Sometimes, something is so important, that open ended support is offered. For example, sometimes open ended military commitments are given. Such is the case in total war. That doesn’t mean that the allies will waste the lives of their men. But it does mean they will do everything possible to render support. We might call this carte blanche, or a blank cheque.
Jesus offers his disciples such support in their mission. He will not give them necessarily what they want. But he offers the fullest support possible for them.
In verses 10 to 12, we saw that Jesus has promised that any believer will be enabled and will do both the “works that he is doing” and the “greater works” that what Jesus actually does. And we saw that the “works that [Jesus] is doing” is revealing the Father by his words. And this every believer will do—every believer will reveal the Father, because the Father will indwell the believer through the Spirit. And also, the “greater works” are that not only will the believer truly reveal the Father, but also that revelation will bring conversion and forgiveness. This is because Jesus promised the coming of the Advocate, who came on the day of Pentecost. And this was the game changer, for the Spirit of truth now comes to testify to the truth of the apostolic message.
But there is another link we need to explore. For Jesus places together the promise that any believer will do the “works that he is doing” and the “greater works” next to and alongside another promise to his disciples. This is a promise about the disciples’ prayers. Again, Jesus gives a broad and wide promise, but it is at least in the first instance directed to a more limited group than the promise in verse 12. Verses 13 and 14:
14:13And whatever you ask for in my name, I will do, so that the Father might be glorified in the Son. 14:14If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
Notice that the promise here in verses 13 and 14 is not made to “the one who believes”, but “you”, plural, ‘youse’. That is a difference between verses 10-12 and verses 13 and 14.
There is the matter of the relationship between the promise of the same and greater works, and this promise of answering prayers. While verse 12 is set next to verses 13 and 14, the link between them is not explicitly logical, or explanatory. We simply have the conjunction translated ‘and’ relating two different promises more or less as equal and distinct, with none providing an explanation for the other. They might simply be two unrelated promises, or they may have a general relationship by virtue of their juxtaposition or colocation. Or they may have a causal relationship which is logical, but that relationship is not conveyed by the conjunction. For the conjunction translated ‘and’ at the beginning of verse 13 does not tell us what that relationship might. The important thing to realize is that there is no explicit causal or logical relationship conveyed by the conjunction. So verses 13 and 14 might have no necessary explanatory relationship with verse 12. So that’s something that we can’t know for sure about verses 13 and 14.
But what we can know for sure about verses 13 and 14 is this: these verses show that Jesus is boldly appropriating God’s prerogatives. Jesus thinks that he can behave like God, and do what God does. Jesus thinks that he has the power to answer his people’s prayers. In other words, Jesus thinks he is God. His promise here is only a practical application of his claim of equality with God.
If Jesus is the Word who was God, God the only begotten, the “I am” before Abraham, and equal with God, with the power of the creator of the world, he is then able to answer prayers in the same way that God does. And if Jesus only does his Father’s will, and only does his Father’s works, that means he is willing to answer those prayers in the same way that his Father does. So if the Father really indwells him in the special way that he claims, his answer to those prayers of his people will be exactly the same as the Father’s. He will freely give only what the Father wants. And Jesus is claiming the power to do only what God can do, which is to answer prayers.
Now it certainly looks like a blank cheque that Jesus is offering the disciples. And it is certainly a very wide and broad promise. Jesus does say “whatever” and “anything”. But it is not in fact a blank cheque that Jesus is writing.
There are many promises that seem unconditional at first, and blank cheques, but when you look at them more closely, there are important qualifications. Think about this verse, Psalm 37:4. It says:
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart (ESV).
When we delight ourselves in Yahweh, the God of Israel—who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—he changes the desires of our hearts. That is because ‘the desire of our hearts’ will actually be ‘delighting in God’—for that is the condition! As John Piper says, “When we enjoy God, not just his gifts, but God himself, then the desires of our heart are shaped, are defined and created, in accord with our delight in him” (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-oprah-right-on-psalm-37-4).
Similarly, Jesus said in John 15:7. He said, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” There is here a similar condition—remain or abide in Jesus, and then you will get what you ask for. Abiding in Jesus changes and shapes what we will ask him. So too with delighting in God.
And so here also, in John 14:13-14, there are two important limitations or conditions attached to the promise of the prayers being answered. The first is a limitation of whose prayers will be answered. The second is a limitation of what those prayers which are answered can ask for.
The Who is ‘You’, ‘You Lot’
The first limitation is the ‘who’ question: who is this promise made to? And the ‘who’, as we have already noted, is ‘you’. It is ‘you’ plural, ‘youse’, ‘you people’, ‘you lot’, and thus it is a promise given in the first instance to the disciples, the eleven who are with him. Judas is excluded from this promise. That is, in the first instance, this is a promise directly for those to whom it was made, the eleven. It is not like the promise in verse 12, made to the one who believes. It is to the eleven in the upper room. It is not explicitly limited to the disciples there with him, but neither is it explicitly broadened out to disciples who are not there with him, or like us, who’ve come along centuries later. Jesus could have explicitly made it a general promise to any believer (cf. v. 12), but he did not do so. That is important.
Therefore, we must have very good reasons before we broaden out the promise and apply it to other believers beyond the eleven. And there are none apparent in the text itself. But there might be from other parts of the Bible.
That is not to say that there is nothing that we as twenty-first century believers can learn from this, or even that we cannot apply Jesus’ words and promises directed to the eleven to ourselves as twenty-first century Christians in a secondary sense, if other parts of John’s Gospel or other passages of Scripture justify us so doing. However, it does mean that in the first instance and without otherwise good reasons, we will restrict our expectations of who can name and claim this promise to the eleven. If other passages give the same or similar promises more generally, it may be possible to view the promise in verses 13 and 14 as a subset of that wider promise, but that is not yet our task. Our task is to understand Jesus’ promises in John 14.
The ‘What’ is ‘In My Name’
The second limitation is the ‘what’ question: what might the ‘youse’ ask for. The disciples may ask for “whatever” or “anything” that is also “in my name”. So the disciples as apostles must pray in Jesus’ name to receive the promised benefits.
Now, we know that it is an easy thing to add to each of our prayers the four syllables, “in Jesus’ name” in a mechanistic or quasi-superstitious way. On the other hand, it is appropriate that we formally end our prayers by referring to the intercession and mediation of Jesus Christ, and say “in Jesus’ name” (cf. Eph 5:20, Col 3:17). We are Christian. We believe that there is one mediator between God and man. He is our intercessor, and we want to acknowledge him. But is that all that praying “in Jesus’ name” involves?
It is generally held that praying in the “name” of Jesus forces us to consider the character of Jesus as we ask him for the things we want. The popular understanding of the meaning of the phrase is that we ask for things that are consistent with the character of Jesus. And the evidence does show this to be a true factor. What we ask for must accord with the character of Jesus. But we also much consider some other issues.
We must also think about the fact that the person asking Jesus has or should have the status of his representative. The person who comes in the name of Jesus is ‘representing’ Jesus. Does he or she do so ‘honestly’, ‘genuinely’? Or is he or she a ‘false teacher’, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’? This is a relevant consideration.
We should also work out the effect that the alleged representative, or his prayers or actions, has on the reputation of Jesus’ name. Does this prayer, or answering it, effect Jesus’ reputation, the honour in which that name is held.
Also, is the person asking Jesus truly owned by Jesus. For someone who prays in the name of Jesus must truly belong to that name, to have the right to claim what that name brings.
All four factors—whether the praying person is a true representative of Jesus, that person’s effect on Jesus’ reputation, does Jesus ‘own’ that person, and what is the character of Jesus Christ as the divine name bearer—must be considered to determine whether a prayer is “in Jesus’ name”.
The eleven genuinely represented Jesus’ name, having been appointed by Jesus himself as witnesses during his earthly ministry. This is a factor which at first glance might limit the promise. The apostles can’t just ask anything their sinful hearts might fancy, and claim the promise. So too does the related issue of the impact of the apostles’ conduct on the name of Jesus. So too does the appropriateness of their request, given its effect on Jesus’ reputation. Is the request consistent with their representation of Jesus? Is the request furthering the reputation of Jesus? Is the request reflective of the ownership of Jesus—that Jesus owns both the one who is praying and the world? And of course, is the request consistent with the character of Jesus? These are all legitimate issues in determining whether the request is made truly “in the name” of Jesus.
What They Cannot Claim
What this means is that this wasn’t a promise to the eleven that if they prayed prayers ‘in Jesus name’ for things that fall short of these standards—a brand new four horse cherry red convertible chariot, or a fresh concubine or three, or an all expenses paid Mediterranean cruise, or revenge upon their enemies as John and his brother in thunderousness had done when they wanted to call down God’s judgement on unbelievers (Luke 9:54)—that the disciples would receive these things if they perfunctorily tacked the name of Jesus onto the end of their request. Nor was it a promise that if they prayed for something really hard, and really intensely and really perseveringly, they would get it if they tacked Jesus’ name on the end of the prayer. Nor was it a promise that if they prayed for an end to persecution, or the cessation of the suffering of the church, that they would get that either, just because the name of Jesus was added as a verbal postscript. Nor does it mean that if the apostles prayed for it, the church would necessarily be spared from heresy, division, or schism (cf. Acts 20 and Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders). For it seems that the heresy, schism, and division that exists and has always existed in the church is in accordance with Jesus’ secret will, and for his good purposes.
What They Can Claim
What it does mean, however, is that the eleven, because they are authorized representatives who are owned by Jesus and in a relationship with him (so who prays it matters, and for what purpose), when the prayer is for the advance and progress of the reputation of Jesus’ name (so the motive and effect of the request matters), and the request is consistent with the identity, character, and mission of Jesus (so the person, work, and will, both secret and revealed, of Jesus matters), then Jesus is always favourably disposed to and is both able and willing to answer that prayer of the eleven by granting it—Jesus will honour and fulfill such a request.
In addition, the prayers promised to be answered and honoured are for a specific purpose—verse 14, “so that the Father might be glorified in the Son.” Anything that derogates from that purpose, the glory of the Father, will not be answered positively, because they are not really in Jesus’ name. And the Father’s glorification of the Son will be in his suffering, death, and rising again. So suffering is part of God’s will for both his Son, and also the church.
Can We Apply This Promise To Us?
But then we have another question to answer: can we apply this passage to us, because of the wider teaching of the New Testament?
James makes it clear that Christians will be refused their requests if they are motivated for greedy or self-centred reasons. James 4:2-3:
You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (James 4:2-3 ESV)
That’s a long way from a blank cheque! God hasn’t bound himself to provide our selfish desires.
In John 17:15, Jesus says he is not going to pray for something that will make their lives easier. “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.” At one level, to be airlifted out of hostile territory would be easier, and better. But Jesus doesn’t pray for that, because he doesn’t want it. And if he doesn’t want it, he is not going to give it. And if he doesn’t give it to us, it wasn’t good for us in the first place.
But with these qualifications, yes, there are similar promises issued to every Christian believer that suggests that God will give us everything that we need to live a godly life and work the works God has given us to do.
For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. (Luke 11:10 NASB; cf. Matt 7:18)
My Translation
14:13And whatever you ask for in my name, I will do, so that the Father might be glorified in the Son. 14:14If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
In verse 14, the condition of praying “in the name of” the Lord Jesus requires separate consideration, and can be distilled to the four headings below: representation, reputation, ownership, and character.
Representation: One of the key points in the use of “the name” of Jesus is that it is used in the circumstance when Jesus is physically away and absent. So the use of the name of Jesus replaces the physical presence of Jesus (e.g. 1 John 3:23). In a similar way, the use of the “name” of God reflects the fact that God is invisible to humans (cf. Exod 20:24). Yahweh dwells in heaven but his name dwells on earth (Deut 12:11).
Consequently, actions done on behalf of a “king” or great personage are done “in his name" firstly because the king is not physically present, but is represented by an emissary. When this is applied to the nature of the kingship of Jesus, prophesying, speaking, or preaching in the name of Jesus seems to evoke the idea of being an emissary or ambassador, representing Jesus who is not physically there by carrying his teaching or message (Matt 7:22, 9:27, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Thess 3:6). “Speaking or teaching” in the ‘name’ of Jesus suggests both the teaching of Jesus (what Jesus taught) and the teaching about Jesus (who Jesus is and what he did: Acts 4:18, 5:40, 8:12).
Furthermore, when the apostles use the name of Jesus in their healings and works of power, the name invokes the power of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:8, 16, 4:10, 4:30, 16:18; 1 Cor 5:4) and gives a visible demonstration of the bona fides and genuineness of the representation. The representation is not feigned, but effective and vindicated.
In this regard, a helpful contrary example against which to contrast the effective ‘representation’ of Jesus by the apostles is the attempt to invoke the name of Jesus by the seven Sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13ff.). There were not authorized or commissioned representatives of the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry, so though they invoked the powerful name of Jesus in their attempted exorcism, they did not do so as his representatives, and it was not effective. The consequence of this was not negative for the name of Jesus—in fact, as a result, many more came to fear the name of Jesus. Knowledge of the name does not bring power along the model of ancient magic. The sons of Sceva were almost certainly unsuccessful because the correct relationship of ownership with the name bearer had not preceded the use of the name, on which see below.
Inherent in the idea of effective representation is the bona fides of the emissary. The seven sons of Sceva were shown not to be genuine by their failure to exorcise. By contrast, Jesus’ assurance that no one doing a mighty work in Jesus’ name will soon afterward be able to say something bad about him (Mark 9:39) reflects the necessity that a person speaking in the name of Jesus be in at least a limited sense an adherent and not an enemy of Jesus, and thus they will not slander or blaspheme the name of Jesus. The doing of the powerful work by virtue of the name shows that the worker of power is not, at least for that purpose, an enemy and will not deride the name in which he works. The seven sons of Sceva were not bona fide, and thus they could not do the mighty work they sought, even though they used the correct name. But the unnamed exorcist about whom the disciples complained was successful, and thus had at least the limited authority of the one whose name was invoked to so act as shown by their success, and we have Jesus’ assurance that such persons will not thereafter slander that name.
While in ancient Graeco-Roman and Near Eastern magical practises, knowledge of a name gives power over the person whose name is known, in the case of God and Jesus, the person invoking the name does not gain any power over the divine name bearer. Instead, it is appropriate to talk about a relationship, or perhaps even a covenant broadly considered, existing between the supplicant and the divine bearer of the name.
Reputation: The idea of representation, whether it be true or false, is key to Deuteronomy 18:19-22, where the judicial punishment for false prophecy is stated for the false prophet, and the means of distinguishing the false prophet from the true are provided. The litmus test is whether that which is prophesied comes to pass. What is provided is a way of determining whether true representation is provided. But the discerning of the false prophet not only protects the covenant community, but it also has the consequence of providing protection for the name of Yahweh. The name of Yahweh must be treated as ‘holy’.
This concern to protect the integrity of the divine name also behind the command for honest swearing—for dishonest swearing by the name of the LORD profanes and brings shame upon that name (Lev 19:12). This then leads to the question of the reputation of the divine name, for the name carries the reputation, negatively in shame, and positively in exaltation. The positive side of exalting the name is seen where Jesus’ name is the name that is above all others (Phil 2:9), that his name is glorified in Christians (2 Thess 1:12), and that people are prepared to risk their lives for the name of Jesus (Acts 15:26, 21:13). It follows then, that those requests which are ostensibly made in Jesus’ name, but that do not either advance the name of Jesus, protect the integrity of the name of Jesus, or put at risk the reputation of the name of Jesus, are not genuine requests made ‘in the name’ of Jesus.
Ownership: When a community or individual is said to ‘bear the name of’ the Father and the Lamb (Rev 14:1), this is a statement and sign of ownership or possession of that particular individual or community by the divine name bearer. Conversely, this seems to also be the meaning of ‘bearing the name of the beast’ (Rev 13:7). The idea of bearing the name of the LORD involves belonging to, being the property of, or being owned by, the divine name bearer (Isa 44:5). That idea stands behind statements of Yahweh being ‘my’, ‘our’, ‘his’, ‘their’, or ‘your’ God, e.g., “the LORD our God”, such as in Micah 4:5, which connotes ownership. This notion of ownership or belonging reflects the formalization of the relationship with the Old Testament community by the cutting of a covenant between God and the people. So the nature of the ownership is determined by the type of covenant entered.
Character: Sometimes the renaming of a person by a superior speaks something of the character of that renamed person, or the important role that person will play in salvation history (e.g. Gen 32:28, 35:10). Pre-eminent is the name of Jesus, which discloses his mission, who will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). Moreover, the giving of him the name or title of ‘Emmanuel’, discloses his true identity—“God with us” (Matt 1:23). Conversely, the name ‘Legion’ reflects the many demons that afflicted the unfortunate demon possessed man (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30). Nabal was a fool in name and nature (1 Sam 25:25). So the name is often inextricably bound with the character of person—especially where the name is changed or specifically emphasized—and thus the character, identity, or mission of the name bearer is revealed. This is quite consistent with the fact that on some ancient theories, the name represented the person in accordance with their nature or character. This is especially the case with Jesus, whose name and character, identity, and mission, are completely in conformity.
Jesus’ works in his Father’s name (John 10:25) likewise not only mark the Son’s perfect representation of the Father, but reflect the ontological unity that Son and Father share. The Father is not visible because he is “in heaven” and is a pure spirit, whose form is inaccessible to sinful and mortal humans. Likewise, John writes his Gospel so that those who do not and cannot see, touch, and hear the incarnate Word personally and physically might still receive and enjoy life “in Jesus name” (John 20:31). This “life in his name” is on account of the identity of and the past, present, and future work of the person of Jesus, who is away and not visible to the readers of John’s Gospel. He is only accessible by faith, and not by sight.
Colossians 3:17 seems to gather representation, reputation, ownership, and character ideas together, for “everything is done in the name of the Lord Jesus” seems to have a view to the effect of our behaviour on the reputation of the Lord Jesus, and thus it reflects on the perception of the character and holiness of Jesus.