John 1:3 - Creator

This verse continues with the essential nature of the Word.  We have already learnt that He is eternal, is God and has always been in relationship with God. Now we learn of His relationship to the universe, and that is that He is the creator of absolutely everything. Paul says the same sorts of things in Colossians 1:15-17, as does Hebrews 1:2.

Now while John is using the term Word, or Logos, here any ideas that somehow distinguish between the Word and Jesus are mistaken. Later we will read that the Word became flesh (v14), so all these attributes apply to Christ Jesus (as Col 1:15-17 and Heb 1:2 make clear). It is significant that the term Logos is not used of Jesus beyond the prologue. The Word and Jesus are one and the same.

Without Him nothing was made that has been made. This makes it clear that Jesus is not a created being as some cults claim.

When we look at Jesus we need to remember that we are looking at the One through whom all things were created.

John 1:2 - He was with God

He was with God in the beginning. This short verse contains many truths. One is that the Word is a person. Secondly He was with God in the beginning. So He is in relationship with God, He is God, but has His own personhood. Ie He is part of the trinity.

People sometimes think that God created man so that He could have some company. This is simply not true. In the trinity there is one God but three persons. The three persons are in complete unity but are also distinct, and there was relationship between them, there was love between them. God did not create man so that He could love someone, rather we are a product of the love that eternally exists within the Godhead.

Unitarian religions (eg Islam, and unitarian sects of Christianity) have an enormous problem here. For where, under their understanding, does love come from?

The verse also highlights the eternal nature of Christ, as will be done again on several occasions in John. People sometimes give the idea that God chose Jesus to be the Christ, ie that Jesus was just a man and then God chose Him to be the Messiah. Such idle notions have no grounding in Scripture whatsoever.

John 1:1 - In the beginning

There are obvious parallels between this verse and the opening of Genesis, (Gen 1:1). “In the beginning was the Word”, this emphasises the eternal nature of Jesus. He is not a created being. We will look at the term logos in a moment or two, but let’s first consider other parts of the verse.

“the Word was with God” can mean the Word was faced towards God, implying an intimate relationship with God. This is the point made by the end of the prologue (1:18, part A’ in the chiasma).

“and the Word was God”. Now the Greek here is kai theos en ho logos. The important point is that there is no definite article before theos (God).  John is not saying the Word is the God, ie this is not a unitarian statement. Rather he is saying that the nature of the Word is God, ie if you could carry out a chemical test for “godness” on the Word you would get the result 100% God. The trinity is absolutely vital. Otherwise ask yourself where does love come from? Where does relationship come from? The threeness of God is vital. Relationship and love existed before the creation of the world.

Now let’s focus on Word. Why does John use this term? The key aspect of the Word, or logos, is reason or logic. There is meaning to the world. It is fascinating that the likes of Dawkins seem to think it is a wonderful thing that the universe, from their perspective, is meaningless and is a product of blind chance. Surprising then that they are so keen on boasting of the supposed rationality of their approach. Where does this rationality come from in this meaningless and random universe?

The Bible, on the other hand, states that the universe, and you and me, were created out of reason and with a purpose.

John 1:1-18 - It's Chiasmic!

We will do a verse by verse study of the chapter, but before doing that it worth looking at the overall structure of the prologue. For it has a chiasmic structure (Kruse). This structure is often used in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. The general structure is of the form:

A

B

C

D

C’

B’

A’

The A and A’ etc correspond to each other, and the central idea is the middle of the chiasm, ie D in the example structure above (D may also have a parallel, D’). So the general idea is that:

• Ideas are expressed in reverse
• The central idea is the middle one.

There is an interesting web site on this here. So how does this apply to 1:1-18? Well Kruse identifies the structure as:

A 1:1-5

B 1:6-8

C 1:9-11

D 1:12,13

C’ 1:14

B’’ 1:15

A’ 1:16-18

So how does the structure work? Well, A speaks of the Word being in intimate relationship with God, and A’ tells of the Word being in close relationship with the Father. Both B and B’ tell of John the Baptist bearing witness to the Lord. C speaks of the light coming into the world and C’ of the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us. The centre of all this is D where it says that those who believed in Jesus received the right to become children of God, to be born of God. Remember this is John’s primary purpose in writing his gospel 20:31. The outer elements of the chiasma build up to this. Perhaps most important is the outer one, the relationship between the Son and the Father. Part of the message of John is that we can have the same relationship with the Father and the Son. Eg in 17:22 Jesus prays that we may be one as they are one. In John 20:17 Jesus says “my Father and your Father”. 14:17 speaks of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Looking at the Father-Son relationship in terms of it demonstrating the divinity of Jesus and in trinitarian terms is important, but if that is all we do we are missing the key point that John is making. The relationship between the Father and the Son is a model of the relationship we should look to have with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, an intimate relationship. Item C of the chiasma is concerned with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us, emphasising the closeness of the relationship. We do not worship a far away God, but one who wants to have a relationship with us. The B parts of the chiasma are emphasising what John the Baptist was really about. Remember the Ephesian dozen (Acts 19) who had “only received John’s baptism”. It seems as though there may have been some who misunderstood the importance of John the Baptist, so John is emphasising that his ministry was all about pointing towards Jesus.

John - Introduction (2)

Purpose and Structure

John helpfully tells us his primary purpose in 20:31

But these 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.

There is some debate over whether the gospel was intended primarily as evangelistic or to build-up existing Christians. There are several examples in the gospel of people coming to believe in Jesus. At the same time there are sections, particularly from chapter 13 onwards, that seem primarily aimed at existing Christians. So I think the answer to the question is both.

The general structure of the gospel is generally agreed to be as follows:

• Prologue (1:1-18)
• Jesus’ work in the world (1:19-12:50)
• Jesus’ return to the Father (13:1-20:31)
• Epilogue (21:1-25)

Content and Comparison with the other gospels

John is distinct from the other three gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke, while having their own distinctive emphases, share a lot of common material and are called the synoptic gospels. John is very different. Most of the action in the synoptics take place in Galilee with six months in the south in Judea. Conversely, most of John is set in Judea. There are no parables nor casting out of demons in John. Key events in the synoptics, such as the transfiguration, the Last Supper, Jesus’ baptism, the temptations and details of His birth are omitted from John. Why is this? Well as we saw earlier John was probably written about 90 AD, so these other gospels were known and there was no point repeating them. John’s gospel is much more reflective and adds a new dimension.  Some of the key elements of the gospel are:

• the humanity and divinity of Jesus
• the intimate teaching of Jesus to His disciples and His prayer for them
• the gospel is very trinitarian, with a major emphasis on the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
• the discourses between Jesus and various people focuses on who Jesus is
• there is far more on the Holy Spirit and the believer in John than there is in the synoptics.

John is concerned with our relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jewish and Greek Characteristics

John was communicating to a Greek world as well as a Hebrew one. It is believed that he was based in Ephesus (in modern day Western Turkey). This has some bearing on the nature of John’s gospel. One of these is the view of time. One aspect of Hebrew thought had a linear view of time, ie past, present and future. So they saw things as travelling towards a conclusion. We see this throughout the Bible with the Day of the Lord being the destination and everything working and leading towards this day. At the same time we should also be aware of the idea of “event time”, ie focusing on an event and the nature of the event, rather than a nice neat chronology. This view is still used in John. However, he also uses the Greek view, which was concerned with life above and below, or heaven and earth. One of the prominent features of John is Jesus being the one who was sent from heaven, and then later on His having to return to heaven so that the Holy Spirit could be sent from heaven to earth.

At the same time there are significant Jewish characteristics to John’s gospel. Israel Abrahams (an excellent Jewish name!), Reader in Rabbinics at Cambridge , said that John’s gospel was the most Jewish of the gospels (Kruse). He said this because of the numerous allusions to the Old Testament, knowledge of the Jewish festivals and their symbolism, and Jesus’ use of rabbinic arguments in his debates with the Jews.

John often refers to “the Jews”. The term is used in a variety of ways in John. The majority of negative references are to the Jewish leadership, and there are no grounds whatsoever for any anti-semitic inferences.

John - Introduction (1)

Having worked through all of the Bible in my daily blog now is the time for something different. I am going to stick with the Bible (a wise thing to do!), but am going to do an in-depth study of John’s gospel. This will not be a commentary as such (at least I don’t think it will), there are numerous commentaries on John, and written by people far better theologically qualified than I am. My hope is that by carrying out this in-depth study it encourages and strengthens me (almost certain to happen) and that it will also help build-up you who read this blog.

It isn’t an academic paper or book I am writing, so I am not, on the whole, going to give references and footnotes. However, any insight I gain and give will be due in part at least to the work of others that I have read. So here are the two main sources that have helped me:

• John (Tyndale New Testament Commentary), Colin G Kruse, IVP, ISBN 0-85111-327-3 (2003)
• A Commentary on the Gospel of John, David Pawson, Anchor Recordings Limited, ISBN 0957529031 (2013)

There will be other sources that have helped me, but these are the main two. Why these two? Well the first is a traditional commentary, yet easily understood and beneficial to anyone prepared to think a little, it is also written from an evangelical perspective, accepting the Bible as the word of God. The second is written much more from the point of view of a preacher (indeed it was produced out if a series of talks), ie geared more directly to life application, but still containing significant theological insights. So they complement each other well. However, I have to say that I found the commentary by Kruse the more useful of the two.

Authorship and Data

I am not going to dwell on this aspect much, but will say a little as it is quite instructive to do so in this case. I take the book to have been written by John the disciple (as were the three letters of John, and Revelation for that matter). So what is the evidence for the Johannine authorship? Most of this is taken from Kruse. Well many of the early church fathers such as Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, Clement, Polycrates and Irenaeus refer to it as being written by John. John is believed to have written this while he lived in Ephesus.

In the gospel itself, while it does not state explicitly that it was written by John, there verses like John 21:24 that states “this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know this testimony is true”. The gospel also demonstrates an intimate knowledge of Christ, containing many personal prayers and teachings from Jesus, and it makes most sense for this to have come from one of His disciples, and John is one of the three who was closest to Jesus.

Now we come to some really useful information. By the end of the nineteenth century the dominant view amongst  scholars was that it was written in the latter half of the second century, ie there was no way it could have been written by a disciple under this view. This piece of nonsense was blown apart in 1920 when a fragment (P52), dated to about 125 AD, was discovered containing five verses from chapter 18. This just goes to show that trusting the Bible is the best thing to do and so-called learned scholars are not always quite so learned as they imagine themselves to be. This in no way is anti-scholarship, we can gain an awful lot from academic study (indeed we wouldn’t have our English versions of the Bible without it. In the case of the Message this might be considered a blessing :-)). Generally it is thought to have been written in the latter part of the first century, though there are some who place it as early as the 60’s.

The end of a journey, and so another one begins

Well that is it. I started on 5th October 2008, and 2350 posts later the whole Bible has been covered. I hope you have found it helpful, I know I have. When we put effort into studying God's word, and come with a humble attitude, wanting to learn from the Lord (rather than one of telling God what He should think!) we are always rewarded. 

However, I am not going to stop. A new project starts tomorrow. It will be on the Bible, but I am going to go through books in  more depth.

One of the many great things about God's word is that we can never exhaust its riches. It is like climbing a mountain, the higher go the more we see, and we see things from a different angle.

So a new journey begins tomorrow.