1‐4. *Christ bids the Apostles not to be troubled in heart, and
puts before them three motives of consolation.*
5‐7. *Interrupted by Thomas He declares Himself to be* _the way_,
*and His Father* _the term_ *whither He goeth*.
8‐12_a_. *Philip’s request, and Christ’s reply containing a fourth
motive of consolation.*
12_b_‐14. *All who have the requisite faith shall perform even
greater miracles than His, for whatever they shall ask the Father
or Himself in His name, He will grant.*
15‐17. *As a fifth motive of consolation, He promises to send them
the Holy Ghost.*
18‐21. *As a sixth motive, He promises to come to them Himself.*
22‐24. *Not only to them but to all the faithful shall He come
together with the Father and the Holy Ghost.*
25‐26. *As a seventh motive, He tells them that the Holy Ghost
will teach them all truth, and call to their minds all He has said
to them.*
27. *As an eighth motive, He bequeathes them His peace.*
28. *Finally, as a ninth, He tells them that to leave them and go
to the Father is for His greater glory.*
29. *His object in foretelling His departure and return.*
30‐31. *He declares the approach of Satan, and invites the
Apostles to quit the Supper‐room.*
1. Non turbetur cor vestrum. 1. Let not your heart be
Creditis in Deum, et in me troubled. You believe in God,
credite. believe also in me.
1. *Let not your heart be troubled.* Continuing the discourse after the
Last Supper, begun in xiii. 31, Jesus begins to console the Apostles. He
saw that they were sore at heart, as well they might be, on account of
what He had foretold that night—the treachery of one of their number, the
denials of another, and His own departure whither they could not follow.
*You believe in God, believe ** also in me*; that is, believe Me also to
be God, who can therefore overcome all My enemies, and make you victorious
over yours. Instead of “you believe” we have in the Greek πιστεύετε, which
by its form might be either an indicative or imperative, but is more
probably an indicative, because it is not likely that Christ thought it
necessary to exhort the Apostles to believe in God, a thing that every Jew
did.
2. In domo Patris mei 2. In my Father’s house there
mansiones multae sunt; si quo are many mansions. If not, I
minus, dixissem vobis: quia would have told you, that I go
vado parare vobis locum. to prepare a place for you.
2. *In my Father’s house there are many mansions.* Here He puts before
them the _first_ motive of consolation; namely, that there is room for
them as well as for Him in heaven, in that house of God, the eternal
antitype of the Jewish Temple (ii. 16), wherein He exercised the rights of
a Son. “Mansions” renders the Vulgate “mansiones,” which were resting‐
places or stations along the highways, where travellers found
refreshments. The Greek word μονή is found in the New Testament only here
and in verse 23.
*If not, I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.*
_That_ (ὅτι, Vulg., quia) is almost certainly genuine,(95) and hence we
must explain the text, retaining it, though its presence creates
difficulty.
(1) Some explain thus. If not, yet even in that case I would have told you
that I go to prepare a place for you (my intimate friends). And if (in
that case) I should go to prepare a place you, I would return, &c. Against
this view, however, it is fairly objected that Christ’s going is thus
represented as purely _hypothetical_, whereas from the text it seems to be
real: “And if I shall go ... I will come again.”
(2) Others thus: If not, would I have told you that I go to prepare a
place for you? In this view a note of interrogation is supplied, a thing
that the original text, which was unpointed, admits; and reference is made
to some past occasion when He promised to go and prepare places for them.
That we have no record of a promise made in so many words, does not prove,
of course, that it was not made.
(3) Others thus: If not, I would have told you _so. But, in fact, there
are many mansions_, for I go to prepare a place for you. Against this view
it is objected that it supplies an ellipsis, which is in no way indicated
in the text. The same meaning, however, may be had without any ellipsis,
if the words: “If not, I would have told you” be regarded as parenthetic.
The sense will then be: in My Father’s house there are many mansions (if
not, I would have told you), as is proved by the fact that I go to prepare
a place for you.
*To prepare a place.* Christ by his death, resurrection, and ascension
opened heaven, and made ready a place for man.
3. Et si abiero, et 3. And if I shall go, and
praeparavero vobis locum: prepare a place for you: I
iterum venio, et accipiam vos will come again, and will take
ad meipsum, ut ubi sum ego, et you to myself, that where I am
vos sitis. you also may be.
3. *I will come again.* This is a _second_ motive of consolation. There is
a difference of opinion as to what coming of Christ is meant. Some
understand of His coming at the death of each and the particular judgment;
others, of His coming at the general judgment; and others, of both. We
prefer the last opinion, for while Christ took the souls of the Apostles
to the mansions of bliss at their particular judgment, it is only at the
general judgment that He will take their bodies and perfect their
felicity. The words cannot refer to the continual coming of Christ to the
Church through the Holy Ghost whom He has sent; such a meaning is excluded
by the words that follow: “And will take,” &c.
4. Et quo ego vado scitis, et 4. And whither I go you know,
viam scitis. and the way you know.
4. And though you may think that you know not whither I go, nor the way
thereto, yet you know both. For you know My Father to whom I go, and you
know Me, the way that leads to Him. This may be regarded as a _third_
motive of consolation.
5. Dicit ei Thomas: Domine, 5. Thomas saith to him: Lord,
nescimus quo vadis: et quomodo we know not whither thou
possumus viam scire? goest, and how can we know the
way?
6. Dicit ei Iesus: Ego sum 6. Jesus saith to him, I am
via, et veritas, et vita, nemo the way, and the truth, and
venit ad Patrem, nisi per me. the life, no man cometh to the
Father but by me.
5, 6. St. Thomas interrupts, and Jesus explains, pointing out that He
Himself is the way to the Father.
*I am the way, and the truth, and the life.* Many interpretations of these
words have been given. We believe that the first clause: “I am the way,”
answers Thomas’ difficulty; but as such a statement itself needed
explanation, the remaining words “and the truth, and the life,” are added
to explain how Christ is the way namely, inasmuch as He is the Truth,
_i.e._ the author of faith; and the Life, _i.e._ the author of grace and
of the supernatural life of the soul. In this view the phrase hebraizes,
the first “and” being explanatory: I am the way, _inasmuch as_ I am the
truth and the life. This seems better than to hold with SS. Augustine and
Thomas that Christ declares Himself the way _as man_, the truth and the
life as God. St. Augustine’s words are: “Ipse igitur (vadit) ad seipsum
per seipsum.” But the words that follow in this verse: “No man cometh to
the Father but by me,” show that the Father, and not Christ as God, is the
term to which the way in question leads.
7. Si cognovissetis me, et 7. If you had known me, you
Patrem meum utique would without doubt have known
cognovissetis: et amodo my Father also; and from
cognoscetis eum, et vidistis henceforth you shall know him,
eum. and you have seen him.
7. Having told them that He Himself is the way, He now proceeds to point
out to them that if they had known this way in the manner they ought, they
should also have known the term towards which it led. Hence the sense is:
You would know the Father to whom I go, if you knew Me; for I and the
Father are the same divine substance (John x. 30). Thomas had said that
they did not know the term of Christ’s journey, and therefore could not
know the way thereto, implying that the way was to be known from, or at
least after, the term to which it led. Christ now declares that the
reverse is the case; and if they had known Him, the way, they should also
have known the Father. The words: *If you had known me*, imply that they
had not yet known Christ as they ought. They had indeed known Him to some
extent as He admits in verse 4, but they had not realized fully His
Divinity and consubstantiality with the Father, else they would have
implicitly known the Father in knowing Him. *And from henceforth you shall
know him, and you have seen him.* We would render the Greek thus: “And
_even now_ (see John xiii. 19) you know Him, and you have seen Him.” The
sense is, that even now they knew the Father in some way through their
imperfect knowledge of Christ, and they had seen Him in seeing Christ,
because, as Christ adds in verse 9: “He who seeth me, seeth the Father
also.” Thus it was true that in an imperfect manner they knew whither
Christ went, and the way thereto (verse 4), yet equally true that they
knew neither way nor term so clearly as they might, considering that He
had now for more than three years been gradually revealing Himself to
them.
8. Dicit ei Philippus: Domine, 8. Philip saith to him: Lord
ostende nobis Patrem, et show us the Father, and it is
sufficit nobis. enough for us.
8. Thomas is silenced, but Philip now interposes, and failing to
understand Christ’s statement that they had seen the Father, asks Him to
show them the Father, probably in some visible form, and then they will
ask no more.
9. Dicit ei Iesus: Tanto 9. Jesus saith to him:. So
tempore vobiscum sum: et non long a time have I been with
cognovistis me? Philippe, qui you: and have you not known
videt me, videt et Patrem. me? Philip, he that seeth me
Quomodo tu dicis: Ostende seeth the Father also. How
nobis Patrem? sayest thou, show us the
Father.
9. Christ replies, again insisting on His consubstantiality with the
Father: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father also* (“also” is probably not
genuine.) These words prove clearly, against the Arians, Christ’s
consubstantiality, or unity of nature, with the Father; otherwise in
seeing Him they could not be said to see the Father even implicitly. Yet
it is clear against the Sabellians that the Father and the Son are
distinct Persons, for Christ plainly distinguishes Himself from the Father
in verse 6 where He says “No man cometh to the Father but by me;” and
again in verse 13, where He says that He goes to the Father. There is,
then, identity of nature, but distinction of Persons. _Cognovistis_ of the
Vulgate ought to be _cognovisti_, Philip being addressed.
10. Non creditis quia ego in 10. Do you not believe that I
Patre, et Pater in me est? am in the Father, and the
Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a Father in me? The words that I
meipso non loquor. Pater autem speak to you, I speak not of
in me manens, ipse facit myself. But the Father who
opera. abideth in me, he doth the
works.
10. *Do you not believe* (_creditis_ ought to be _credis_) *that I am in
the Father and the Father in me*? He who saw Christ saw the Father
implicitly, in virtue of the unity of nature. The words, and the
connection with verse 9, show clearly that such is the identity of nature
in the Father and the Son that He who sees the Son, thereby in some sense
sees the Father also. “Hoc autem quod dicit,” says St. Thomas on this
verse, “ ‘Ego in Patre et Pater in me est,’ dicitur propter essentiae
unitatem, de qua dicitur supra x. 30. ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus.’ Sciendum
est enim, quod essentia aliter se habet in divinis ad personam, et aliter
in hominibus. Nam in hominibus essentia Socratis non est Socrates, quia
Socrates est quid compositum, sed in divinis essentia est idem personae
secundum rem, et sic essentia Patris est Pater, et essentia Filii, Filius.
Ubicumque ergo est essentia Patris, est ipse Pater, et ubicumque est
essentia Filii, est ipse Filius. Essentia autem Patris est in Filio et
essentia Filii est in Patre. Ergo Filius est in Patre, et Pater in Filio.”
Then He goes on to prove that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father,
from the fact that His words and works are the words and works of the
Father. Instead of “the works” many authorities read “His works;” but the
sense is the same, for the works were both Christ’s and the Father’s.
11. Non creditis quia ego in 11. Believe you not that I am
Patre, et Pater in me est? in the Father, and the Father
in me.
11. According to the Vulgate reading, Christ, for emphasis, repeats the
question of verse 10. In the original there is not a question, but simply
an injunction addressed to all the Apostles; “Believe me that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me.”
12. Alioquin propter opera 12. Otherwise believe for the
ipsa credite. Amen, amen dico very works’ sake. Amen, amen,
vobis, qui credit in me, opera I say to you, he that
quae ego facio et ipse faciet, believeth in me, the works
et maiora horum faciet, quia that I do, he also shall do,
ego ad Patrem vado. and greater than these shall
he do.
12. The sense is: But if My testimony does not suffice to satisfy you of
My Divinity, at least believe on account of My miracles.
Having thus replied to the interruptions of Thomas and Philip He now
proceeds to put before the Apostles other motives of consolation. The
mention of the _fourth_ motive opens with the solemn “Amen, amen;” and the
Apostles are told that whoever believeth in Him shall perform even greater
miracles than His (“majora horum” is a Graecism for “majora his”), the
reason being that in leaving His followers He bequeaths to them His
thaumaturgic power, and bequeaths it in great perfection, because He
ascends to the glory of the Father.
*Greater than these.* The miracles of Christ’s followers were greater than
His in their visible effects. “Evangelizantibus discipulis ... gentes
etiam crediderunt; haec sunt sine dubitatione majora” (St. Aug. _ad
loc._). We think it very probable that the charism of miracles is here
promised not merely to the Apostles, but _to the Church_, in which it
still resides; for it is promised to whoever believeth. Of course, not
every faith is sufficient that we may work miracles; a specially strong,
unwavering faith is necessary. See Matt. xxi. 21.
13. Et quodcumque petieritis 13. Because I go to the
Patrem in nomine meo, hoc Father: and whatsoever you
faciam: ut glorificetur Pater shall ask the Father in my
in Filio. name, that will I do: that the
Father may be glorified in the
Son.
13. In the Vulgate the words: “Because I go to the Father,” are rightly
connected with the preceding, and form portion of verse 12.
*And whatsoever you shall ask the Father.* The words “the Father” are
probably not genuine, but they indicate the sense. For it is by the Son’s
doing what is asked of the Father that the Father is glorified in the Son.
*In my name* (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου). This phrase occurs here for the first
time in this Gospel. Compare the phrase “in the name of my Father,” v. 43;
x. 25; xvii. 6; 11, 12, 26, and the words of the Evangelist i. 12; ii. 23;
iii, 18. The phrase before us occurs again in xiv. 26; xv. 16; xvi. 23;
xvi. 24; and xvi. 26. See also Acts iii. 6; iv. 10, 12. In the present
verse, and wherever there is question of asking, it seems to mean: _while
invoking with faith the name of Christ_.
14. Si quid petieritis me in 14. If you shall ask me
nomine meo, hoc faciam. anything in my name, that I
will do.
14. Moreover, whatsoever miracle they shall ask of Himself, in His own
name (and, of course, with the requisite faith), that He will perform. We
incline to the view that in verses 13 and 14 there is question _primarily_
of miracles; but the expression “si quid” (ἐάν τι) is so general, that we
would not limit the promise, but are inclined to believe that it proves
the efficacy of all prayer of supplication offered with the proper
dispositions.
15. Si diligitis me, mandata 15. If you love me keep my
mea servate. commandments.
15. Now begins the promise of the Holy Ghost—the _fifth_ and greatest
motive of consolation. But first in this verse, He requires as a condition
that they should prove the love they protested by keeping His
commandments; for, as St. Gregory says, “Love is proved by deeds.”
16. Et ego rogabo Patrem, et 16. And I will ask the Father,
alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, and he shall give you another
ut maneat vobiscum in Paraclete, that he may abide
aeternum. with you for ever.
16. “Paraclitus”(96) may mean comforter, advocate, or helper. Bearing in
mind the tribulations in which the Apostles were already, and the still
greater ones that awaited them, we think the principal meaning here is
that of comforter. But this does not exclude the other meanings,
especially that of helper, which the Holy Ghost undoubtedly was in an
eminent degree. This other Comforter, who is promised in Christ’s stead,
will not leave the Apostles, as Christ did, but is to remain with them for
ever. It is disputed whether the Holy Ghost is here promised only to the
Apostles, or, in them, to the whole teaching Church. In the first case,
“for ever,” would mean during their lives; in the second, it would mean
till the end of the world, as long as the Church shall endure. This latter
sense we prefer, for—(1) the words “for ever” favour this view; (2) though
the Apostles needed a comforter, yet not they only, but their successors
quite as much; (3) this spirit is promised to teach them all truth (John
xvi. 13); why, except in order that they through themselves _and their
successors_ might teach the world? (4) we know from the event that on the
day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost came not to the Apostles alone (Acts ii.
4). We hold then that the Holy Ghost is here promised to the _Ecclesia
docens_, represented by the Apostles, to abide with her for ever.
In either interpretation it cannot be proved from this text that the
Apostles were to be confirmed in grace after the descent of the Holy
Ghost, for it is enough for the fulfilment of the promise here made that
the Holy Ghost was to be, as far as in Him lay, an enduring Comforter,
though the Apostles, on their part, might expel and banish Him. This verse
proves the personality of the Holy Ghost, for He is sent in the place of
Christ (see also verse 26). It proves also His Divinity, for only a Divine
Person would be thus compared to Christ, and spoken of as _another_
Comforter. Moreover the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is
here implied in the fact that the Father is said to send the Holy Ghost.
For the sending of one Divine Person by another, implies the Eternal
Procession of one from the other with a relation to some term in time.(97)
Finally, the three Persons of the Trinity are shown to be distinct, for
the Father will send the Holy Ghost at the request of the Son.
17. Spiritum veritatis, quem 17. The Spirit of truth, whom
mundus non potest accipere, the world cannot receive,
quia non videt eum, nec scit because it seeth him not, nor
eum: vos autem cognoscetis knoweth him: but you shall
eum, quia apud vos manebit, et know him; because he shall
in vobis erit. abide with you, and shall be
in you.
17. *The Spirit of truth.* The Holy Ghost is so called not only because He
is essential Truth, but also because He was to come to the Apostles as a
teacher of truth (verse 26).
In the following words the Apostles are told that the wicked world (i. 10;
xiv. 30; xvii. 9, 16) cannot receive the Holy Ghost, for as St. Paul says:
“the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of
God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand: because it is
spiritually examined” (1 Cor. ii. 14).
*It seeth him not, nor knoweth him.* Some take the meaning to be: seeth
Him not with the eyes of the body, nor discerneth Him by spiritual vision;
others, and with more probability, take both clauses as synonymous and in
reference to spiritual vision. The sense is that because the wicked world
will refuse to recognise the Holy Ghost, it will be incapable of receiving
Him at His coming. Want of vision shall be a hindrance to possession.
*But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in
you.* Reversing the order of thought, He now says that the presence of the
Holy Ghost abiding in the Apostles shall bring them still fuller
knowledge. Such seems to be the sense of the verse according to the
Vulgate reading. But in the latter part of the verse, instead of “shall
know” and “shall abide,” we have in both instances the present tense in
the Greek, and many authorities also read the present instead of “shall
be.” The clause would then run: “but you know him because he abides with
you and is in you.”
But even in this reading the present may stand for the future, and the
meaning will be the same as in the Vulgate.
18. Non relinquam vos 18. I will not leave you
orphanos: veniam ad vos. orphans, I will come to you.
18. As a _sixth_ motive of consolation, He tells them that He will come
again to them Himself. Already indeed he had spoken of His coming to them,
and had put it forward as a motive of consolation (verse 3), but the
coming there meant we take to be different from that now referred to, and
hence a new motive of consolation is now put forward in the coming
promised here.
*I will come* (ἔρχομαί) *to you*. There are various views as to what
coming of Christ is here promised.
(1) Some hold that the reference is to the coming after His resurrection
when we know He appeared to the Apostles but was unseen by the world. So
St. Chrys., St. Thom., Patriz., &c.
(2) Others hold that there is question of the coming at the Day of
Judgment. As the years are measured before God, only “a little while”
shall elapse till then, and it is only after the Day of Judgment that the
promise of verse 20: “In that day you shall know that I am in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you” shall be fully realized. So St. Aug., Mald.,
&c.
(3) Others understand of the coming of Christ in and with the Holy Ghost
on the day of Pentecost. If the consubstantiality and circumincession of
the three Divine Persons be borne in mind, the whole passage that follows
as far as verse 24, will then be naturally explained. So St. Cyril, Beel.,
Bisp., &c. We prefer the last view, and hold that from 15‐24, there is
question of the coming of the Holy Ghost, first in reference to the
Apostles (15‐20), and then in reference to the faithful generally (21‐24).
In reference to the Apostles, the coming of the Holy Ghost is first
considered in itself (15‐17), and next, for their consolation, as implying
and including the coming of Christ Himself (18‐20).
Though this view may at first sight seem forced, we believe that if the
connection in the passage be followed closely, it must appear the most
probable. For when St. Jude, alluding to the words of verse 19, asks, in
verse 22, how Christ shall be seen by the Apostles, yet unseen by the
world, Christ’s reply, in verse 23, goes to show that the vision is
spiritual, and such as is explained by the fact, that He and His Father
will come and make their abode in those that love Him.
19. Adhuc modicum, et mundus 19. Yet a little while: and
me iam non videt. Vos autem the world seeth me no more.
videtis me, quia ego vivo, et But you see me: because I
vos vivetis. live, and you shall live.
19. *Yet a little while.* This we understand of the few hours that
remained till His death. After that, the world should see Him no longer.
But, He adds, you shall see Me (present for future); not, indeed, with the
eyes of the body, but with those of the soul; because I live (the present
being used, perhaps, of His Divine life, in virtue of which He was to
resume the life of the body), and you shall live the life of grace, which
will be rewarded by the vision of Me.
Thus he tells them that they shall live a spiritual life, a kind of
participation in His own glorious life (vi. 57), and that for this reason
they shall be privileged to see Him spiritually. That there is question of
spiritual vision, is proved, we believe, from what follows; for they shall
see according as He shall manifest Himself (verse 21); and this
manifestation of Himself He explains in verse 23 of His abiding in them.
20. In illo die vos 20. In that day you shall know
cognoscetis quia ego sum in that I am in my Father, and
Patre meo, et vos in me, et you in me, and I in you.
ego in vobis.
20. In that time, after I have come to you at Pentecost (together with the
Holy Ghost), you shall know clearly that I am in My Father, that I am God,
and that you are in Me as its branches in the vine (see below, xv. 2),
deriving all your spiritual life from Me, and I in you by a _special
indwelling_ enjoyed only by the just. See above on vii. 39. If there be a
comparison here between the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son on the
one hand, and that of Christ and the just on the other, it is plain that
the likeness is only imperfect and analogical. Yet such texts as this (see
also vi. 58; xvii. 21, 23), even when we make all necessary allowance for
the imperfection of the likeness, prove clearly how marvellously intimate
and sacred is the union that exists between Christ and the souls of the
just.
21. Qui habet mandata mea, et 21. He that hath my
servat ea, ille est, qui commandments, and keepeth
diligit me. Qui autem diligit them: he it is that loveth me.
me, diligetur a Patre meo: et And he that loveth me, shall
ego diligam eum, et manifestab be loved of my Father: and I
o ei meipsum. will love him, and will
manifest myself to him.
21. *He that hath* (ὁ ἔχων) *my commandments, and keepeth them*, &c. Not
only to the Apostles, but to all that love Him, Christ will manifest
Himself, for in and with the Holy Ghost He and His Father will come and
abide in them.
22. Dicit ei Iudas, non ille 22. Judas saith to him, not
Iscariotes: Domine, quid the Iscariot: Lord, how is it,
factum est quia manifestaturus that thou wilt manifest
es nobis teipsum, et non thyself to us, and not to the
mundo? world?
23. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 23. Jesus answered, and said
ei: Si quis diligit me, to him: If any one love me, he
sermonem meum servabit, et will keep my word, and my
Pater meus diliget eum, et ad Father will love him, and we
eum veniemus, et mansionem will come to him, and will
apud eum faciemus: make our abode with him.
22‐23. Asked by the Apostle Jude, brother to James the Less, who was also
called Thaddeus, how He would manifest Himself to the Apostles, yet be
unseen by the world, Christ replies that He will come and dwell in all
that love Him, and thus manifest Himself, and be seen by them in a
spiritual manner.
24. Qui non diligit me, 24. He that loveth me not,
sermones meos non servat. Et keepeth not my words. And the
sermonem quem audistis, non word which you have heard is
est meus: sed ejus qui misit not mine; but the Father’s who
me, Patris. sent me.
24. He had just said that those who love Him will keep His words and obey
them, and now He adds that those who do not love Him will not keep His
words. The reason why He here insists upon this observance of His words
is, that such observance is necessary, before He will manifest Himself and
make His abode in any heart. For, as is clear from verse 21, Christ will
manifest Himself only to those who are loved by the Father; but they alone
are loved by the Father who love Christ, and they alone love Christ who
keep His commandments (verse 23).
*And the word which you have heard*, &c. “Sermonem” (Vulg.) ought to be
“sermo,” and the verb in the original is in the present (ἀκούετε). The
sense, therefore, is: the words which you are _wont to hear_ from Me are
not Mine alone, but the Father’s also who sent Me. *Is not mine, but the
Father’s who sent me.* This form of expression, which seems to declare
that the words are in no way Christ’s, is a Hebraism, and means that they
are not His alone. See above on vii. 16. Of course the authority of
Christ’s words was equal in every way to that of the Father’s, but since
the Apostles did not yet fully realize His Divinity with all that it
implied, He invokes the Father’s authority as having more weight with
them.
25. Haec locutus sum vobis, 25. These things have I spoken
apud vos manens. to you, abiding with you.
26. Paraclitus autem Spiritus 26. But the Paraclete, the
sanctus, quem mittet Pater in Holy Ghost, whom the Father
nomine meo, ille vos docebit will send in my name, he will
omnia, et suggeret vobis vobis teach you all things, and
omnia, quaecumque dixero bring all things to your mind,
vobis. whatsoever I shall have said
to you.
25, 26. These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you; and if
you fail to fully understand them, yet be consoled with My assurance that
the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He
will teach you all that you need know, and _recall to your minds_
(ὑπομνήσει) all that I _said_ (εἰπον) to you. This may be regarded as the
_seventh_ motive of consolation.
Here again, as in verse 16, we have mention of three distinct Persons: the
Holy Ghost is to be sent by the Father in the name of the Son. And, as we
remarked on verse 16, the fact that the Holy Ghost is to be sent by the
Father, proves His procession from the Father.
The Holy Ghost is said to be sent _in Christ’s name_, most probably
because He was sent in the place of Christ, another Comforter and Helper,
to console the Apostles and carry on the work begun by Christ.
The infallible teaching authority of the _Apostles_ follows from the fact
that they were to be taught by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth (verse
17). And since they were endowed with this infallible teaching authority
in order that they might teach the flock of Christ (xv. 16); since,
moreover, there is still the same need for an infallible teaching
authority in the Church, if the work of Christ and His Apostles is to be
continued without danger of failure, we are warranted in concluding that
an infallible teaching authority still resides in the _Church_.
Hence, to use Christ’s own words: “The gates of hell shall not prevail
against her” (Matt. xvi. 18), because in her _office of teacher_ she has
Christ with her, all days, even, to the consummation of the world. “Euntes
... _docete ... et ecce_ ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad
consummationem saeculi” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20).
27. Pacem relinquo vobis, 27. Peace I leave with you, my
pacem meam do vobis: non peace I give unto you: not as
quomodo mundus dat, ego do the world giveth, do I give
vobis. Non turbetur cor unto you. Let not your heart
vestrum, neque formidet. be troubled, nor let it be
afraid.
27. As the _eighth_ motive of consolation, Christ gives the Apostles His
peace. Among the Jews it was customary for the people to salute and take
leave of one another by wishing one another peace. Christ here says that
His words are not a mere wish or empty formula; with Him to wish peace was
to confer it, and that in a true and lasting manner.
28. Audistis quia ego dixi 28. You have heard that I said
vobis: Vado et venio ad vos. to you: I go away and I come
Si diligeretis me, gauderetis unto you. If you loved me, you
utique, quia vado ad Patrem: would indeed be glad, because
quia Pater maior me est. I go to the Father: for the
Father is greater than I.
28. *You would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father.* “Naturae
humanae gratulandum est, eo quod sic assumpta est a Verbo unigenito, ut
immortalis constitueretur in coelo, atque ita fieret terra sublimis, ut
incorruptibilis pulvis sederet ad dexteram Patris.” (St. Aug. _in loc._).
*For the Father is greater than I.* These words have been variously
explained. We would interpret either with St. Chrys.: For the Father is
greater than I, _in your estimation_; or better still: For the Father is
greater than I _as man_. Hence, since by His going to the Father, Christ’s
humanity was to share in the glory of the Father, and thus be exalted,
they should rejoice at His going, if they really loved Him. This is the
_ninth_ motive proposed for their consolation.
The Arians triumphantly pointed to the words: “The Father is greater than
I,” as a proof of the inferiority of the Son to the Father. But in neither
of the interpretations which we have given of the words, does the Arian
heresy find any support. And certainly whatever be the correct
interpretation, Christ cannot, without contradicting Himself, mean that
_as God_ He is inferior to the Father. For He had already told them that
He is in the Father, and the Father in Him (verse 10), and in the face of
His enemies He had proclaimed that He and the Father are one (John x. 30).
29. Et nunc dixi vobis 29. And now I have told you
priusquam fiat: ut cum factum before it come to pass: that
fuerit, credatis. when it shall come to pass you
may believe.
29. Not that they did not believe His words beforehand: but they would be
strengthened in their belief of all He had told them, when they should see
fulfilled this special prediction _of His going away and returning_ (verse
28).
30. Iam non multa loquar 30. I will not now speak many
vobiscum: venit enim princeps things with you. For the
mundi huius, et in me non prince of this world cometh,
habet quidquam. and in me he hath not
anything.
30. Satan who is here called *the prince of this* (rather _the_) *world*
(see also xii. 31, xvi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), and who was
now urging on Judas and the Jews to lay hands on Christ, found nothing in
Christ in virtue of which Christ could be in any way subjected to him.
*In me he hath not anything.* From what we have just said it will be seen
that the meaning is: he has no authority over Me, no claim upon Me,
inasmuch as sin has never had any share in Me.
31. Sed ut cognoscat mundus 31. But that the world may
quia diligo Patrem et sicut know that I love the Father:
mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic and as the Father hath given
facio. Surgite, eamus hinc. me commandment, so do I:
Arise, let us go hence.
31. Yet, to prove His love for, and His obedience to, the Father, He will
submit to be forthwith seized by the minions of Satan. The construction of
this verse is not clear. The first part may depend on the last clause:
arise, let us go hence, that the world, &c., or there may be ellipsis in
the opening words (comp. ix. 3; xiii. 18), the sense being: but _I deliver
Myself to death_ that the world, &c. For explanation of the words, “As the
Father hath given me commandment,” see above on x. 18.
*Arise, let us go hence.* We may reasonably conclude that Jesus,
accompanied by the Apostles, now left the supper‐room. Had they not done
so, St. John would probably have referred to the delay. Whether they
paused in a porch or court of the house, or at some quiet spot on the way,
till the discourse and prayer to the Father (xv.‐xvii.) were spoken, or
proceeded immediately through the city towards the Garden of Olives, and
had arrived at the brook of Cedron (John xviii. 1), when Christ concluded,
is disputed. Bearing in mind the crowded condition of Jerusalem during the
Paschal week, and that probably it was hardly yet 10 p.m., when the
streets would be still thronged with people, we think it extremely
unlikely that such a discourse and prayer, as are contained in John
xv.‐xvii. 26, were spoken while Christ and the Apostles passed through the
streets of the city. We think it most probable, then, that they paused at
some quiet spot on the outskirts of the city, or in a porch or court of
the house where they had supped.