310 Modern critics are very ready to speak of that which they deem impossible where Scripture is concerned, yet some of these display rank perversion of their own “psychology” by conceiving it possible that some unknown writer of Greek education, whether aided by Pauline teaching at Ephesus or not, composed that which, among bona fide Christians, goes by the name of the Lord’s “High-priestly Prayer.” The credulity of such people is amazing. Moreover, if to any unsophisticated reader it seem, at any rate, improbable that even a highly educated Hellenist or Hellenistic Jew could have put together such a prayer, how much more unlikely that the critics’ Galilean provincial, John, son of Zebedee, could have indulged in a reverie of his own to manufacture such a composition or idealize the Lord’s utterances!
310a The prayer divides itself into three parts: (1) Of the Lord for Himself; (2) for those in whose hearing it was spoken; (3) for those who should believe on Him through their word.
Milligan well says: “It would be as difficult to account for it from the pen of the Evangelist as from the lips of Jesus.”
Bishop Chase, in his book on the Lord’s Prayer (so called) in the early Church, has very suggestively compared the petitions of that formula with the prayer of this chapter as follows:
“Our Father who art in Heaven” with “Father” in verses 1, 5, 21, 24; with “Holy Father” in verse 11; and with “Righteous Father” in verse 25.
“Hallowed be Thy Name” with verses 6, 11, 12, 26. [We might add, “that Thy Son may glorify Thee” in verse 1.]
“Thy kingdom come” with verses 1 f.
“Thy will be done” with verses 4 f., 11, 21.
“Bring us not into temptation” with verses 12, 15.
Cf., passim, Bishop Moule’s volume on this chapter, recently published, which is in his best style.
311 Verse 1.― “Glorify Thy Son.” How could this have been said, or put into the mouth of one no more than man?
“That Thy Son,” etc. Govett: “That He may expend what is given in the glorifying of the Father Himself.”
312 Verse 3.― “This is the eternal life.” Weiss and Westcott suppose that we have here a definition; but Beyschlag rightly says that it would be incongruous in such utterances (“New Testament Theology,” 1. 263 f.). Theosophy seeks to turn to account our Lord’s words here in the service of its theory. Thus Mrs. Besant: “The heavenly root [of all religions] is the Wisdom, the knowledge of God, which is Eternal Life.... From any one of its branches a man may pluck a leaf for the healing of the nations” (Theosophist, July, 1907). And yet, even “many Christians do not know God” (Schofield, “The Knowledge of God,” p. 32): see 1 Cor. 16:34; Tit. 1:16.
312a The knowledge which, as Westcott points out from the present tense used, is eternally progressive, is the knowledge of intimate communion, or fellowship, as said Luther. It is realized in the present, according to 5:24 f. and 6:47, 54, but only by foretaste (cf. Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). See Note 110 on Mark. It is not that faith (q. 20:31) and knowledge are coextensive (Scott); for faith is temporal, knowledge eternal. As Professor Inge puts it: “Eternal life is not γνῶσις, knowledge and possession, but the state of acquiring knowledge.” The knowledge is dependent on the life, rather than the life on the knowledge. Cf. Walpole’s “Vital Religion,” ninth edition, 1907, chapter i. As to difference between apprehension and comprehension of the Infinite, see Isaac Taylor, “The World of Mind,” p. 822, and Job 36:26.
312b “True” (ἀληθινός), in contrast with what is imperfect, rather than the false, which would require ἀληθής, as in Rom. 3:4.
312c “Jesus Christ.” This is the only place in the Gospel where our Lord speaks thus of Himself, so that it has been a quarry for critics. II. Holtzmann says, “The historic Christ cannot have spoken so,” and refers it to the same influence on the text as that alleged for Matt. 28:19 f. So Horton.
Godet, happily, adheres to the unimpeachable credibility of the Evangelist’s “These words spoke Jesus”; as does also Bernard (p. 345 ff.). Not so Westcott and Plummer, who bow to German ruling. Those who love the Scriptures may hold fast the assurance that our Lord’s own self-designation here was the source of that so often afterwards used by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. And so, to begin with, Matt. 1:1; Mark 1:1. For the Lord’s naming Himself, cf. the Synoptic self-designation as “Son of man.” On the verge of the close of His life He called Himself by the name JESUS, given to Him by the angel at its outset; and that He did call Himself “the CHRIST” is vouched for by Matt. 23:10. It is not, therefore, correct to say, as Carr, on the present passage of John, “Here only does our Lord apply the term ‘CHRIST’ to Himself,” for in Matthew’s Gospel the Lord does more than “accept” the title, as in 16:17 there; also Mark 14:61 f.
Finally, by what philosophy or romance could knowledge of a creature, as Unitarians and their critical allies regard Christ, be needful for life eternal A like question is, of course, applicable to the words “glorify Thy Son” in verse 1, as to verses 10 f., etc.
313 See note 232a.
313a The Exposition here meets a point raised by Pfleiderer and, in English guise, Scott (note 192).
313b Verse 5.― “The glory which I had,” etc. If this, as Unitarians suggest, had meant merely the glory that Christ had in the counsels of the Father before living in this world, how could such a being have known of glory destined for him? Cf., of course, 1:3.
314 Verse 6.― “I manifested Thy Name.” Cf. Ps. 22:22.
314a Verse 8.— “Knew” ―i.e., learned. Not conscious knowledge, as εἰδῆτε in 1 John 5:13, etc. However closely “believe” may approach “know” in this way, they are not interchangeable words.
315 Verse 9.― “I request for them.” The preposition is περί, not ὑπέρ, “in behalf of” (cf. the Greek, both verb and preposition, at 18:19), which occurs in verse 19. It is not intercession, but the Lord putting forth a claim.
316 Verse 11.― “We.” Christ puts Himself on a perfect level with the Father.
“One.” “Not manifested ecclesiastical oneness, but in the spirit of their minds” (Bellett, p. 124). Cf. note on verse 21.
317 Verse 12.―Alford, Wordsworth and Burgon use this verse for the idea that Judas had at one time been a true believer (verse 6). This is not only to hazard their reputation as commentators, but to bring “divinity” into contempt. See 18:9.
317a Verse 15.―Milligan and Bernard would render “out of the Evil One” (cf. 1 John 5:18 f.). This rendering Mr. Kelly preferred for Matt. 6:13.
318 Verse 17.―As to “disunion of the Church” being an incentive to unbelief. see T. Pearson on “Infidelity,” Part II., chapter 6; also Isaac Taylor, “Spiritual Christianity,” p. 149. Cf. notes 316, 319a.
318a Verse 18.― “I also sent.” This may be proleptic.
319 Verse 19.―Our Lord does not speak of “consecration of humanity” as such, but of His setting Himself apart for the sake of disciples. Cf. 10:36, of which this is correlative.
319a Verse 21.― “One.” Cf. note on verse 11. Bishop Moule (p. 177) happily compares Rom. 14:19. The still continuing tendency is unfavourable to this; indeed, ecclesiastical dissension might seem to retard the Second Coming of the Church’s Head. As to “believe,” see note on verse 23.
320 Verse 22.― “The glory,” as future (cf. Rom. 8:18).
321 Verse 23.― “Perfected into one.” Cf. Eph. 14:13.
“Know.” Here is an advance on verse 21, “believe.” Cf. note 314a. Heitmüller treats the words as “almost identical.” Such a notion breaks down when applied to their context. Indeed, the critical reading of 10:38, as of 1 John 5:13, shakes it severely.
322 Verse 24.―Scott “He is not thinking primarily of a future meeting with His disciples in heaven” (p. 305 f.). How does that comport with the preceding verse, which does not yield to the German view (see last preceding note) that the Johannine “know” and “believe” are practically equivalent. To hark back to verse 15 is a long cry. Again: “He has taken them to dwell in heavenly places with Himself” (p. 306). But this only introduces Paul’s doctrine (Eph. 2:6), of which John’s is independent, although the writer labors to prove the contrary. With reference to the notion that Paul’s belief had undergone material change since he wrote his First Letter to the Thessalonians (Charles, “Eschatology,” p. 385 ff.), we have but to compare 2 Thess. 2:8 with 2 Tim. 4:8. The word ἐπιφάνεια is common to both of these letters, and in the earlier letter the Apostle has combined παρουσία with it. John has in no sense “corrected” Paul.