84.
Berg, Laurna L. "The Illegalities of Jesus' Religious and Civil Trials." Bibliotheca Sacra
161:643 (July-September 2004):330-42.
Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary

series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.
Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348.
Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press
Publications, Victor Books, 1983.
Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; and Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002.
Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.
Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today:
Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3
(September 1998):415-26.
Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca
Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.
Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes.
Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966-71.
Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Training of the Twelve. 8th ed. N. c.: A. C. Armstrong
and Son, 1894; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-
Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.
Burns, J. Lanier. "John 14:1-27: The Comfort of God's Presence." Bibliotheca Sacra
172:687 (July-September 2015):299-315.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols.
Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.
Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some
Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.
_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension.
London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.
_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98
(1979):547-66.
_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.
_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12
vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1984.
Carson, Donald A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-
48.
Chapple, Allan. "Jesus' Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?" Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 58:3 (September 2015):545-69.
Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1975.
Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament."
Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.
Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995; reprint ed., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2005.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Four Gospel: A Study in Literary Design.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
_____. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.
Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.
Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.
Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-
March 1996):34-52.
_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented
at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Ill., 19 November
1994.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1970.
A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours,
Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.
Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6."
_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co.,
1992.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1953.
_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.
Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
London: Ark, 1984.
Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.
Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1
(Fall 1988):52-54.
Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.
The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York:
Longmans, Green, 1912.
_____. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.
_____. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services As They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ.
Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.
Ehrman, Bart D. "Jesus and the Adulteress." New Testament Studies 34 (1988):24-44.
Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS
(1960):329-36.
Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction."
Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.
Findlay, G. G. "The First Epistle to the Corinthians." In The Expositor's Greek
Testament. 2 (1912):727-953. 4th ed. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London:
5 vols. Hodder and Stoughton, 1900-12.
Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of Judaism
and Christianity. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press. London: Oxford
University Press, 1959.
Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.
Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra
139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.
Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra
142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.
Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols.
Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.
Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64

(1945): Part 2:145-82.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L.
Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer. New
York, Cincinnatti, Chicago: American Book Co., 1889.
Grindheim, Sigurd. "The Work of God or of Human Beings: A Note on John 6:29."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59:1 (March 2016):63-66.
Gundry, Robert H. "'In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift fr
die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.
Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar."
Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.
Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk.
Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984.
Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June
1999):190-202.
Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New
Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,
pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1962
Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3
(1952):66-75.
Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1953-54.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1865-71.
Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-
55):200-9.
Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas:
Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie
Books, 1989.
_____. "The Angel at BethesdaJohn 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March

1979):25-39.
_____. "Coming to the LightJohn 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-
December 1978):314-22.
_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496
_____. "Grace after GraceJohn 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March
1978):34-45.
_____. "Rivers of Living WaterJohn 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-
September 1979):239-48.
_____. "Those Who Have Done GoodJohn 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542
(April-June 1979):158-66.
_____. "Untrustworthy BelieversJohn 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-
June 1978):139-52.
_____. "Water and SpiritJohn 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September
1978):206-20.
_____. "Water and WindJohn 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September
1978):206-20.
_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:538:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra
_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-
December 1966):301-9.
Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary
Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1977.
Horsley, G. H. R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. 4 vols. N.c.: Macquarie
University (New South Wales, Australia), 1981-86.
Hoskins, Paul M. "Deliverance from Death by the True Passover Lamb: A Significant
Aspect of the Fulfillment of the Passover in the Gospel of John." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 52:2 (June 2009):285-99.
Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and
Faber, 1940.
Howard, James M. "The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John."
Hutchinson, John C. "The Vine in John 15 and Old Testament Imagery in the 'I Am'
Statements." Bibliotheca Sacra 168:669 (January-March 2011):63-80.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1979 ed. 5

vols. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand, 2:373.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by
Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.
Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity."
Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for
New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970.
Jones, Timothy Paul. "The Necessity of Objective Assent in the Act of Christian Faith."
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866; reprint ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988.
Kim, Stephen S. "The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus' Miracle in
John 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 165:660 (October-December 2008):413-24.
_____. "The Christological and Eschatological Significance of Jesus' Passover Signs in
John 6." Bibliotheca Sacra 164:655 (July-September 2007):307-22.
_____. "The Literary and Theological Significance of the Johannine Prologue."
_____. "The Relationship of John 1:19-51 to the Book of Signs in John 212."
Bibliotheca Sacra 165:659 (July-September 2008):323-37.
_____. "The Significance of Jesus' Healing the Blind Man in John 9." Bibliotheca Sacra
167:667 (July-September 2010):307-18.
_____. "The Significance of Jesus' Raising Lazarus from the Dead in John 11."
Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.
Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:3116:33)."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.
Lancaster, Jerry R., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John
10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.
Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6."
Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange.
Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.
Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.
Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg
Leung, Mavis M. "The Roman Empire and John's Passion Narrative in Light of Jewish
Royal Messianism." Bibliotheca Sacra 168:672 (October-December 2011):426-
42.
Levitt, Zola. A Christian Love Story. Dallas: Zola Levitt Ministries, 1978.
Lewis, Clive Staples. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.
_____. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. London: Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press,
1947.
Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones
and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.
Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.
Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1956.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants,
1972.
MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.
Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.
MacLeod, David J. "The Benefits of the Incarnation of the Word." Bibliotheca Sacra
161:642 (April-June 2004):179-93.
_____. "The Creation of the Universe by the Word: John 1:3-5." Bibliotheca Sacra
160:638 (April-June 2003):187-201.
_____. "The Eternality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 160:637
_____. "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14." Bibliotheca Sacra 161:641 (January-
March 2004):72-88.
_____. "The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13." Bibliotheca Sacra
_____. "The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9." Bibliotheca Sacra
160:639 (July-September 2003):305-20.
Mann, Christopher Stephen. Mark. The Anchor Bible series. New York: Doubleday,
1986.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon
Press, 1979.
Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1989.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of
God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959; Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.
McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical
Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.
McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Thru
The Bible Radio; and Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983.
McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum
Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.
McNamara, Martin J. Targum and Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1972.
Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In
Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer
and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and
New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.
The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John.
Portland, Oreg.: Multnomah Press, 1982.
Montgomery, David A. "Directives in the New Testament: A Case Study of John 1:38."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June 2007):275-88.
Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield,
England: Almond Press, 1983.
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H.
Revell Co., n.d.
_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell
Co., 1912.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the
New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.
_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary
on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1995.
Murray, John. RedemptionAccomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.
Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel StudiesEtudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays.
Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.
The Nelson Study Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1997.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel
Press, 1987.
The New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, William Culbertson, et
al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New
York: Crossroad, 1994.
Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grner, 1968.
Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540
Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508
Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
"Philip's Tomb DiscoveredBut Not Where Expected." Biblical Archaeology Review
38:1 (January/February 2012):18.
Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3
vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.
Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to
Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49
(1987):254-63.
Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598
(April-June 1993):203-18.
Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.
_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.
Rydelnik, Michael A. "The Jewish People and Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 165:660
Ryrie, Charles C. The Miracles of our Lord. Dubuque, Iowa: ECS Ministries, 2005.
Sanders, J. N. A. Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New
Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London:
Adam & Charles Black, 1968.
Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca
Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19
(1957):343-46.
Scroggie, W. Graham. A Guide to the Gospels. N.c.: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1948.
Reprint ed. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1962.
Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1946.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963.
Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the
Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.
Skinner, Christopher W. "Another Look at 'the Lamb of God'," Bibliotheca Sacra
161:641 (January-March 2004):89-104.
Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books,
1984.
_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.
Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity
Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.
Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative
Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.
Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle
Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM
Press, 1960.
Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19

(June 20, 1975):9-11.
Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London:
SCM Press, 1941.
Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John
Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and
London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.
Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479
_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.
_____. "John." In JohnActs. Vol. 9 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols.
Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1954.
_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480
_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June
1963):117-25.
_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March
1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41;
528 (October-December 1975):343-57.
Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel."
_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard
Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1964-76 ed. 10 vols.
S.v. "elenchos," by F. Bchsel, 2(1964):476..
_____. S.v., "lithos," by Joachim Jeremias, 4(1967):268-80.
Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 2002.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500
Thomson, W. M. The Land and the Book. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1873.
Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel."
Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.
Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca
Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.
Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London:
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., 1915.
Tucker, John A. "The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 Part I."
Journal of Dispensational Theology 15:44 (April 2011):51-68.
_____. "The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 Part II." Journal
of Dispensational Theology 15:45 (August 2011):49-68.
Unger's Bible Dictionary. Edited by Merrill F. Unger. 1957 ed. S.v. "Pretorium," p. 881.
Vrede, Keith Vande. "A Contrast between Nicodemus and John the Baptist in the Gospel
of John." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57:4 (December
2014):715-26.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 2002.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with
Introduction and Notes. 1880. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture
Press, Victor Books, 1989.
Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames
and Hudson, 1978.
Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June
1968):147-56.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament. Vol. 4: Golden
Nuggets, Untranslatable Riches, Bypaths, and In These Last Days. Reprint ed.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca
Yarid, John R., Jr. "John's Use of the Upper Room Discourse in First John." Ph.D.
dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002.
Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph
Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. 1975 ed. 5
vols. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden, 3:388.
_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper, 5:502.

John

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes on

1SeeW. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels, pp. 135-38.

Copyright 2017 by Thomas L. Constable

3Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing precisely, as evidenced by the

CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES AND PURPOSE

17Tenney, "John," p. 12.

"A heresy is seldom a complete lie and a complete untruth; a heresy

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related

SUMMARY OF GOSPEL INTRODUCTIONS

[ 4. The woman caught in adultery 7:538:11 ]

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel?

A The eternal Word with God vv. 1-2

A. THE PREINCARNATE WORD 1:1-5

"John is writing about a new beginning, a new creation, and

described God's first creation; John's theme is God's new

"To the Hebrew 'the word of God' was the self-assertion of

John adopted this word "word," and used it as a personification to express

There is probably no fully adequate illustration of the Trinity in the natural

Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to this verse to support their doctrine that

"As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when

Jesus was not "a god." He was and is God.

"What John is saying is thisthe Word is not of the created

"John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in

"Some asides function to stage an event by defining the

Thatcher identified 191 asides and charted them by type.50

"In the time of John this kind of belief was widespread.

John characteristically stated a proposition positively (part "a" of this

1:4 ". . . we move on from creation in general to the creation of

"The imagery of John, though limited to certain concepts and expressed in

B. THE WITNESS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST 1:6-8

("about") "the Light." The writer often emphasized something by simply

"Since the Reformation, theologians have viewed saving

"But it is worthy of remark that St John does not notice

"A Mandaean sect still continues south of Baghdad which,

Mandaism was a non-Christian type of Gnosticism.63

C. THE APPEARANCE OF THE LIGHT 1:9-13

64Morris, pp. 82-83.

elicit that revelation by meditation. This is not general but special

"The world's characteristic reaction to the Word is one of

66See Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 5:9.

home), but when He visited it, He found it inhabited by people who

"Here there is the tragedy of a people being prepared for a

"In the gospel of John belief is viewed in terms of a

". . . in the Johannine writings . . . pisteuo ["believe"] with

The context determines whether John had genuine or inadequate belief in

The New Testament speaks of the believer as a "child of God" and as a

draws attention to community of like nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4), whereas

When Christians explain the way of salvation to unbelievers, one

"The term 'flesh' (sarx) is not used by John to convey the

73Harris, p. 206. See also Morris, p. 89.

D. THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD 1:14-18

"So staggeringly new and unheard-of was this conception

". . . what intelligent meaning can one give to John's

"If anything like this very great mystery can be found in

"John is certainly dependent on the Old Testament, but his