John 11-20 1

NT Commentary

John 11-20 © Training Timothys

Selected Passages

John 13:34-35

John 14:11-12

John 14:13-14

John 14:15-23

John 14:16-17;

15:26-7;16:7-8

John 14:21-22

John 14:25-26

John 14:27

John 15:8

John 15:13-15

John 15:22-25

John 16:12-15

John 17:21-23

John 17:25-26

John 18:6

John 20:22

John 20:29

John 13:34-35 [5.3.B]

B) Christ’s Commands for Virtue Apologetics: John 13:34-5

God’s desire for supernatural virtue to be the ultimate apologetic for Christianity

is the reason that the most important and repeated command in the NT (over one

hundred times) is that God’s people would love; love God (cf. Matt 22:37-38), love

other Christians (cf. John 13:34-5), love all others (cf. Matt 22:39), and love even

their persecutors and enemies (cf. Matt 5:44-47). Love is God’s authenticating

signature on His people, because real love only comes from the real God. This is

why Christ says:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,

so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are

My disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-5).

The influential Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) based his very

good booklet, The Mark of a Christian, on this very passage and wrote:

Through the centuries men have displayed many different symbols to show that

they are Christians. They have worn marks in the lapels of their coats, hung

chains about their necks, even had special haircuts. Of course, there is nothing

wrong with any of this, if one feels it is his calling. But there is a much better

sign-a mark that has not been thought up just as a matter of expediency for

use on some special occasion or in some specific era. It is a universal mark

that is to last through all the ages of the church till Jesus comes back. What is

this mark? 1

Dr. Schaeffer then quotes John 13:34-35 and writes:

In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present dying culture, Jesus is

giving a right to the world. Upon his authority he gives the world the right to

1 Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of a Christian, (Intervarsity, 1970), 7.

John 11-20 2

judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our

observable love toward all Christians. . . . This is the whole point [of John

13:24-5]: The world is going to judge whether Jesus has been sent by the

Father on the basis of something that is open to observation. 2

Indeed, it should first be noticed that Christ does desire that “all men know”

who His “disciples” are. He wants them to be different because He wants people to

know who truly represents Him.

Why is that? Because only those who are truly following Christ are saved from

the present and eternal wrath of God. “God” is only “reconciling the world to

Himself in Christ” (2 Cor 5:19). Therefore, God wants the world to know who

“Christ's ambassadors” are because “God . . . [is] making His appeal [only]

through us” (v. 20).

How then will the world know that Christians alone have the truth that will save?

By our “love [for] one another” Christ says. Some may suppose that Christ intends

for love to prove to the world that we are merely followers of one particular religious

leader among many. However, this would fall short of God’s goal to authenticate

Christ’s claim that, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to

the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). It would seem that God knows that

humans inherently know that love is the ultimate and universal authentication of any

Gospel. A Gospel that truly saves from sin, will be one that saves people from it

now, and love is the proof that they have been set free from its power.

It is clear here that Christ wants His “ambassadors” to be noticed, to be

different, and we will be by our love. This is because Christian love will be unique

and superior to any virtue that disciples of somebody else might muster. Christ is

implying that it will be a unique love, a superior love, one that distinguishes His

followers from everybody else. A love that is the same as anybody else’s love would

not accomplish Christ’s goal. Christ is not only commanding His people to be

superior in the virtue of love, but is expecting it, and if we are not, the whole

purpose of His command is thwarted.

Secondly, notice that Christ says the ultimate apologetic for Christianity is not

our love for unbelievers, but for “one another.” This needs to be heard loud and

clear in American Christianity today which often commends itself for all their

outreach and service to the lost, but cannot seem to get along with “one another.”

There is great hypocrisy when we exercise compassion, grace, and patience toward

people we hardly know, and then withhold these very things in our families and local

church. The great push in American Christianity for loving unbelievers to the King

will never make up for any lack of love for those who already belong to the King. In

fact, it is easier to really love strangers rather than friends, and all kinds of religions

are nice to people in order to attract them to their cause.

We need to ponder why the King said, “the greatest love is shown when

people lay down their lives for their friends” (John 15:13 NLT). Wouldn’t we

have expected Him to refer to enemies? 3 Could it be that daily loving those we are

living with, or consistently loving those we are worshipping with, requires more self-

sacrifice than a kind deed to a stranger? Especially if others see us doing the latter

more than the former?

The NT clearly places a much greater priority on loving Christians more than non-

Christians. Just add up the commands for each if you doubt this. Whatever the

reason for Christ’s intentional priority of loving “one another” in the Church family,

we will make a grave mistake if we neglect that priority, or consider ourselves to

2 Ibid., 13, 21. 3 Neither D. A. Carson (The Gospel According to John, [Eerdmans, 1991]), nor Leon Morris

(The Gospel According to John, [Eerdmans, 1992]), nor Herman Ridderbos (The Gospel

According to John [Eerdmans, 1997]), nor any other commentators we consulted see any significance in Christ’s specific reference to “friends” at John 15:3.

John 11-20 3

have Christian love when we are merely being kind to unbelievers, but not gladly

bearing the weaknesses of those we know the best. 4

Thirdly, do not miss what kind of love Christ is expecting. “As I have loved

you, so you must love one another.” A merely human love will be sin. We are to

love like God. Think about that for a moment. How great, awesome, and

supernatural is God’s love? And the King is commanding us to exercise the very

same thing? From a physical perspective it is as if the King commanded us to create

a whole other Universe, planets, stars, galaxies and all with just our spoken word—

like God. But it is not in physical power that we are commanded to be just like God,

but in virtue. We cannot even come close to God in mental or physical power, but in

the highest of virtues—love—we can apparently equal Him. We can love just like

God loves or Christ would not have commanded us to love as He has loved us.

Fourthly, in John 13:34-35 Christ is clearly declaring that virtue apologetics is not

only the ultimate apologetic, but a universal apologetic, that is effective for “all

men.” Love is the language that speaks of spiritual superiority in any language. The

reason that morality is so universally and cross-culturally recognized is that all of

humanity has “the requirements of the law . . . written on their hearts” (Rom

2:15).

Just as God gave humans eyes and a brain in order to recognize His supernatural

work in Creation (cf. Rom 1:18-20), God purposely equipped all of humanity with

moral reason so that they would see His supernatural work in His New Creations (cf.

2 Cor 5:17). The magnificence and intricacy of the physical Creation was intended

by God to be the universal and ultimate apologetic evidence for the existence of God.

Likewise, the superiority and endurance of the virtue of God’s new spiritual creations

was intended to be the same for the Gospel of God. Just like the phenomenon of

Creation demands a supernatural explanation, so does the phenomenon of the New

Creations. And both sources of God-ordained evidence leave humanity “without

excuse” (Rom 1:20) for not believing in God and the Gospel.

Fifth, we notice in Christ’s prescription for Christian apologetics that it is

conditional on our obedience. He says, “By this all men will know that you are

My disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Therefore, disobedience,

and a failure to live in the fruits of the Spirit, not only disqualify us to be good

ambassadors for Christ, but the world around us is cheated and deprived of the most

powerful evidence available for the salvific exclusivity of Christianity.

Likewise, it was virtue apologetics that Christ commended when He said, “This is

to My Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be My

disciples” (John 15:8). The “fruit” here is the supernatural love that He commands

them to live by in this very passage, and may include the “joy” that Christ promises

as well (cf. v. 11). 5 Along the same lines, Christ responded to His critics that

4 Unfortunately, in our opinion, Dr. Morris spends a great deal of ink trying to downplay the

emphasis in the NT on loving other Christians as opposed to unbelievers (cf. Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible [Eerdmans, 1981], esp. pp 211-224). He seems concerned about the accusations of some that the NT never refers to loving non-Christians,

especially the writings of John. This is, of course, nonsense, as Dr. Morris aptly points out. As Dr. Morris puts it, “It may not be easy to prove that throughout the New Testament there is a uniform emphasis on loving “outsiders,” but it is harder to prove that there is any other attitude.” (209) We would agree, but instead of defending and downplaying the NT

emphasis and priority on loving other Christians, we would be better off explaining it and recognizing why this is a NT fact.

5 It is difficult to find a commentary that will state clearly that the “fruit” referred to by Christ

in John 15 is virtue. However, Albert Barnes comments on John 15:2 and says, “To bear fruit is to show by our lives that we are under the influence of the religion of Christ, and that that religion produces in us its appropriate effects, Gal. 5:22-23.” (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999]).

Likewise, Leon Morris writes, “The ‘fruit’ is not defined here, but we need not doubt that

qualities of Christian character are in mind as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt 3:8; 7:20; Rom 6:22; Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9; Phil 1:11; etc. [see also Psa 72:3; Matt 12:33-37; James 3:17; Heb 12:11])” (John, 595). We would disagree that the term “is not defined

John 11-20 4

Christian “wisdom is proved right by her actions” (Matt 11:19). As Dr. Morris

comments: “The wisdom Jesus taught was not meant as a topic for debate in

religious or philosophical schools - it was something to be lived out and it is proved

right in the [moral] works his followers do.” 6

Pastoral Practices

It is commonly thought that the most important thing for influencing unbelievers

is for us to love them. Perhaps not. According to Christ, one of the most

powerful evangelistic tools in your church is to expose unbelievers to your love

for one another. Many churches disparage a “holy huddle” mentality in how they

are perceived, when in reality, a “holy huddle” is precisely what God commands

the church to be.

Encourage people to reach out to unbelievers in groups, rather than alone. Plan

outreach activities that somehow display your love for one another, rather than

just a love for unbelievers.

John 14:11-12 [10.5.B.2]

B.2) Supernatural Regeneration through the Gospel: The greatest miracle

working today according to the King (John 14:12)

While it is possible that spiritual regeneration had occurred in very rare cases in

the OT, 7 this miracle comes to the fore in the NT. This is, of course, the miracle of

“rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5) which we have spoken of at

length elsewhere. 8

There is an unfortunate and universal mistake on the part of theologians to leave

spiritual regeneration out of a discussion of miracles that God does, let alone miracle

working that obedient Christians perform today. This is particularly surprising when

the King Himself said this miracle working would be greater than His own, which,

therefore, makes it the greatest miracle working of any that has occurred!

Our King said the following to His disciples near the time of His death:

Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me;

or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell

here” as the King speaks a great deal about love for God and people in this very context, suggesting that this is His definition of the fruit He has in mind.

While most commentators do not make the meaning of “fruit” here plain, others suggest it means Christian converts. Their main reason is derived from John 15:16 where Christ says, “I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.”

Accordingly, D. A. Carson comments, “The fruit, in short, is new converts” (John, 523). However, this appears unlikely when in the same speech the King says, “He [the Father] cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit (John 15:2) which would mean (apparently according even to Dr. Carson, cf. John, 515) that if you do not win Christian

converts you are a fake Christian. While there are Scriptures that probably use the idea of “fruit” to refer to Christian converts (cf. Prov 11:30; Matt 21:43; Phil 1:22; Col 1:6, 10), this

is not one of them if it is interpreted in context. The reference to “fruit that will last” is simply referring to the unique endurance of authentic Christian virtue throughout their lifetime, proving them to be born again Christians.

6 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Eerdmans, 1992), 286. 7 For some biblical evidence of spiritual regeneration in the OT see section 4.16.E.

8 Regarding regeneration see chapters 4.15-16 and 6.3.

John 11-20 5

you the truth, anyone who has faith in Me will do what I have been

doing. He will do even greater things [ergon: “miracles”] than these,

because I am going to the Father. (John 14:11-12)

These words have perplexed many and have unfortunately been abused by

super-supernaturalists to support their claim that the NT gift of physical miracle

working is operating today. A careful examination of the passage reveals no such

thing. Rather, the King is speaking of spiritual miracle working, something much

greater and God-glorifying.

It is important first to define the “greater things” that Christ speaks of. The

previous verse (11) would seem to clearly define these “greater things” as physical

“miracles.” Although the NASB simply translates the Greek ergon as “works,”

Christ is referring to more than just His good deeds, as ergon is regularly used in the

NT to refer to miracles. 9 Our King is specifically pointing to His miraculous deeds as

proof that “the Father is in Me” (10, 11). 10

This obviously brings up an important question. What miracle could “anyone

who has faith in” the King do that would be “greater” than the miracle working He

did? It is agreed by most that the “greatest” miracles performed by Christ would

have been His ability to grant physical life to those who were physically dead (cf.

Matt 9:18-26; Luke 7:11-16; John 11:43-44). So there is a need to find something

in the Christian’s experience today that is more powerful and God-glorifying than

raising the physically dead to temporary earthly life. The clearest answer would

seem to be the raising of the spiritually dead to eternal heavenly life through the

ministry of the Gospel and the resulting supernatural regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

There are several items that would support this view.

First of all, the King says that the Christian will do greater miracles “because I

am going to the Father.” This becomes significant when He later explains that “It

is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the [Paraklete: i.e.

Holy Spirit 11] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you” (John

16:7). So in essence, Christ was saying that we would do greater miracle working

than He because of the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, super-supernaturalists wish to claim that Christ is referring to the

continuing ability to work physical miracles. But this is again partly because they do

not understand that God values spiritual miracles more. Accordingly, among the

many new things that came with the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the

miraculous, life changing, born-again experience which accompanied the preaching

of the Gospel.

It would appear that the King had introduced this idea before in John’s Gospel.

In chapter 5 the Pharisees are inquiring into the nature of Christ’s ability to perform

miracles, and particularly the physical healing of a paralytic. Our King responds:

The Son can do nothing by Himself; He can do only what He sees His

Father doing. . . . Yes, to your amazement He [the Father] will show Him

[the King] even greater things [meizona erga] than these. For just as the

Father raises the dead and gives them [physical] life, even so the Son

gives [spiritual and eternal] life to whom He is pleased to give it. (John

9 For further discussion on the use of ergon in relation to miracles see section 10.2.A.1.

10 Peter Davids comments on John 14:10-11:

What are these works? We know they are not his teachings, for he refers to his works as evidence for believing his teachings. Thus they must be “the miracles” (as the NIV correctly translates), for those are the works which in John are connected with people believing. It is immediately after this that Jesus says that “anyone who has faith in” him will do “greater works” than these. Given the context, the greater things can only be greater miracles. (Hard Sayings of the Bible [Intervarsity, 1996], 502)

11 The NIV translates paraklete as Counselor which is not only an unlikely rendering but is misleading. For further discussion see section 14.13.B.

John 11-20 6

5:19-21).

John uses the exact same Greek phrase here, translated “greater things,” as he

used in John 14 (The only two places it is used in the NT). And here in John 5, Christ

makes it clear that the “greater things” that the Father will do through Christ is

something more than restoring physical life, which is clearly the giving of eternal and

spiritual life.

There is no doubt that the spiritual rebirth of a human being is a greater work of

God than any physical miracle working. This granting of spiritual eternal life that

began occurring in people’s lives particularly upon Christ’s departure and the Spirit’s

arrival is much greater than a restoration of mere temporary physical life. Spiritual

rebirth has eternal consequences, the other only temporary. Modern emergency

medical procedures can, essentially, restore physical life to the physically dead, but

the world is totally incapable of producing “a [spiritual] new creation” (2 Cor.

5:17).

Accordingly, Michael Horton, Professor of Theology and Apologetics at

Westminster, has written:

For Reformation Christians, the most important activity of the Holy Spirit is not

raising the dead here and now, but raising to spiritual life those who "were

dead in trespasses and sins." 12

Along the same lines, Richard B. Gaffin, Professor of Systematic Theology at

Westminster has said:

No work of the Spirit . . . is more radical, more impressive, more extraordinary,

and more thoroughly supernatural, than the work He does [present tense] —

now, today, a work of nothing less than [spiritually] resurrecting people who are

nothing less than "dead in transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2:1, 5). 13

Spiritual regeneration clearly qualifies as a miracle according to our definition of

an extraordinary revelation of God’s supernatural power by which He intervenes in

the ordinary and natural processes He has ordained because they are not sufficient

to accomplish His will. As noted in the previous chapters, miracles are

“extraordinary” in the sense that they are supernatural, extremely rare, and awe-

inspiring. Understanding that salvation does not occur apart from a supernatural act

of God, considering that relatively “few” (Matt 7:14) humans will ever experience it,

and recognizing that the life transformation that occurs with it is indeed awesome,

spiritual regeneration is clearly a miracle.

If the initial physical creation of human beings in the Garden is to be considered

a miracle, than so is the spiritual new creation of humans through the Gospel, and

an even bigger one than the former because it automatically brings eternal life. And

because humans are born spiritually, “dead in . . . transgressions and sins” (Eph

2:1), and cannot “accept the things that come from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor

2:14), the miracle of regeneration is necessary to accomplish God’s will of saving His

Elect.

We note as well that God only does the miraculous when the natural condition of

something is not sufficient to fulfill His purposes. Such is the case with regeneration

under the New Covenant. The Scriptures teach that the Old Covenant that was

perhaps implemented by a few regenerated souls was not sufficient to produce a

people who truly loved God. God therefore instituted spiritual regeneration for all

those under the New Covenant, so that, unlike their OT counterparts, they would

remain faithful to God because they have been given a “new heart” that loves God.

Accordingly, God describes this miracle when He says:

12 Bloesch, 98. 13 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Challenges of the Charismatic Movement to the Reformed Tradition”

online at http://www.the-highway.com/charismatic2_Gaffin.html#40, endnote 39.

John 11-20 7

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove

from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will

put My Spirit in you and move you to follow My decrees and be careful

to keep My laws. (Ezek 36:26-27; cf. Heb 8:10-13; Ezek 11:19-20; Jer 24:7;

31:33; Isa 32:14-18; 44:3)

This is the most amazing miracle of all, it is spiritual in nature, and it is not

directly performed by God, like perhaps in the OT. Rather He has delegated

supernatural power to us to perform it. This divine delegated spiritual miracle

working of “rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5) occurs exclusively

through the preaching of the Gospel by obedient Christians. Contrary to pluralists

and universalists we know of no cases in either NT or human history that it has

occurred otherwise. 14

This is the reason the Apostle Paul writes the Roman Christians:

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is

Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him, for, “Everyone who

calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call

on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the

One of Whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without

someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are

sent? . . . Consequently, [saving] faith [and the supernatural spiritual

regeneration that accompanies it] comes from hearing the message

[Gospel], and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Rom

10:12-15, 17)

We would suggest the Apostle believed that the supernatural regeneration that

occurs with spiritual salvation only occurs through the instrument of “someone

preaching to them” (v. 15). This is why he referred to the “Gospel” as “the

[supernatural] power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom

1:16).

The Apostle Peter concurs when he writes:

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of

imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God [the Gospel].

. . . [T]he word of the Lord stands forever and this is the word [Gospel]

that was preached to you. (1 Pet 1:23, 25; cf. 1 Pet 1:12; Gal 3:2; John

6:63; Heb 4:12; Jas 1:18)

The fact that the greatest of all miracles occurs through our preaching of the

Gospel is precisely why the King said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith

in Me will do what I have been doing [performing miracles]. He will do even

greater things [miracles] than these [physical miracles], because I am going to

the Father” (John 14:12), and subsequently the Holy Spirit would come to

regenerate people through the Gospel.

Accordingly, the respected NT scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006) writes concerning

John 14:12:

This is probably to be explained in terms of the coming of the Holy Spirit, who

will not come until the Son goes away (16:17; cf. 7:39). What Jesus means we

may see in the narratives in Acts. There there are a few miracles of healing,

but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion. On the day of

Pentecost alone more believers were added to the little band of Jesus’ followers

than throughout his entire earthly life. There we see a literal fulfillment of

doing “even greater things than these.” 15

14 For further discussion of pluralism and universalism and their claim that saving faith can

occur apart from the communication of the Gospel see section 6.10.B.

15 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1995), 573-4.

John 11-20 8

We note here that the required “faith” Christ speaks of in order to do these

“greater things” is not merely saving faith that saves us, but the empowering faith

we exercise to believe and obey God’s commands. 16 In other words, not every

saved person will perform this miracle of initiating spiritual regeneration through

communicating the Gospel, but only those obedient to the Great Commission (cf.

Matt 28:18-20).

Obviously, the exercise of such faith in preaching the Gospel does not have

automatically miraculous effects. The spiritual death we are physically born into

requires no miracle as this is the natural process of Nature (cf. Rom 3:9; Eph 2:1;

Col 2:23). But humans are not born with the power to spiritually regenerate

themselves to spiritual life, and therefore, a miracle is required. As with any miracle,

God must intervene supernaturally to bring about the supernatural results involved

in spiritual regeneration to eternal salvation. Accordingly, we read in Acts:

[M]en from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to

Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The

Lord’s [supernatural] hand was with them, and [therefore] a great

number of people believed and turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:20-21; cf.

Acts 16:14; 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4; 1 Thess 1:5; 1 Tim 2:25)

Therefore, it would seem that the greatest delegated human miracle working

ever performed was not by Christ, the Prophets, Apostles, and certainly not through

the modern so called “miracle” workers claimed by super-supernaturalism. We

suggest the greatest delegated human miracle working ever in human history has

occurred when any obedient Christian has led a sinner to salvation, enabling them to

“cross over from [spiritual] death to [spiritual] life” (John 5:24) by sharing the

Gospel of Jesus Christ with them.

The spiritual miracle working power of the Gospel is revealed in the fact that it

can almost instantly transform the greatest sinners into the greatest saints. The

Gospel is so potentially supernaturally powerful that even sinful unbelievers can

preach it and bring miraculous regeneration to people (cf. Phil 1:15-18). 17

Therefore, when Christ gave us the Gospel and “committed to us the message of

reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:19), He gave us the ability to perform miracles greater

than any He did.

Super-supernaturalists who focus so much attention on physical miracle working

and “faith healers” need to take better notice of this. 18 Accordingly, it might be said

that Christian Evangelists are by far the greatest miracle workers operating in the

world today. Along these lines, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) preached the

following during the Great Awakening:

Under what great means and advantages you continue in sin. God is now

favoring us with very great and extraordinary means and advantages, in that

we have such extraordinary tokens of the presence of God among us; his Spirit

is so remarkably poured out, and multitudes of all ages, and all sorts, are

converted and brought home to Christ. God appears among us in the most

extraordinary manner, perhaps, that ever he did in New England. The children

of Israel saw many mighty [physical] works of God, when he brought them out

of Egypt; but we at this day see works more mighty, and of a more glorious

16 For further discussion on the important biblical distinction between saving and empowering

faith see section 6.2.C.1. 17 For further discussion of the fact that false Apostles will preach the Gospel see section

11.13.E. 18 This is why it is rather sad to see super-supernaturalist authors claim that what Christianity

really needs is more physical miracle working. For further discussion see section 7.13.A.1.

John 11-20 9

[and spiritual] nature. 19

And Edwards was not talking about physical miracles, but the miracle of “rebirth

and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5).

While it seems clear that the “greater works” Christ was referring to are to be

understood as the spiritual miracle of regeneration through belief in the Gospel,

super-supernaturalists routinely interpret it as a promise of greater physical miracle

working, in order to claim a biblical promise to the continuance of the miraculous

sign gifts. For example, Jack Deere, a prominent teacher in the movement, uses

John 14:12 to erroneously claim that modern super-supernaturalism will produce

miracle workers who will “do greater works [e.g. physical healings] than the

Apostles, than Jesus, or any of the Old Testament Prophets.” 20

Also attempting to give biblical support for continuing gifts of physical miracle

working through “faith healers,” super-supernaturalist apologist J. P. Moreland

writes:

The implications of this understanding of Jesus' ministry are remarkable: Jesus

is living proof of how those who are his followers may exceed the limitations of

their humanness in order that they, like him, might carry to completion against

all odds their God-given mission in life -by the Holy Spirit. It is becoming clear

that when Jesus said that "greater works than these he [i.e., the one who

believes in Jesus] will do, because I go to the Father" (John 14:12), he meant it

in the ordinary way these words would be interpreted. In imitation of Jesus’

ministry, the church is invited to exercise the extraordinary power of the Spirit

in the service of the Kingdom [to do physical miracle working]. 21

Accordingly, NT scholar D. A. Carson writes concerning John 14:12:

The passage has become a more or less standard proof text not only in many

traditionally charismatic circles but also for many in the Vineyard [movement].

. . . [I]t cannot mean more spectacular works or the like-though some such

meaning seems to be assumed by many Vineyard people. . . .

I know of no one in the Vineyard, or anywhere else, for that matter, who

claims, with any sort of public attestation at all, that he is performing more

spectacular miracles than these [physical miracles that Christ did]. I know no

person who is matching them; I know no group that is collectively matching

them. . . .

Before summarizing what the text means, it is worth mentioning what it can't

mean. First, it cannot simply mean more works: the church will do more things

than Jesus did. There are perfectly good ways to say that sort of thing in

Greek, and John did not choose any of them. 22

The proper interpretation of John 14:12 gives no support to the super-

supernaturalists claim that Christ was promising the Church continual physical

miracle working abilities such as healing. What sane Christian would claim they have

performed physical miracles greater than Christ did? Even the most spectacular of

the mere physical miracle working performed by supposed modern day “faith

healers” pale in comparison to not only the physical miracle working of Christ, but

the contemporary spiritual miracle of the new birth. Our point again is that a human

19 Jonathan Edwards in John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3

vols. (Berea, 1991), I:272. 20 Jack Deere, “Intimacy with God and the End Time Church,” Vineyard Christian Fellowship,

Denver, CO, 1989, audiotape, session 2A. 21 J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 174. 22 D. A. Carson in Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church? (Moody, 1992),

108.

John 11-20 10

limb may be miraculously changed, but a human life remain spiritually unchanged,

making the latter kind of miracle superior to the former.

Is it possible that super-supernaturalists are forgetting this? When they accuse

others of diminishing and limiting the power of God 23 do they forget that the

greatest and most powerful miracles are still occurring today when someone is

spiritually transformed into a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17)? Or how about when

through the teaching of the Word of God a Christian is, “transformed into His

likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, Who is the

Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18).

Here we are reminded of something that the founder of the Great Awakening

revival in the eighteenth century, George Whitefield (1714-1770), wrote concerning

a similar misconception then:

Great need have you, my brethren, at this time to take the Apostle’s advice

and to try the spirits whether they be of God. For the devil is beginning to

mimic God’s work and, because terrors will not do, he is now transforming

himself into an angel of light, in order more effectually to gain his point.

Brother________, as well as brother _________, I believe, imagines there

will be a power given to work miracles. . . . But, alas! what need is there of

miracles, such as healing sick bodies and restoring sight to blind eyes, when we

see greater miracles done every day by the power of God’s Word? Do not the

spiritually blind now see? Are not the spiritually dead now raised and the

leprous souls now cleansed, and have not the poor the Gospel preached to

them? And if we have the thing already which such miracles were only

intended to introduce, why should we tempt God in requiring further signs?” 24

This is the same question we would ask super-supernaturalists today.

To accuse anyone who is actively involved in evangelism and teaching of being

adverse to miracle working reveals a Pharisaical attitude that strains a gnat but

swallows the camel. Such an accusation at least implies a belief that the healing of a

physical ailment is at least as powerful or miraculous as the spiritual healings that

are constantly occurring today through the communication of God’s word. The

miraculous gifts that some so desperately crave today are far inferior to the

miraculous works that God is performing through His Word. Have super-

supernaturalists simply become bored with the New Birth? God is doing the

greatest, most spectacular miracles today! And it is not just within the super-

supernaturalist camp as they claim.

John 14:13-14 [6.11.A.3]

This same qualification for prayer is given by Christ when He says, “I will do

whatever you ask in My name, so that the Son may bring glory to the

Father. You may ask Me for anything in My name, and I will do it” (John

14:13-14). Asking “in the name of Jesus” is not the magic formula to get what you

want that some have made it. On the contrary, we need to consider what it means

to ask or do anything “in the name” of someone else? It is to ask or do what they

would, in order to accurately represent their desires, purposes and character. In

other words, Christ is saying that if we pray according to His will and desires, He will

grant our request.

Accordingly, Merrill C. Tenney writes in his entry regarding John 14:13-14 in the

Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

23 For illegitimate accusations made against Christians by super-supernaturalists see section

10.16.G.

24 Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield, 2 vols. (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 348-9.

John 11-20 11

The phrase "in my name," however, is not a talisman for the command of

supernatural energy. He did not wish it to be used as a magical charm like an

Aladdin's lamp. It was both a guarantee, like the endorsement on a check, and

a limitation on the petition; for he would grant only such petitions as could be

presented consistently with his character and purpose. In prayer we call on

him to work out his purpose, not simply to gratify our whims. The answer is

promised so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.25

John 14:15-21, 23 [7.12.A]

Like Scripture, the authority of the New Nature as a means of divine revelation is

founded on the fact that it is equated with God Himself. In John 14 Jesus taught

that the time would come when the entire Godhead would live inside of us:

“If you love Me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the

Father, and He will give you another Advocate 26 to be with you

forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because

it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives

with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long,

the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live,

you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in My Father,

and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who

loves Me. He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will

love him and show Myself to him. . . . If anyone loves Me, he will obey

My teaching. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and

make Our home [monē: dwelling] with him. (John 14:15-21, 23) 27

25 Merrill C. Tenney, Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), (Frank E. ed. CD-ROM [Zondervan,

n.d.]), loc. cit.

26 For arguments that “Advocate” is the correct translation of Paraclete here see section

14.13.B. 27 In general, we are amazed at the lack of helpful commentary on this passage that is worthy

of what it is saying. Same is true of John 17:26. Usually a mere one sentence summary

like “Jesus says He will live in us” is all that is given. Unfortunately, some interpret Christ’s promise to be in us as merely positional, as

belonging to Christ, rather than practically real, and Christ being in us. This would seem to be because of their interpretation of v. 20 where Jesus says, “on that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.” It is claimed that Jesus’ statement must be confined to what the disciples would know on the day of His resurrection before Pentecost, and therefore such commentators do not see this as a reference to the

indwelling of God. (cf. Barnes, Morris, Carson, Ridderbos,). While modern consensus seems to point to the day of the resurrection as Christ’s

meaning, NT scholar Edwin Blum in the Bible Knowledge Commentary writes: “On that day refers to the day of Pentecost when the outpoured Spirit gave evidence of Jesus’ Ascension

to the Father.” (John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck eds. [SP Publications, NT, 1983; OT, 1985]).

John Calvin extended that “day” even beyond Pentecost, commenting, “Some refer this to the day of Pentecost; but it rather denotes the uninterrupted course, as it were, of a single day, from the time when Christ exerted the power of his Spirit [at His resurrection] till the last resurrection.” (Commentaries, online at www.ccel.org).

We do not believe that Christ’s reference was limited to what would occur on the day of His resurrection, and that the realization that occurred was more than a positional one of identification with Christ, but rather a real experiential one of being indwelled with Christ.

Against the consensus modern view is the fact that immediately before this statement, Christ is promising the indwelling of the Spirit (vs. 16-17), which obviously was not fulfilled until Pentecost. In addition, it seems very unlikely that on the day of Christ’s resurrection

John 11-20 12

This would seem to be nothing less than the incarnation of God in believers.

Even more so, while Christ could say the Father was in Him, we can claim that the

entire Trinity lives in us. Jesus said, “the Spirit of truth . . . will be in you” (v.

17), that we would come to “realize” “I am in you” (v. 20), and that He and the

“Father” “will come . . . make” their “home with” us. That is a full house!

While John had begun His Gospel by teaching that, “The Word became flesh

and made His dwelling among us (John 1:14), here we learn that after Jesus left,

He, the Spirit, and the Father would all come to dwell in us. Indeed, John records

Jesus ending His very last teaching and prayer, “the final and all-decisive word of the

Savior” 28 with: “I have made You [Father] known to them, and will continue to

make You known in order that the love You have for Me may be in them and

that I Myself may be in them” (17:26).

John 14:21-22 [10.11.A.7]

Some have claimed that the promise in John 14:21 should lead us to be

expectant of miraculous visions of Christ in our own day. Christ says, “Whoever

has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves Me. He who

loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and show [emphanizo : “appear in person”] Myself to him.” Is this a promise to all Christians

that if we obey and love Jesus that He will somehow personally, and even visibly,

reveal Himself to them? We do not think so.

It is important to interpret the verse in the context of an intimate communication

with the Twelve and to be very careful in applying its contents to Christians in

general. Also, the meaning of Christ’s promise to “show” Himself is best found in

this very passage. In the verses immediately preceding Christ’s statement here, He

said, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the

world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me” (John 14:18-19). This

promise refers specifically to the fact that Christ would physically reveal Himself to

the Apostles after His death and resurrection, indicating that this is what Christ was

referring to in verse 21.

And this is precisely how the disciples themselves understood it when we read

verse 22: “Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do You

intend to show Yourself to us and not to the world?” It is clear then that when

Christ promised to “show” Himself to those who love Him, He was specifically

referring to His post-resurrection appearance to those He was talking to in this

passage (cf. John 16:16), and it was not a promise of continuing personal revelations

for Christians in general.

that the disciples realized or even experienced that Christ was in them. Accordingly, the reference seems to include Pentecost and should not be confined to the day of the resurrection.

This is strengthened by the fact that the Greek preposition translated “on [en]” in the NIV

(even worse in NLT “When I am raised to life again”) can be translated “in,” as in “the place or space in which something is found . . . within the range of” (BADG). Accordingly,

the more literal translations have it, “In [i.e. during] that day [ēmera]” (NASB, ESV). When we note that ēmera often has the meaning, “an extended period” (BADG) as Calvin understood it, and is translated as “time,” we can easily conclude that Jesus was not speaking of just one specific day. On the contrary, Jesus is telling His disciples that within a period of time He would come to them, they would see Him, and realize that they were in Him and that He was in them because they had experience this very thing. Only such an extended period of time does justice to all that Jesus promises here.

28 Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John (Eerdmans, 1997), in loc.

John 11-20 13

John 14:25-26 [8.3.C.3]

Certainly, immediately after the post-resurrection teachings Christ gave the

Eleven, they began to teach what they had learned. While they perhaps waited

several years to write it, they began to teach it immediately. While the fact that

their personal presence with Christ had no doubt rather burned His teachings on

their heart, Christ gave an additional promise that would ensure their ability to

accurately and faithfully pass on His teachings. On the night before He died He told

the Twelve:

All this I have spoken while still with you. But the . . . the Holy Spirit,

Whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and

will [supernaturally] remind you of everything I have said to you. (John

14:25-26)

Several things can be said about this rather remarkable promise. First, while the

memories and rather immediate and constant recitation of what Christ taught would

seem to have been sufficient for the faithful transmission of Christ’s teachings, He

promised an additional assurance that they would be supernaturally reminded of

“everything” He had said to them. Accordingly, we read, “After He was raised

from the dead, His disciples recalled what He had said [about the temple].

Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken”

(John 2:18-22; cf. Luke 24:8).

Secondly, this is perhaps the foundational promise for the accuracy and

authenticity of particularly the writings of Matthew and John to whom this promise

was made.

Thirdly, this supernatural reminding is perhaps the closest description of anything

in Scripture to what people commonly call “inspiration.” Nonetheless, it is quite

different. Rather than promising a rather instantaneous reception of new divine

revelation apart from other means, Christ promised a remembrance of revelation

that had already been given in the past, based on an objective real historical

teaching the Apostles had personally heard. 29 Therefore, when Matthew and John

wrote their Gospels in particular, they were simply remembering something that was

already in their mind, not receiving additional, new revelation. Accordingly, this

concept of supernatural remembering is much more substantial, objective, and

biblical than the mere “divine influence” that most claim defines “inspiration.”

Fourthly, in light of all the personal experience the Apostles had with Christ, and

this promise of supernatural remembrance, we do not need the many natural

explanations or disclaimers for the Gospels of Matthew and John, including the

suggestion that Jews had good memories, that these Gospels are only summaries of

what Jesus said, or that Matthew and John took notes which they later used. 30

29 Accordingly, Dr. Morris notes at John 14:26:

This does not mean that he [Holy Spirit] will make new revelations; rather he will bring back to the disciples’ memory all the things that Jesus had told them. . . . In other words, the Spirit will not replace the teaching of Jesus. The teaching to be recalled is

His. (583) 30 On apostolic note taking, NT scholar David Farnell writes:

In Jewish practice of the day, especially in rabbinic circles, disciples kept private notes of their rabbinical instruction . . . Gundry, a supporter of the Two-/Four Source Hypoth-esis, accepts short written accounts stemming from apostolic origin: “[T]he Apostle Matthew was a note taker during the earthly ministry of Jesus.... [H]is notes provided the basis for the bulk of the apostolic gospel tradition.... Shorthand was used possibly as early as the fourth century B. C. and certainly by Jesus time” . . . .

The combination of exacting oral tradition and short written accounts helped not only to ensure the accuracy of the Gospels' records of events and sayings but also to provide a reasonable explanation of why the synoptics have extensive agreement among

John 11-20 14

There may be some truth to all of these, but they are not important in light of

Christ’s promise of a supernatural memory.

Finally, as we argue elsewhere, this promise would seem to only apply to the

Eleven. 31 It is not a promise to those of us who now possess the written record of

the Apostles, that we will supernaturally remember “everything” Christ said.

[14.13.C]

C) The Promise to Write Scripture, Not Receive Extra-biblical Revelation:

John 14:25-26

In a final use of the word paraklete, in a private meeting with the Twelve, just

before He died, Jesus told them:

All this I have spoken while still with you [the Twelve]. [T]he Advocate

[paraklēton 32], the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name,

will teach you [the Twelve] all things [concerning the Christian life] and will

remind you [the Twelve] of everything I have said to you [the Twelve].”

(John 14:25-26)

This promise Christ originally gave to the Twelve is routinely used to support the

themselves. (Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, Robert Thomas, ed. [Kregel, 2002], 283)

None of this is needed if Christ’s promise of supernatural remembrance is taken seriously.

Likewise, Norm Geisler writes: There are many long discourses of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, including the

Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), the parables (e.g., Matt. 13), the denunciation of the Jewish leaders (Matt. 23), the Mount Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25), the Upper Room Discourse John 14-17), and the high-priestly prayer (John 17). It is alleged to be very unlikely that these could have been remembered word-for-word a generation or more

later, when they were recorded.

In response, the critics overlook some important facts. First, their dates for the Gospels are too late (see page 474). Evidence places the

writings closer to the events than previously thought, even within ten years, according to some.

Second, memories were more highly developed in this preliterary culture, making it feasible that all of this was memorized.

Third, even today many persons have memorized much more than this, even whole gospels.

Fourth, Matthew, who has most of the long discourses, was a record keeper by vocation. He may have kept records of Jesus' exact words that were then available for others, just as the early Christian writer Papias said he did (see Eusebius, EH, 3.24.6). [We cannot find this claim in Eusebius]

Fifth, even if these long discourses were summaries and paraphrases of Jesus' exact

words, there is no evidence to indicate that they are not accurate. In fact, as we have seen above, all the evidence is to the contrary.

Sixth, Jesus promised supernatural activation of the disciples' memories, saying, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all

things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). (Systematic Theology, Volume 1 [Bethany House, 2002], 490)

Only the last argument is needed, and all the others would be insufficient to reflect the

authority of the Gospels. 31 For arguments that the promise of John 14:25-6 only apply to the Apostles see forthcoming

section 14.13.C. 32 For arguments against understanding the role of the Holy Spirit as a “Counselor” and

translating the Greek word paraklete in that way see above section.

John 11-20 15

mega mystical idea that the Holy Spirit will be continually “speaking” to us.

Accordingly, Dr. Blackaby writes:

As Jesus was preparing the disciples for his imminent departure, he assured

them that the coming of the Holy Spirit would be greatly to their benefit. Not

only would the Holy Spirit be their teacher and counselor after Jesus ascended

to heaven, but he would also bring to the disciples' remembrance everything

Jesus had said to them.

Some Bible commentators claim this promise was only meant for the eleven

disciples in order to enable them to write Scripture. However, it would seem

that just as Jesus' Great Commission was for the succeeding generations of

disciples, so this promise of the Holy Spirit's activity in the lives of disciples

pertains to contemporary followers of Jesus as well. 33

We would respectfully disagree. Admittedly, we have a description here of the

Holy Spirit as an “Advocate” teaching the disciples. While this was surely a role of

the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Apostles, we have demonstrated above that the

word paraklete itself does not contain this idea.

Nonetheless, in this promise to the Twelve, do we have a promise for ourselves

that the Holy Spirit will “teach” us “all things” and “remind” us of “everything”

Christ said to the Apostles? Obviously, the mega mystical interpretation promises

too much and becomes ludicrous. Can we say that the Holy Spirit is our personal

teacher of “all things” (v. 25) a Christian needs to know? If He is then what do we

need Scripture for? Or even medical and accounting books to learn such trades?

Likewise, would anyone ever claim that the Holy Spirit has reminded them of

everything Jesus ever said? Obviously not, therefore severely limiting, if not

eliminating the mega mystical twist on this promise from the start.

However, there are several other indications that this promise was intended

exclusively for the Apostles Jesus originally spoke it to. We notice that the promise

was initially only directed to the Twelve Apostles and careful hermeneutics dictates

that we not automatically assume it applies to others. Dr. Blackaby is right to point

out that the Great Commission was apparently a private instruction to the Eleven (cf.

Matt 28:16-10; Mark 16:14-18), but applicable to all Christians. Likewise, even in

the intimate discourse recorded throughout John chapters 13-17 there are certainly a

number of things that are just as applicable for Christians today as they were for the

Twelve.

Nonetheless, there are elements in this passage that suggest it only applies to

the Apostles. Christ uses the personal pronoun “you” (i.e. the Twelve) four times,

and states that the promise specifically applies to “reminding” them of the things

He had specifically taught them in person. This would not seem to include others, as

no one else heard Jesus teach personally and privately as the Tweleve had.

33 Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 83. See

also Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 275-6, who applies these verses to all believers. John MacArthur writes:

During the Upper Room discourse, shortly before His betrayal and arrest, Jesus told the apostles, “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25-26). That promise had

special significance for the apostles, who would become Christ’s uniquely authoritative witnesses to His truth after His ascension back to heaven. But the promise also applies

in a general way to all believers after Pentecost. From that time on, every believer has been indwelt by Christ’s own Holy Spirit, whose ministry to us includes that of shedding divine light on scriptural truths that otherwise are beyond our comprehension. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], Romans 8:14.

While we would agree with Dr. MacArthur’s application of this passage to the Apostles, we

would disagree with his view of what is known as the theory of “the illumination of the Spirit.” For further discussion see chapter 3.5.

John 11-20 16

Therefore, it must be admitted that the wording most clearly points to a promise

exclusive to the Twelve.

And the reason for such a promise is obvious. Apostles such a Matthew and John

were going to write inerrant Gospels that would record what Christ said, and

therefore they would need the Spirit to supernaturally “remind” them of

“everything” (v. 26) Christ had said to them. In other words, a fulfillment of this

promise was the Gospels of Matthew and John to whom the promise was personally

and origninally given. To expand its application beyond the ability to write inerrant

Gospels is wrong.

Accordingly, Dr. Morris writes concerning John 14:26: “This does not mean that

He [the Spirit] will make new revelations; rather he will bring back to the [Twelve]

disciples’ memory all the things that Jesus had told them.” 34 R. V. G. Tasker

confirms that the fulfillment of this promise resulted in: “The very existence of this

Gospel of John, and indeed of the entire New Testament,” 35 not in some subsequent

extra-biblical revelations to Christians.

Similarly, we read in the New Dictionary of the Bible that John 14:26 is “a

promise often perverted by extending its primary reference beyond the Apostles.” 36

Likewise, Dr. Carson comments:

Indeed, the Evangelist [John] himself draws attention to some things that

were remembered and understood only after the resurrection (2:19-22; 12:16;

cf. 20:9). Granted the prominence of this theme, the promise of v. 26 has in

view the Spirit's role to the first generation of disciples, not to all subsequent

Christians.

John's purpose in including this theme and this verse is not to explain how

readers at the end of the first century may be taught by the Spirit, but to

explain to readers at the end of the first century how the first witnesses, the

first disciples, came to an accurate and full understanding of the truth of Jesus

Christ. The Spirit's ministry in this respect was not to bring qualitatively new

revelation, but to complete, to fill out, the revelation brought by Jesus himself. 37

Finally, it should be noted that if we accept a mega mystical interpretation of this

promise we lose a lot. In the Church it has historically provided a critical promise

concerning the unique authority of the Apostles as sources of the words of Christ.

Many years ago, the influential Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

reflected the historical understanding of this promise when he wrote:

St. John, the most beloved among the twelve, testifies that the Lord Jesus

gave them as Apostles a rare promise saying, "He shall guide you into all

truth," a word that may not be applied to others, but to the Apostles

exclusively. And again "The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost shall teach you

all things and bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said

unto you" (John 14.26); which promise was not intended for all, but for the

Apostles only, securing them a gift evidently distinct from illumination. . . .

Care should be taken, therefore, in the choice of texts, proofs, and quotations

from the Scripture, to ascertain not only what is said, but also to whom it was

said. And thus the error concerning the apostolate will soon be overcome; and

34 Morris, 583. 35 Tasker, 168. 36 A. F. Walls, “Apostle,” New Bible Dictionary (NBD), J. I. Packer, et al. eds., 3rd ed.,

(Intervarsity, 1996), 58.

37 Carson, 505.

John 11-20 17

believers will see that the Apostles occupy a different position from other

Christians, that the promises quoted bear an exceptional character. 38

John 14:27 [14.14.E]

E) The “Peace of God”: John 14:27; Col 3:15; Phil 4:7

E.1) The Uses of “Peace” in Scripture

The concept of an inner peace with God as an indication of the mystical leading of

the Spirit is also common in mega mysticism. Gordon Smith, in his book on divine

guidance writes:

Now we come to the heart of discernment-the matter of peace. Christians who

have made a decision often say they feel peace regarding the choice. . . . . It is

true that we seek peace when we make critical choices. It is in peace that we

know or recognize the inner witness of the Spirit. 39

Henry Blackaby also communicates this idea in the following way:

When someone shares a [extra-biblical] word from God for your life, seek

confirmation from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit residing within you will verify

truth. There may be times when people pronounce "truth," but the Spirit does

not give you peace about their words. Listen carefully to what the Spirit is

saying. The Spirit knows the mind of God, and he knows what lies within

people's hearts. If the Spirit makes you uneasy about what someone is saying,

pay attention to his promptings and follow his guidance. 40

According to Dr. Blackaby, some basic guidelines can help you determine whether

you are responding to a good opportunity or to God's will.

Second, seek peace. Do you know how inner peace feels? You will feel

tremendous peace when you are in God's will and great unrest when you are

not. 41

Of course a fruit of the Spirit is “peace” (Gal 5:22), but this peace only pertains

to moral, biblical matters, not amoral extra-biblical matters. Again, Dr. Blackaby and

other mega mystics are claiming that the peace of the Spirit will activate when you

make an extra-biblical decision like where to go to school, what car to buy, etc.

Accordingly, it is virtually impossible to interpret Dr. Blackaby and mega mystics in

any other way except that the test of truth is our feelings. Here again, we have full-

blown mega mysticism which would lead us to the pagan maxim: “It can’t be wrong

‘cause it feels so right.”

Likewise, Charles Swindoll reflects a common misunderstanding of the promise in

Colossians 3:15 when he writes:

Finally, God leads us into His will by giving us an inner assurance of Peace.

"And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts," Paul writes to the Colossians,

"to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful" (Colossians

3:15). God's inner assurance of peace will act as an umpire in your heart.

38 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946),

154-5. 39 Gordon T. Smith, Listening to God in Times of Choice (Intervarsity, 1997), 50. 40 Blackaby, 263.

41 Ibid., 210.

John 11-20 18

Although peace is an emotion, I have found it wonderfully reassuring as I've

wrestled with the Lord's will. This God-given peace comes in spite of the

obstacles or the odds, regardless of the risk or danger. It's almost like God's

way of saying, "I'm in this decision ... trust Me through it." 42

Before addressing Colossians 3:15 and other Scriptures that speak of God’s

peace, it is helpful to briefly note how the broad notion of peace is used in Scripture.

Again, what we are looking for, as it relates to mega mysticism, is a promise or

prescription in Scripture for the fact that a feeling of peace is an indication from the

Holy Spirit that we have made the right decision in an amoral, extra-biblical matter.

This is precisely how both Dr. Blackaby and Swindoll are applying it.

The first thing we encounter in a Bible study concerning “peace” is a rebuke of

our tendency to internalize everything as if its most important application is simply

to our private individual selves. Of course this appeals to American independence

and individualism, but is a violation of the relationship-oriented Kingdom of God.

Therefore the concept of peace in Scripture very often applies to our relationship

with God and others.

Perhaps the foremost example of the former is Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since

we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ.” This is, of course, the most important peace we have, a

foundational concept of peace in Scripture, and the context of several references to it

(cf. Ps 85:4-9; Isa 53:5; Luke 1:76-79; 2:14; Acts 10:36; Rom 1:7; Eph 2:13-14;

Phil 1:2; Col 1:20; Gal 6:16). It is even the context of Isaiah 55:12 which reads,

“You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace.” This verse would be a good

candidate for the kind of biblical support mega mysticism is looking for. However,

just a few verses earlier God is telling the nation of Israel:

Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let

the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn

to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will

freely pardon. (Isa 55:6-7)

It is no doubt because the nation would repent that they would “go out in joy and

be led forth in peace,” with God. This is not a proof text for claiming that God

leads us in amoral extra-biblical matters by or through a feeling of inner peace.

Obviously, another major application of the concept of peace is in our

relationships with one another (cf. Prov 17:1; Matt 5:19; 10:34; Mark 9:50; Rom

12:18; 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:3; 1 Thess 5:13; 2 Tim 2:22; Heb 12:14; 1 Pet

3:10). Ignoring this common context may lead to a mega mystical interpretation of

2 Thessalonians 3:16, “Now may the Lord of peace Himself give you peace at

all times and in every way.” However, the Apostle Paul had just finished giving

strong instructions regarding the need to excommunicate some people in order that

the Thessalonian church could experience peace (cf. vs. 6, 10, 14). Therefore, this is

not a promise of Christ giving us a feeling of peace because we’ve made the right

amoral extra-biblical decision, but rather, as the renowned NT scholar John Stott

interprets it, “Only His peace could bring an end to the Thessalonian [public]

conflict.” 43

Such peace in the Church is also related to the assembly of Christians in a church

service. In the context of correcting supposed “inspired” people and women in

general from disrupting such a meeting, Paul reminds the Corinthians, “God is not a

God of disorder but of peace” [in a church meeting] (1 Cor 14:33; cf. vs. 34-39).

This relational peace is also often spoken of in terms of the cessation of war,

political peace, freedom from persecution, and even wild beasts (cf. Lev 26:6; Job

5:23; Ps 29:11; Prov 16:7; Isa 26:11-12; Jer 33:6-7; Rom 16:20; 1 Tim 2:2).

42 Charles Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will (Word, 1999), 49

43 John Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Intervarsity, 1994), 197.

John 11-20 19

While a significant application of the concept of peace in Scripture applies to

relationships with others, the Scriptures speak of an internal emotion of peace as

well. This is particularly in relation to its emotional opposite which is worry or

anxiety (cf. Phil 4:6-7). Nevertheless, this personal experience of peace is still

completely dependent on our relationship with God. However, this peace does not

come from experiencing some sort of extra-biblical revelation to guide us in extra-

biblical decisions, but rather, as we trust God’s promises and obey His commands,

both of which are fully communicated in Scripture.

For example, the Apostle Peter is certainly instructing us on how to experience

the peace of God when he tells us, “Cast all your anxiety on Him because He

cares for you” (1 Pet 5:7). How specifically do we do that? Trusting God’s biblical

promises in the midst of our difficulties. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes, “May

the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, so that

you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:13).

Likewise, the Prophet Isaiah had said, “You will keep in perfect peace him

whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in You” (Isa 26:3). Trusting the

character and promises of God as revealed in Scripture is a very important concept

regarding our internal experience of peace and it has nothing to do with some sort of

internal “umpire” that gives us assurance in amoral, extra-biblical decision making.

Likewise, obedience to God’s commands is among the very best ways to

experience this same peace of God. God says through the Prophet Isaiah, “If only

you had paid attention to My commands, your peace would have been like a

river” (Isa 48:18), and this isn’t talking about extra-biblical commands either. This

is why, “’There is no peace,’ says the LORD, ‘for the wicked’” (Isa 48:22). It is

the peace that comes from obeying the biblical commands of God that the Scriptures

speak of instead of a peace that comes from following some supposed amoral, extra-

biblical will or revelation of God (cf. Job 22:21; Ps 119:65; Isa 32:17-18; Rom 2:10;

14:17-18; 1 Thess 5:23).

A primary reason that obedience to biblical commands brings a sense of peace is

our conscience. As we have written elsewhere, this is a woefully neglected topic in

American Christianity and theology, but its workings explain a lot, and it is a major

source of any emotional peace we may experience in our life. 44 Therefore,

experiencing peace is often a matter of settled moral reasoning with our conscience.

Accordingly, we read in Proverbs:

Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains

understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better

returns than gold. . . . Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths

are peace. (Prov 3:13-14, 17)

Such a passage could be seized upon to suggest there is an amoral extra-biblical

wisdom available from God that will grant us a reassuring sense of peace if we find it

and make decisions according to it. But as we demonstrate elsewhere, the concept

of wisdom in Scripture is always moral (right vs. wrong), not amoral (i.e. which car

to buy). And obviously, obeying such wisdom would bring peace.

At this point, let’s go back to where we started. There is a claim in mega

mysticism, clearly reflected in Drs. Blackaby and Swindoll above, that we can discern

the nature of amoral, extra-biblical issues by depending on a supernaturally induced

emotion of peace that is granted by the Holy Spirit. Our first response to this claim

has been to study what the Bible teaches on the sources of peace. While we have

found no promises or precedent for a Holy Spirit-given peace for amoral, extra-

biblical decisions, we have found several such promises for peace in the following

areas: 1) a relational peace through reconciliation with God or people, 2) an internal

peace through obeying biblical commands which alleviates our conscience, and 3) an

internal peace through trusting biblical promises which alleviates our anxiety.

44 Regarding the biblical perspective on the value and purpose of the conscience see chapter

3.2.

John 11-20 20

This understanding helps us to properly interpret the references to “peace” in

Scripture. For example, we read in Galatians 5:22 that, “the fruit of the [Holy]

Spirit is . . . peace.” Is this an allusion to the idea that when the Holy Spirit

prompts us to choose something amoral and extra-biblical like a particular job, that

He will also grant a peace to authenticate this revelation? On the contrary, several

of the established biblical concepts of peace above could explain how and when we

would experience this fruit of the Spirit, including salvation, reconciliation, and

obedience.

In what follows, we will apply these biblical principles concerning peace in order

to properly interpret some Scriptures that we believe are commonly misinterpreted

in mega mysticism. What we will find is that the biblical concepts above fully suffice

to explain these Scriptures and we have no need to put an unbiblical mega mystical

twist to them. But first, we need to note another important concept of peace as it

relates to our life.

E.2) The Practical Peace of Proper Reasoning

All of the above applications of peace have involved moral, biblical decisions in

which God clearly communicates His will in Scripture and reinforces it through our

Spirit-indwelled New Nature. We would suggest this is the only peace we need, or

that is available, because the part of God’s will for our life that we need to know is

completely found in Scripture. What the Holy Spirit or our conscience will grant us

peace about is believing and obeying what God has revealed in Scripture.

How then will we experience peace in amoral, extra-biblical decisions like a

career move? Not supernaturally, but in a more natural way. Just as our conscience

gives us peace about moral decisions, so our logical reason grants us peace in wise

amoral decisions. There is a peace that comes from settled logical reasoning that

seems too unspiritual to many to admit its proper value. In other words, the “peace

of God” in decision making is not something mystical or necessarily supernatural, but

rather the natural result of following good moral reasoning (i.e. conscience) which

resolves guilt, and correct logical reasoning which removes doubt.

Nevertheless, it is commonly claimed in mega mysticism that a sense of peace

comes from the Holy Spirit because we are following some supposed extra-biblical,

amoral direction of His. On the contrary, this completely ignores the enormous place

God has ordained for the reasoning faculties He created us with for making decisions,

which we have written on at length elsewhere. 45 Such a move illegitimately super-

supernaturalizes something that actually occurs more naturally.

For example, we have elsewhere quoted the great Christian leader and Teacher

Charles Swindoll who wrote in the context of experiencing peace in the midst of an

amoral, extra-biblical decision supposedly prompted by the Spirit:

In my own life, as I mentioned earlier, my decision to accept the presidency of

Dallas Seminary was not an easy one. Ultimately, it was an at-peace decision,

but it was not what I would have wanted or chosen. . . . Except that God was

busy convincing them-and, later, me, that I was the right person. Although it

went against my own wishes at the time, I could not resist the sovereign, all-

powerful prompting of the Holy Spirit. 46

Accordingly, we wrote:

Finally, we wish Dr. Swindoll would have admitted that, in the end, he simply

had more good reasons to do what he did, than otherwise. In other words, we

would suggest that there was a lot more plain good ole logic and reasoning in

45 Regarding the enormous place God has ordained for the reasoning faculties He created us

with for making decisions see chapter 4.4.

46 Excerpt from section 14.2.L.

John 11-20 21

his decision than what is reflected here. There is no need to claim that he was

eventually convinced and persuaded to make his decision because “God was

busy convincing” everybody involved through “the sovereign, all-powerful

prompting of the Holy Spirit,” or that he “felt the necessity of reconsidering the

invitation to Dallas Seminary” because God supernaturally inspired him to do

so.

On the contrary, we wonder if a more careful analysis were made of the

decision making process here, that it could all be explained in more natural

ways. Including the fact that as Dr. Swindoll considered the facts of the

decision with the logical and moral reasoning God had given him to make wise

decisions, the reasons for the course he decided became more evident to him,

and eventually outweighed the reasons to remain where he was. In other

words, even this decision was, in reality, made in the same way that Dr.

Swindoll makes dozens of decisions every day in which he would not claim

some supernatural revelation for.

As we have discussed extensively elsewhere, even biblical faith is based on

facts, evidence, and good reasoning, and anything short of this is foolishness.

In the end, we feel peace about decisions because we have collected the facts

and obtained enough good reasons for our decision, and it is the number of

those good, logical reasons that persuades us and gives us peace, rather than

some extra-biblical revelation of the Holy Spirit that is nowhere promised or

prescribed in Scripture. 47

E.5) The Peace from Christ in John 14:27

Christ told His disciples in John 14:27:

Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. I do not give to you as

the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be

afraid.

Once again, a phrase like, “My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the

world gives” could be interpreted as a promise of emotional peace to assure us that

we have made the right decision in an amoral extra-biblical matter. However, the

context again tells us otherwise. The reason the disciples would have this peace

from Christ is because of the promises and teachings He had given them in this very

discourse. Just a few verses earlier He had told them:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in Me. 2In

My Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told

you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and

prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me

that you also may be where I am. (John 14:1-3)

It was with such sure and superior promises that Christ was giving them a peace

that nothing in the world could give. Likewise, He tells them later in this discourse,

“I have told you these things [in the “farewell discourse”], so that in Me you

may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I

have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The peace then that Christ promised

them in John 14:27 was by virtue of the biblical promises and doctrines He taught

them, and which we ourselves can claim. Therefore, this passage has nothing to do

with a peace that Christ would supposedly grant in the context of making an amoral

extra-biblical decision. 48

47 Ibid. 48 Accordingly, Barnes writes:

It refers here particularly to the consolations which he gave to his disciples in view of his approaching death. He had exhorted them not to be troubled John 14:1, and he had

John 11-20 22

John 15:8 [5.3.B]

Likewise, it was virtue apologetics that Christ commended when He said, “This is

to My Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be My

disciples” (John 15:8). The “fruit” here is the supernatural love that He commands

them to live by in this very passage, and may include the “joy” that Christ promises

as well (cf. v. 11). 49 Along the same lines, Christ responded to His critics that

Christian “wisdom is proved right by her actions” (Matt 11:19). As Dr. Morris

comments: “The wisdom Jesus taught was not meant as a topic for debate in

religious or philosophical schools - it was something to be lived out and it is proved

right in the [moral] works his followers do.” 50

John 15:13-15 [7.6.A]

Elsewhere in KOG we have written, “The ultimate goal of a biblical covenant is a

growing relationship between people and God, and it is the guiding revelation that is

provided after saving revelation that builds such a relationship.” 51 We believe the

King was teaching this very thing when He told His disciples:

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his

friends. You are My friends if you do what I command. I no longer call

you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business.

stated reasons why they should not be. He explained to them why he was about to leave them; he promised them that he would return; he assured them that the Holy Spirit would come to comfort, teach, and guide them. By all these truths and promises he provided for their peace in the time of his approaching departure. (Barnes’ Notes on the

New Testament; online at www.ccel.org.)

49 It is difficult to find a commentary that will state clearly that the “fruit” referred to by Christ

in John 15 is virtue. However, Albert Barnes comments on John 15:2 and says, “To bear fruit is to show by our lives that we are under the influence of the religion of Christ, and that that religion produces in us its appropriate effects, Gal. 5:22-23.” (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999]).

Likewise, Leon Morris writes, “The ‘fruit’ is not defined here, but we need not doubt that qualities of Christian character are in mind as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt 3:8; 7:20; Rom 6:22; Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9; Phil 1:11; etc. [see also Psa 72:3; Matt 12:33-37; James 3:17; Heb 12:11])” (John, 595). We would disagree that the term “is not defined here” as the King speaks a great deal about love for God and people in this very context, suggesting that this is His definition of the fruit He has in mind.

While most commentators do not make the meaning of “fruit” here plain, others suggest it

means Christian converts. Their main reason is derived from John 15:16 where Christ says, “I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.” Accordingly, D. A. Carson comments, “The fruit, in short, is new converts” (John, 523). However, this appears unlikely when in the same speech the King says, “He [the Father]

cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit (John 15:2) which would mean (apparently according even to Dr. Carson, cf. John, 515) that if you do not win Christian

converts you are a fake Christian. While there are Scriptures that probably use the idea of “fruit” to refer to Christian converts (cf. Prov 11:30; Matt 21:43; Phil 1:22; Col 1:6, 10), this is not one of them if it is interpreted in context. The reference to “fruit that will last” is simply referring to the unique endurance of authentic Christian virtue throughout their lifetime, proving them to be born again Christians.

50 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Eerdmans, 1992), 286.

51 Quoted from section 7.2.C.

John 11-20 23

Instead I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from

My Father I have made known to you (John 15:13-15).

The King is essentially telling the disciples how a friendship between God and

humans is initiated and progresses. First, the King needed to “lay down His life for

His friends” (v. 13), not only to rescue them from the sin that separated them from

Him, but to initiate the friendship and demonstrate His love to them. This initiation

of a rescue to begin a relationship is paralleled in the Exodus with God’s covenant

people in the OT (cf. Exod 3:4-7). Accordingly, it is the rescuing sacrifice of the King

that becomes the content of the saving revelation that not only saves us, but

initiates our friendship with God.

However, merely accepting God’s rescue does not make a friendship. While God

has certainly been a friend to us by saving us, the King says, “You are My friends

if you do what I command” (v. 14). A friendship requires the love of more than

one person. Therefore, in order to have a friendship, it is not enough for God to

simply love us, but we must love Him as well. While God’s love is demonstrated by

saving and providing for us, our love is demonstrated by obeying Him. As the King

had said just a little earlier in this very discourse, “If you love Me you will obey

what I command” (John 14:15; cf. vs. 23-4).

Nonetheless, while the King tells us in John 15:14 that obedience to God’s

commands is certainly foundational to a friendship with Him, in the next verse He

reveals that simply obeying God is not sufficient for friendship either. Obedience

alone will only make us servants of God. This is a very high calling and great

privilege, but God wants even more for us.

So, how would a servant become his master’s friend? When the servant’s master

discloses more about his purposes, plans, and attributes. In other words, as the

servant is allowed to get to know His master better, at the master’s invitation, they

can form a friendship. And this we believe is what the King is communicating when

he says:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his

master’s business. Instead I have called you friends, for [gar:

“because”] everything I have learned from My Father I have made

known to you” (v. 15).

It is in our knowing more about God, beyond just His commands, that we go beyond

being His servant, and enter a friendship with Him.

This distinction between servanthood and friendship may be reflected succinctly

when David writes that God, “revealed His ways to Moses” (Ps 103:7), as

opposed to perhaps merely communicating His commands to others. This transition

in Moses’ relationship with God seems to be portrayed in Exodus 33-34 where we

read:

Then Moses said to the LORD, “See, You say to me, ‘Bring up this

people!’ But You Yourself have not let me know whom You will send

with me. Moreover, You have said, ‘I have known you by name, and

you have also found favor in My sight.’ “Now therefore, I pray You, if I

have found favor in Your sight, let me know Your ways that I may

know You, so that I may find favor in Your sight. (Exod 33:12-13 NASB)

Moses recognizes that God has initiated a friendship with Him, and Moses has

been God’s servant, obeying His instructions throughout the Exodus. But now Moses

wants to be more than a servant of God, and recognizes in order to do so He must

know more about God, and therefore prays, “let me know Your ways that I may

know You” (v. 13).

David prayed the same thing when he said, “Show me Your ways, O LORD,

teach me Your paths; guide me in Your truth and teach me” (Ps 25:4-5).

Likewise, we would suggest that Abraham is repeatedly called God’s friend (cf. 2 Chr

20:7; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23), not because he simply obeyed his Master, but because

God revealed to Abraham what He was about to do in Sodom (cf. Gen 18:16-21).

John 11-20 24

This would seem to be a clear biblical example of what the King was talking about

above regarding the revelation of our “master’s business” (John 15:14).

Of course God’s “ways” include His commands, but they are something more,

and include His character and purposes as well. Accordingly, Moses repeated his

prayer to know God’s ways by simply asking, “show me Your glory” (33:18). In

response, and in order to further His friendship with Moses, notice that God reveals

doctrine, not commands. He tells Moses “I Myself will make all My goodness

pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you”

(33:19). To have the “name of the LORD” revealed to us is to know Who God is,

not just what He wants. And the “goodness” and “name” of God is doctrine to be

believed, not directions to be obeyed, and believing that doctrine is a necessary part

of having a friendship with God.

Accordingly, in order to increase the intimacy of the relationship, God reveals to

Moses more than just His will, but rather, something of Himself when:

[T]he LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the

LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding

in lovingkindness and truth; Who keeps lovingkindness for thousands,

Who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means

leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the

children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth

generations.” (Exod 34:5-7 NASB)

It was this doctrine about God that allowed Moses to know His ways, rather than

just His commands, and enabled him to go from being God’s servant, to also being

His friend, because now He better understood and knew the One he was serving.

John 15:22-25 [7.5.A.3]

The greatest example of condemning revelation in the NT is the King Himself. In

the first coming of Christ, we encounter several examples of personal revelation that

was intended by God to bring greater judgment on people, not save them. 52 Much

of the revelation of God that came through Christ was of the damning type, rather

than the saving type.

For example, we think of His memorable condemnations of the Pharisees which

include:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You

shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not

enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you,

teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land

and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make

him twice as much a son of hell as you are. . . .

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being

condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise

men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you

will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so

52 Some might object to suggesting that Christ was a condemning revelation in light of John

3:17 where the King declares, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” However, the reason that the King did not come the first time to “condemn the world” is because it was already condemned. Thus, in the next verse He says, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” The King did not need to condemn the world because it was already condemned. And the fact that the King did not

come to place the world in a situation in which it already existed, would not preclude Him communicating their condemned condition as He most certainly did.

John 11-20 25

upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on

earth." (Matt 23:13-15, 33-35)

Accordingly, Simeon prophesied concerning Christ: “This child is destined to

cause the falling [and subsequent condemnation] and rising of many in Israel,

and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many

hearts will be revealed” (Luke 2:34-5).

Accordingly, the King told His disciples:

If I had not come and spoken to them [people of the “world” cf. v. 18-19],

they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for

their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father as well. If I had not done

among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But

now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both Me

and My Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They

hated Me without reason.' (John 15:22-25; cf. Matt 11:20-27; John 12:37-

41)

Christ makes it clear that the personal revelation of Himself to “the world” was

meant to make them “guilty of sin,” just like the purpose of the universal revelation

in Creation. In fact, the condemning result of this revelation was intended by God to

“fulfill” an OT prophecy. For such people, God had no other intention for this

revelation, because they did not get saved from it and God knew they would not.

This parallels the purpose of God’s miracles in Egypt as discussed above.

Not only was some of the revelation of Christ the condemning kind, but so is

some of the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit. The King said:

When He comes, He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and

righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not

believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the

Father, where you can see Me no longer; and in regard to judgment,

because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (John 16:8-11)

When people receive such convicting revelation from the Holy Spirit, and do not

respond to it in a saving way, God has foreknown that fact and it fulfills His purpose

as a condemning revelation.

All of this would seem to argue against the popular thinking that is reflected in

the following by Norm Geisler in his Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics when he

writes: “One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the

unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37).” 53 Such a statement implies that God never intends

personal revelation to be condemning. On the contrary, God’s miracles to both

Pharaoh and Pharisees accomplished precisely what He knew, and therefore, desired

they would: greater condemnation.

God’s personal revelation always accomplishes precisely what He sent it for as He

promised through the prophet Isaiah:

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than

your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the

snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering

the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the

sower and bread for the eater, so is My word [or any divine revelation]

that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will

accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

(Isa 55:9-11)

Therefore we do not accept the popular notion that there is well-intended

revelation from God that merely results in condemnation. Rather, the purpose for

which God sends a revelation will be precisely what is accomplished. This is

53 Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) (Baker, 1999), 482.

John 11-20 26

particularly true because God knows perfectly how people are going to respond to

any given revelation before He provides it. He knows people’s hearts and eternal

destiny and it is their hearts that dictate their response, and if their heart is bad, He

knows divine revelation will result in their greater condemnation. 54 Ironically, then,

even the Gospel, a divine revelation with saving content, is usually a condemning

revelation because of the hearts of those who hear it, and a God Who wants them to

hear it anyway.

Accordingly, Luke describes the result of personal revelation for those who do not

respect it:

That servant who knows his master's will [and has received abundant

personal revelation] and does not get ready or does not do what his

master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does

not know [and maybe has not received any personal revelation] and does

things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From

everyone who has been given much [personal revelation], much will be

demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much

more will be asked. (Luke 12:46-48)

The context here is the provision of personal revelation to unbelievers, and here the

Bible indicates that those who have received more from God will be judged more

severely.

Along these lines, John Calvin (1509–1564) commented on Isaiah 55:11: “As the

Word is efficacious for the salvation of believers, so it is abundantly efficacious for

the condemning of the wicked.” 55 Likewise, the Puritan theologian Thomas Watson

(c. 1620–1686), wrote:

The word will be effectual one way or the other; if it does not make your hearts

better, it will make your chains heavier. . . . Dreadful is their case who go

loaded with sermons to hell. 56

The influential Reformed theologian John Gerstner (1914-1996) pointed out the

following concerning the thoughts of Jonathan Edwards:

The case for Christianity succeeds only in being a "savor of death to death" to

the fallen heart of men. . . . The last condition of "Gospel sinners" is

incomparably worse than that of pagan idolators. While the Gospel is the

power of God to salvation to all who believe, it is the power of God to still

54 While we insist that God’s own statement in Isaiah 55:9-11 must be taken more seriously

(and literally) by many, we would add that a distinction between God’s controlling sovereignty and His consenting sovereignty would be helpful here. The former includes those things that God directly controls, even against human will, in order to accomplish a specific purpose. The latter concerns events and human decisions that God allows because they either accomplish His purposes or do not thwart His ultimate purposes.

In other words, there is room within God’s sovereign purposes for a great deal of human choice, but when such choices would violate God’s ultimate purposes, He will directly

intervene and not allow it. The Apostle Paul essentially said so when He wrote: “In Him we were chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him Who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will (Eph 1:11).

This helps to explain how even the disobedience of God’s people can conform to God’s

perfect plan. He only allows people to disobey a command because His ultimate purpose in many cases is not their obedience, but rather giving them an opportunity to demonstrate

real love for Him. Therefore, when God gives us a command He knows we will not obey, it still ultimately accomplishes precisely what He sent it for. For further discussion regarding the controlling and consenting sovereignty of God see chapter 5.? For related concepts see the discussion of God’s predestined, prescribed, and permissive wills in section 3.6.B.

55 John Calvin in Calvin’s Bible Commentaries in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection,

CD-ROM, (Ages Software, 1998).

56 Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, (Banner of Truth Trust, 1971), 379.

John 11-20 27

greater damnation to those who disbelieve. Men in hell will wish that they had

never heard the name of Jesus. 57

Finally, Reformed theologian John Frame writes:

[T]he Word can also be dangerous. As the Word is the power of God to

salvation, it can sometimes also bring condemnation. God commanded Isaiah

to preach the Word, but told him it would not bless its hearers (Isaiah 6:9-10).

. . . Jesus quotes this passage in connection with his own parabolic teaching

(Matthew 13:13-15 and parallels), and Paul quotes it as he turns from

unbelieving Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 28:26-28).

We know that often in biblical and later history many people have heard the

Word of God without benefit to themselves. Rather, hearing it has hardened

them, provoked them to greater sin (Romans 7:8-13). They respond to it

indifferently, or even with hostility. So they pile up to themselves greater

condemnation. And on the last day, the Word is their judge (John 12:48). 58

John 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:7-8 [14.13.B]

B) The Promise of an Advocate, Not a Counselor: John 14:16-17; 15:26-27;

16:7-8

In Christ’s farewell discourse to His disciples He promised:

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor

[paraclēton] to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world

cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But

you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

This would seem to be among the best candidates for biblical support of an

expectation that the Holy Spirit will be directly, continually and personally guiding

the Christian. What else would a supernatural “Counselor” Who will be with us and

live in us “forever” do? Even if we remember that the context of this promise is an

intimate discourse with the Twelve Apostles, it is difficult to not see some application

for the Christian, as we too possess the Holy Spirit forever.

The primary difficulty with giving this statement a mega mystical interpretation,

however, is not its context, but the Greek text. More specifically, the NIV (and NLT,

RSV) translation of “paraklēton” as “Counselor” is inaccurate and misleading.

Literally, the word means, “one called along side to help,” making the NASB (and

ESV, NKJV, NCV, GNB) rendering of “Helper” a better translation. 59 The question,

however, is what kind of helper is implied in the noun paraklētos? Is it the kind that

counsels and instructs, speaking to the individual, or an advocate and intercessor

who speaks on behalf of a person, not to them? The best translation of paraklētos is

as an advocate speaking for someone, therefore negating the idea of a “counselor

57 John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991),

I.136. 58 John Frame, “Studying Theology as A Servant of Christ” in Reformation & Revival Journal,

Vol. 11, [no. 1, Winter 2002]: 51. 59 However, “Helper” would not seem the best translation of paraklēte. Dr. Carson writes,

“'Helper' (GNB) is not bad, but has overtones of being subordinate or inferior, overtones clearly absent from John 14-16” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1991], 499). Likewise, Leon Morris comments, “’Helper’ is better [than “Comforter”], but it does not really

face the fact that the word is not active in meaning.” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1995], 589).

John 11-20 28

continually speaking to us.”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) gives the

original Greek meanings for paraklētos which include: “helper,” “intercessor,”

“advocate,” and “paraclete,” (representative). The common ideas “counselor” or

“comforter” are not given as possible meanings of paraklētos. Accordingly, NT

scholar D. A. Carson notes, “NIV’s 'Counselor' is not wrong, so long as 'legal

counselor' [representative] is understood, not 'camp counselor' or 'marriage

counselor.'” 60

Unfortunately, both the KJV and TLB translate paraklētos as “Comforter,” perhaps

because of the misguided historical usage of this word as described by NT scholar

Leon Morris:

Strangely, the Greek Fathers [e.g. Origen], seem normally to have used the

word in the active sense, "consoler," "comforter." No reason appears to be

given for this, and, though one must always pay respect to the Greek Fathers in

their interpretation of a Greek word, in this particular case it is hard to escape

the impression that they are not correct. Neither Greek use in general, nor that

in the Greek Bible supports them. . . .

What then are we to say is the fundamental idea in paraklētos? There is fairly

general agreement that "Comforter" is not the idea . . . which we owe in the

English translation to Wycliffe” 61

Likewise, McClintock and Strong note that both Luther and Erasmus adopted the

meaning of “Comforter” for paraklēton as well, but respond, “the signification cannot

be grammatically established, for no admissible instance can be adduced where the

passive paraklēton is used in an active sense for paraklētōr.” 62 Accordingly, Carson

says, “In today's ears, 'Comforter' sounds either like a quilt or like a do-gooder at a

wake, and for most speakers of English should be abandoned.” 63

The best understanding of the Greek word paraklētos is “one who represents

another in court.” Accordingly, the NIDNTT states:

It is first found in a legal context in the court of justice, meaning legal assistant

(Demosthenes, 19, 1; cf. Lycurgus, Frag. 102). . . . The use of paraklētos for

representative is to be understood in the light of legal assistance in court, the

pleading of another’s case” 64

Likewise, Carson writes:

In secular Greek, paraklētos primarily 65 means 'legal assistant, advocate'

60 Carson, 499. 61 Morris, 588-89. 62 John McClintock and James Strong, “paraklēte,” in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and

Ecclesiastical Literature (M&S) CD-ROM (Ages Software, 2000)

63 Carson, 499. 64 G. Braumann, “Advocate,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

(NIDNTT), Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), I:88-89.

65 Dr. Carson states that, “In secular Greek, paraklētos primarily means 'legal assistant,

advocate” (499). This would seem somewhat of an understatement. As noted below, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BDAG) can only find one instance where the word is used as “advisor.” This is in the writings of Philo, who, as also noted below, used it to mean otherwise at all other times. The BDAG states:

παράκλητος, ου, ὁ (παρακαλέω) originally meant in the passive sense ‘one who is

called to someone’s aid’. Accordingly Latin writers commonly rendered it, in its NT occurrences, with ‘advocatus’; i.e. the role of the ‘patronus’ in legal proceedings, but the

technical meaning ‘lawyer’, ‘attorney’ is rare. In the few places where the word is found in pre-Christian and extra-Christian lit. as well it has for the most part a more general sense: one who appears in another’s behalf, mediator, intercessor, helper. . . .

John 11-20 29

(Liddel, Scott, s.v.) i.e. someone who helps another in court, whether as an

advocate, a witness, or a representative. With this legal force it was

transliterated into Hebrew and Aramaic. 66

Finally, we quote Bernard Ramm who writes:

In an essay unique in the literature of the Holy Spirit, Preiss calls attention to

the juridical terminology behind so much New Testament vocabulary about the

Holy Spirit. "The fact has been singularly neglected, as much in exegesis as in

dogmatics," he writes, "that almost all the terminology which is used to speak

of the Spirit is in origin and in flavor more juridical than mystical or intellectual.

The Spirit is before all things a witness." 67

Therefore, while paraklētos literally means “helper,” it had the more specific

meaning of intercessor or advocate in court, which Webster’s defines as “one that

pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court.” 68

While this grammatical data would be enough to make our case, the Apostle John

himself makes it clear what he meant by paraklēton. In its only other occurrence

outside of the “farewell discourse” in John 14-16, John writes in his first letter: “If

anybody does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense

[paraklēton “Advocate” NASB]—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1).

Here, the idea of legal advocate is unmistakable, suggesting that in John’s other uses

of it, the same idea was in his mind. Thus the NRSV translators render paraklētos as

“Advocate” the other four times it is used in John 14-16. (cf. 14:16, 26; 15:26;

16:7)

Additional support for such a translation is the fact that later Rabbinic Judaism

came to use paraklētos for “advocate,” or “defender,” especially of man before God. 69 Also, many early Church Fathers translated it this way including the author of the

ancient Epistle of Barnabas, 70 Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, and Augustine, and such

Reformers and Greek experts as Calvin, Beza, and Bengel did as well. 71 Finally, if

John meant to render Christ’s words specifically as “counselor” or “helper” other Greek words in the NT were available (cf. hupe rete s, “helper” in Acts 13:5; boe thos,

“helper” in Heb. 13:6; and sumboulos “counselor” in Rom 11:34).

The passive idea of παρακεκλῆσθαι retreated into the backgound, and the active idea

of παρακαλεῖν took its place. In Philo our word sometimes means ‘intercessor’ (De Jos.

239, Vi. Mos. 2, 134, Spec. Leg. 1, 237, Exsecr. 166, Adv. Flacc. 13; 22), sometimes ‘adviser [rather “guide”]’, ‘helper’ (Op. M. 23; 165).

The Greek interpreters of John’s gospel understood it in the active sense=παρακαλῶν

or παρακλήτωρ (s. Lampe παράκλητο, esp. Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ammonius; also Ephraem the Syrian in RHarris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syr. 1895, 86). In our lit. the active sense helper, intercessor is suitable in all occurrences of the word (so Goodspeed Probs. 110f). (F. W. Danker, ed., 3rd ed. [University Of Chicago Press, 2001]).

66 Carson, 499. 67 Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (Eerdmans, 1959), 72. For the article quoted by

Ramm see “The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit,” Interpretation, VII (1953).

68 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Merriam-Webster, 1986),

59-60. 69 Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (Hendrickson, 1998), 77. See also NIDNTT,

I:89. 70 Cf. Morris, 588. 71 See extended discussion of “paraclete” in McClintock and Strong where they conclude the

meaning “advocate.”

John 11-20 30

Accordingly, after a detailed discussion, Dr. Morris translates paraklēton as, “The

one who stands for us as the Friend at the heavenly court.” 72 Likewise, Max Turner,

Director of Research at London Bible College concludes after a lengthy and very

helpful study of the use of paraklēton: “'Advocate' is probably the most secure

rendering (and re-adopted by NRSV).” 73

Using the NRSV rendering, we can see how the idea of an advocate fits the work

of the Holy Spirit in the farewell discourse and elsewhere. For example, Paul in

Romans 8 describes this intercessory ministry of the Spirit when he writes:

[T[he Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes [entugchano ] for us with

groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts

knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the

saints in accordance with God’s will. (Rom 8:26-27)

Here we see the same idea we are suggesting Christ primarily means by

paraklēton in John 14:16. Not someone who speaks to you to give you guidance,

but one who speaks for you, as a friendly intermediary to God. Again, this is

precisely how the word is used by John in his first letter when he writes: “[I]f

anybody does sin, we have One who speaks to the Father in our defense

[paraklēton “Advocate” NASB]—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

This meaning fits John 14:16 well because of what Jesus says immediately before

it: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the

Father, and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever” (John

14:15-16 NRSV). It would be understandable in a context where Christ repeatedly

reminds them to obey His commandments, that He would remind them that they will

have an Advocate before God. Accordingly, Dr. Morris wrote:

It may be relevant to notice the frequent references to keeping the

commandments in the context, at any rate of the first sayings (14:15, 21, 23,

and 24). This is to be understood in the light of the fact that judgment is one

of the great themes of this Gospel. A high standard is set before Christians,

one that they do not meet. Precisely because of the standard expected and the

certainty of judgment, they need a paraklēton. 74

Notice too that in a context where many suggest Christ is promising mystical

guidance, He is telling them to obey His commandments. Would anyone confidently

claim that those commandments are communicated anywhere and in any way apart

from Scripture?

In addition, most commentators notice that Christ says the paraklēton will be

“another” (allos) Advocate, meaning like Him. The popular assumption is that this

applies to Christ’s office as a teacher. However, paraklēton means advocate, not

72 Morris, 591. Dr. Morris adds that the Greek expert, B. F. Westcott, “points out that the

form of the word is "unquestionably passive" and that the classical use "is equally clear. The

word is used technically for the 'advocates' of a party in a cause, and specially for advocates for the defence." He finds a similar usage in rabbinic writers and in early Christian writings like the Epistle of Barnabas (588).

All of which makes Herman Ridderbos’ comments inexplicable:

As to the first of these questions, the consensus is that in John 14-16 [paraklēton]; does not have the meaning in Greek and Hellenistic usage of "advocate, professional legal

adviser, defender, or representative before a court. In I Jn. 2:1 Jesus himself is very clearly called "an advocate with the Father," and this function is attributed to the Spirit elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Ro. 8:27), though without the title [paraklēton]. But in John 14-16 no such function of the Spirit as advocate of the disciples and defender before God is mentioned (500).

73 Turner, 79.

74 Morris, 590.

John 11-20 31

teacher. In other words, Christ is saying that He will give the disciples another

advocate with God like He is their advocate before God. We notice then in this very

discourse that Christ is an advocate for the disciples in His “high priestly prayer” in

John 17 in which He asks things of the Father on their behalf (cf. vs. 9, 11, 15). This

is in line with Christ’s continuing function as Advocate described in Hebrews:

“Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through

Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (7:25). Therefore, if the

meaning of paraklēton in John 14:16 is “advocate” there is certainly considerable

evidence that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are this very thing.

In two other instances of paraklēton in the farewell discourse, the idea of

advocate, instead of counselor, is clear. However, the context has changed from the

advocate speaking for the disciples, to more specifically the Spirit’s mission to

continue to speak for Christ in His absence. Accordingly, Jesus says:

When the Advocate [paraklēton] comes, Whom I will send to you from

the Father, the Spirit of truth Who comes from the Father, He will testify [martureo ] on My behalf. You also are to testify [martureo ]

because you have been with Me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27

NRSV)

Here, the function of the paraclēte is to be an advocate, testifier to the world on

Christ’s behalf, just as the Twelve would defend His claims as well. The idea of a

“counselor” simply does not fit the context of witnessing here as “advocate” does.

And if paraklēton clearly means “advocate” here in John 15, then we suggest that is

its meaning in John 14.

The same idea of “witnessing” is found in another passage in the farewell

discourse using paraklēton. There, Jesus says:

I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do

not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send

Him to you. And when He comes, He will prove the world wrong about

sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-8 NRSV)

Once again, the function of the paraclēte here is not to communicate direct

revelation to Christians, but to do the necessary work of conviction that must

accompany the preaching of the Gospel for it to have a saving effect. 75

Accordingly, R. C. Sproul summarizes our view of these passages concerning the

Paraclete when he writes:

[T]he Spirit works to defend us, He works to convict the world of sin. He is our

defense attorney, while at the same time exercising the role of prosecuting

attorney against the world. . . . We see then that in His role as Paraclete the

primary task of the Holy Spirit is forensic or legal [not mystical]. 76

75 Along these lines, Dr. Turner writes:

He [the Holy Spirit] is the chief 'advocate' of the case with which the disciples have

become identified. The impending removal of Jesus through cross and exaltation cannot be allowed to leave the disciples 'as orphans' (v. 29) i.e. without an advocate for their case. (In Judaism, children (and women, usually) could not give evidence in court, their fathers represented them; so an orphan is powerless - unless, that is, he or she has

some other advocate, which is precisely the point here.) Furthermore, neither may the case God has commenced through the advocate Jesus

be lost by being reduced to silence through his departure. Rather, the disciples are now 'sent' as Jesus was 'sent' (20:21; cf. 17:17,18), and the Spirit from the heavenly Lord is given to them to take over the earthly Jesus' advocacy of the case (15:26,27; 16:7b-11). . . .

The forensic [legal] thrust of the Spirit's function as 'advocate' is most explicitly brought out in 16:8-11. 16:8 affirms that when the Paraclete comes he will 'expose', or'convict' the world with respect to sin, righteousness (86).

76 R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Christian Focus, 2009), 187. See support for

our view here at pp. 182-7.

John 11-20 32

NT scholar R. V. G. Tasker brings out the meaning and context of Christ’s

advocacy for His disciples in detail:

While Jesus has been with them, He Himself has been their Advocate. He

has stood beside them like counsel for the defence summoned to the side of a

prisoner to plead his cause and strengthen him in the hour of trial. He has

prayed for Peter that his faith may not utterly fail (Lk. xxii, 32). He has

defended the disciples against the charge brought against them by the

Pharisees of breaking the sabbath (Mk. ii. 23ff.). He has befriended the blind

man, upon whom He bestowed sight, after his excommunication from the

synagogue (ix, 35). And at His forthcoming arrest He will plead with His

adversaries to allow His followers to go free, so that the whole weight of the

enemy's attack may fall upon Himself (see xviii. 8). After Jesus has returned to

the Father, the Holy Spirit which is His Spirit will continue to perform, in a

manner unrecognizable by and unintelligible to the world, the same office He

has Himself discharged for them so lovingly while He has been with them on

earth. 77

If indeed then the translation of paraklēton in John 14-17 as “Counselor” is

incorrect and misleading as argued here, then popular literature on mega mysticism

has lost perhaps its most repeated proof text for its claims.

John 16:12-15 [14.13.D]

D) Another Promise to Write Scripture, Not Provide Extra-biblical Truth:

John 16:12-15

The same can be said of Christ’s statement in the same discourse recorded in

John 16:

I have much more to say to you [the Twelve], more than you [the Twelve]

can now bear. 13But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide

you [the Twelve] into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will

speak only what He hears, and He will tell you [the Twelve] what is yet

to come. 14He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and

making it known to you [the Twelve]. 15All that belongs to the Father is

Mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is Mine and

make it known to you [the Twelve]. (John 16:12-15)

A mega mystical interpretation is given by the popular Christian author John

Eldredge who writes:

An old hymn celebrating the wonderful Scriptures has a line that goes

something like this: "What more can he say, than to you he has said?" The

implication being that God has said all he has to say to us in the Bible. Period.

It sounds orthodox. Except that's not what the Bible says: "I have much more

to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth,

comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:12-13). There's more that

Jesus wants to say to you, much more, and now that his Spirit resides in your

heart, the conversation can continue. 78

77 Tasker, 166-7.

78 John Eldredge, Waking the Dead (Nelson, 2003), 102.

John 11-20 33

Likewise, Dr. Blackaby would seem to ignore the original meaning of Christ’s

words when he interprets them as promising personal divine revelation about our

personal future and writes:

Life is a mystery. Who knows what triumph or tragedy lies on the horizon?

God does. God is not bound by time as we are. He is in the future, just as he

is in the present. He knows your personal future. He is the only one who can

guide you safely and securely through your life. 79

Dr. Blackaby’s statement is true, but he is wrong to use John 16:12-15 to

support it. Again, our insertion of “the Twelve” Apostles is based on the context of

this intimate farewell discourse, and we should not readily assume these words apply

to all Christians. Secondly, like the promise of being taught “all things” in John

14:16 discussed above, the promise here in John 16:13 of being guided “into all

truth,” is a promise of the Apostles’ ability to receive by divine revelation “all truth”

needed to know the ways and will of God in the New Covenant. Accordingly, and

contrary to the mega mysticism, D. A. Carson comments that John 16:12-15, “has

nothing to do with privileged information pertaining to one's choice of vocation or

mate.” 80

Christ goes on to describe the unique divine revelation the Apostles would receive

when He says the Spirit “will tell you what is yet to come” (v. 13). Such a

promise did not, as Dr. Blackaby suggests, refer to the Twelve receiving revelation

about their personal futures, but rather revelation regarding the future of the Church

and the world as uniquely recorded in Scripture. Therefore, the Revelation of John is

itself the clearest fulfillment of this promise in John 16:12-15 and if so, then its use

is excluded from being a proof text for mega mysticism.

Accordingly, few commentators interpret this passage in a mega mystical way.

For example, Herman Ridderbos says in his well regarded commentary on John:

[O]ne cannot simply characterize this discourse as a general address to the

coming [Church] community (cf. 17:20). The reference here is above all to the

apostolic witness effected by the Spirit, which forms the foundation of the

coming church's faith [and Scripture] (20:30, 31 [cf. Eph 2:20]). 81

Along the same lines, the entry in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary concerning

John 16:12-15 states: “In this promise lies the germinal authority of the apostolic

writings, which transmit the revelation of Christ through his disciples by the work of

the Holy Spirit.” 82

Finally, concerning both of these apostolic promises of revelation for the

production of Scripture, Sinclair Ferguson, former Professor of Systematic Theology

at Westminster writes:

The significance of these words is also commonly short-circuited as though

they had immediate application to contemporary Christians. But in fact they

constituted a specific promise to the Apostles which found its fulfillment in their

writing of the New Testament Scriptures. The Gospels contain what they were

reminded that Jesus had said and taught; in the letters we find the further

illumination they received through the Holy Spirit.

Thus, when Jesus spoke later of their joint testimony with the Spirit ('the

Counselor . . . will testify about me. And you also must testify . . .', Jn. 15:26-

27), the standing example of this joint activity is found in the pages of the New

79 Blackaby, 75. 80 Carson, 540. 81 Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1997), 536. 82 Merrill C. Tenney in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-

ROM (Zondervan, n.d.)

John 11-20 34

Testament, which are the work of the Spirit and also, simultaneously, the

testimony of the Apostles.

Further, in John 16:13-14, the promise that the Spirit 'will tell you what is yet

to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it

known to you' encompasses the giving of the New Testament Scriptures in both

their prophetic aspect and their Christological fullness.

No doubt these words have a continuing significance for Christians today, but

not in the direct way in which they are often understood (the Spirit will lead me

into all truth in an unmediated way). Rather, they indicate that it is by means

of the apostolic witness (now inscripturated in the New Testament), not by

direct revelation of the Spirit to individual believers or by corporate revelation

to teaching officers (the claim which was to be developed in the Roman Catholic

magisterium), that Christ's person, his teaching and his future purposes are

made known. 83

John 17:21-23 [5.3.C]

C) Christ’s Prayer for Virtue Apologetics: John 17:21-23

In fact, Christ prayed for the success of virtue apologetics. John records Him

praying:

“I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, 21

that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in Me and I am in

you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that You

have sent Me. 22 I have given them the glory that You gave Me, that

they may be one as We are one: 23 I in them and You in Me. May they

be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You sent Me

and have loved them even as You have loved Me.” (John 17:20-23)

Albert Barnes (1798–1870) understood Christ’s prayer to mean:

That the world, so full of animosities and fightings, may see the power of

Christian principle in overcoming the sources of contention and producing love,

and may thus see that a religion that could produce this must be from heaven.

This was done. Such was the attachment of the early Christians to each other,

that a pagan was constrained to say, “See how these Christians love one

another!” 84

Leon Morris says that Jesus is praying for:

[A] unity of believers [that] . . . will transcend all human unity. . . while it is a

spiritual unity rather than one of organization . . . yet [it] has an outward

expression, for it is a unity that the world can observe, and that will influence

the world. 85

D. A. Carson writes:

The thought is breathtakingly extravagant. The unity of the disciples, as it

approaches the perfection that is its goal, serves not only to convince many in

the world that Christ is indeed the supreme locus of divine revelation as

Christians claim, but that Christians themselves have been caught up into the

love of the Father for the Son, secure and content and fulfilled because loved

83 Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 70-71. 84 Barnes, in loc.

85 Morris, John, 651.

John 11-20 35

by the Almighty himself, with the very same love he reserves to his Son. It is

hard to imagine a more compelling evangelistic appeal. 86

And all of this was clearly Christ’s intention. Perhaps as Dr. Barnes suggested,

the first Christians demonstrated this. However, it is the apparent disunity among

Christians that surely challenges the value of virtue apologetics perhaps more than

anything else in our day.

Elsewhere we offer some answers to this challenge. 87 Here we will only note two

things. First, the standard that Jesus set for Christian unity was no less than the

unity between God the Father and God the Son Themselves! That is a perfect unity,

and we should not be surprised that we have fallen far short of it.

Secondly, regardless of how disunified Christians may be perceived to be, it is

clear that Christ intended the virtue of unity to prove to the world that Jesus Christ

was from God, and that God loves Christians in a far superior way to any others,

because He loves them as much as His own Son (v. 23). Jesus wanted virtue

apologetics to prove everything and more than what mere intellectual apologists

hope to prove.

John 17:25-26 [2.6.A.2]

Jesus describes the disciples’ faith in Him when He prays to the Father, “I gave

them the words You gave Me and they accepted them. They knew with

certainty [egnōsan alēthōs: “knew truly”] that I came from You, and they

believed that you sent Me” (John 17:8). In addition, there were times when

Christ rebuked people for having doubts (cf. Matt 14:31).

Also, the King prayed to the Father:

Righteous Father, though the world does not know You, I know [egnōn]

You, and they know [egnōsan] that You have sent Me. I have made You

known [egnōrisa] to them, and will continue to make You known

[gnōrisō] in order that the love You have for Me may be in them and that

I myself may be in them. (John 17:25-26).

All of these uses of the Greek verbs “to know” are in the aorist tense, “usually

indicating definiteness.” 88 The King says that in the very definite way that He knew

the Father, the disciples knew that the Father had sent Him. The King’s task was to

make the Father known to them, not in the sense of an uncertain, provisional belief

that might turn out to be a lie as the postmoderns think, but the King no doubt

intended to give them an absolutely certain knowledge and He no doubt

accomplished His task.

In fact, it was necessary that the disciple’s knowledge was as certain as the

King’s knowledge or else “the love” that the Father had for Christ, would not be able

to be in the disciples, nor would the King be able to indwell them as was His obvious

promise (cf. John 14:17). In other words, if the disciples could not know Christ’s

mission with the same certainty that Christ knew the Father, they could not be

saved.

86 Carson, John, 569.

87 For further discussion of the problem of immorality and disunity among Christians for the

cause of virtue apologetics see section 5.16.A. 88 Vine, 346. Dr. Vine lists instances in the aorist tense:

(Matt 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; 10:38; 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part), 14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3: 10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2

Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice), 14; 3:6; 4:8; 2John 1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3, 9. (346).

John 11-20 36

John 18:6 [4.11.B.3]

Dr. Grudem’s last reference (John 18:6) reveals how desperate emotionalists are

to find biblical support for their pagan practices. Here, soldiers had come to arrest

the King and upon announcing who they want we read, “When Jesus said, "I am

He," they drew back and fell to the ground.” Inexplicably, Wimber uses this

verse to support the emotionalist phenomenon of being “slain in the Spirit.” 89 Such

an interpretation hardly deserves a refutation, but because it is the most cited

biblical evidence for the “slain in the spirit” phenomena, we will note the following.

Notice the text says of the soldiers that, they drew back” not that Jesus or the

Holy Spirit pushed them back. The Greek word here apēlthan literally means simply

“to go away.” Therefore, it is inexcusable that, as Hanegraaff relates, Wimber “tells

his audience, ‘the Greek says they were propelled back and were flung, in effect to

the ground.’” 90 That is both inaccurate and irresponsible exegesis.

John 20:22 [4.16.E endnote 24]

Some may interpret John 7:39 as evidence against our view that some OT

believers were regenerated by the Holy Spirit. However, this statement would not

necessarily negate the fact that limited and nature-changing operations of the Holy

Spirit occurred before Pentecost (cf. endnotes above concerning King Saul and the

difference between OT and NT work of the Spirit)

Also, the question arises as to when the promise of John 7:39 was fulfilled. John

speaks of Christ giving the Spirit to the Apostles before Pentecost (cf. 20:22; Acts

1:7-8; 2:1-4). How do we reconcile these accounts? First, let us note that none of

this changes our claim that the Apostle Peter was not regenerated by the Spirit

during his denials of Christ, for these occurred before even the event described in

John 20:22.

Secondly, it is best to interpret John 20:22 as a separate and different operation

of the Spirit than the one recorded at Pentecost. Accordingly, NT scholar Leon Morris

writes at John 20:22:

The relation of this gift to that made on the day of Pentecost is obscure.

Some scholars maintain that the two are incompatible. They hold that Luke

thought that the Spirit was not bestowed until ten days after the ascension,

whereas John thought of this gift as taking place on the evening of the day of

resurrection. But this may be going too far too fast. The circumstances of the

two gifts are completely different. And, whereas that in Acts 2 is followed

immediately by some very effective preaching, no sequel to this gift is narrated.

It is the teaching of the New Testament that "There are different kinds of

gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:4), and the problem is probably to be

solved along these lines. It is false alike to the New Testament and to Christian

experience to maintain that there is but one gift of the Spirit. Rather the Spirit

continually manifests himself in new ways.

Subsequent to the gift at Pentecost the Spirit fell on all who heard the word in

the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44), just as "on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:

15). On several occasions believers are said to have been "filled with the Holy

Spirit" (e.g., Acts 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; cf. Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 2:12, etc.), where

the aorists indicate new activities of the Spirit, rather than a reference to what

89 Hanegraaff, 191-93.

90 Ibid. 191.

John 11-20 37

had always been the case. John tells of one gift of the Spirit and Luke of

another. . . .

Hoskyns sees in the predictions of 14:16, 26; 16:7, 13, evidence that John

thought of a gift of the Spirit that would be given after Jesus' return to the

Father. "There is therefore a distinction between the two gifts of the Spirit. The

Resurrection scenes in the Fourth Gospel are all preparatory scenes,

preparatory for the mission. What the Lord will do invisibly from heaven He

here does visibly on earth. The mission is inaugurated, but not actually begun.

The disciples still remain in secret, behind closed doors. The actual beginning

of the mission lies outside the scope of the Fourth Gospel. There remains,

therefore, room for the Pentecostal outpouring. (The Gospel According to John,

[Eerdmans, 1995], 747-8).

NT scholar D. A. Carson lists John Calvin, B. F. Westcott, and F. F. Bruce as

additional supporters of this view (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1991],

650).

John 20:29 [6.11.A.5]

Another illustration of Christ’s perspective regarding faith and evidence is His

statement to Thomas regarding His resurrection: “Because you have seen Me,

you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen [present tense] and

yet have believed” (John 20:29). Christ implies here that at this time there were

others who had believed without seeing. This did not include any of the other

Apostles, as they had already seen the resurrected Christ before Thomas (cf. 20:19-

20).

Those who had believed without seeing possibly included those disciples that

Luke refers to as apparently simply believing on the testimony of the Apostle Peter

(cf. Luke 24:33-4). But even here, the King did not intend to imply that those who

had apparently believed without seeing, believed without evidence. Whoever it was,

it is obvious that if they believed on the mere testimony of someone else, it was

because they had good reason to believe that person. In other words, as we have

already noted in the previous chapter regarding faith in God’s promises or claims, it

is not that we will have direct evidence for the claim itself, but rather, the person (or

God) has demonstrated their testimony is trustworthy and to believe them is a

reasonable conclusion.

For example, if a doctor tells us that some prescribed medicine will help us, we

believe it, not because we have seen it help others, but because of what we believe

about doctors. Our belief then may be based more on who is making the claim

rather than immediately available evidence for the claim itself. Still, our perception

of a doctor, God, or anyone else wanting our trust, is always based on other

evidence for their trustworthiness. This is the power of the philosophical term

testimony. 91

Christ’s words to Thomas were not intended by the Apostle John to be a

disparagement of evidence for faith, as immediately after John writes:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples,

which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you

may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by

believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-1)

The Apostle understands the importance of evidence for faith in Christ and it would

seem to be the very reason he even wrote his Gospel.

91 For further discussion on the biblical importance of faith gained through testimony and the

things that strengthen it see section 2.5.D.

John 11-20 38

Accordingly, it also needs to be pointed out that there is no hint of a rebuke here

for Thomas’ refusal to believe until he had the evidence he demanded. This

disciple has, of course, been infamously dubbed, “doubting Thomas,” suggesting

that there was something wrong with him. This is commonly assumed as is

demonstrated when Calvin accuses Thomas as being “obstinate,” having

“dullness,” and even “wickedness,” and, as if that were not enough, he adds:

The stupidity of Thomas was astonishing and monstrous; for he was not

satisfied with merely beholding Christ but wished to have his hands also as

witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. Thus he was not only obstinate, but also

proud and contemptuous in his treatment of Christ. 92

We would suggest that if Christ had intended us to understand the passage in

this way, He would have said so, but He does not. It was not out of a hardened,

pharisaical heart that Thomas made such a demand. Rather, for whatever reason,

personality differences or whatever, he legitimately required more evidence than

some of the others who had evidently believed without seeing. And obviously Jesus

was graciously willing to provide it. We would suggest that this is yet another

example of biblical support for the right of private judgment discussed at length

elsewhere. 93

Again, there is no hint that Christ rebukes Thomas for requiring more evidence. 94

In fact, Thomas was only asking for what the other Apostles had already received!

(cf. John 20:19-20; Matt 24:17; Luke 24:11-13). As F. F. Bruce points out, “he was

not really any more doubting than the others; had he been with them on the evening

of that first Easter Day, his doubts would have been removed at the same time as

theirs.” 95 Likewise, Leon Morris remarks:

Some commentators think that Jesus is administering a rebuke to his hard-

headed follower. This may be so, but if so it is a very gentle rebuke. We must

bear in mind that if it is true that Thomas believed on the basis of what he

himself saw, this is also the case with all the others John has so far mentioned.

While some may well have believed on the basis of the testimony of Mary

Magdalene and others John has not said so. There is possibly significance also

in the fact that when Jesus goes on to speak of those who believed without

seeing he says they are "blessed" (cf. 13:17), not "more blessed." This does

not look like a comparison, with Thomas worse off than the others [for he was

certainly blessed!]. 96

92 Calvin, Commentaries, John 20:26.

93 For biblical support regarding the right of private judgment see section 3.1.C and chapter

3.3. 94 Some may suggest that our interpretation disagrees with the account given in the last

verses of the Gospel of Mark. However, NT scholars have long and widely agreed, based on ancient textual data, that the last twelve verses of Mark are spurious additions that were not

in the original. Therefore, the rendition of these events there carries no divine authority, and this is a good thing, as the passage clearly contradicts the other Gospels and is misleading in regards to our current topic.

First, this spurious account suggests that none of the disciples believed the two disciples

from the road to Emmaus (cf. 16:13), while Luke makes it clear that they all had already believed on the testimony of Peter (cf. Luke 24:33-36). Secondly, the spurious account

then reads: “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen” (16:14). Such an account is not only at odds with Luke 24:33-36 above, but is at odds with God’s perspective on the relationship between faith and evidence as abundantly demonstrated in this chapter.

95 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Eerdmans, 1983, repr. 2002), 393.

96 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1995), 754.

John 11-20 39

Finally, for those who would insist that Thomas was a man of weak faith, we note

that when Christ said He was going to make what appeared to be a dangerous

journey to Bethany, John records: “Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the

rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him"” (John

11:16). It would seem he should have been dubbed “trusting Thomas” instead of

“doubting.”