The Sunday lectionary gospel reading for Easter 5 in Year A is John 14.1–14. When I read this text, I cannot help but feel it has a slightly strange, dream-like quality to it, and I think that is for several reasons.
- The whole discourse (which begins at John 13.31 and continues to the end of chapter 16) is dotted with apophthegms which are highly memorable—and often remembered out of context.
- There are often abrupt changes of subject and sharp contrasts, even from one sentence to another (Judas leaving, but Jesus being glorified in John 13.31; Peter betraying Jesus, but the encouragement not to be troubled in John 14.1, and so on).
- There is no obvious linear structure or progress in the discourse; instead, subjects are repeated, circled around, and returned to.
- Jesus’ comments are often obscure or ambiguous, and the disciples are baffled—something that happens throughout the gospel between Jesus and his dialogue partners.
- The disciples are experiencing Jesus’ comments from their own position, prior to Jesus’ death, and still without a clear understanding of what is happening and how it will be resolved. We are reading from a completely different, post-resurrection position, in which we know how the story ends. It gives us quite a different sense of engagement—a little like the difference between watching a film the first time, and being caught up in the emotion and drama of the characters as the story unfolds, and watching the second time through where the emotion has been dissipated because you know how it will end. This is particularly the case for us as we read in the Easter season, having been particularly focussed on the resurrection.
A further challenge in reading is that, for all these reasons, some of Jesus’ sayings have been commonly interpreted in a way that the whole passage does not really allow; we need to take the different elements together as we read the whole text.
Three larger questions are worth bearing in mind when reading this passage. The first is that there is no mileage in dismissing these chapters as unhistorical constructions by the gospel’s author, because of their contrast with the Synoptics. The Synoptic accounts of this period, especially Mark’s, are incredibly brief, and if we followed them we would need to believe that Jesus said almost nothing for the whole of the evening! There is one key point of contact: all the gospels believe that Peter denies that he will fall away, like the others, out of which Jesus predicts his denial. Given that the Fourth Gospel is quite separate source, and given that this would be a serious embarrassment to the early Christian community, it satisfies every test for being authentic.
The second thing to note is that the Farewell Discourse as a whole includes all the things that both ancient and modern readers would expect from such a speech.
- The parting is necessary and for the best (John 14.1–4, 15.13)
- It takes place only after careful consideration and at the appropriate time (John 16.6–7)
- Those who are present have been one community (John 15.1–8)
- The relationships that have been forged will be sustained (John 14.15–21, 23–26, 15.15, 16.15)
- The purpose or work of the community has been noble ((John 15.8, 10)
- Its purpose or work will be an enduring venture (John 14.11–14) (Jo-Ann Brant, Paideia commentary, p 209)
Brant goes on to compare this with a modern example, that of George Washington’s speech announcing he would not stand for re-election in 1796. But it can also be compared with Socrates’ final words before he took hemlock (Phaedo, 114–177; Mark Stibbe, Readings commentary, 1993 pp 152–153 offers a detailed comparison) or Seneca’s farewell address (Tacitus, Annals, 15.62). But what this illustrates is that Jesus here offers all the things that, humanly speaking, we might need as consolation in the face of apparent disaster and loss. In that sense, the consolation that Jesus is here offer to the inner circle of disciples in the anticipation of his death become for us words of consolation in the face of any tragedy we face, if we too have been incorporated into this inner circle by our belief in him. The brevity and the ambiguity of Jesus’ apophthegms allows us to re-appropriate them in our own context.
Thirdly, although there is no linear logic or progression, the passage does have a fairly clear shape:
Jesus’ announcement that the time of departure has now come (John 13.31f)
The issuing of the love commandment (John 13.34)
Peter interrupts—Jesus predicts his denial (John 13.36)
Consolation: Jesus is returning to the Father (John 14.1)
Thomas interrupts—Jesus reaffirms his divine agency (John 14.6)
Philip interrupts—Jesus reaffirms his relationship with the Father (John 14.8)
Assurance that God’s work will continue after Jesus’ departure through the work of the Paraclete (John 14.11)
[The other] Judas interrupts—Jesus reiterates the promise of the Paraclete (John 14.22)
Consolation: rejoice because I am returning to the Father (John 14.27) (Brant, p 211, Stibbe, p 155).
Although the second consolation could be seen as introducing the next section, on abiding in the vine, the change in vocabulary and imagery, and the repeating at the end of chapter 14 the phrase with which it began (‘Do not let your hearts be troubled’) suggests that this forms an inclusio which gives the chapter its shape.
The opening words of Jesus in chapter 14 ‘Do not let your hearts be troubled’ come as such an abrupt change of focus from his prediction of Peter’s betrayal that it is easy to see why a chapter division has been added here. But in the narrative, the one follows on from the other in a quite startling way. Jesus’ personal assurance triumphs over even the most unexpected and catastrophic of human failures. (Interestingly, this perspective ties in closely with the comment in Luke 22.32, that when Peter ‘comes back’ he is to ‘strengthen your brothers’.)
Jesus follows this with a typically rhetorically shaped invitation: ‘Believe/trust in God; in me also believe/trust’. It is usually smoothed out in English translations in such a way as to miss the emphasis on believing or trust at the beginning and end of the saying. There is no need to infer from this statement on its own the identification of Jesus with God; after all, the people ‘believed’ in Moses as God’s emissary and agent in Ex 14.31, and there is no implication of identity there.
The language of Jesus ‘going’, ‘coming back’ and ‘preparing a room’ has commonly been read as referring to eschatological or post-mortem reality. When we die, there will be a place prepared for us to go to in God’s presence—and this is the most common interpretation for most ordinary readers. But there are a number of reasons why that cannot be the case.
First, Jesus is speaking to the disciples in the first instance, and only to us in derivation from that. The language of ‘going’ is a common metaphor for death; Jesus is saying that he will return to the disciples after having died, which we now must take as a reference to his returning to them after the resurrection.
Secondly, Jesus is going to ‘prepare a place’ for them, and there are ‘many rooms in my Father’s house’ (not ‘much room’ is in the TNIV). The word for ‘room’ is mone and it is a comparatively rare word in Greek, occurring only in John 14.2 and 23. It has the meaning of ‘lodging place’ and is the root behind our word ‘monastery’. Fr that reason, some have suggested that it points to an interim ‘resting place’ with God after death but prior to the final resurrection of the dead.
But note: in John 14.23 it is not the disciples who find their mone in the Father, but the Father and Son who make their mone in the believer! Jesus has previously referred to ‘my Father’s house’ as the Temple in John 2.16—but he immediately goes on to redefine the temple as his own body. And although mone is a rare term, it is cognate with the verb meno, meaning to lodge, stay or abide—and it has huge significance in this gospel as it characteristic moves from having a literal sense to a metaphorical and theological sense. The first disciples ask Jesus ‘Where are you staying?’ apparently being curious only about Jesus home (John 1.38). But by the time we reach chapter 15, Jesus is exhorting the disciples to ‘Stay, abide, remain in me, and I in you’ (John 15.4), using the same verb.
If we are to abide (meno) in him, and he in us, then the only way to make sense of our lodging place (mone) in him and his lodging place (mone) in us is to understand this in the same way with reference to the same thing. As Stibbe comments:
The realized eschatology in the rest of John 14 suggests that this house is not so much an eternal home in heaven as a post-resurrection, empirical reality for true disciples… To these true ones [the obedient disciples], Jesus promises both a home and a father. No wonder Jesus declares, ‘I will not leave you as orphans’ (John 14.28) (p 160).
The second interruption, from Thomas, leads to Jesus articulating the sixth of the seven ‘I am’ statements in the gospel: ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’ (the seventh following closely in chapter 15 ‘I am the vine’). Although, from the second part of the claim ‘No-one comes to the Father except through me’ we are inclined to understand ‘way’ in terms of access, in its Jewish context the idea of ‘way’ also includes wisdom for right living, the halakah. This fits closely with the gospel’s focus on Jesus our example; not only does Jesus make the Father known, but he also offers us a way or pattern of life in relationship with the Father that, with the help of the Spirit, we are to emulate.
The third interruption, from the other Judas, follows on quickly, and leads into the discussion about Jesus’ relationship with the Father, and the implications for believers when Jesus is gone. Once more, we need to be cautious about inferring ontological identity between Jesus and the Father based on the language of Jesus being ‘in’ the Father and the Father ‘in’ him, since similar language is used of the believers and both Father and Son. Instead, we should see this as one contribution to the wider portrayal of Father, Son and Spirit in the gospel.
There are two contentious and disputed issues arising from these verses. The second, and easier to deal with, is Jesus’ promise that ‘I will do whatever you ask in my name’ (John 14.13). Typically, this is an idea that the discourse circles around and returns to more than once, in John 15.7, 16 and John 16.23–24; but, as with much of the language here, it is not unique to the Fourth Gospel, since we hear it in the Synoptics in Matt 18.19, 21.22, Mark 11.24, as well as James 1.5–6 and 17.
It is clear that this cannot be taken as an invitation to ‘name it and claim it’ in the way of the ‘prosperity gospel‘ because of the immediate context. First, the result of both the request and the answer will be to glorify the Father in the Son, and not simply to enrich and comfort the one making the request. Secondly, Jesus immediately (though in an apparent shift of focus) states that ‘If you love me, you will obey my commandments’. So the whole context of this encouragement is that of love for and submission to Jesus. But, thirdly, we also need to note the meaning of ‘in my name’; this is not about uttering a closing formula in a prayer, but about acting as Jesus’ representative, whilst about his business—just as Jesus himself came in his Father’s name (John 5.43, 10.25). It involves prayer ‘in keeping with his character and concerns and, indeed, in union with him’ (Craig Keener, John vol 2 p 949, quoting Whitacre).
The other contentious issue is the meaning of the promise that ‘all who have faith in me…will do greater works than [I have been doing]’ (John 14.12). Andrew Wilson helpfully sets out the main options here:
- The standard Pentecostal approach, that all believers will do great signs and wonders.
- A variation on this: believers will now do even greater miracles than Jesus, such as miraculous ‘teleporting’ (as apparently happened to Philip in Acts 8), instant weight loss, long periods of absolute fasting, and so on. If that is not the everyday experience of you and me, well, that shows up our poor level of expectation.
- ‘Greater’ here means greater in quantity, rather than in degree, now that the Spirit has been poured out on all disciples.
- Jesus here is only addressing the Twelve (Eleven) and not all disciples. So it is about the apostolic miracles, for example recorded in Acts, but which no longer happen.
Wilson mostly agrees with the first interpretation (being part of a Neo-Pentecostal denomination, NewFrontiers), but puts a rather important gloss on this, from the text of the gospel itself:
Jesus talks about “greater works” or “greater things” in two other places in John, and they help us significantly when it comes to establishing what he means in this case:
1:50-51: Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
5:20-21, 24-29: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will …
So in the two other places in John where Jesus (or anybody) speaks of greater miracles, the context is the vindication of the Son of Man, and his prerogative to judge the world and give eternal life to anybody who believes…
In saying this, Jesus isn’t disparaging miraculous healing or prophecy; far from it. It’s wonderful that Nathanael was known, the crippled man was healed and Lazarus was raised (and that we, as Jesus’ followers, get to do the same sorts of works between us). Throughout John’s gospel, great emphasis is placed on these things as “signs” of who Jesus really is. But it’s even more wonderful that those who believe in him, by our proclamation and embodiment of the gospel, are able to minister eternal life to people, such that they will certainly be raised up on the last day. That, I think, is the impact of his statement in John 14:12. “I’m telling you the truth, if anyone believes in me, they’ll do the sorts of things I’ve been doing – miraculous healings, prophetic revelation, feeding the hungry and laying their lives down for others out of love – and they’ll even do the “greater things” I’ve been talking about, like bringing resurrection life to people who are dead to the Father and dead to me, so that they pass from judgment to life. My works have repaired people temporarily, and that ministry must and will continue amongst my followers, as signposts to my glory and my love for them. But when the Spirit comes, those who follow me will repair people eternally, by transferring them from death to life through faith in me. That’s even greater.”
Altogether, then, this Farewell Discourse of consolation to the inner circle really does become a word of consolation to us, facing different kinds of challenges and tragedies. But Jesus is not so much consoling us by setting out what the ultimate future will look like when he comes again and restores all things. In line with the rest of the Fourth Gospel, he is clear that that ultimate future has broken into the present because of his resurrection. The future home with God is found now in the present, as we take our place amongst the people of God and as he makes his home with us now, by the Spirit. And by the Spirit we will see great things happen, as the ‘eternal life’ of the future is manifest in us, as well as in those who come to believe because of what we share with them.
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
15 thoughts on “Jesus’ farewell discourse in John 14”
So, should we not continue to read John 14.1-6 at funerals, and if we do continue to read it, how should we explain it to largely unbelieving listeners?
Well, I wouldn’t prohibit it! But on its own it is misleading—as is any section lifted out of context.
Perhaps it would be possible to say ‘This is not about the distant future; this homecoming is on offer now, for you, today, if you would receive it’.
Bringing it all together and smoothing the knotty points (and thanks to Andrew Wilson.
1 “Room” I’ve only once come across the following explanation. It was from a New Frontiers Pastor would done an MA from Durham on the gospel of John: room is a believer in the Father’s house. (Akin perhaps to “living stones” in the Temple of God.
2 He too, explicated John 15 with a chiastic structure.
Once again, thanks.
The structure of ‘Believe/trust in God; in me also believe/trust’ is interesting. In some ‘Daily Dose of Hebrews’ videos on Psalm 2 it is pointed out that you have the same kind of structure there. E.g. verse 1 has a clear “verb subject and subject verb”. The verse expresses Hebrew parallelism. (Going way beyond my pay grade here) might John be reflecting the same?
Hi Ian … I hesitate to begin with “Just to be clear …” ! Maybe, “Just to probe a little …”
I found what you believe is meant by even ‘greater things/works’, and that it was clearly directed at the apostles, to be very helpful. However, if I’ve read it right, we believers are all are called to share in that apostolic calling guided by the Spirit, that our ministry/discipleship should seek to bring “…resurrection life to people…” and “…repair people eternally …” and that “…the ‘eternal life’ of the future is manifest in us …”. And yet earlier you endorsed, I think, Stibbe’s quote “…that this house is not so much an eternal home in heaven …”. Thinking of funeral sermons (and questions at the wake afterwards!) and your answer to David Phypers above, are you saying our eternal life (resurrection life?) will not end up in heaven?
I don’t think the NT says ‘you will end up in heaven’ so much as ‘you will end up in the presence of God, and in the New Jerusalem which comes from heaven to earth.’
My main point is that the language of ‘mone’ is primarily about the disciples being found in Christ, and not about their post-mortem destiny alone.
“The language of Jesus ‘going’, ‘coming back’ and ‘preparing a room’ has commonly been read as referring to eschatological or post-mortem reality. k.t.l. ”
I didn’t find this argument convincing. The emphasis on *mone* (room) diverted attention away from the repetition of *topos* (place). That can hardly be related to the ‘abiding’ theme to which your argument relates (if I’ve understood it corrrectly). Verse 23 is a long way from verse 2
Jesus says, ‘If I go … I will come again *and take you to myself*’. To me that doesn’t sound simply like “a reference to his returning to them after the resurrection”.
All in all, quite a challenging blog this time with the occasional unhelpful typo but it’s good to be stretched. Lots of interesting and helpful observations. Not a candidate for a Youtube clip, I suggest. 🙂
Thanks for the comment Ian. Sorry about the typos; send me a message and I will correct them!
I am interested that you didn’t find the reading of ‘mone’ persuasive—because of the four commentators I read, this was the universal conclusion!
When you think about it wouldn’t it be rather odd if Jesus was offering the *disciples* consolation in the face of *their* deaths, when the issue is about him departing…and there is a lot of story to follow! Reading it in funerals seriously dislocates it from context…
The language of Jesus (1) going and (2) preparing a place and (3) coming back (4) so as to transport the person to be with Him in His Own prepared place is (as ever, one is tempted to say) out of the Creation Narrative: Genesis 2.8.
I well remember when I discovered this: it was a case of assigning each part of the text to its place within a unified self-contained (essentially Genesis-based) pattern, and 14.2-3 was, almost uniquely, an extremely large part of the text that remained unassigned. Having this interpretative principle in mind allowed it to be assigned to Gen 2.8 after a few moments’ thought.
I think it is quite convincing. “Place” is a reference to the Temple, as in “If this man continues, everyone will follow Him and the Romans will come and take away or nation and our place. In the OT “”place” referred to the “place” that God had chosen. This “place” is now referring to the Temple of His body. Jesus going away is “in a little while,” and His coming again is in a “little while.” Two thousand years is not a little while. Three days is. He will “receive them unto Himself” does not merely refer to His return to them after His resurrection. It refers to His making them a part of His Body, united by the Spirit He would breath into them. “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” His coming is in the form of His Spirit, the comforter. “At that time” the disciples will know that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him and they are in Him and the Father. This is new birth language. At the new birth we are hidden with Christ in God, and His Spirit is in us. A mutual indwelling. This passage is clearly about the Spirit coming to dwell in the disciples, uniting them with the Temple of Christ’s resurrected Body, the House of God. Jesus’ body had to be “prepared” because the Spirit could not be given until after Jesus was glorified, “lifted up” on the cross. He came again to them and breathed His Spirit on them. They were not left as orphans. God made His home with them and in them. This “House” is the same house the Jesus said that He would build, which is the Church, His Body. And this House will be finished and will culminate in the New Jerusalem. In the OT, the “building” of the Temple used the same language as the “building” of Eve out of Adam’s body. And so Jesus is building the Temple of His Body, which is also His Bride. And as one person said below, “I’m going to prepare a place for you”, embodies the common house-cleaning metaphor of Scripture. “I’m going to the cross so I can take away your sins—clean your houses, remove the leaven—so that where I am, being One with the Father…you may be at Pentecost.
The close connection of meno with mone is absolutely right, of course; I believe that even now the word mone is in active use in Greece. I may be wrong, but I think one of the uses is monastery or perhaps monastic cell. Not exactly a mansion but interesting for those who (Revelation 14.4, John 4.27) see the author as a celibate, whether priest (Bauckham) or monk (Capper).
Thanks, Ian, that’s a really helpful pulling together of the themes. Andrew Wilson’s angle is also very enlightening. I was brought up on the ‘abodes’ being the Trinitarian indwelling (v17 he dwells with you and will be in you). I wonder how many of us will now cease ending our public prayers “in Jesus’ Name’?
Thank you. I’ve asked and searched for years among the commentators to find out the meaning of the word ‘prepare.’ In what way does he “prepare a place?” Many older preachers almost see the Lord as a sanctified brickie! The best I had arrived at was Jesus was referring to the cross – except through that he was preparing us for a place and not vice-versa.
The Gen 2.8 sequence could help here.
Thank you so much for wrenching us away from that awful picture of a heavenly tenement in v2! The verse cannot make architectural sense as normally interpreted (by pastors at funerals. Bleaghh!)… so I have to start with “My Father’s House” = The Church! We know the dscs had not received the Holy Spirit, but in one sense or another, many had: Daniel, David, Abraham, Joseph, the prophets, etc., etc. And *mone*? I’m happy with the KJV “mansions” because of v23. “In My Church are already many mansions of the Holy Spirit (v2), and after Pentecost, We will come and make a mansion for Ourselves out of y’all*.” Why not? It’s beautiful! [*to distinguish from the singular “you”]
It is indeed important that the dscs were not yet believers, but for those of us who now are, much of John 14 is past tense. “I’m going to prepare a place for y’all”, I believe, embodies the common house-cleaning metaphor of Scripture. “I’m going to the cross so I can take away your sins—clean your houses—so that where I am (now!!!! being One with the Father…) y’all may be at Pentecost.
In this context, the second exclusive use of *mone* in v23 makes perfect sense.
Btw., I have read elsewhere that “monastery” is not derived from *mone* – but I question that myself. It seems like a good fit. A monastery makes me think of a sanctuary and, yes, a special mansion of sorts. They tend to be beautiful, substantial, and ancient. One of my favorites is Kloster Bebenhausen in southern Germany.