-
Introduction (to be read before the book is considered and then after it has been studied).
There is no more exciting book than the book of Revelation. It follows to some extent the pattern utilised in what is termed ‘apocalyptic literature', which itself is patterned on aspects of the book of Daniel. It uses visions of wild beasts and heavenly figures and fiendish monsters, with the aim of conveying ideas by vivid imagery, and by this imagery propounding mysteries hidden from the majority for the benefit of the few.
While those who were on the outside dismissed it as a fantastic conglomeration of other worldly creatures and mythical figures, those on the inside understood its deeper significance and rejoiced in its teaching.
The difference between this and other apocalyptic literature is that while the authors of most apocalyptic literature portrayed their work as produced by ancient figures of the past who had heavenly connections, (such for example as Enoch), with the author hiding his own identity, the Book of Revelation is written by John, an identifiable man on earth, to a specific group of people, as a revelation from God. It is intended to be a revelation not a mystery.
Furthermore he claims that what he writes about was what he saw in a series of mystical visions, and we have no reason to doubt his veracity. And these visions the early church saw as an inspired revelation from God. This why today we have The Book of Revelation in the Scriptures.
How far the book represents the rational views of the author and how far he owed it to mystical experience we can never know, but the visions came through the mind of John and even his mystical visions had to be written down, which required some degree of selection and interpretation by the author. In interpreting the book we therefore see it as the work of John under guidance from the Holy Spirit, with his ideas behind it, while also recognising that he saw things beyond full comprehension, heavenly realities revealed to him by God Himself, which John himself did not fully understand.
Combined with the vivid portrayals of his visions is the idea of numerals as containing specific significance, which may not always mean what we take them to mean. To the ancients numbers were adjectives which conveyed meanings, not just dull arithmetic. They were not necessarily to be taken literally. They conveyed ideas rather than quantity. (See the article, " ").
For example the number seven abounds in the book. This number conveyed among all ancient nations the ideas of divine perfection and completeness in a way beyond anything we moderns can begin to appreciate. Not only does it convey the idea of quantity, an idea which is secondary (it was not a mathematical world), but it also represents totality, the fullness of divine perfection. Thus the seven churches represent the whole world-wide church, the seven seals represent the whole of the future, and so on. This is the idea at its simplest. We must therefore approach the book cautiously, and, as far as possible, without dogmatism.
Some argue that because it is a difficult book the safest way is to treat it literally as far as possible, (although that is the last thing apocalyptic literature attempted to be) and to assume it to be chronological. They have then related the majority of the book to ‘the end times', failing to recognise that ‘the end times' began at the resurrection. But this ‘literal view' denies itself, for when convenient, literalness is forgotten. Just to give one example. The promises to the church at Pergamum are treated as applying to the worldwide church. But that is not to treat them literally. And that there are many things which cannot be taken literally all would agree. In the end it must depend on judging each factor.
The fact that ‘the end times' began at the resurrection is vital and is clearly stated in Scripture. ‘He was revealed at the end of the times for your sake', says Peter (1 Peter 1:20), so that he can then warn his readers ‘ the end of all things is at hand' (1 Peter 4:7). So to Peter the first coming of Christ has begun the end times. Likewise Paul says to his contemporaries ‘for our admonition, on whom the end of the ages has come' (1 Corinthians 10:11). What could be clearer? The first coming of Christ was the end of the ages, not the beginning of a new age. The writer to the Hebrews tells us ‘He has in these last days spoken to us by His Son' (Hebrews 1:1-2), and adds ‘once in the end of the ages has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (Hebrews 9:26-28). So those early writers saw their days as ‘the last days', for this age is the culmination of all that has gone before and leads up to the end.
Others have seen in the book specific events of history. But the methods have been very selective of history, and there have been wide divergencies of interpretation. There are no real grounds for this method. Where it occurs in Daniel it is clearly stated. But there is nothing in Revelation to suggest it. However these are ‘modern' approaches, taken without considering fully enough the nature of apocalyptic literature, and failing to acknowledge why John wrote as he did.
The fact is that John was writing to Christians in the midst of a Roman Empire that seemed all-powerful, that spasmodically bitterly persecuted Christians, and was hugely sensitive to any suggestions that it might be overthrown. He was shown by God that bitter persecution lay ahead at the hands of the Roman Empire. Under God's hand he was therefore trying to give his fellow Christians encouragement in the face of adversity while at the same time seeking to avoid enflaming the authorities.
To have written what he did openly would have been to court persecution for both writer and reader alike, so instead he adopted the method of using apocalyptic imagery to get over his message to Christians who were undergoing, and would undergo, something of what he wrote. It was this aim that led on to his God-given visions. To fail to recognise this is to fail to understand the book.
This is not, however, to deny that what it describes also goes beyond those early days, and that particular aim, for it deals with events through history of all kinds with which God's people would be faced time and again and its focal point is the second Coming of Christ and the establishing of a New Heaven and a New Earth. We can compare here the words of Jesus in Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21 where He portrayed events which would take place through history, false Messiahs, wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, tribulation and persecution for His people, and the Gospel reaching out to the nations. The same thing is portrayed in Revelation in more vivid form.
As we have said the book contains a number of visions. Except where it is clear that one part must follow another, they are not necessarily chronological. Indeed, on the contrary, they are largely concurrent. Again and again in different sections we find ourselves brought up to the time of the Second Coming and the final judgment (Revelation 6:15-17; Revelation 7:15-17 with Revelation 21:3-5; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:17-20; Revelation 16:21; Revelation 19:19-21). What we must first do, if we want a chronology (and the ancients were not as bothered about chronology as we are, they were more concerned with impact), is to find points of contact so that we can fit the visions together as far as this is possible, while asking ourselves, what is the main message the writer is trying to get across?
Of course it is inevitably true that some things contained in it did happen in sequence. But this does not necessarily mean that that sequence should be everywhere applied. They are a series of visions received at different times, not just one vision, and the visions clearly overlap. The same ground is gone over again and again from a different perspective (something other views have to ignore). We move backwards and forwards in time. The Revelation comprises a series of overlapping visions, not one whole vision, interwoven with which are flashbacks to introduce the particular vision in question.
Ascertaining the main message is probably more simple than determining a chronology. We think that all will agree that the real purpose of the book is to make sense, from a Christian point of view, of what at first sight appears inexplicable, the most dreadful of happenings, the domination of the world by the most evil of forces, and to encourage Christians, in the face of the most terrible persecutions, with the thought that their affairs are watched over in Heaven. It seeks to reveal that however bad the situation might appear, God's purposes are moving forward according to His time-scale and under His control. This has been its assurance to the church throughout the ages.
Those of us who live in countries where persecution has been, and in the near future is likely to be, relatively minor (with a few exceptions) find it natural to assume that the terrible things portrayed are mainly yet to come. It is not like the world as we know it. But we forget, or are unaware, that the world has seen and is seeing terrible things, and that in many parts of the world, especially the Bible world, persecution has been, and still is, more common. Christians there know what it is to go constantly in fear of their lives and to dread future events.
It is possibly not without significance that the main exponents of certain Second Coming teachings have lived in the countries where persecution of the most severe kind was not rife. (Not that we are suggesting that that has been the only issue to sway them, for many great Bible teachers have spent considerable time earnestly wrestling with the Scriptures in order to understand them and establish their views. But one may hopefully be forgiven for suggesting that had they lived through centuries of bitter, intensive continual persecution, enduring great tribulation as others have, they might have looked at things slightly differently and applied things more generally. Certainly they have not been able to reach a consensus of opinion on what they do teach, and this is partly because the genius of apocalyptic is that it is not too specific so that it can be applied to so many situations).
What is perhaps even more significant is the way in which, through the last two thousand years, different generations have been able to apply the visions directly to their own age, seeing fulfilment in what was happening around them, for this demonstrates clearly the usefulness of the method of portraying truth through vision. By this means they can be applied specifically to a thousand situations. This fact itself shows that on the whole the underlying events portrayed have happened again and again through history. The book is dealing with large ideas that are themselves the things which determine history.
Perhaps one more point must be added here. When John speaks of ‘the world' and ‘the earth' he means the limited world as he knew it (see Acts 11:28; Acts 17:6; Acts 19:27; Romans 1:8; Romans 16:19). What he ‘saw' occurred in that world. It is the world of the Near and Middle East and that is where the events were seen as centred. Great Britain was peripheral to the events and America non-existent. Thus while both may be considerably affected it may not necessarily so. Only time will tell. The persecutions and tribulations described pertained to that world and indeed are apparent in that world today. It is by their experiences and not by ours that the book must be interpreted.
It is clear, of course, where the book begins and ends. It begins with the position of the seven churches, continues with the activity of the Heavenly influencing the earthly, and the rebellion of the earthly against the Heavenly, among all of which move the people of God, and ends with the triumph of God through Christ. But at that point the unanimity ends, and this has caused many to say, ‘well, very good, let us leave it there', but as this usually means, ‘let's not bother with the book at all', it is certainly not satisfactory.
We do not have to read far before we discover that John was clearly a man saturated in the Scriptures. His mind thought along Scriptural pathways. His ideas sprang from His knowledge of them. Old Testament Scripture lies directly at the back of every chapter. That is why we have interpreted in the belief that what he says is to be illuminated mainly by those Scriptures and not by external ideas. He was quite happy for the Romans to see the woman clothed with the sun (chapter 12) as somehow involved with the signs of the zodiac. But he wanted Christians to interpret it by using the word of God, remembering that the twelve patriarchs were seen as twelve stars, whilst Jacob and his wife were seen as the sun and the moon.
The book is quite remarkable in this respect. Revelation mirrors and reverses the situation in Genesis. It parallels the history of Israel with the condition of the churches. It is saturated with indirect references to the Psalms and the Prophets. We will endeavour to illustrate this further.
The Old Testament and the Book of Revelation.
1). Genesis and Revelation.
The close connection of Genesis with Revelation cannot be doubted. What begins in Genesis is finalised in Revelation. Thus:
· In Genesis 1
· We have the first creation (Genesis 1:1), in Revelation 21:1 the first creation passes away and we have the new creation.
· We have the establishing of night (Genesis 1:5), and in Revelation 22:5 night is done away with.
· We have the establishing of the seas in Genesis 1:10. In Revelation 21:1 there is no more sea.
· We have the sun to govern the day and the moon to govern the night (Genesis 1:16), and in Revelation 21:23 the sun and moon are done away with.
· We have sun, moon and stars established to provide light, in Revelation 6:12 sun, moon and stars no longer provide light, and in Revelation 22:5 God becomes the source of all light..
In Genesis 2-3
· We have the earthly Paradise, in Revelation 22:1-5 with Genesis 2:7, the heavenly Paradise.
· We have the earthly life-giving rivers (Genesis 2:10-14), in Revelation 22:1-2 the heavenly river of water of life.
· We have the marriage of the first man, the first Adam (Genesis 2:18-23), in Revelation 19:7-9 we have the marriage of the second man, the last Adam (compare 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47).
· We have the entrance of sin (Genesis 3:6-7), and, in Revelation 21:27 and context, the end of sin.
· We have curses pronounced (Genesis 3:14-17), in Revelation 22:3 there is no more curse.
· We have the entrance of great sorrows and suffering (Genesis 3:17), in Revelation 21:4 sorrow and suffering is no more.
· We have the entrance of death (Genesis 3:22), in Revelation 21:4 there is no more death.
· We have the cherubim preventing man reaching the tree of life. In Revelation 5:8-10; Revelation 7:11 with Revelation 22:2 we have the cherubim rejoicing in men reaching the tree of life.
· We have the tree of life forbidden (Genesis 3:24), in Revelation 22:14 the right to the tree of life is given.
· We have man driven out from the earthly Paradise (Genesis 3:24), in Revelation 22 men enter the heavenly Paradise.
· In Genesis 4 we have the establishing of a ‘city' and the growth of ‘civilisation'. In Revelation 16:19 and chs.17-18 we have the destruction of all cities and the Great City and the end of ‘civilisation'. These are replaced by the heavenly city.
· In Genesis 10:8-10; Genesis 11:1-9 we have the establishing of Babel (Babylon) as man's rebellion against God and his environment grows, in Revelation 18 we have the final end of ‘Babylon' as man's rebellion is quashed.
There are many more contrasting parallels between the two books.
Consider The Seven Letters to the Churches and the Old Testament.
One of the patterns that among others have influenced the construction of these letters is that of the events of the Old Testament. John is warning the churches to take to heart the lessons of history in the Old Testament. We can put these simply in order.
· Man lost his first love in Eden (Genesis 3) - the church's first love is lost (Revelation 2:4) - the promise to the overcomer is Paradise restored (Revelation 2:7).
· Man is connected with the assembly of people in Cain's new city, away from the presence of the Lord (Genesis 4:16), who were responsible for the first death (Genesis 4:8) and the second death (Genesis 4:23), who are Adam's seed and yet are not - the church is connected with the ‘assembly of Satan', who say they are Jews and are not (Revelation 2:9) - the overcomer will escape the Second Death (Revelation 2:11).
· Man sets up Satan's throne in Babel, a dwelling place of the gods (Genesis 11:4) - the church dwells where Satan's throne is, a dwelling place of the gods (Revelation 2:13) - the overcomer will share the Heavenly Tabernacle where the hidden manna is hid in the Ark of the Covenant over which is God's throne (Revelation 2:17).
· Israel is taught by Balaam to commit idolatry and sexual perversions (Numbers 25:1-2) - ‘Balaam' teaches the church to commit idolatry and sexual perversions (Revelation 2:14) - the overcomer will receive the white stone carrying Christ's new name (Revelation 2:17), they will be clean from idolatry and sexual perversion.
· Jezebel, the foreign queen, teaches Israel sexual perversion and idolatry (1 Kings 16:31; 1 Kings 21:25; 2 Kings 9:7) - ‘Jezebel' teaches the church sexual perversion and idolatry - (Revelation 2:20) - the overcomer will stand in judgment on the nations (Revelation 2:26-27).
· Israel had a name to live but is now dead (Hosea 13:1; Amos 5:2; Amos 7:8; Amos 8:2; Amos 8:10; Amos 9:10; Ezekiel 23:10), its name is blotted out (Exodus 32:33; Psalms 69:28; Psalms 109:13), and it is no more remembered before God (‘our bones are dried up, our hope is lost, we are clean cut off' (Ezekiel 37:11 compare v. 2-3)) - (see 2 Kings 18:11-12; Hosea 1:6-9; Hosea 8:8; Hosea 9:16-17; Amos 7:11; Amos 7:17; Ezekiel 36:19) - the church has a name that it lives and is dead (Revelation 3:1) - the name of the overcomer will not be blotted out but will be remembered before God.
· In contrast to Israel, Judah (under Hezekiah) opens the door of the house of the Lord (2 Chronicles 29:3) which had been shut up (2 Chronicles 27:2; 2 Chronicles 28:24), thus an open door is set before Judah, and Hezekiah's steward opens and no man shuts (Isaiah 22:22) - an open door is set before the church (Revelation 3:8) by Him Who opens and no man shuts (Revelation 3:7) - the overcomer will become a pillar in the Temple of God (Revelation 3:12) and will receive a new name.
· But Judah in their pride and arrogance at their wealth (‘I am rich, I have found me wealth' - Hosea 12:8; compare Ezekiel 16:15-17; Zechariah 11:5; Isaiah 2:7; Isaiah 39:2; Hosea 2:5) are advised to buy true wealth (Isaiah 55:2) and not trust in their beauty (Ezekiel 16:15) or they will be stripped naked (Ezekiel 16:39; Hosea 2:3). They are poor (Ezekiel 22:18; Isaiah 1:22; Jeremiah 5:4) and blind (Isaiah 59:10; Isaiah 42:18) and naked (Lamentations 1:8) and are therefore effectively ‘spewed out' (Leviticus 18:28). They are defeated and led captive into Babylon and the house of the Lord is destroyed and the walls of Jerusalem broken down (Jeremiah 52:14) and there is no more a throne (Jeremiah 52:10-11). From now on the throne is in Babylon (Jeremiah 52:32). Their wealth and their failure to see their true state has destroyed them and they receive the punishment threatened from the beginning, they are spewed out of the land (Leviticus 18:25-28) - Similar accusations are made of the church (Revelation 3:17-18) and a similar fate threatened, they will be spewed out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16) - those who overcome will receive a throne within God's kingdom (Revelation 3:12).
Although there may be controversy over detail the main line is clear. The churches are seen to be again repeating history, and are to take warning from the Old Testament Scriptures. (Which explains why they can be seen as paralleling the history of the church. Man as a whole does not change).
It is important as we approach the book that we take this lesson to heart. The churches are the new people of God, sprouting from the old, made up of the true Israel (John 15:1-6) and the Gentile Christians who were adopted by God and grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17). Israel was outwardly seen as the people of God, but it was only the faithful in Israel who were the true people of God as the prophets (and Paul in Romans 9) made clear.
The same is true of the church. Outwardly they are one people. Within that people there are those who are faithful to God and there are those who are renegades. But the true church and the true Israel is composed only of those who are faithful. The unfaithful have been cut off from Israel.
Paul makes this clear in Romans 9:6 following. And it important to recognise that the Apostles did not see the church as replacing Israel but as being the true Israel. In Ephesians 2 Paul tells the Gentiles that in the past they ‘were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise' (Ephesians 2:12). Thus in the past, he says, they did not belong to the twelve tribes. But then he tells them that they are now ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ' (Ephesians 2:13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down the wall of partition --- creating in Himself of two one new man' Revelation 2:14-15). Now therefore, through Christ, they have been made members of the commonwealth of Israel, and inherit the promises. So they are ‘no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Ephesians 2:19-20). Thus as with people in the Old Testament who were regularly adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. the mixed multitude - Exodus 12:38), Gentile Christians too were seen as so incorporated. That is why he can call the church ‘the Israel of God', made up of Jews and ex-Gentiles, having declared circumcision and uncircumcision as unimportant because there is a new creation (Galatians 6:15-16). ‘The Israel of God' can only mean that new creation, the church of Christ, otherwise he is being inconsistent.
The point behind both of these passages is that all Christians become by adoption members of the twelve tribes. (There would be no point in mentioning circumcision if he was not thinking of incorporation into the twelve tribes. The importance of circumcision was that to the Jews it made the difference between those who became genuine proselytes, and thus members of the twelve tribes, and those who remained as ‘God-fearers', loosely attached but not accepted as full Jews. Paul says that circumcision is unnecessary for men's acceptance into the Israel of God).
Again in Romans he points out to the Gentiles that there is a remnant of Israel which is faithful to God and they are the true Israel (Romans 11:5). The remainder have been cast off (Romans 10:27, 29; Romans 11:15; Romans 11:17; Romans 11:20). Then he describes the Christian Gentiles as ‘grafted in among them' becoming ‘partakers with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree' (Romans 11:17). They are now part of the same tree so it is clear that he regards them as now being part of the faithful remnant of Israel. For ‘those who are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham' (Galatians 3:7).
The privilege of being a ‘son of Abraham' is that one is adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel. It is they who proudly called themselves ‘the sons of Abraham' (John 8:39; John 8:53). That is why in the one man in Christ Jesus there can be neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). For ‘if you are Abraham's seed, you are heirs according to the promise' (Galatians 3:29). To be Abraham's ‘seed' within the promise is to be a member of the twelve tribes. The reference to ‘seed' is decisive.
That is why Paul can say, ‘he is not a Jew who is one outwardly --- he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart' (Romans 2:28-29 compare Romans 2:26). In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw the converted Gentiles as becoming members of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are ‘the seed of Abraham', ‘sons of Abraham', spiritually circumcised, grafted in to the true Israel, fellow-citizens with the saints in the commonwealth of Israel, the Israel of God. What further evidence do we need?
When James writes to ‘the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion' (James 1:1) (Jews living away from Palestine were seen as dispersed around the world and were therefore thought of as ‘the dispersion') there is not a single hint that he is writing other than to all in the churches. He sees the whole church as having become members of the twelve tribes, as the true dispersion, and indeed refers to their ‘assembly' with the same word used for synagogue (James 2:2). But he can also call them ‘the church' (James 5:14).
There is not even the slightest hint in the remainder of the epistle that he has just one section of the church in mind. In view of the importance of it, had he not been speaking of the whole church he must surely have commented on the attitude of Jewish Christians to Christian Gentiles, especially in the light of the ethical content of his letter, but there is not even a whisper of it. He speaks as though to the whole church.
Peter also writes to ‘the elect' and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion' and when he speaks of ‘Gentiles' is clearly assuming that those under that heading are not Christians (1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 4:3). So it is apparent he too sees all Christians as no longer Gentiles, but members of the twelve tribes (as above ‘the dispersion' means the twelve tribes scattered around the world). Good numbers of Gentiles were becoming members of the Jewish faith at that time, and on being circumcised were accepted by the Jews as members of the twelve tribes (as proselytes). In the same way the apostles, who were all Jews and also saw the pure in Israel as God's chosen people, saw the converted Gentiles as being incorporated into the new Israel without the need for circumcision.
Today we may not think in these terms but it is apparent that to the early church to become a Christian was to become a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. That is why there was such a furore over whether circumcision, the covenant sign of the Jew, was necessary for Christians. It was precisely because they were seen as entering the twelve tribes that many saw it as required. Paul's argument against it is never that Christians do not become members of the twelve tribes (as we have seen he argues that they do) but that what matters is spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision, and that we are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2). Thus early on Christians unquestionably saw themselves as the true twelve tribes of Israel.
The end of Revelation also reverses the pattern of Genesis 1-11. In Genesis 1-11 man shares Paradise with God (Genesis 2), he directly faces Satan, sins and is separated from God (Genesis 3-4), wicked man sets himself up away from the presence of the Lord and builds ‘a city' (Genesis 4), rebellious man builds a great city and a sanctuary to the gods with a view to domination (Genesis 11). In Revelation 17-18 the great city is destroyed, wicked man still continues his rebellion and turns directly to Satan (Revelation 17:16-17 with Revelation 19:19) and is also destroyed, sin is removed for the repentant and man is restored to God, man is instated in a new Paradise.
With regard to the remainder of the Old Testament, the writer was steeped in the Old Testament and every page reflects what is written there. These references will be dealt with in the Commentary as they occur.
We offer all our thoughts in a spirit of helpfulness, not controversy. We consider ‘love of the our Christian brothers' to be more important than winning an argument over matters that have been debated throughout history. We do not pretend to have all the solutions, nor to exhaust the meaning of the book, but we do believe that what we have to say is fair to what the book says and will give some meaning to the book for our day, and for every day.
Finally we will seek to present a panorama showing how what we are to read fits into a total picture.
A Summary of the Message of Revelation.
The first chapter portrays Jesus Christ in His glory and demonstrates that all is to be seen as happening in preparation for His coming. He is near, even at the door (as He is always represented). Now to John that portrayed one thing. Like all the early church he saw things in terms of the past (the old dispensation which was no longer), the present, the things that the church was going through and would go through prior to Christ's return, and the future, the coming of Christ and the everlasting glory. Their view had originally been that the present would not last for too long. Christ would soon return. But gradually they began to recognise that perhaps it would last longer than they had at first expected, so that Peter could write in terms of ‘a thousand years', indicating by this a possibly long but unmeasured period of time (2 Peter 3:8-9). This is confirmed in Revelation chapter 20.
The second and third Chapter s comprise letters written to seven churches (on behalf of the whole church) with warnings, instructions, commendations, words of preparation for what they are to face and promises for the eternal future, showing their state at that time.
The Chapter s from 4 to 19 mainly deal with the panorama of history, revealing what the churches and the world are to face before His return, ‘the things which shall be from now on (hereafter)'. These are seen first in the light of the heavenly activity that causes them (Chapter s 4-5) with the resultant consequence on earth following.
It is portrayed in terms of a sealed document, sealed with seven seals, the breaking of which will bring its words into effect (just as the seals of a will may be broken when it is to be read out and its provision carried out). As each seal is broken history unfolds. In chapter 6 the four horsemen of false religion, war, famine, death and suffering ride (and they have ridden throughout history), the people of God suffer persecution, the world suffers tumult and then the day of wrath and revelation of the glory of God comes. Thus chapter 6 ends with the second coming. The following Chapter s then cover the same ground from different perspectives, with, intermingled, insights into God's special provision for His people, both at the beginning when He seals them (Revelation 7:1-8), through the period as He receives them to Himself (Revelation 7:9-17), and at the end when He raptures His people and brings history to an end (Revelation 11:12; Revelation 14:1-5).
The seventh seal that is opened (and they are opened in quick succession so that the activities in each occur alongside each other following the pattern in Matthew 24; ). Jesus' reply is that His time has not yet come (John 7:6). Reference to ‘His time' in this context would appear to refer to His Messiahship (certainly in John's eyes). The consequence of Jesus' eventual appearance in Jerusalem are discussions about whether He is the Messiah (John 7:25-27; John 7:31; John 7:41-42), whilst Jesus in His turn reveals Himself as the One from Whom they can drink (compare on chapter 4 above), so that those who believe in Him will receive the Spirit (John 7:37-39).
In chapter 8, having revealed Himself as the Light of the world (John 8:12), a conversation ensues in which Jesus closely aligns Himself with the Father. He declares that His judgment is true because He is not alone, but is in close relation with the Father Who sent Him (John 8:16). In John 8:18 He bears witness to Himself, and His Father bears witness to Him along with Him, and in John 8:19 He says that if they had known Him they would have known His Father as well. He is aligning Himself on the divine side of reality. Thus in John 8:23 He describes his questioners as being ‘from beneath' and ‘of this world', while He is ‘from above' and not ‘of this world'.
In John 8:28 He reveals Himself as the Son of Man Whom they will ‘lift up', and when they do so they will know that ‘I am' (or reading in the ‘he' it is ‘I am He'). This is either a veiled claim to divinity, or a veiled claim to Messiahship. The ‘I am' is made the more significant because of John 8:58 where it is much clearer. He then adds, ‘and that I do nothing of Myself but as the Father taught me I speak these things'. At minimum He is the Father's unique mouthpiece. He then declares Himself to be the Son of the household Who can make them free (John 8:36). In all this He aligns Himself closely with the Father, and as being in a unique position.
In John 8:38 He declares that ‘I speak the things which I have seen with my Father' and contrasts it with what they have heard from their father (who subsequently turns out to be the Devil - John 8:44). Note the contrast between ‘seen' and ‘heard'. Jesus speaks of what He has seen. Others have only ‘heard'. He then declares that Abraham had rejoiced to see His day (John 8:56), a clear Messianic claim, for there was a Rabbinic tradition that when God had made a covenant with Abraham he had seen Messiah's day. And this eventually leads on to Jesus' declaration that He is the ‘I am' Who existed before Abraham (John 8:58; compare Exodus 3:14). The veiled ‘I ams' of John 8:28; John 8:28, have now become patent. Although indirectly expressed, the claim is that He is God the Son. The Judaisers certainly recognised that He meant this, for at this point they take up stones to stone Him, something which was only permitted in cases of extreme blasphemy. John 5:18 in fact brings out the significance of their action. Once again they saw Him as claiming to be equal with God. (It is John's practise to leave his readers to infer the significance of things from what he has said before).
In chapter 9 Jesus heals the man who has been blind from birth, and reveals that He so acts because He is the light of the world, the opener of eyes (John 9:5). The healing of blind eyes was considered to be a Messianic act (Isaiah 35:5-6; Compare Matthew 11:5). This healing on the Sabbath arouses controversy, and we subsequently discover that in spite of the sign that had been given (John 9:16) no one dares to claim that Jesus is the Messiah for fear of reprisal (John 9:22). This brings out what people were thinking about Him even though they dared not say it. John then brings out the significance of all this in the former blind man's words, ‘herein is the marvel, that you do not know from where He is and yet He has opened my eyes' (John 9:30). The readers, however, know immediately from where He is. And the man adds, ‘since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind' (John 9:32). The impact that this miracle made comes out in the later references to it, something which is unusual in respect of particular healing miracles (John 10:21; John 11:37). All this is confirming Jesus' Messiahship and leading up to Jesus' revelation of Himself as ‘the Son of God' (or ‘the Son of Man') in Whom men must believe, which is found in John 9:35-37.
In chapter 10 Jesus is revealed as the Shepherd Who gives His life for the sheep while the Father is the Gatekeeper. The two work together to watch over the sheep, with Jesus having the special saving function. The fact that Jesus is the unique Shepherd, and that ‘all who came before Him' were thieves and robbers (John 10:8), suggests that Jesus intended this to be seen as a Messianic picture, which would explain why the prophets are not in mind (He would not call them thieves and robbers. He was speaking about Messianic pretenders). This ties in with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming David who will be the shepherd of His people (Ezekiel 34:23-24). The chapter is thus dealing with the Messiah, the new David, working in partnership with His Father, the Gatekeeper. They work in unison together. Here the Shepherd is presented as the Saviour (verse 9) and the lifegiver (John 10:10), themes previously connected with His Messiahship (John 4:42 with John 4:25-26) and His Godhood (John 1:4). He points out that the Father loves Him because He has chosen to lay down His life of His own accord, in order that He may take it again, for He is the One Who has the power to lay down His life, and to take it up again John 10:17-18). This in itself is an essential claim to deity. He is the Lord of life.
His claim to Messiahship is recognised for what it is by the Judaisers (John 10:24), and Jesus basically accepts their suggestion that He is the Messiah without making the open claim (which is in accordance with His usual pattern). This ties in with His reluctance found in the other Gospels to use the title in Judea and Galilee. His reply is that He has in effect told them that He is the Messiah, and that they should know it anyway by His works which He does in His Father's Name which bear testimony to Him (John 10:25-26; compare Matthew 11:5). He thus indirectly accepts the title.
He then differentiates them from His true sheep. His true sheep are those who hear His voice, He knows them and they follow Him. The Judaisers in contrast are not known by Him and do not hear His voice and follow Him. Jesus is by this making Himself the centre around which all men should gather. (This has indeed been the constant emphasis of the author all through as is seen in the constantly reiterated call to believe in Jesus Christ). And once again He then emphasise His total oneness with the Father in that His sheep are both in His hand and in ‘His Father's' hand (John 10:28-29). They are thus totally secure in the joint hand of Father and Son. Aligning Himself with the Father in this way in total responsibility for the sheep furthers the idea of His true Godhood. As He has constantly revealed He and His Father always act as one. And He then underlines this with the statement, ‘I and the Father are one' (verse 30). In context this signifies a unity of thought, will and action in all that Father and Son do. They work together in equality and total unity. Once again the Judaisers recognise in this a claim to deity (John 10:31). They recognise that He, as a man, is claiming to be God (John 10:33).
In His reply Jesus uses of Himself the term ‘Son of God', and describes Himself as the One Whom the Father had set apart as holy to Himself and had sent into the world (verse 36). He then underlines this by pointing out that He is doing the works of His Father (revealed especially in His ‘signs'), which should make them realise that He is in the Father, and His Father is in Him in a unique way (John 10:37-38; compare John 14:10 in context). This is a very different matter from our being in the Father and in Christ (John 17:21). We are not in such total oneness and are not capable of such signs. Ours is a spiritual unity, but, unlike that of Jesus, is not so perfect that we always do the will of the Father.
Chapter 11 commences with an indication that what is about to be described will bring glory to God and cause the Son of God, that is, Jesus Himself, to be glorified (John 11:4). The significance of what He is about to do is made clear at the beginning. This then leads on to His activity in relation to the matter of the death and raising again of Lazarus. Jesus' supreme confidence is revealed in that He allows Lazarus to die (for, as we know from John 4:46-54, He could have healed him at a distance). Such supreme confidence would not have been becoming in a mere man. With the Son of God it was acceptable in order to advance the glory of God.
When Martha comes to Jesus He tells her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he were dead, yet will he live, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25-26). We note immediately that He speaks of believing, not in God, but in Him, and does it on the basis that He has the power to raise the dead (He is the resurrection) and to give ‘life' (‘in Him was life' - John 1:4). Thus He is calling on men to centre their thoughts on Him, and on Him alone. Such a demand could only be made by One Who was the Son of God, and co-equal with the Father, especially when the consequence of that belief was eternal life. We thus again have His deity shining through. To this Martha replies, ‘Yes Lord, I believe that you are the Christ (Messiah) the Son of God, Who should come into the world' (John 11:27). She recognises the significance of His claim. So even before the giving of the final sign it has twice been made clear to the readers Who Jesus is (John 11:4; John 11:27), so that when the miracle takes place they will rightly interpret the sign.
In passing we should note that in this chapter Jesus is called ‘Lord' by people seven times (with an eighth reference being found in the narrative in John 11:2). Previously He has only been called ‘Lord' by people four times in the Gospel up to this point. This was by the crowd who sought Him in wonderment after the miraculous provision of bread (John 6:34), by Peter when the disciples were challenged about the possibility of leaving Him (John 6:38), and by the man blind from birth when Jesus made Himself known to him (John 9:36; John 9:38), all moments of crisis and tension and by those in awe of Jesus. Thus it is now being brought home to the readers by the continual emphasis that Jesus is not just a prophet, but is ‘the Lord'. It is used by the sisters, Martha and Mary, in John 11:3; by His disciples in John 11:11; by Martha in John 11:21; John 11:27; John 11:39; by Mary in John 11:32; by guests in John 11:34. All is leading up to what He is about to do.
Jesus now approached the tomb, and commanded that the stone be removed from its entrance. Then at this point He prayed. We are, however, informed that His spoken prayer was only for the benefit of the crowd so that they would be aware of the significance of what was happening (John 11:41-42). With regard to Himself He knew that He did not need to pray. He had only to speak and Lazarus would arise. For as we know He has already stated that He has the power to make alive whom He would (John 5:21). Jesus' uniqueness is thus again brought out. And sure enough at His command Lazarus did appear from the tomb. Jesus had demonstrated in embryo His power to raise men at the last day (John 5:28-29), something that was normally seen as the act of God. The consequence was that many truly believed because they not only saw the sign but understood it (John 11:45). The assumption from what had been said before (John 11:27) is that they have now recognised in Him the Messiah, the Son of God. What Martha had previously believed, these new believers now also believed.
Meanwhile others who had failed to appreciate the sign reported it back to Jesus' enemies John 11:46). This resulted in hostility against Him, and a remarkable prophecy that ‘it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole people perish not' (John 11:50). This the author then interprets as signifying, ‘and not for that nation only, but also that He should gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad' (John 11:52). Thus he sees Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies concerning the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 49:5-6. In the Targum of Jonathan (an Aramaic paraphrase of the Old Testament) the Servant of the Lord is called ‘Servant Messiah', and many see a similar connection with the Servant made at Qumran. Thus this too is a reference to the Messiah.
In chapter 12 Jesus' position as Messiah is emphasised by His entry into Jerusalem on an ass which the author relates to the promise of the Coming King found in Zechariah (John 12:15; compare Zechariah 9:9). It is thus a further presentation of Jesus as the Messiah, although not as at this stage fully recognised. This leads on to Jesus' words that the hour had come for ‘the Son of Man' to be glorified (John 12:23). The glorification of the Son of Man has in mind Daniel 7:13-14 where the son of man comes to God's throne in order to receive a kingdom and be glorified. This too has Messianic overtone, something emphasised by the reaction of the festive crowds as they questioned Jesus about whether, with His talk of death, He could be the Messiah, for in their view the Law stated that ‘the Messiah abides for ever' (John 12:34). Again the reader knows the answer to their question. He is aware of the resurrection. Thus he knows that this is no hindrance to regarding Jesus as the Messiah. This is then followed by the application to these people of certain prophecies in Isaiah which speak of men's spiritual blindness (John 12:38-41). Of especial significance here is that one of them is from Isaiah 6 where Isaiah had his vision of the glory of God, and the author comments, ‘Isaiah said these things when he saw His glory and spoke of Him'. In context the pronouns ‘His' and ‘Him' appear to refer to Jesus. Thus here the author is identifying Jesus with the God of Isaiah's prophecies. If that be so then we have in this a direct statement of Jesus' essential deity.
The chapter closes with Jesus' claim that He has come as ‘a light into the world' (an idea repeated from John 12:35 and thus emphasised by repetition) in order that men may escape darkness by believing on Him (John 12:46). He stands unique in history. And the consequence is that in the last day men will be judged by their response to that light as found in His words, words which His Father has put into His mouth (John 12:48-50). No mere prophet had ever identified himself so closely with God as his Father.
Chapter 13 commences with the words ‘Jesus knew that his hour had come that He should depart out of this world to His Father' (John 13:1), and the remainder of the Gospel (Chapter s 13-21) then goes on to deal with the circumstances of that departure. This is in itself remarkable. It brings out the emphasis laid by all the Gospel writers on Jesus' final hours. They were seen as highly significant, in that they not only signalled His own departure, but were a preparation for the future. And this is nowhere made more apparent than in John's Gospel. For it makes clear that Jesus' life is not to be seen as being a small, self-contained part of history which is to end with His death after His own small contribution to history (the fate of all men), but is rather to be seen as of such vital importance that His final hours must be seen as preparation for what lies ahead through the ministry of His Apostles and beyond as they take the message of His forgiveness to the world (John 20:22-23), a message based on His cross which is in the centre of that preparation. For it has already been made clear that it is His death on the cross, followed by His resurrection, that is crucial for the future of mankind. ‘See the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world' (John 1:29). ‘So must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life' (John 3:14-15). ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He' (John 8:28). ‘I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men to me' (John 12:32). The world's hopes are based on His ‘lifting up'.
John 13:1 separates what has gone before, the self-revelation of Jesus, from what follows, His preparation for the establishment of the New Vine (John 15:1-6), the new Israel. Jesus' life, death and resurrection are thus seen as unique in that, having revealed Himself for what He is, His death and resurrection are a turning point in history. It brings out that what would appear at first sight to be a tragic end, will finally result in the establishment of a new work of God which will be the consequence of His own activity as the resurrected Christ as He gives His Spirit to His followers (John 20:20-23).
Nevertheless the self-revelation continues. We learn immediately that Jesus knew that ‘the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God and went to God' (John 13:3). His life has been a kind of interlude between His previously having been with the Father (compare John 17:5), and His going to be with His Father, during which He would accomplish what the Father had given into His hands. Having descended from Heaven He would now ascend to Heaven (John 3:13). For a while the Word had been made flesh and had dwelt among us (John 1:14) for the fulfilling of His purposes, but now He was going back to His Father. Nothing brings out more the uniqueness of Jesus, as both pre-existent and the arbiter for the future.
We note that Jesus is now still being addressed as ‘Lord' (John 13:9), as in chapter 11, something which Jesus takes up when He declares that He is their ‘Lord and Teacher' (John 13:13-14). Note His switch from ‘Teacher and Lord' in John 13:13 to ‘Lord and Teacher' in John 13:14. He is now emphasising His unique authority over them. They had seen Him as their Teacher. Now they must recognise Him as their Lord. He will later speak of them as ‘friends' (John 15:1-14), but for now His emphasis is on the fact that He is their Lord (compare John 13:16; John 15:20). His Lordship is even brought out by the fact that He is depicted as in control of His own destiny as He commands Judas to go about his act of betrayal (John 13:27-28).
Once Judas has left Jesus turns to His other disciples and declares, ‘Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. And God will glorify Him in Himself, and will immediately glorify Him' (John 13:32). The ‘now' connects with Judas departure on his evil errand, and indicates that what is to result from the betrayal is for the glory of God and of for the glory of Jesus as the Son of Man. Once more Daniel 7:13-14 is in mind. Jesus will come out of suffering in order to approach the throne of God and receive glory and kingship. The idea of Messiahship is thus included. This idea of the glory of Jesus being revealed is an essential part of the author's portrayal of precisely Who Jesus is (John 1:14; John 2:11; John 11:4; John 11:40; John 12:41; John 17:5; John 17:24). But for God to ‘glorify Him in Himself' goes beyond just Messiahship, as John 17:5 reveals where Jesus will pray, ‘glorify Me with Your own self, with the glory which I had with You before the world was'. The idea is that as the Son of God He will once more be united with His Father in His supreme glory.
In chapter 14 Jesus makes a fuller revelation about Himself. The disciples have been growing in understanding, but now He makes clear to them that He is the One Who can provide a place for His followers in His heavenly resting place, and can bring them there because it is His Father's house (John 14:1-3; compare John 17:24). Indeed He stresses that He is the One Who, as the truth and the life, is the only way to the Father (John 14:4-6). By this He is making clear that truth is no longer to be sought in the Law of Moses, but in the living Word (John 1:17), and He will go on to point out that this truth will come from the work of ‘the Spirit of truth' within them (John 14:17; John 15:26; John 16:13). This will be because Jesus is Himself the Way into God's presence, being both the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). Thus full truth now resides in Jesus, and will be made clear to the disciples by the Spirit of truth as He reveals Jesus to them, while true life, life which comes from the Spirit and illuminates men, must also come from Him.
And this is because Jesus is in Himself a complete revelation and manifestation of the Father (compare John 1:18). That is why He can now say to His disciples, ‘If you had known Me you would have known My Father also, from now on you know Him and have seen Him' (John 14:7). In other words, to know and to have seen Jesus in His fullness is to know and have seen the Father, and from now on they will recognise that they have both known and seen the Father, as the Spirit of truth gives them illumination. Note the advancement from ‘knowing the Father' to ‘knowing and seeing' Him.
Had it been left there we might have seen this as simply saying that through His own life and teaching they had received a glimpse of what the Father was like. But that is ruled out by what follows. For Philip seizes on Jesus' words and cries out, ‘Lord, show us the Father and it will suffice for us.' He wants to see God as men had in ancient times. Outwardly Philip might have appeared to be pedantic, but the conversation that follows specifically brings out that Jesus saw Philip's cry as reasonable, and that He was in fact intending Philip to see His words as signifying far more than that. For He stresses to Philip that if only he had truly known Him for what He is, he would have recognised that all that the Father is has been portrayed in Him, and this could only be because He shared His Father's Being and Essence. His insistence on this fact goes far beyond the idea that somehow men could see God as they looked at the life of Jesus. It is rather indicating that in seeing Him in action they have ACTUALLY SEEN the Father operating on earth. He is not here, of course, speaking of His bodily form, but of His and His Father's essential Being.
That Jesus intended Philip and the other disciples to take His words literally and not ‘spiritually' is brought out by His next statement. He does not rebuke Philip for taking Him too literally, He gently rebukes Him for not having recognised the truth about Him. ‘Have I been with you such a long time, and yet you have not known Me Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father, how then can you say show us the Father'. The final phrase ‘how can you say show us the Father' can only signify that He considers Philip's objection to be invalid, because he has already seen the Father. But He could not have said that if He had not literally meant ‘seen', for on any other interpretation of ‘seen' Philip's objection would have been reasonable, and have been a cry for a literal sight of the Father. In other words he wanted the disciples to see the Father with their own eyes, as the leaders of Israel had seen Him at Sinai (Exodus 24:10). Had Jesus simply been speaking ‘spiritually' or ‘parabolically' He would have explained to Philip that no man can see the Father (John 1:18), but that they should be satisfied that they had seen a reflection of the Father in Him. His comment thus makes clear that that was NOT what He meant. What He meant was that in seeing Jesus they had actually seen the Father, because Jesus and the Father were one in essential being. He is saying that while His bodily form might be that of a man, they need to recognise that in His essential Being He is God. He 'as He is in Himself in His inner being' is to be seen as a full portrayal of the Father. That this is an indication of Jesus' own unique Godhood is certain, for no one could claim to fully reveal God in this way Who was not Himself God. And there is nothing more important than for us to see this. Jesus was now demonstrating that the time for ambiguity and slow unveiling had passed. Now His disciples needed to recognise more than ever Who He essentially was. Here we have an amplification of His earlier claim that ‘I and My Father are one' (John 10:30), making clear that it did not just mean one in purpose and intention, but one in essential nature and being such that to see one was to see the other.
Note that He feels a little concerned that Philip and the other disciples have not gathered this from what He had said earlier, e.g. in John 5:17-29, for He says, ‘Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me?' (John 14:9). In other words while they had recognised Him as the Holy One of God (John 6:69) and as God's Messiah (Matthew 16:16 and parallels), what they had failed to recognise was His true Godhood.
He then confirms this position by saying, ‘Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father abiding in Me does His works'. Here He makes clear that He and His Father are in such close union (‘the Word was face to face with God' - John 1:2) that what His mouth speaks are not His own words but the words of His Father, and that His works are also in fact done by the Father Who is abiding in Him. Then He adds, ‘Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works sake.' In other words they should recognise that He could not have performed the things that He had, unless it was the Father doing it through Him because they were in such close union.
Those who refuse to recognise the truth of what Jesus is saying here, that Jesus is truly God, seize on this verse with glee (ignoring what has just been said). They point out that elsewhere Jesus says that He and the Father dwell in true believers (John 14:23), and that ‘in that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you' (John 14:20; compare also John 17:21-23). That, they say, is what Jesus meant here. But that is simply not correct. It is to take the words out of context. For had Jesus meant that He would not have asked Philip how he could possibly have said what he did, He would rather have said to Philip that He had not intended him to take His words so literally. For had Jesus simply meant what these people say, Philip's plea would have been justified. The only reason why it was not justified was because Jesus considered that they should have recognised that in seeing Him in action they had actually and literally seen His Father in action in all that He did. That is far from true of believers.
Jesus then goes on to promise that He will pray the Father to give them another Helper to take His place when He is gone. The word ‘another' indicates ‘another of the same kind'. And that other is to be the Spirit of truth Whom they know because He dwells with them and will be in them (John 14:17). And He then immediately adds, ‘I will not leave you without help, I will come to you' (John 14:18). Once again we are faced with the fact that Jesus not only aligns Himself with the Father in close union, but also with the Spirit. For the Spirit Whom ‘they know because He dwells with them' can only refer to Jesus, something confirmed by the fact that the coming of the Spirit of truth will be the same as Jesus coming to them again. It is a reminder that all the members of the triune God (Matthew 28:19) work as One, and that where One is all are.
From this point on Jesus then moves on to deal with the relationship that the disciples (and subsequent believers - John 17:20) will enjoy with Himself and the Father. In a lesser way they will enjoy a union in the Spirit. They will even be able to do the works that Jesus had done. But their experience will not be the same as that of Jesus with the Father, for they will reveal the Father inadequately. While someone might see a hint of what the Father is like from the finest of believers, no such believer could truly and humbly say, ‘he who has seen me has adequately seen the Father'. But the important lesson from this for our theme is that the believer's relationship with God is now defined in terms of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all working equally together. Jesus and the Father will come to them and dwell in them (John 14:23). The coming of the Spirit of truth to them will be the coming of Jesus (John 14:16-18). This implies Jesus' omnipresence, and equality with the Father and the Spirit. They are One.
Initially this may appear to be contradicted by John 14:28 where Jesus says to His disciples, ‘if you loved Me you would rejoice because I said that I go to the Father, for my Father is greater than I'. But there is no real contradiction. Jesus' point in these words is that while He is living on earth He has taken a subsidiary position. He has been made lower than the angels and has become man (Hebrews 2:7). At this stage, while He walks and suffers as a man, His status, and enjoyment of the glory that was intrinsically His, is below that of His Father (see John 17:5). He has taken a humble place as the Servant in order to give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Thus at this point in time He is of a lower status than His Father Who rules in the heavens and is subject to no such limitations. And that is the reason why the disciples should rejoice for Him at His going to the Father, because then He would be restored to His former status (see Philippians 2:5-11). He would be glorified with the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). The Father being ‘greater than He' was thus temporary.
Chapter 15 continues the theme of chapter 14. Jesus and the Father are seen as continuing to work together for our salvation. That salvation, however, is found by our being made one with Jesus, something only possible because of His omnipresence. The fact is often overlooked that what Jesus promises for the day by day future requires Him to be omnipresent. Furthermore Jesus will make known to them ‘all things that He has heard from His Father' (John 15:15), and whatever they ask the Father in His Name, He will give it to them (John 15:16). Jesus is thus to continue His ministry to them, and to all believers, from Heaven. The relationship with His Father from chapter 14 continues. But especially prominent in this chapter is the fact that it is Jesus Who will send the Helper to them from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26). Previously it has been the Father Who would send Him at the request of Jesus (John 14:16) or ‘in Jesus' name' (John 14:26). Now Jesus is also seen as performing the role.
These thoughts continue into chapter 16. It is Jesus Who will send the Helper (the Holy Spirit) to them (John 16:7). And the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, will glorify not God but Jesus (John 16:13), for He will receive of what is Jesus' and will show it to them. But this is because ‘all things that the Father has are Mine, that is why I said He will take of Mine and show it to you'. That all things that the Father has belong also to Jesus is a further indication that He is God, for Who else could possess all that belonged to the Father? And to speak of the Spirit as being sent to glorify Him in men's eyes without mention of God would be blasphemy if He were not God.
Having then explained something of what the future holds for His disciples, Jesus confirms that, ‘whatever you shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it to you' (John 16:23; compare John 15:16). For they will be asking in order to further the Father's purposes in Jesus. And He assures them that while what He has been saying to them has been to some extent parabolic (they must have been showing that they were in some confusion), He will make it all plain to them in the future. For He will show them plainly from the Father (John 16:25).
Then as His discourse approaches its close He assures them, ‘I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world. Again I leave the world, and go to My Father' (John 16:28). Here, if words mean anything, we have a further clear statement of His pre-existence (compare John 3:13; John 8:56-58; John 17:5), and an indication that when He was ‘sent' it meant literally from another place, not just that He was spiritually sent like the prophets were. The Word, Who had existed in the beginning with God, and was God, had been made flesh, but was now returning to His former glory.
In chapter 17, Jesus' discourse to His disciples being over, He now prays to His Father. The opening words of His prayer continue the theme that Jesus is the Son of God, and indeed is God the Son, for He calls on the Father to glorify Him as the Son, in order that He as the Son may glorify His Father (John 17:1). Once again it is apparent that far more than Messiahship is in mind, for Jesus is asking to be restored to His former glory, a glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). And through this occurring the Father will also be glorified.
We have already noted that the glory of Jesus has been revealed on earth, both in the life that He lived (John 1:14), and in the signs that He gave (John 2:11; John 11:4). It will also be revealed by His death and resurrection by which the Son of Man will be glorified (John 7:39; John 13:31) and in those who will be saved by His activity (John 17:10). But that is a limited glory. What is spoken of here is a glory that far surpasses that glory. It is unlimited. It is the glory referred to in John 12:41, the glory that was always His as God before He ‘emptied Himself' (Philippians 2:7), the glory that has been His from eternity past. It is the glory of the eternal Word, which He had for a while put aside in order to bring about redemption, but would now be receiving again. He then describes the power that the Father has given Him over all flesh, the power to give eternal life (compare John 5:26) to all whom the Father has given Him (John 6:37-39). Thus ‘the Father' and ‘the Son' are seen as working closely together in the plan of redemption, the aim of which is to give to men eternal life. The Father chooses them out and allocates them, the Son gives them eternal life, and He does this by making Himself and His Father known to them in such a way that they respond (John 17:2-3). For to truly know the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent, is to have eternal life (John 17:3). The distinction that is being made in these words (as the remainder of the Gospel has made clear), is not that Jesus Christ is somehow distinct from God, but that He is the manifestation of God on earth which has made it possible for men to know God. If this were not so then the idea that knowing the Father alone would be insufficient would also be blasphemy. Rather He wants them to know that the Father has sent Him from within the Godhead to carry out His part in the plan of redemption, and the consequence is to be that they will know the only true God, Who in context is ‘the Father' (‘You the only true God'), but is also inclusive of Jesus Christ as the One Who has manifested the Father. For as has already been revealed, to know the Father is to know the Son, and to know the Son is to know the Father (John 14:7-9). Jesus Christ has been the appointed representative from within the Godhead Whose task was to make the Father, in His invisibility, known (John 1:18; John 14:7-9). Note that here we have the first mention by John of the combined Name ‘Jesus Christ' since John 1:17. Jesus is now openly revealed as the distinctive Messiah, God's ‘sent one', God's ‘anointed' instrument for bringing salvation to the world.
Had John 17:3 stood alone with no context we might well have seen it as distinguishing ‘the only true God' from ‘Jesus Christ'. But it does not stand alone. It is immediately made apparent that, in His being sent, Jesus Christ had forsaken the glory that was His as the eternal God (John 17:5). Thus the separateness is to be seen as one of office and not of essence. The Father was representing the Godhead in Heaven as ‘the only true God', too Whom men should look in worship. The Son, having ‘emptied Himself', was representing the Godhead as a man on earth, as the Messiah, revealing the Father (John 14:7-9). But the essential oneness of the Father and the Son has already been emphasised (John 10:30; John 14:7-9), while the idea that there were two Gods had to be avoided.
Jesus now turns to His mission on earth. He prays that just as He has glorified the Father on earth by accomplishing His work, so the Father will glorify Him with His own self, with the glory which He had with Jesus before the world was (John 17:4-5). Here it is made openly apparent that it was Jesus' temporary task that was the reason why He at this stage did not enjoy the glory of His Godhood. It was because He had ‘emptied Himself' of His Godhood (whatever that means, for it is outside our understanding, as indeed God Himself is) in order to become man, in accordance with the Father's purpose, that He had a temporary lower status. But now He was to be restored to His former position and status again. It is not, of course, possible for us to understand all the ramifications involved. That is a mystery beyond the ability of our limited comprehension to fully appreciate.
He then goes on to pray for His disciples. The prayer reflects the partnership between the Father and the Son in the work of redemption already described. Jesus has manifested His Father's Name to the men whom the Father has given Him out of the world, and they know that everything that the Father has given Him has come from the Father (John 17:6 c). In the eternal purposes of God, the Father has made the gift to His Son of all true believers, the Son has manifested the Father to these true believers. ‘Everything that he Father has given Him' may refer to the believers themselves as the Father's gift (John 17:6 a), or it may refer to the words and works that He has accomplished, but the outworking of the partnership is made quite clear for He is the Son working in His Father's Name (John 17:2). And such an idea continues throughout the prayer.
We note that once again He speaks of the Father being in Him and He in the Father (John 17:21), but this time it is to lead on to the fulfilling of God's purpose by His people also becoming ‘in us' (John 17:21), and consequently, as a result, one with each other (John 17:23). Thus in specific contrast with the oneness in chapter 14, where the literalness of the oneness was made clear, this oneness is a spiritual oneness, although very real for all that (compare 1 Corinthians 12:12 ff). There is no suggestion that to see these believers will be to see the Father. The oneness is of a different kind.
Towards the close of His prayer He then prays concerning believers, ‘Father I pray that they also whom you have given Me, may be with Me where I am, to behold My glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world' (John 17:24). Once again we have reference to His eternal glory (it was before the world began), which the Father would be restoring to Him (John 17:5), a situation based on the love that the Father had had for Him from before the foundation of the world. We note from this that the Father's love for the Son is eternal, being a part of their essential relationship from all eternity. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1) This unique relationship between Father and Son is revealed as distinct from all others.
In contrast true believers are only to behold that glory (‘only' being used by us to distinguish their secondary position, not to signify that to behold that glory is anything less than stupendous). Yet what a privilege is this. Those who are His will enjoy the revelation of His glory (compare Revelation 21:23; Revelation 22:3-5).
Having reached the height of revelation in chapter 17, we are immediately brought back to earth in chapter 18. What is glorious in Heaven must be worked out on earth. But even here the glory of Heaven shines through, for when the soldiers arrive to arrest Jesus He reveals Himself as the ‘I am', and they fall back before Him (John 18:6). John clearly intended this event to be seen as essentially significant. That having occurred, however, (demonstrating that Jesus was still in control of events), the arrest goes on as normal, and Jesus is borne away for trial, where it is made clear that the charges against Him are unjustified (John 18:23). The interweaving of the trials with Peter's denials bring out Jesus' total forsakenness (John 18:12-27). All have forsaken Him, both the religious leaders on the one hand (exemplified in Annas the High Priest), and His own disciples on the other (exemplified in Peter). The Lamb of God (John 1:29), having been shown to be without blemish (something which will be even more drawn out in the trial before Pilate), is being set apart for death.
But even His trial emphasises Who He is. For Pilate asks Him concerning the charge that He is the King of the Jews, that is, the Messiah (John 18:33), something which leads on to the revelation that Jesus' kingship (and thus His Messiahship) is not of this world (John 18:36). Jesus then goes on to indicate that in fact His kingship on earth, which He admits to, has been fulfilled in the purpose for which He was born, and for which He came into the world, namely in His bearing witness to the truth (John 18:37). The chapter ends with Pilate declaring that Jesus is the King of the Jews (John 18:39).
The emphasis that Jesus is ‘the King of the Jews' (and thus the Messiah) carries on through chapter 19. He is hailed as such, somewhat crudely, by the soldiers (John 19:3), indirectly acknowledged as such by His accusers (John 19:12), declared as such by Pilate (John 19:14-15), and described as such in the superscription on His cross (John 19:19). And along with this is an acknowledgement of His claim to be the Son of God (John 19:7). His association with the Lamb of God is brought out in that not a bone of Him was to be broken (John 19:32-33; John 19:36).
Finally in chapter 20 Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and explains that He has not yet ascended to His Father (John 20:17 a), and tells her to inform His ‘brothers' that, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God' (John 20:17 b). It is clear that the ascension is to be seen as significant (Peter will state that as a result He would be made both Lord and Christ' - Acts 2:36). Note that Jesus does not say ‘our Father' or ‘our God'. He distinguishes His own relationship with the Father from theirs. This distinction is real, for the distinction between ‘My Father' and ‘your Father' is constantly maintained by Jesus, and is especially brought out in Matthew's Gospel, where the latter phrase dominates the early Chapter s, with the former taking over in the later Chapter s as Jesus' self-revelation increases. Furthermore ‘My God' indicates that God was Jesus' God in a different way than He was the God of the disciples and of all other men. Inherent in Jesus' incarnation was that He would pray to God as a true man. He could hardly have been a true human being had He not done so. But when He did so it was uniquely as the Son talking to the Father. It was a unique relationship. In the case of the disciples they prayed as adopted children talking to their Father, and they could pray ‘our Father', something Jesus could never pray.
The chapter continues in an act reminiscent of Genesis 2:7. Just as God had there breathed into man so that he became a living being, now Jesus breathes into His disciples so that they receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). ‘In Him was life, and the life was the light of men' (John 1:4). For this inbreathing of the Spirit is not only to be symbolic of the ‘eternal life' that they have received from God, and of the new creation, but also brings them power and illumination (Luke 24:45). It is to be seen as a fulfilling of His promises concerning the Spirit of truth in Chapter s 14-16. These men are to be the foundation of the new creation. What follows at Pentecost will be an enduement of power (Acts 1:8).
These parallel acts, the one in Genesis 2:7 commencing man's existence as a spiritual being in God's creation, and the other commencing the bringing about of God's new creation which will result in eternal life for all true believers, bring out what has already been stated in John 1:1-13, that Jesus is both the God of creation (John 1:3) and the Source of life (John 1:4 a), and the God of revelation (John 1:4-11) and new creation (John 1:12-13).
The chapter, and the main part of the Gospel, now end with Thomas' declaration concerning Jesus, ‘my Lord and my God' (John 20:28), thus ending on the same note with which the Gospel began, ‘in the beginning was the Word --- and the Word was God' (John 1:1). The truth has begun to come home to those Who follow Him.
The writer has thus fulfilled his promise to present his readers with ‘signs' which had been witnessed by the disciples, which revealed that ‘Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God', so that by ‘believing' they might ‘find life in His Name' (John 20:31). Yet even with his emphasis on these points we should note that there are parts of the narrative which were patently not required for this purpose. And the reason for this was that John saw them as so much a part of the true eyewitness tradition that he felt that he had to incorporate them. In the end it was not John who shaped the tradition, but the true historical facts which shaped John's narrative, once he had selected his material. It was based on first hand experience, which was something he felt that he could not avoid, and which finally determined what John wrote.