24th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

"Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

Mk 8:27-35

(From Nineham's commentary)

v. 27. Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”

The villages of Caesarea Philippi: An obscure expression generally taken to mean the villages in the area around Caesarea Philippi. For the town itself, formerly called Paneas, and rebuilt by Herod Philip.

v. 28. They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.”

Cf. 6: 14-15  may well have influenced, or been influenced by, this verse.

v. 29. And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.”

If vv. 27-29 existed before St Mark's time as an independent unit of tradition, the unit will no doubt have contained further verses making plain the significance of the event. Since St Mark has omitted these in the process of building up his longer unit, we can no longer tell how the pre-Marean Church understood the incident. They may have seen its significance as showing that the decisive confession of the Church had already been made in the lifetime of Jesus.

v. 31. He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days.

“The elders and the chief priests” could be simply a way of referring to the lay and clerical aristocracy in Jerusalem who, with “the scribes”, formed the Sanhedrin. But even if so, the question has naturally been raised whether so detailed a forecast is not a prophecy after the event, ascribed to Jesus by the early Christians. We have no means of deciding for certain, but if Jesus did foretell disaster for himself, it seems unlikely that it was in terms as precise as these; in particular, if he had several times referred to the resurrection as explicitly as is suggested here (and in 9:31.and 10:34), the behavior of the disciples after the crucifixion is almost impossible to explain. On the other hand, if he did foresee disaster he must presumably also have looked forward to ultimate vindication in some form or other.

Chief priests: Greek “archiereus”, elsewhere (e.g. 14:47 and 54) translated high priest. The plural is at first sight surprising, as there was only one high priest at any given time, but it occurs frequently in the New Testament and also in Josephus, and the usual explanation is that, in addition to the ruling high priest, deposed high priests and other male members of the most prominent priestly families were included.

After three days: cf. 9:31, 10:34, and Matt. 27:63. Elsewhere in the New Testament we have 'on the third day'. It is often held that, at any rate in popular usage, the two phrases were synonymous, 'after three days' meaning 'when the third day had begun". But this is difficult to reconcile with the evidence of such a passage as Matt. 12:40, and the fact seems to be that the tradition on the matter was influenced in rather different directions by two Old Testament passages, Hos, 6:2 and Jonah 1:7. In light of the Hosea passage it would seem that such a phrase could be used simply as a conventional expression meaning 'after a short while'. On the assumption that the words go back to Jesus himself; it has been suggested that it was in that conventional sense that he used them; clearly, however, that was not St Mark's understanding.

v. 33. At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Looking at his disciples: 'The reproof which follows is for their benefit as

well as Peter's'.

You are thinking not as God does (Or You are not on the side of God): The Greek here is one of those expressions too rich in meaning to be fully represented by any single translation. The RSV may well be right in hinting at a political metaphor, but the basic meaning of the verb (phronein} is 'to be minded' and there is certainly the idea of sharing, or failing to share, another's point of view and intentions.

v. 34. He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”

Take up his cross: The Romans required a condemned criminal to carry part of his own cross to the place of execution; hence the metaphor. As the words stand, they seem to presuppose that 'the Cross' is already a familiar idea. No doubt Jesus' audience would have been familiar with crucifixion as a Roman method of execution, but it was normally reserved for criminals condemned by due process of law and it remains very doubtful whether, before Jesus' own crucifixion, they could have caught the allusion here. .Probably the present formulation of the saying is the work of the early Church.

v. 35. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.

And that of the gospel: These words, omitted by Matthew and Luke, and by Jolm at 12:25, again suggest that the present formulation of the saying dates from a time when Christians were being martyred 'for the sake of the gospel'.

ON THE NECESSITY OF SUFFERING

 Neither here nor elsewhere in Mark is any theory offered as to why it should be God's will that the Messiah and his disciples should suffer, but in this connection we need to remind ourselves of the eschatological mould in which the thought of the early Christians was cast. For them God's realm in heaven entirely conformed to God's holiness, and stood in the sharpest contrast to this age or world ruled by forces of evil and governed by their evil values and designs. One day God would judge this world and bring this age to an end, transforming whatever in it was capable of being transformed, and transferring it to the conditions of his realm. But meanwhile, so long as this world lasted, anyone in it who represented God's realm and its values must look for misunderstanding and persecution from the evil powers and the human beings under their sway. 'The Old Testament itself says of the children of Israel: "They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets" (2 Chron, 36:16. Cf. Ps. 34:19). For later Jewish writers it was axiomatic that the people of God were basically opposed to whatever really emanates from God, and that therefore they had, always persecuted God's true servants and ambassadors and always would'. Such ideas would thus seem natural to Jesus and his early disciples. For evidence that they shared them, see such passages as Luke 11:49ff, Acts 7:2ff.

The true servant of God would not be disconcerted by such suffering, but would realize that in some mysterious way it was a means by which the redemptive purpose of God for this world was carried out. Isa. 53 is the classic passage for this idea but it by no means stands alone. In view of the remarkably few references to the Isaiah passage in the Gospels, It is probably better to think of a general background of ideas than of direct influence from that particular passage. 

Against this background, the true character of the disciples' reaction to Jesus' prophecy of suffering can be recognized. What the disciples had to learn was that until the kingdom came with power (9:1), the law of suffering applied at least as fully to the Messiah and his followers as it had done to earlier representatives of God see (9:13 and 6:17-29).

23rd SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

And people brought to him a deaf man who had a speech impediment and begged him to lay his hand on him.

MK 7:31-37

v. 31. Again he left the district of Tyre and went by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, into the district of the Decapolis.

The reference to Decapolis is somewhat strange. Literally the words mean “in the middle of the Decapolis district”. Whatever the exact sense, the point of this reference is probably not so much to suggest that the deaf-mute was a Gentile as to provide a Gentile setting for the feeding in 8:1ff.

v. 32. And people brought to him a deaf man who had a speech impediment and begged him to lay his hand on him.

Lay his hands upon him: i.e. heal him. The gesture so frequently accompanied the act of healing that it came to be used as a metaphor for it.

v. 33. He took him off by himself away from the crowd. He put his finger into the man’s ears and, spitting, touched his tongue.

v. 34. Then he looked up to heaven and groaned, and said to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”)

He took him off by himself away from the crowd: On the original motive for such privacy see on 5:43; but St Mark may have interpreted it here with reference to the messianic secret.

The order and character of the gestures vary slightly in different MSS. and versions; in any case, all of them are known to have formed part of the healing technique of contemporary wonder-workers. Touching, and manipulation of the affected organ, are too obvious to need comment; the use of saliva is widely attested (cf. John 96 and the story of Vespasian healing by means of his saliva in Tacitus, History, IV, 81): so are ‘the look towards heaven', which sought and obtained power, and the sigh, or groan (v. 34), which is recommended in several magical texts as a potent action. 

On the motives of preserving the operative word, Ephphatha, in the original tongue: Ancient wonder-workers often used formulas in a foreign tongue and Origen tells us that such words lose their power if translated into another tongue.

The vividness with which the act is described may well suggest that St Mark had seen patients treated in this way by Christian healers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9) and it was perhaps for the guidance of such healers that the details were preserved in the tradition.

v. 35. And [immediately] the man’s ears were opened, his speech impediment was removed, and he spoke plainly.

His speech impediment was remove: Literally, 'the fetter on his tongue was loosed'. Does this way of speaking imply an understanding of the story according to which the man was ‘bound' by demonic powers (a common idea in the ancient world)? Such an understanding would certainly be in line with St Mark's understanding of Jesus as battling with the powers of evil in order to release their prisoners.

v. 36. He ordered them not to tell anyone. But the more he ordered them not to, the more they proclaimed it.

They proclaimed it: The Greek word refers in Mark, directly or indirectly to the Messiahship of Jesus.

v. 37. They were exceedingly astonished and they said, “He has done all things well. He makes the deaf hear and [the] mute speak.

Exceedingly astonished: As described in the Greek the emotion is so very strong that something more than one successful act of healing would have been required to provoke it.

See First Reading: Is 35:4-7a

 A point to notice is the relation of the story to certain Old Testament passages and particularly to Isa. 35:5-6. The last sentence v. 37 seems a clear allusion to that passage and it has even been suggested that the comment “He has done all things well” means "He exactly he fulfills the prophecies!” 

The story has been affected by the Isaiah passage in another, and more subtle, way. The phrase in v. 32 “had a speech impediment” represents the exceedingly rare Greek adjective (mogilalos), which means literally 'speaking with difficulty’ or ‘hardly able to speak’. St Mark almost certainly derived the word from the only other place where it occurs in the Greek Bible, Isa. 35:6 where it translates a Hebrew word meaning ‘dumb'. Then, seeing the incident as the fulfillment of the prophecy, and influenced by the literal meaning of the Greek word, he took the miracle to consist making the man speak plainly (v. 35). No doubt the original story told of a deaf-mute who, before the miracle, could not speak at all (cf. dumb v. 37).

22nd SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me. 

Mk 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23 

v. 2. They observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.

v. 3. (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.

According to the Jewish experts in such matters, the evidence of the Talmud (a written recension of the oral tradition.) is that in the time of Jesus ritual washing of hands before meals was obligatory only on the priests. An occasional 'pietist' might try to live, so far as outward purity was concerned, as if he were a priest, but the ordinary layman - including the Pharisee and the scribe - was not concerned with such questions of religious defilement unless he was about to enter the temple and-make a sacrifice. For this reason, the story as it stands can hardly be historical. 

It is agreed by everyone that, about A.D. 100, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all; such a change will not have been completely sudden, so may it not be that there was already a strong move in this direction in the time of Jesus? If so, it would certainly have found its chief supporters among scribes and Pharisees, and they might well have expected a religious leader such as Jesus to exact the highest standards from his followers. If that suggestion can be accepted, it may preserve the historicity of the story itself, though it cannot save St Mark's generalizing aside that the Pharisees, and all the Jews practised such ritual washing, for the Talmudic evidence makes clear that, as a group, they did not.

“The elders” (vv. 3 and 5): 

Greek, presbyteron, literally 'older men' or 'men of fairly advanced years', a word used by the Greeks in many senses, mostly honorific, among them 'ancestors' or 'forefathers'; that may be the meaning here and the phrase would then mean: 'the ancient tradition of our race'. But probably the reference here is more specific, to the 'honored Jewish teachers of the Law whose judgments were handed down and were considered binding by the scribes and Pharisees.

v. 4. And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles [and beds].)

A. Buchler has discovered some evidence that Jews of the Diaspora who were constantly surrounded by Gentile 'impurity' may have had quite strict rules about handwashing earlier than the Jews of Palestine; in that case, St Mark may have assumed that customs common among the Jews known to him were also current in Palestine.

The subject of vv. 1-13 is the propriety or impropriety of obeying the Jewish oral tradition. Jesus' teaching on this subject is not affected if St Mark in his comments, or even in his setting of the scene, is not altogether accurate about some of the details of the tradition.

v. 6. He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me;

v. 7. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’

v. 8. You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

“Well did Isaiah, etc”.: 

The meaning is brought out in Moffatt's translation: “Yes, it was about you hypocrites indeed that Isaiah prophesied”. The quotation is from Isa. 29:13 and, with some modifications, follows the LXX version. It may well have been one of the texts used by Greek-speaking Christians in their polemic against the Jews (cf. Col. 2:20ff. and Titus 1:14), and perhaps that was how St Mark came to hear of it and insert it here. But even if the quotation is St Mark's, v. 8 may well contain a word of Jesus. The style and attitude are entirely his (cf. Matt. 23:23); though, as suggested above, the words would be more devastating in a context proving that the Pharisees actually disregarded the written Law in the interests of their oral tradition.

v. 14. He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand."

In Mark a crowd is always waiting in the wings, as it were, to be summoned on to the stage when needed.

v. 21. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,

v. 22. adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.

“Evil thoughts”: 

“Designs of evil” not merely evil thoughts but evil devising which issue in degraded acts and vices which are now enumerated.

“Envy”: 

Literally “the evil eye”; in Jewish context ‘envy’ would probably be the correct translation, but if the list is of Gentile provenance, a reference to the malevolent glance which casts a spell cannot be ruled out.

21st SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 

Jn 6: 60-69 

 

v. 60 -- Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

It is the disciples who found, as many still find, the contents of this discourse hard! The final phrase should read ‘listen to him?’ rather than ‘listen to it?’

v. 62 – What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

‘Where he was before': A plain reference not only to the continuing existence of Jesus after his death, but also to his pre-existence (cf. 3:13; 13:3 and 17:5).

v. 65 – And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

The verb ‘said’ is in the Greek imperfect: 'he kept on saying all the time'.  This underlines the importance of 6:37and 44 as basic Johannine doctrines.  Belief in Jesus is impossible without the work of the Father. Unbelief is not some strange human behavior; belief is a miracle of God. 'No one can say "Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit is Paul's recognition  of the same truth’ (1 Cor. 12:3).

v. 66 – As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

‘As a result of this’: offers both a chronological and a logical basis for interpretation. It was after the discourse, and because of it, that many left Jesus.

v. 68 – Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

'Master': Here, in contrast to its use in 6:34, rightly so rendered. In v. 34 it should read 'Sir'.

v. 69 – We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

'We have believed, and are convince”: Evidently the reference is to some real 'belief' at 1:39ff, that has now grown in depth and in their continuing association has bred the certitude of faith, a knowledge that has an integrity of its own.

CORPUS CHRISTI

Take it; this is my body. This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.

Mk 14:12-16, 22-26

v. 12 - On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”

Or, to bring out the force of the Greek idiom, 'when it was customary to slaughter the Passover lamb'. The Greek verb (thuo) can mean either' slaughter' or 'sacrifice', and it is difficult to say how far sacrificial ideas were associated with the Passover in the time of Christ. The offering of the lamb counted as a sacrifice and the meal was a sacrificial meal, but the later tendency was very largely to subordinate the sacrificial aspect of the meal to its aspect as a commemoration of the Exodus.

v. 13- He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water. Follow him.

Jars, as opposed to water-bottles, were not normally carried by men in the East, so the man in question could readily have been identified; however, it is doubtful if St Mark, who viewed the incident in terms of the supernatural, envisaged the need for such mundane means of identification. Likewise he will have seen the householder's willing response as supernaturally motivated.

v. 14 - Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’

My guest room: the 'my' is rather strange; if it means any more than 'destined for me' there is perhaps a hint of messianic sovereignty in the word.

v. 15 - Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.

Furnished: The Greek word (stronnuo) normally means to 'spread' or 'strew' but its meaning here is not certain. English translators usually take it to mean' provided with the necessary furniture' - particularly, divans and carpets, but it may be little more than a synonym for, 'ready', or it could mean 'paved', 'floored'.

v. 22 - While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”

Bread: Better perhaps 'a loaf'. The Greek word (artos) would most naturally suggest leavened bread, but Dr Jeremias has produced abundant evidence to show that it could also mean unleavened bread. 

Blessed: Or 'said grace over it'. The Greek word (eulogein), when used by Jews in this sort of context, implied not so much the hallowing, or consecrating, of the bread (though doubtless that was thought to be effected indirectly), as a solemn blessing or thanking of God over the bread. The form used would be something like: 'Praised be thou, O Lord our God, king of the world, who causest bread to come forth from the earth', though Jesus may have used a slightly variant form. This grace was said by the head of the table, and when the company had replied with an Amen, he broke a piece of the loaf for each person (at Passover it had to be at least the size of an olive) and gave or passed it to them. It will thus be seen that the action here ascribed to Jesus (both with the bread and the wine) is fully in accord with the Jewish custom of his day. It is of course possible that in the Gentile circles in which St Mark moved, the blessing had come to be understood as a direct consecration of the bread.

v. 23 - Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

Gave thanks: The Greek word (eucharistein) seems to be used simply as an alternative translation of the same Aramaic word translated ‘bless' in v. 22. At the end of the meal it was customary to say a long grace over a cup of wine. If this was a Passover meal, the cup will have been the third cup, the so-called ‘cup of blessing’ but in any case, according to Jewish custom, the meal will have intervened between vv. 22 and 23 (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25 'after supper' and Luke 22:20); the fact that no one would get that impression from a simple reading of Mark shows how little concerned St Mark was with the original setting of the incident, Passover meal or not. Indeed it is difficult to think St Mark intended to give the impression of any gap here; and in that he was surely influenced by contemporary Christian Eucharistic practice, according to which the wine immediately followed the bread as it does today. 

One of the arguments for thinking the Last Supper was a Passover meal is that ordinary Jews could not often afford wine apart from Passover; on the other hand it is not certain whether in Jesus' time a common cup was used at the Passover or whether each person used an individual cup. Perhaps the emphatic words 'they drank of it every one' (so the Greek) are directed to some in the early Church who objected to drinking from a common cup at the Eucharist, or who, on conscientious grounds, were in the habit of taking communion in one kind only.

v. 24 - He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.

This is my blood of the covenant: For the background see Exod. 24:8, Zech. 9:11, and cf Heb. 9:15ff . The words imply reflection on the blood of the covenant at Mount Sinai, which, according to ancient Jewish interpretations, had atoning power. As the blood established the covenant of Moses, so the blood of Jesus established the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) which had as its content perfect fellowship with God (Jer. 31:33) founded upon God's forgiveness (Jer. 31:34b) in his kingdom. As Moses' sprinkling of the blood on the people ensured their participation in the blessings of the old covenant, so the disciples' drinking of the wine ensures their participation in the blessings of the new. 

However, the phrase which translates literally 'the blood of me of the covenant' is very harsh in Greek and virtually impossible to retranslate into Aramaic, and if the original saying contained any reference to the covenant idea, it will have been in some such form as that given in 1 Cor. 11:25 ('this cup means a new covenant which is to be instituted by my blood, i.e. by my death'). But there are some grounds for thinking that the covenant reference is an addition even in St Paul's version of the saying, and probably in its original form the saying contained no reference to the idea of covenant, though that of course leaves open the question whether Jesus thought of his life's work in terms of the establishing of a new covenant between God and man - an idea very prominent in St Paul's thought. 

For many: Commentators often refer to Is. 53:12, but the similarity is not really very close, and the occurrence of the words for many in both passages is not as significant as it might seem, for the words are a translation of a common Semitic idiom. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for 'all' in the plural, and this use of 'many' does duty instead; the meaning is not exclusive (' some, but not all') but inclusive (' all in contrast with one').

v. 25 - Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

The ideas and vocabulary are Semitic. For the final state of blessedness pictured as a banquet cf. e.g. Is. 25:6, 2 Baruch 29:5ff., Matt. 8:11, Luke 14:15, Rev. 19:9. Amen (truly)’ and 'fruit of the vine' are both Semitisms, and according to the version in some MSS. the verse contains further Semitisms. 

The fact that St Luke's version of this saying occurs at a different point in his account (Luke 22:16-18 - before the institution) suggests that it may have circulated at some time more or less independently; but that this or some similar eschatological saying was associated with the institution from the earliest times is suggested by the evidence of 1Cor. 11, where a similar eschatological interest appears in connection with the institution (v. 26 after vv. 23-25), and by the consistent association of eschatological expectations with the Eucharist in the early Church. Otto is no doubt right in seeing the significance of the original event as closely bound up with Jesus' expectation of the imminent kingdom of God: Jesus qualifies the disciples ‘to receive his testament, not by feeding their souls, but by lifting them out of the secular sphere by the atoning power of his death, and consecrating them for the kingdom of God’ (The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, p. 297). Cf. Dibelius: ‘when the fellowship of the parousia commences this memorial table-fellowship ends.’

See also << Corpus Christi >>

ADVISORY: I will be away for 60 days. I don't know if I will be able to do an exegesis every Sunday. You may go to the blogs of 2009 as an alternative.

Trinity Sunday

Please go to >>> http://www.ponderouspondering.blogspot.com/2009/06/trinity-sunday-b.html

Pentecost

Please go to >>

http://www.ponderouspondering.blogspot.com/2009/05/pentecost-b.html

Ascension

Please refer to this URL for a reflection on the Ascension

http://ponderouspondering.blogspot.com/2009/05/ascension-b.html

6TH SUNDAY OF EASTER (B)

As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love. 

Jn 15:9-17 

v. 7. As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love.

The whole sentence, imperative included, is in the aorist tense (Greek grammar). The first two clauses are thus made to refer to the finished act of love by which Jesus, in his life, death and glorification, manifested the love of the Father. The imperative in its aorist form makes the injunction especially emphatic.

v. 12. This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.

Commandment, not commandments. The whole set of injunctions that follow from the words and works of Jesus can be stated in this one implication: Christians owe love to one another. This is not a narrowing from universalism into a Christian, ecclesiastical parochialism; rather it is a binding together of the whole body of disciples in order that their mission to the world might be more effectively undertaken.

v. 13. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Again, this is not to narrow the range of the love of Christ, or of his disciples. In a gospel which speaks of God's love for the world (3:16, etc.) and of Jesus as him who takes away the sin of the world (1:29) it is not likely that Christian love would be so restricted. But the love kindled within the Christian fellowship will, like the Savior's love, work for the saving of the world.

v. 15. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.

A master, or 'Lord', can give orders to his slaves and expect to be obeyed. By the reversal of roles which Jesus had assumed at the supper, he showed that this was not to be his relationship to his disciples. Rather has he come to where they are and obliterated the distinction between master and slave. So he can be nothing other than their' friend', one who naturally confides his hopes and purposes to those he loves.

v. 16. It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

It was not you who chose me:
This makes it plain, for those at the Last Supper and for every generation of disciples since, that, however much things may appear, and even feel, to the contrary, it is Christ who has chosen them to be disciples, not they themselves; The initiative in Christian life is with the Lord.

And appointed you to go and bear fruit:
This saying reflects the imagery of the vine, which in turn reflects the symbolism of the wine at the Eucharist. All the more reason, therefore, to see in the use of “to go” a reflection of the fact that the Son is about “to go” to the Father. The going of the disciples into the world will demand sacrifice, too. And it is by sacrifice that fruit is borne; the death of the Son is a prerequisite of the gospel being preached, and of the Gentiles hearing of the saving acts of God (cf. 12:20ff.).