Text -- John 1:13 (NET)

1:13 –children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Joh 1:13

Which were born ( hoi egennēthēsan ).

First aorist passive indicative of gennaō , to beget, "who were begotten."By spiritual generation (of God, ek theou ), not by physical (ex haimatōn , plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; ek thelēmatos sarkos , from sexual desire; ek thelēmatos andros , from the will of the male). But b of the old Latin reads qui natus est and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads qui natus est as does Tertullian who argues that qui nati sunt (hoi egennēthēsan ) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass ( Philology of the Gospels , p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read hoi egennēthēsan and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in Joh 1:14, but it is not stated in Joh 1:13.

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Which ( ὃι )

Referring to children of God .

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Were born ( ἐγεννήθνσαν )

Literally, were begotten . The phrase γεννηθήναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ , to be born or begotten of God , occurs only here in the Gospel, and several times in the First Epistle. It is peculiar to John.

There is a progress of thought in the three following clauses, describing the proper origin of a believer's new life. Children of God are begotten, not of blood , nor of the will of the flesh , nor of the will of man . " The new birth is not brought about by descent , by desire , or by human power " (Westcott).

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Of blood ( ἐξ αἱμάτων )

Literally, of bloods . The plural is variously explained: by some as indicating the duality of the sexes, by others of the multiplicity of ancestors. The best explanation seems to be afforded by a similar use of the plural in Plato, ἔτι ἐν γάλαξι τρεφόμενοι , " while still nourished by milks " (" Laws," 887). The fluids, blood or milk being represented as the sum-total of all their parts. Compare τὰ ὕδατα , the waters .

Wesley: Joh 1:13

Who became the sons of God, not of blood - Not by descent from Abraham, nor by the will of the flesh - By natural generation, nor by the will of man - Adopting them, but of God - By his Spirit.

JFB: Joh 1:10-13

The language here is nearly as wonderful as the thought. Observe its compact simplicity, its sonorousness--"the world" resounding in each of its three members--and the enigmatic form in which it is couched, startling the reader and setting his ingenuity a-working to solve the stupendous enigma of Christ ignored in His own world. "The world," in the first two clauses, plainly means the created world, into which He came, says Joh 1:9; "in it He was," says this verse. By His Incarnation, He became an inhabitant of it, and bound up with it. Yet it "was made by Him" (Joh 1:3-5). Here, then, it is merely alluded to, in contrast partly with His being in it, but still more with the reception He met with from it. "The world that knew Him not" (1Jo 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind. (See on Joh 1:11-12). Taking the first two clauses as one statement, we try to apprehend it by thinking of the infant Christ conceived in the womb and born in the arms of His own creature, and of the Man Christ Jesus breathing His own air, treading His own ground, supported by substances to which He Himself gave being, and the Creator of the very men whom He came to save. But the most vivid commentary on this entire verse will be got by tracing (in His matchless history) Him of whom it speaks walking amidst all the elements of nature, the diseases of men and death itself, the secrets of the human heart, and "the rulers of the darkness of this world" in all their number, subtlety, and malignity, not only with absolute ease, as their conscious Lord, but, as we might say, with full consciousness on their part of the presence of their Maker, whose will to one and all of them was law. And this is He of whom it is added, "the world knew Him not!"

JFB: Joh 1:13

A sonship therefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, the soul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, and emotions of a child of God, before unknown.

JFB: Joh 1:13

Not of superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of man in any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the human source of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows,

JFB: Joh 1:13

Right royal gift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would not worship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within him the very life, of the sons of God?

Clarke: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood - Who were regenerated, ουκ εξ αἱματων, not of bloods - the union of father and mother, or of a distinguished or illustrious ancestry; for the Hebrew language makes use of the plural to point out the dignity or excellence of a thing: and probably by this the evangelist intended to show his countrymen, that having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant; as no man could lay claim to them, but in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh - any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man - any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God - through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone. It has been already observed that the Jews required circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, in order to make a proselyte. They allow that the Israelites had in Egypt cast off circumcision, and were consequently out of the covenant; but at length they were circumcised, and they mingled the blood of circumcision with the blood of the paschal lamb, and from this union of bloods they were again made the children of God. See Lightfoot. This was the only way by which the Jews could be made the sons of God; but the evangelist shows them that, under the Gospel dispensation, no person could become a child of God, but by being spiritually regenerated.

TSK: Joh 1:13

were : Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5; Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:3, 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 2:2; 1Jo 3:9, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:18

not : Joh 8:33-41; Mat 3:9; Rom 9:7-9

nor of the will of the : Gen 25:22, Gen 25:28, Gen 27:4, Gen 27:33; Rom 9:10-16

nor of the will of man : Psa 110:3; Rom 9:1-5, Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 3:6; Phi 2:13; Jam 1:18

of God : Joh 3:6-8; Tit 3:5; 1Jo 2:28, 1Jo 2:29

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Joh 1:13

Which were born - This doubtless refers to the "new birth,"or to the great change in the sinner’ s mind called regeneration or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their natural birth, or because they were the children of "Jews,"or because they were descended from pious parents. The term "to be born"is often used to denote this change. Compare Joh 3:3-8; 1Jo 2:29. It illustrates clearly and beautifully this great change. The natural birth introduces us to life. The new birth is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is "dead"in sins Eph 2:1; now he begins truly to live. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced to real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favor of God. The term expresses at once the "greatness"and the "nature"of the change.

Not of blood - The Greek word is plural; not of "bloods"- that is, not of "man."Compare Mat 27:4. The Jews prided themselves on being the descendants of Abraham, Mat 3:9. They supposed that it was proof of the favor of God to be descended from such an illustrious ancestry. In this passage this notion is corrected. It is not because men are descended from an illustrious or pious parentage that they are entitled to the favor of God; or perhaps the meaning may be, not because there is a union of illustrious lines of ancestry or "bloods"in them. The law of Christ’ s kingdom is different from what the Jews supposed. Compare 1Pe 1:23. It was necessary to be "born of God"by regeneration. Possibly, however, it may mean that they did not become children of God by the bloody rite of "circumcision,"as many of the Jews supposed they did. This is agreeable to the declaration of Paul in Rom 2:28-29. Nor of the will of the flesh - Not by natural generation.

Nor of the will of man - This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say that they became the children of God neither in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by their natural birth, nor by being "adopted"by a pious man. None of the ways by which we become entitled to the privileges of "children"among people can give us a title to be called the sons of God. It is not by human power or agency that men become children of the Most High.

But of God - That is, God produces the change, and confers the privilege of being cawed his children. The heart is changed by his power. No unaided effort of man, no works of ours, can produce this change. At the same time, it is true that no man is renewed who does not himself "desire"and "will"to be a believer; for the effect of the change is on his "will"Psa 110:3, and no one is changed who does not strive to enter in at the strait gate, Phi 2:12. This important verse, therefore, teaches us:

1.\caps1     t\caps0 hat if men are saved they must be born again.

2.\caps1     t\caps0 hat their salvation is not the result of their birth, or of any honorable or pious parentage.

3.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the children of the rich and the noble, as well as of the poor, must be born of God if they will be saved.

4.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the children of pious parents must be born again; or they cannot be saved. None will go to heaven simply because their "parents"are Christians.

5.\caps1     t\caps0 hat this work is the work of God, and "no man"can do it for us.

6.\caps1     t\caps0 hat we should forsake all human dependence, east off all confidence in the flesh, and go at once to the throne of grace, and beseech of God to adopt us into his family and save our souls from death.

Poole: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood not of the blood of men and women; or, not of the blood of Abraham (which was the boast of the Jews, We have Abraham to our Father ).

Nor of the will of the flesh nor from the lusts of the flesh.

Nor of the will of man nor from a power in man’ s will, or men’ s free act in adopting other men’ s children. To be born, signifieth to receive our principle of life: those who are the children of God hard not the principle of their life, as they are such, from the motions of nature, nor from the will of men.

But of God: whatever be the sense of the former words, these words plainly affirm God to be the principal efficient, and procreant cause, of all those who are the sons of God; for faith, by which we are the children of God, Gal 3:26 , is the work of God, Joh 6:29 , his gift, Phi 1:29 ; and men are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of that which is incorruptible, 1Pe 1:23 : they are sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:26 ; the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit 3:5 .

Lightfoot: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.   

[Which were born, not of blood.] It may be a question here, whether the evangelist in this place opposeth regeneration to natural generation, or only to those ways by which the Jews fancied men were made the sons of God. Expositors treat largely of the former: let us a little consider the latter.   

I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: "Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt -- but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised; and God accepted every one of them and kissed them." "I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live; i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision." The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.   

II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed of Israel and children of the covenant.   

III. Of the will of man; in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.   

These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to us by the gospel.

PBC: Joh 1:13

The new birth is not the product of human lineage (" not of blood" ), nor is it the result of a human relationship (" nor of the will of the flesh" ), nor the result of a human decision (" nor of the will of man." ) Man’s will is not instrumental in his new birth. Man is born " of God" the preposition " of" denoting source or origin. People are not born again as a result of something they do, but solely on the basis of God’s sovereign will and power.

260

Gill: Joh 1:13

Which were born not of blood,.... Or bloods, in the plural number. The birth, here spoken of, is regeneration, expressed by a being born again, or from above; by a being quickened by the Spirit and grace of God; by Christ being formed in men; and by a partaking of the divine nature; and by being made new creatures, as all that believe in the name of Christ are; and which is the evidence of their being the sons of God: and now this is owing not to blood, or bloods; not to the blood of circumcision; or of the passover, which the Jews had an high opinion of, and ascribe life and salvation to, and to which notion this may be opposed: so their commentators ^f on Eze 16:6 where the word "live" is twice used, observe on the first "live", by the blood of the passover, on the second "live", by the blood of circumcision; but, alas! these contribute nothing to the life of the new creature: nor is regeneration owing to the blood of ancestors, to natural descent, as from Abraham, which the Jews valued themselves upon; for sin, and not grace, is conveyed by natural generation: all men are of one blood, and that is tainted with sin, and therefore can never have any influence on regeneration; no blood is to be valued, or any one upon it, but the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin,

Nor of the will of the flesh; man's free will, which is carnal and corrupt, is enmity to God, and impotent to every thing that is spiritually good: regeneration is ascribed to another will and power, even to the will and power of God, and denied of this:

nor of the will of man: of the best of men, as Abraham, David, and others; who, though ever so willing and desirous, that their children, relations, friends, and servants, should be born again, be partakers of the grace of God, and live in his sight, yet cannot effect any thing of this kind: all that they can do is to pray for them, give advice, and bring them under the means of grace; but all is ineffectual without a divine energy. So with the Jews, איש, "a man", signifies a great man, in opposition to "Adam", or "Enosh", which signify a mean, weak, frail man; and our translators have observed this distinction, in Isa 2:9 and the mean man (Adam) boweth down, and the great man (Ish) "humbleth himself": on which Jarchi has this note, "Adam boweth down", i.e. little men; "and a man humbleth himself", i.e. princes, and mighty men, men of power: and so Kimchi on Psa 4:2. "O ye sons of men", observes, that the Psalmist calls them the sons of men, with respect to the great men of Israel; for there were with Absalom the sons of great men. Though sometimes the Jews say ^g, Adam is greater than any of the names of men, as Geber, Enosh, Ish. But now our evangelist observes, let a man be ever so great, or good, or eminent, for gifts and grace, he cannot communicate grace to another, or to whom he will; none are born again of any such will:

but of God; of God, the Father of Christ, who begets to a lively hope; and of the Son, who quickens whom he will; and of the grace of the Spirit, to whom regeneration is generally ascribed,

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Joh 1:13

¹ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

² tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

³ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

⁴ tn Or “man’s.”

⁵ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the ^{( t )} will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

^{( t )} Of that shameful and corrupt nature of man, which is throughout the scriptures described as an enemy of the spirit.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Joh 1:1-51

1 The divinity, humanity, office, and incarnation of Jesus Christ.

15 The testimony of John.

39 The calling of Andrew, Peter, etc.

Combined Bible: Joh 1:1-13

of the Gospel of John

   CHAPTER 2

   Christ, the Eternal Word

   Joh 1:1-13

   In the last chapter we stated, "Each book of the Bible has a prominent and dominant theme which is peculiar to itself. Just as each member in the human body has its own particular function, so, every book in the Bible has its own special purpose and mission. The theme of John’ s Gospel is the Deity of the Savior. Here, as nowhere else in Scripture so fully, the Godhood of Christ is presented to our view. That which is outstanding in this fourth Gospel is the Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. In this book we are shown that the One who was heralded by the angels to the Bethlehem shepherds, who walked this earth for thirty-three years, who was crucified at Calvary, who rose in triumph from the grave, and who forty days later departed from these scenes, was none other than the Lord of glory. The evidence for this is overwhelming, the proofs almost without number, and the effect of contemplating them must be to bow our hearts in worship before ‘ the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ’ (Tit 2:13 )."

   That John’ s Gospel does present the Deity of the Savior is at once apparent from the opening words of the first chapter. The Holy Spirit has, as it were, placed the key right over the entrance, for the introductory verses of this fourth Gospel present the Lord Jesus Christ in Divine relationships and unveil His essential glories. Before we attempt an exposition of this profound passage we shall first submit an analysis of its contents. In these first thirteen verses of John 1 we have set forth: —

   1. The Relation of Christ to Time— "In the beginning," therefore, Eternal: Joh 1:1 .

   2. The Relation of Christ to the Godhead— "With God," therefore, One of the Holy Trinity: Joh 1:1 .

   3. The Relation of Christ to the Holy Trinity— "God was the Word"— the Revealer: Joh 1:1 .

   4. The Relation of Christ to the Universe— "All things were made by him"— the Creator: Joh 1:3 .

   5. The Relation of Christ to Men— Their "Light": Joh 1:4 , 5.

   6. The Relation of John the Baptist to Christ— "Witness" of His Deity: Joh 1:6-9 .

   7. The Reception which Christ met here: Joh 1:10-13 .

   (a) "The world knew him not": Joh 1:10 .

   (b) "His own (Israel) received him not": Joh 1:11 .

   © A company born of God "received him": Joh 1:12 , 13.

   "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh 1:1-3 ). How entirely different is this from the opening verses of the other Gospels! John opens by immediately presenting Christ not as the Son of David, nor as the Son of man, but as the Son of God. John takes us back to the beginning, and shows that the Lord Jesus had no beginning. John goes behind creation and shows that the Savior was Himself the Creator. Every clause in these verses calls for our most careful and prayerful attention.

   "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." Here we enter a realm which transcends the finite mind, and where speculation is profane. "In the beginning" is something we are unable to comprehend: it is one of those matchless sweeps of inspiration which rises above the level of human thought. "In the beginning was the word," and we are equally unable to grasp the final meaning of this. A "word" is an expression: by words we articulate our speech. The Word of God, then, is Deity expressing itself in audible terms. And yet, when we have said this, how much there is that we leave unsaid! "And the word was with God," and this intimates His separate personality, and shows His relation to the other Persons of the blessed Trinity. But how sadly incapacitated are we for meditating upon the relations which exist between the different Persons of the Godhead. "And God was the word." Not only was Christ the Revealer of God, but He always was, and ever remains, none other than God Himself. Not only was our Savior the One through whom, and by whom, the Deity expressed itself in audible terms, but He was Himself co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. Let us now approach the Throne of grace and there seek the mercy and grace we so sorely need to help us as we turn now to take a closer look at these verses.

   "Our God and Father, in the name of Thy dear Son, we pray Thee that Thy Holy Spirit may now take of the things of Christ and show them unto us: to the praise of the glory of Thy grace. Amen."

   "In THE BEGINNING," or, more literally, "in beginning," for there is no article in the Greek. In what "beginning?" There are various "beginnings" referred to in the New Testament. There is the "beginning" of "the world" (Mat 24:21 ); of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mar 1:1 ); of "sorrows" (Mar 13:8 ); of "miracles" (or "signs"), (Joh 2:11 ), etc. But the "beginning" mentioned in Joh 1:1 clearly antedates all these "beginnings." The "beginning" of Joh 1:1 precedes the making of the "all things" of Joh 1:3 . It is then, the beginning of creation, the beginning of time. This earth of ours is old, how old we do not know, possibly millions of years. But "the word" was before all things. He was not only from the beginning, but He was "in the beginning."

   "In beginning:" the absence of the definite article is designed to carry us back to the most remote point that can be imagined. If then, He was before all creation, and He was, for "all things were made by him;" if He was "in the beginning," then He was Himself without beginning, which is only the negative way of saying He was eternal. In perfect accord with this we find, that in His prayer recorded in John 17, He said, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." As, then, the Word was "in the beginning," and if in the beginning, eternal, and as none but God Himself is eternal, the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus is conclusively established.

   "WAS the word." There are two separate words in the Greek which, in this passage, are both rendered "was": the one means to exist, the other to come into being. The latter word (egeneto) is used in Joh 1:3 which, literally rendered, reads, "all things through him came into being, and without him came into being not even one (thing) which has come into being;" and again we have this word "egeneto" in Joh 1:6 where we read, "there was (became to be) a man sent from God, whose name was John;" and again in Joh 1:14 , "And the word was made (became) flesh." But here in Joh 1:1 and Joh 1:2 it is "the word (ito) with God." As the Word He did not come into being, or begin to be, but He was "with God" from all eternity. It is noteworthy that the Holy Spirit uses this word "ito," which signifies that the Son personally subsisted, no less than four times in the first two verses of John 1. Unlike John the Baptist who "became (egeneto) a man," the "word" was (ito), that is, existed with God before time began.

   "Was THE WORD." The reference here is to the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. But why is the Lord Jesus Christ designated "the word?" What is the exact force and significance of this title? The first passage which occurs to our minds as throwing light on this question is the opening statement in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Here we learn that Christ is the final spokesman of God. Closely connected with this is the Savior’ s title found in Rev 1:8— "I am Alpha and Omega," which intimates that He is God’ s alphabet, the One who spells out Deity, the One who utters all God has to say. Even clearer, perhaps, is the testimony of Joh 1:18 : "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The word "declared" means tell out, cf. Act 15:14 , and 21:19; it is translated "told" in Luk 24:35 . Putting together these three passages we learn that Christ is the One who is the Spokesman of God, and One who spelled out the Deity, the One who has declared or told forth the Father.

   Christ, then, is the One who has made the incomprehensible God intelligible. The force of this title of His found in Joh 1:1 , may be discovered by comparing it with that name which is given to the Holy Scriptures— "the Word of God." What are the Scriptures? They are the Word of God. And what does that mean? This: the Scriptures reveal God’ s mind, express His will, make known His perfections, and lay bare His heart. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus has done for the Father. But let us enter a little more into detail:—

   (a) A "word" is a medium of manifestation. I have in my mind a thought, but others know not its nature. But the moment I clothe that thought in words it becomes cognizable. Words, then, make objective unseen thoughts. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus has done. As the Word, Christ has made manifest the invisible God.

   (b) A "word" is a means of communication. By means of words I transmit information to others. By words I express myself, make known my will, and impart knowledge. So Christ, as the Word, is the Divine Transmitter, communicating to us the life and love of God.

   © A "word" is a method of revelation. By his words a speaker exhibits both his intellectual caliber and his moral character. By our words we shall be justified, and by our ‘ words we shall be condemned. And Christ, as the Word, reveals the attributes and perfections of God. How fully has Christ revealed God! He displayed His power, He manifested His wisdom, He exhibited His holiness, He made known His grace, He unveiled His heart. In Christ, and nowhere else, is God fully and finally told out.

   "And the word was WITH GOD." This preposition "with" seems to suggest two thoughts. First, the Word was in the presence of God. As we read, "Enoch walked with God," that is, he lived in fellowship with God. There is a beautiful verse in Proverbs 8 which throws its light on the meaning of "with" in Joh 1:1 , and reveals the blessed relation which obtained from all eternity between the Word and God. The passage begins at Pro 8:22 where "wisdom" is personified. It tells us of the happy fellowship which existed between the Word and God before ever the world was. In Pro 8:30 we read, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." In addition to the two thoughts just suggested, we may add that the Greek preposition "pros" here translated "with" is sometimes rendered "toward," but most frequently "unto." The Word was toward or unto God. One has significantly said, "The word rendered with denotes a perpetual tendency, as it were, of the Son to the Father, in unity of essence."

   That it is here said "the word was with God" tells of His separate personality: He was not "in" God, but "with" God. Now, mark here the marvelous accuracy of Scripture. It is not said, "the word was with the Father" as we might have expected, but "the word was with God." The name "God" is common to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, whereas "the Father" is the special title of the first Person only. Had it said "the word was with the Father," the Holy Spirit had been excluded; but "with God" takes in the Word dwelling in eternal fellowship with both the Father and the Spirit. Observe, too, it does not say, And God was with God,"’ for while there is plurality of Persons in the Godhead, there is but "one God," therefore the minute accuracy of "the WORD was with God."

   "And the word WAS GOD," or, more literally, "and God was the word." Lest the figurative expression "the word" should convey to us an inadequate conception of the Divine glories of Christ, the Holy Spirit goes on to say, "and the word was with God," which denoted His separate personality, and intimated His essential relation to the Godhead. And, as though that were not strong enough, the Holy Spirit expressly adds, "and God was the word." Who could express God save Him who is God! The Word was not an emanation of God, but God Himself made manifest. Not only the revealer of God, but God Himself revealed. A more emphatic and unequivocal affirmation of the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ it is impossible to conceive.

   "The same was in the beginning with God." The same," that is, the Word; "was," that is, subsisted, not began to be; "in the beginning," that is, before time commenced; "with God," that is, as a distinct Personality. That it is here repeated Christ was "with God," seems to be intended as a repudiation of the early Gnostic heresy that Christ was only an idea or ideal IN the mind of God from eternity, duly made manifest in time— a horrible heresy which is being reechoed in our own day. It is not said that the Word was in God; He was, eternally, "with God."

   Before we pass on to the next verse, let us seek to make practical application of what has been before us, and at the same time answer the third of the seven questions asked at the close of the previous chapter; "How may I obtain a better, deeper, fuller knowledge of God Himself? By studying nature? By prayer? By studying Scripture? Or— how?" A more important question we cannot consider. What conception have you formed, dear reader, of the Being, Personality, and Character, of God? Before the Lord Jesus came to this earth, the world was without the knowledge of the true and living God. To say that God is revealed in nature is true, yet it is a statement which needs qualifying. Nature reveals the existence of God, but how little it tells of His character. Nature manifests His natural attributes— His power, His wisdom, His immutability, etc.; but what does nature say to us of His moral attributes— His justice, His holiness, His grace, His love? Nature, as such knows no mercy and shows no pity. If a blind saint unwittingly steps over the edge of a precipice he meets with the same fate as if a vile murderer had been hurled over it. If I break nature’ s laws, no matter how sincere may be my subsequent repentance, there is no escaping the penalty. Nature conceals as well as reveals God. The ancients had "nature" before them, and what did they learn of God? Let that altar, which the Apostle Paul beheld in one of the chief centers of ancient learning and culture make answer— "to the Unknown God" is what he found inscribed thereon!

   It is only in Christ that God is fully told out. Nature is no longer as it left the Creator’ s hands: it is under the Curse, and how could that which is imperfect be a perfect medium for revealing God? But the Lord Jesus Christ is the Holy One. He was God, the Son, manifest in flesh. And so fully and so perfectly did He reveal God, He could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (Joh 14:9 ). Here, then, is the answer to our question, and here is the practical value of what is before us in these opening verses of John’ s Gospel. If the believer would enter into a better, deeper, fuller knowledge of God, he must prayerfully study the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures! Let this be made our chief business, our great delight, to reverently scrutinize and meditate upon the excellencies of our Divine Savior as they are displayed upon the pages of Holy Writ, then, and only then, shall we "increase in the knowledge of God" (Col 1:10 ). The "light of the knowledge of the glory of God" is seen only "in the face of Jesus Christ" (2Co 4:6 ).

   "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh 1:3 ). How this brings out, again, the absolute deity of Christ! Here creation is ascribed to Him, and none but God can create. Man, with all his boasting, is unable to bring into existence a single blade of grass. Observe, that the whole of creation is here ascribed to the Word— "all things were made by him." This would not be true if He were Himself a creature, even though the first and the highest creature. But nothing is excepted— "all things were made by him." Just as He was before all things, and therefore, eternal; so was He the Originator of all things, and therefore, omnipotent.

   "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (Joh 1:4 ). This follows logically from what has been said in the previous verse. If Christ created all things He must be the Fountain of life. He is the Life-Giver. We understand "life" to be used here in its widest sense. Creature life is found in God, for "in him we live and move and have our being"; spiritual life or eternal life, and resurrection life, are also found "in Him." If it be objected that the Greek word for "life" here is "zoe," and that zoe has exclusive reference to spiritual life, we answer, Not always: see Luk 12:15 ; Luk 16:25 (translated "life-time"), Act 17:25 , etc., where, in each case, "zoe" has reference to human (natural) life, as such. Thus, "zoe" includes within its scope all "life."

   "And the Life was THE LIGHT of men." What are we to understand by this? Notice two things: this statement in verse 4 follows immediately after the declaration that "all things were made" by Christ, so that it is creatures, as such, which are here in view; second, it is "men," as men, not only believers, which are here referred to. The "life" here is one of the Divine titles of the Lord Jesus, hence, it is equivalent to saying, "God was the light of men." It speaks of the relation which Christ sustains to men, all men— He is their "light." This is confirmed by what we read in verse 9, "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." In what sense, then, is Christ as "the life" the "light of men?" We answer, In that which renders men accountable creatures. Every rational man is morally enlightened. All rational men "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom 2:15 ). It is this "light," which lightens every man that cometh into the world, that constitutes them responsible human beings. The Greek word for "light" in Joh 1:4 is "phos," and that it is not restricted to spiritual illumination is plainly evident from its usage in Mat 6:23 , "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness," and also see Luk 11:35 ; Act 16:29 , etc.

   Let no reader infer from what has been said that we are among the number who believe the unscriptural theory that there is in every man a spark of Divine life, which needs only to be fanned, to become a flame. No, we expressly repudiate any such satanic lie. By nature, spiritually, he is "dead in trespasses and sins." Yet, notwithstanding, the natural man is a responsible being before God, to Whom he shall give an account of himself; responsible, because the work of God’ s law is written in his heart, his conscience also bearing witness, and this, we take it, is the "light" which is referred to in Joh 1:4 , and the "lighteneth" in Joh 1:9 .

   "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" (Joh 1:5 ). This gives us still another of the Divine titles of Christ. In verse 1 He is spoken of as "the word." In verse 3 as the Maker of all things. In verse 4 as "the life." Now, in verse 5 as "the light." With this should be compared 1Jo 1:5 where we read "God is light." The conclusion, then, is irresistible, the proof complete and final, that the Lord Jesus is none other than God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity.

   The "Englishman’ s Greek New Testament" renders the last clause of Joh 1:5 as follows— "and the light in the darkness appears, and the darkness it apprehended not." This tells us of the effects of the Fall. Every man that comes into this world is lightened by his Creator, but the natural man disregards this light, he repels it, and in consequence, is plunged into darkness. Instead of the natural man "living up to the light he has" (which none ever did) he "loves darkness rather than light" (Joh 3:19 ). The unregenerate man, then, is like one that is blind— he is in the dark. Proof of this appears in the fact that "the Light in the darkness appears, and the darkness apprehended it not." All other darkness yields to and fades away before light, but here "the darkness" is so impenetrable and hopeless, it neither apprehends nor comprehends. What a fearful and solemn indictment of fallen human nature! And how evident it is that nothing short of a miracle of saving grace can ever bring one "out of darkness into God’ s marvelous light."

   "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John" (Joh 1:6 ). The change of subject here is most abrupt. From "the Word" who was God, the Holy Spirit now turns to speak of the forerunner of Christ. He is referred to as "a man," to show us, by way of contrast, that the One to Whom he bore witness was more than Man. This man was "sent from Cod," so is every man who bears faithful witness to the Person of Christ. The name of this man was "John" which, as etymologists tell us, signifies "the gift of God."

   ‘ The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all through him might believe" (Joh 1:7 ). John came to bear witness of "the light." Weigh well these words: they are solemn, pathetic, tragic. Perhaps their force will be the more evident if we ask a question: When the sun is shining in all its beauty, who are the ones that are unconscious of the fact? Who need to be told it is shining? The blind! How tragic, then, when we read that God sent John to "bear witness of the light." How pathetic that there should be any need for this! How solemn the statement that men have to be told "the light" is now in their midst. What a revelation of man’ s fallen condition. The Light shone in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not. Therefore, did God send John to bear witness of the Light. God would not allow His beloved Son to come here unrecognized and unheralded. As soon as He was born into this world, He sent the angels to the Bethlehem shepherds to proclaim Him, and just before His public ministry began, John appeared bidding Israel to receive Him.

   "The same came for a witness." This defines the character of the preacher’ s office. He is a "witness," and a witness is one who knows what he says and says what he knows. He deals not with speculations, he speaks not of his own opinions, but he testifies to what he knows to be the truth.

   "To bear witness of the light." This should ever be the aim of the preacher: to get his hearers to look away from himself to Another. He is not to testify of himself, nor about himself, but he is to "preach Christ" (1Co 1:23 ). This is the message the Spirit of God will own, for Christ has said of Him, "He shall glorify me" (Joh 16:14 ).

   "That all through him might believe." "That" means "in order that." "To bear witness" defines the character of the preacher’ s office: to "bear witness of the light" makes known the preacher’ s theme; that "all through him might believe" speaks of the design of his ministry. Men become believers through receiving the testimony of God’ s witness. The "all" is the same as in Joh 6:45 .

   "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light" (Joh 1:8 ). No, John himself was not "that light," for "light" like "life" is to be found only in God. Apart from God all is darkness, profound and unrelieved. Even the believer has no light in himself. What saith the Scriptures? "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye the light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8 ). There is a statement found in Joh 5:35 which, as it stands in the A.V., conflicts with what is said here in Joh 1:8 . In verse 35 when speaking of John, Christ said, "He was a burning and shining light," but the Greek word used here is entirely different from that translated "light" in Joh 1:8 , and in the R.V. it is correctly translated "He was the lamp that burneth and shineth." This word used of John, correctly translated "lamp," points a striking contrast between the forerunner and Christ as "the light." A lamp has no inherent light of its own— it has to be supplied! A "lamp" has to be carried by another! A "lamp" soon burns out: in a few hours it ceases to shine.

   "That was the true light, which lighteth every man which cometh into the world" (Joh 1:9 ). Bishop Ryle in his most excellent notes on John’ s Gospel, has suggested that the adjective "true" has here at least a fourfold reference. First, Christ, is the "true light" as the Undeceiving Light. Satan himself, we read, "is transformed into an angel of light" (2Co 11:14 ), but he appears as such only to deceive. But Christ is the true Light in contrast from all the false lights which are in the world. Second, as the "true light," Christ is the Real Light. The real light in contrast from the dim and shaded light which was conveyed through the types and shadows of the Old Testament ritual. Third, as the "true light" Christ is the Underived Light: there are lesser lights which are borrowed and reflected, as the moon from the sun, but Christ’ s "light" is His own essential and underived glory. Fourth, as the "true light," Christ is the Supereminent Light, in contrast from all that is ordinary and common. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another of the stars; but all other lights pale before Him who is "the light." The latter part of this ninth verse need not detain us now, having already received our consideration under the exposition of verse four. The light which "every man" has by nature is the light and reason and conscience.

   "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (Joh 1:10 ). "He was in the world" refers, we believe, to His incarnation and the thirty-three years during which He tabernacled among men. Then it is said "and the world was made by him." This is to magnify the Divine glory of the One who had become incarnate, and to emphasize the tragedy of what follows, "and the world knew him not."

   "He was in the world." Who was? None other than the One who had made it. And how was He received? The great Creator was about to appear: will not a thrill of glad expectancy run around the world? He is coming not to judge, but to save. He is to appear not as a haughty Despot, but as a Man "holy, harmless, undefiled;" not to be ministered unto, but to minister. Will not such an One receive a hearty welcome? Alas, "the world knew him not." Full of their own schemes and pursuits, they thought nothing of Him. Unspeakably tragic is this, yet something even more pathetic follows.

   "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (Joh 1:11 ). How appropriate are the terms here used: note the nice distinction: "He was in the world" and, therefore, within the reach of inquiry. But to the seed of Abraham He "came," knocking as it were, at their door for admission; but "they received him not." The world is charged with ignorance, but Israel with unbelief, yea, with a positive refusal of Him. Instead of welcoming the Heavenly Visitant, they drove Him from their door, and even banished Him from the earth. Who would have supposed that a people whose believing ancestors had been eagerly awaiting the appearance of the Messiah for long ages past, would have rejected Him when He came among them! Yet so it was: and should any ask, How could these things be? we answer, This very thing was expressly foretold by their own prophet, that He should possess neither form nor comeliness in their eyes, and when they should see Him there would be no beauty that they should desire Him. Ah! would it have been any wonder if He had turned away from such ingrates in disgust! What blessed subjection to the Father’ s will, and what wondrous love for sinners, that He remained on earth in order that He might later die the death of the Cross!

   But if the world "knew him not," and Israel "received him not," was the purpose of God defeated? No, indeed, for that could not be. The counsel of the Lord "shall stand’ : (Pro 19:21 ). The marvelous condescension of the Son could not be in vain. So, we read, "but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (verse 12). This tells us of the human side of salvation, what is required of sinners. Salvation comes to the sinner through "receiving" Christ, that is, by "believing on his name." There is a slight distinction between these two things, though in substance they are one. Believing, respects Christ as He is exhibited by the Gospel testimony: it is the personal acceptance as truth of what God has said concerning His Son. Receiving, views Christ as presented to us as God’ s Gift, presented to us for our acceptance. And "as many as," no matter whether they be Jews or Gentiles, rich or poor, illiterate or learned, receive Christ as their own personal Savior, to them is given the power or right to become the sons (better "children") of God.

   But who receive Him thus? Not all by any means. Only a few. And is this left to chance? Far from it. As the following verse goes on to state, "which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Joh 1:13 ). This explains to us why the few "receive" Christ. It is because they are born of God. Just as verse 12 gives us the human side, so verse 13 gives us the Divine. The Divine side is the new birth: and the taking place of the new birth is "not of blood," that is to say, it is not a matter of heredity, for regeneration does not run in the veins; "nor of the will of the flesh," the will of the natural man is opposed to God, and he has no will Godward until he has been born again; "nor of the will of man," that is to say, the new birth is not brought about by the well-meant efforts of friends, nor by the persuasive powers of the preacher; "but of God." The new birth is a Divine work. It is accomplished by the Holy Spirit applying the Word in living power to the heart. The reception Christ met during the days of His earthly ministry is the same still: the world "knows him not;" Israel "receives him not;" but a little company do receive him, and who these are Act 13:48 tells us— "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." And here we must stop.

   Preparatory to our next chapter, we are anxious that the reader should study the following questions:

   1. In Joh 1:14 the word "dwelt" signifies "tabernacled." The Word tabernacled among men. It points us back to the Tabernacle of Israel in the wilderness. In what respects did the Tabernacle of old typify and foreshadow Christ?

   2. "We beheld his glory" (Joh 1:14 ): what is meant by this? what "glory?" At least a threefold "glory."

   3. In what sense was Christ "before" John the Baptist (Joh 1:15 )?

   4. What is the meaning of Joh 1:16 ?

   5. Why are we told that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17 )?

   6. Was there any "grace and truth" before Jesus Christ came? If so, what is meant by them coming by Jesus Christ?

   7. How many contrasts can you draw between Law and Grace?

  

  

MHCC: Joh 1:6-14

John the Baptist came to bear witness concerning Jesus. Nothing more fully shows the darkness of men's minds, than that when the Light had appeared, there needed a witness to call attention to it. Christ was the true Light; that great Light which deserves to be called so. By his Spirit and grace he enlightens all that are enlightened to salvation; and those that are not enlightened by him, perish in darkness. Christ was in the world when he took our nature upon him, and dwelt among us. The Son of the Highest was here in this lower world. He was in the world, but not of it. He came to save a lost world, because it was a world of his own making. Yet the world knew him not. When he comes as a Judge, the world shall know him. Many say that they are Christ's own, yet do not receive him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have him to reign over them. All the children of God are born again. This new birth is through the word of God as the means, 1Pe 1:23, and by the Spirit of God as the Author. By his Divine presence Christ always was in the world. But now that the fulness of time was come, he was, after another manner, God manifested in the flesh. But observe the beams of his Divine glory, which darted through this veil of flesh. Men discover their weaknesses to those most familiar with them, but it was not so with Christ; those most intimate with him saw most of his glory. Although he was in the form of a servant, as to outward circumstances, yet, in respect of graces, his form was like the Son of God His Divine glory appeared in the holiness of his doctrine, and in his miracles. He was full of grace, fully acceptable to his Father, therefore qualified to plead for us; and full of truth, fully aware of the things he was to reveal.

Matthew Henry: Joh 1:6-14

The evangelist designs to bring in John Baptist bearing an honourable testimony to Jesus Christ, Now in these verses, before he does this,

I. He gives us some account of the witness he is about to produce. His name was John, which signifies gracious; his conversation was austere, but he was not the less gracious. Now,

1. We are here told concerning him, in general, that he was a man sent of God. The evangelist had said concerning Jesus Christ that he was with God and that he was God; but here concerning John that he was a man, a mere man. God is pleased to speak to us by men like ourselves. John was a great man, but he was a man, a son of man; he was sent from God, he was God's messenger, so he is called, Mal 3:1. God gave him both his mission and his message, both his credentials and his instructions. John wrought no miracle, nor do we find that he had visions and revelations; but the strictness and purity of his life and doctrine, and the direct tendency of both to reform the world, and to revive the interests of God's kingdom among men, were plain indications that he was sent of God.

2. We are here told what his office and business were (Joh 1:7): The same came for a witness, an eye-witness, a leading witness. He came eis marturian - for a testimony. The legal institutions had been long a testimony for God in the Jewish church. By them revealed religion was kept up; hence we read of the tabernacle of the testimony, the ark of the testimony, the law and the testimony: but now divine revelation is to be turned into another channel; now the testimony of Christ is the testimony of God, 1Co 1:6; 1Co 2:1. Among the Gentiles, God indeed had not left himself without witness (Act 14:17), but the Redeemer had no testimonies borne him among them. There was a profound silence concerning him, till John Baptist came for a witness to him. Now observe, (1.) The matter of his testimony: He came to bear witness to the light. Light is a thing which witnesses for itself, and carries its own evidence along with it; but to those who shut their eyes against the light it is necessary there should be those that bear witness to it. Christ's light needs not man's testimony, but the world's darkness does. John was like the night watchman that goes round the town, proclaiming the approach of the morning light to those that have closed their eyes, and are not willing themselves to observe it; or like that watchman that was set to tell those who asked him what of the night that the morning comes, and, if you will enquire, enquire ye, Isa 21:11, Isa 21:12. He was sent of God to tell the world that the long-looked-for Messiah was now come, who should be a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel; and to proclaim that dispensation at hand which would bring life and immortality to light. (2.) The design of his testimony: That all men through him might believe; not in him, but in Christ, whose way he was sent to prepare. He taught men to look through him, and pass through him, to Christ; through the doctrine of repentance for sin to that of faith in Christ. He prepared men for the reception and entertainment of Christ and his gospel, by awakening them to a sight and sense of sin; and that, their eyes being thereby opened, they might be ready to admit those beams of divine light which, in the person and doctrine of the Messiah, were now ready to shine in their faces. If they would but receive this witness of man, they would soon find that the witness of God was greater, 1Jo 5:9. See Joh 10:41. Observe, it was designed that all men through him might believe, excluding none from the kind and beneficial influences of his ministry that did not exclude themselves, as multitudes did, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and so received the grace of God in vain.

3. We are here cautioned not to mistake him for the light who only came to bear witness to it (Joh 1:8): He was not that light that was expected and promised, but only was sent to bear witness of that great and ruling light. He was a star, like that which guided the wise men to Christ, a morning star; but he was not the Sun; not the Bridegroom, but a friend of the Bridegroom; not the Prince, but his harbinger. There were those who rested in John's baptism, and looked no further, as those Ephesians, Act 19:3. To rectify this mistake, the evangelist here, when he speaks very honourably of him, yet shows that he must give place to Christ. He was great as the prophet of the Highest, but not the Highest himself. Note, We must take heed of over-valuing ministers, as well as of under-valuing them; they are not our lords, nor have they dominion over our faith, but ministers by whom we believe, stewards of our Lord's house. We must not give up ourselves by an implicit faith to their conduct, for they are not that light; but we must attend to, and receive, their testimony; for they are sent to bear witness of that light; so then let us esteem them, and not otherwise. Had John pretended to be that light he had not been so much as a faithful witness of that light. Those who usurp the honour of Christ forfeit the honour of being the servants of Christ; yet John was very serviceable as a witness to the light, though he was not that light. Those may be of great use to us who yet shine with a borrowed light.

II. Before he goes on with John's testimony, he returns to give us a further account of this Jesus to whom John bore record. Having shown in the beginning of the chapter the glories of his Godhead, he here comes to show the graces of his incarnation, and his favours to man as Mediator.

1. Christ was the true Light (Joh 1:9); not as if John Baptist were a false light, but, in comparison with Christ, he was a very small light. Christ is the great light that deserves to be called so. Other lights are but figuratively and equivocally called so: Christ is the true light. The fountain of all knowledge and of all comfort must needs be the true light. He is the true light, for proof of which we are not referred to the emanations of his glory in the invisible world (the beams with which he enlightens that), but to those rays of his light which are darted downwards, and with which this dark world of ours is enlightened. But how does Christ enlighten every man that comes into the world? (1.) By his creating power he enlightens every man with the light of reason; that life which is the light of men is from him; all the discoveries and directions of reason, all the comfort it gives us, and all the beauty it puts upon us, are from Christ. (2.) By the publication of his gospel to all nations he does in effect enlighten every man. John Baptist was a light, but he enlightened only Jerusalem and Judea, and the region round about Jordan, like a candle that enlightens one room; but Christ is the true light, for he is a light to enlighten the Gentiles. His everlasting gospel is to be preached to every nation and language, Rev 14:6. Like the sun which enlightens every man that will open his eyes, and receive its light (Psa 19:6), to which the preaching of the gospel is compared. See Rom 10:18. Divine revelation is not now to be confined, as it had been, to one people, but to be diffused to all people, Mat 5:15. (3.) By the operation of his Spirit and grace he enlightens all those that are enlightened to salvation; and those that are not enlightened by him perish in darkness. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is said to be in the face of Jesus Christ, and is compared with that light which was at the beginning commanded to shine out of darkness, and which enlightens every man that comes into the world. Whatever light any man has, he is indebted to Christ for it, whether it be natural or supernatural.

2. Christ was in the world, Joh 1:10. He was in the world, as the essential Word, before his incarnation, upholding all things; but this speaks of his being in the world when he took our nature upon him, and dwelt among us; see Joh 16:28. I am come into the world. The Son of the Highest was here in this lower world; that light in this dark world; that holy thing in this sinful polluted world. He left a world of bliss and glory, and was here in this melancholy miserable world. He undertook to reconcile the world to God, and therefore was in the world, to treat about it, and settle that affair; to satisfy God's justice for the world, and discover God's favour to the world. He was in the world, but not of it, and speaks with an air of triumph when he can say, Now I am no more in it, Joh 17:11. The greatest honour that ever was put upon this world, which is so mean and inconsiderable a part of the universe, was that the Son of God was once in the world; and, as it should engage our affections to things above that there Christ is, so it should reconcile us to our present abode in this world that once Christ was here. He was in the world for awhile, but it is spoken of as a thing past; and so it will be said of us shortly, We were in the world. O that when we are here no more we may be where Christ is! Now observe here, (1.) What reason Christ had to expect the most affectionate and respectful welcome possible in this world; for the world was made by him. Therefore he came to save a lost world because it was a world of his own making. Why should he not concern himself to revive the light that was of his own kindling, to restore a life of his own infusing, and to renew the image that was originally of his own impressing? The world was made by him, and therefore ought to do him homage. (2.) What cold entertainment he met with, notwithstanding: The world knew him not. The great Maker, Ruler, and Redeemer of the world was in it, and few or none of the inhabitants of the world were aware of it. The ox knows his owner, but the more brutish world did not. They did not own him, did not bid him welcome, because they did not know him; and they did not know him because he did not make himself known in the way that they expected - in external glory and majesty. His kingdom came not with observation, because it was to be a kingdom of trail and probation. When he shall come as a Judge the world shall know him.

3. He came to his own (Joh 1:11); not only to the world, which was his own, but to the people of Israel, that were peculiarly his own above all people; of them he came, among them he lived, and to them he was first sent. The Jews were at this time a mean despicable people; the crown was fallen from their head; yet, in remembrance of the ancient covenant, bad as they were, and poor as they were, Christ was not ashamed to look upon them as his own. Ta idia - his own things; not tous idious - his own persons, as true believers are called, Joh 13:1. The Jews were his, as a man's house, and lands, and goods are his, which he uses and possesses; but believers are his as a man's wife and children are his own, which he loves and enjoys. He came to his own, to seek and save them, because they were his own. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for it was he whose own the sheep were. Now observe,

(1.) That the generality rejected him: His own received him not. He had reason to expect that those who were his own should have bidden him welcome, considering how great the obligations were which they lay under to him, and how fair the opportunities were which they had of coming to the knowledge of him. They had the oracles of God, which told them beforehand when and where to expect him, and of what tribe and family he should arise. He came among them himself, introduced with signs and wonders, and himself the greatest; and therefore it is not said of them, as it was of the world (Joh 1:10), that they knew him not; but his own, though they could not but know him, yet received him not; did not receive his doctrine, did not welcome him as the Messiah, but fortified themselves against him. The chief priests, that were in a particular manner his own (for the Levites were God's tribe), were ring-leaders in this contempt put upon him. Now this was very unjust, because they were his own, and therefore he might command their respect; and it was very unkind and ungrateful, because he came to them, to seek and save them, and so to court their respect. Note, Many who in profession are Christ's own, yet do not receive him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have him to reign over them.

(2.) That yet there was a remnant who owned him, and were faithful to him. Though his own received him not, yet there were those that received him (Joh 1:12): But as many as received him. Though Israel were not gathered, yet Christ was glorious. Though the body of that nation persisted and perished in unbelief, yet there were many of them that were wrought upon to submit to Christ, and many more that were not of that fold. Observe here,

[1.] The true Christian's description and property; and that is, that he receives Christ, and believes on his name; the latter explains the former. Note, First, To be a Christian indeed is to believe on Christ's name; it is to assent to the gospel discovery, and consent to the gospel proposal, concerning him. His name is the Word of God; the King of kings, the Lord our righteousness; Jesus a Saviour. Now to believe on his name is to acknowledge that he is what these great names bespeak him to be, and to acquiesce in it, that he may be so to us. Secondly, Believing in Christ's name is receiving him as a gift from God. We must receive his doctrine as true and good; receive his law as just and holy; receive his offers as kind and advantageous; and we must receive the image of his grace, and impressions of his love, as the governing principle of our affections and actions.

[2.] The true Christian's dignity and privilege are twofold: -

First, The privilege of adoption, which takes them into the number of God's children: To them gave he power to become the sons of God. Hitherto, the adoption pertained to the Jews only ( Israel is my son, my first-born ); but now, by faith in Christ, Gentiles are the children of God, Gal 3:26. They have power, exousian - authority; for no man taketh this power to himself, but he who is authorized by the gospel charter. To them gave he a right; to them gave he this pre-eminence. This power have all the saints. Note, 1. It is the unspeakable privilege of all good Christians, that they are become the children of God. They were by nature children of wrath, children of this world. If they be the children of God, they become so, are made so Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani - Persons are not born Christians, but made such. - Tertullian. Behold what manner of love is this, 1Jo 3:1. God calls them his children, they call him Father, and are entitled to all the privileges of children, those of their way and those of their home. 2. The privilege of adoption is entirely owing to Jesus Christ; he gave this power to them that believe on his name. God is his Father, and so ours; and it is by virtue of our espousals to him, and union with him, that we stand related to God as a Father. It was in Christ that we were predestinated to the adoption; from him we receive both the character and the Spirit of adoption, and he is the first-born among many brethren. The Son of God became a Son of man, that the sons and daughters of men might become the sons and daughters of God Almighty.

Secondly, The privilege of regeneration (Joh 1:13): Which were born. Note, All the children of God are born again; all that are adopted are regenerated. This real change evermore attends that relative one. Wherever God confers the dignity of children, he creates the nature and disposition of children. Men cannot do so when they adopt. Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. 1. Negatively. (1.) It is not propagated by natural generation from our parents. It is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of corruptible seed, 1Pe 1:23. Man is called flesh and blood, because thence he has his original: but we do not become the children of God as we become the children of our natural parents. Note, Grace does not run in the blood, as corruption does. Man polluted begat a son in his own likeness (Gen 5:3); but man sanctified and renewed does not beget a son in that likeness. The Jews gloried much in their parentage, and the noble blood that ran in their veins: We are Abraham's seed; and therefore to them pertained the adoption because they were born of that blood; but this New Testament adoption is not founded in any such natural relation. (2.) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the will of man, which labours under a moral impotency of determining itself to that which is good; so that the principles of the divine life are not of our own planting, it is the grace of God that makes us willing to be his. Nor can human laws or writings prevail to sanctify and regenerate a soul; if they could, the new birth would be by the will of man. But, 2. Positively: it is of God. This new birth is owing to the word of God as the means (1Pe 1:23), and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole author. True believers are born of God, 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 5:1. And this is necessary to their adoption; for we cannot expect the love of God if we have not something of his likeness, nor claim the privileges of adoption if we be not under the power of regeneration.

4. The word was made flesh, Joh 1:14. This expresses Christ's incarnation more clearly than what went before. By his divine presence he always was in the world, and by his prophets he came to his own. But now that the fulness of time was come he was sent forth after another manner, made of a woman (Gal 4:4); God manifested in the flesh, according to the faith and hope of holy Job; Yet shall I see God in my flesh, Job 19:26. Observe here,

(1.) The human nature of Christ with which he was veiled; and that expressed two ways.

[1.] The word was made flesh. Forasmuch as the children, who were to become the sons of God, were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, Heb 2:14. The Socinians agree that Christ is both God and man, but they say that he was man, and was made a God, as Moses (Exo 7:1), directly contrary to John here, who saith, Theos ēn - He was God, but sarxegeneto - He was made flesh. Compare v. 1 with this. This intimates not only that he was really and truly man, but that he subjected himself to the miseries and calamities of the human nature. He was made flesh, the meanest part of man. Flesh bespeaks man weak, and he was crucified through weakness, 2Co 13:4. Flesh bespeaks man mortal and dying (Psa 78:39), and Christ was put to death in the flesh 1Pe 3:18. Nay, flesh bespeaks man tainted with sin (Gen 6:3), and Christ, though he was perfectly holy and harmless, yet appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), and was made sin for us, 2Co 5:21. When Adam had sinned, God said to him, Dust thou art; not only because made out of the dust, but because by sin he was sunk into dust. His fall did, sōmatoun tēn psuchēn , turn him as it were all into body, made him earthly; therefore he that was made a curse for us was made flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh, Rom 8:3. Wonder at this, that the eternal Word should be made flesh, when flesh was come into such an ill name; that he who made all things should himself be made flesh, one of the meanest things, and submit to that from which he was at the greatest distance. The voice that ushered in the gospel cried, All flesh is grass (Isa 40:6), to make the Redeemer's love the more wonderful, who, to redeem and save us, was made flesh, and withered as grass; but the Word of the Lord, who was made flesh, endures for ever; when made flesh, he ceased not to be the Word of God.

[2.] He dwelt among us, here in this lower world. Having taken upon him the nature of man, he put himself into the place and condition of other men. The Word might have been made flesh, and dwelt among the angels; but, having taken a body of the same mould with ours, in it he came, and resided in the same world with us. He dwelt among us, us worms of the earth, us that he had no need of, us that he got nothing by, us that were corrupt and depraved, and revolted from God. The Lord God came and dwelt even among the rebellious, Psa 68:18. He that had dwelt among angels, those noble and excellent beings, came and dwelt among us that are a generation of vipers, us sinners, which was worse to him than David's swelling in Mesech and Kedar, or Ezekiel's dwelling among scorpions, or the church of Pergamus dwelling where Satan's seat is. When we look upon the upper world, the world of spirits, how mean and contemptible does this flesh, this body, appear, which we carry about with us, and this world in which our lot is cast, and how hard is it to a contemplative mind to be reconciled to them! But that the eternal Word was made flesh, was clothed with a body as we are, and dwelt in this world as we do, this has put an honour upon them both, and should make us willing to abide in the flesh while God has any work for us to do; for Christ dwelt in this lower world, bad as it is, till he had finished what he had to do here, Joh 17:4. He dwelt among the Jews, that the scripture might be fulfilled, He shall dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen 9:27. And see Zec 2:10. Though the Jews were unkind to him, yet he continued to dwell among them; though (as some of the ancient writers tell us) he was invited to better treatment by Abgarus king of Edessa, yet he removed not to any other nation. He dwelt among us. He was in the world, not as a wayfaring man that tarries but for a night, but he dwelt among us, made a long residence, the original word is observable, eskēnōsen en hēmin - he dwelt among us, he dwelt as in a tabernacle, which intimates, First, That he dwelt here in very mean circumstances, as shepherds that dwell in tents. He did not dwell among us as in a palace, but as in a tent; for he had not where to lay his head, and was always upon the remove. Secondly, That his state here was a military state. Soldiers dwell in tents; he had long since proclaimed war with the seed of the serpent, and now he takes the field in person, sets up his standard, and pitches his tent, to prosecute this war. Thirdly, That his stay among us was not to be perpetual. He dwelt here as in a tent, not as at home. The patriarchs, by dwelling in tabernacles, confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth, and sought the better country, and so did Christ, leaving us an example, Heb 13:13, Heb 13:14. Fourthly, That as of old God dwelt in the tabernacle of Moses, by the shechinah between the cherubim, so now he dwells in the human nature of Christ; that is now the true shechinah, the symbol of God's peculiar presence. And we are to make all our addresses to God through Christ, and from him to receive divine oracles.

(2.) The beams of his divine glory that darted through this veil of flesh: We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. The sun is still the fountain of light, though eclipsed or clouded; so Christ was still the brightness of his Father's glory, even when he dwelt among us in this lower world. And how slightly soever the Jews thought of him there were those that saw through the veil. Observe,

[1.] Who were the witnesses of this glory: we, his disciples and followers, that conversed most freely and familiarly with him; we among whom he dwelt. Other men discover their weaknesses to those that are most familiar with them, but it was not so with Christ; those that were most intimate with him saw most of his glory. As it was with his doctrine, the disciples knew the mysteries of it, while others had it under the veil of parables; so it was with his person, they saw the glory of his divinity, while others saw only the veil of his human nature. He manifested himself to them, and not unto the world. These witnesses were a competent number, twelve of them, a whole jury of witnesses; men of plainness and integrity, and far from any thing of design or intrigue.

[2.] What evidence they had of it: We saw it. They had not their evidence by report, at second hand, but were themselves eye-witnesses of those proofs on which they built their testimony that he was the Son of the living God: We saw it. The word signifies a fixed abiding sight, such as gave them an opportunity of making their observations. This apostle himself explains this: What we declare unto you of the Word of life is what we have seen with our eyes, and what we have looked upon, 1Jo 1:1.

[3.] What the glory was: The glory as of the only begotten of the Father. The glory of the Word made flesh was such a glory as became the only begotten Son of God, and could not be the glory of any other. Note, First, Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father. Believers are the children of God by the special favour of adoption and the special grace of regeneration. They are in a sense homoiousioi - of a like nature (2Pe 1:4), and have the image of his perfections; but Christ is homousios - of the same nature, and is the express image of his person, and the Son of God by an eternal generation. Angels are sons of God, but he never said to any of them, This day have I begotten thee, Heb 1:5. Secondly, He was evidently declared to be the only begotten of the Father, by that which was seen of his glory when he dwelt among us. Though he was in the form of a servant, in respect of outward circumstances, yet, in respect of graces, his form was as that of the fourth in the fiery furnace, like the Son of God. His divine glory appeared in the holiness and heavenliness of his doctrine; in his miracles, which extorted from many this acknowledgment, that he was the Son of God; it appeared in the purity, goodness, and beneficence, of his whole conversation. God's goodness is his glory, and he went about doing good; he spoke and acted in every thing as an incarnate Deity. Perhaps the evangelist had a particular regard to the glory of his transfiguration, of which he was an eye-witness; see 2Pe 1:16-18. God's calling him his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, intimated that he was the only begotten of the Father; but the full proof of this was at his resurrection.

[4.] What advantage those he dwelt among had from this. He dwelt among them, full of grace and truth. In the old tabernacle wherein God dwelt was the law, in this was grace; in that were types, in this was truth. The incarnate Word was every way qualified for his undertaking as Mediator; for he was full of grace and truth, the two great things that fallen man stands in need of; and this proved him to be the Son of God as much as the divine power and majesty that appeared in him. First, He has a fulness of grace and truth for himself; he had the Spirit without measure. He was full of grace, fully acceptable to his Father, and therefore qualified to intercede for us; and full of truth, fully apprized of the things he was to reveal, and therefore fit to instruct us. He had a fulness of knowledge and a fulness of compassion. Secondly, He has a fulness of grace and truth for us. He received, that he might give, and God was well pleased in him, that he might be well pleased with us in him; and this was the truth of the legal types.

Barclay: Joh 1:12-13

Not everyone rejected Jesus when he came; there were some who did receive him and welcome him; and to them Jesus gave the right to become children of God.

There is a sense in which a man is not naturally a child of God. There is a sense in which he has to become a child of God. We may think of this in human terms, because human terms are the only ones open to us.

There are two kinds of sons. There is the son who never does anything else but use his home. All through his youth he takes everything that the home has to offer and gives nothing in return. His father may work and sacrifice to give him his chance in life, and he takes it as a right, never realizing what he is taking and making no effort to deserve it or repay it. When he leaves home, he makes no attempt to keep in touch. The home has served his purpose and he is finished with it. He realizes no bond to be maintained and no debt to be paid. He is his father's son; to his father he owes his existence; and to his father he owes what he is; but between him and his father there is no bond of love and intimacy. The father has given all in love; but the son has given nothing in return.

On the other hand there is the son who all his life realizes what his father is doing and has done for him. He takes every opportunity to show his gratitude by trying to be the son his father would wish him to be; as the years go on he grows closer and closer to his father; the relationship of father and son becomes the relationship of fellowship and friendship. Even when he leaves home the bond is still there and he is still conscious of a debt that can never be repaid.

In the one case the son grows further and further away from the father; in the other he grows nearer and nearer the father. Both are sons, but the sonship is very different. The second has become a son in a way that the first never was.

We may illustrate this kind of relationship from another, but a kindred, sphere. The name of a certain younger man was mentioned to a famous teacher, whose student the younger man claimed to be. The older man answered: "He may have attended my lectures, but he was not one of my students." There is a world of difference between sitting in a teacher's class room and being one of his students. There can be contact without communion; there can be relationship without fellowship. All men are the sons of God in the sense that they owe to him the creation and the preservation of their lives; but only some men become the sons of God in the depth and intimacy of the true father and son relationship.

It is the claim of John that men can enter into that true and real sonship only through Jesus Christ. When he says that it does not come from blood, he is using Jewish thought, for the Jews believed that a physical son was born from the union of the seed of the father with the blood of the mother. This sonship does not come from any human impulse or desire or from any act of the human will; it comes entirely from God. We cannot make ourselves sons of God; we have to enter into a relationship which God offers us. No man can ever enter into friendship with God by his own will and power; there is a great gulf fixed between the human and the divine. Man can only enter into friendship with God when God himself opens the way.

Again let us think in human terms. A commoner cannot approach a king with the offer of friendship; if there is ever to be such a friendship it must depend entirely on the approach of the king. It is so with us and God. We cannot by will or achievement enter into fellowship with God, for we are men and he is God. We can enter into it only when God in his totally undeserved grace condescends to open the way to himself.

But there is a human side to this. What God offers, man has to appropriate. A human father may offer his son his love, his advice, his friendship, and the son may refuse it and prefer to take his own way. It is so with God; God offers us the right to become sons but we need not accept it.

We do accept it through believing in the name of Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Hebrew thought and language had a way of using the name which is strange to us. By that expression Jewish thought did not so much mean the name by which a person was called as his nature in so far as it was revealed and known. For instance, in Psa 9:10the psalmist says: "Those who know thy name put their trust in thee." Clearly that does not mean that those who know that God is called Jehovah will trust him; it means that those who know God's character, God's nature, who know what God is like, will be ready and willing to trust him for everything. In Psa 20:7the psalmist says: "Some boast of chariots and some of horses: but we boast of the name of the Lord our God." Clearly that does not mean that we will boast that God is caned Jehovah. It means that some people will put their trust in human aids, but we will put our trust in God because we know what he is like.

To trust in the name of Jesus therefore means to put our trust in what he is. He was the embodiment of kindness and love and gentleness and service. It is John's great central doctrine that in Jesus we see the very mind of God, the attitude of God to men. If we believe that, then we also believe that God is like Jesus, as kind, as loving as Jesus was. To believe in the name of Jesus is to believe that God is like him; and it is only when we believe that, that we can submit ourselves to God and become his children. Unless we had seen in Jesus what God is like we would never even have dared to think of ourselves as being able to become the children of God. It is what Jesus is that opens to us the possibility of becoming the children of God.

Constable: Joh 1:1-18

I. Prologue 1:1-18

Each of the four Gospels begins with an introduction to Jesus that places Him in the historical setting of His earthly ministry. Matthew connected Him with David and Abraham. Mark associated Him directly with John the Baptist. Luke recorded the predictions of His birth. John, however, declared Him to be the eternal Son of God. Many writers have referred to John's prologue as a theological prologue because this evangelist stressed Jesus' connection with the eternal God.

As with many introductions, this one contains several key terms that recur throughout the remainder of the book. These terms include life and light (v. 4), darkness (v. 5), witness (v. 7), true (i.e., genuine or ultimate) and world (v. 9), as well as Son, Father, glory, and truth (v. 14). The Word (as a Christological title, v. 1) and grace (v. 14) are also important theological terms, but they occur only in the prologue.

"But supremely, the Prologue summarizes how the Word' which was with God in the very beginning came into the sphere of time, history, tangibility--in other words, how the Son of God was sent into the world to become the Jesus of history, so that the glory and grace of God might be uniquely and perfectly disclosed. The rest of the book is nothing other than an expansion of this theme."²⁹

Some writers have identified a chiastic structure in the prologue. R. Alan Culpepper's is essentially as follows.³⁰

A The eternal Word with God vv. 1-2

B What came through the Word: creation v. 3

C What we have received from the Word: life vv. 4-5

D John's purpose: to testify vv. 6-8

E The Incarnation and the world's response vv. 9-10

F The Word and His own (Israel) v. 11

G Those who accepted the Word v. 12a

H He gave them authority to become God's children v. 12b

G' Those who believed in the Word v. 12c

F' The Word and His own (Christians) v. 13

E' The Incarnation and the church's response v. 14

D' John's testimony v. 15

C' What we have received from the Word: grace v. 16

B' What came through the Word: grace and truth v. 17

A' The eternal Word from God v. 18

Jeff Staley also saw a chiasm in these verses, though his perception of the parts is slightly different from Culpepper's.³¹

A The relationship of the Logos to God, creation, and humanity vv. 1-5

B The witness of John (negative) vv. 6-8

C The journey of the Light/Logos (negative) vv. 9-11

D The gift of empowerment (positive) vv. 12-13

C' The journey of the Logos (positive) v. 14

B' The witness of John (positive) v. 15

A' The relationship of the Logos to humankind, re-creation, and God vv. 16-18

These structural analyses point out that all that John wrote in this prologue centers on God's gift of eternal life that comes to people through the Word (v. 12). This emphasis on salvation through Jesus continues to be central throughout the Gospel (cf. 20:30-31).

Constable: Joh 1:9-13

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

The first section of the prologue (vv. 1-5) presents the preincarnate Word. The second section (vv. 6-8) identifies the forerunner of the Word's earthly ministry. This third section introduces the ministry of the Incarnate Word.

"Two points receive special emphasis: one is the astonishing fact that the Word of God, true God as he is, took upon him human nature, and the other is the even more astonishing fact that when he did this, people would have nothing to do with him."⁴³

1:9 There are two possible interpretations of this verse. One is that the true Light enlightens every person who comes into the world (Gr. masculine participle erchomenon, AV, and NASB and NIV margins). The other is that the true Light comes into the world and enlightens everyone (Gr. neuter participle erchomenon, NASB and NIV). The second option seems preferable since the Incarnation is so much in view in the context. The point is that Jesus as the Light affects everyone. Everyone lives under the spotlight of God's illuminating revelation in Jesus Christ since the Incarnation (cf. 1 John 1). His light clarifies the sinfulness and spiritual need of human beings. Those who respond to this convicting revelation positively experience salvation. Those who reject it and turn from the light will end up in outer darkness. They will experience eternal damnation.

The Quakers prefer the first of the two interpretations above. They use this verse to support their doctrine of the "inner light." They believe that God has placed some revelation in the heart of every person. A person can elicit that revelation by meditation. This is not general but special revelation. Their view is very close to the charismatic belief that God gives new revelation today. Non-charismatics see no basis in Scripture for this view. We believe that while God now illuminates the revelation that He has previously given He does not give new revelation now.

The word "true" is one that John used repeatedly in this Gospel. "True" (Gr. alethinon) here refers to what is the ultimate form of the genuine article, the real as opposed to the counterfeit. John did not mean that Jesus was "truthful" (Gr. alethes). Jesus was not only a genuine revelation from God, but He was also the ultimate revelation (cf. 4:23; 6:32; 15:1; 17:3).

John usually used the word "world" (Gr. kosmos) in a negative sense in this Gospel (cf. v. 10; 7:7; 14:17, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14). It does not refer to this planet as a planet but to the inhabited earth fallen in sin and in rebellion against God. It is a world darkened by sin.

1:10 Jesus entered the world that He had created in the Incarnation. Yet the world did not recognize Him for who He was because people's minds had become darkened by the Fall and sin (12:37). Even the Light of the World was incomprehensible to them (cf. Matt. 13:55). The Light shines on everyone even though most people do not see it.

John drew attention to the world by repeating this word three times. However the meaning shifts a bit from the world and all that is in it, in the first two occurrences of the word, to the people in the world who came in contact with Jesus, in the third occurrence.

"The world's characteristic reaction to the Word is one of indifference."⁴⁴

1:11 More seriously, when Jesus visited His own creation (Gr. idia, neuter), the creatures whom He had created (Gr. idioi, masculine) did not receive Him but rejected Him. The specific people whom Jesus visited in the Incarnation were the Jews. They were His own in a double sense. He had not only created them but also bought them for Himself out from the nations. Jesus had created the earth as a house, but when He visited it He found it inhabited by people who refused to acknowledge Him for who He was. In the Incarnation Jesus did not come as an alien; He came home.

1:12 The contrast with rejection is acceptance. Not everyone rejected Jesus when He came. Some accepted Him. To these He gave as a gift the authority (Gr. exousian) to become God's children (Gr. tekna). Receiving Jesus consists of believing in His name. Believing therefore equals receiving. "His name" summarizes all that He is. To believe in His name means to accept the revelation of who Jesus is that God has given. Because that revelation includes the fact that Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice in the place of sinners, belief involves reliance on Jesus for salvation rather than on self. It does not just mean believing facts intellectually. It involves volitional trust as well.

"In the gospel of John belief is viewed in terms of a relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with a decision to accept rather than reject who Jesus claims to be. This leads to a new relationship with God . . .

". . . in the Johannine writings . . . pisteuo ["believe"] with eis ["in" or "into"] refers to belief in a person."⁴⁵

In one sense all human beings are the children of God: we are His creatures. However the Bible speaks of the children of God primarily as those who are His spiritual children by faith in Jesus Christ. The new birth brings us into a new family with new relationships. Clearly John was referring to this family of believers since he wrote that believing in Jesus gives people the right to become God's children. The New Testament speaks of the believer as a child of God and as a son of God. Technically it describes us as children by birth, the new birth, and as sons by adoption. John consistently referred to believers only as children of God in his Gospel. He did not call us the sons of God. In this Gospel Jesus is the only son of God. "Children" draws attention to community of nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) whereas "sons" emphasizes rights and privileges.

When a person offers you a gift that has cost him or her much, it does not become yours until you receive it from that person. The beautifully wrapped package in the outstretched hand of the giver will do the receiver no good until he or she reaches out and takes it. Likewise reception of God's gracious gift of eternal life is necessary before a person can benefit from it. Receiving a gift from someone else does not constitute a meritorious act or good work, and the Bible never regards it as a work. It is simply a response to the work of another.

1:13 The antecedent of "who" is those who believe in Jesus' name (v. 12). Their new life as children of God comes from God. It does not come because of their blood, namely their physical ancestors. Many of the Jews believed that because they were Abraham's descendants they were the spiritual children of God (cf. ch. 8; Rom. 4; Gal. 3). Even today some people think that the faith or works of their ancestors somehow guarantees their salvation. However, God has no grandchildren.

New life does not come because of physical desire either. No amount of wanting it and striving for it will bring it. The only thing that will is belief in Jesus.

"The term flesh' (sarx) is not used by John to convey the idea of sinfulness, as it often does in Paul's writings. . . . Rather, it is indicative of weakness and humiliation as seen in 1:14. It simply affirms that in the Incarnation Jesus became fully human."⁴⁶

Third, new spiritual life does not come because of a human decision either, specifically the choice of a husband to produce a child. It comes as the result of a spiritual decision to trust in Jesus Christ. The Greek word for "man" here is andros meaning "male." The NIV interpreted it properly as "husband" here.

New spiritual life does not come from any of these sources but from God Himself. Ultimately it is the result of God's choice, not man's (cf. Eph. 1:4). Therefore the object of our faith must be God rather than our heritage or race, our works, or our own initiative.

This section of the prologue summarizes the theological issue involved in the Incarnation. It is in a sense a miniature of the whole Gospel.

College: Joh 1:1-51

JOHN 1

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF (HIS GLORY)

TO THE WORLD (1:1-12:50)

A. THE PROLOGUE (1:1-18)

For an inscription or title manuscripts a and B read " According to John" ; older manuscripts ( ^66,75 ) read " (The) Gospel according to John." The former may be more primitive here and the likely original title of the book.

1. The Logos before Time (1:1-4)

His Relationship to Deity (1:1-2)

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning.

1:1. The words " In the beginning" echo Genesis 1:1, especially to Jewish Christians; however, these words in John 1:1 do not refer to the act of creating but to the one who existed and who was present when creation took place, that is, the Word. One might expect to read " In the beginning . . . God," but instead is surprised to read In the beginning was the Word, and this title is more fitting here than the titles " the Christ," " the Son of Man," " the Son of God," etc. John's prologue seems specially composed to introduce and to summarize the person and work of Jesus who is the Christian gospel. It is possible also that the words " In the beginning" are meant to recall the opening of the Gospel according to Mark. Each of the four evangelists opens his Gospel by pushing the activity of Jesus back to the beginning (ajrchv, archç): Mark to the ministry of John with its baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and God's acknowledgment of Jesus' sonship; Matthew and Luke to the virginal conception and birth of Jesus; and John to the creation and to the time before it. John may refer to the opening events recorded by Mark (see 1:6-8,13) and by Matthew and Luke (1:13); his opening is surely a stunning one, for the writer begins with God in eternity. Not many books so begin!

The background to the title " Word" is claimed by the scholarly world to be varied and diverse. (1) Some students have seen the ideas that John associated with the term " Word" as deriving from Grecian philosophy, specifically from Heraclitus and the Stoics; i.e., both Heraclitus and the Stoics described the Word as the omnipresent force used by God to create the world. Philo, a Jewish philosopher and Old Testament commentator, followed the Greeks, which meant that none of these people conceived the Word as a genuinely personal being but mostly as an impersonal force much like gravitation or the fusion of catenae (chains of atoms). (2) Others derived the meaning of " Word" from (a) the Old Testament (Prov 7:22-8:1, where God's wisdom attended the world's creation; but again, wisdom was here less personal and more of an impersonal force) and/or (b) from extracanonical Jewish literature (e.g., Wisdom 24). (3) More than likely the term " Word" derived from Jesus and his preaching and ministering . He preached the Word with his mouth, enacted the Word with his actions, and embodied the Word with his birth and person. In the New Testament the gospel of Jesus is often referred to as " the Word of God." The title for Jesus, " the Word," may, therefore, derive entirely from the Christians, and from neither the pagans nor the Jews, though some students contend that the emphases of both paganism and the Old Testament cling here to the term " Word."

The following may have been the meaning (and reason for the usage) of the title Word as applied to Jesus: (1) Jesus was the major revelation of God's will to humankind, and revelation usually takes the form of words. This explanation has to do primarily with God's relationships to human beings which are described in 1:3ff, not with relationships within the deity himself. John, however, never used the terms ajpokaluvptw (apokalyptô) and ajpokavluyi" ( apokalypsis ), but instead employed such words as levgw (legô, " I say" ), lalevw (laleô, " I speak" ), and fanerovw (phaneroô, " I manifest" ). (2) Jesus not only spoke God's word or message to humankind, but he is God's word or message. There may be a further truth concealed in the use of Logos as the title for Jesus in John 1:1ff; it is simply this: (3) as any word is intimately bound to its idea (or vice versa), so that one cannot have a word without its accompanying idea (in speech or in writing), so close are the Father and Jesus the Son - to have one is to have the other. This observation may help to understand such difficult verses as 10:30; 14:9, 28; etc.

The title " Word" for Jesus has been compared to the relation of the term " name (shçm) of God" in the Old Testament, in which the name of God sometimes stands alongside of God as a separate power, and yet in fact is not anything separate. It describes God in so far as he acts, and especially as he reveals himself (Exod 23:21; Isa 30:27; Ps 8:2,10; 20:2; etc.).

[A]nd the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ProÉ" toÉn qeovn ( pros ton theon , " with God" ) can mean " in the presence of God" (cf. Mark 6:3), or in " fellowship with God." In the phrase " the Word was God," qevo" ( theos ), without the article, is predicative; that is, theos is somewhat like a predicative adjective. One should not, however, translate theos as " divine," nor should one translate it as " the God" (with the definite article) as though Jesus were the only being of whom this could be asserted. " The Word was God" (or deity) is the best way to render the short sentence. The words " with God" describe the nature and environment of the Word in eternity prior to his coming to earth. The verse also says that Jesus, who was the one in whom the Word came to earth, was not a mere man (and Jesus' mission was not performed by a mere human being), but was the Word of God who was God. These opening words of the Fourth Gospel ground things aright from the very beginning. The story that is to follow in this book centers on one who is a human being, but who also is God himself. There are no polytheistic notions nor concepts of imagination in this text; thus, John warns the reader that the words and works ascribed to Jesus in this book are the words and works of God himself.

1:2. In 1:2 John reaffirms what he has already said of Jesus in verse 1, as ou|to" ( houtos , " this one" ) shows.

His Relationship to the World (1:3-4)

³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

1:3. In 1:3, the Word is described as the agent (di= aujtou', di ' autou , " through him" ) of all creation, and the description is stated both positively ( all things ) and negatively (" nothing without him" ). This creating definitely makes the Word deity, because who or what else can make a universe except God? " All things" (pavnta, panta ) means the universe (oJ kovsmo", ho kosmos , cf. 1:10). Note that the Word was appears four times in verses one and two, the imperfect of duration, but 1:3 ejgevneto ( egeneto , a second person aorist form) connotes " came into being" as over against the Word who, on his divine side, did not begin, evolve, or maturate.

The Hellenistic Greeks, especially the Stoics, called the universe (taÉ) pavnta ([ ta ] panta ) or toÉ pa'n ( to pan , " all" ), e.g., Heraclitus: ejk pavntwn e}n kaiÉ ejx eJnoÉ" pavnta (ek pantôn hen kai ex henos panta), " out of all things (is) one and out of one (are) all things." The Jews likewise used the same expression to refer to the world or universe.

Some Christian students understand the words " all things" to refer to the world of human beings, while most take the words to refer to the creation in its entirety and not simply to mankind.

Though the Gnostics made early use of the Fourth Gospel, these words in the first half of 1:3 eliminate the possibility of the author's being a Gnostic. According to Gnostics, the created world could not have come into being by God or by the Logos. Verse 3, however, bluntly declares that everything in creation, which must include all forms of matter, came into being by the direct agency of the Word (di= aujtou' ejgevneto, di ' autou egeneto ).

Since punctuation is not used in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the place of the period at the close of 1:3 has been debated: should o} gevgonen ( ho gegonen ) be joined to the preceding or succeeding words; that is, should the text read " . . . nothing was made that has been made" (so NIV) or " That which has been made in him was life" ? The former reading seems more Johannine.

1:4. The two words ejn aujtw'/ (en autô, " in him" ) remind the reader of Paul's much used formula " in Christ." In him was life and that life was the light of men. Life and light are two of the most frequent terms in this Gospel. The terms had a long and broad background. Both words are used in (1) the Old Testament of creation and salvation (Gen 1). God supplies life (Ezek 37:1-14; Dan 12:2) and also light (Ps 119:130; cf. Ps 36:10). Torah, for the Jews, became the source of life (cf. Aboth 2:7, " The more study of the law the more life" ) and light (see Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:3 " . . . as oil is light for the world, so also words of Torah are light for the world" ). Life and light were terms also extensively used in (2) Hellenism . Gnosticism, whether pagan, Jewish, or heretical-Christian, used the same two words repeatedly, though extant Gnostic literature is probably post-Christian. The same was true of these terms in Zoroastrianism and other pagan religious thought. (3) More important for John is the Christian background of life and light: Jesus' works and words showed him to be the life and light of his followers (cf. Matt 5:14; Mark 4:21-22; Luke 17:24). That Jesus was the life of human beings meant that he was and is the basic energy that makes possible the entire world, not only the existence and activity of human individuals. He is the light of the world in that he reveals such life which is inherent in God (5:26) and can be shared by God with humankind, in spite of the prevalence of death and darkness in this world. The Word's life made the world and the human race possible; the Word's light will make that life (not sin and death) dominant in the world and its race. In other words, " In him was life" meant that life was inherent in Jesus so that he could make the physical world and its habitants, and " the life was the light of man" meant that he was the revealer of this truth to humankind. Both statements meant also, in the light of the rest of this Gospel, that Jesus came to make a new creation (the church), and to reveal this new order to the human race.

How was Jesus' life the light of human beings? It was light in that he supplied the standards or patterns, principles, power, and purpose by which the human race might live; otherwise, the race would perish - and this perishing includes both Jews and Gentiles. He showed humanity how to live, die, and live again; nobody else could do this. We live in and by his life. (Cf. Rom 6:4; Phil 1:20-21; Col 2:20-3:4. Note Col 3:4, " Christ our life." ) The power supplied by his life and the selfless ethical examples supplied by his living seem to be alluded to here. " Jesus' light" shines in the physical world, (human intellect and understanding), in the spirit world (the church), and in the eschatological or heavenly world (heaven).

2. The Logos Manifested in History (1:5-18)

John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos (1:5-13)

⁵ The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood ^a it.

⁶ There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. ⁷ He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. ⁸ He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. ⁹ The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. ^b

¹⁰ He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹ He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹² Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - ¹³ children born not of natural descent, ^c nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

^a 5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome ^b 9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world ^c 13 Greek of bloods

1:5. The light shines in the darkness of an ignorant and sinning race. The verb " shines" (favinei, phainei ) is present active indicative which means (1) that it is the nature of light to continue to shine, or (2) that Jesus' light continues to shine or goes on shining - probably as over against numerous efforts to extinguish it, as the rest of the verse may imply. " The darkness did not katevlaben ( katelaben )." The Greek word may mean either (1) grasp/understand or (2) conquer/suppress . Some have suggested that perhaps John intended to include both meanings here and have proposed that some such translations as " master" might suggest this. Verses 10-12 seem to suggest that receiving or rejecting the truth that Jesus made manifest in this world is what the verb means.

1:6. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. History within earthly time is now reached with John the Baptist. He was sent from God (ajpestalmevno", apestalmenos ), his message was repentance, and his action was immersion in water, so that his audience could publicly certify their repentance.

1:7. John's real purpose was not (1) to save the world (he never died or rose for anyone), nor (2) to seek recognition as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy (he acknowledged that he was not the Messiah), nor (3) to found the Kingdom and/or the church (he was not even a part of or in the kingdom/church [Matt. 11:11]). John's purpose was (4) to testify or to bear witness to the Light, who was Jesus.

Witness bearing or testifying in the New Testament is of supreme importance. One bears testimony to facts. The noun " testimony" or " witness" and the verb " to testify" or " to bear witness to" are courtroom terms - in paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. One bears witness to the truth of what one has seen and/or heard - to the facts as facts. This testimony is preserved to this day - usually in writing in books. John's testimony to Jesus as the Light was preserved in a book, our present Gospel according to John. Testimony is preserved that people may believe the facts which are being testified to - that through him all men might believe. These words refer to John, because people do not believe through Jesus but in Jesus.

1:8. Verse 8 continues with the purpose for the Testimony: in order that (i{na, hina ) all might believe what they have heard or read. There are two purpose clauses here in verses 7 and 8 and the second is dependent on the former. John came in order that he might testify to the Light, and that testimony is produced in order that all persons might believe. Here in verse 8 is the Bible's clear statement of what faith is: faith is the acceptance of testimony (recorded in the Scriptures) to Jesus the Light - the Messiah, the Son of God. That is why the Fourth Gospel is so full of testimony and testifying to Christ - by the Baptist (1:7-13,15,32-34; 3:26; 5:33), by the woman of Samaria (4:39), by Jesus' works (5:36; 10:25), by the Old Testament (5:39), by the crowds of people (12:17), by the Father (5:37; 8:18), by Jesus himself (8:18), by the Holy Spirit (15:26) and by the apostles (15:27).

" Faith" has been defined as " the acceptance of testimony" ; such a definition certainly fits the four Gospels, and especially the Fourth Gospel. If one accepts the data in any biblical book, then one believes; but if one rejects or refuses to accept the data, one disbelieves. What John's book seeks to realize in each of its readers is one's acceptance of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, so that one might have everlasting life as a result (20:31). John the Baptist's testimony was both negative and positive: he was not the Light but merely bore witness to the Light; that is, he told people that Jesus is the Christ. John, therefore, by means of testimony evoked their acceptance or belief in Jesus as Messiah.

1:9. In the expression was coming into the world (ejrcovmenon eij" toÉn kovsmon, erchomenon eis ton kosmon ), erchomenon may be (1) nominative , neuter, singular, agreeing with fw'" (phôs), or (2) accusative , masculine, singular, agreeing with a[nqrwpon (anthrôpon). Number (2) contains a formula that is used in Hebrew for " every person." The line may be read " gives light to every person who comes into the world" (so KJV). Number (1) may be translated " the true light . . . was coming into the world." Number (1) seems to be the intended sense, and thus refers to the incarnation. Reasons for so thinking are as follows: (a) Number (1) has an imperfect periphrastic participle: " the light was coming," which is in harmony with Johannine literary style; and, (b) number (1), further, agrees with 12:46, which says, ejgwÉ fw'" eij" toÉn kovsmon ejlhvluqa (egô phôs eis ton kosmon elçlytha, " I have come into the world as a light" ) (NIV). Number (1), therefore, seems preferable: the " coming" refers to Jesus' incarnation and not to each person's natural birth. C.H. Dodd sought to hold both positions together: light came when Jesus came, but light (ultimately from Jesus) came also when each person came into the world.

Kovsmo" ( kosmos ) appears here for the first time in this Gospel. The term means in this context the physical creation or universe.

1:10. The same word kosmos appears in this verse three times. In John kosmos rarely means simply the physical world or the totality of creation (exceptions are 11:9; 17:5,24; 21:25) (so 10a) and often means the world inhabited by and including human beings and human affairs (so 10b). Sometimes it means simply humanity, as here in 10c.

Though the Logos made the inhabitants of the world, none of them recognized or accepted (believed) him when he made his appearance among his creatures, though they should have known him (Rom 1:18-21; Acts 10:16-17). John uses ginwvskein (ginôskein) here; sometimes he uses ejidevnai ( eidenai ) synonymously with ginôskein.

1:11. In the phrase He came to that which was his own , " his own" (taÉ i[dia, ta idia ) is literally " his own things" or possessions/ property, his own home. What constituted ta idia ? (1) Possibly Israel, or (2) human beings (not those confined to Israel). The NIV seems to understand the plural idia as a singular collective noun (nation, race, etc.).

1:12. Notice that in this verse believing and receiving are equated: Who received him . . . who believed in his name. This may help solve the dilemma created by the doctrine which asserts that nothing but faith saves, which is understood to mean that Christ is received by faith alone; however, repentance from sin, confession of Jesus as Messiah, and baptism into Christ are also, in the New Testament, related to salvation for every person. These are the means of one's receiving Christ or of one's being saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 10:10; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21). The broader or more inclusive term is " receive," yet in John 1:12 the word is equated with " believe." This would imply that " believe" can be used to embrace more than simple " believing" ; " believe" may also include the entire process that is called " conversion." This would still preserve the doctrine that one is saved by divine grace or mercy rather than human merits. Many theologians have yet to wrestle seriously with this problem posed by the biblical and traditional views of conversion and salvation.

For those who receive and believe he gave the right to become children of God. Note that becoming children of God is not a human but a divine arrangement. Note also that if one tries to extend the concept (of becoming a child of God) to human infants (as is often attempted), becoming a child of God involves actions that an infant cannot perform, and that these words were intended to be applied to adults, not to babies. By receiving Christ, through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, one attains the right (ejxousiva, exousia ) to become a child of God.

1:13. Verse thirteen contrasts birth from God with human begetting and birth (cf. 3:3,5). " Not of bloods" - the Greek is plural and probably is due to (1) the common use of damim ) in the plural in Hebrew, and also to (2) the blood of the two parents who beget and bear. The NIV translates children born not of natural descent. The clause could refer to one's godly ancestors (e.g., Abraham) who cannot confer divine sonship on human beings. OujdeÉ ejk qelhvmato" sarkov" ( oude ek thelçmatos sarkos) is translated (by NIV) nor of human decision ; oujdeÉ ejk qelhvmato" ajndrov" (oude ek thelçmatos andros) is rendered nor of a husband's will, and may refer to the initiative in sexual relations usually ascribed to the husband. In short, the children of God are those who have not been begotten " of bloods."

Several textual scribes and theologians have sought to change the opening word of verse 13, oi{ ( hoi , " who," a plural form) into a singular (o{", hos ), " [he] who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." They thus make the verse apply to Jesus and, ultimately, to his virgin birth. This would be a tremendously important allusion in the Fourth Gospel to a very important doctrine (which is not elsewhere clearly referred to in the Gospel), and a number of learned commentators adopt the singular reading. The fact, however, that all the Greek manuscripts, as well as nearly all of the versions and patristic citations of the verse, read the plural calls for caution. (The ancient witnesses for the singular are mostly Latin). The singular hos may also have been influenced by the singular number of the immediately preceding aujtou' ( autou ), " of him ."

The Logos in Flesh (1:14-18)

¹⁴ The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, ^a who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

¹⁵ John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, " This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" ¹⁶ From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, ^a,b who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

^a 14,18 Or the Only Begotten ^b 18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten ) Son

1:14. This is one of the most profound and meaningful verses in the Bible: the Logos who was God became flesh (a human being) and " lived for a while" among us (so the 1978 edition NIV), so that people could see his glory , glory of the only son of God. Jesus is therefore God and God's highest revelation, not merely in spoken words or writings, but in his human person and actions. The verse does not say merely that God took up residence in Jesus in a manner or degree not realized in anyone else. Rather, the verse says that God turned into a human, masculine being who was made of plain human flesh and resided for a while among plain human beings. In fact, it was through the flesh of the human Jesus that God's glory and truth would be revealed in the fullest way. The truth of this verse concerning Jesus is startling and exciting. Once this is grasped, a reader can never be the same again, because the impact of the incarnation of Jesus upon us changes all of our thoughts, philosophy, life, and influence. The rest of this Gospel shows what this verse means.

The Word became . . . (ejgevneto, egeneto ) is a more graphic statement than 1 Tim 3:16: 'O" ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv (hos ephanerôthç en sarki), " who was manifested in the flesh." When used with a noun in the predicative position, the verb givnomai ( ginomai , " to become" ) signifies that something changed its features or began a new situation by becoming what it was not beforehand.

" The word . . . made his dwelling among us." The Greek verb made his dwelling (skhnovw, skçnoô) means " to live in a tent," " to take up one's residence." Some take the verb to be an echo of the Hebrew /kv ( shakan ) meaning " to dwell," and a noun derived from this Hebrew root (hnykv, shekinah ) meaning " presence," which sounds a bit like the Greek " tent" (skhnhv, skçnç), and so in John 1:14 the verb points to the Word's incarnation. The Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), however, did not usually translate /kv by skçnoô, but this does not prove that John could not have made the association for himself.

From the statement We have seen (ejqeasovmeqa, etheasometha ), it should be concluded that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. Many modern exegetes discount such a view, but they certainly are unable to demonstrate that it cannot be so understood. Who is the " us" and the " we" of 1:14? Are they (1) Humanity; (2) John and the prophets; (3) or most likely, the apostle John and the early Christians?

The author also says We beheld his glory (dovxan, doxan ). Like his holiness God's glory may be defined as (1) " the sum of all God's attributes." (2) In classical and Hellenistic Greek doxa normally meant (a) opinion or (b) honor. It came to mean (3) dynamis or might. The term in the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature is (4) dobK ( kavod ), which came to be associated with " lights." In the Septuagint, the New Testament, and Hellenistic literature the word can refer to (5) an epiphany or manifestation of the Godhead .

Doxa here seems to point to Jesus' greatness, (as seen, for example, in his miracles), which lies not only in his deity, wisdom, and power, but all through this Gospel to his humiliating death by crucifixion and to his resurrection from the dead. His " glory" is thus seen in his dying and rising; in these acts the " perfection" of the incarnate Logos is witnessed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Gospel according to John is, then, a book of testimony to Jesus' glory (cf. 20:30-31a; 21:24). Jesus' glory is seen , not primarily in his attributes (even " grace and truth" ), but in his actions, or works as John calls them, especially in his culminating works of dying and rising. For John, Christ's highest moment of glory is his crucifixion (and rising again). At first, it is indeed difficult to see that a bloodletting death of a criminal on a cross could have anything at all to do with " glory," but this book will go on to show how this very horror became the occasion of revealing the divine " glory."

The words The glory of the one and only Son translate dovxan wJ" monogenou'" paraÉ patrov" (doxan hôs monogenous para patros). Monogenou'" ( monogenous ) means " only one of its category" - movno" " only" and gevno" " race," " kind," and when used in relation to the " father" it means " only begotten son." Bultmann cites instances of the term's being applied to pagan divinities with the meaning " begotten by one alone," that is, by one father without the aid of a mother (as in the case of Athena who sprang fully grown from the brain of Zeus), but the LXX's translation of dyjy ( yahid ) as monogenhv" (monogençs) favors " only son," not " only father" (or mother), or as Bultmann translates: " unique." Jesus is for the first time called " Son" here.

" Full of grace and truth." " Grace" is not a favorite term in the Fourth Gospel - in fact, it appears only in 1:14, 16, and 17 - though its threefold appearance here shows the importance of the term for the author. Grace is God's undeserved favor. The term " truth" is a real Johannine term. Sometimes " truth" retains (1) its ordinary Greek meaning: that which pertains to fact and so is not false. The Greek ajlhvqeia, " truth," derives from a- , " not," and lanthanô, " to be hidden;" hence " truth" (for the Greek) was " that which is not hidden," or " what is made manifest." This applies to what is " uncovered" by human science as well as by divine revelation. (2) The Hebrew for " truth," tma, emeth (from amath , " to be solid or stable" ) applies more to personal relationships, and its opposite was " to break the tie between two or more persons." These two emphases in truth flow together in Jesus in John's Gospel. It was suggested by Hoskyns that cavri" ( charis ) referred to Jesus' miracles, while ajlhvqeia (alçtheia) referred to his teachings, but some students have thought this an impossible idea.

1:15. The words This was he of whom I spoke are awkward in Greek (ou|to" h o}n eipon, houtos çn hon eipon), and as one would expect, several attempts were made by copyists through the earlier centuries to smooth out the text.

Notice that John the Baptist's words still witnessed to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. These words in 1:15 also refer to 1:30.

He who comes after me has surpassed me, because he was before me. Jesus was before John (1) in chronology and (2) in significance. John the Baptist had preached about Jesus before Jesus appeared to begin his ministry. John was by six months Jesus' chronological antecedent; Jesus, however, as Logos, existed long before John and also surpassed John in nature, mission, rank, and importance. Jesus, as the Word, existed from eternity, while John was simply a human prophet whose identity would probably have been extinguished and would have remained unknown to posterity except for the renown of Jesus. The expression " before me" (prw'tov" mou, prôtos mou ) refers to Jesus' preexistence (as the Logos). (On John's understanding of Jesus' preexistence see 1:30; 6:62; 8:58; 17:5,24.) John's testimony (1) affirms the truth of the incarnation in 1:14 and also (2) rejects any attempt by John or his followers to assert that John was greater than the Messiah due to (1) John's appearing first in history, and (2) John's baptizing Jesus. There were later Baptist sects in the early history of the church who held just such positions.

1:16. The words in verses 16-18 are sometimes ascribed to the writer of the Gospel, while others trace them to the Baptist. The Greek begins, " From his fulness we all have received." Jesus was full of grace and truth (1:14) (and all the other features of deity). We here surely means Christians, who by union with Christ, receive many of his qualities, especially grace (cf. Phil 1:9-11; 1 Cor 1:30).

The words one blessing after another (cavri" ajntiÉ cavrito", charis anti charitos ). have stimulated a mass of interpretations, some of which are: (1) the grace of Jesus takes the place of an earlier Old Testament grace (ajntiv often means " instead of;" so Chrysostom, but 1:17 says that law, not grace, came through Moses); (2) the phrase describes grace as inexhaustible, in that fresh grace replaces grace that is used up or consumed and will go on doing so perpetually; (3) behind the Greek lies an Aramaic wordplay that eluded the translator: hisda (grace) instead of hisuda or hisda (shame), that is, " shame" (the law) came through Moses, but grace and truth come through Jesus Christ. To this last interpretation it may be objected that (a) an Aramaic prologue remains unproven, and (b) so does a translation error, and further, (c) the Old Testament is never referred to by John as a matter of shame. Number (2) above makes good sense.

1:17. For the law was given (ejdovqh, edothç). The law was not of human origin, though much of it can be paralleled in human/ pagan law codes of the old civilizations of the Near East and Greece and Rome. Such laws, however, as reveal and pertain to Monotheism are largely absent from pagan law collections, though note the law of Hammurabi as a gift of the deity and the view of some Greeks that presupposed one, single God as creator and sustainer of the universe. These, however, were the decidedly minority views of most ancient peoples.

Note that the law was given from God to Moses by angels on Mt. Sinai (Heb. 2:2) and that the law is set in contrast to grace very early in this Gospel; that is, the heart of the Old Testament is seen as less than the New Testament early on in John. Indeed, law and grace or law and gospel are here sharply contrasted. Through Jesus came God's grace and truth (see Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3). This verse excludes Judaism, mystery religions, Gnosticism and all other false " isms" (old and new) as means of salvation.

The law of Moses was intended to bear witness to Jesus (John 5:39), but Moses was more often an accuser (5:45). Note that Jesus is here called Jesus Christ.

1:18. The phrase No one has ever seen God shows that just as invisibility is a basic feature of God in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 34:18-20), so it is in the New (1 John 4:12-20; 1 Tim. 6:10). This is why God must reveal himself; he is nondiscoverable until he takes initiative to make himself known. The Bible is a repository of God's disclosure(s) of himself to human witnesses and recipients. Little can be learned of God (except his existence, his power, and possibly that he is a high God morally) without his special revelation to us (Rom 1:20). His will , like the will of a stranger, has to be disclosed by revelation from God (1 Cor. 2:11). Once God has revealed his will, he does not need to repeat this revelational information to every human being individually, or to groups, or to special leaders. And John insists here that such revelation of God comes at its highest and clearest form only in Jesus Christ.

The center of this revelation is Jesus Christ because he is the one who has made him [the Father] known. The term " make known" is ejxeghvsato (exegçsato), and related to it is the English " exegete." =Exhgevomai (exçgeomai) seems to have been more of a Hellenistic than a biblical term. The word meant (1) to recount facts or relate a narrative. This was the main Greek use of the term. The word also meant (2) to make known or explain divine secrets. This latter is its meaning here, and has to do with Hellenistic notions of revelation as well as biblical. It seems important that the prologue closes with such a term. To Jew and Hellenist, Jesus is the revelation of God's glory, grace, and truth.

Should God the One and Only . . . has made him known or " the only Son . . . has made him known" be read; that is, should we read " God" or " Son?" The oldest manuscript evidence is heavy for the former reading " God the One and Only." Some students object on the ground that the rest of this verse calls for " son" (uiJov", huios ), that is, the Son is the " one who is in the Father's bosom" (or with NIV, " at the Father's side" ); Jesus (as the Logos), however, has already been described in 1:1 as God and, further, John may be intentionally coming back, at the end of his preface, to this very revelation made in 1:1, namely, that Jesus is God (in flesh).

Some commentators of the twentieth century construe monogenhv" (monogençs) as a noun and so take monogençs, qeov" ( theos ), and oJ w eij" toÉn kovlpon tou' patrov" (ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros) as three titles of the one who makes God known: " the only (begotten)," " God," and " the one being in the bosom of the father." This is a real possibility.

B. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

AND OF JESUS' FIRST DISCIPLES (1:19-51)

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)

The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders (1:19-28)

¹⁹ Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. ²⁰ He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, " I am not the Christ. ^a"

²¹ They asked him, " Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"

He said, " I am not."

" Are you the Prophet?"

He answered, " No."

²² Finally they said, " Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

²³ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, " I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" ^b

²⁴ Now some Pharisees who had been sent ²⁵ questioned him, " Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

²⁶" I baptize with ^c water," John replied, " but among you stands one you do not know. ²⁷ He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."

²⁸ This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

^a 20 Or Messiah. " The Christ" (Greek) and " the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean " the Anointed One" ; also in verse 25. ^b 23 Isaiah 40:3 ^c 26 Or in ; also in verses 31 and 33

Many think that 1:19-51 is the second and subsidiary introduction to the Gospel. The first, the Prologue, is more theological; the second more practical in that it is centered in the beginning of the ministry of John and Jesus. All four Gospels view John the Baptist as the introducer of Jesus' ministry. In 1:19-34 the Jewish leaders sent a delegation to examine John's own claims and purposes (19-28). John identified himself with no model known to the delegation, though finally in 1:26-27 John enlarged his testimony about the one who was to come after him. In 1:19 he said that that one is the Lamb of God, and in 1:32, 34 John testified that Jesus both received the Holy Spirit and will baptize with the same.

Verses 19-34 seem to echo the Synoptic accounts of the coming one (Mark 1:7-8) and the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11). Verse 19 is the heading that announced the theme of 1:19-34, namely, " witness" or " testimony" of John. John was the first of a line of witnesses to Jesus in this Gospel. This is because " faith" is " the acceptance of testimony," and here begins the testimony concerning Jesus so that people can accept or reject him (believe or disbelieve) (cf. John 5:32-33).

1:19. In the expression the Jews of Jerusalem, " Jews" (in the plural) is the designation usually ascribed by John to Judaism and its leaders (some 70 times). They opposed Jesus and the church, which is presupposed by the writer of this Gospel, even though he never uses the term " church." The Jews represent the unbelieving world; John the Baptist is a forerunner, not only of Christ, but also of the believing Christians. The Baptist witnessed to a struggle between belief and unbelief that continues and intensifies throughout the life of Jesus.

The priests were the main worship functionaries in the temple in Jerusalem and the Levites assisted them, especially in music and as temple police. They were also teachers of the law (2 Chr 5:4-14; Neh 8:7-9). John's success in attracting crowds and public excitement probably prompted the investigation by the Jewish leaders. This is the only time that the priests and Levites are mentioned in this Gospel.

1:20. The Baptist was asked to give testimony concerning himself and to answer the Jewish leaders' enquiry as to his own identity. He answered first by a negative piece of testimony concerning who he is not : he is not the Messiah. This is the first of a series of denial testimonies from the Baptist, and it concerned the greatest person and title in the series. In verses 19-20, the Baptist testified with the solemnity of a trial; that is, John did not deny but confessed . These verbs suggest confession and denial of Christ, both of which occur in John (9:22; 12:42; 13:38; 18:25,27). Some suppose that these very words were included in this Gospel in order to refute the false belief of followers of the Baptist towards the end of the first century that the Baptist was the Christ.

1:21. The delegation then asked if he were Elijah. Among Jews it was a well established piece of apocalyptic expectation that Elijah would return before the Messiah's coming and indeed would introduce the Messiah by anointing him. Such expectations rested on Malachi 4:5. See verse 31 below. John denied that he was Elijah.

They then asked if he were the Prophet (oJ profhvth", ho prophçtçs). This was not simply a title for the Messiah, but for some old or new prophet who would surpass the great prophet Moses (Deut. 18:15-18), as well as all the other prophets of the Old Testament. John's preaching of repentance reminds one of many Old Testament prophets, but his real greatness lay in his relation to Jesus, not to the Old Testament.

1:22. Who are you? The emissaries from Jerusalem were back where they started. The Baptist fit no known person within the spectrum of Jewish history and religion.

1:23. For identification of himself and his work, John resorted to the Scriptures, to the line in Isaiah 40:3 that did not point to him even as a full person much less as a famous person: I am [a] voice of one calling [bow'nto", boôntos, " call," " shout," " cry out" ] in the desert. Make straight the way for [tou', tou , " of" ] the Lord. John was God's word spoken, not God's word incarnate; indeed, he was like a nameless voicebox that announced God's call for people to prepare themselves by repentance and immersion in water for the appearance of the Lord. These were the techniques or methods used " to make the way straight" : people's living was straightened by repentance and baptism. By stressing the fact that John was a mere voice, he laid stress, not on his person but on his message. John was not the literal Elijah but the spiritual Elijah because he performed the work of Elijah.

The quotation from Isaiah 40:3 agrees with the Septuagint text, except for eujquvnate ( euthynate , " make straight" ); the LXX has eJtoimavsate ( hetoimasate , " prepare" ). It is possible that the Baptist made his own translation from the Hebrew wnp ( pannu ), " prepare."

1:24. Some students contend that this parenthetical verse containing the phrase Some Pharisees who had been sent casts doubt on the author's acquaintance with Judaism before A.D. 70, because the priests and Pharisees were enemies prior to A.D. 70. However, it should be noted that (1) at least some priests were Pharisees, and (2) of all the Jewish sects, the Pharisees gave most attention to rituals, such as baptism, and so were eager to learn why John was practicing such a ritual.

1:25. Since John denied being the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet, why did he dare to introduce immersion in water as a new ritual beyond anything contained in Mosaic law? The answer points to John's baptism as a new rite. Even if Jewish proselyte baptism existed in the first century (and this is not certain), it differed from John's practice in at least two ways: (1) John baptized his own converts while proselytes to Judaism practiced self-immersion, (2) John baptized Jews but no non-Jews. This is the first mention of baptism in the Fourth Gospel.

1:26-27. John replied that he baptized with water, but among the present company stood one whom they did not know. Why not introduce here and now the fact that this one who stood among them would baptize with Spirit? (cf. 1:33). It was because that truth was not revealed to the Baptist until he beheld the Spirit's coming down on Jesus at Jesus' own baptism.

Not even John knew Jesus for what he really was, namely, the Messiah of Israel. Jesus stood in their midst as the hidden Messiah. He is the one who comes after me , i.e., after the Baptist had prepared the way for Jesus.

1:28. This all happened at Bethany beyond the Jordan. There are several variant forms for Bethany in the manuscripts but they all boil down to only two: " Bethany" and " Betharbara." Origen could find no Bethany beyond Jordan, so he adopted Betharbara as the reading, because the name's meaning, he said, was " House of Preparation," which fit the meaning of the Baptist's work there - calling for baptism and repentance to prepare Israel for the Messiah. The meaning of the names, however, are probably Bethany = House of the poor man and Betharbara = House of the ford or ferry (of the Jordan). " Bethany" is surely the best reading here.

The Testimony of John to the Jewish People (1:29-34)

²⁹ The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, " Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' ³¹ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

³² Then John gave this testimony: " I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. ³³ I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' ³⁴ I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

1:29. Note the phrase The next day. Many commentators make little of the chronological notes in the Fourth Gospel, but in 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1 the writer clusters a group of events in days. The earthly Jesus actually appears here for the first time in the Gospel. He was approaching John, and John said, " Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus was not coming to John for baptism; this had already occurred. The scene has changed from the day before because the delegation has departed, and Jesus is now center stage. It is possible that verses 19ff refer to verses 6-8, and now verses 29f refer to verse 15.

Why did John call Jesus the Lamb of God ?" In the Old Testament, lambs were used for sin-offerings (Lev 4:32), in the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:10), in the daily morning and afternoon sacrifices in the temple (Exod 19:38), and at the Passover supper (Exod 12:3-4). There is also the lamb (ajmnov", amnos ) of Isaiah 53:7. The death of none of these lambs, however, was said to be an expiatory or atoning sacrifice, unless Leviticus 4:32 be so construed. The lambs of the Testament of Joseph 19:8 and of the Testament of Benjamin 3:8 also were not treated as offerings for forgiveness of sin; the same is true of the lamb mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 QH 3:10; 8:10f, because the Essenes of Qumran rejected animal sacrifice.

This Lamb of God " takes away the sin of the world." The death of this Lamb will remove the power and penalty of sin from individual human beings. Jesus is the Lamb who, by his death and resurrection, died and rose out from under sin's power and penalty and is now able to share his victory over sin, death, hell, and Satan by our becoming one with him in his death and resurrection.

Notice that " sin" is (a collective) singular, though no great weight should probably be placed on this fact (as does, e.g., Brown). Jesus as God's Lamb that " takes away" sin is a fulfillment of the imagery of the Passover lamb. Note that it is not Jesus' teaching that removed sin, nor his miracles. Lambs do not teach or perform signs; they each die as a sacrifice, so especially a paschal lamb. Sin is removed by sacrifice (Heb 9:22; Rev 5:9). The Jews who first heard these words from the Baptist must have had difficulty understanding them because they had thought little of the Old Testament sacrifices as being fulfilled in a human being. Jesus is God's only adequate sin offering (Heb 10:4-18; 1 Pet 1:19). If the Passover lamb was the background of this " Lamb of God" figure in verses 29 and 36, there was a difference between the paschal lamb and God's lamb: the Passover dealt only with Israel's sins, while the Lamb of God took away the world's sins.

Commentators shy away from the grammatical relationship of " God" and " the Lamb." Is " God's" (tou' qeou', tou theou ) a genitive of possession (" God's lamb" ) or a genitive of description (" a divine lamb" ) or an ablative of source (" the lamb from God" ), or some other possibility?

1:30. The greater does not precede but succeeds . See verses 15 and 27 for John's testimony.

1:31. I myself did not know him. It should not be concluded that John did not know Jesus at all (the two were kinsmen only six months apart in age), but only that John did not know Jesus as the Coming One or the Messiah. The Fourth Gospel goes on to say that the reason for John's baptism was not only to prepare the people for the Messiah, but to manifest (fanerwqh'/, phanerôthç) Jesus as the Messiah to Israel. Jesus was revealed at his baptism as Messiah - to John and to the rest of Israel. Elijah was to do this " manifesting," though this Gospel does not concur that the Baptist was identical to Elijah. Many Jews believed that the Messiah would be an obscure person until revealed to Israel (by Elijah). " Israel" is used four times in the Fourth Gospel and does not convey the bad connotations associated with the term " the Jews."

1:32-33. These verses repeat and elaborate the essence of 1:31; they are also the heart and climax of John's testimony about Jesus: John saw the Spirit come down as a dove from heaven and remain on Jesus. John then testified (ejmartuvrhsen, emartyrçsen) in verse 33 that he would not have recognized the Messiah had not God, who had sent John to baptize, told him that the man on whom he would see the Spirit come down and remain would be the one who was to baptize with the Holy Spirit. The Baptist added in 1:34, I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God. This Jesus thus both takes away sin and gives the Spirit - because he is God's Son (cf. Mark 1:10 and parallels).

1:34. The Fourth Gospel assumes knowledge of the story of the baptism of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels. John himself did not actually report the baptism of Jesus. It is possible, so some say, that this Gospel omitted the Baptist's baptizing of Jesus because the early church was embarrassed by the Baptist's followers who saw in this act a denigration of Jesus and an exaltation of the Baptist. This Gospel, however, stressed two things: (1) Jesus was the one who baptized in Spirit, not the Baptist, and (2) the Synoptics portray Jesus as the one primarily to see the Spirit descend as a dove, but John portrayed the Baptist (also) as seeing the Spirit's descent, and this prevents one's viewing the event as simply a private, subjective experience of Jesus with no external reality to it.

It has been observed that the Fourth Gospel never called John " the Baptist," as Mark 1:4 and Matthew 3:1 do. To whom is John speaking in verses 29-34? Probably (1) not the emissaries of verses 19-27, but possibly (2) John's own disciples, (3) possibly the readers of this Gospel, or most likely (4) a mixed audience of all kinds of persons who had come out to hear him in the wilderness.

These first paragraphs, devoted to John's ministry and witness, close with the straightforward testimony of John to Jesus: I have seen and I testify that this [one] is the Son of God (v. 34). This testimony was the main purpose and product of the Baptist's mission: to bear witness to Christ as more than a prophet or teacher; Jesus is the Son of God. Faith is the acceptance of testimony. People can now begin to believe - or disbelieve - as they begin to accept or reject - the testimony to Jesus in this Gospel. Both Jesus and John were prophets, but only Jesus was God's Son.

Alfred Plummer, in his commentary on Luke 3:21, insists, on the basis of the Greek, that Jesus was baptized after all the multitudes had been baptized and gone from the site; that is, Jesus' baptism was private and not public . This accounts, Plummer says, for the voice and dove's appearance not being experienced by the multitudes: the crowds were not present. The words in Luke 3:21 more likely mean that Jesus was baptized after the crowds on a particular day had dispersed, or more likely it means that Jesus came after the climax of John's ministry had been attained and hence not as many people were on hand. None of the Gospels presents Jesus' baptism as a private affair. Jesus was not ashamed of the humble moments of his career; he did not hide his incarnation at such times, as the coming of the Spirit upon him and the voice that spoke concerning him show. Jesus' baptism was quite like our own (and at the same time vastly different): it marked the close of one part of his life and career and the beginning of a greatly different part.

The title " Son of God" was encountered more often in Judaism than has sometimes been admitted. (1) The nation of Israel was called God's first-born son (Exod 4:22-23; cf. Hosea 11:1); (2) David's promised male descendant, who would sit on David's throne, would be acknowledged as God's son according to 2 Samuel 7:14, a passage that by the first century A.D. had come to be understood messianically. This means that the king had come to be spoken of as " God's Son" (cf. Ps 1:7; 89:26-27). In the Daniel Apocryphon of the Qumran Cave 4, therefore, reference is made to the king as the " Son of God." (3) In Sirach 4:10; Wisdom of Solomon 2:18; and Jubilees 1:24-25, " the righteous" were called God's sons. (4) Even so-called " miracle workers" were sometimes called " Sons of God." (5) Also the angels were called " God's sons" in the Septuagint Greek of Deut. 32:43.

It was, therefore, inevitable that (6) the Messiah should be called " the Son of God" (on the basis of Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14). The unbelieving Jews, of course, sought to reinterpret any application of the title " Son of God" to these passages, and to the Messiah at all. It is surprising to find Psalm 2:7 still interpreted of God's Son, the Messiah, in Midrashim on the Psalms (2:9) and in an even older passage in a Baraitha (an addition) to the Babylonian Talmudic tract called Sukka (52a), which relates Psalm 2:7 to the Messiah ben David.

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples (1:35-51)

John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus. (1:35-42)

³⁵ The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. ³⁶ When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, " Look, the Lamb of God!"

³⁷ When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. ³⁸ Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, " What do you want?"

They said, " Rabbi" (which means Teacher), " where are you staying?"

³⁹" Come," he replied, " and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

⁴⁰ Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. ⁴¹ The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, " We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). ⁴² And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, " You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter). ^a

^a 42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.

1:35-36. On the morrow John the Baptist was standing with two of his disciples and Jesus passed by; again, John said, " Look, the Lamb of God!" These two disciples of John are left unnamed, but the Synoptics name James and John as Jesus' first disciples; so, the second of these two was probably the writer of this Gospel.

1:37. Then these two began to follow Jesus (hjkolouvqhsan (çkolouthçsan) is probably an ingressive aorist, i.e., the use of a verb form that describes the beginning of an action). " To follow" (ajkolouqevw, akoloutheô) is a technical term in Hebrew and Greek for the reactions and relationships of a disciple to his teacher/ model/guide. This scene is more the call of the disciples than their actual following a leader . The text means primarily that the two disciples simply followed Jesus to the place where he was temporarily lodging because they wanted to talk with him. At the same time, they did begin to follow Jesus as disciples. The essence of Christianity lies in those words: to follow Jesus. Following is the expected result of the Baptist's testimony (marturiva, martyria ).

1:38. When Jesus saw the two disciples following, he turned and asked what they wanted. They replied that they wished to know where he was staying . The word for " staying" is mevnei" ( meneis ), which has a rich meaning in this Gospel, but here it probably was meant to be taken literally and with no profound theological implications, such as the suggestion of Bultmann that the question " What do you seek?" is always Jesus' question to every potential disciple.

Rabbi means literally " my great one," and John's translation of it as teacher (didavskalo", didaskalos ) is not literal but done according to usage. The absence of evidence for the title " Rabbi" before A.D. 70 has raised the question of the Gospels' possible anachronistic usage of the term. E.L. Sukenik, in a work published in 1931, reported his discovery of an ossuary (a jar for keeping the bones of a dead person) on the Mount of Olives, which bore the word didaskalos , the very word that John used for " Rabbi." The New Testament's usage of the title " Rabbi," therefore, is not anachronistic after all.

1:39. The two disciples visited with Jesus - and possibly spent the night with him, because John says it was the tenth hour; that is, it was about 4:00 P.M. when they left with Jesus. All of the Gospels use this method of reckoning time - the day of twelve hours from roughly 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.

1:40-41. Andrew was the name of the disciple of the Baptist who heard John's testimony to Jesus and came and visited Jesus. The identity of the unnamed disciple here is unknown, though Brown thinks that he is to be identified with the one whom this Gospel calls " the beloved disciple;" Boismard thinks that the unnamed disciple was Philip, since Philip and Andrew go together in this Gospel (6:5-9; 12:21-22) and came from the same village (1:44). Andrew " first, before he did anything else," or, " before the other unnamed disciple could find his brother," found Simon Peter, his very own (i[dion, idion ) brother (not simply a relative). Andrew then brought Simon to Jesus, and thus, in a sense, became the first Christian evangelist.

John explains here the Hebrew or Aramaic title used of Jesus (Messiah) and translates it as the Christ, i.e., " the one anointed" by God - anointed as a prophet, priest, and king (the persons usually anointed in the Old Testament) - who was intended to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and to inaugurate a new covenant.

1:42. When Jesus first saw Peter, he said, " You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter). The other Gospels locate this change of Simon's name about midway through each of the Synoptics. The fact that the future tense is used " You will be called" points to a later time of fulfillment at least of the meaning if not the giving of the new name. As Beasley-Murray writes, " . . . v. 42 (is) recording the source of Simon's new name, not the time when it was given."

What did Jesus intend here (v. 42) by changing Simon's name to Peter? He probably intended to point to Simon's character and stability: as Simon was now constituted, he was immature and unreliable, but in time, by sufferings and even defeats, he would become a stable Christian disciple, and even eventually a pioneer and leader in the church.

Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

⁴³ The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, " Follow me."

⁴⁴ Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. ⁴⁵ Philip found Nathanael and told him, " We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

⁴⁶" Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.

" Come and see," said Philip.

⁴⁷ When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, " Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

⁴⁸" How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, " I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

⁴⁹ Then Nathanael declared, " Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

⁵⁰ Jesus said, " You believe ^a because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." ⁵¹ He then added, " I tell you ^b the truth, you ^b shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

^a 50 Or Do you believe . . . ? ^b 51 The Greek is plural

1:43. On the next day , Philip was called by Jesus. Only in John's Gospel is much said of him (6:5-8; 12:21-22; 14:8-10). He is simply alluded to in the list of apostles in the other Gospels. His name is Greek (it means " Lover of horses" ) and was borne by Alexander the Great's father. This may not prove, however, that Philip was of Greek ancestry because the same name was worn by one of the Jewish Amora (famous rabbis of the late first and second centuries A.D.). It may point to some of the family's education in things Grecian as well as Jewish - somewhat like the apostle Paul's cultural situation. Philip was from the city of Bethsaida in Galilee, an area whose culture was quite mixed, and it was also the region of Andrew and Peter. Philip is the first one to be called personally by Jesus to discipleship.

1:44. The city of Bethsaida actually lay in Gaulanitis on the east side of the Jordan where the river empties into the Sea of Galilee. The city, however, (1) may have had a Jewish community or (2) it may have had a smaller part of its locale situated also on the western bank of the Jordan. At any rate, evidence exists that the common folk used " Galilee" to refer to some of the area east of the Jordan; for example, Josephus speaks of " Judas the Galilean" as from Gamala, which lay east of the lake. Moreover, Capernaum (the home of Peter and Andrew) was only a few miles west of Bethsaida. Edwin A. Abbott says that Philip, Andrew, and Peter were out of ( ek ) Bethsaida because they had been born there, but they were also from ( apo ) Capernaum, because they currently lived there.

1:45. Philip found Nathanael, who is not mentioned even in the lists of the apostles. His name does appear a second time in John 21:2, so commentators have been eager to supply him with a name from the apostolic lists. Bartholomew is the favorite choice. Unlike the NIV, there is no definite article with " son" ( huios ) in the oldest manuscripts: Jesus . . . son of Joseph. This is naturally the way that one who was uninformed would look upon Jesus - as Joseph's son.

1:46. Nathanael responded that nothing good could come from Nazareth. Why? Because it was a No place : it is never mentioned in the Old Testament, the Jewish Talmud and Midrash, nor in any extant pagan writing. Jesus' residence in Nazareth is like his birth in a stable, his crucifixion, or his burial in a borrowed tomb: aspects of the offense of the incarnation. In the long run, the best thing in the universe came out of Nazareth.

Philip requested that Nathanael come and see - the same request that Jesus made of the two disciples of the Baptist in verse 39.

1:47. Jesus greeted Nathanael as a true [the Greek uses an adverb " truly" ] Israelite in whom there is nothing false. The Greek says dovlo" oujk e[stin ( dolos ouk estin , " there is not deceit" ). Why the expression " not deceit" ? (1) The words were possibly drawn from Psalm 32:2, " And in whose spirit is no deceit" (NIV). More likely (2) Nathanael is thought of as being in the lineage of Jacob/Israel but who does not partake of the deceit of his forebearers; cf. Genesis 27:35, " your brother came and with deceit took your blessing."

1:48. Jesus' statement about Nathanael prompted Nathanael to ask how Jesus knew him. Jesus responded that he had seen Nathanael as the latter sat under a fig tree some distance away from Jesus. Many modern commentators associate such uncanny knowledge with what they call a " divine man" among pagans and even some Jews. Such knowledge was part of the divine man's magical powers. Jesus, however, never seems to have been viewed as such a " magician" in the Gospels. The Old Testament knew something of such a power among some of the prophets (cf. 2 Kgs 6:8-12; Ezek 8:1-18; 21:21-23). Jesus, however, was more than the Old Testament prophets, because he knew both the mind of God and the mind of mankind.

1:49. Nathanael sensed this truth and so exclaimed, " . . . you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel." In this context the titles may have been roughly synonymous for Nathanael. They are surely Messianic titles (cf. 1:34).

1:50. Jesus paused to note both the maturity and immaturity of Nathanael's faith, exhibited by the titles that he gave to Jesus (Son of God, King of Israel). Here was the beginnings of faith in Jesus by another new disciple, but Jesus pointed out that it is faith based on the supernatural (Jesus' knowledge of Nathanael's character and location at a distance). Jesus seemed to hint that the greater kind of faith rests on a less physical base, though the rest of the verse says that Nathanael will see greater things than this rather mild display of the supernatural in Jesus: You shall see greater things than that. What greater things? (1) Jesus' revelations; (2) Jesus' miracles; (3) Jesus' perfect life; (4) Jesus' death and resurrection; and (5) the gospel of Jesus and its winning of the world; (6) the Parousia and End - that is, the greatness of the Son of Man from the incarnation to the parousia.

1:51. I tell you the truth translates the " Truly, truly I say to you," which was much used (25 times) in this Gospel to introduce an important saying of Jesus. Jesus then proceeded to say that the disciples (the number is plural, so more than simply Nathanael seem to be addressed) would see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Commentators struggle with this saying. It is difficult! The saying surely has Jacob's dream in Genesis 28:12 in mind with the angels' ascending and descending, though notice that in this verse John reversed the order of these angelic actions, and also in John both Jacob and the ladder faded away and the angels ascend and descend on or to (ejpiv, epi ) the Son of Man. The saying seems to tell us that Jesus keeps in touch with both heaven and earth, that the highest creatures in all creation serve him, that he stands as the junction point that holds heaven and earth together, and that it is no longer patriarchs, angels, or anything else in all creation and beyond it that count but only the God who is in Jesus.

Jesus sees the angels in relation to " the Son of Man." This is the first occurrence in John of this title. In all instances (except one, Acts 7:56) the title was used by Jesus only, so it is the title that he preferred. Why? It referred only to him. It was an imprecise designation, unlike King of Israel or Son of God, which could be politically or theologically explosive among the Jews of the first century A.D. Jesus, therefore, could more easily pack new meaning into the title Son of Man than into probably any other. The expression appears 13 times in John. Other reasons why Jesus preferred to use the title " Son of Man" were: (1) it appeared in the Old Testament (cf. Dan 7:13-14) (2) often meant simply " I" on the lips of Jesus (John 6:20, 27), (3) held a prominent place with Jesus' several predictions of his death and resurrection (John 3:14; 8:28), (4) quite often was associated with the future end of the world and Jesus' parousia (5:27; 9:39), and (5) in John especially, was allied with divine revelation in and through Jesus (6:27, 53). While the title Son of Man surely pointed to Jesus' human nature, it also carried strong messianic overtones, uniting the divine and the human in Jesus.

In the first chapter of John, titles carry much of the testimony presented here to Jesus. In John chapter one, Jesus is called Word, teacher (Rabbi, 1:34), Lamb of God, Messiah, Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of Man. These epithets really say that Jesus is unique. John the Baptist was at most only a witness - important, but only as a servant, not as the Master.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Joh 1:1-18

II.
JOHN'S INTRODUCTION.
^dJOHN I. 1-18.

   ^d1 In the beginning was the Word [a title for Jesus peculiar to the apostle John], and the Word was with God [not going before nor coming after God, but with Him at the beginning], and the Word was God. [Not more, not less.]  2 The same was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made through him [the New Testament often speaks of Christ as the Creator -- see Joh 1:10, 1Co 8:6, Col 1:13, Heb 1:2]; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. [This shows that Jesus himself is not a creature.]  4 In his was life [As in the Father (Joh 5:26). As this life animates the living, so can it reanimate the dead -- Joh 11:25; and the life was the light of men. [The life of Jesus is the light of men, because from that life we get our intellect and understanding, and because that life formed and governs the creation around us by which we become enlightened as to the existence and power of God -- Rom 1:18-21, Act 14:16, Act 14:17.]  5 And the light shineth in the darkness [an ignorant, benighted world]; and the darkness apprehended it not. [Did not receive or admit it. Jesus, the Light of the world, was despised and rejected by men.]  6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light. [that he might tell men that Jesus was the Messiah], that all [who heard his testimony] might believe [in Jesus] through him.  8 He was not the light ["He was the lamp that burneth and shineth" (Joh 5:35); but not the Sun of righteousness -- [2] Mal 4:2], but came that he might bear witness of the light.  9 There was the true light [as opposed to the imperfect, incomplete, and transitory lights], even the light which lighteth every man [all men are enlightened in some degree and enlightened of Christ: some by nature, some by conscience, and some by Bible revelation], coming into the world.  10 He was in the world. [invisibly present, renewing and sustaining his creation], and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. [Though it might and should have known him -- Rom 1:18-21, Act 14:16, Act 14:17.]  11 He came [visibly in the flesh] unto his own [his own land or possessions -- Hos 9:3, Jer 2:7, Zec 2:12], and they that were his own [the children of Israel -- Exo 19:5, Deu 7:6, Deu 14:2] received him not.  12 But as many as received him [whether Jew or Gentile], to them gave he the right to become children of God [comp. Rom 3:14-17, Gal 3:26, Gal 4:6, Gal 4:7, 1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2], even to them that believe on his name:  13 who were born, not of blood [descent from Abraham, David or any other godly person does not make a man a child of God -- Luk 3:8, Mat 3:9, Joh 8:39, Joh 8:40, Gal 3:6, Gal 3:7, Gal 3:29], nor of the will of the flesh [the efforts and exertions of our own human hearts and natures may reform, but can not regenerate, the life -- Joh 3:6], nor of the will of man [we are not begotten of God by the acts and deeds of our fellow-men, however much they may aid us in leading right lives], but of God. [Joh 3:5, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 5:1.]  14 And the Word became flesh [by being born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary], and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory [in his miracles, and especially in his transfiguration -- Joh 2:11, 2Pe 1:16-18], glory as of the only begotten from the Father) [such glory as was suitable to the Son of God], full of grace and truth. [The glory of Christ was not in pomp and worldly grandeur, but in the holiness, grace, and truth of his daily life.]  15 John [the Baptist] beareth witness of him [the words of John the Baptist still witness to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles], and crieth, [3] saying, This was he of whom I said [John had preached about Jesus before Jesus appeared; he now points to Jesus as the one about whom he had preached], He that cometh after me [He for whom I as a forerunner have prepared the way -- Mat 3:3] is become before me [is worthy of more honor and reverence than am I]: for he was before me. [Though born into the world six months later than John, Jesus, as the Word, had existed from eternity. (In Joh 1:16 the words are the apostle John's, and not John the Baptist's.)]  16 For of his fulness [Jesus was full of grace and truth -- and all the attributes of God -- Eph 1:23, Eph 3:19, Eph 4:13, Col 1:19, Col 2:9] we all received [by union with him all his perfection and righteousness became ours -- Phi 1:10, Phi 1:11, Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9, 1Co 1:30], and grace for grace. [This may mean that we receive a grace kindred to or like each several grace that is in Christ (Rom 8:29, Rom 12:2, Eph 4:11-13). But it more probably means fullness of grace, or fresh grace daily added to the grace already bestowed.]  17 For the law [the Old Dispensation with its condemnation (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:21) and its types and shadows -- Col 2:16, Col 2:17, Heb 8:4, Heb 8:5, Heb 10:1] was given through Moses [by angels at Mt. Sinai -- Heb 2:2]; grace and truth [the New Dispensation with its justification (Rom 3:21-26) and its realities -- Heb 9:1-15] came through Jesus Christ. [Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2, Heb 2:3.]  18 No man hath seen God at any time [1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:20, Joh 1:18, 1Ti 4:16]; the only begotten Son [the word "only begotten" indicates that none other bears with Christ a like relationship to God], who is in the bosom of the Father [who bears the closest and tenderest relationship and fellowship as to the Father], he hath declared him. [Joh 3:2, Joh 15:9, Col 1:15.] [4]

[FFG 2-4]

Lapide: Joh 1:1-51

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO JOHN.

T

 

HIS is the title in the Greek and Latin codices. In the Syriac it is as follows, The Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Jouchanon (John), which he spake and preached in Ionic (Greek) at Ephesus. The Arabic has, The Gospel of the holy and great disciple, the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, the beloved of our Lord Jesus Christ.

___________ 

CHAPTER 1.

 

In the beginning, &c. So the Persian, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, and Arabic, except that the last version has the article in the second and third clauses of the verse—"the Word was with God, the Word was God." The Ethiopic for Word has cal, answering to the Latin Verbum, which is better than Sermo, as Erasmus and the innovators translate the Greek λόγος.

John begins from the Godhead of the Word: first, because the right order and a full account of Christ require it; second, because in the time of S. John the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion had arisen, which denied Christ's Divinity.

After a similar manner did Moses begin his account of the genesis of the world, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Moses begins from the creation of the world, but John far higher, even from the eternity of the Word. Moses marks the beginning of time, in which God made all things. John marks a beginning which was from eternity, when the Word was, by which all things were made by God in time. John therefore takes up the exordium of Moses, and presupposes the beginning of the world, when he gives, so to say, an account of the long anterior beginning of the Word. Hence Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes, truly asserts that the Gospel is the supplement of the Old Testament.

S. John alludes to Ecclus. 24:5, "I (the Eternal Wisdom) came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first begotten before every creature." Also to Pro 8:22, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything, from the beginning." Where the Septuagint translates, "The Lord built, or founded (έκτισε ) me the beginning of His ways, in His work. Before the age He founded me in the beginning, before He made the earth, and appointed the great depths."

In the beginning, i.e., first, "in the Eternal Father," as Cyril says, and Origen. For by-and-by John says in the 14th verse, that the Word was in the bosom of the Father. Second, and more simply, Augustine, Bede, and Hilary, In the beginning, i.e., of the world, or of times, such as you can only imagine, which went on from all eternity before the foundation of the world. As much as to say, the Word was not made in the beginning of time, however ancient and imaginary; but He existed then, because He was not made, but was begotten from eternity. Third, and most simply, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Basil, In the beginning, i.e., before all things, even from the beginning of all eternity, long before all angels, or men, or things created, the Word was. For S. John is here speaking of a true and real beginning ( principium ), just as Moses does in the first verse of Genesis, and Solomon in Pro 8:22. Wherefore, all the Fathers from the passage prove the true Divinity and eternity of Christ. This beginning S. John sets in opposition to Ebion, who affirmed that Christ began to be after His birth of the Virgin, and that He had no previous existence. So Cyril. Hence Nonnus expounds the expression In the beginning, in a fivefold manner one following after another. He was in the beginning, saith he, first, as not subject to conditions of time; second , as coeternal with the Father; third, as equal to the Father by nature; fourth, as incomprehensible; fifth, as ineffable. The four last are consequences of the first.

You will say, Eternity is infinite duration, having neither beginning, nor end: why then is a beginning here spoken of? I answer, the reason is, because of the weakness of the human intellect, which is not able to comprehend eternity, nor to conceive of it definitely, except by a comparison with time. Therefore it conceives of eternity as duration which is coexistent with all time—past, present, and future, and that not only time actual, but which can be conceived of. Indeed, it precedes all time. The meaning therefore is this, In the beginning, that is, before all time, even that which can be, imagined in the mind, the Word was. Think of millions of millions of years, as much as ever thou canst conceive in thy mind; before all these, and whatsoever infinite number thou canst add, the Word was. This is why S. John repeats was four times, saying, In the beginning was the Word, &c., that thou mayest understand that whatsoever time thou thinkest of, the Word was then: that in all ages, however far back thou goest, the Word was in those ages . Beginning therefore is here used relatively, for it is spoken with reference to all time, even that which far precedes. For as the whole substance and immensity of God is in every place whatsoever, yes, in every point of space, and yet it encompasses all space and every place, even what we can think of above the heavens, so likewise God's eternity, which altogether in time present, or in one single instant of the duration of time, includes and embraces all time, past, present, and to come, and far exceeds and transcends it all. And this is what we mean when we say, following the words of S. John, that God's eternity was in the beginning.

Thus we are able to ascend with our minds to the idea of the antiquity, and as it were the origin of eternity, which is here called Principium, that is, the beginning of all duration and eternity.

Though indeed this beginning is without beginning, a commencement without commencement. Therefore when we would say of anything, that it did not have a beginning in time, we say that it was in the beginning of all duration and eternity. And by this we mean nothing else but that it always existed, that it was from all eternity. This is the meaning of S. John when he says, In the beginning was the Word. This is also why we say in ordinary discourse, that God has existed from the beginning of eternity, that is, that He is from all eternity.

Was : the expression was, says S. Basil upon these words of S. John, leads us to eternity, not as if the word was signified that the Word preceded the beginning, concerning which it is said, It was the beginning, and consequently the beginning of time and the world were here to be understood (because the Word preceded in computation ( ratione ) only, as it were, for as everything whatsoever precedes its own duration, so also God is before His duration and eternity: for duration is the continuance and measure of the thing which exists and endures), therefore, even before, from all eternity, was the Word. Here observe that the word employed is was ( erat ), not has been ( fuit ), for has been signifies that which has existed, and passed away; but was signifies that it is even now, or that it is perennial and eternal. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact. The Holy Ghost therefore suggested was to the mind and pen of S. John, as against the Arians, whom He foresaw would arise. They were wont to say, There was when there was no was ; meaning there was a time when the Son was not. From these words of S. John the Council of Nice condemns them; because, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., from eternity.

Moreover, S. Gregory Nazianzen observes that the substantive verbs is and was have a special application to God from the plentitude of His essence. Wherefore God in Hebrew is called Jehovah, i.e., He who is.

The Word, Gr. ό λόγος, That Word, eternal and divine, which is the Son of God, as even the Arians formerly allowed. For John soon after calls this Word the Only Begotten of the Father. So constantly in Scripture, the Son is called the Word of the Father. S. Basil thought that the Holy Spirit might also be called the Word; but S. Thomas rightly observes that this can only be said improperly (improperly being used in the logical sense).^*

You will ask why is the Son of God called the Word? I answer that the Greek λόγς ( Logos ) has many meanings, which are all applicable in this place. 1 . Logos may be translated reason, because, as reason proceeds from the mind, so does the Son from the Father. So SS. Chrysostom and Basil.

2. Logos may be translated definition, because the Word definitely expresses and unfolds the nature and attributes of the Father. Wherefore Nicetas ( in Orat. 42 Nazianz.) says, "The same relation that a definition bears to the thing defined does the Son bear to the Father. For He declares the Father as a definition declares that which is defined by it. Wherefore Christ said, 'Philip, he that seeth Me, seeth My Father also.' For the Son is a compendious demonstration of the Paternal nature; for every offspring is a sort of tacit account, or definition, of its parent."

3. Logos may be translated cause, because the Word is the cause of all things which have been created and produced by the Word of God.

4. Λόγος may be translated work, because the Word is the Work of the Father, coextensive with Him, coeternal and coequal.

5. Λόγος can be translated power, or virtue, because the Word is the strength and right hand of the Father.

6. Λόγος may be translated beauty, because the Word is the form, grace, and beauty of the Father.

7. And chiefly, Λόγος may be translated, with Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose, speech ( sermo ), or rather Word ( Verbum ). This Word, or speeeh, is not of the mouth, but of the mind; because as we by thinking form a conception to ourselves of the thing thought of, or understood, which is called the word of the mind, so the eternal Father, by comprehending and understanding His Essence, and all that belongs to It, has produced this Eternal Word, coequal with, and like to, Itself, by means of which it comes to pass that this Word is God, and the Son of God, begotten of the Father.

Hence also the Gentile philosophers, Trismegistus, Orpheus, Plato, and the rest of the Greeks, Chaldæans, and Egyptians called the Father νο̃υν i.e., mind ; and the Son Logos, as it were, the offspring of the mind. See S. Augustine ( lib. 7, Confess. c. 9). Whence that saying of Plato's, "A Monad begat a Monad, and in it reflected his ardour." He means, The Father begat the Son, and through Him breathed the Holy Spirit, which is the reciprocal Love of the Father and the Son. Many, however, are of opinion that Plato and the other Gentile philosophers mean by the Logos not the Son but the idea in the mind of God, according to which He created all things, and reflected His love back upon Himself, because He created the world on account of His love.

Here observe, the Word of God is twofold. First , essential, because it is the very Intelligence of the Father, which together with essence, understanding, and will, He shares with the Son and the Holy Ghost. The second is notional, which is the Word produced by the Father, and subsisting personally, that is, as the Son. So S. Thomas (1, dist. 27 q. 2. a. 2). This is the twofold meaning of the Word, taken in its widest sense.

I have written more upon the Word in 1 Epis. Joh 1:1. Let me add here what S. Augustine says ( Serm. 38 de Verb. Dom.) "The Word of God is, as it were, a Form, but not formed. It is the Form of all forms, over all things, and existing in all things. But some ask, How could the Son be begotten coeternal with the Father? As if fire were eternal, would not its brightness be coeternal with it? Is it not the same with the reflection in a mirror, or in water? As, for example, a shrub would always have its reflection in the water beside which it grew." And S. Chrysostom says, "He said not Word simply, but by the article distinguished it from all others. For it is an Hypostasis, proceeding forth impassibly from the Father. This is the meaning of was in the beginning, that it always existed, and with an infinite existence. For it is not said of the heaven and the earth, that they were in the beginning, but that they were made in the beginning.

And the Word was with God.  S. John meets an objection. Some one may say, "Where was the Word in the beginning, i.e., from eternity, when as yet there was no place, and no created nature of things?" He answers, "The Word had no need of place, because It is spiritual, and divine; but It was with the Father, as with that from which It derived Its origin." As it is said in the 18th verse, It was in the bosom of the Father. Or, as we might say, It was in the Father's House, which is God Himself, and His immensity.

The preposition with denotes—1. Distinction of person, because indeed the Son is a different Person from the Father, not one and the same, as the Sabellians say. "For how should that which is one numerically be understood to be with itself?" says S. Cyril. "Before all things," says Tertullian ( lib. 5 cons. Prax.) "God alone was Himself to Himself both universe and space and everything. But in this respect only was He alone, that He had nothing external to Himself, for not even then was He alone; for He had with Himself what he had in Himself, His Reason, or that which the Greeks call His Logos. "

2. With denotes the loving and perfect union of the Son with the Father, by which it comes to pass that it is impossible for Him to be separated from the Father. So Nonnus.

3. With denotes the equality of the Son with the Father. For to be with God, or near to ( juxta ) God, means to sit at the right hand of God, as it were God of the same substance as the Father. Wherefore Christ is said after His Ascension to have returned to the right hand of the Father (Mar 16:19) As Nonnus expounds, "the Son is sunthronos with the Father," a term which cannot be expressed by a single word in English, but which means an associate in the same throne, an assessor in the same seat.

And the Word was God. The order of the words in the Greek is, And God was the Word. Lest the Arians should bring forward the objection, "If the Word was with God, then the Word was not God, John confutes them by anticipation, saying The Word was God. For the Arians placed the interior and essential Word of God, that is, the Intelligence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as the orthodox faith is) in one Person of Godhead, coeternal with Himself. They said that God began to be a Father in time, when He produced the Word ( Verbum notionale ) distinct from Himself, as it were the first of creatures, and by him all other creatures. John refutes this by saying, And God was the Word, meaning that the Word already spoken of was God. He said this lest any one should suppose that the Word was not God, because he had said that He was with God. He means that the Word was with God in such sort that He Himself was God.

The Arians object that the Greek word θεὸν i.e., God, has not the article in this clause as it had in the preceding clause, and the Word was with God ( apud τὸν θεὸν ). Therefore, say they, the Word was not true God. I reply by denying the conclusion. For the reason of the difference is that the word God (θεὸν ) in the preceding clause, with God, denotes a distinct Person, namely, the Person of the Father with whom the Word was. But in this latter clause it denotes not a Person but the essence of the Godhead common to each Person. For the Word is one God with the Father, so far as relates to Essence and Godhead, but not as regards Person. And the article in this place signifies a distinct Person, not the nature common to both. Again, the Greeks prefix the article to the subject, not the predicate; and in this place God is the predicate, the Word is the subject.

Observe that John in this sentence with three clauses, by the first clause unfolds the when of the Word: it was eternity. Secondly, the where of the Word, and His distinction from the Father. In this third clause, the essence of the Word, and His identity in essence with the Father. S. John unfolded this threefold sentence of His Gospel in the Creed which, at the bidding of the Blessed Virgin, he delivered to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as S. Gregory of Nyssa relates in his life. For this symbol is as follows, "There is one Father of the living Word, the substantial Wisdom and Power, and eternal Image, the perfect Father of the perfect and only begotten Son. One Lord, alone from the Only One, God of God, the form and image of the Godhead, the efficacious Word, the comprehensive Wisdom by which all things were made, and the effectual power of the whole creation. True Son that cannot be seen, of the true Father that cannot be seen, incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Son of the incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Father."

The same was in the beginning with God. He compendiously repeats and confirms this proposition of this clause by a sentence of a single clause. Thus, "This Word, which I have said is God, was in the beginning, that is, from eternity, with God." For it is difficult to understand how the Word can be with God, and yet the same be God. Therefore John writes and inculcates both together, that he may signify at one and the same time the unity of essence and the diversity of persons, and that he may teach that in the Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For this is the deepest and most obscure mystery of our faith, and the most difficult to be believed.

Maldonatus gives a second reason for this repetition, derived from the third clause, the Word was God, that is to say, forasmuch as the Word was God, therefore it follows that He was in the beginning with God the Father, that is, coeternal and of one substance with the Father.

S. Hilary gives a third reason ( lib. 1 de Trin.), lest any one should suppose because he said the Word was God, and the same was in the beginning with God, there were therefore two Gods, one which was the Word, and the other with whom the Word was, as the Manichæans held two Principles, or Gods, one of which was the Creator of all things corporeal, the other the Creator of angels and things spiritual, John declares that the Word was so with God the Father as to be the same God with Him.

All things were made by Him, that is, by the Word. All things which were not God were created by the Word. "All things, from an angel to a worm," says S. Augustine; who adds, "between God who speaks, and the creature which was made, what is there by which it was made, but the Word, by whom God said, Let it be made, and it was made. As the Apostle says, "By Him," i.e., the Word, "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Col 1:16).

From these words of S. John the Macedonians falsely denied that the Holy Ghost is God, arguing that He was made by the Word, and therefore that He was a creature, and not the Creator. But it is plain that the words refer to things created, not things uncreated, such as the Spirit, who is One God with the Father and the Son, and the Creator of all things. For if you were to take the word all absolutely, you might infer that the Father also had been created by the Word, which would be ridiculous, as S. Gregory Nazianzen learnedly teaches against the Macedonians ( Orat. de Sp. Sanct. ) S. John does not in this place make mention of the Holy Ghost, because he is only treating of the generation and incarnation of the Word. Wherefore, after he had said that the Word was Himself God, that is, coeternal, and of one substance with the Father, he now in this third verse describes the relation of the same Word to all created things, asserting that they were made by Him. Then in the ninth and following verses he comes down to man, showing the relation of the Word to man. He asserts that He took upon Him the nature of man, that He might illuminate and save him. This is the scope and object of the whole passage.

Observe that when it is said by Him, the preposition by does not signify an instrumental cause, or a minister, as though the Word were the instrument, or minister of God, by which He created all things, as Origen supposed, and also the Arians, but it signifies an original, or chief ( principalem ) cause, as in Pro 8:15, "By me kings reign," and 1Co 1:9, "Faithful is God, by whom ye have been called" (Vulg.) The preposition by in this and other places is referred to God the Father, who is the First Cause of all things. And by here means that the Word with the Father is the original Cause of the creation of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius on this passage, and SS. Athanasius, Basil, and others against the Arians. Wherefore also S. Paul (Heb 1:10) interprets Psa 102:26, "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands," of the Word, or Son. "Never, certainly, would he have said this," says S. Chrysostom, "unless he had believed the Son to be the Founder, not a minister, and that the Father and the Son were equal in dignity."

You will ask, Why then does S. John use the preposition διὰ ( per, or through ) instead of ύπὸ by, when he says that all things were made through (διὰ ) Him? 1. That he might signify that the Word proceeds from the Father, and is begotten of Him. "Lest any one should suppose," says S. Chrysostom, "that the Word was unbegotten."

2. That he might signify that the Word is the Idea of created things, according to which the Father with the Son created all things. For an artificer makes all the works of his art by an ideal, or conception, or mental word, or plan. All these similitudes are transferred to the Divine Word, who is the Begotten but Uncreated Wisdom.

And without Him was made nothing ( Vulg.) Nothing : i.e., evil, as corruptible things, whose constant tendency is to nothingness, from whence they came forth, as the Manichæans say. For they thought that things corporeal and corruptible were not created by God, but by a demon, or evil god. But that this interpretation of the words is false and foolish is shown by the Greek for nothing (ου̉δε έν ), nor even one thing, meaning that everything, without one single exception, was created by the Word. So the Arabic clearly translates, All things were made by Him, and without Him was there not made anything of the things which were made.

3. By nothing, S. Augustine understands sin: that all things were made by the Word, nothing, i.e., sin being excepted, the author of which is the devil and an evil will not God. But this idea is shown to he untenable in this place by the Greek, ου̉δ έν, not even one thing.

Which was made. Here there are three ways of pointing, and in consequence a threefold interpretation and meaning. The first is without Him was nothing made, which was made in Him : then the stop, after which begins a new sentence, There was life, &c. So read and punctuate SS. Hilary, and Epiphanius, and some others.

But this reading is generally rejected as containing a manifest tautology.

A second reading is, without Him was made nothing: then a full stop, after which a new sentence is commenced, That which was made in Him was life. This is the pointing and reading of S. Austin, Tertullian ( cond. Hermog. ) S. Ambrose ( lib. 3 de fide, c. 3), and the Latin Fathers passim. And among the Greeks are Clement of Alexandria ( lib. 1 Pæ. c. 6.) and S. Cyril in loc.  S. Augustine expounds as follows, "Everything mad and created by the Word was in the same Word vitally and intellectually, before it was made and created." It was in the ideas and eternal plans which exist in the Word. It was therefore life, i.e., it lived in the mind and idea of the Word. S. Cyril explains differently, "Everything was made life in the Word, that is, it received, and continues to receive life, i.e., vigour and the preservation of its being, as long as it exists, from the Word."

The third reading is that of the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek texts of S. Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, and Tertius ( in cantena ): without Him was nothing made that was made ; then the stop, and then a fresh sentence, In Him was life. This is by far the best reading, and in conformity with it the Bible has been corrected at Rome, and most of the other Latin copies.

S. John adds this sentence against the Macedonians, who argued as we have seen above. As if he said, "When I say that all things were made by the Word, I mean, not the Holy Spirit, but only such things as were created and made."

In Him was life, &c . Life is the thing which is most excellent, as death is the worst. S. John also ascribes to the Word the Fountain of life: for in Him "we live, and move and have our being" (Acts xvii.) Hence the Greeks call their God Zeus, from ξη̃ν, to live, because he breathes life into all living things. S. John's meaning therefore is, "Our true life of grace and glory was in the Word as its origin and fountain. And that He might communicate, Himself as this life and light to men, He came down to them, and became man. That as by the Word this macrocosm or great universe was created, so also by the same might the microcosm, or little world of man, be re-created, and called back from the death of sin to the life of grace and righteousness."  S. John explains himself by adding, And the life was the light of men. In his first Epistle he speaks thus of the Word of Life (1Jo 1:2). "For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." And in chap. v., the last verse, "that we may know the true God, and may be in His true Son. This is the true God, and life eternal" (Vulg.) And this is why S. John. constantly calls Christ The Life.

The Fathers expound this Life of the Word in various ways.

1 . Of Formal Life. In Him was Life : that is, life is the very substance of the Word. The Word Himself is substantial Life. So says Œcumenius on 1 John i. The Word Himself is essentially Life. For Life and to live are His very essence.

2. In the Word is Life ideal, or exemplar, because in the Word, as in Idea, the eternal plans of all things exist, as S. Austin says. For the Word is the Idea of all creatures, but the Idea is itself the essence and life of God. Thus therefore the Word is the life of all creatures, even of things inanimate, for all live in the Word, inasmuch as He is all Life.

3. In the Word is efficient natural Life, because the Word is the efficient Cause of all living things, and He gives them their life. To plants He gives vegetable life, to animals animal life, to men rational life, to angels angelic life. Jansen expounds thus, "The natural life of living things depends upon the Word."

4. and last. You may here take life to mean, supernatural efficient Life, and explain as follows, "In the Word, as in a Fount and prime Cause, was our supernatural life, that is to say, of grace and glory; and therefore that He might impart this life to us, He became Incarnate, as I have before said. For supernatural life is twofold. It is begun by grace, by which a just man serves God in faith, hope, and charity, and lives the supernatural life, believing in , hoping in, and loving God above all things, supernaturally. The other supernatural life is that which is consummated in glory, wherein the blessed enjoy God, and are eternally beatified. There is an allusion to Psalm xlvi., "With Thee is the Well of Life, and in Thy light shall we see life." "This is," says Theodoret, "'With Thee is the Word Eternal, the fountain of life; and in the light of the Holy Spirit shall we behold the light of Thy Only Begotten Son.'"

The light of man, by which men are spiritually illuminated through faith and grace. For he is speaking, not of natural and corporeal, but of spiritual and supernatural light, as is plain from what follows. The meaning is, Our life, which I have just said was in the Word, was this illumination of the Word, by which He has illuminated men with the knowledge of God and His salvation—externally, by words and holy examples; internally, by heavenly light infused into the soul. This was why the Word was made flesh. So Clement of Alexandria ( Exhort. ad. Gent.) says , "The Word which was with God appeared as a Teacher—the Word by which all things were made, and which, with Him who made them, gave them at the same time life as their Maker, and taught them to live well when He appeared as their Teacher, that He might hereafter, for the time to come , supply them with the means of living for ever."

And the light shineth in darkness, &c. The meaning is, As the natural light by its illumination dispels the darkness, so likewise has Christ, forasmuch as He is light, done His part; but the darkness, at is, men by reason of their ignorance and unbelief, have closed the eyes of their soul, that they should not admit this light.

Observe, that Christ, as He is God, is the uncreated, efficient light: as man also He is the efficient light, because He is to men the Author of all wisdom, grace, and glory, not only giving them the natural light of reason, as Origen and Cyril explain, but still more as giving them the supernatural light of faith and wisdom. Wherefore Christ is called in Mal 4:2, "The Sun of righteousness."

Observe Christ as man is here called light, because He chiefly gave light after His Incarnation. He was indeed light before, even from the first beginning of the universe. For as the sun, before it ascends above the horizon, sends forth some rays of its dawning, with which it gives light to the world, so likewise does Christ. This is what the Father says to Christ: "I have given Thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be My salvation unto the ends of the earth."

Admirably does S. Augustine say ( Hom. 43), "Christ therefore came to give light to the eyes, because the devil had blinded them." And the same saint says ( Epist. 120, ad. Honor ), "The Son of God is not absent even from the minds of the wicked, although they see Him not, just as no light is seen when it is presented to the eyes of the blind." The light of the Word shines in the darkness of wicked men by the light of reason, by the voices of creatures, which all cry aloud that there is a Creator, and that He ought to be worshipped and loved. It shines by the law of nature written in the soul, by the New Law, by the Scriptures, by doctors and preachers, by holy inspirations, and by many such things. Wherefore, the same Augustine says ( Tract. 2 . in Joan ), "Fall not into sin, and this sun shall not go down upon thee. If thou shalt fall into sin, it will set, and darkness will fall upon thee." "If thou wilt see light, be thou also thyself light. But if thou lovest darkness, and the lusts of darkness, then will they overshadow thee, yea, make thee blind."

Observe in holy Scripture, and especially in S. John, both in his Gospel and his Epistles, the faith and grace of Christ are compared to light, and sin to darkness, on account of many apposite analogies between them. For light is heavenly, and is the most noble, the swiftest and most pure of natural things. It is impassible and most active. It cannot be defiled by any impurities, even though they be commingled with it. It brings warmth, glory, and joy. It causes all things to be seen, and brings life and power to every living thing. Such also is God, and His grace. The contrary to all this is found in sin, whose symbol is darkness. Besides all this, grace leads to everlasting light and glory, sin to the lowest and most extreme darkness.

Comprehended it not. Greek, ου̉ κατέλαβεν i.e., as Vatablus translates, did not receive it. The meaning is, so great was the blindness and depravity of unbelieving and wicked men, that when the Light offered itself to them of its own accord, they would not embrace, nor receive it; for they closed their eyes that they might not admit it; for "their works were evil," as S. John says (Joh 3:19).

The was a man sent from God, &c. He was sent, as Luke says, (Luk 3:1), "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar: and the Word of God came to him in the wilderness." "Thou, then," Chrysostom, "when thou understandest that he was sent from God, do not think that anything merely human is being announced, but that all is Divine. He does not declare anything of his own, but the secrets of Him who sends him. Therefore he, John, is called an angel, that is, a messenger. It is the office of a messenger to know nothing of himself."

The same came for a witness, &c. Namely, that he might bear witness that Jesus is the true Light of the world, and that we must look for, and ask of Him all the light of faith, and all the knowledge of salvation.

Observe that in Greek the article is prefixed to light, as it were that light meaning the spiritual and Divine light, that which shineth of itself, and is essentially light, and the source of all enlightenment, which is as it were a Divine Sun, in respect of which John the Baptist was but as the moon, or the day-star. For as the morning star goes before the sun, so did John precede Christ the Sun of righteousness. The meaning is as follows—Inasmuch as the light the Godhead was hidden in the humanity of Christ, as in a lantern dark and shaded, so that men discerned it not, therefore did God send John, that he might uncover and make this light manifest, and testify that Jesus was the very Son of God, the Teacher and Redeemer of the world. For, as Paul saith (1Ti 6:16), God "inhabiteth the unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen, nor can see." And again, the Son "is the splendour of His glory, and the form of the substance" of God the Father (Heb 1:3, vulg.)

And again, the same is "the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of His goodness" (Wisd. 7:26).

That all men through him might believe : that is, believe in the Light, and so be justified and saved. Through him, namely, John, who as it were with his finger pointed out Christ, saying. "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world."

He was not that Light, &c. The Jews and the Scribes thought, because of the preaching and heavenly life of John in the wilderness, that he was himself the Light, i.e., Christ. John the Evangelist by these words destroys such an idea. He was not that Light. That is, he was not the Saviour of the world, but only His witness, who received all his own light of knowledge and prophecy and grace from Christ. Wherefore in v. 35, he is called "a burning and a shining lamp." "But," says Origen, "he did not burn by h

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Joh 1:13

New birth—its necessity for salvation : See Joh 3:7 .

The " Sinner’s Prayer"—To Pray or Not To Pray?

The question often arises about what a Christian should do if someone is repentant. Should we lead him in what’s commonly called a " sinner’s prayer" or simply instruct him to seek after God? Perhaps the answer comes by looking to the natural realm. As long as there are no complications when a child is born, all the doctor needs to do is guide the head. The same applies spiritually. When someone is " born of God," all we need to do is guide the head—make sure that they understand what they are doing.

Philip the evangelist did this with the Ethiopian eunuch. He asked him, " Do you understand what you read?" ( Act 8:30 ). In the parable of the sower, the true convert (the " good soil" hearer) is he who hears " and understands." This understanding comes by the Law in the hand of the Spirit ( Rom 7:7 ). If a sinner is ready for the Savior, it is because he has been drawn by the Holy Spirit ( Joh 6:44 ). This is why we must be careful to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work and not rush in where angels fear to tread. Praying a sinner’s prayer with someone who isn’t genuinely repentant may leave you with a stillborn in your hands. Therefore, rather than lead him in a prayer of repentance, it is wise to encourage him to pray himself.

When Nathan confronted David about his sin, he didn’t lead the king in a prayer of repentance. If a man committed adultery, and his wife is willing to take him back, should you have to write out an apology for him to read to her? No. Sorrow for his betrayal of her trust should spill from his lips. She doesn’t want eloquent words, but simply sorrow of heart. The same applies to a prayer of repentance. The words aren’t as important as the presence of " godly sorrow." The sinner should be told to repent—to confess and forsake his sins. He could do this as a whispered prayer, then you could pray for him. If he’s not sure what to say, perhaps David’s prayer of repentance ( Psa 51:1-19 ) could be used as a model, but his own words are more desirable.

How to get false converts . Our aim should be to ensure that sinners are born of the Spirit—of the will of God and not of the will of man. Too many of our " decisions" are not a work of the Spirit, but a work of our sincere but manipulative practices. It is simple to secure a decision for Jesus by using this popular method: " Do you know whether you are going to heaven when you die? God wants you to have that assurance. All you need to do is: 1) realize that you are a sinner (‘All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’), and 2) believe that Jesus died on the cross for you. Would you like me to pray with you right now so that you can give your heart to Jesus? Then you will have the assurance that you are going to heaven when you die." For the biblical way to present the gospel, see Joh 4:7–26 footnote. For more on false converts, see Mat 25:12 footnote.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: John (Book Introduction)

THE Fourth Gospel

By Way of Introduction

Greatest of Books

The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke’s Gospel is the most beautiful, John’s Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters John 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

The Beloved Disciple

The book claims to be written by " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh_21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: " This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh_21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh_20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh_21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).

A Personal Witness

It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh_1:14 he plainly says that " the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh_21:25 he employs the singular " I suppose" ( oimai ) in sharp distinction from the plural " we know" ( oidamen ) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness ( marturě , marturia ) so common in this Gospel (Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:19; Joh_3:11, Joh_3:26, Joh_3:33; Joh_5:31; Joh_12:17; Joh_21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luk_1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark’s Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John’s Gospel claims to be the personal witness of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eyewitness in the vivid details.

With a Home in Jerusalem

It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus " to his own home" ( eis ta idia , Joh_19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh_18:15.). Delff ( Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt , 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh_7:45-52; Joh_11:47-53; Joh_12:10.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh_13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh_21:1.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the " Beloved Disciple" (Joh_21:20).

Only One John of Ephesus

It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa a.d. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase " the Elder John " ( ho presbuteros Iōannēs ) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by " the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. " Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord’s Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh. , p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist , p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

No Early Martyrdom for the Apostle John

In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus , Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews ( hupo Ioudaiōn anēirethē ) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace ( en eirēnēi anepausato ). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mar_10:39; Mat_20:23) and realized by James first of all (Act_12:1.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh_21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

The Author the Apostle John

Loisy ( Le Quatr. Evangile , p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it " literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume . Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author’s name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter John 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Act_12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

Early and Clear Witness to the Apostle John

Ignatius ( ad Philad . vii. 1) about a.d. 110 says of the Spirit that " he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh_3:8. Polycarp ( ad Phil . S 7) quotes 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell " of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch ( ad Autol . ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about a.d. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

The Use of the Synoptic Gospels

As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4) and another (Joh_5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord’s public ministry (" the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God’s eternal purpose as in Col_1:14-20 and Heb_1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time ( Logos - Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

A Different Style of Teaching

So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon’s Memorabilia and of Plato’s Dialogues . There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters John 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mat_11:25-30; Luk_10:21-24). The use of " the Father" and " the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

The Same Style in the Discourses

It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh_3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with Joh_3:15, Joh_3:16, or Joh_3:21? So in Joh_12:44-50. Does John give here a resumé of Christ’s teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John’s Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel

It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron , the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter John 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke’s account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Matt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter John 21 with that in Luke 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter John 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Luke 7, making John’s Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter John 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).

Like the Johannine Epistles

Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as " the Elder" ( ho presbuteros ), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical " Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself " the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe_5:1) he calls himself " your fellow-elder" ( ho sunpresbuteros ). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo_1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo_2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

But Different from the Apocalypse

It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a " Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: " If its date was 95 a.d., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Act_4:13 where Peter and John are described as agrammatoi kai idiōtai (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John’s friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan’s Greek Papyri , for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton’s dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

The Unity of the Gospel

This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, John 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, John 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, John 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh_20:31 and then added John 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh_21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

Original Language of the Book

The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koiné Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

The Purpose of the Book

He tells us himself in Joh_20:30. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: " But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

John’s Portrait of Christ

No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: " And the Word was God" (Joh_1:1) and in the correct text of Joh_1:18, " God only begotten" ( theos monogenēs ). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: " This is the Son of God" (Joh_1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh_5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh_5:20-23; Joh_6:48; Joh_8:12, Joh_8:58; Joh_11:25; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh_20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term theos applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ’s crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly ( Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah , 1900; St. John’s Portrait of Christ , 1910).

JFB: John (Book Introduction)

THE author of the Fourth Gospel was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who resided at Bethsaida, where were born Peter and Andrew his brother, and Philip also. His mother's name was Salome, who, though not without her imperfections (Mat 20:20-28), was one of those dear and honored women who accompanied the Lord on one of His preaching circuits through Galilee, ministering to His bodily wants; who followed Him to the cross, and bought sweet spices to anoint Him after His burial, but, on bringing them to the grave, on the morning of the First Day of the week, found their loving services gloriously superseded by His resurrection ere they arrived. His father, Zebedee, appears to have been in good circumstances, owning a vessel of his own and having hired servants (Mar 1:20). Our Evangelist, whose occupation was that of a fisherman with his father, was beyond doubt a disciple of the Baptist, and one of the two who had the first interview with Jesus. He was called while engaged at his secular occupation (Mat 4:21-22), and again on a memorable occasion (Luk 5:1-11), and finally chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles (Mat 10:2). He was the youngest of the Twelve--the "Benjamin," as DA COSTA calls him--and he and James his brother were named in the native tongue by Him who knew the heart, "Boanerges," which the Evangelist Mark (Mar 3:17) explains to mean "Sons of thunder"; no doubt from their natural vehemence of character. They and Peter constituted that select triumvirate of whom see on Luk 9:28. But the highest honor bestowed on this disciple was his being admitted to the bosom place with his Lord at the table, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 20:24), and to have committed to him by the dying Redeemer the care of His mother (Joh 19:26-27). There can be no reasonable doubt that this distinction was due to a sympathy with His own spirit and mind on the part of John which the all-penetrating Eye of their common Master beheld in none of the rest; and although this was probably never seen either in his life or in his ministry by his fellow apostles, it is brought out wonderfully in his writings, which, in Christ-like spirituality, heavenliness, and love, surpass, we may freely say, all the other inspired writings.

After the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we find him in constant but silent company with Peter, the great spokesman and actor in the infant Church until the accession of Paul. While his love to the Lord Jesus drew him spontaneously to the side of His eminent servant, and his chastened vehemence made him ready to stand courageously by him, and suffer with him, in all that his testimony to Jesus might cost him, his modest humility, as the youngest of all the apostles, made him an admiring listener and faithful supporter of his brother apostle rather than a speaker or separate actor. Ecclesiastical history is uniform in testifying that John went to Asia Minor; but it is next to certain that this could not have been till after the death both of Peter and Paul; that he resided at Ephesus, whence, as from a center, he superintended the churches of that region, paying them occasional visits; and that he long survived the other apostles. Whether the mother of Jesus died before this, or went with John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried, is not agreed. One or two anecdotes of his later days have been handed down by tradition, one at least bearing marks of reasonable probability. But it is not necessary to give them here. In the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos" (a small rocky and then almost uninhabited island in the Ægean Sea), "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9). IRENÆUS and EUSEBIUS say that this took place about the end of Domitian's reign. That he was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, and miraculously delivered, is one of those legends which, though reported by TERTULLIAN and JEROME, is entitled to no credit. His return from exile took place during the brief but tolerant reign of Nerva; he died at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23], at an age above ninety, according to some; according to others, one hundred; and even one hundred twenty, according to others still. The intermediate number is generally regarded as probably the nearest to the truth.

As to the date of this Gospel, the arguments for its having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (though relied on by some superior critics) are of the slenderest nature; such as the expression in Joh 5:2, "there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool," &c.; there being no allusion to Peter's martyrdom as having occurred according to the prediction in Joh 21:18 --a thing too well known to require mention. That it was composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the decease of all the other apostles, is next to certain, though the precise time cannot be determined. Probably it was before his banishment, however; and if we date it between the years 90 and 94, we shall probably be close to the truth.

As to the readers for whom it was more immediately designed, that they were Gentiles we might naturally presume from the lateness of the date; but the multitude of explanations of things familiar to every Jew puts this beyond all question.

No doubt was ever thrown upon the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel till about the close of the eighteenth century; nor were these embodied in any formal attack upon it till BRETSCHNEIDER, in 1820, issued his famous treatise [Probabilia], the conclusions of which he afterwards was candid enough to admit had been satisfactorily disproved. To advert to these would be as painful as unnecessary; consisting as they mostly do of assertions regarding the Discourses of our Lord recorded in this Gospel which are revolting to every spiritual mind. The Tubingen school did their best, on their peculiar mode of reasoning, to galvanize into fresh life this theory of the post-Joannean date of the Fourth Gospel; and some Unitarian critics still cling to it. But to use the striking language of VAN OOSTERZEE regarding similar speculations on the Third Gospel, "Behold, the feet of them that shall carry it out dead are already at the door" (Act 5:9). Is there one mind of the least elevation of spiritual discernment that does not see in this Gospel marks of historical truth and a surpassing glory such as none of the other Gospels possess, brightly as they too attest their own verity; and who will not be ready to say that if not historically true, and true just as it stands, it never could have been by mortal man composed or conceived?

Of the peculiarities of this Gospel, we note here only two. The one is its reflective character. While the others are purely narrative, the Fourth Evangelist, "pauses, as it were, at every turn," as DA COSTA says [Four Witnesses, p. 234], "at one time to give a reason, at another to fix the attention, to deduce consequences, or make applications, or to give utterance to the language of praise." See Joh 2:20-21, Joh 2:23-25; Joh 4:1-2; Joh 7:37-39; Joh 11:12-13, Joh 11:49-52; Joh 21:18-19, Joh 21:22-23. The other peculiarity of this Gospel is its supplementary character. By this, in the present instance, we mean something more than the studiousness with which he omits many most important particulars in our Lord's history, for no conceivable reason but that they were already familiar as household words to all his readers, through the three preceding Gospels, and his substituting in place of these an immense quantity of the richest matter not found in the other Gospels. We refer here more particularly to the nature of the additions which distinguish this Gospel; particularly the notices of the different Passovers which occurred during our Lord's public ministry, and the record of His teaching at Jerusalem, without which it is not too much to say that we could have had but a most imperfect conception either of the duration of His ministry or of the plan of it. But another feature of these additions is quite as noticeable and not less important. "We find," to use again the words of DA COSTA [Four Witnesses, pp. 238, 239], slightly abridged, "only six of our Lord's miracles recorded in this Gospel, but these are all of the most remarkable kind, and surpass the rest in depth, specialty of application, and fulness of meaning. Of these six we find only one in the other three Gospels--the multiplication of the loaves. That miracle chiefly, it would seem, on account of the important instructions of which it furnished the occasion (John 6:1-71), is here recorded anew. The five other tokens of divine power are distinguished from among the many recorded in the three other Gospels by their furnishing a still higher display of power and command over the ordinary laws and course of nature. Thus we find recorded here the first of all the miracles that Jesus wrought--the changing of water into wine (Joh 2:1-11), the cure of the nobleman's son at a distance (Joh 4:43-54); of the numerous cures of the lame and the paralytic by the word of Jesus, only one--of the man impotent for thirty and eight years (Joh 5:1-9); of the many cures of the blind, one only--of the man born blind (Joh 9:1-12); the restoration of Lazarus, not from a deathbed, like Jairus' daughter, nor from a bier, like the widow of Nain's son, but from the grave, and after lying there four days, and there sinking into corruption (John 11:1-44); and lastly, after His resurrection, the miraculous draught of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (Joh 21:5-11). But these are all recorded chiefly to give occasion for the record of those astonishing discourses and conversations, alike with friends and with foes, with His disciples and with the multitude which they drew forth."

Other illustrations of the peculiarities of this Gospel will occur, and other points connected with it be adverted to, in the course of the Commentary.

JFB: John (Outline)

• THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14)
• A SAYING OF THE BAPTIST CONFIRMATORY OF THIS. (Joh 1:15)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Joh 1:16-18)
• THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. (John 1:19-36)
• FIRST GATHERING OF DISCIPLES--JOHN ANDREW, SIMON, PHILIP, NATHANAEL. (Joh 1:37-51)
• FIRST MIRACLE, WATER MADE WINE--BRIEF VISIT TO CAPERNAUM. (Joh 2:1-12)
• CHRIST'S FIRST PASSOVER--FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (Joh 2:13-25)
• NIGHT INTERVIEW OF NICODEMUS WITH JESUS. (John 3:1-21)
• JESUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE BAPTIST--HIS NOBLE TESTIMONY TO HIS MASTER. (John 3:22-36)
• CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA--THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR. (John 4:1-42)
• SECOND GALILEAN MIRACLE--HEALING OF THE COURTIER'S SON. (Joh 4:43-54)
• THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47)
• FIVE THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED. (Joh 6:1-13)
• JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA. (Joh 6:14-21)
• JESUS FOLLOWED BY THE MULTITUDES TO CAPERNAUM, DISCOURSES TO THEM IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE BREAD OF LIFE--EFFECT OF THIS ON TWO CLASSES OF THE DISCIPLES. (John 6:22-71) These verses are a little involved, from the Evangelist's desire to mention every circumstance, however minute, that might call up the scene as vividly to the reader as it stood before his own view.
• CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53)
• THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY. (Joh 8:1-11)
• FURTHER DISCOURSES OF JESUS--ATTEMPT TO STONE HIM. (John 8:12-59)
• THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21)
• DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42)
• LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD--THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS. (John 11:1-46)
• THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. (Joh 12:1-11)
• CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (Joh 12:12-19)
• SOME GREEKS DESIRE TO SEE JESUS--THE DISCOURSE AND SCENE THEREUPON. (John 12:20-36)
• AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20)
• THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30)
• DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRAITOR'S DEPARTURE--PETER'S SELF-CONFIDENCE--HIS FALL PREDICTED. (Joh 13:31-38)
• DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31)
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONTINUED. (John 15:1-27) The spiritual oneness of Christ and His people, and His relation to them as the Source of all their spiritual life and fruitfulness, are here beautifully set forth by a figure familiar to Jewish ears (Isa 5:1, &c.).
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONCLUDED. (John 16:1-33)
• THE INTERCESSORY PRAYER. (John 17:1-26)
• BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE. (Joh 18:28-40)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE--SCOURGED--TREATED WITH OTHER SEVERITIES AND INSULTS--DELIVERED UP, AND LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (John 19:1-16)
• CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS. (Joh 19:17-30)
• BURIAL OF CHRIST. (Joh 19:31-42)
• MARY'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE, AND RETURN TO IT WITH PETER AND JOHN--HER RISEN LORD APPEARS TO HER. (John 20:1-18)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:19-23)
• JESUS AGAIN APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:24-29)
• FIRST CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 20:30-31)
• SUPPLEMENTARY PARTICULARS. (John 21:1-23)
• FINAL CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 21:24-25)
• JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)

TSK: John (Book Introduction)

John, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife (compare Mat 10:2, with Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40), and brother of James the elder, whom " Herod killed with the sword," (Act 12:2). Theophylact says that Salome was the daughter of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20, Luk 5:1-10), which is supposed to have been when he was about twenty five years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle. After the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about ad 49 or 50 (Acts 15), at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the emperor Domitian, in the fifteenth year of his reign, ad 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Agean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9). On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about ad 100, and in the third year of the emperor Trajan. It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on Gal VI., says that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another. The general current of ancient writers declares that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Lev. Clerc, and others, to the year 97. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or according to others, to refute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians. But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel: " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name" (Joh 20:31). Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek. This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments, and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. The style of this Gospel indicates a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths. One thing very remarkable is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of his readers, by employing in the expression of them both an affirmative proposition and a negative. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord’s history and teaching which had been treated at large by other Evangelists, or if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly, whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of His mission, and the blessings of His purchase.

TSK: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Joh 1:1, The divinity, humanity, office, and incarnation of Jesus Christ; Joh 1:15, The testimony of John; Joh 1:39, The calling of Andrew, Peter, etc.

Poole: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

The penman of this Gospel is generally taken to have been John the son of Zebedee, Mat 10:2 , not either John the Baptist, or John surnamed Mark, Act 15:37 . He was a person mightily honoured by Christ’ s personal favours, and therefore often called the beloved disciple; you may read of these favours in these scriptures following, Mat 17:1 Luk 9:28 22:8 Joh 13:23 19:26,27 20:2 Act 3:3 Act 4:13 Gal 2:9 . Thus far the Scripture guides us. He is thought to have gone to and continued in Asia till the third of the ten persecutions in the time of Trajan. He was by Domitian banished into Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.

The time when he wrote this Gospel is uncertain; some think about the latter part of his life: he died the last of all the apostles, judged about a hundred years after the birth of Christ. It is said that the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ’ s Divinity, and of the Nicolaitanes, who held many absurd things about his person, gave occasion to the writing of this Gospel; himself mentions the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, Rev 2:6 ; and Ebion and Cerinthus are thought to be those antichrists which he in his Epistles reflects upon.

Two things are observed of him:

1. That he insists more on the proof of Christ’ s Divinity, than any of the evangelists; producing his miracles most evidently to prove it.

2. That he mentions very little reported by the other evangelists:

to which I think may be added, that he delivereth the history of the gospel after Christ’ s resurrection more fully than any of them; he gives us also a more distinct account of the four passovers happening after Christ’ s baptism; the necessity of faith in Christ, and regeneration; the doctrine of our mystical union with Christ; the sending of the Holy Spirit, and end of his mission, and the advantage that the apostles and others should receive from it. His Gospel is most particularly remarkable for the sublimeness and mysteriousness of the matter, and sweetness of the phrase.

JOHN CHAPTER 1

Joh 1:1-5 The Divinity of Christ.

Joh 1:6-13 The mission of John, and end of Christ’ s coming.

Joh 1:14 The incarnation of the Word.

Joh 1:15-18 Christ’ s superior dignity witnessed by John, and

evinced by his gracious dispensation.

Joh 1:19-28 John’ s record of himself to the messengers of the

Jews.

Joh 1:29-34 His public testimony to the person of Christ.

Joh 1:35-42 Two of his disciples, hearing it, follow Jesus: Simon

is brought to Christ, and surnamed Cephas.

Joh 1:43-51 Philip is called, who bringeth Nathanael to Jesus.

In the beginning in that beginning which Moses mentions, Gen 1:1 , the beginning of all things, when the foundations of the world were laid, Pro 8:27,28 ; the beginning of time; for before that was no measure of time, all was eternity.

Was the Word that is, the eternal Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom more is spoken afterward. Nor is Christ in this text alone called the Word, but 1Jo 1:1 , the Word of life; so Rev 19:13 : and there are some who think he is so called, Luk 1:2 , comparing that text with 2Pe 1:16 , as also Psa 33:6 . Nor is it an improper term by which to express the Son of God; for it both expresses something of his ineffable generation, as the word is begotten in our thoughts, and is the express image of them; and also his office in the revelation of his Father’ s will unto the sons of men, and revealing his Father to us, Mat 11:27 : and there are some (if they be not too curious in their notion) who think by that phrase of David, 2Sa 7:21 , For thy word’ s sake, ( expounded for thy servant’ s sake, 1Ch 17:19 , which is the title of Christ, Isa 42:1 ), that Christ is meant. Besides, it is observed, that this term was more acceptable both to the Jews and the heathens, than the term of Christ, or the Son of God, would have been; for there was nothing more abhorred by the Jews than the latter; and the heathen writers made (as is noted by divers) a great use of this term, to express the name and the power of God. Nor is any thing more ordinary with the Chaldee paraphrast than this expression: Isa 45:12 , I have made the earth; Chald. I in my word have made the earth. So Isa 48:13 , Mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth; Chald. By my word I have laid the foundations of the earth: this is taken from Moses’ s describing the creation by God’ s word of command, Let there be light, and there was light; the manner of expressing it by the word command, is significative that all things were made by his eternal Word; for would any Jew deny, that God by his word created the world? The evangelist therefore calleth Christ, to whom he was about to attribute the creation, the Word; not the word of God (so the Scriptures are called); to distinguish Christ in this notion from the revelation of the Divine will to the prophets, he is only called the Word, though he was the Son of God. Nor is it said, that in the beginning was the Word created, (as is said of the heavens and the earth, Gen 1:1 ), but was the Word: this proveth the eternal existence of the Second Person in the Trinity; for what was in the beginning did not then begin to be: the term the Word, without the addition of God, speaketh him a subsistence; and it being said, that in the beginning he was, speaks his eternal existence; for what had a being in the beginning of time must needs be eternal, nothing being when time began but what was eternal. To this purpose are those texts, Psa 90:2 Pro 8:22-31 Joh 17:5 Eph 1:4 2Th 2:13 , which two texts compared show, In the beginning, here used, to be the same with before the foundation of the world: so 2Ti 1:9 .

The Word was with God: lest any should say, Where was this Word before the foundations of the earth were laid? The evangelist saith, with God, which agreeth with Pro 8:27,30 . This both distinguishes Christ from all creatures, (none of which were with God in the beginning), and also showeth the vanity of Sabellius, and those we call quakers, who will not allow Christ to be a distinct subsistence, or person, from his Father: it also denotes the Son’ s co-existence and his equality with his Father; and yet his filial relation; for God is not said to have been with the Word, but the Word was with God, which also speaks a perfect unity and consent between them.

And the Word was God : lest any should say, What but God can be eternal, or be said to have been and had an existence in the beginning of the world? The evangelist addeth, that the Word was God: that is, the person or subsistence spoken of and intended by him was the Divine Being, which is but one; though in it there be three distinct subsistences, all make but one and the same Divine Being. The first thing spoken here of Christ attributes to him eternity; the second speaks his relation to the Father; this speaks the oneness and sameness of his essence with that of the Father. The term God which in the foregoing words is to be taken personally for God the Father, is here to be taken essentially, as it signifieth the Divine Being.

MHCC: John (Book Introduction)

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, Joh 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. On the accession of Nerva, he was set at liberty, and returned to Ephesus, where it is thought he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, about A. D. 97, and died soon after. The design of this Gospel appears to be to convey to the Christian world, just notions of the real nature, office, and character of that Divine Teacher, who came to instruct and to redeem mankind. For this purpose, John was directed to select for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his Divine power and authority; and those of his discourses, in which he spake most plainly of his own nature, and of the power of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. By omitting, or only briefly mentioning, the events recorded by the other evangelists, John gave testimony that their narratives are true, and left room for the doctrinal statements already mentioned, and for particulars omitted in the other Gospels, many of which are exceedingly important.

MHCC: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Joh 1:1-5) The Divinity of Christ.

(Joh 1:6-14) His Divine and human nature.

(Joh 1:15-18) John the Baptist's testimony to Christ.

(Joh 1:19-28) John's public testimony concerning Christ.

(Joh 1:29-36) Other testimonies of John concerning Christ.

(Joh 1:37-42) Andrew and another disciple follow Jesus.

(Joh 1:43-51) Philip and Nathanael called.

Matthew Henry: John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. John

It is not material to enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given by inspiration of God to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved, one of the first three of the worthies of the Son of David, whom he took to be the witnesses of his retirements, particularly of his transfiguration and his agony. The ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was the only one of them that died a natural death, all the rest suffering martyrdom; and some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus, at the request of the ministers of the several churches of Asia, in opposition to the heresy of Corinthus and the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It seems most probable that he wrote it before his banishment into the isle of Patmos, for there he wrote his Apocalypse, the close of which seems designed for the closing up of the canon of scripture; and, if so, this gospel was not written after. I cannot therefore give credit to those later fathers, who say that he wrote it in his banishment, or after his return from it, many years after the destruction of Jerusalem; when he was ninety years old, saith one of them; when he was a hundred, saith another of them. However, it is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, and his gospel is as the rearward or gathering host; it gleans up what they has passed by. Thus there was a later collection of Solomon's wise sayings (Pro 25:1), and yet far short of what he delivered, 1Ki 4:32. 2. That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history. It was necessary that the matters of fact should be first settled, which was done in their declarations of those things which Jesus began both to do and teach, Luk 1:1; Act 1:1. But, this being done out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, John goes on to perfection (Heb 6:1), not laying again the foundation, but building upon it, leading us more within the veil. Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of the ta sōmatika - the bodily things of Christ; but John writes of the ta pneumatika - the spiritual things of the gospel, the life and soul of it; therefore some have called this gospel the key of the evangelists. Here is it that a door is opened in heaven, and the first voice we hear is, Come up hither, come up higher. Some of the ancients, that supposed the four living creatures in John's vision to represent the for evangelists, make John himself to be the flying eagle, so high does he soar, and so clearly does he see into divine and heavenly things.

Matthew Henry: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The scope and design of this chapter is to confirm our faith in Christ as the eternal Son of God, and the true Messiah and Saviour of the world, that we may be brought to receive him, and rely upon him, as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and to give up ourselves to be ruled, and taught, and saved by him. In order to this, we have here, I. An account given of him by the inspired penman himself, fairly laying down, in the beginning, what he designed his whole book should be the proof of (Joh 1:1-5); and again (Joh 1:10-14); and again, (Joh 1:16-18). II. The testimony of John Baptist concerning him (Joh 1:6-9, and Joh 1:15); but most fully and particularly (v. 19-37). III. His own manifestation of himself to Andrew and Peter (Joh 1:38-42), to Philip and Nathanael (Joh 1:43-51).

Barclay: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN

The Gospel Of The EagleEye

For many Christian people the Gospel according to St. John is the most precious book in the New Testament. It is the book on which above all they feed their minds and nourish their hearts, and in which they rest their souls. Very often on stained glass windows and the like the gospel writers are represented in symbol by the figures of the four beasts whom the writer of the Revelation saw around the throne (Rev_4:7 ). The emblems are variously distributed among the gospel writers, but a common allocation is that the man stands for Mark, which is the plainest, the most straightforward and the most human of the gospels; the lion stands for Matthew, for he specially saw Jesus as the Messiah and the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, because it is the animal of service and sacrifice, and Luke saw Jesus as the great servant of men and the universal sacrifice for all mankind; the eagle stands for John, because it alone of all living creatures can look straight into the sun and not be dazzled, and John has the most penetrating gaze of all the New Testament writers into the eternal mysteries and the eternal truths and the very mind of God. Many people find themselves closer to God and to Jesus Christ in John than in any other book in the world.

The Gospel That Is Different

But we have only to read the Fourth Gospel in the most cursory way to see that it is quite different from the other three. It omits so many things that they include. The Fourth Gospel has no account of the Birth of Jesus, of his baptism, of his temptations; it tells us nothing of the Last Supper, nothing of Gethsemane, and nothing of the Ascension. It has no word of the healing of any people possessed by devils and evil spirits. And, perhaps most surprising of all, it has none of the parable stories Jesus told which are so priceless a part of the other three gospels. In these other three gospels Jesus speaks either in these wonderful stories or in short, epigrammatic, vivid sentences which stick in the memory. But in the Fourth Gospel the speeches of Jesus are often a whole chapter long; and are often involved, argumentative pronouncements quite unlike the pithy, unforgettable sayings of the other three.

Even more surprising, the account in the Fourth Gospel of the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus is often different from that in the other three.

(i) John has a different account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In the other three gospels it is quite definitely stated that Jesus did not emerge as a preacher until after John the Baptist had been imprisoned. "Now after John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God" (Mar_1:14 ; Luk_3:18 , Luk_3:20 ; Mat_4:12 ). But in John there is a quite considerable period during which the ministry of Jesus over-lapped with the activity of John the Baptist (Joh_3:22-30 ; Joh_4:1-2 ).

(ii) John has a different account of the scene of Jesusinistry. In the other three gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee and Jesus does not reach Jerusalem until the last week of his life. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judaea, with only occasional withdrawals to Galilee (Joh_2:1-13 ; Joh_4:35 through Joh_5:1 ; Joh_6:1 through Joh_7:14 ). In John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a Passover which occurred at the same time as the cleansing of the Temple, as John tells the story (Joh_2:13 ); he is in Jerusalem at the time of an unnamed feast (Joh_5:1 ); he is there for the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2 , Joh_7:10 ); he is there at the Feast of Dedication in the winter-time (Joh_10:22 ). In fact according to the Fourth Gospel Jesus never left Jerusalem after that feast; after Jn 10 he is in Jerusalem all the time, which would mean a stay of months, from the winter-time of the Feast of the Dedication to the spring-time of the Passover at which he was crucified.

In point of fact in this particular matter John is surely right. The other gospels show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem as the last week came on. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Mat_23:37 ; Luk_13:34 ). It is clear that Jesus could not have said that unless he had paid repeated visits to Jerusalem and made repeated appeals to it. It was impossible for him to say that on a first visit. In this John is unquestionably right.

It was in fact this difference of scene which provided Eusebius with one of the earliest explanations of the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. He said that in his day (about A.D. 300) many people who were scholars held the following view. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrew people. The day came when he had to leave them and to go to other nations. Before he went he set down his story of the life of Jesus in Hebrew, "and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence." After Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John was still preaching the story of Jesus orally. "Finally he proceeded to write for the following reason. The three gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his hands too, they say that he fully accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.... They therefore say that John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of the deeds done before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.... John therefore records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.... The Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life." (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 5: 24.)

So then according to Eusebius there is no contradiction at all between the Fourth Gospel and the other three; the difference is due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel is describing a ministry in Jerusalem, at least in its earlier chapters, which preceded the ministry in Galilee, and which took place while John the Baptist was still at liberty. It may well be that this explanation of Eusebius is at least in part correct.

(iii) John has a different account of the duration of Jesusinistry. The other three gospels, on the face of it, imply that it lasted only one year. Within the ministry there is only one Passover Feast. In John there are three Passovers, one at the Cleansing of the Temple (Joh_2:13 ); one near the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Joh_6:4 ); and the final Passover at which Jesus went to the Cross. According to John the ministry of Jesus would take a minimum of two years, and probably a period nearer three years, to cover its events. Again John is unquestionably right. If we read the other three gospels closely and carefully we can see that he is right. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn (Mar_2:23 ) it must have been spring-time. When the five thousand were fed, they sat down on the green grass (Mar_6:39 ); therefore it was spring-time again, and there must have been a year between the two events. There follows the tour through Tyre and Sidon, and the Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration Peter wished to build three booths and to stay there. It is most natural to think that it was the time of the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths and that that is why Peter made the suggestion (Mar_9:5 ). That would make the date early in October. There follows the space between that and the last Passover in April. Therefore, behind the narrative of the other three gospels lies the fact that Jesusinistry actually did last for at least three years, as John represents it.

(iv) It sometimes even happens that John differs in matters of fact from the other three. There are two outstanding examples. First, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesusinistry (Joh_2:13-22 ), the others put it at the end (Mar_11:15-17 ; Mat_21:12-13 ; Luk_19:45-46 ). Second, when we come to study the narratives in detail, we will see that John dates the crucifixion of Jesus on the day before the Passover, while the other gospels date it on the day of the Passover.

We can never shut our eyes to the obvious differences between John and the other gospels.

JohnSpecial Knowledge

One thing is certain--if John differs from the other three gospels, it is not because of ignorance and lack of information. The plain fact is that, if he omits much that they tell us, he also tells us much that they do not mention. John alone tells of the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1-11 ); of the coming of Nicodemus to Jesus (Joh_3:1-15 ); of the woman of Samaria Jn 4 ; of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11 ); of the way in which Jesus washed his discipleseet (Joh_13:1-17 ); of Jesusonderful teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which is scattered through Jn 14 Jn 15 Jn 16 and Jn 17 . It is only in John that some of the disciples really come alive. It is in John alone that Thomas speaks (Joh_11:16 ; Joh_14:5 ; Joh_20:24-29 ); that Andrew becomes a real personality (Joh_1:40-41 ; Joh_6:8-9 ; Joh_12:22 ); that we get a glimpse of the character of Philip (Joh_6:5-7 ; Joh_14:8-9 ); that we hear the carping protest of Judas at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:4-5 ). And the strange thing is that these little extra touches are intensely revealing. Johnpictures of Thomas and Andrew and Philip are like little cameos or vignettes in which the character of each man is etched in a way we cannot forget.

Further, again and again John has little extra details which read like the memories of one who was there. The loaves which the lad brought to Jesus were barley loaves (Joh_6:9 ); when Jesus came to the disciples as they crossed the lake in the storm they had rowed between three and four miles (Joh_6:19 ); there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:6 ); it is only John who tells of the four soldiers gambling for the seamless robe as Jesus died (Joh_19:23 ); he knows the exact weight of the myrrh and aloes which were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (Joh_19:39 ); he remembers how the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:3 ). Many of these things are such apparently unimportant details that they are inexplicable unless they are the memories of a man who was there.

However much John may differ from the other three gospels, that difference is not to be explained by ignorance but rather by the fact that he had more knowledge or better sources or a more vivid memory than the others.

Further evidence of the specialised information of the writer of the Fourth Gospel is his detailed knowledge of Palestine and of Jerusalem. He knows how long it took to build the Temple (Joh_2:20 ); that the Jews and the Samaritans had a permanent quarrel (Joh_4:9 ); the low Jewish view of women (Joh_4:9 ); the way in which the Jews regard the Sabbath (Joh_5:10 ; Joh_7:21-23 ; Joh_9:14 ). His knowledge of the geography of Palestine is intimate. He knows of two Bethanys, one of which is beyond Jordan (Joh_1:28 ; Joh_12:1 ); he knows that Bethsaida was the home of some of the disciples (Joh_1:44 ; Joh_12:21 ); that Cana is in Galilee (Joh_2:1 ; Joh_4:46 ; Joh_21:2 ); that Sychar is near Shechem (Joh_4:5 ). He has what one might call a street by street knowledge of Jerusalem. He knows the sheep-gate and the pool near it (Joh_5:2 ); the pool of Siloam (Joh_9:7 ); SolomonPorch (Joh_10:23 ); the brook Kidron (Joh_18:1 ); the pavement which is called Gabbatha (Joh_19:13 ); Golgotha, which is like a skull (Joh_19:17 ). It must be remembered that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and that John did not write until A.D. 100 or thereby; and yet from his memory he knows Jerusalem like the back of his hand.

The Circumstances In Which John Wrote

We have seen that there are very real differences between the Fourth and the other three gospels; and we have seen that, whatever the reason, it was not lack of knowledge on Johnpart. We must now go on to ask, What was the aim with which John wrote? If we can discover this we will discover why he selected and treated his facts as he did.

The Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus about the year A.D. 100. By that time two special features had emerged in the situation of the Christian church. First, Christianity had gone out into the Gentile world. By that time the Christian church was no longer predominantly Jewish; it was in fact overwhelmingly gentile. The vast majority of its members now came, not from a Jewish, but an Hellenistic background. That being so, Christianity had to be restated. It was not that the truth of Christianity had changed; but the terms and the categories in which it found expression had to be changed.

Take but one instance. A Greek might take up the Gospel according to St. Matthew. No sooner had he opened it than he was confronted with a long genealogy. Genealogies were familiar enough to the Jew but quite unintelligible to the Greek. He would read on. He would be confronted with a Jesus who was the Son of David, a king of whom the Greeks had never heard, and the symbol of a racial and nationalist ambition which was nothing to the Greek. He would be faced with the picture of Jesus as Messiah, a term of which the Greek had never heard. Must the Greek who wished to become a Christian be compelled to reorganize his whole thinking into Jewish categories? Must he learn a good deal about Jewish history and Jewish apocalyptic literature (which told about the coming of the Messiah) before he could become a Christian? As E. J. Goodspeed phrased it: "Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of Christian salvation without being for ever routed, we might even say, detoured, through Judaism?" The Greek was one of the worldgreat thinkers. Had he to abandon all his own great intellectual heritage in order to think entirely in Jewish terms and categories of thought?

John faced that problem fairly and squarely. And he found one of the greatest solutions which ever entered the mind of man. Later on, in the commentary, we shall deal much more fully with Johngreat solution. At the moment we touch on it briefly. The Greeks had two great conceptions.

(a) They had the conception of the Logos. In Greek logos (G3056) means two things--it means word and it means reason. The Jew was entirely familiar with the all-powerful word of God. "God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen_1:3 ). The Greek was entirely familiar with the thought of reason. He looked at this world; he saw a magnificent and dependable order. Night and day came with unfailing regularity; the year kept its seasons in unvarying course; the stars and the planets moved in their unaltering path; nature had her unvarying laws. What produced this order? The Greek answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world. He went on, What is it that gives man power to think, to reason and to know? Again he answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being.

John seized on this. It was in this way that he thought of Jesus. He said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like." John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man.

(b) They had the conception of two worlds. The Greek always conceived of two worlds. The one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.

Plato systematized this way of thinking in his doctrine of forms or ideas. He held that in the unseen world there was the perfect pattern of everything, and the things of this world were shadowy copies of these eternal patterns. To put it simply, Plato held that somewhere there was a perfect pattern of a table of which all earthly tables are inadequate copies; somewhere there was the perfect pattern of the good and the beautiful of which all earthly goodness and earthly beauty are imperfect copies. And the great reality, the supreme idea, the pattern of all patterns and the form of all forms was God. The great problem was how to get into this world of reality, how to get out of our shadows into the eternal truths.

John declares that that is what Jesus enables us to do. He is reality come to earth. The Greek word for real in this sense is alethinos (G228); it is very closely connected with the word alethes (G227), which means true, and aletheia (G225), which means "the truth." The King James and Revised Standard Versions translate alethinos (G228) true; they would be far better to translate it "real." Jesus is the real light (Joh_1:9 ); Jesus is the real bread (Joh_6:32 ); Jesus is the real vine (Joh_15:1 ); to Jesus belongs the real judgment (Joh_8:16 ). Jesus alone has reality in our world of shadows and imperfections.

Something follows from that. Every action that Jesus did was, therefore, not only an act in time but a window which allows us to see into reality. That is what John means when he talks of Jesusiracles as signs (semeia - G4592). The wonderful works of Jesus were not simply wonderful; they were windows opening onto the reality which is God. This explains why John tells the miracle stories in a quite different way from the other three gospel writers. There are two differences.

(a) In the Fourth Gospel we miss the note of compassion which is in the miracle stories of the others. In the others Jesus is moved with compassion for the leper (Mar_1:41 ); his sympathy goes out to Jairus (Mar_5:22 ); he is sorry for the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:14 ); when he raises to life the son of the widow of Nain, Luke says with an infinite tenderness, "He gave him to his mother" (Luk_7:15 ). But in John the miracles are not so much deeds of compassion as deeds which demonstrate the glory of Christ. After the miracle at Cana of Galilee, John comments: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory" (Joh_2:11 ). The raising of Lazarus happens "for the glory of God" (Joh_11:4 ). The blind manblindness existed to allow a demonstration of the glory of the works of God (Joh_9:3 ). To John it was not that there was no love and compassion in the miracles; but in every one of them he saw the glory of the reality of God breaking into time and into human affairs.

(b) Often the miracles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are accompanied by a long discourse. The feeding of the five thousand is followed by the long discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6 ); the healing of the blind man springs from the saying that Jesus is the light of the world (Jn 9 ); the raising of Lazarus leads up to the saying that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (Jn 11 ). To John the miracles were not simply single events in time; they were insights into what God is always doing and what Jesus always is; they were windows into the reality of God. Jesus did not merely once feed five thousand people; that was an illustration that he is for ever the real bread of life. Jesus did not merely once open the eyes of a blind man; he is for ever the light of the world. Jesus did not merely once raise Lazarus from the dead; he is for ever and for all men the resurrection and the life. To John a miracle was never an isolated act; it was always a window into the reality of what Jesus always was and always is and always did and always does.

It was with this in mind that that great scholar Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 230) arrived at one of the most famous and true of all verdicts about the origin and aim of the Fourth Gospel. It was his view that the gospels containing the genealogies had been written first--that is, Luke and Matthew; that then Mark at the request of many who had heard Peter preach composed his gospel, which embodied the preaching material of Peter; and that then "last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesusinistry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel" (quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 6 : 14). What Clement meant was that John was not so much interested in the mere facts as in the meaning of the facts, that it was not facts he was after but truth. John did not see the events of Jesusife simply as events in time; he saw them as windows looking into eternity, and he pressed towards the spiritual meaning of the events and the words of Jesusife in a way that the other three gospels did not attempt.

That is still one of the truest verdicts on the Fourth Gospel ever reached. John did write, not an historical, but a spiritual gospel.

So then, first of all, John presented Jesus as the mind of God in a person come to earth, and as the one person who possesses reality instead of shadows and able to lead men out of the shadows into the real world of which Plato and the great Greeks had dreamed. The Christianity which had once been clothed in Jewish categories had taken to itself the greatness of the thought of the Greeks.

The Rise Of The Heresies

The second of the great facts confronting the church when the Fourth Gospel was written was the rise of heresy. It was now seventy years since Jesus had been crucified. By this time the church was an organisation and an institution. Theologies and creeds were being thought out and stated; and inevitably the thoughts of some people went down mistaken ways and heresies resulted. A heresy is seldom a complete untruth; it usually results when one facet of the truth is unduly emphasised. We can see at least two of the heresies which the writer of the Fourth Gospel sought to combat.

(a) There were certain Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who gave too high a place to John the Baptist. There was something about him which had an inevitable appeal to the Jews. He walked in the prophetic succession and talked with the prophetic voice. We know that in later times there was an accepted sect of John the Baptist within the orthodox Jewish faith. In Act_19:1-7 we come upon a little group of twelve men on the fringe of the Christian church who had never gotten beyond the baptism of John.

Over and over again the Fourth Gospel quietly, but definitely, relegates John to his proper place. Over and over again John himself denies that he has ever claimed or possessed the highest place, and without qualification yields that place to Jesus. We have already seen that in the other gospels the ministry of Jesus did not begin until John the Baptist had been put into prison, but that in the Fourth Gospel their ministries overlap. The writer of the Fourth Gospel may well have used that arrangement to show John and Jesus in actual meeting and to show that John used these meetings to admit, and to urge others to admit, the supremacy of Jesus. It is carefully pointed out that John is not that light (Joh_1:8 ). He is shown as quite definitely disclaiming all Messianic aspirations (Joh_1:20 ; Joh_3:28 ; Joh_4:1 ; Joh_10:41 ). It is not even permissible to think of him as the highest witness (Joh_5:36 ). There is no criticism at all of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel; but there is a rebuke to those who would give him a place which ought to belong to Jesus and to Jesus alone.

(b) A certain type of heresy which was very widely spread in the days when the Fourth Gospel was written is called by the general name of Gnosticism. Without some understanding of it much of Johngreatness and much of his aim will be missed. The basic doctrine of Gnosticism was that matter is essentially evil and spirit is essentially good. The Gnostics went on to argue that on that basis God himself cannot touch matter and therefore did not create the world. What he did was to put out a series of emanations. Each of these emanations was further from him, until at last there was one so distant from him that it could touch matter. That emanation was the creator of the world.

By itself that idea is bad enough, but it was made worse by an addition. The Gnostics held that each emanation knew less and less about God, until there was a stage when the emanations were not only ignorant of God but actually hostile to him. So they finally came to the conclusion that the creator god was not only different from the real God, but was also quite ignorant of and actively hostile to him. Cerinthus, one of the leaders of the Gnostics, said that "the world was created, not by God, but by a certain power far separate from him, and far distant from that Power who is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all."

The Gnostics believed that God had nothing to do with the creating of the world. That is why John begins his gospel with the ringing statement: "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh_1:3 ). That is why John insists that "God so loved the world" (Joh_3:16 ). In face of the Gnostics who so mistakenly spiritualized God into a being who could not possibly have anything to do with the world, John presented the Christian doctrine of the God who made the world and whose presence fills the world that he has made.

The beliefs of the Gnostics impinged on their ideas of Jesus.

(a) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus was one of the emanations which had proceeded from God. They held that he was not in any real sense divine; that he was only a kind of demigod who was more or less distant from the real God; that he was simply one of a chain of lesser beings between God and the world.

(b) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus had no real body. A body is matter and God could not touch matter; therefore Jesus was a kind of phantom without real flesh and blood. They held, for instance, that when he stepped on the ground he left no footprint, for his body had neither weight nor substance. They could never have said: "The Word became flesh" (Joh_1:14 ). Augustine tells how he had read much in the work of the philosophers of his day; he had found much that was very like what was in the New Testament, but, he said: "e Word was made flesh and dwelt among us did not read there." That is why John in his First Letter insists that Jesus came in the flesh, and declares that any one who denies that fact is moved by the spirit of antichrist (1Jo_4:3 ). This particular heresy is known as Docetism. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokein (G1380) which means to seem ; and the heresy is so called because it held that Jesus only seemed to be a man.

(c) Some Gnostics held a variation of that heresy. They held that Jesus was a man into whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism; that Spirit remained with him throughout his life until the end; but since the Spirit of God could never suffer and die, it left him before he was crucified. They gave Jesusry on the Cross as : "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" And in their books they told of people talking on the Mount of Olives to a form which looked exactly like Jesus while the man Jesus died on the Cross.

So then the Gnostic heresies issued in one of two beliefs. They believed either that Jesus was not really divine but simply one of a series of emanations from God, or that he was not in any sense human but a kind of phantom in the shape of a man. The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus.

The Humanity Of Jesus

The fact that John is out to correct both these Gnostic tendencies explains a curious paradoxical double emphasis in his gospel. On the one hand, there is no gospel which so uncompromisingly stresses the real humanity of Jesus. Jesus was angry with those who bought and sold in the Temple courts (Joh_2:15 ); he was physically tired as he sat by the well which was near Sychar in Samaria (Joh_4:6 ); his disciples offered him food in the way in which they would offer it to any hungry man (Joh_4:31 ); he had sympathy with those who were hungry and with those who were afraid (Joh_6:5 , Joh_6:20 ); he knew grief and he wept tears as any mourner might do (Joh_11:33 , Joh_11:35 , Joh_11:38 ); in the agony of the Cross the cry of his parched lips was: "I thirst" (Joh_19:28 ). The Fourth Gospel shows us a Jesus who was no shadowy, docetic figure; it shows us one who knew the weariness of an exhausted body and the wounds of a distressed mind and heart. It is the truly human Jesus whom the Fourth Gospel sets before us.

The Deity Of Jesus

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.

(a) John stresses the preexistence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (Joh_8:58 ). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (Joh_17:5 ). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (Joh_6:33-38 ). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.

(b) The Fourth Gospel stresses more than any of the others the omniscience of Jesus. It is Johnview that apparently miraculously Jesus knew the past record of the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:16-17 ); apparently without anyone telling him he knew how long the man beside the healing pool had been ill (Joh_5:6 ); before he asked it, he knew the answer to the question he put to Philip (Joh_6:6 ); he knew that Judas would betray him (Joh_6:61-64 ); he knew of the death of Lazarus before anyone told him of it (Joh_11:14 ). John saw in Jesus one who had a special and miraculous knowledge independent of anything which any man might tell him. He needed to ask no questions because he knew all the answers.

(c) The Fourth Gospel stresses the fact, as John saw it, that Jesus always acted entirely on his own initiative and uninfluenced by anyone else. It was not his motherrequest which moved him to the miracle at Cana of Galilee; it was his own personal decision (Joh_2:4 ); the urging of his brothers had nothing to do with the visit which he paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:10 ); no man took his life from him--no man could; he laid it down purely voluntarily (Joh_10:18 ; Joh_19:11 ). As John saw it, Jesus had a divine independence from all human influence. He was self-determined.

To meet the Gnostics and their strange beliefs John presents us with a Jesus who was undeniably human and who yet was undeniably divine.

The Author Of The Fourth Gospel

We have seen that the aim of the writer of the Fourth Gospel was to present the Christian faith in such a way that it would commend itself to the Greek world to which Christianity had gone out, and also to combat the heresies and mistaken ideas which had arisen within the church. We go on to ask, Who is that writer? Tradition answers unanimously that the author was John the apostle. We shall see that beyond doubt the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that its actual form and penmanship did not come from his hand. Let us, then, collect what we know about him.

He was the younger son of Zebedee, who possessed a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee and was well enough off to be able to employ hired servants to help him with his work (Mar_1:19-20 ). His mother was Salome, and it seems likely that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mat_27:56 ; Mar_16:1 ). With his brother James he obeyed the call of Jesus (Mar_1:20 ). It would seem that James and John were in partnership with Peter in the fishing trade (Luk_5:7-10 ). He was one of the inner circle of the disciples, for the lists of the disciples always begin with the names of Peter, James and John, and there were certain great occasions when Jesus took these three specially with him (Mar_3:17 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_14:33 ).

In character he was clearly a turbulent and ambitious man. Jesus gave to him and to his brother the name Boanerges, which the gospel writers take to mean Sons of Thunder. John and his brother James were completely exclusive and intolerant (Mar_9:38 ; Luk_9:49 ). So violent was their temper that they were prepared to blast a Samaritan village out of existence because it would not give them hospitality when they were on their journey to Jerusalem (Luk_9:54 ). Either they or their mother Salome had the ambition that when Jesus came into his kingdom, they might be his principal ministers of state (Mar_10:35 ; Mat_20:20 ). In the other three gospels John appears as a leader of the apostolic band, one of the inner circle, and yet a turbulent ambitious and intolerant character.

In the Book of Acts John always appears as the companion of Peter, and he himself never speaks at all. His name is still one of the three names at the head of the apostolic list (Acts 1:13). He is with Peter when the lame man is healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Act_3:1 ). With Peter he is brought before the Sanhedrin and faces the Jewish leaders with a courage and a boldness that astonished them (Act_4:1-13 ). With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria to survey the work done by Philip (Act_8:14 ).

In Paulletters he appears only once. In Galatians 2:9 he is named as one of the pillars of the church along with Peter and James, and with them is depicted as giving his approval to the work of Paul.

John was a strange mixture. He was one of the leaders of the Twelve; he was one of the inner circle of Jesuslosest friends; at the same time he was a man of temper and ambition and intolerance, and yet of courage.

We may follow John into the stories told of him in the early church. Eusebius tells us that he was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3 : 23). In the same passage Eusebius tells a characteristic story about John, a story which he received from Clement of Alexandria. John became a kind of bishop of Asia Minor and was visiting one of his churches near Ephesus. In the congregation he saw a tall and exceptionally fine-looking young man. He turned to the elder in charge of the congregation and said to him: "I commit that young man into your charge and into your care, and I call this congregation to witness that I do so." The elder took the young man into his own house and cared for him and instructed him, and the day came when he was baptized and received into the church. But very soon afterwards he fell in with evil friends and embarked on such a career of crime that he ended up by becoming the leader of a band of murdering and pillaging brigands. Some time afterwards John returned to the congregation. He said to the elder: "Restore to me the trust which I and the Lord committed to you and to the church of which you are in charge." At first the elder did not understand of what John was speaking. "I mean," said John, "that I am asking you for the soul of the young man whom I entrusted to you." "Alas!" said the elder, "he is dead." "Dead?" said John. "He is dead to God," said the elder. "He fell from grace; he was forced to flee from the city for his crimes and now he is a brigand in the mountains." Straightway John went to the mountains. Deliberately he allowed himself to be captured by the robber band. They brought him before the young man who was now the chief of the band and, in his shame, the young man tried to run away from him. John, though an old man, pursued him. "My son," he cried, "are you running away from your father? I am feeble and far advanced in age; have pity on me, my son; fear not; there is yet hope of salvation for you. I will stand for you before the Lord Christ. If need be I will gladly die for you as he died for me. Stop, stay, believe! It is Christ who has sent me to you." The appeal broke the heart of the young man. He stopped, threw away his weapons, and wept. Together he and John came down the mountainside and he was brought back into the church and into the Christian way. There we see the love and the courage of John still in operation.

Eusebius (3 : 28) tells another story of John which he got from the works of Irenaeus. We have seen that one of the leaders of the Gnostic heresy was a man called Cerinthus. "The apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, when he learned that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from his place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. He advised those who were with him to do the same. t us flee,e said, st the bath fall, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."here we have another glimpse of the temper of John. Boanerges was not quite dead.

Cassian tells another famous story about John. One day he was found playing with a tame partridge. A narrower and more rigid brother rebuked him for thus wasting his time, and John answered: "The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight."

It is Jerome who tells the story of the last words of John. When he was dying, his disciples asked him if he had any last message to leave them. "Little children," he said, "love one another." Again and again he repeated it; and they asked him if that was all he had to say. "It is enough," he said, "for it is the Lordcommand."

Such then is our information about John; and he emerges a figure of fiery temper, of wide ambition, of undoubted courage, and, in the end, of gentle love.

The Beloved Disciple

If we have been following our references closely we will have noticed one thing. All our information about John comes from the first three gospels. It is the astonishing fact that the Fourth Gospel never mentions the apostle John from beginning to end. But it does mention two other people.

First, it speaks of the disciple whom Jesus loved. There are four mentions of him. He was leaning on Jesusreast at the Last Supper (Joh_13:23-25 ); it is into his care that Jesus committed Mary as he died upon his Cross (Joh_19:25-27 ); it was Peter and he whom Mary Magdalene met on her return from the empty tomb on the first Easter morning (Joh_20:2 ); he was present at the last resurrection appearance of Jesus by the lake-side (Joh_21:20 ).

Second, the Fourth Gospel has a kind of character whom we might call the witness. As the Fourth Gospel tells of the spear thrust into the side of Jesus and the issue of the water and the blood, there comes the comment: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe" (Joh_19:35 ). At the end of the gospel comes the statement that it was the beloved disciple who testified of these things "and we know that his testimony is true" (Joh_21:24 ).

Here we are faced with rather a strange thing. In the Fourth Gospel John is never mentioned, but the beloved disciple is and in addition there is a witness of some kind to the whole story. It has never really been doubted in tradition that the beloved disciple is John. A few have tried to identify him with Lazarus, for Jesus is said to have loved Lazarus (Joh_11:3 , Joh_11:5 ), or with the Rich Young Ruler, of whom it is said that Jesus, looking on him, loved him (Mar_10:21 ). But although the gospel never says so in so many words, tradition has always identified the beloved disciple with John, and there is no real need to doubt the identification.

But a very real point arises--suppose John himself actually did the writing of the gospel, would he really be likely to speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Would he really be likely to pick himself out like this, and, as it were, to say: "I was his favourite; he loved me best of all"? It is surely very unlikely that John would confer such a title on himself. If it was conferred by others, it is a lovely title; if it was conferred by himself, it comes perilously near to an almost incredible self-conceit.

Is there any way then that the gospel can be Johnown eye-witness story, and yet at the same time have been actually written down by someone else?

The Production Of The Church

In our search for the truth we begin by noting one of the outstanding and unique features of the Fourth Gospel. The most remarkable thing about it is the long speeches of Jesus. Often they are whole chapters long, and are entirely unlike the way in which Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the other three gospels. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, was written about the year A.D. 100, that is, about seventy years after the crucifixion. Is it possible after these seventy years to look on these speeches as word for word reports of what Jesus said? Or can we explain them in some way that is perhaps even greater than that? We must begin by holding in our minds the fact of the speeches and the question which they inevitably raise.

And we have something to add to that. It so happens that in the writings of the early church we have a whole series of accounts of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written. The earliest is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; and Irenaeus was himself a pupil of Polycarp, who in turn had actually been a pupil of John. There is therefore a direct link between Irenaeus and John. Irenaeus writes:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast,

himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living

in Asia."

The suggestive thing there is that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) it in Ephesus. The word that Irenaeus uses makes it sound, not like the private publication of some personal memoir, but like the public issue of some almost official document.

The next account is that of Clement who was head of the great school of Alexandria about A.D. 230. He writes:

"Last of all, John perceiving that the bodily facts had been made

plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, composed a

spiritual gospel."

The important thing here is the phrase being urged by his friends. It begins to become clear that the Fourth Gospel is far more than one manpersonal production and that there is a group, a community, a church behind it. On the same lines, a tenth-century manuscript called the Codex Toletanus, which prefaces the New Testament books with short descriptions, prefaces the Fourth Gospel thus:

The apostle John, whom the Lord Jesus loved most, last of all

wrote this gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against

Cerinthus and other heretics."

Again we have the idea that behind the Fourth Gospel there is the authority of a group and of a church.

We now turn to a very important document, known as the Muratorian Canon. It is so called after a scholar Muratori who discovered it. It is the first list of New Testament books which the church ever issued and was compiled in Rome about A.D. 170. Not only does it list the New Testament books, it also gives short accounts of the origin and nature and contents of each of them. Its account of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written is extremely important and illuminating.

"At the request of his fellow-disciples and of his bishops, John,

one of the disciples, said: úst with me for three days from

this time and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us, whether

it be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate it to one

another.n the same night it was revealed to Andrew that John

should relate all things, aided by the revision of all."

We cannot accept all that statement, because it is not possible that Andrew, the apostle, was in Ephesus in A.D. 100; but the point is that it is stated as clearly as possible that, while the authority and the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel are that of John, it is clearly and definitely the product, not of one man, but of a group and a community.

Now we can see something of what happened. About the year A.D. 100 there was a group of men in Ephesus whose leader was John. They revered him as a saint and they loved him as a father. He must have been almost a hundred years old. Before he died, they thought most wisely that it would be a great thing if the aged apostle set down his memories of the years when he had been with Jesus. But in the end they did far more than that. We can think of them sitting down and reliving the old days. One would say: "Do you remember how Jesus said ... ?" And John would say: "Yes, and now we know that he meant..."

In other words this group was not only writing down what Jesus said; that would have been a mere feat of memory. They were writing down what Jesus meant; that was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. John had thought about every word that Jesus had said; and he had thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was so real to him. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled: "What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long." That is a perfect description of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. A. H. N. Green Armytage puts the thing perfectly in his book John who saw. Mark, he says, suits the missionary with his clear-cut account of the facts of Jesusife; Matthew suits the teacher with his systematic account of the teaching of Jesus; Luke suits the parish minister or priest with his wide sympathy and his picture of Jesus as the friend of all; but John is the gospel of the contemplative.

He goes on to speak of the apparent contrast between Mark and John. "The two gospels are in a sense the same gospel. Only, where Mark saw things plainly, bluntly, literally, John saw them subtly, profoundly, spiritually. We might say that John lit Markpages by the lantern of a lifetimemeditation." Wordsworth defined poetry as "Emotion recollected in tranquillity ". That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit. It was not John of Ephesus who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it was the Holy Spirit who wrote it through John.

The Penman Of The Gospel

We have one question still to ask. We can be quite sure that the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel is that of John the apostle; but we have also seen that behind it is a witness who was the writer, in the sense that he was the actual penman. Can we find out who he was? We know from what the early church writers tell us that there were actually two Johns in Ephesus at the same time. There was John the apostle, but there was another John, who was known as John the elder.

Papias, who loved to collect all that he could find about the history of the New Testament and the story of Jesus, gives us some very interesting information. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is quite near Ephesus, and his dates are from about A.D. 70 to about A.D. 145. That is to say, he was actually a contemporary of John. He writes how he tried to find out "what Andrew said or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." In Ephesus there was the apostle John, and the elder John; and the elder John was so well-loved a figure that he was actually known as The Elder. He clearly had a unique place in the church. Both Eusebius and Dionysius the Great tell us that even to their own days in Ephesus there were two famous tombs, the one of John the apostle, and the other of John the elder.

Now let us turn to the two little letters, Second John and Third John. The letters come from the same hand as the gospel, and how do they begin? The second letter begins: "The elder unto the elect lady and her children" (2Jo_1:1 ). The third letter begins: "The elder unto the beloved Gaius" (3Jo_1:1 ). Here we have our solution. The actual penman of the letters was John the elder; the mind and memory behind them was the aged John the apostle, the master whom John the elder always described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The Precious Gospel

The more we know about the Fourth Gospel the more precious it becomes. For seventy years John had thought of Jesus. Day by day the Holy Spirit had opened out to him the meaning of what Jesus said. So when John was near the century of life and his days were numbered, he and his friends sat down to remember. John the elder held the pen to write for his master, John the apostle; and the last of the apostles set down, not only what he had heard Jesus say, but also what he now knew Jesus had meant. He remembered how Jesus had said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Joh_16:12-13 ). There were many things which seventy years ago he had not understood; there were many things which in these seventy years the Spirit of Truth had revealed to him. These things John set down even as the eternal glory was dawning upon him. When we read this gospel let us remember that we are reading the gospel which of all the gospels is most the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking to us of the things which Jesus meant, speaking through the mind and memory of John the apostle and by the pen of John the elder. Behind this gospel is the whole church at Ephesus, the whole company of the saints, the last of the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the Risen Christ himself.

FURTHER READING

John

C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (G)

J. H. Bernahrd, St. John (ICC; G)

E. C. Hoskyns (ed. F. M. Davey), The Fourth Gospel (E)

R. H. Lightfoot, St. JohnGospel: A Commentary (E)

G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MC; E)

J. N. Saunders (ed. B. A. Mastin), The Gospel According to Saint John (ACB; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to Saint John (TC; E)

B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to Saint John (E)

The SpeakerCommentary (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Word (Joh_1:1-18)

1:1-18 When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. This Word was in the beginning with God. He was the agent through whom all things were made; and there is not a single thing which exists in this world which came into being without him. In him was life and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, because the darkness has never been able to conquer it. There emerged a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, in order to bear witness to the light, that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; his function was to bear witness to the light. He was the real light, who, in his coming into the world, gives light to every man. He was in the world, and, although the world was made by him, the world did not recognize him. It was into his own home that he came, and yet his own people did not receive him. To all those who did receive him, to those who believe in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God. These were born, not of blood, nor of any human impulse, nor of any man's will, but their birth was of God. So the Word became a person, and took up his abode in our being, full of grace and truth; and we beheld his glory, glory such as an only son receives from his father. John was his witness, for he cried: "This is he of whom I said to you, he who comes after me has been advanced before me, because he was before me. On his fullness we all of us have drawn, and we have received grace upon grace, because it was the law which was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God."

We shall go on to study this passage in short sections and in detail; but, before we do so, we must try to understand what John was seeking to say when he described Jesus as the Word.

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:1-18 Continued)

The first chapter of the Fourth Gospel is one of the greatest adventures of religious thought ever achieved by the mind of man. It was not long before the Christian church was confronted with a very basic problem. It had begun in Judaism. In the beginning all its members had been Jews. By human descent Jesus was a Jew, and, to all intents and purposes, except for brief visits to the districts of Tyre and Sidon, and to the Decapolis, he was never outside Palestine. Christianity began amongst the Jews; and therefore inevitably it spoke in the Jewish language and used Jewish categories of thought. But although it was cradled in Judaism it very soon went out into the wider world. Within thirty years of Jesus' death it had travelled all over Asia Minor and Greece and had arrived in Rome. By A.D. 60 there must have been a hundred thousand Greeks in the church for every Jew who was a Christian. Jewish ideas were completely strange to the Greeks. To take but one outstanding example, the Greeks had never heard of the Messiah. The very centre of Jewish expectation, the coming of the Messiah, was an idea that was quite alien to the Greeks. The very category in which the Jewish Christians conceived and presented Jesus meant nothing to them. Here then was the problem--how was Christianity to be presented to the Greek world? Lecky, the historian, once said that the progress and spread of any idea depends, not only on its strength and force but on the predisposition to receive it of the age to which it is presented. The task of the Christian church was to create in the Greek world a predisposition to receive the Christian message. As E. J. Goodspeed put it, the question was, "Must a Greek who was interested in Christianity be routed through Jewish Messianic ideas and through Jewish ways of thinking, or could some new approach be found which would speak out of his background to his mind and heart?" The problem was how to present Christianity in such a way that a Greek would understand. Round about the year A.D. 100 there was a man in Ephesus who was fascinated by that problem. His name was John. He lived in a Greek city. He dealt with Greeks to whom Jewish ideas were strange and unintelligible and even uncouth. How could he find a way to present Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they would welcome and understand? Suddenly the solution flashed upon him. In both Greek and Jewish thought there existed the conception of the word. Here was something which could be worked out to meet the double world of Greek Jew. Here was something which belonged to the heritage of both races and that both could understand. Let us then begin by looking at the two backgrounds of the conception of the word.

The Jewish Background

In the Jewish background four strands contributed something to the idea of the word. (i) To the Jew a word was far more than a mere sound; it was something which had an independent existence and which actually did things. As Professor John Paterson has put it: "The spoken word to the Hebrew was fearfully alive.... It was a unit of energy charged with power. It flies like a bullet to its billet." For that very reason the Hebrew was sparing of words. Hebrew speech has fewer than 10,000; Greek speech has 200,000. A modern poet tells how once the doer of an heroic deed was unable to tell it to his fellow-tribesmen for lack of words. Whereupon there arose a man "afflicted with the necessary magic of words," and he told the story in terms so vivid and so moving that "the words became alive and walked up and down in the hearts of his hearers." The words of the poet became a power. History has many an example of that kind of thing. When John Knox preached in the days of the Reformation in Scotland it was said that the voice of that one man put more courage into the hearts of his hearers than ten thousand trumpets braying in their ears. His words did things to people. In the days of the French Revolution Rouget de Lisle wrote the Marseillaise and that song sent men marching to revolution. The words did things. In the days of the Second World War, when Britain was bereft alike of allies and of weapons, the words of the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, as he broadcast to the nation, did things to people. It was even more so in the East, and still is. To the eastern people a word is not merely a sound; it is a power which does things. Once when Sir George Adam Smith was travelling in the desert in the East, a group of Moslems gave his party the customary greeting: "Peace be upon you." At the moment they failed to notice that he was a Christian. When they discovered that they had spoken a blessing to an infidel, they hurried back to ask for the blessing back again. The word was like a thing which could be sent out to do things and which could be brought back again. Will Carleton, the poet, expresses something like that:

"Boys flying kites haul in their white-winged birds; You can't do that way when you're flying words: 'Careful with fire,' is good advice we know, 'Careful with words,' is ten times doubly so. Thoughts unexpressed may sometimes fall back dead, But God himself can't kill them when they're said."

We can well understand how to the eastern peoples words had an independent, power-filled existence. (ii) Of that general idea of the power of words, the Old Testament is full. Once Isaac had been deceived into blessing Jacob instead of Esau, nothing he could do could take that word of blessing back again (Gen 27). The word had gone out and had begun to act and nothing could stop it. In particular we see the word of God in action in the Creation story. At every stage of it we read: "And God said..." (Gen_1:3; Gen_1:6; Gen_1:11). The word of God is the creating power. Again and again we get this idea of the creative, acting, dynamic word of God. "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made" (Psa_33:6). "He sent forth his word and healed them" (Psa_107:20). "He sent forth his commands to the earth; his word runs swiftly" (Psa_147:15). "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa_55:11). "Is not my word like fire, and, says the Lord, like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer_23:29). "Thou spakest from the beginning of creation, even the first day, and saidst thus: ' Let heaven and earth be made.' And thy word was a perfect work" (2Esdr 6:38). The writer of the Book of Wisdom addresses God as the one, "who hast made an things with thy word" (Wis 9:1). Everywhere in the Old Testament there is this idea of the powerful, creative word. Even men's words have a kind of dynamic activity; how much more must it be so with God? (iii) There came into Hebrew religious life something which greatly accentuated the development of this idea of the word of God. For a hundred years and more before the coming of Jesus Hebrew was a forgotten language. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew but the Jews no longer knew the language. The scholars knew it, but not the ordinary people. They spoke a development of Hebrew called Aramaic which is to Hebrew somewhat as modern English is to Anglo-Saxon. Since that was so the Scriptures of the Old Testament had to be translated into this language that the people could understand, and these translations were called the Targums. In the synagogue the scriptures were read in the original Hebrew, but then they were translated into Aramaic and Targums were used as translations. The Targums were produced in a time when men were fascinated by the transcendence of God and could think of nothing but the distance and the difference of God. Because of that the men who made the Targums were very much afraid of attributing human thoughts and feelings and actions to God. To put it in technical language, they made every effort to avoid anthropomorphism in speaking of him. Now the Old Testament regularly speaks of God in a human way; and wherever they met a thing like that the Targums substituted the word of God for the name of God. Let us see how this custom worked. In Exo_19:17 we read that "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God." The Targums thought that was too human a way to speak of God, so they said that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the word of God. In Exo_31:13 we read that God said to the people that the Sabbath "is a sign between me and you throughout your generations." That was far too human a way to speak for the Targums, and so they said that the Sabbath is a sign "between my word and you." Deu_9:3 says that God is a consuming fire, but the Targums translated it that the word of God is a consuming fire. Isa_48:13 has a great picture of creation: "My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens." That was much too human a picture of God for the Targums and they made God say: "By my word I have founded the earth; and by my strength I have hung up the heavens." Even so wonderful a passage as Deu_33:27 which speaks of God's "everlasting arms" was changed, and became: "The eternal God is thy refuge, and by his word the world was created." In the Jonathan Targum the phrase the word of God occurs no fewer than about 320 times. It is quite true that it is simply a periphrasis for the name of God; but the fact remains that the word of God became one of the commonest forms of Jewish expression. It was a phrase which any devout Jew would recognize because he heard it so often in the synagogue when scripture was read. Every Jew was used to speaking of the Memra, the word of God. (iv) At this stage we must look more fully at something we already began to look at in the introduction. The Greek term for word is Logos (G3056); but Logos (G3056) does not only mean word; it also means reason. For John, and for all the great thinkers who made use of this idea, these two meanings were always closely intertwined. Whenever they used Logos (G3056) the twin ideas of the Word of God and the Reason of God were in their minds. The Jews had a type of literature called The Wisdom Literature which was the concentrated wisdom of sages. It is not usually speculative and philosophical, but practical wisdom for the living and management of life. In the Old Testament the great example of Wisdom Literature is the Book of Proverbs. In this book there are certain passages which give a mysterious life-giving and eternal power to Wisdom (Sophia). In these passages Wisdom has been, as it were, personified, and is thought of as the eternal agent and co-worker of God. There are three main passages. The first is Pro_3:13-26 . Out of that passage we may specially note: "She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke forth, and the clouds drop down the dew" (Pro_3:18-20). We remember that Logos (G3056) means Word and also means Reason. We have already seen how the Jews thought of the powerful and creative word of God. Here we see the other side beginning to emerge. Wisdom is God's agent in enlightenment and in creation; and Wisdom and Reason are very much the same thing. We have seen how important Logos (G3056) was in the sense of Word; now we see it beginning to be important in the sense of Wisdom or Reason. The second important passage is Pro_4:5-13 . In it we may notice: "Keep hold of instruction, do not let go; guard her, for she is your life." The Word is the light of men and Wisdom is the light of men. The two ideas are amalgamating with each other rapidly now. The most important passage of all is in Pro_8:1-9; Prov 2 . In it we may specially note: "The Lord created me (Wisdom is speaking) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep; when he made firm the skies above; when he established the fountains of the deep; when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command; when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always" (Pro_8:22-30). When we read that passage there is echo after echo of what John says of the word in the Jn 1 . Wisdom had that eternal existence, that light-giving function, that creative power which John attributed to the word, the Logos (G3056), with which he identified Jesus Christ. The development of this idea of wisdom did not stop here. Between the Old and the New Testament, men went on producing this kind of writing called Wisdom Literature. It had so much concentrated wisdom in it and drew so much from the experience of wise men that it was a priceless guide for life. In particular two very great books were written, which are included in the Apocrypha and which it will do any man's soul good to read. (a) The first is called The Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, or, as it is better known, Ecclesiasticus. It too makes much of this great conception of the creative and eternal wisdom of God.

"The sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting" (Sir 1:1-10). "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss" (Sir 24:3-5). "He created me from the beginning of the world, And to the end I shall not fail" (Sir 24:9).

Here again we find wisdom as the eternal, creative power which was at God's side in the days of creation and the beginning of time. (b) Ecclesiasticus was written in Palestine about the year 100 B.C.; and at almost the same time an equally great book was written in Alexandria in Egypt, called The Wisdom of Solomon. In it there is the greatest of all pictures of wisdom. Wisdom is the treasure which men use to become the friends of God (Wis 7:14). Wisdom is the artificer of all things (Wis 7:22). She is the breath of the power of God and a pure effluence flowing from the Almighty (Wis 7:25). She can do all things and makes all things new (Wis 7:27). But the writer does more than talk about wisdom; he equates wisdom and the word. To him the two ideas are the same. He can talk of the wisdom of God and the word of God in the same sentence and with the same meaning. When he prays to God, his address is: O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom (Wis 9:2). He can speak of the word almost as John was to speak: "For while all things were in quiet silence, and that night was in the midst of her swift course, thine Almighty word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven but it stood upon the earth (Wis 18:14-16). To the writer of the Book of Wisdom, wisdom was God's eternal, creative, illuminating power; wisdom and the word were one and the same. It was wisdom and the word who were God's instruments and agents in creation and who ever bring the will of God to the mind and heart of man. So when John was searching for a way in which he could commend Christianity he found in his own faith and in the record of his own people the idea of the word, the ordinary word which is in itself not merely a sound, but a dynamic thing, the word of God by which God created the world, the word of the Targums which expressed the very idea of the action of God, the wisdom of the Wisdom Literature which was the eternal creative and illuminating power of God. So John said: "If you wish to see that word of God, if you wish to see the creative power of God, if you wish to see that word which brought the world into existence and which gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him the word of God came among you."

The Greek Background

We began by seeing that John's problem was not that of presenting Christianity to the Jewish world, but of presenting it to the Greek world. How then did this idea of the word fit into Greek thought? It was already there waiting to be used. In Greek thought the idea of the word began away back about 560 B.C., and, strangely enough, in Ephesus where the Fourth Gospel was written. In 560 B.C. there was an Ephesian philosopher called Heraclitus whose basic idea was that everything is in a state of flux. Everything was changing from day to day and from moment to moment. His famous illustration was that it was impossible to step twice into the same river. You step into a river; you step out; you step in again; but you do not step into the same river, for the water has flowed on and it is a different river. To Heraclitus everything was like that, everything was in a constantly changing state of flux. But if that be so, why was life not complete chaos? How can there be any sense in a world where there was constant flux and change? The answer of Heraclitus was: all this change and flux was not haphazard; it was controlled and ordered, following a continuous pattern all the time; and that which controlled the pattern was the Logos (G3056), the word, the reason of God. To Heraclitus, the Logos (G3056) was the principle of order under which the universe continued to exist. Heraclitus went further. He held that not only was there a pattern in the physical world; there was also a pattern in the world of events. He held that nothing moved with aimless feet; in all life and in all the events of life there was a purpose, a plan and a design. And what was it that controlled events? Once again, the answer was Logos (G3056). Heraclitus took the matter even nearer home. What was it that in us individually told us the difference between right and wrong? What made us able to think and to reason? What enabled us to choose aright and to recognize the truth when we saw it? Once again Heraclitus gave the same answer. What gave a man reason and knowledge of the truth and the ability to judge between right and wrong was the Logos (G3056) of God dwelling within him. Heraclitus held that in the world of nature and events "all things happen according to the Logos (G3056)," and that in the individual man "the Logos (G3056) is the judge of truth." The Logos (G3056) was nothing less than the mind of God controlling the world and every man in it. Once the Greeks had discovered this idea they never let it go. It fascinated them, especially the Stoics. The Stoics were always left in wondering amazement at the order of the world. Order always implies a mind. The Stoics asked: "What keeps the stars in their courses? What makes the tides ebb and flow? What makes day and night come in unalterable order? What brings the seasons round at their appointed times?" And they answered; "All things are controlled by the Logos (G3056) of God." The Logos (G3056) is the power which puts sense into the world, the power which makes the world an order instead of a chaos, the power which set the world going and keeps it going in its perfect order. "The Logos (G3056)," said the Stoics, "pervades all things." There is still another name in the Greek world at which we must look. In Alexandria there was a Jew called Philo who had made it the business of his life to study the wisdom of two worlds, the Jewish and the Greek. No man ever knew the Jewish scriptures as he knew them; and no Jew ever knew the greatness of Greek thought as he knew it. He too knew and used and loved this idea of the Logos (G3056), the word, the reason of God. He held that the Logos (G3056) was the oldest thing in the world and the instrument through which God had made the world. He said that the Logos (G3056) was the thought of God stamped upon the universe; he talked about the Logos (G3056) by which God made the world and all things; he said that God, the pilot of the universe, held the Logos (G3056) as a tiller and with it steered all things. He said that man's mind was stamped also with the Logos (G3056), that the Logos (G3056) was what gave a man reason, the power to think and the power to know. He said that the Logos (G3056) was the intermediary between the world and God and that the Logos (G3056) was the priest who set the soul before God. Greek thought knew all about the Logos (G3056); it saw in the Logos (G3056) the creating and guiding and directing power of God, the power which made the universe and kept it going. So John came to the Greeks and said: "For centuries you have been thinking and writing and dreaming about the Logos (G3056), the power which made the world, the power which keeps the order of the world, the power by which men think and reason and know, the power by which men come into contact with God. Jesus is that Logos (G3056) come down to earth." "The word," said John, "became flesh." We could put it another way--"The Mind of God became a person."

Both Jew And Greek

Slowly the Jews and Greeks had thought their way to the conception of the Logos (G3056), the Mind of God which made the world and makes sense of it. So John went out to Jews and Greeks to tell them that in Jesus Christ this creating, illuminating, controlling, sustaining mind of God had come to earth. He came to tell them that men need no longer guess and grope; all that they had to do was to look at Jesus and see the Mind of God.

The Eternal Word (Joh_1:1-2)

The Creator Of All Things (Joh_1:3)

Life And Light (Joh_1:4)

Life And Light (Joh_1:4 Continued)

The Hostile Dark (Joh_1:5)

The Witness To Jesus Christ (Joh_1:6-8)

The Light Of Every Man (Joh_1:9)

Unrecognized (Joh_1:10-11)

Unrecognized (Joh_1:10-11 Continued)

Children Of God (Joh_1:12-13)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14 Continued)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14 Continued)

The Inexhaustible Fullness (Joh_1:15-17)

The Revelation Of God (Joh_1:18)

The Witness Of John (Joh_1:19-28)

The Witness Of John (Joh_1:19-28 Continued)

The Lamb Of God (Joh_1:29-31)

The Coming Of The Spirit (Joh_1:32-34)

The First Disciples (Joh_1:35-39)

Sharing The Glory (Joh_1:40-42)

The Surrender Of Nathanael (Joh_1:43-51)

Constable: John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel as well as in the writings of the church fathers that the writer was the Apostle John.

The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24 the writer of "these things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve since only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The disciple whom Jesus loved was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10). James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory (1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the New Testament. This one was one of Zebedee's sons who was a fisherman before Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.

"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality manifested than in John."¹

The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 A.D.), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (c. 69-155 A.D.), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."² Other later church fathers supported this tradition including Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.³ Eusebius (fourth century) also specifically mentioned that Matthew and John among the apostles wrote the Gospels that bear their names.⁴

Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept Johannine authorship. This criticism comes from those who hold a lower view of Scripture generally. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.⁵

Place of Writing

Eusebius wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.⁶ The Isle of Patmos where John spent some time in exile is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). As previously noted, Eusebius wrote that John composed his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.⁷ During the first century, that city was one of the largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world.⁸

Date

A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as 45 A.D., the date when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-4).⁹ There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some doubt about this since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis of content, that John selected his material to supplement material in the Synoptics. This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died about 67 A.D. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other reasons.

Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before 70 A.D. because John described Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).¹⁰ This may be a weak argument since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe things in the past.¹¹ Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to Jerusalem's destruction in John. However there could have been many reasons John chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.

Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between 85 and 95 A.D.¹² Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older man. Moreover even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel and believed that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own Gospel suggests that he probably read them and chose to include other material from Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.¹³

The latest possible date would be about 100 A.D. Some liberal scholars date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus that dates from early in the second century contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.¹⁴ This seems to rule out a second century date.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing very exactly, as evidenced by the difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. A date sometime between 65 and 95 A.D. is probable.

Characteristic features and purpose

John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament studies.¹⁵ Compared to the Synoptics that present Jesus as a historical figure, John stressed the deity of Jesus. Obviously the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, were Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity. It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life.

The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times. The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon shows that John wanted to stress the importance of active vital trust in Jesus. Other key words are witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life, darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.¹⁶ These words identify important themes in the Gospel.

John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane, and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus' private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples (chs. 13-17). John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah (chs. 2-12). He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that explained their significance. Moreover he stressed Jesus' claims that occur in the unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).

About 93% of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.¹⁷ This fact indicates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared with the other three and explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. All four Gospels are quite similar, though each of them has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different from the others. Specifically it stresses Jesus' deity stronger than the others do. It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew of the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁸ I suspect that he did.

Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However the Synoptic writers stressed the future aspects of eschatology more than John who put more emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not. He did stress, however, the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as benefits of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified by His death. These include especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists. By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers' interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf. chs. 13-17).

"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became incarnate; everything was seeming.'¹⁹ That the docetic heresy did not appear in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."²⁰

"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God, and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii; also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine; and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic outlook), that Jesus was truly human."²¹

The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan than the others.

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and questioning believer."²²

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played, they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but which appears in the progress of the composition."²³

Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most profound of the Christian Gospels."²⁴

Original recipients

The preceding quotation implies that John wrote primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God and to give Christians who faced persecution confidence in their Savior. The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense implying that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense suggesting that pagan readers should believe initially. An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed all 66 books of the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that we might experience abundant eternal life (10:10).

John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites. These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers outside Palestine. Furthermore the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek categories. John's inclusion of the Greeks who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22) may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes it seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and Gentile unbelievers.²⁵

"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to whom he seemed patriarchal."²⁶

The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal. Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia the capital of which was Ephesus.

Summary of Gospel Introductions
Gospel	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Date	40-70probably 40s	63-70probably 60s	57-59probably 50s	65-95probably 90s
Origin	Palestine	Rome	Caesarea	Ephesus
Audience	Jews	Romans	Greeks	Gentiles
Emphasis	King	Servant	Man	God

Message²⁷

In one sense the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and to teach for reasons that will become evident as we study it. In another sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.²⁸ It is both simple and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.

What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John does.

The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave hidden. It is therefore an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of John plays that part among the Gospels. It is a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it would be this in his prologue (1:1-18).

The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. This book then stresses the revelation of the truth about God.

Mankind has constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself, however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach. This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of what one would expect.

John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see what God hates.

What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by revealing two things about Him: His grace and His truth (1:14). All that Jesus revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.

The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in gracious action in this book. Let us note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs that John chose to record.

The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical restoration. The feeding of the 5000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's grace in providing new life. All these miracles are revelations of God's love manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward us in our various needs. These are only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.

This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel. That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament too. The principle of God's holiness governs the passion of His love.

Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth. Let us select seven of the great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All these claims point to God as the source and to Jesus as the mediator of things having to do with truth.

The bread of life claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The light of the world claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The door claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The good shepherd claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The resurrection and the life claim (ch. 11) points to God as the source of true life. The way, the truth, and the life claim (ch. 14) points to God as the source of true authority. The vine claim (ch. 15) points to God as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of the truth concerning God.

These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3 where God began to reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel? First, such a revelation calls for worship.

In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship Him in response. The Son of God is the person through whom God has now given the greatest and fullest revelation of Himself and around whom we now bow in worship.

Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is as we study this Gospel, our reaction should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself. Even in heaven we will serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).

As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives. Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness. Jesus illustrated the balance.

This Gospel has a strong appeal to the unsaved as well. John wrote it specifically to bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness (20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is is the key to the knowledge of who God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain characteristics, namely grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content: who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31). Use it as an evangelistic tool.

Constable: John (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-18

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19-12:50

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42

4. The witness of Philip and Andrew 1:43-51

B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12

1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12

C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13-3:36

1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22

2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42

1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38

3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42

E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54

1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45

2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54

F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5

1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18

3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29

4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1-7:9

1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15

2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21

3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60-7:9

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13

2. Jesus' ministry at the feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59

6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11-12

1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8

4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11

5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19

6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36

7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13-17

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30

B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31-16:33

1. The new commandment 13:31-35

2. Peter's profession of loyalty 13:36-38

3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

4. The promise of future understanding 14:25-31

5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16

6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27

7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33

C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17

1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5

2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18-20

A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11

B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests' courtyard and Peter's first denial 18:15-18

3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27

C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28-19:16

1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32

2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16

D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30

1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17

2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18

3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22

4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24

5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30

E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42

1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37

2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42

F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29

1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9

2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18

3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23

4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29

G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31

V. Epilogue ch. 21

A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14

B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23

C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25

Constable: John

John

Bibliography

Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.

Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-71.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.

Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.

_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.

_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.

_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):34-52.

_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53.

_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.

Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Ark, 1984.

Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.

Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.

Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction." ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.

Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part 2:145-82.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gundry, Robert H. "In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.

Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar." Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):190-202.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962

Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):66-75.

Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-54.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865-71.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):200-9.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Angel at Bethesda--John 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):25-39.

_____. "Coming to the Light--John 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):314-22.

_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. "Grace after Grace--John 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45.

_____. "Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):239-48.

_____. "Those Who Have Done Good--John 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):158-66.

_____. "Untrustworthy Believers--John 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):139-52.

_____. "Water and Spirit--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "Water and Wind--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:544 (October-December 1979):318-32.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1982 ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; et al. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and Overstreet, R. Larry. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.

Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-66.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange. Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.

Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants, 1972.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.

McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1982.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel Studies--Etudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1968.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):333-45.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3 vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.

Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.

Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 1941.

Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):214-23.

_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.

_____. "John." In John--Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8.

_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-25.

_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41; 528 (October-December 1975):343-57.

Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):435-48.

_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):428-39.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. elencho, by F. Büchsel.

_____. S.v., lithos, by Joachim Jeremias.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):313-23.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1915.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.

_____. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-56.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden.

_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-4@

Haydock: John (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

INTRODUCTION

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John iv. 3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, &c. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians xi. 19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Lælius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts v. 36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; i.e. Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to the very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians ii. 13. and James i. 21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Chap. xv.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Chap. lv. 8, 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions to reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible for Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God. [1] --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians iv. 14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Greek: Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein.

====================

Gill: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

The author of this Gospel is John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James the greater; he outlived the rest of the disciples, and wrote this Gospel after the other evangelists; and in it many things are recorded, which are not in the other Gospels; as various discourses of Christ, and miracles done by him; several incidents in his life, and circumstances that attended his sufferings and death: the occasion of it is generally thought to be the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, asserted he was a mere man, and that he did not exist before his incarnation; and the design of it is to confute them: and it is easy to observe, that he begins his Gospel with the divinity of Christ; asserts him to be God, and proves him to be truly and properly so, by the works of creation, which were wrought by him, as well as shows that he was really man. Clemens ^a calls this Gospel of John, pneumatikon euaggelion "a spiritual Gospel", as indeed it is; consisting of the spiritual discourses of our Lord, on various occasions, both at the beginning, and in the course of his ministry, and especially a little before his sufferings and death: and the same writer observes, that John, the last of the evangelists, considering that in the other Gospels were declared the things relating to the body of Christ, that is, to him, as he was after the flesh; to his genealogy and birth as man; to what was done to him, or by him, in his infancy; to his baptism, temptations, journeys, &c. at the request of his familiar friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, composed this Gospel. Moreover, it is observed by some ^b, that the other three evangelists only record what was done by Christ, in one year after John the Baptist was cast into prison, as appears from Mat 4:12 wherefore John, at the entreaty of his friends, put these things into his Gospel, which were done or said by Christ, before John was cast into prison. He was called very early by Christ, though young; and was with him throughout the whole of his ministry, and was an eye and ear witness of what he here relates, and his testimony is to be received; he was the beloved disciple, he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, and had great intimacy with him; and might be privy to some things, which others were not acquainted with; and though he was a Galilean, and an unlearned man, Act 4:13 yet being endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, he was abundantly qualified to write this book: for what some ancient writers ^c say of him, that he was a priest, and wore a plate, that is, of gold upon his forehead, cannot be true, since he was not of the tribe of Levi; and besides, only the high priest wore that upon his mitre; unless they mean, as seems most likely, that he was a Christian bishop: perhaps the mistake may arise from John the Baptist, who was of the priestly order, and is called by some Jewish writers ^d, John the high priest. When and where this Gospel was written, is not certain; some say in ^e Asia, after he had wrote his Revelation in Patmos; and others say particularly, that it was wrote at Ephesus; the title of it in the Syriac version, signifies much, which runs thus;

"the holy Gospel, the preaching of John, which he spoke and published in Greek at Ephesus.''

And to the same purpose is the title of it in the Persic version;

"the Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the city of Ephesus, in the Greek Roman tongue.''

College: John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will notice that the first three accounts of Jesus' life are generally similar in their overall story line, whereas the fourth Gospel (John) is quite different. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels (Synoptic = "seen together" or "as parallel") because of their similarities, but John is called, well . . . John (no special name). It is part of the New Testament collection known as the Johannine Writings (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation).

The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are readily apparent to the alert reader. For example the Synoptics all present one major trip of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, whereas John portrays Jesus as being in Judea and Jerusalem often. Indeed, for John the primary ministry of Jesus seems to be in Judea rather than the Galilean setting of the Synoptics. Another difference is seen in John's lack of true parables in his recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Synoptics, parables are the characteristic form of Jesus' teaching, with the often repeated introduction, "Jesus told them a parable, saying, 'the kingdom of God is like this . . . .'" John is also loaded with characters we do not find in the Synoptics: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and Lazarus, just to name a few. Furthermore, some of our most memorable Gospel phrases are not found in the Synoptics, but only in John: "In the beginning was the Word." "Behold the Lamb of God!" "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." "I am the way, the truth, and the life." "I am the vine." "What is truth?" "It is finished!" "So send I you." By some estimates about 90% of the material found in John is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars have noticed these differences from ancient times. Clement of Alexandria, writing approximately AD 185, called John the "spiritual Gospel." By this, Clement did not mean that John was nonhistorical, but that John was more concerned with internal, spiritual matters. In the more recent past overly critical scholars have pronounced the differences between John and the Synoptics to be irreconcilable and concluded that John is, in effect, the first commentary on the Gospels. This assumption (that John is historical fiction) exists in many commentaries of previous generations and is still held by some today. In general, though, current scholarship is much less certain about the nonhistorical character of John. In this commentary we assume that John relates a historically reliable version of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, albeit quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. These differences are part of what makes the study of this book so fascinating and will be discussed at the appropriate places through the commentary.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

We have been writing as if we knew for sure that John was the author of this Gospel. But this begs the question, how do we know for sure that John wrote it, and if so, which John was this? To answer the first question in complete honesty, we do not know for sure who wrote this book, for it was published anonymously in line with the publishing standards of the ancient world. We do have some very early witnesses to John as the author, however. The so-called "Muratorian Canon" (date disputed, but probably AD 150-200) says, "John, one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the Gospel." An early church leader by the name of Irenaeus (AD 185) is also an important witness. Tradition claims that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, and that Polycarp was a student of John himself. This means that Irenaeus is only one generation of believers removed from John, which gives added weight to what he writes. Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel (in his book Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Some scholars have suggested, however, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed a man named John, but not John the Apostle. It is true that there were other early Christian leaders named John, and it is possible that one of them is the true author of the Fourth Gospel. This issue may be addressed by determining the identity of the so-called "beloved disciple" within the book of John.

In John 21:20-24 the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the author of the book. If we work backwards through the book, we encounter the beloved disciple in other places. He is the one who recognizes Jesus after the resurrection during the miraculous catch of fish (21:7). Jesus entrusts the care for his mother, Mary, to this disciple while hanging on the cross (19:26-27). This disciple reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23, 25). The beloved disciple is intended to be seen in some places where he is simply called the "other disciple." He is the one who races Peter to the tomb on Easter morning, and arrives first (20:3-5, probably indicating that he was younger than Peter). It is the "other disciple" who gains entrance for Peter and himself into the high priest's courtyard during the interrogation of Jesus (18:15-16). The "other disciple" may also be the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who, along with Andrew, is pointed to Jesus by the Baptist himself (1:35-40).

The intimacy the beloved disciple has with Jesus points to one of the inner circle of disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, this "inner circle" is pictured as Peter, James, and John. Peter is clearly not the author of the Fourth Gospel, because he is often portrayed as being with the "beloved disciple." James is an unlikely candidate, because he suffers early martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This leaves only John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James. This case is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Apostle John is named nowhere in the Fourth Gospel (nor is James, the only reference being to the "sons of Zebedee" at 21:2). It is not easy to understand why any other early Christian writer would have omitted the name of such a prominent Apostle. The solution to the mystery is that we are intended to see John himself as the author, and that he does not mention himself except as the "beloved disciple" or the "other disciple." We should also note that this is not an expression of pride (he "loved me best"). It is an expression of deep humility, wonderment, and thankfulness on the part of the author: Jesus loved me, even me?!

WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Many locations have been suggested as the place of composition for the Gospel of John, but the traditional site is the city of Ephesus. The ruins of Ephesus are in southwestern Turkey, near the modern city of Kusadasi. Ephesus was one of the largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire in the first century. Ephesus was the site of the Temple of Artemis (sometimes incorrectly called the Temple of Diana, see Acts 19:28). This temple was recognized as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world according to the Greek geographer, Strabo. This large city (perhaps as many as 500,000 inhabitants) had a very mixed population. There was a strong Christian community in Ephesus, for Paul had a three-year ministry there in the AD 50s. The presence of the Temple of Artemis shows that there was also a strong pagan community, dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek gods. Overall it was a large, cosmopolitan city, with a well-developed Greek culture. The common language of the city would have been Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Although it cannot be proven, there is strong tradition that the Apostle John, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, made his way to Ephesus sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. John, at least, was probably in Ephesus during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). After a few years, Domitian seems to have actively persecuted the Christian community, and this atmosphere of persecution probably forms the background for the Fourth Gospel, written sometime between AD 85-95. Also, by this time, the Jewish synagogue community had solidified in its opposition to the Christians, and Jews had to make a choice between the two. Jews who chose to believe in Jesus were "thrown out of the synagogue," a circumstance mentioned by John (9:22; 16:2).

This makes John one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, and certainly the last of the Gospels. If we theorize that John was about 20 when Jesus was crucified (AD 30), then he would have been 75-85 years old when this book was written, a very old man in the ancient world. For this and other reasons, it is likely that John had quite a bit of help in writing this book. Some scholars want to speak of the "Johannine community" or the "community of the beloved disciple" as the author, and there is some merit to this (cf. 21:24, "we know his testimony in true"). For our purposes, however, we will assume that the Apostle John, an eyewitness to many of the Gospel events, is the primary author of this book.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN?

First, we would say that the style of John's writing is simple, but its thought is profound. John is written in some of the simplest Greek in the New Testament, although this does not mean it is "bad" Greek. It uses many common words, many monosyllabic words, and relatively short sentences. Yet the message of the book is profound. Fred Craddock notes that this is a Gospel in which "a child can wade and an elephant can swim."

A second characteristic of John is that he has laid out the bulk of the book as a series of lengthy accounts of works followed by words. We can characterize these combinations as miraculous signs followed by discourses or sermons of Jesus. John has only seven miracles, five of which are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of each of these miracles is told at some length, and the material of the sermon that follows is primarily material not found in the Synoptics.

A third characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis upon the personal ministry of Jesus. John relates several one-on-one situations (e.g., Jesus with Nicodemus, chapter 3), which teach us that Jesus had an active private ministry. It was not all public preaching, although this was important, too. In John we see a Jesus who cares for people and has time for them. This has another side, however. Sometimes it emphasizes the aloneness of Jesus. He often seems to be by himself without the support of the disciples or anyone else, a solitary figure.

Fourthly, John has a highly developed theological interest. He is particularly concerned with the matter of Christology, explaining who Jesus is in relation to God. John lays stress on the divinity of Jesus, often referring to him as the Son or the Son of God. He also stresses the humanity of Jesus: he is thirsty at Sychar and weeps at the tomb of Lazarus. John develops the theme of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the one God sent to his people.

John also explores the nature of God the Father, particularly through the Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God. John emphasizes that faith for the Christian must be in both the Father and in the Son. And John also has a great deal of discussion about the Holy Spirit. This is found throughout the book, but particularly in the Farewell Discourses of chapters 13-17. Here the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the coming Paraclete or Advocate for the community of believers.

A fifth characteristic might also be called the purpose of John. This purpose is strongly evangelistic, to bring the readers to faith. There is a constant contrast in the Fourth Gospel between believers and unbelievers, between faith and unfaith. Toward the end of the book John lays out his purpose in very straightforward language, "These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31).

HOW WILL THE STUDY OF JOHN

BE APPROACHED?

There are many possible ways to study John, but it is helpful to know what the primary emphasis will be in this commentary. Our main focus will be to listen carefully to what John is saying to us, to understand his intended message. This is not as easy as it may seem at first glance, for John is far removed from twentieth century English speakers. We want to know the general story, to pick up on the nuances, to be sensitive to the theological implications John is drawing out. For the most part we will not be concerned with evaluating the historical nature of John's account. When we bring historical data into the mix, it will be to help the reader understand the background of John's story, not to judge his accuracy. This is a modified narrative approach, an attempt to understand John's story as it is intended to be understood. While some may find this intolerably naïve, it is certainly the first and necessary step to a full appreciation of this marvelous book. If we can get you to listen to John carefully and hear his message, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: There are many, many commentaries and other books related to the study of John. Dr. Bryant's favorites were the ones by Rudolf Bultmann, Barnabas Lindars, and Raymond Brown (even though he had sharp disagreements with all of them). Bultmann has a great deal of excellent material, although his theological bent makes him difficult for less advanced students. Lindars is excellent in technical discussion, but spiritually dry. Brown is wordy, but often gives great insights. I think the finest commentary on John is that of D.A. Carson. While Carson may be too conservative for some, he never avoids the hard questions and takes the time necessary to do thorough exegesis. Other outstanding choices for the more advanced student include the commentary of C.K. Barrett and George Beasley-Murray's commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series. For the less advanced student the commentary by Paul Butler contains a wealth of accessible material, although written for an earlier generation.

Abbot, Ezra, Andrew P. Peabody, and J.B. Lightfoot. The Fourth Gospel: Evidences External and Internal of Its Johannean Authorship . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John . New York: Moffatt, 1910.

. The Gospel of the Hellenists . New York: Holt, n.d., c.1933.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John . The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John . Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

. The Gospel of John and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium . Tübingen: Mohr, 1925.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John . Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word, 1987.

Bernard, John H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 volumes. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

Boice, James M. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1-11 . The New American Commentary 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Bowman, John. The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975.

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.

. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave . 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

. The Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. The Anchor Bible 29A-B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.

Butler, Paul. The Gospel of John . 2 volumes in 1. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.

Carpenter, Joseph E. The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. London: Constable, 1927.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H., editor. John and Qumran . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.

Colwell, Ernest C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, n.d., c. 1931.

Craddock, Fred B. John . Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. The Gospel and Letters of John . Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Drummond, James. An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1904.

Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel . London: Methuen, 1938.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1917.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Reprint, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Gardner-Smith, Percival. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gnilka, J. Johannesevangelium . Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983.

Godet, Frederic. Commentary on the Gospel of John . Translated by Timothy Dwight. 2 volumes. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1886.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John . Hermeneia Series. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. (German ed., 1980.)

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Higgins, A.J.B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel . London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. 2 volumes. London: Faber, 1940. Revised. ed. in one vol., 1947.

Howard, Wilbert F. Christianity According to St. John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.

. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation . London: Epworth, 1931.

Howard, Wilbert F., and Arthur J. Gossip. "The Gospel According to St. John." In Interpreter's Bible 7:437-811. Nashville: Abingdon/ Cokesbury, 1952.

Hunter, Archibald M. According to John . The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1968.

. The Gospel According to John . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Jauncey, James H. The Compelling Indwelling [Studies on John 15]. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Scribners Reference, 1977.

Jervell, Jacob. Jesus in the Gospel of John . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

. John . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

. John's Story of Jesus . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

. John, the Maverick Gospel . Atlanta: John Knox, 1976. Reprinted Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Lee, Edwin Kenneth. The Religious Thought of St. John . London: S.P.C.K., 1950.

Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of John's Gospel . Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament . New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Lightfoot, Robert H. St. John's Gospel . Edited by C.F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

MacGregor, George H.C. The Gospel of John . The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928.

MacGregor, George H.C., and A.Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961.

Maier G. Johannes-Evangelium . BKNT 6. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1984.

Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John . Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel . New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters . New York: Paulist, 1979.

McGarvey, J.W., and P.Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels . Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.

Michaels, J.R. John . San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montefiore, C.G., and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

. Reflections on the Gospel of John . 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

. Studies in the Fourth Gospel . Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969.

Murray, John O.F. Jesus according to St. John . London: Longmans, 1936.

Nicol, W. Semeia in the Fourth Gospel . Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Nolloth, Charles F. The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought. London: J. Murray, 1925.

O'Neill, J.C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1968.

Pack, Frank. The Gospel according to John . Living Word Commentaries. Austin: Sweet, 1975.

Palmer, Earl F. The Intimate Gospel . Waco: Word, 1978.

Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays: Thoughts on John XVII . London: 1873; reprint Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Redlich, Edwin B. An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel . London: Longmans, 1939.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Rigg, William Harrison. The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today . London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Robinson, John A.T. The Priority of John . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel . London: Macmillan, 1872.

. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel . New York: Scribner, 1905.

Sanders, J.N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin. The Gospel according to St. John . Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A.& C. Black, 1968.

Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes . Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John . 3 volumes. Translated by Cecily Hastings, et al. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sidebottom, E.M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel . London: SPCK, 1961.

Sloyan, Gerard S. John . Interpretation Commentary Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.

Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.

. John . Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Smith, D. Moody, C. Clifton Black, and R. Alan Culpepper, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Smith, Jonathan R. The Teaching of the Gospel of John . New York: Revell, 1903.

Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John . New York: Scribner, 1894.

Strachan, Robert H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925.

. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment . 3rd Revised Edition. London, S.C.M. Press, 1941.

Tasker, Randolph V.G. The Gospel according to St. John . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1960.

Temple, William. Readings in St. John's Gospel . 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1939-40; one volume edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Gospel of John." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 93-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

. John: the Gospel of Belief . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1948), 1954.

Turner, George A., and Julius R. Mantey. The Gospel according to John . The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Wead, David. The Literary Devices in John's Gospel . Basel: Komm. Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970.

Weber, Gerard P. and Robert Miller. Breaking Open the Gospel of John . Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1995.

Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel according to St .John . London: John Murray, 1882.

. The Gospel according to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes . 2 volumes. London: John Murray, 1908. Reprinted in 1 volume, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Witherington, Ben, III. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs

BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Blass, Debrunner and Funk

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DNT Dictionary of the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LSJ Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott and Jones

NASB New American Standard Bible

LXX Septuagint

NIV New International Version

NLT New Living Translation

NovT Novum Testamentum

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: John (Outline)

OUTLINE

A good outline is more than half the battle in one's understanding and remembering the contents of any book. There is more than one way to break up and organize the materials in the Gospel according to John. Most students have observed two large divisions in its structure: (1) chapters 1-12 and (2) chapters 13-21. These larger units include a prologue (1:1-18) and an epilogue (chapter 21). Perhaps the easiest way to organize the materials of the book for commentary purposes might be to number the larger units of thought in the book (over fifty such units) and comment successively on these from the beginning of the book to the end. One may endeavor, however, to organize the materials of the Fourth Gospel in some kind of elaborate outline, structured under the two large divisions noted above. We follow this latter procedure below:

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD - 1:1-12:50

A. The Prologue - 1:1-18

1. The Logos before Time - 1:1-4

a. His Relationship to Deity - 1:1-2

b. His Relationship to the World - 1:3-4

2. The Logos Manifested in History - 1:5-18

a. John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos - 1:5-13

b. The Logos in Flesh - 1:14-18

B. The Testimony of John the Baptist and of Jesus' First Disciples - 1:19-51

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist - 1:19-34

a. The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders - 1:19-28

b. The Testimony of John to the Jewish People - 1:29-34

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples - 1:35-51

a. John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus - 1:35-42

b. Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael - 1:43-51

C. Jesus' First Signs - 2:1-25

1. Jesus Changes Water into Wine - 2:1-12

2. Jesus Cleanses the Temple - 2:13-22

3. Summary of Response to Jesus - 2:23-25

D. Jesus and Nicodemus - 3:1-36

1. The New Birth - 3:1-10

2. The Son of Man - 3:11-21

3. The Further Testimony of John the Baptist - 3:22-30

4. The Son's Testimony - 3:31-36

E. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:1-42

1. Introduction - 4:1-4

2. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria - 4:5-30

a. The Setting - 4:5-6

b. Jesus' Request for Water - 4:7-9

c. Living Water - 4:10-15

d. The Woman Revealed - 4:16-19

e. Jesus Reveals Himself - 4:20-26

f. Reactions to Jesus - 4:27-30

3. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:31-42

a. Jesus and the Testifying of His disciples - 4:31-38

b. Firsthand and Secondhand Testimony - 4:39-42

F. Jesus' Healing of the Nobleman's Son, the Second Sign at Cana - 4:43-54

1. Introduction - 4:43-45

2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son - 4:46-54

G. Jesus and the Major Jewish Festivals - 5:1-12:50

1. A Feast, the Sabbath, and Jesus' Healing at the Pool in Jerusalem - 5:1-47

a. The Healing on the Sabbath - 5:1-9a

b. Violations of the Sabbath and the Healed Man's Defense - 5:9b-15

c. Violations of the Sabbath and Jesus' Defense - 5:16-18

d. Jesus' Discourse on the Sabbath and His Work - 5:19-29

e. Jesus' Defense and the Four Witnesses - 5:30-47

2. The Passover and Jesus' Explanation of the Exodus - 6:1-71

a. The Background - 6:1-4

b. Jesus' Feeding of the Five Thousand - 6:5-13

c. Jesus, Not That Kind of King - 6:14-15

d. Jesus' Walking on the Sea of Galilee - 6:16-21

e. The Crowds' Search for Jesus - 6:22-25

f. Two Discourses on the Bread of Life - 6:26-34, 35-40

g. Conflict Concerning Bread from Heaven and Flesh and Blood - 6:41-59

h. Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus - 6:60-71

3. Jesus at Tabernacles - 7:1-52

a. Introduction: Question If Jesus Would Go to This Feast - 7:1-13

b. Jesus' Discourses Spoken during the Feast - 7:14-36

c. Jesus' Discourses Spoken on the Last Day of the Feast and the Audience's Response to it - 7:37-52

d. Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery - 7:53-8:11

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews - 8:12-59

a. Jesus Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself - 8:12-20

b. Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is - 8:21-30

c. Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham - 8:31-59

5. Healing of the Man Born Blind - 9:1-41

a. The Setting - 9:1-5

b. The Healing - 9:6-7

c. Interrogations of the Man - 9:8-34

(1) Questions Posed by the Neighbors and Friends - 9:8-12

(2) Preliminary Quizzing by Some Pharisees - 9:13-17

(3) The Man's Parents Questioned by the Jews - 9:18-23

(4) The Man Questioned a Second Time by the Jews, and Excommunicated - 9:24-34

d. Who Sees and Who Is Blind? Jesus' Answer - 9:35-41

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy - 10:1-42

a. Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd - 10:1-21

(1) Figures from Shepherd Life - 10:1-6

(2) Explaining the Figure - 10:7-18

(a) Jesus is the Sheepgate - 10:7-10

(b) Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd - 10:11-18

(3) Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews - 10:19-21

b. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication - 10:22-39

(1) Jesus the Messiah - 10:22-31

(a) Setting and Questions: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" - 10:22-24

(b) Jesus' Reply - 10:25-30

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Stone Jesus - 10:31

(2) Jesus the Son of God - 10:32-39

(a) The Question: Is Jesus Making Himself Equal with God - 10:32-33

(b) Jesus' Response - 10:34-38

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Arrest Jesus - 10:39

c. Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously - 10:40-42

7. Lazarus and the Passover Plot - 11:1-57

a. Lazarus - 11:1-44

(1) Setting - 11:1-6

(2) Jesus' Discussion with the Disciples - 11:7-16

(3) Jesus and Martha: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life - 11:17-27

(4) Jesus and Mary and the Grieved - 11:28-37

(5) Jesus' Raising of Lazarus - 11:38-44

b. The Passover Plot to Kill Jesus - 11:45-53

c. Retreat of Jesus - 11:54-57

8. Preparation for Passover and Death - 12:1-50

a. Mary's Anointing of Jesus - 12:1-11

b. Jesus' Triumphal Entry - 12:12-19

c. Gentiles Prompt Jesus' Announcement of His Hour - 12:20-36

d. The Tragedy of Unbelief, Past and Present - 12:37-43

e. The Call to Faith Still Stands - 12:44-50

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - 13:1-21:25

A. Jesus' Manifestation of Himself to His Disciples in His Farewell Discourses - 13:1-17:26

1. At the Last Supper - 13:1-38

a. Jesus' Washing of His Disciples' Feet - 13:1-17

b. Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal - 13:18-30

c. Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:34) - 13:31-38

2. Promises of Jesus - 14:1-31

a. Promises of an Abode where Jesus Is Going - 14:1-4

b. Jesus the Way to the Father - 14:5-12

c. Doing Greater Works than Jesus; Asking in Jesus' Name - 14:13-14

d. Jesus' Departure and the Spirit's Coming - 14:15-31

3. More Commands and Promises of Jesus - 15:1-27

a. Jesus, the Vine; the Disciples, the Branches; The New Commandment Given (15:13) - 15:1-17

b. Hatred from the World - 15:18-25

c. The Spirit's Mission Like That of the Disciples: to Bear Witness to Jesus - 15:26-27

4. Still More Promises and Commands - 16:1-33

a. The Works of Disbelief - 16:1-4

b. The Works of the Spirit - 16:5-15

c. Joy Greater than Trouble - 16:16-33

5. Jesus' Prayer - 17:1-26

a. For His Glorification - 17:1-5

b. For His Disciples - 17:6-19

c. For Those Who Will Believe - 17:20-26

(1) For Unity - 17:20-23

(2) For Seeing Jesus' Glory - 17:24-26

B. Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion - 18:1-19:42

1. Jesus' Arrest - 18:1-11

2. Jesus' Trial before Annas - 18:12-14

3. Peter's First Denial of Jesus - 18:15-18

4. Jesus Interrogated before Annas - 18:19-24

5. Peter's Second and Third Denials of Jesus - 18:25-27

6. Jesus' Trial before Pilate - 18:28-19:16

a. Pilate Doubtful of the Prosecution - 18:28-32

b. Pilate Examines Jesus - 18:33-38a

c. Barabbas - 18:38b-40

d. The Flogging of Jesus and Delivering Over of Him to the Jews by Pilate - 19:1-16

7. The Crucifixion of Jesus - 19:17-30

8. Piercing Jesus' Side - 19:31-37

9. Jesus' Burial - 19:38-42

C. The Resurrection of Jesus - 20:1-21:25

1. Peter and John at the Empty Tomb - 20:1-9

2. Jesus' Appearance to Mary - 20:10-18

3. Jesus' Appearance to the Disciples with Thomas Absent - 20:19-23

4. Jesus' Appearance to his Disciples with Thomas Present - 20:24-29

5. The Purpose of this Gospel - 20:30-31

6. Jesus' Appearance to Seven Disciples and the Great Haul of Fish - 21:1-14

7. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about Peter - 21:15-19

8. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about John - 21:20-23

9. Testimony to the Truthfulness of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:24

10. The Selective Nature of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: John (Book Introduction)

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Gospel of John Intro

——o——

AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.

It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.

The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.

In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.

Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.

T. W. Mossman.

THE PREFACE

TO

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

——o——

S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.

His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.

Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,'^* as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "

Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)

Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.

First, his matter and scope.  S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.

The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.

The third is the author.  S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian ( Lib. de monogam .) and S. Jerome ( Lib. 1 contra. Jovin .). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.

The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.

See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom ( Præm. in Joan .). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.

CANONS THROWING LIGHT

upon the

INTERPRETATION OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

——o——

JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.

2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages—Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as ( sicut ) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and .   And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as ( sicut ). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance ( forsitan ) for surely . In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen , when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.

3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.

4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.

5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."

6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they might be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.

7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.

8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.

9. The particles that , wherefore , on account of which , and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him , that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled : and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe , because Isaias said again , He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe ( non credituros ), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.

10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.

11. By a He braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, or power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans .) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.

12. The particles as if , so as , and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph , do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory , as of the Only Begotten , means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.

13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord , dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11 , where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him : that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes , that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not . That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20 , when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed , and denied not , but confessed , I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him , and without Him was not anything made that was made.

15. John delights in calling Christ the Life , and the Light , for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food , or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.

16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.

17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.

COMMENTATORS

Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense.  S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.

A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.

A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.

A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.

Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.

The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.

A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb—

"If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,

  Our theologians had not danced in choir."

However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.

In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.

Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.

^* (Cf. Exod. xix. 21, Trans.) Return to the place.