126. Chapter 13 - In the Upper Room

Chapter 13 - In the Upper Room Matthew 26:17-29;Mark 14:12-25;Luke 22:7-38;John 13:1-38;John 14:1-31;John 15:1-27;John 16:1-33;John 17:1-26 Passover Preparations

Judas must have listened with the utmost attention to the instructions which Jesus gave to Peter and John as to where He intended to observe the Passover meal. This would be the very time to keep his bargain with the chief priests and scribes: there would be no dangerous crowds; the streets would be deserted; each family-group would be in quiet, reverent seclusion keeping the feast. Once he learned exactly the location of the house, he could find a chance during the day to slip away and notify the enemies of Christ. But Judas got nothing from the instructions Jesus gave. They could be illustrated as follows: “Enter the city by the Damascus gate; go along Valley Street to the first intersection and turn right. The exact moment that you turn that corner, you will see a man walking down the street in front of you carrying a jar of water. Follow him through the winding streets of the city until he enters a house. Go into the house after him and ask permission for us to use the guest chamber — the large upper room.” Judas got nothing from this description. He found himself stymied. The miraculous foreknowledge of Jesus had enabled Him to give infallible instructions that were secret.

After securing permission to use the room, Peter and John would have purchased a lamb and the necessary supplies (bread, wine, herbs). The market was now not in the temple, but outside the city where it belonged. Even allowing for Josephus’ weakness of exaggerating his numbers, the vast crowds at the Passover feast must have concentrated hundreds of thousands of people in the capital, in nearby towns and villages. If the people did not have friends or relatives near, they would camp in the open. The warm, dry weather was now favorable for out-of-door life. Manifestly it seems impossible for such enormous crowds to have brought the lamb of each family-group (from ten to twenty people) into the temple court to be slain. It is probable that a multitude of priests served the crowds in the open terrain around the city, passing from one group to another to supervise the slaying of the lamb, and catching some of the blood in a receptacle to be taken into the temple court. An official return to Cestus Gallus says 256,500 lambs or kids were slain annually at the Passover.

Those who attempt to move the day of the crucifixion back to Thursday, or even to Wednesday, argue that this must have been a substitute, preliminary meal that Jesus ate, for the priests were so hostile to Jesus they would not have consented to assist in the sacrifice of a lamb by the two apostles. This objection overlooks completely the enormous crowds and the vast number of priests who would be serving. Certainly some of the priests would be friendly. But amid so great a crowd and the pressure of three hours time for the slaying of the lambs, any representative of a group would not be easily identifiable. Mark is very clear in his affirmation that this is the day when the Passover lambs were being killed (Mark 14:12). All the accounts represent that Jesus did eat the Passover. The Crisis

After completing all the preparations, which included roasting the lamb before an open fire, Peter and John returned to Bethany and awaited the will of the Master. It seems clear that the owner of the house was a disciple and the family may have assisted Peter and John in making the preparations for the meal as well as arranging the room. There is no indication that any of the household were present in the room during the meal. Out of respect for the Master they probably left the group to their own private devotions. Although the meal could be eaten just after sun-down, it seems that Jesus would have waited until dark to make the journey into the city. His movements would not be so easily kept under surveillance. But now that the Jewish leaders had a spy in the inner group, they may not have needed to keep watch in any other way.

It may seem strange that the disciples had entered the upper room without washing their feet. A host usually provided for such ordinary courtesy at the door, but once the table had been set and the viands provided, the reverent privacy offered in this home seems to have left everything to the guests. Perhaps the disciples were too eager to get their Master in off the dark, menacing streets of the city, where assassins might hide, to think of such a matter as washing their feet at the entrance. The excitement of the moment must have been tumultuous. The Quarrel

One of the interesting problems in reconstructing this evening in the upper room is the question as to whether Judas was present at the Lord’s Supper. The solution turns upon the proposition as to whether Luke is chronological in his narrative. He declares in his preface that he has written “in orderly fashion,” but this does not necessarily mean chronological order. It is evident that in the account of the temptations in the wilderness, Luke follows a geographical rather than chronological order. So in his account of the events in the upper room, he appears to introduce incidentally the account of the quarrel among the disciples over precedence. The word “also” bears out the proposition that he is now telling something else that happened without arranging it in order of time: “And there arose also a contention among them” (Luke 22:24). Edersheim’s theory concerning the seating arrangement as the cause of the quarrel, which is illustrated by the accompanying chart, explains satisfactorily a number of puzzling details. He supposes that when they came into the room, Judas feeling that the bold course was the safest, pushed forward and took the seat at the left side of Jesus which was ordinarily occupied by Peter. Outraged and disgruntled at this unexpected turn, Peter went down to the foot of the table which would have placed him across the table from Jesus, John, and Judas. The quarrel that arose evidently concerned who should have the seats of honor: “For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth” (Luke 22:27). If it seems hard to understand how the disciples on the very eve of the death of Jesus and in the hours of parting could have possibly indulged an unseemly quarrel over who should have the precedence, we need only remind ourselves that it takes only one person to set a whole company in an uproar. The devil had entree to the inner group now through his servant, Judas. Furthermore, the intense pressure of the emotional stress and imminent peril for all would set their nerves on edge and create the atmosphere for a rash quarrel. It probably was indulged in by scowls, suppressed gestures and whispers, rather than outspoken wrath.

John’s Account

It is amazing how wonderfully John supplies the necessary link to understand what Jesus meant in suppressing the quarrel by reminding them that He was in the midst as one that serves. This is precisely what Jesus did in washing the disciples’ feet. Luke does not tell of this incident or explain what Jesus meant by saying that He was a Servant in the midst. John, on the other hand, does not tell of the quarrel, nor does he explain why Jesus should have interrupted the meal to wash the disciples’ feet. it was “during supper” (American Standard Version), not “supper being ended” (Authorized), as the Greek participle clearly shows. It seems that the quarrel arose immediately after the beginning of the meal and, as the unpleasantness continued, Jesus humbled the entire group by His menial service to them. If Peter was seated at the foot of the table, then it would have been natural for Jesus to have approached him first. His outraged protest makes it evident he is the first one whose feet were washed by Jesus. The Foot Washing The artists’ pictures of the upper room are evidently at fault in having the group seated in chairs around a table. The first century custom was for the guests to recline on couches, resting on the left elbow with the right hand free to provide the food. Two guests and sometimes three were alongside on the same couch. The chief places of honor were the seats at the right and left hand of the leading figure. It would have been a difficult matter to get down and wash the feet of a person seated in a chair with his feet under the table. Since they were reclining on couches, it was quite practicable for Jesus to have washed the feet of each disciple just as he was situated. The disciples must have been filled with wonder and then dismay, as they saw Jesus arise from the table and lay aside His outer cloak, gird himself with a towel, and take a basin of water. Their quarrelsome thoughts and looks now must have melted into tears of shame. Most impressive is the thought that Jesus humbled Himself even to wash the feet of Judas. The water was poured from a pitcher over the feet and caught in a basin. Peter wept bitter tears as he left the trial hall of Caiaphas later on this night. It seems true to his impetuous nature that the tears would be falling now as he protests in a hoarse whisper: “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” The answer of Jesus was considered indecisive by the determined Peter. It was not enough to be told he did not understand now, but would, later on. He boldly declares: “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” The rebuke of Jesus was as strenuous as the refusal of Peter had been rash: “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” Still ever seeking to lead rather than to follow, Peter imagined that he was the soul of resignation in asking that his hands and head also be washed. Jesus was forced to rebuke him again with the declaration that one who has been bathed needs only to wash his feet. The lesson of humility that each should be ready to offer any such humble service that is needed in the name of Christ, becomes doubly powerful when the accounts of Luke and John are fitted together. Luke declares that Jesus stopped the quarreling by reminding the group that He was in the midst as a Servant and that they should imitate Him. John pictures Jesus showing Himself as a Servant in washing their feet.

Unveiling of the Traitor

If the quarrel and the foot washing were near the start of the meal, then it is clear that the unveiling of the traitor began early in the evening. He began to warn them that He could not include them all in the precious sayings he was presenting (John 13:18). After the supper had been resumed, Jesus plainly predicted betrayal that night by one of the twelve apostles seated at the table. Following Edersheim’s suggestion as to the seating arrangement, it is easy to see how John seated at the right side of Jesus and leaning upon His breast, could readily ask the question which Peter, seated directly opposite, could gesture for him to ask. Jesus answered that it was the one to whom He would give the sop (a piece of bread and meat which had been dipped in the gravy of the common dish in the center of the table). Since the ruler of the feast might offer this courtesy to any or all of the guests, this reply was indefinite. Jesus also said: “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me” (Matthew 26:23; Mark 14:20). This coincidence might also happen with all those present at some time during the evening. The heart-broken question that was asked around the table shows that the indefinite answers of Jesus had not made clear the identity of the traitor. It also shows depth of humility and self-examination. The disciples did not immediately turn an accusing finger on Judas. He was a shrewd individual who had concealed his true character from all but Jesus. They were moved with simplicity of spiritual devotion as each questioned concerning the fidelity of his own heart and life. They did not even suspect Judas when Jesus sent him from the room (John 13:28, John 13:29). “Lord, is it I?” was asked by each in such humble self-accusation that each had no looks, words, or thoughts for ferreting out the traitor other than the urgent gesture of Peter to John and the question John asked Jesus. The Traitor Driven Out

All others having asked the question to free their conscience, it was necessary for Judas to ask, if he would not call attention to himself. If he was seated next to Jesus on the left, then it is easy to see how the exchange between them could have taken place without being understood by the others. At the very moment that Judas asked the question, he was dipping in the large central dish with Jesus and was offered the sop. John tells that the moment Judas brazenly received the sop from Jesus, the devil entered into his heart and took final possession of him. Jesus then drove him from the room with the peremptory command: “What thou doest, do quickly” (John 13:27). There seems a deep spiritual meaning to the words that follow: “He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night.” The deep, impenetrable darkness of his final choice of infamy now surrounded him in the night of doom. In determining whether Judas was present at the Lord’s Supper, the puzzling thing is to decide at what time he was driven forth. John tells of the sending forth of Judas from the upper room, but he does not record the giving of the Lord’s Supper. The first intimation that we have from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Judas is not present with the rest is at the Garden of Gethsemane where he is pictured as leading the company of soldiers and rabble. John declares that Judas left immediately after Jesus made known to him that He knew of his treachery. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell of this unveiling, but do not mention his departure. The manner in which Luke then introduces the quarrel among the apostles as an incident important to record, but not given in chronological order, leads us to conclude that Judas was not present at the giving of the Lord’s Supper. Luke’s account seems topical here. The Lord’s Supper The synoptic writers do not indicate the time of giving this solemn memorial other than that it was during the Passover meal. The assembly in the upper room occurred in the early hours of the night. The entire procedure of Jesus was unhurried, as the whole night up to the time of the arrest was devoted to spiritual communion with His disciples and with God. The supper and the conversation, together with the washing of the disciples’ feet, must have consumed much time. Everything which had preceded, added to the solemnity of Jesus’ words as He instituted the Lord’s Supper. The distressing predictions and questionings had led to the very self-examination with which this institution should be approached. The manner of Jesus must have been most impressive as He took a loaf of bread sufficient in size for each to share a little, and blessed the loaf, giving thanks to God. In Matthew 26:26 “blessed” has no object stated and may have either “God” or “bread” understood as the object. If the former, it would mean: “Gave thanks to God for the bread”; if the latter, “Blessed the loaf” — called down the blessings of God upon it as they partook. Matthew and Mark have “blessed” in regard to the loaf and “gave thanks” for the cup. Luke has “gave thanks” for both. The Language Figurative The loaf represented his body. His physical body was still actually present and visible as He gave them this loaf. Thus it is plain He used a figure of speech as He said: “This is my body.” Luke makes it clear that His language is figurative: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). To say that a cup is a covenant is plainly a metaphor. The fact that after declaring the cup contained “my blood of the covenant,” Jesus also referred to it as “this fruit of the vine,” is clear proof of the figurative character of His statements as to His body and blood. If you showed a visitor in your home a picture on the wall and explained: “This is my grandfather,” you would expect him to use ordinary common sense and understand that you mean it is a photograph which reveals the likeness of your grandfather. The New Testament The Greek word diatheke can be rendered either “covenant” or “testament.” A covenant is a general word for an agreement between two parties and a testament is a particular type of covenant — a will. The word usually means “will” or “testament” in classical Greek, but in the New Testament it usually means “ “covenant.” Either meaning would fit here. It is translated “testament” in the Authorized Version; “covenant” in the American Standard Version. Hebrews 9:15-22 gives a strong presentation of how the shedding of blood was necessary in the sealing of a covenant in the Old Testament and how the death of the testator is necessary for a will to be in force. The American Standard Version clings desperately in this passage to the translation “ “covenant,” but is forced to yield to the rendering “testament” in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17.

All three evangelists report the statement of Jesus that His blood was to be “poured out” “for you” or “for many.” The word “ “poured out” indicates a violent death; the statement that it is . “for you” or “for many” indicates that it is sacrificial. Only Matthew states that it is “unto the remission of sins.” This explanation would immediately call to their minds the whole Old Testament teaching and practice on sacrifice for sin. Perhaps they would recall the prophetic words of John the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” But Jesus did not attempt to explain the exact nature and necessity of the atonement to them as He gave this institution. They could not even understand fully the fact of His death now, not to mention its mysterious, divine purpose. This was made clear to them later. Through their preaching and writing, especially the Epistles of Paul, it was proclaimed to the world. The same basic proposition, however, is affirmed here as was later proclaimed by the inspired apostles.

Time of Observance

Only the very solemn words of Jesus “until that day when I drink it new with you” and the solemn significance given to the bread and the fruit of the vine indicate in the records of the Synoptics that it is to be kept regularly. Paul quotes the declaration of Jesus, “This do in remembrance of me,” “This do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). The practice of the New Testament churches under the guidance of the inspired apostles shows that we should keep the Lord’s Supper on the first day of each week. Acts 20:7 shows that this was the regular practice of the church at Troas. All other churches established by the same inspired apostles would have had the same practice. The church at Corinth met on the first day of each week (1 Corinthians 16:2), and at its regular meeting was accustomed to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 11:20). Early Christian literature abounds with proof that this was the universal practice of the churches (cf. The Everlasting Gospel, pp. 124-127).

Difficulty in Luke’s Account

Luke’s account offers difficulty in that he tells first of taking the cup, then of breaking the bread, then of taking the cup again (Luke 22:17.). It seems that the cup of Luke 22:17 is not the communion cup of Luke 22:20, but the last of the four cups passed during the Passover meal. In other words, Luke cuts into the events of the hour just at the point where the Passover meal is being concluded. Jesus declares He is not to partake of it again until the coming of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost when He will share the communion with us each Lord’s Day. This means He was giving a solemn farewell to the Old Testament institution and does not mean that He did not share the cup of communion with them a few moments later. After this fateful night He is not to partake of the Passover cup, but to share with them this institution which is now given to the church.

Unleavened Bread and Fruit of the Vine The fact that all leaven had to be removed from the house two days before the Passover began, is positive proof that the wine which they used was unfermented. The bread was unleavened; for precisely the same reason the fruit of the vine was unleavened. The Greek word oinos is used in classical literature of both fermented and unfermented grape juice. The Gospel writers are very careful, however, and do not even use the word “wine” in telling of the Lord’s Supper. They always use the phrase “the fruit of the vine.” That the ancients knew the art of hermetically sealing up fluids is seen clearly from the incident of the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany. The precious ointment was sealed up in the container. The moment the container was broken, the pungent odor spread through all the house (John 12:3). A Greek wine ship of the second century b.c. found by divers off the southern coast of France several years ago contained a great number of wine flasks that had been sealed so tight that after more than 2,000 years the sea water had not seeped into them. The Name

Paul calls this institution, “The Lord’s Supper.” It commemorates the Lord’s death. He shares the meal with us and is the host as we sit about His table. It is often called the “Communion Service” because Paul declared it was a “communion” (a partaking in common) of “the body” and “the blood” of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 10:17). Roman Catholics often refer to it as “The Eucharist.” This title is not applied to it in the New Testament, but the verb, eucharisteo — “to give thanks” — is used in describing the giving of the institution. The Purpose The Lord’s Supper is a memorial. It is to fulfill in a new and more complete fashion the purpose of remembrance of God’s redemptive grace which had saved Israel from Egypt and now saves all from the bondage of sin. The Lord’s Supper is a communion. It is to bind His followers together in a new fellowship. Even in these last hours of parting they receive the assurance not merely that they shall partake of it together in the kingdom, but that Christ will share it with them. It is a time of self-examination. It is to recall to the Christian his sins: “which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins.” What are these sins? Why was such terrible suffering necessary? It is a proclamation: ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Even as all who witness, are led to inquire the meaning of the feast and those who preside set forth its origin and purpose, it is to show forth the death of Jesus to the world. Baptism is in like manner a proclamation of the central facts of the gospel — the death, burial, and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is a prediction: it looks forward to His second coming even as it looks backward to the cross. The Disciples Warned The intimate instruction and appeals given in the upper room were now interspersed with warnings of their imminent failure. As He predicted again that the hour of His glorification was at hand, He warned them that He was going away where they could not follow. This was to be true of these dear friends, even as He had said to the hostile Jews. Peter cried out in anguish to know where it is that Jesus is going; if it is death He is talking about, that certainly will not separate them since Peter is ready to die for Jesus. The Master responded with the blunt prediction that Peter would deny Him three times this very night before the cock-crowing time (John 13:36-38). Luke adds the information that Jesus said He had been praying for him even as Satan had asked for him that he might sift him like wheat: “that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren” (Luke 22:31, Luke 22:32).

These warnings seem to have been begun in the upper room and continued as they walked through the night. Jesus had plainly declared that they would all be offended (caused to stumble because they could not understand why He did not use His miraculous power to destroy His enemies and save Himself for a glorious reign as the Christ) in Him this night. He reminded them that His death and their desertion had been predicted in the Old Testament (Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27). His renewed prediction of His resurrection and their future meeting in Galilee fell upon deaf ears. The shocking announcement that they were all to be offended in Him and desert Him that very night was too much for Peter. Boldly he declared that even though all the rest should be offended in Him, yet he would not. Even as the last man in the world to believe in Jesus, he would yet persevere in his devotion. Mark is particularly emphatic in reporting: “But he spake exceeding vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all” (Mark 14:31). John 13:31-38 seems to give the opening warning which was followed by Luke 22:31-38, with the parallel accounts of Matthew 26:31-35 and Mark 14:27-31 giving further details. This would make two distinct predictions of Peter’s denials and two protests from him. This is likely. When Jesus washed his feet, it took several exchanges before Peter was submissive. The astounding prediction that Peter was about to deny his Master would probably produce more than one protest. These warnings were to help prepare them for the shock that was about to descend upon them and to help them to recover from their failure as they would recall the merciful predictions of their restored fellowship with Him. The warnings gave a commission for future work after their dark hours of failure. The closing verse of John 14:1-31 is so precise, “Arise, let us go hence,” that we are forced to conclude that the warning he records occurred in the upper room. Matthew and Mark tell of the singing of the hymn and of leaving the room, and then describe the warning. Luke places the warning just before they leave the upper room. It seems there were two warnings; one in the upper room before the farewell discourse of John 14:1-31; the other, as they were leaving and proceeding toward Gethsemane. When Peter had had time to reflect, he burst out in another and more vehement assertion of his fidelity. Judas had only been hardened by the prediction of his treachery. He had listened with smooth hypocrisy and masterful self-control. He had kept the other apostles from reading his heart even though Jesus knew and faced him with his plots. But Peter showed the natural reactions of an honest man and a zealous follower. He was astounded and horrified, and protested his loyalty in the most emphatic language. He knew his heart, but he overestimated his strength. He did not realize the severity of the trials ahead. Mark 14:31 emphasizes that Peter kept on protesting with increasing vehemence. The warnings particularly directed to Peter must have dumbfounded the rest, but since they were not so much implicated, they listened in puzzled and painful silence. When they made ready to leave the room and all the others were included in the sweeping warning, Peter, who was boiling over with his reflections and protests, was joined by the others speaking in earnest protest. The Farewell Discourse A clear indication of how precious the farewell discourse of John 14:1-31 has been to the church is seen in its continual use at funerals. What Jesus said in the hour of parting with His disciples is what we would recall in the time of parting with those we love. How deeply troubled their hearts were! Their sorrow over Jesus’ predictions and the dreadful prospect before them were almost more than they could bear. Their only pillar of support was their desperate determination to die with Him. Now even this had been shaken by His predictions of betrayal by one of the twelve, denial by the leader of the group, and desertion by all. Such a night of alarms brought forth supreme words of comfort and beauty that have supported the followers of Christ through the ages. The verbs “believe” in John 14:1 may be either imperative or indicative and the conjunction may be rendered either as “and” or “also.” This makes four ways the verse may be translated: (1) “Ye believe in God, and if this is true, as assuredly it is, ye believe also in me” (2) “Ye believe in God, believe also in me” (Vulgate, a.v.). (3) Believe in God, and (as a natural consequence) ye believe in me. (4) “Believe in God, believe also in me” (a.s.v.). Although the rendering of the Authorized Version is attractive, it is perhaps best to take the rendering of the American Standard Version. The translation “mansions” comes from the Latin mansiones. The Latin word meant resting places or stations along the highway where travellers found temporary rest. This is one of the meanings of the Greek word. Some of the early Christian scholars adopted this meaning and began to speculate as to what was meant by temporary resting places. The use of the word in John 14:23 shows conclusively that the meaning in John 14:2 is a permanent abiding place: a vast home in which rooms are available for all guests.

Assertion of Deity The protest of Thomas brought forth one of the sublime declarations of deity from Jesus. Jesus had solemnly warned of their separation, but He now renews His joyous assurance of His second coming and their glorious reunion. His assertion: “Whither I go, ye know the way” was too much for Thomas to let pass. “Lord, we know not whither thou goest, how know we the way?” When they did not even know the location of Jesus’ destination in the time of parting, how could they be expected to know the way to arrive at that destination? “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” Dean W. W. Fenn of the Harvard Divinity School remarked in the classroom one day that in his opinion the most profound declaration Jesus ever made was the assertion: “I am the truth.” Truth in the final analysis is to be identified with a personality, rather than a statement or a collection of statements. God Himself is the final embodiment of truth. The startling majesty and grandeur of this entire declaration reminds us of His statement to Martha concerning the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). When Jesus said, “I am the way,” He declared He is the highway from earth to heaven. The first name applied to Christianity, “The Way” (Acts 9:2), doubtless arose out of this declaration of Jesus. It shows the profound influence this statement had upon the thinking and life of the church from the very beginning. Bernard remarks: “The uniqueness of Christ’s claim in John is that He is the Way, i.e., the only way to God. This is the heart of the Johannine message, which admits of no compromise with non-Christian religions, and in fact takes no account of such.” Jesus declares, as He had in His statement to Martha, that He is the life — not only the source of life and the way to life, but He is the ultimate life itself. In his preface John had so stated: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). Bernard translates “from now you are beginning to know him.” Westcott identifies “henceforth” as meaning from the present moment when they have heard this decisive declaration, but the further conversation shows that they did not understand and know from this moment. Bernard says that the “now” means the moment of His passion. It is better to conceive the statement of Jesus (“hence-forth”) as taking in His death, resurrection, and exaltation, all of which gave the disciples the fuller knowledge of Jesus’ person.

Again a disciple interrupts the discourse of Jesus with a question. Thomas had lapsed into silence meditating upon the thrilling response of Jesus. But Philip now expressed the universal longing of mankind to see God. He doubtless had in mind such a vision of God as was granted to Moses or Isaiah. The gentleness with which Jesus answers Philip, repeats his name, yet makes the question so full of rebuke, shows the deep pathos of His reply. God has been in their midst in the person of His Son, yet they ask to see God; they have not really opened their eyes to see Jesus. Present before them in the flesh, Jesus is yet the perfect revelation of God. The unity of Christ and the Father is so complete that the very words Jesus spoke were from God, and the deeds He performed were from God. Jesus again offers His miracles as the proof of His claim to deity.

Coming of the Holy Spirit

Having discussed with them the objective manifestation of God in the person of His Son, Jesus now discusses the subjective manifestation of God within them. Christ points out that His disciples are to continue His work through His help (John 14:12-14). He is to send the Holy Spirit to aid them (John 14:15-17). He will come to them Himself (John 14:18-21). When we are troubled with the difficulty of discerning just how the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts guides, counsels, and strengthens us, we need to reflect that we cannot comprehend exactly how Jesus who is with us always, also hears, understands, and helps. As Paul sought to preach the Word further in Asia on the second missionary tour, Acts declares both that he was “forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” and that “the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not” (Acts 16:6, Acts 16:7). In the miraculous age of the apostles and those on whom they had laid their hands in conferring the power to work miracles, both the Holy Spirit and Jesus worked in the heart and life of the Christian with such miraculous guidance. In our own time as faith, hope, and love, the abiding elements, together with the complete testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, are our guide, we can also depend upon the presence and the help of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus in our hearts and lives. The fact that we cannot definitely isolate and describe the influence, should be no more disturbing than that we cannot comprehend God. Without God nothing can be understood or explained. Of one thing we can be sure: the Holy Spirit today gives no new revelations nor any advice which is contrary to the faith once for all delivered unto the saints in the New Testament. The revelation of the gospel in the New Testament is full, complete, perfect.

Names of the Holy Spirit The word “Paraclete” which is used to describe the Holy Spirit is peculiar to John’s Gospel. Most modern commentators argue that the word should be translated “Advocate” instead of “Comforter,” but both meanings were employed by early Christian scholars in translating the word. In classical literature the verb from which this noun is derived, means to call a person to stand by one and to help in various ways: (1) as a witness; (2) as an adviser; (3) as an advocate. Origen says that while Paraclete means “Intercessor” in 1 John 2:1, it means Consoler in the fourth Gospel. The American Standard Version of 1901 suggests “Helper” in the margin. “Comforter” is perhaps the best rendering, but it is well to remember the wide range of meanings which the word has. Notice that the Holy Spirit is called “another Comforter.” In other words, Christ is one Comforter who has been so precious to them and who is about to leave them; the Holy Spirit is another Comforter who will abide. The Holy Spirit is as much a person as Jesus; so the word “another,” the emphatic pronoun “he” (John 14:26), and the whole description of the person and work of the Holy Spirit prove. The concept of the Trinity is plainly implied. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in person and work.

Understanding of the Apostles The question naturally arises as to how much the apostles understood about the Holy Spirit when Jesus was giving them this instruction. They knew that in the Old Testament men had spoken as they had been moved by the Holy Spirit. There is a touching reference to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the great Old Testament leaders, when Samson had sinned away his days of leadership, and had gone so far as to reveal to Delilah the true secret of his dedication to God. Formerly “the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him” (Judges 15:14). But now as he heard again the cry: “Samson, the Philistines are upon thee,” he foolishly imagined that he would be able to destroy his enemies at will again, but “He knew not that the Lord was departed from him” (John 16:20). The apostles knew that John the Baptist had been inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit had come upon Jesus at the time of His baptism. The apostles, when sent forth two by two to preach and to work miracles, had been working by the power of the Holy Spirit. They were not strangers to the Spirit, but they were now to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. They were henceforth to find Him their constant Comforter and Helper. The promises of Jesus to return to them and to be with them constantly are interwoven with the promises of the coming of the Holy Spirit. “I will not leave you desolate, I come unto you” (John 14:18). The word “desolate” ( the a.v. says “comfortless”) is the Greek word from which we derive the term “orphans.” The Work of the Holy Spirit

It should be observed that in the promises given of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them to comfort and help them, the strongest emphasis is given to the work of the Holy Spirit in assisting them to present God’s revelation to the world. The Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17). “He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:26). Westcott says of this with magnificent brevity: “So the Gospel could be written.” There were many things which Christ had not been able to tell them: they were not prepared to receive them. But the work of the Holy Spirit is primarily to lead them into a perfect understanding of the truth Jesus had delivered unto them. Here is one of the strongest declarations of the miraculous inspiration of the writers of the New Testament. All questions as to how the New Testament writers could have recalled years later what Jesus said and did, find the all-sufficient answer in this statement of Jesus. Two decades after hearing the Sermon on the Mount Matthew gives three chapters of thrilling report of the sermon. How could he do this? What a pitiful pigmy is the unbelievers’ figure of Matthew copying down notes as the sermon was given and years later expanding them and copying from all sorts of odds and ends of “sources.” Compare with this what Jesus promised that they need not be anxious what they were to say when placed on trial for their faith: “Be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20). Of like magnificence is this promise of Jesus in the parting hours: “He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” All the things necessary for man’s redemption by the gospel would be made plain to them. In keeping with this the writers of the New Testament without either explanation or apology declare the hidden secrets of the past, of the future, and of heaven. John tells calmly what was and what happened before the creation of the world (John 1:1.). Mark tells what happened in heaven after the ascension (Mark 16:19). New Testament writers predict with absolute assurance the events of the future and reveal the mind of God to man. They did not need to defend themselves in this course or to declare their divine inspiration. Jesus had already stated the case for them. They needed only to record what He had said, to deliver to man what was revealed to them, to allow man to pass judgment on the authority and truth of their statements, and to allow God to pass judgment upon man for his faith or unbelief. On the Way to Gethsemane The promises given in this farewell discourse are repeated as they journey toward Gethsemane. The great work of the Holy Spirit, in convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, is stated. Again the emphasis is upon the fact that the Holy Spirit is to work through the declarations of these inspired leaders. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you” (John 16:13, John 16:14).

It is not possible for us to understand fully the emotional stress of the upper room. It was like the tearful scene when a father or mother is dying and the children are gathered about the bedside in the agony of parting, listening to the last instructions and the pathetic appeals. How exceeding precious are the words of Jesus: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful” (John 14:27). Going to His death by horrible torture and crucifixion, He yet speaks calmly of the peace which He has and can bestow. It is a peace which is beyond that which the world can receive or even know. Bernard calls the words: “If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father” (John 14:28): “a tender, half-playful appeal….He does not really question their love, but He reminds them of it.” The consultation in the upper room closes with the sharp warning that the devil is approaching. He has nothing of his possession he can claim in Christ, but the apostles must beware of the critical trials ahead. “Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).