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. 1:1616They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 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 10:3030But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. (Mark 10:30); Luke 18:3030Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (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 36:2626Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out. (Job 36:26).
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. 28:1919Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 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. 1:11The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1); Mark 1:11The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (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. 23:1010Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Matthew 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 14:6161But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? (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.
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.
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. 14:1919Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. (Romans 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.
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 5:1313These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (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. 2:66And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 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. 2:88And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2 Thessalonians 2:8) with 2 Tim. 4:88Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 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.