“Past Presence and Future:
Jesus’ Assurances in the Face of
His Disciples’ Anxieties in John 14”
Introduction
In this passage the two most familiar verses (14:6 and 14:12) have often obscured the context, the flow and the purpose of Jesus’ address to His disciples’ concerns. The theological banner most often hung from14:6 asserts the exclusivity of the Gospel Message (“No one comes to the Father but through Me.”) upon what Jesus includes as a parenthetical aside from His main response (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”) to Thomas’ concern in 14:5. At least the controversy over Jesus’ words in 14:12 (“Greater works than these he will do.”) comprises a distinct and important element of Jesus’ teaching in its context.
Therefore, this passage demands careful consideration as a whole in light of Christians’ tendency today to ascribe disproportionately greater importance to one secondary clause (14:6b), and to buttress their lack of obedience to Jesus’ clear expectations in 14:12 with presumed uncertainty about the nature of such “greater works.” The conclusion often seems to be that since Christians question how such works could be “greater” than those done through Jesus, so long as one’s salvation is received (as only through Jesus), The Church may then excuse with impunity the absence of any such works as He and His disciples did.
This paper is presented in hopes of clarifying and correcting this perception.
Basic Socio-Historical Contexts of John’s Gospel
The author of this Gospel is almost certainly John, the beloved, one of Jesus’ inner-circle of three among the twelve apostles, the closer, more intensely discipled group within the larger corps of disciples. He would, then, be the brother of James, thus the son of Zebedee, also referred to with James as “Sons of Thunder” for their aggressive ambition and (perhaps) fiery temperament, according to Green, McKnight and Marshall.
Some have undertaken a wide-ranging search for John’s intended audience, seeking to interpret it by application to specific communities. Most notably, Rudolf Bultmann’s studies in the Fourth Gospel address Gnostic concepts evident in Mandaean and Manichaen myths, despite those being traced to documentation only after the Seventh Century A.D., and certainly existing no earlier than the late Second Century A.D. As deSilva points out in contrast to all such suppositions, “We are almost entirely dependent on the text of the Gospel itself for indications of the life circumstances and burning questions of those it was addressed to.”
The key issue in those life circumstances is proclaimed by John in the purpose statement for his gospel: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:30-31). John’s overall themes and structure repeatedly echo the imperative found in Jesus’ words at 14:1, “Believe in God; Believe also in Me.”
Chronologically, the place of 14:1-31 within John’s Gospel seems clear from the immediate contexts. Although the discourse may have taken place entirely in the Upper Room or in transit from the Upper Room to the Garden of Gethsemane, its position as the immediate precursor to Jesus’ arrest, trials and crucifixion clearly influences the subjects Jesus addresses with His disciples. But when one looks beyond the immediate context and begins to consider the structural and thematic assembly of this Gospel, Carson’s comments give great comfort when he says, “Like many other facets of the Gospel of John, its basic structure seems fairly simple until one starts to think about it.” Despite the assurances of Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman that “John imposes a strict and orderly framework on his narrative,” deSilva’s assessment resonates more genuinely when he says, “probing the setting and purpose of the Fourth Gospel is a shadowy venture,” and “This has become even more shadowy in the light of recent suggestions that limiting a Gospel’s audience to a small circle of readers whose exact circumstances can be identified is based on a flawed model of how the Gospels were written and disseminated.” Therefore, one may find a better perspective to be gained by considering 14:1-31 as situated among John’s intertwined themes.
Considered Thematically
In John 14 the author interweaves two of Painter’s seven identified themes, one a Revelation Theme (a category comprised of Origin, Light and Life, Festivals, and Truth and Witness), the other a Response Theme (comprised of Seeing/Believing/Knowing, Signs, and The Dark Side). Jesus’ return to the Father is an element of His Origins, a Revelation Theme focusing on Jesus’ identity. He portrays Himself, though, equal to the Father in order to elicit a definite Response from His disciples. His emphasis on Seeing/Knowing/Believing is evident in 14:7-15, but clearly continues beyond, as He expresses in 14:17 that the world cannot know the Holy Spirit because it does not see the Holy Spirit.
Kysar comments on the interspersed placement of these themes, “The thought of the gospel is always designed to speak to very concrete situations. The relevance to a specific occasion was more important to those responsible for the gospel than was consistency and unity of thought.” In discussing his six themes (Identity, Death, Dualism, Faith, Spirit, and Eschatology), Kysar explains that they “do little more than hint at the rich and none-too-simple views of the Fourth Gospel.”
In his previous volume, however, Kysar noted the Father-Son relationship so strongly presented in John 14 as being “the heart of johannine christology.” While Kysar sees the implications of this theme centering on 13:31, introducing the Farewell Discourse’s emphasis on this relationship, he also notes the importance of a number of verses in chapter 14 in developing this theme, particularly with regard to Jesus’ ascension, and to His functions being identical with those of the Father.
Considered Structurally
Kysar’s outline of the Fourth Gospel offers two main points book-ended by an introduction (subtitled “Beginnings”) and a Conclusion (“Endings”). “Jesus Reveals Glory” encompasses chapters two through twelve, and “Jesus Receives Glory” covers chapters thirteen through twenty (with the exception of 20:30-31). Carson’s outline identifies similar bookends, but considers three sections in his structure. The majority of John’s text is devoted, in Carson’s view, to “Jesus’ Self-Disclosure,” with 1:19-10:42 showing that disclosure “in Word and Deed,” and 13:1-20:31 showing it “in His Cross and Exaltation.” As part of what Carson calls “complexity wrapped in simplicity,” the text from 11:1 to 12:50 is identified as a “Transition: Life and Death, King and Suffering Servant.” The “revelation-response” motif noted by Kysar and Painter seems discarded due to Carson’s view of 20:30-31 showing John’s intent that “the entire Gospel (is) a book of signs” and that “if chs. 13-17 can be included (in a differently themed second division of John) on the ground that they are thematically tied to the passion, so also are many passages in chs. 1-12.”
Most importantly regarding the passage under consideration, Carson’s structural view is influenced by his variance from others in identifying the purpose of John’s Gospel. He refers dismissively to the alternatives as “Other unconvincing purposes (that) can be scanned in the major introductions,” and concludes his survey of their failings by saying, “Thus the fundamental question the Fourth Gospel addresses is not ‘Who is Jesus?’ but ‘Who is the Messiah?’” Carson translates John’s purpose statement in 20:31, “that you may believe that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.” Thus Jesus’ continued revelation through the Holy Spirit is seen as the only means by which the disciples would be able to transmit faith from generation to generation.
While Carson may appear to split hairs, one should note the many other attempts to find benchmarks in John’s structure. Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman alternately discuss John’s “unifying plot: the conflict between belief and unbelief,” and the possible structuring of the Gospel as a whole around the “seven great ‘I am’ utterances by Jesus.” Reese sees the passage under consideration as especially important within a pattern of discourses not unlike the disputation formulae of the Old Testament’s Twelve Prophets, identifying what he calls the “three-fold elucidation-question-clarification pattern.” Perhaps most intriguing is Lacomara’s criticism of those who attempt to parallel the miracles of the Exodus with the structure of John, saying, “Ingenious as such attempts often are, they try to prove too much and end by imposing on Jn a pattern that the gospel will not bear.” The irony is that he then draws extensive parallels between Deuteronomic values and John 14.
The Nature of 14:1-31 within John’s Structure
That there are serious questions regarding the number and nature of the Farewell Discourses in John is best summarized by Woll, “Two presuppositions are contained in the designation of this text, John 13:31-14:31, as ‘the first farewell discourse.’ The first is that it is a distinct literary unit. The second is that there is more than one farewell discourse in the Gospel.” He declines to pursue “the details of this controversy,” but he is not alone in avoiding ground on which angels may fear to tread. Others, however, do plunge in, at least so far as seeking to establish a unifying thesis for this Farewell Discourse. Fee states it as, “those who ‘live because they believe in him’ should continue his God-revealing, life-bestowing work.” For Hesselink, in contrast to the negatively framed imperative appearing in 14:1 and 14:27, “The matter can be put more positively. Peace is not only the opposite of fear and anxiety. Nor is it simply a psychological state or evanescent feeling of calmness and tranquility in the midst of trouble. It is Christ’s gift—‘my peace I give to you’—the peace which only Christ can give because only he possesses it. It is found only in him (16:33a) and is inseparable from his presence.”
With differences in nearly every perspective of John’s gospel and the Farewell Discourse alike, one might be well-advised to withhold any hint of certainty. As will be discussed, however, not only is there a structure apparent to this passage, but it is also built toward a single argument, and further, even the best of the few reasons to suppose that several sources were redacted into an artificially constructed Farewell Discourse (that a “finis” to this initial discourse is demanded by the departure from the Upper Room in 14:31) is unconvincing when one considers the more practical contexts of the text itself.
Is John 14 part of a larger Farewell Discourse, or one of several Farewell Discourses, possibly assembled by a later writer or redactor? Green, McKnight and Marshall describe the purpose of a Farewell Discourse (found throughout both biblical and extrabiblical “testaments”—i.e., didactic descriptions of the lives of the great) in this way: “The farewell scene of the great leader gave the writer an opportunity to summarize the achievements and teachings of that person, developing an apology for the life of the person if needed and applying the lessons of the person’s life to the problems facing future generations.” They list eight specific elements typical of Farewell Discourses, but are careful to note, “The order of these items is not inflexible. Structural parts may be repeated or completely omitted.” Still, each of the elements appears to be at least hinted at in John 14:1-31. The passage is precipitated by a “Reference to approaching death,” at a “Gathering of family or disciples.” There is “Exhortation” in the imperatives given (Four times the disciples are commanded to “Believe,” and twice they are commanded, “Do not let your heart be troubled.”). “Predictions or Prophecies” are made regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus conveys “Blessings” to them in extending a benediction of “Peace.” The only traditional elements less obvious are the actual “Death and Burial” (certainly a part of the context but not within this passage itself), and a “Review of the Figure’s Life” (although Philip is specifically admonished for neglecting to consider the life and teaching Jesus has shared with the disciples, and they are promised that the Holy Spirit will bring to their remembrance all that Jesus taught).
Form, Structure and Movement of John 14:1-31
Whether considered as part of a longer discourse, or as a separate discourse itself, John 14:1-31 is a distinct pericope beginning with Jesus’ admonition in 14:1, “Do not let your heart be troubled,” reaching its climax at 14:27 with those same words, with a conclusion in 14:28-31 reiterating the purpose for Jesus’ decision to share this difficult truth at this particular time. Within the discourse, Jesus gives four definite foundations on which this key imperative rests. In 14:1-6 Jesus explains where He is going and why, assuring the disciples of their future destination as being reunited with Him as well as the security of knowing they will be in the Father’s house. Jesus reminds them next in 14:7-15 that all they have seen and heard as they have accompanied Him are the words and works of that same Father. Having covered future and past, He then promises the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in 14:16-24 as being the gift of that same Father. Finally in 14:25-27a, as a fourth reason for assurance and faith in place of troubled and fearful hearts, Jesus points out that He has chosen to explain all this to them in advance of the difficult circumstance ahead, and that the Holy Spirit will continue to teach, as well as to remind them of all that Jesus had said to them as well.
Between the bookends of Jesus’ repeated admonition, “Do not let your heart be troubled,” then, the overarching subject is clearly the Father, but there is much of the passage in which Jesus is the subject, as is the Holy Spirit, and to a lesser extent (primarily in the imperatives) are the disciples. Further complicating one’s analysis of the argument here are shifts in pronoun reference that leave a distinct impression of intentional vagueness. For example, while the juxtaposition of Jesus and the Father in 14:7-11 creates a wonderfully poetic unity between them, interweaving past (“If you had known Me” in 14:7) and future (“from now on you know Him”), in 14:16-21 one might reasonably ask if Jesus sees any difference between Himself and the Holy Spirit. He promises in 14:17 that the Holy Spirit “abides with you and will be in you,” followed immediately by the promise in 14:18, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” As a reference to the Second Coming, this statement would appear to lack immediate context. The more direct impression is that Jesus intends that the coming of the Holy Spirit represents His own presence in the disciples. From a Trinitarian perspective, one may struggle with charting these interrelationships. From the standpoint of reassuring the disciples of God’s continued presence with them, despite Jesus’ imminent departure to “the Father’s house” which is clearly elsewhere than the disciples may soon and easily go (cf. 13:36), one may see a measure of relief in the troubled hearts of the disciples, if not immediately, then at the point when the Holy Spirit does remind them of all that Jesus has said.
Other notable rhetoric in this passage involves the cause-and-effect formulae used. Seven times Jesus uses an “If-Then” statement (though the “then” is left implicit in NASB), six times reversing the pattern with “This-Because” statements, with the variants “so that” and “for” occurring a total of four more times. Jesus is clearly seeking to ground their present and future attitudes and behavior in a clear understanding of the reasons for His departure and His promise of the Holy Spirit’s arrival.
The only potentially unfamiliar terms in this passage would not likely be a barrier to understanding. Still, since the primary cultural heritage of North American readers differs significantly from that of first century Palestine, one may require some clarifications. In 14:2, the concept of the Father’s house with many mansions, dwelling places or rooms is foreign to most in modern Anglo-European cultures. Our society having standardized the single-family-dwelling-unit as the preferred residential option (As one U.S. official recently chided the United Nations General Assembly, “No matter where they live, no matter their income, everyone should have the opportunity to own their own home.” ), the picture of multiple generations of a family sharing either apartments within a single home or several individual residences on the family property persists only in certain sub-cultures of our society today.
Key Observations in the Text
14:1 - Jesus begins with a negative imperative: “Do not let your heart be troubled,” followed by the positive alternatives, also expressed as imperatives, “Believe in God, believe also in Me.” With the translation in NEB and NRSV as “You believe in God…” the question whether these are two imperatives, or a single imperative conditioned on one’s assumed or expressed belief in God does not appear to bear heavily on one’s decision between anxiety and the peace of resting one’s trust in Christ. Carson explains that both verbs may be taken as either indicative or imperative with the resulting three options (Indicative/indicative as in “You believe in God, and you believe in Me.” Indicative/imperative: “You believe in God; you must also believe in Me.” And imperative/imperative: “You must believe in God, and you must believe in Me.”) equally supporting “a formidably high Christology” in which Jesus is linked “with the Father as an appropriate object of faith.” Still, given the construction of Jesus’ argument in this passage, it would appear most likely to read both verbs as imperatives (cf. comments on 14:6) with the first to be taken rhetorically.
14:2-3 - In the first of several justifications for the disciples’ assurance in place of anxiety, Jesus explains that there are not only theoretical places available somewhere for the disciples, but that these dwelling places are in the Father’s house, and that Jesus is going there to prepare a place specifically for them. For the various semantic concerns over terminology here, Carson offers a simplification, “This is a vivid way of saying there is ample provision in heaven for the disciples of Jesus.”
14:4-5 - Jesus’ declaration that they know the way where He is going is met with immediate contradiction in 14:5. As Carson notes, Thomas’ question “demonstrates that, at some level, they know nothing of the sort. John’s point is not that Jesus has made some terrible error in assessing his disciples, but that precisely because they know him they do know the way to the place he has just prescribed.”
14:6 - Following Thomas’ question, Jesus unequivocally equates Himself as both the transportation and the destination they seek. The disciples want to be assured of eternal life with the Father. Jesus proclaims Himself as that Truth and that Life. But they also need to know how to get there. For that, Jesus proclaims Himself as that Way as well. The exclusivity of Jesus’ position, however, is not left to be merely implied. The statement “No one comes to the Father but through Me” leaves no doubt in the disciples’ minds of the all-or-nothing commitment of faith required by the initial imperatives: Believe, and believe.
14:7-8 - The importance of knowing the Father is not lost on the disciple Philip. And he knows he has seen Jesus. Jesus has just explained that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. But Philip may wonder if Jesus means something other than physical sight (which He does) and his continued anxiety prompts him to ask Jesus to show them the Father. Philip may genuinely misunderstand the entire concept, seeking for Jesus to cut through the verbiage and demonstrate the Father’s presence in some tangible way. He is not alone in that desire. As O’Day expresses her frustrations with study of “Father” as used in John, “This larger role of ‘Father’ needs to be examined throughout the Gospel. To arrive at even a hint of satisfaction in the quest to ‘see the Father,’ broad observations about the 118 occurrences of ‘Father’ need to be set aside in favor of concentrated attention on the complex interrelationship of “Father” and its specific Gospel contexts.” In anticipation of 14:12, though, it is important to recognize that Philip (and the other disciples) wanted assurance through a definite display of the Father’s presence and approval (as one may rightly imagine The Church should see today).
14:9-11 - Following Philip’s question, Jesus asks a pair of rhetorical questions (“Have I been so long with you?” and “Do you not believe?”) and follows with a pair of imperatives. He would prefer that at this late date the disciples would believe Him by default. But because of the difficulty of the moment, with the disciples apparently seeking some refuge from their grief over Jesus’ imminent departure (Kubler-Ross’s first effect of the Grief Process is, after all, “Denial” ), Jesus is compelled to remind them of what they have previously witnessed in the miraculous works that testify to the Father’s presence in Jesus.
14:12 – Jesus’ statement initially appears to be straightforward. Among those disagreeing with that assessment, Kostenberger is most concise in stating, “The reference to the ‘greater works’ of the believer in John 14:12 is one of the most puzzling passages in the entire Gospel.” Ultimately, though, it is anything but unclear. Jesus has just admonished the disciples to believe that the Father is in Him and that He is in the Father. But are they to follow on the basis of His word alone? No. “Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves,” He has said. 14:12 is a comment upon those works, that they will also be done by the disciples, for the same purpose.
The inordinate controversy apportioned to “greater works” in modern churches suggests that most believe that these must somehow differ from the works Jesus accomplished during His earthly ministry. Kaiser proposes that the works are done by the Father through the believer just as they were done by the Father through the Son. Still, noting the lack of fulfillment to such a promise in the modern church, he proposes that, “There are, then, two further responses to our question: maybe our naturalistic worldview keeps us back from hearing the voice of the Father calling us to do such works as these, and maybe also, having read the whole book, we shrink back from following Jesus to glory because we fear that (to use Johannine terms) our ladder to glory like his may turn out to be a cross.” Perhaps the first-century disciples are not alone in seeking refuge for their grief over Jesus’ absence.
14:13-14 - Further commenting on these works, Jesus makes clear that the works originate not in the individual disciples. Just as Jesus’ works were the result of the Father’s presence in Him, the disciples’ works will be a result of Jesus’ presence in them. They are specifically instructed to pray, to “ask Me anything in My name.” And to expect to see it done.
One additional explanation given for the lack of tangible effects in the ministries of churches today is a belief that “in My name” is expressed by Jesus as a limiting agent. As Kysar states, “To ‘ask in my name’ means to ask what is harmonious with the will of Christ and consistent with the Father’s love.” True, but rather than limiting what one should ask, Jesus’ intention in the context here is to ensure the disciples’ understanding of these works by which they should know that the Father is in Jesus, and by which they will know that Jesus is in them (“because I go to the Father” implies the ministry of the Holy Spirit here, Whom Jesus equates with Himself as well in 14:17-18). Carson explains, “It is very doubtful that the Evangelist would be interested in drawing overly fine distinctions in the proper object of prayer, since he can happily refer to the gift of the Spirit as the result of the Son’s request to the Father, or as the Son’s own emissary.”
One other note: Jesus here heightens the identification with the Father in that the syntax of His previous statements would strongly suggest that one should expect Him to announce that “the Father will do whatever you ask in My name.” Instead, His promise is that “I will do it.”
14:15-21 - As another reason for the disciples’ anxiety to be replaced by faith’s assurance, Jesus explains that in response to His request (in keeping with the emphasis of the works done through the disciples as they ask in Jesus’ name) the Father will give “another Helper, that He may be with you forever.” The pronoun reference here would initially appear to refer to the subject of the sentence, the Father. Likewise, the promise Jesus makes in 14:18, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you,” appears anachronistic as a reference to His second coming. While He does express in 14:3 that He will return to receive the disciples to Himself, in 14:18 the more immediate context appears associated with His imminent departure. Thus, one should consider that as the Father Who gives the Helper does so in order that He (the Father) may be with the disciples forever, the Son will come to the disciples in the person of that same Helper, so that the disciples are not left as orphans since Jesus comes to them in the person of the Holy Spirit (almost immediately after His ascension). In this passage, with lyrically crafted statements equating the Father and Son, a similar interpolation of the Son and the Spirit resonates as well.
And yet Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Helper.” Is the Spirit additional to or a replacement for the presence of Jesus with the disciples? Kysar supposes that this “suggests that Jesus was the first,” emphasizing “a continuity of function between the Spirit and the historical Jesus. (The Paraclete is Jesus’ alter ego!)” Carson, likewise, recognizes “in the context of Jesus’ departure” that a reference to another paraclete “implies that the disciples already have one, the one who is departing.” But while Kysar identifies in his commentary that “it is…the coming of the Paraclete which is most relevant here,” Carson notes that “eschatological terminology piles up” pointing to the Parousia in this passage. (Even more interesting than this difference of opinions between contemporaries is Kysar’s own apparent change of heart regarding this reference. In his previous volume, Kysar identified 14:18 and chapter 14 as a whole as references to “Future Realities,” specifically regarding the Parousia. )
What clues are evident in the context of the passage? With varying translations as Counselor (RSV), Helper (NASB), Comforter (KJV), and Advocate (NRSV and NAB), even the term parakletos inspires similar differences among commentators, holding in common only the sense of being “one called alongside” in some way for some purpose. From the time of Wyclif (who introduced the term “Comforter,” intending “it to mean ‘comfortator,’ i.e., strengthener and not consoler.” ) onward, one’s understanding of the term would likely be best informed by a theological examination of the breadth of scriptural teaching elsewhere on the role of the Holy Spirit. (Although even that term is laden with semantic challenges, as Wood and Marshall note, “It also becomes immediately evident that the concept ruah is an existential term. At its heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power—the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms—all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy.”) In this context, the particular effects of the Holy Spirit’s presence as they apply to the disciples’ assurance in the face of anxiety are not intended to give a systematic doctrine on something the disciples had yet to experience. Would this, then, be the best approach given the question of either identifying Jesus more closely with the person of the Holy Spirit (essentially as one-and-the-same) or considering Jesus’ references “I will come to you,” “after a little while,” and “in that day,” as promises of a future far beyond the coming of the Holy Spirit to abide within the disciples?
These statements are not so neatly distinguished as the more dogmatically-oriented would prefer. Still we may safely apply what we know of Jesus’ purpose for His teaching in this passage. His introduction and climax are identical, “Do not let your heart be troubled.” In promising that He will not leave them as orphans, the coming of the Holy Spirit must be seen as the continued abiding presence of Christ with, and soon-to-be in the disciples. It is the Holy Spirit whose works in and through them is promised as a sign of Jesus’ presence, just as Jesus’ works were the sign of the Father’s presence. Therefore, the day in which the disciples will know that Jesus is in the Father, and that the disciples are in Jesus, and Jesus in the disciples (14:20) is clearly in the coming of the Holy Spirit, His illumination of God’s truth, and the miraculous works that follow as signs of that very presence Himself.
This view would appear to be reinforced as a more immediate occurrence (seen at Pentecost rather than Parousia) when one considers the bookends of this particular element of Jesus’ argument. As a remedy for anxiety, the words and works of Jesus have been offered as evidence of the past presence of the Father with the disciples. Jesus then promises that there will be works accomplished through the disciples themselves as a similar evidence, surpassing even what they have witnessed being accomplished through Jesus. Here, in anticipation of the disciples’ objection that they are incapable of duplicating what Jesus has modeled for them, in 14:15 He conditions evidence of their love for Him on their adherence to His commandments by stating, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” and in 14:21, “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me,” further promising that such a one “will be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.” The disciples are not being asked to go-it-alone. They have the promise of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and the expectation of greater works than Jesus’ as evidence of their continued walk in Jesus’ commandments and progress toward the Father’s house.
14:22-27a - Finally the climax of Jesus’ argument comes in answer to Judas’ question. There will now be a difference between those who may experience His presence and those who cannot. Jesus begins with the positive promise of the Father’s love and the abiding presence of both the Father and Son (and probably the Spirit is in view as well) conditioned on an individual’s love for Jesus and keeping His word. But immediately, Jesus notes there is another population as well who do not love Him, and subsequently do not keep His words. Carson states it directly, “wherever there are believers, the Father and Son dwell with them, whereas this does not happen with those who refuse to obey the teaching.”
A life in which His commandments are regularly communicated requires receiving the Holy Spirit who “will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” How different is this understanding from what the disciples likely expected? Keener explains, “That God dwelt in his temple and among his people was standard Old Testament teaching; that his laws were written in the hearts of his faithful and that his Spirit moved among his prophets were also taught in the Old Testament. But Jesus broadens and personalizes this perspective in a manner unparalleled in extant ancient literature.”
14:27b-31 - Reiterating His thesis, Jesus again issues the imperative with which He began, “Do not let your heart be troubled.” Given all that He has explained, it is apparent that if one’s heart is troubled it is because the individual is allowing it, rather than receiving from Jesus the peace He leaves with them and gives to them. He also recaps the key elements of the argument by which He intends His disciples to replace their anxiety with His assurance, and explains His purpose in sharing with them the information that provoked their anxiety in the first place. Not only will He prepare a place for them, nor simply return for them at some point in the future, nor even just ask the Father for the Holy Spirit to come alongside (even indwelling them), but He has also set them an example in His own obedience, and entrusted them with this information “before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.”
Synthesis
In John 14:1-31 Jesus commands His disciples to supplant anxiety over His imminent departure with active assurance for faithful service—all on the basis of what they have witnessed in the past (the works the Father has done through Jesus) and will witness in the future (the works to be done through the disciples), through the continuing experience of the presence of God in (i.e., no longer merely with) them through the Holy Spirit.
In this passage Jesus directly answers concerns raised by His announcement of His imminent departure, contradicted in Peter’s subsequent oath of loyalty and perseverance unto death, and exacerbated by Jesus’ stinging prophecy of Peter’s denial. Those questions regard not only Jesus’ destination and the disciples’ sense of abandonment, but the reality of the disciples’ inability to live up to their own desire for faithfully following Christ.
To those concerns, Jesus addresses three imperatives (14:1). Negatively, the disciples are commanded “Let not your heart be troubled.” The positive alternatives follow immediately: “Believe in God; believe also in Me.” But the disciples voice their continued concerns, providing the framework in which Jesus presents four specific arguments in favor of the disciples acting on His assurance rather than allowing anxiety to rob them of His promises. He explains that they have a future home in heaven with both the Father and His Son (14:2-6). He reminds them that they have experienced the presence of the Father in and through the Son in the past (14:7-15). He promises them that they will receive the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit that has been with them, but will soon be in and work through them (14:16-24). And He notes that His purpose in sharing this information with them before His departure, and sending the Holy Spirit to remind them of all He has said, is that they may know His unique peace (14:25-27a). Jesus then reiterates the purpose and thesis of this discourse, repeating His initial imperative (14:27b) and summarizing His arguments (14:28) for assurance in place of anxiety. He finally assures them of His purpose in forewarning them so that they may continue to believe (14:29) despite what might otherwise appear to be the exercise of the enemy’s power in defeating Jesus, and what might appear to be a judgment of disobedience (14:30-31).
Reflection
Evangelicals trace their individual experience with Jesus to a definite point of conversion, having entered into a relationship with God through Christ, putting their trust in the work of Jesus on their behalf for Salvation. That Salvation, however, is often framed in terms of a future hope of dwelling in the Father’s house eternally once Christ finally returns for them. But in the interim period, between receiving eternal life and eventually entering heaven, those believers often languish through an anemic tolerance of lingering doubts.
Controversy over the abiding presence and the resulting works of the Holy Spirit has led many to avoid any serious consideration of claims for miraculous works being accomplished through The Church today. In ironic contrast to the primary imperative of this chapter, the thought of accomplishing even greater works than Jesus did creates extraordinary anxiety. For some, the nervous anticipation of what might happen if they were to yield to the work of Christ’s Spirit through them is eclipsed only by concern over the potential reasons for lacking any sign of the Spirit’s life in them.
The effects of this “Holy-Spirit-optional” approach to modern practice and polity (even when not buttressed by arcane doctrines) are widespread. Kostenberger notes the importance of resolving this issue, saying, “The answer to this question will have a significant bearing on how the church today conceives of its mission and of the nature of its life and calling.” He diagnoses the hesitation prevalent in today’s congregations as stemming from less than theologically-based considerations. As he says regarding the “greater works” that were to be evident in the disciples, “They are to witness to him, expounding the significance of Jesus’ work and the forgiveness available for repentant sinners, humbly pointing to the work Jesus has done rather than focusing on their own. This stands in marked contrast to the subjectivism, sensationalism, and self-centeredness found in some segments of the North-American church.”
One theological issue further complicates one’s consideration of Jesus’ promise regarding the works to be done through His disciples. The long-standing suspicion of any mention of works as an evidence of the presence of Christ in one’s life is well-documented. While appreciably different in nature from any heresy of a Works-Based Relationship with Christ, the New Testament’s teachings on the Relationship-Based Works of Christ’s disciples is regarded by too many with at least hesitation, and most often meticulous avoidance.
Given the lack of reasonable alternatives to simply accepting Jesus’ words at face value, The Church would be better served to preach a balanced expectation of salvation by grace through faith, with subsequent evidence (within a wide range of passions, gifts and/or experiences) of God’s continuing work in and through Christians’ lives. Just as the disciples were called to trust not only Jesus’ expositions and example, but also to expect a tangible experience of His continuing expression of ministry through them, so believers today must likewise rest their assurance of salvation on what Jesus has said and done, with resulting evidence of His continued work in and through their lives.
