john_jn1 – From Death Into Life

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION

I. Introduction (1.1-51)

In contrast to the first three Gospels which are called the Synoptics, which comes from two Greek words which means “to view or see together”, this introduction contains no genealogies, no account of the birth of Jesus or of John the Baptist, or of the youth, baptism, and temptation of Jesus. This introduction is concerned mainly with the person of Jesus Christ, that is, who He is as the Word of God and the Son of God.

A. Prologue (1.1-18)

1. The Eternal Word (1.1-5)

“¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God; ³ all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. ⁴ In him was life, and the light men. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

By using the Greek word logos, translated “Word” here, the Apostle John makes contact with Greek philosophy and shows his intention to address its concerns. The concept of the divine Logos or Nous dominated Greek philosophy. It is that which permeates the world and forms it into a Cosmos. It appears in the various systems of Greek philosophy: in Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists as the Nous, and in the philosophy of the Stoics as the Logos, in different setting, according as they placed the emphasis more on the secular, the cultural, scientific, artistic or philosophical aspects, or on the ethical and religious aspects of human life. They all have in common this reference to the divine Logos or Nous, as that which gives meaning and rationality to the man. Accordingly, the Logos is divine reason, immanent in our reason and in our rational thinking and doing, upon which the meaning of life is grounded.

But the Logos or Word here in the Prologue of the Apostle John’s Gospel is not the Logos of Greek philosophy. There are three radical differences between them. [1]

1. First, the Biblical Logos is not an abstract principle, an “it”, as it is always in Greek philosophy, but a person; “He was in the beginning with God, all things were made through Him,…. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:2-4 NAS).

2. Second, the Biblical Logos is not an immanent element of the human mind or soul, but is given to man from without from God in the historical revelation of the Logos-person becoming a human being; “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,… full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 NAS).

3. Third, and finally, the Biblical Logos is not a timeless, fixed truth, but a dynamic person who comes into history as the perfect historical revelation of God, “and we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” (John 1:14 NAS).

The contrast between the Biblical Logos and the Logos of Greek philosophy could not be more stark. Some have even denied that the Apostle John even had this contrast in mind and that his background is entirely the Old Testament; “the Word of the Lord came to me” (Jer. 1:2; etc.). The English translation of the Greek word logos as “word” rather than “reason” seem to reflect this view. But that background does not mean that the Apostle John did not intend the contrast with the Logos of Greek philosophy. But the question of whether the Apostle John intended the contrast or not is beside the point. The difference between the Biblical Logos and the Logos of Greek philosophy is there.

Are these two related? The early second century Christian teachers and Apologist did think that they are related. But they related them in such a way that the distinctive Biblical and personal element is obscured if not lost completely. See in particular Origen. They depersonalize the logos to thoughts (reason) in God’s mind and obscured His existence distinct from the existence of the Father. Reason has usually been understood in Western philosophy either as an impersonal, universal and necessary principle operative in the natural and moral universe or as a human intellectual capacity of ratiocination by which man could arrive at the truth independently of faith. The former is the Greek (and particularly the Stoic) view and the latter is the modern view of the Enlightenment. Appeal to reason in either of these senses involves an appeal to a false god. Understood in this sense, the objection of Christian thinkers like Tertullian and Karl Barth is well taken. The Scriptures says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:2) And this includes reason also. The danger of idolatry even among Christians cannot be emphasized enough.

Faith and reason can be combined by making faith the presupposition of reason. The operation of reason depends upon faith. Unless reason presupposes an ultimate commitment to the person Jesus Christ it will not function properly. For Reason, like all human activities, involves a commitment to something that has ultimate significance and supreme importance. This object of ultimate commitment is that person’s god. It may be self-interest, money, society, power, experience, nature, reason, science, family, state or some supernatural being. The term “god” need not refer to the personal God of the Christian religion. As Martin Luther put it in his Larger Catechism, “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.” [2] Now, whatever is a person’s god will determine the quality of his whole life by furnishing him with an entire set of values which in turn will govern his specific moral and intellectual decisions. Therefore, the operation of reason will be governed consciously or unconsciously by one’s ultimate commitment. However, reason cannot properly operate unless this prior commitment is made to the true God. For the true God is the only proper ultimate criterion for the operation of reason. Since Jesus Christ is Reason Himself (ho logos) by whom all things were created, [3] He as the true God is thus the only proper ultimate criterion for human reason. Therefore, reason is a form of faith in a twofold sense: formally reason involves faith and materially the proper operation of reason presupposes faith in Jesus Christ.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Emil Brunner points out that

“there are three radical differences between the two. The first is that it is not an abstract principle, an ‘it,’ as it always is in Greek philosophy, but a person — ‘in Him, all things were made by Him and in Him was life.’ The second is to be seen in the fact that this Logos is not an immanent element of the human mind or spirit, but given to man by historical revelation as the secret of God’s essence and will. Finally, it is not a timeless, fixed truth, but the moving dynamism of history, the definite manifestation of that which in the end of time brings with it the victory of the divine will over the powers that threaten the meaning of life, thus completing the meaning of historical, earthly existence.”
Emil Brunner, Christianity and Civilization, Vol. I, 64
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948).

[2] Martin Luther, “Large Catechism,” in
Luther’s Primary Works, 34
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896).

[3] God created man in his own image Gen. (1:26, 27). What is this image? Scripture seems to suggest that the image of God lies in man’s freedom of choice. “Let us make men in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc.” (Gen. 1:26 RSV) Man’s lordship like God’s presupposes freedom of choice. The difference between them is that God’s freedom is unlimited and man’s is limited. An analysis of freedom of choice shows that the ability to choose entails a reference beyond the self to a criterion of decision. The ultimate criterion of all criteria for that person is his god. Man’s sin is that he has chosen false gods rather than the true God. This results in a decrease of freedom, a bondage to the idol. For the false god, being without freedom of choice, that is, impersonal, is a strait jacket on his freedom. The true God, on the other hand, since he is free, personal, fulfills man’s freedom and makes him truly free. Since Reason is a function of the person, it also presupposes freedom of choice.

2. The Witness of John the Baptist (1.6-8)

⁶There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. ⁸He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

3. The True Lignt (1.9-13)

⁹The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. ¹⁰He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. ¹¹He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. ¹²But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; ¹³who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

4. The Incarnation (1.14-18)

¹⁴And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. ¹⁵(John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’”) ¹⁶And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. ¹⁷For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

The Apostle John, like the other New Testament writers, never use the Greek word sarx, usually translated “flesh”, to mean the sinful nature in the sense of that in man which makes him sin, that is, that man sins because he has a sinful nature. (John 1:13, 14; 3:6; 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 63; 8:15; 17:2; I John 2:16; 4:2; II John 7; Rev. 17:18; 19:18 [5 times], 21). When the Apostle John wrote, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he clearly was not saying that the Son of God became a sinner by nature and had a sinful nature. Clearly he means that the Son of God became a human being, a man. The word ssrx occurs 151 times in the Greek New Testament. This Greek word usually translated “flesh” (sarx) has the following different meanings:

1. The soft tissue of the body (Rom. 2:28; I Cor. 15:39; Col. 2:13),

2. The body itself (II Cor. 12:7; Gal. 4:13-14; Eph. 2:15; 5:29; Col. 1:24),

3. The physical union of man and woman (“one flesh” I Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31),

4. Human body contrasted with the human spirit
(I Cor. 5:5; II Cor. 7:1; Col. 2:5; Rom. 7:18),

5. Man or human being (Rom. 3:20 and Gal. 2:16 quoting Psa. 143:2;
I Cor. 1:29; John 1:14; “flesh and blood” Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12),

6. Human life on earth (Gal. 2:20; II Cor. 10:3a; Phil. 1:22, 24; Col. 2:1),

7. Human nature (Rom. 6:19; 8:3; II Cor. 4:11; I Tim. 3:16),

8. Human (“according to the flesh” Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22;
“body of flesh” Col. 1:22; 2:11) or worldly (II Cor. 1:17; 10:2, 3b),

9. Human descent or relationship, kin (Rom. 9:3; 11:14),

10. Human point of view (I Cor. 1:26; II Cor. 5:16),

11. Human contrasted with divine (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Philem. 16),

12. Unsaved (“in the flesh” Rom. 7:5; 8:8-9),

13. That which is not God or of God (Gal. 5:13-24),

14. Anything that is an object of trust instead of God
(Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Rom. 8:4-7; Phil. 3:3, 4;
Compare Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:2). [1]

The Greek word sarx usually translated “flesh” in our English translations (KJV, RSV, NAS) is incorrectly translated in the New International Version (NIV) as “sinful nature” in Rom. 7:18, 25; 8:3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13; Gal. 5:13, 16, 17; Eph. 2:3. In Romans 7 Paul never identifies the flesh (sarx) with the sinful nature. And neither is “the indwelling sin” in Romans 7:17, 20 the sinful nature. Paul explains in 7:18 what “indwelling sin” is; it is that “the good does not dwell in [him], that is, in [his] flesh.” The “flesh” here is that part of man that is not spirit (see 4 above). Neither is “the law of sin” in verses 7:23, 25 and 8:2 the sinful nature; Paul defines “the law of sin” in verse 7:21: “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do the good, evil is present with me.” Paul, like other New Testament writers, uses the Greek word nomos (usually translated “law”) in several different ways. The following are some of them.

1. The first 5 books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch (Matt. 12:5; Luke 2:23-24; 16:16; 24:44; Rom. 3:21b).

2. The whole Old Testament (Rom.3:19 referring to the passages quoted in Rom.3:10-18 which are not just from the Pentateuch; John 10:34, quoting Psa. 82:6; I Cor. 14:21, quoting Isa. 28:11)

3. The Mosaic covenant that God made with the children of Israel (Exodus 24:1-12; Rom. 2:12; 3:19; 4:13-14; Gal. 3:17-18).

4. The Ten Commandments, the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21; Matt. 5:18), sometimes improperly called the moral law.

5. All the commandments of God, ceremonial as well as the Ten Commandments; all statutes and ordinances of the law of Moses (Luke 2:22; John 7:23).

6. Teaching, instruction, guidance (Rom. 2:17, 18, 20, 23, 26); compare this with the meaning of the Hebrew word Torah which has the same meaning. As such it is that content of God’s revelation (the Word of the Lord, Deut. 5:5; Psa. 119:43, 160) which makes clear man’s relation to God and to his fellow man. It provides guidance for man’s actions in relation to God and to his fellow man.

7. Any commandment regulating conduct (Rom. 7:7, 8-9).

8. A principle or power of action (Rom. 3:27; 7:21, 23, 25; 8:2).

This last use is the way Paul uses it here in Rom. 7:25 and in this verse (Rom. 8:2). The Greeks and the Romans believed that the law had the power to force compliance with the law (Cicero, Laws, II, 8-10). In their view the law was a principle or power of action which could by its action bring about what the law prescribed; it was not merely a description of or prescription for some action; the law made the action occur. This is the sense in which Paul speaks of “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” and of “the law of sin” and of “the law of death.” These are not merely descriptions of how the Spirit or death or sin acted; they are powers that act and bring about certain actions. Thus the law or power of action of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus frees us from the law or power of action of sin and of death. In the next verse (Rom. 8:3) Paul says that the law of God is unable to make righteous; it does not have that power of action. And, as Paul says in Gal. 3:21, righteousness is not by the law because the law cannot make alive; the law does not have that power action either.

“Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not; for if a law which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.” (Gal. 3:21)

According to Rom. 8:2, the law or the power of action of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus frees us from the law or power of action of sin and of death. Since death leads to sin, the Spirit delivers from sin by giving us life in Christ which is deliverance from death. The law is not able to do this – it cannot make alive; it is through the death of Christ (Rom. 8:3) who put an end to sin’s reign over us (“condemn sin in the flesh”) by his death for us (Rom. 6:6-10). The result (Rom. 8:4) is that the righteous acts of the law are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. To walk after the flesh is to try to do the righteous acts of the law by human effort (“the flesh”). The believer must not do it that way. By walking after the Spirit he will fulfill the righteous acts of the law. He will love God with his heart, soul, and mind, with his whole being, and he will love his neighbor as he loves himself. And also in Romans 8 Paul never identifies the flesh with the sinful nature. In Romans 8:3 the word sarx “flesh” is qualified by the word “sin”, because the flesh is not inherently sinful. The flesh here is human nature (see 7 above) and can be designated as sinful only when one chooses to sin (Rom. 6:16-18).

The Greek word sarx in Romans 8:4-7, 12-13 designates anything that is an object of trust instead of God (see 14 above) and it is not the sinful nature. This use of sarx in verse 5 is just Paul’s way of saying that “those according to the flesh,” put their trust in something other than the true God, that is, “set their minds on the things of the flesh.” The word translated “set the mind on” indicates a “conscious spiritual orientation of life,” an attitude or disposition of the will. [2] See Paul’s use of this word phroneo in Rom. 12:16; Phil. 2:2, 5; 3:15; Col. 3:2; see also Matt. 16:23. This orientation toward the flesh, to that which is not God who is spirit, is what we have been calling the basic sin of idolatry (Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Phil. 3:3-4, 19). This is not the sinful nature and it is misleading to call it that. Those who are according to the Spirit, on the other hand, put their trust in the true God; they are oriented to the things of the Spirit. Since the god in whom one trusts is one’s ultimate criterion for all his choices, a person will choose those things that are in agreement with his ultimate criterion; his attitude and disposition will be oriented toward the things of his god. If his god is a false god (the flesh), he will be oriented toward the things of that false god; if his God is the true God (the Spirit), he will be oriented toward the thing of the true God.

The phrase “in the flesh” in Romans 8:8-9 is clearly equivalent to “unsaved” as in Rom. 7:5 (see 12 above); it is opposite to being in the Spirit which is to be saved. Paul used this phrase “in the flesh” previously in Rom. 7:5 to refer to their condition before they turned to Christ and were saved. It is equivalent to being “unsaved” and is the opposite to being “in the Spirit” (see verse 8:9). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because they do not have faith in the true God. “And without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6).

This doctrine of the sinful nature is nowhere taught in Scriptures. None of the Scriptures usually cited in support of this doctrine (Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4; Eph. 2:3) says that man since the fall has a sinful nature, that is, that man sins because he is a sinner by nature. According to Rom. 5:12-15 all men sin because they are spiritually dead. And death is not the sinful nature. These are two totally different concepts. The sinful nature is the nature of man that is sinful and the nature of man is what man is – that which makes man what he is and what he does. The nature of anything is that essence of the thing that determines what it is and how it acts. The sinful nature is that nature of man, because it is sinful, makes him sin. Death, on the other hand, is a negative relation of separation. Physical death is the separation of man’s spirit from his body, spiritual death is the separation of man’s spirit from God, and eternal death (“the second death,” Rev. 20:14) is the eternal separation of man’s spirit from God. Spiritual death is the opposite of spiritual life, which is to know personally the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3). That is, spiritual death is not to know the true God and Jesus Christ He sent. Knowledge is a relation between the knower and that which is known; it is not a nature nor the property of a nature. It should be clear now that death is not the sinful nature. A relation is not a nature. According to the Doctrine of Original Sin, the sinful nature causes death, but this does not mean that death is the sinful nature. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it teach this doctrine. Man’s nature is neither sinful nor good, it is what a man chooses it to be. If one chooses to follow a false god, then his choices will be sinful. On the other hand, if chooses to follow the true God, then his choices will be righteous and good. And a man makes the choice of his god, upon the basis of whether he knows the true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, or not. If he does not know the true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, he will choose a false god; that is, he sins because he is dead (Rom. 5:12d “because of which [death] all sinned”). And all men are sinners because they sin by choice (not that they sin because they are by nature sinners) and they sin because they are spiritually dead. In Eph. 2:2-3 Paul says,

“² In which [sins] you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. ³ Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh,
indulging the wishes of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

The “flesh” here is the body, which Paul contrasts with the mind; “the wishes of the flesh and of the mind.” The NIV totally mistranslates this phrase as “the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts.” The RSV correctly translates it: “the desires of body and mind.” Also Paul says, “we were by nature children of wrath”, not “by nature sinners”. Paul is here not saying why men sin, but only that men are naturely objects of God’s wrath, since they have sinned.

ENDNOTES

[1] Eduard Schweizer, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VII, pp. 129-131.

[2] Greorg Bertram, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IX, pp. 220-235.

B. The Witness of John the Baptist (1.19-34)

1. John’s witness to himself (1.19-28)

¹⁹And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” ²⁰He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” ²¹And they asked him, “What then? Are you Eli′jah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.” ²²They said to him then, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” ²³He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” ²⁴Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. ²⁵They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Eli′jah, nor the prophet?” ²⁶John answered them, “I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, ²⁷even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” ²⁸This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

2. John’s witness to Jesus (1.29-34)

²⁹The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ ³¹I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” ³²And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. ³³I 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.’ ³⁴And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

C. Jesus’ Call of His Disciples (1.35-51)

1. The First Three Disciples (1.35-42)

³⁵The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; ³⁶and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” ³⁷The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. ³⁸Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” ³⁹He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. ⁴⁰One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. ⁴¹He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). ⁴²He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

2. Philip and Nathanael (1.43-51)

⁴³The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” ⁴⁴Now Philip was from Beth-sa′ida, the city of Andrew and Peter. ⁴⁵Philip found Nathan′a-el, 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.” ⁴⁶Nathan′a-el said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” ⁴⁷Jesus saw Nathan′a-el coming to him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” ⁴⁸Nathan′a-el said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” ⁴⁹Nathan′a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” ⁵⁰Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.” ⁵¹And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”