John Chapter 1

MSB Book Notes:

John's name does not appear in the Gospel of John.  This is interesting...never heard it before.  The early church father Iranaeus (AD 130-200, just barely after the crucifixion), was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.  Iranaeus says that on the authority of Polycarp, John wrote this gospel while he lived in Ephesus, and was very advanced in age.  So the life of John, who walked with Jesus overlaps well into the second century AD.  MSB dates the book in AD 80-90, about 50 years after Jesus' earthly ministry.  And before he wrote 1-3 John, or Revelation.

It is "accepted" that when John wrote his gospel, he was aware of the three Synoptic Gospels.  Part of the evidence for this is that John's is a "spiritual" gospel, more than a history.  Also, John's gospel contains a lot of unique material, not included in the other gospels.  Also, John fills in some details of the "gaps" in the other gospels.  MSB mentions that the Synoptics start with Jesus ministry in Galilee, but imply that he had started before that, elsewhere.  John fills in with information about Jesus ministry in Judea and Samaria.  There are many other reasons to believe John's gospel was written with knowledge of the other three - so later than them - but he still writes as an eye witness, recording events as he saw them.  He includes, however, more theology, and lots of other big words, indicating that he wrote after this theology began to develop in earnest. 

John's gospel centers on the life and work of Christ.  It is about Jesus' life, and he also focuses on belief, so that he can convince his readers that this is the way of salvation and the way to receive eternal life.  There are also 7 emphatic "I AM" statements in John which identify Jesus as God and Messiah.  MSB lists these references.  (Rummage preached a series about the 7 Miracles of Jesus that are found in John.).

2022 - I am expecting an interesting read this year.  I have always seen John as a stand alone gospel in the sense of the changed perspective it would have.  It is the last of the gospels to be written, long after Jesus' death and resurrection.  It is written by an old man near the end of his life, unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  It is written from Ephesus, the home of the temple of Diana.  The theology of the church is being hammered out, articulated, and the truths of Jesus' teaching are being sorted out.  That's how I've seen it in the past.  I've never thought this was a good book for a new Christian to read "first", after being saved.  This is a deep, complicated book that you need a lot of foundation to appreciate fully and understand at all.  You need some Greek to understand the subtlety of what John is really saying about the Logos.

And now, after reading Chapter 2 of Cullman's Christology of the New Testament, I will read the book with awareness of Cullman's view that this gospel was written as a polemic toward a group called the sect of John the Baptist.  These thought John the Baptist was the end times prophet, and that Jesus was in fact an imposter, and not the Christ.  John's gospel, according to Cullman, is to set out the serious problems that the sect of John the Baptist, and establish the credentials of Christ as primary to John.  To show that John came as forerunner of the Messiah not of the Kingdom of God.  So John will be telling us who Jesus was, and who John was NOT in this book. 

Yes.  It will be a very interesting read this time with all that in mind.

2023 - As t the date when this gospel was written, I would certainly accept the word of Iranaeus that it was late, and that John wrote it from Ephesus.  BUT, I would point out that nowhere in the book is there a mention of nor implication of knowledge about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  How many books say "It must have been written before 70 because they don't mention the fall of Jerusalem".  The gospel of John doesn't mention it either, and neither does Revelation, which is supposed to have been written even later...I think.  The point is, any time the date of writing of a NT book is "supported" by the fact that it does not mention 70 AD ought to be viewed with a highly skeptical eye, in my opinion.  It doesn't mean a thing!

A completely different introduction.  As noted in "The Forgotten Trinity", by James R. White, John opens by establishing exactly, theologically, who Jesus is, and what his relationship to the Father is.  That book says that in these first 18 verses, John is giving us the "lens" through which we are to view all that he is going to tell us about Jesus.  It starts like this:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [Jhn 1:1 ESV]  It starts like Genesis, before there was anything.  "Trinity" makes much of the use of "logos" here for Word.  It had a lot more meaning than just "word" to those John was writing to.  This "Word" was both God, and with God, telling us right away that this is something different.  Two are one.  Different in function, the same in person.  Because He is God, and that is how He chooses to reveal Himself to us.

Jesus pre-dates all that is created.  All things were created through him.  Nothing created "bypasses" him.  It all came through him.  We are told this twice for emphasis.

2022 - This verse:

3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [Jhn 1:3 ESV]

"Through" is the little word "dia".  It appears 646 times in the KJV.  241 times it means "by".  As in all things were made BY him.  But 88 times, it is translated "through", as in ESV, and pretty much everything else EXCEPT the KJV and NKJV.  So someone must have written a paper that firms up "through" as the correct translation, OR they found something in Qumran - something older - that makes "through" a better translation.  If you think about it, if something is made "by" someone, it is just about the mechanical act of making.  If things are made "through" someone, then that person is like a funnel through which all the current contents were poured.  I have always had some confusion regarding these verses.  Clearly, in Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth.  So it would seem that, contrary to the KJV, all things were made by God and not By "hoytos".  Vs 2 made it clear that the masculine pronoun here is about the Word, not Theos.  So it is possible that the ESV and others changed the translation of "dia" from by to through in order to leave some wiggle room for what this all means.  AND, let's not forget the possibility - the possibility - that John is being "apologetic" about this in order to refute some doctrine of the sect of JtB. 

If "all things" were made through him, then that includes angels, does it not?  If it turns out that the stars and planets were made billions of years before God began his work on earth in connection with man, then the stars and planets were made through Jesus, though BY God.  Perhaps John's real point here is that Jesus pre-dates all the prophets, and so could not be the reincarnation of an OT prophet in the sense of "Elijah must come first".  If we think of this from the viewpoint of a polemic against that sect, then John would need to negate their view of Jesus as a false prophet, or even possibly as some no name prophet, by establishing that Jesus was BEFORE all the prophets, and before everything else for that matter, in that he WAS in fact God and so participated in the creation of all things.  The Word was God.  God was the Word.  You cannot separate the creations of one from the creations of the other.  So perhaps Jesus' future position in the Trinity requires that he be the "choke point" through which all things are related to the Father.  Even rocks and dirt are connected to the Father "through" Jesus.

2022 - So the first 5 verses establish who Jesus is in relation to all creation, and in relation to God.  Then look what comes next:

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [Jhn 1:6 ESV].  John makes it clear that JtB is not on the same level as the Logos and Theos.  The word here translated "man" is the Greek anthropos.  I means that John is a part of "mankind".  He has no "special properties", no pre-birth history of relationship with God.  John the Apostle starts off talking about the Baptist by CONTRASTING him with Jesus.  not by COMPARING.  John's role is described next.  He came as a witness, to bear witness, about the light.  The Apostle is saying that the Baptist came as forerunner of Christ.  That is where he is going.  His intention is to show that the Baptist was here to talk about one greater - about one who WAS God - and not about the Kingdom of God.  Vs 8 lays out the thesis:  "He was not the light...".

In vs 6, John refers to John the Baptist as a witness from God about the light that had come into the world.  This verse:

9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [Jhn 1:9 ESV]  Then this verse!:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [Jhn 1:10 ESV]

He was "entering" the world that he himself had made - incarnation from a spiritual world and residence to being a physical flesh and blood "creature" in the physical world he had created.  Jesus crossed that line.  He was there before it - as God, as creator - and now would enter the created world as man - as creature.  He would leave spiritual existence for corporeal.  He can do that.  He was with God and WAS God.

He was sent to his own (Israel, the covenant people), but they rejected him.  Covenant was two-way.  God sent Jesus for his part of the contract, the nation of Israel refused to shoulder their obligations.  So that covenant failed at this time, and instead:

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jhn 1:12-13 ESV]

The church is born.  Based only on belief, and populated with those God chooses.  As He chose a stiff-necked nation, He chooses the church.  It is still His choice.  Is the church referred to as "children of God" in other places?  As "sons of God"?  Is this the "adoption"?  Certainly this is the introduction to being "born again".

2022 - This verse:

15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") [Jhn 1:15 ESV].  First, why is this verse in parentheses?  Do the translators do this for some reason?  Does the Greek do it?  Why would this be so?  But then note the point being made.  The Apostle is quoting the Baptist as saying that another will come after him.  Presumable the Baptist is prophesying about a later prophet, who is a greater prophet than he himself.  So the Apostle is saying not to just take his word for it that Jesus is the greater of the two, but that John himself told them that Jesus was coming and would be greater.  So how can they see Jesus as a fake?

So much here....this verse:

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [Jhn 1:17 ESV]  A clear distinction between what the law offered and what Jesus offered.  Between the law and the church.

vs 18 says that none EVER saw God, but saw the Son - also God.  The Father can only be seen via the Son.  The Son occupies the position between man and God.  Only through this "access" can man see God.

2022 - Both the mGNT and TR, in that last phrase of John 1:1, put the order as "and God was the logos".  I understand that many languages are less restricted on word order than English.  But the case of the nouns tells us whether they are subject are predicate.  So based on that, what does this sentence say?  Both are nominative singular masculine.  Every translation listed in BLB renders it "the word was God", and yet, the underlying word order is the opposite of that.  Why would they do that?  Ahh...they are maintaining the word order present in the previous phrase, which was "and the word was with God". so therefore, even though the word order is different, that last phrase - according to all translations - is also word then God.  John could also be slowing down his readers, and making them hold up, as I have done today, and sort out why the word order is flipped in that last phrase.  Perhaps - and I think this is probably it - his whole point is that the word order IS, in fact, INTERCHANGEABLE.  God is the word.  The word is God.  The word was with God.  God was with the word.  No...in the phrase where it says the word was with Theos, Theos is in the accusative case, making it a direct object.  This middle phrase can only be rendered in one way.  Therefore, the last phrase is also rendered with Theos as object in English...but I emphasize that the case DOES NOT make the word order certain.  And that is what John meant for it to say.  The word is God, and God is the word.

2022 - vs 18 is confusing in the ESV:

18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [Jhn 1:18 ESV].  Here is the word to word, in the order of the mGNT:

God no one has seen at any time the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the father him he has explained.

To get this, I think we need to look back to vs 14:  14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [Jhn 1:14 ESV].  The Greek word translated "of the only son" in vs 14 and "the only begotten" in the literal wording of vs 18, is the same word - monogenes. 

Vs 14 establishes this title - monogenes - as referring to Jesus.  Jesus is the Word.  The Word IS God.  With that in mind, vs 18, is again about who Jesus is:  No one has seen Theos.  But we have seen Logos, who is one and the same as Theos, but who entered the world as a man.  By having Jesus sitting at God's right hand, John is still asserting that though both Logos and Theos are God, Logos is Son, and Theos is Father.  And it can only be through Logos, since we are all created "through" him, that we access the Father.  So...Theos is God triune, and Theos is God the Father.  (Not sure about that last sentence.)

Vs 19 turns to history, and opens with John the Baptist - long after the birth of Jesus.  John knows we have already been told about the birth.  When asked, John says he is not the Christ, and he is not Elijah, and he is not "the prophet".  All he will answer is that he is "the voice of one crying in the wilderness".  (Isa 40:3).  (Note:  "the prophet" is from Dt 18:15-18.  See the MSB note.  It is a term used of Jesus, not of a second forerunner.)

2024 - Expanding a bit on the above, this verse:

19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." [Jhn 1:19-21 ESV].  Note that those sent by the Pharisees had narrowed John's "religious identity" down to three possibilities and they were sent to get his answer as to which he was  He denies all three!  He says he is not the Christ.  He says he is not Elijah.  And the more interesting one, he is not "The Prophet".  The pharisees were expecting three very significant appearances, appearances of specific men that were still in the future.  The Christ we know.  Elijah we know.  But who is the Prophet?  I think that is coming from Moses words, in these verses:

15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen-- 16 just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' [Deu 18:15-16 ESV].

"A prophet like me...and the reference to Horeb, where the voice of God was so frightening that the people begged Moses to be their go-between, because they could not bear to communicate directly with God.  They needed a mediator, and Moses was that mediator.  But a second mediator was prophesied, who would also mediate between man and God.  Another prophet, THE PROPHET, expected by the Pharisees.  Now this would mean that the Pharisees did NOT expect the Messiah and the Prophet to be combined in one.  John said he was not Elijah, but we know from Jesus' words later, that in a way, John WAS Elijah.  We see here that John is telling us that Jesus was King, in that he was descended from David, he was "The Prophet" like Moses, as our mediator, and he is also our High Priest, having been both the one who offered the sacrifice, AND also THE sacrifice.  These are the three things that the Pharisees saw as separate which were combined in Jesus.  The only one Jesus isn't is Elijah, and we know that is who John was.  The herald of the anticipated Prophet, Priest, and King.

Possibly three FB posts here.  Maybe thrown in some Christology as it relates to John.

2022b - While reading "The Christology of the New Testament", the first chapter, and particularly pp 23-29, goes into a lengthy reasoning as to why this passage is here in John.  It says that John's disciples, after he was dead, began to see him as the final eschatological prophet who would come before God established his kingdom on earth.  As I understand it, this means the last one before the new heaven and new earth, at the end of the Millennial.  These did not therefore believe that any appearance of any further Messiah was necessary, because John the Baptist, in their eyes, had fulfilled that role.  So what John is saying here in 1:19-23 is to REFUTE the disciples of John who were still around and saying this.  John the apostle is saying that John the Baptist himself denied that he was Elijah - and Elijah must come before God comes, that he was not himself the Christ, with the idea that the final prophet can be both Elijah and the Messiah, both prophet and messiah in one, and that he is not "the prophet", as foretold in Moses time in Dt 18:15-18.  John himself claims to be NONE of these, but merely "a" prophet, not and of the three "the" prophets that have been foretold.  John knew that he was a prophet, that he represented the first appearance of A prophet in 450 years, and he knew that the reappearance of prophecy had eschatological significance in that it signaled the beginning of the end times.

I was not aware of all these possible interpretations of who John the Baptist was, nor did I realize that the followers he left behind became such a problem.  The problem?  According to their interpretation of who John was, NO MESSIAH WAS NEEDED!  They saw Jesus as a fake and an imposter...because John the Baptist had fulfilled the role that Jesus claimed to fill.  On p. 28 of "Christology" it says this amazing thing:  "It can be shown that the whole prologue is directed against those who wish to set the Baptist in opposition to Jesus; that is, against the predecessors of the Mandaeans.  For this reason the prologue emphasizes that John was not himself the light."  The prologue refers to early verses of John 1.  There is also a reference to where we would look for this "showing" about the prologue, which is in a footnote that says "See W. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des Johannesevangeliums, 1898."  Look at that.  1898 and they'd recognized this problem, and I have NEVER even heard of this!  How much is out there, and vitally important, that we just don't hear about on Sunday morning at preaching service?!?!?!?! 

2022b - One last quote from the "Christology":  p. 25, "Thus it is certain that the Synoptic Gospels consider John the Baptist to be the Prophet of the end time - in some passages as the forerunner of God; in others as the forerunner of the Messiah.    I am not sure, but I believe the point is that Jesus, at the second coming, is the prophet who will be the forerunner of God.  There will be the Millennial, which will spend a thousand years cleansing the earth and separating the saved from the lost, and then the last of the lost will be destroyed in the final battle, Satan will be thrown into hell, and then the new heaven and the new earth show up, and the Temple of God descends from heaven, to be always on earth.  I may be talking heresy here, but that is what I think at this point (6/3/22) the Christology is saying...and just a few minutes later, this, on p. 29 of the Christology:  "The Fourth Gospel, therefore, undoubtedly has a tendency strongly to underline the fact that John the Baptist is not THE Prophet.  We understand this tendency even better when we note that this same Gospel emphasizes that THE Prophet is Jesus.  In the Johannine Jesus all the functions of all those sent from God are united."  Emphasis mine.

This discussion with the scribes and Pharisees takes place "in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing".  The maps I found say Bethany is really not very close to the Jordan.  So we need to read this as written by someone who is on the eastern side of the river, referring to a town on the western side, and the Jordan is not mentioned as being right there, but as the place John was usually baptizing.  2020-The "sense" of this is better in the ESV, which renders the verse: 28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Jn 1:28 ESV.

Vs 29-34 are about John recognizing Jesus, and testifying that the Spirit of God remained on Jesus.  2020-This verse:

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Jn 1:29 ESV. This tells us that John already knew Jesus' purpose in becoming a man.  He would be the lamb to take away sin, the sin offering.  Sin offerings die.  John did not see Jesus as the conquering King, but as suffering servant, in the world to die for the sins of the world.  John already knew this, but he couldn't make people understand.  The Pharisees likely didn't have a clue that this had to be done. 

2023 - This verse:

34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." [Jhn 1:34 ESV].  There is a note in the TCR ESV saying that some manuscripts end the verse with "the Chosen One", rather than "the Son of God".  If I remember right, "Messiah" is "the anointed one", but you can see where that might easily be "chosen" instead of anointed.  Both the TR and the mGNT have it as "the Son of God".  Both of them!  So...why even mention the manuscripts that say otherwise?  Are they supposed to add to the translation?  Are we supposed to think that "all" the manuscripts are correct - meaning that he is both Son and Chosen?  Because apparently no manuscript uses both words.  Or shouldn't we figure out which was "original" to John's own handwriting and stick with that?  You know, I like knowing that other manuscripts are different, but I would like the footnotes to explain more about those other manuscripts - older?  newer?  complete?  partial? - so that I can make at least a judgment on how much credibility to give them?  Are they older, better manuscripts, or just something they found written on the back of a candy wrapper?  Ya know?

2024 - It would seem obvious at this point that those other manuscripts are NOT used, by ANYONE, because the ones that say "Son of God" are so obviously the better manuscripts.  This isn't as hard as the previous note would imply.

2022 - So John tells them he is neither Elijah, nor the Prophet, nor Christ.  He is none of these, but then in vs 30, the Baptist points out that Jesus IS the one that he came to foretell.  Jesus is greater than John.  The Apostle does not stop there though.  He further quotes John as saying that Jesus is "the Son of God".  So if you take the position that the gospel of John is a polemic refuting the Baptist as the primary of the two, then these first 34 verses can certainly fit that description.  In fact, they fit it so well that it becomes difficult to say that is NOT what this gospel is about.

And it continues!  Look at vs 37:  36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. [Jhn 1:36-37 ESV].  John says "Lamb of God", TWO, count them, TWO disciples of John heard John say this, and THEY followed Jesus instead.  So the Apostle is saying hey, these two guys who, unlike most of you, were actually there when this happened, knew John personally, and are still around so you can confirm what I am saying, LEFT John, on John's first hand recommendation, to follow a GREATER than John, that being Jesus. 

The Polemic just fits.  Why has no one ever told me this?  How can such deep things never be taught, never be preached, never be heard?  Why are these things hidden in seminaries?  This book is from 1959, the year after I was born.  But I don't think for a second that this view of John's Gospel originated at that time.  The book isn't even about this sect of John the Baptist, is a Christology book, and all this sect information is brought in as INCIDENTAL to Christology.  It must have been there.

2000 years later, and I fear we are still drinking milk. 

God had told John to look for this sign - of the Spirit descending as a dove.  This would identify the person as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  John says this man is the "Son of God", or "The Chosen One". 

2024 - Here, in John's own words, is the answer to the question asked back in vs 25:

25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" [Jhn 1:25 ESV].  We get the idea from this that baptizing at this time was NOT as common as dust.  John was dunking all these people, insisting that they submit to this unusual ritual.  The Pharisees had heard he was doing this, and had also decided he was claiming to be one of the three expected in their religion at the time.  But when John denied being any of the three, they wanted an explanation for the ritual.  And here is John's reply:

31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." [Jhn 1:31 ESV].  John baptized so that those who believed him would get up close and personal enough that he could unequivocally recognize the greater One coming after him.  Vs. 33 confirms this yet again:

33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' [Jhn 1:33 ESV].  This fills in even more detail.  It was God that told John to Baptize, and God gave John the specific and unmistakable sign for which he was to look.  The Spirit would descend and REMAIN ONLY on the One.  That is why John baptized.

Why do we still do it?  Surely not for that same reason. 

Some possible FB posts here also...

John describes all this as happening very quickly.  The Pharisees talk to John the Baptist one day, the next day Jesus shows up and John sees him and recognizes that he is the Christ, and the very next day, John points out Jesus to two of his own (John's) disciples.  The two follow Jesus, and one, but only one, becomes a disciple of Jesus.  This is Andrew, Peter's brother, and the first disciple.  Andrew goes and gets Peter, and brings him to Jesus, the second disciple.

vs 43, starts with the next day.  So day four.  Jesus calls Phillip and Nathanael. 

2022 - Look at vs 45:

45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." [Jhn 1:45 ESV].

This would indicate that Philip at least saw Jesus as the prophet Moses predicted in Dt 18.  I suspect the point is that Philip did not believe John the Baptist was the prophet foretold by Moses, but he did believe that Jesus was that prophet.  Then in vs 49, Nathanael gives Jesus two titles:  Son of God and King of Israel.  Where did Nathanael hear these things?  I am not aware, from the Christology book, at least not yet, that it was widely believed that Jesus was a king.  We know it will come later, but how would Nathanael say this so very early?