Truth Before [denominational] Tribe

This Week’s Readings

Monday, June 25: John 1:1-3
Tuesday, June 26: John !:4-3
Wednesday, June 27: John 4-6
Thursday, June 28: John 7-9
Friday, June 29: John 10-12

Next week we will finish the Gospel of John, then cover more Psalms and Proverbs on Thursday and Friday.

The overall year’s plan is here.

John 7

Yesterday’s post was 4,000 words. May God grant me grace to keep today’s shorter!

Jesus’ brothers did not believe at this point. James and Jude, however, both became believers later because both wrote letters that are in our Bible. It’s pretty likely, in my opinion, that it’s the resurrection that did the job of bringing them around. 1 Corinthians 15:7 tells us that he appeared to James after he rose from the dead.

Verse 17 says something very interesting and of great importance today. "If anyone is willing to do his will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or I speak from myself" (NASB).

Today we have a lot of confidence in our Bible interpretation. Study the Bible, we think, and we’ll know whether the teaching is of God. No, the issue is whether we want to do the will of God because it is God himself who teaches us and protects us from those who want to seduce us spiritually(1 Jn. 2:26-27).

In verse 24, we find that Jesus does not want us to never judge. He wants us to judge with righteous judgment. We quote Jesus from Matthew 7:1—"Do not judge, lest you be judged"—and often we interpret that to mean never judge.

That’s impossible. Judgments must be made. How will we avoid false teachers if we do not judge who the false teachers are?

Paul rebuked the Corinthians for not judging a man who had committed a particularly heinous sin. He wrote, "I … have judged already, as though I were present, the one who has done this deed" (1 Cor. 5:3).

In verse 27, there’s a couple good theories as to why the Jews were saying that they shouldn’t know where the Messiah was from. The first is that the Jews had a theory that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, then disappear for a while to somewhere unknown before returning. There’s an explanation of this based on Song of Solomon 2:9 at this site.

The same site has Gill’s explanation—and he references rabbinic writings—that the rabbis interpreted Genesis 4:25, where Eve refers to her son Seth as "another seed," to mean that the Messiah would come from "another place," and that place would be unknown. (Gill’s commentary seems to suggest that the Jews had some idea that the Messiah should be born of a virgin based on Isaiah 7:14, which I do not believe is true.

In human words, Jesus does not answer their charge. In fact, he agrees with it, though he may not have cared about their tradition that the Messiah’s place of origin shouldn’t be known. He admits, "You both know me and know where I am from" (v. 28a, NASB).

Spiritually, though, he utterly refutes their charge, but they completely miss it. He says, "I have not come of myself, but he who sent me is true, whom you do not know" (v. 28b, NASB). The place of origin that they don’t know is the Father! "I know him, because I am from him," he says (v. 29, NASB).

I don’t suppose I have to explain the answer to the Pharisees’ question about where Jesus is going to you. He went first into the bowels of the earth—Hades, the place of the dead—to preach the Gospel to the dead and to the "spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 4:6; 3:19). Then he would rise again and ascend into heaven.

Verses 37-39 are one more set of verses we need to consider whether we believe. Are we spiritual sons of God, recipients of the grace of God and partakers of the New Covenant? If so, then we have rivers of living water flowing from our innermost being! If we will set our mind on spiritual things and not block the flow of that river, we will affect every room we walk into and every person we encounter … whether we say anything or not.

In verse 40, some suggest that the Christ would surely not come from some backwoods place like Galilee. However, Galilee—the tribal territory of Zebulun and Naphtali—is most certainly mentioned as an origin place for the Messiah:

The darkness shall not be like it was in her [i.e., Israel’s] distress, when he formerly lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward afflicted her more grievously by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light. They that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:1-2)

By the way, the reason that the Jews knew the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem was because of a very clear prophecy in Micah 5:2.

In verse 46, officers sent by the Pharisees don’t arrest Jesus because of the way he spoke. It’s a pleasant verse that moves our hearts, but it frustrated the Pharisees. They claim that none of the rulers believe in Jesus, but of course we know that Nicodemus and "many" others believed secretly (Jn. 12:42). Terrifying people into being afraid to admit they believe does not mean that no believers exist.

Finally, they argue to Nicodemus that no prophet comes from Galilee according to the Scripture. (Of course, the Scripture didn’t prophesy any other prophet nor city they were from, either.) They are correct. The Scripture does not prophesy a prophet from Galilee, but a "great light" from Galilee.

John 7:53-8:11

We have to address this passage because hopefully it will affect the way we look at the Bible. We believe in the inspiration of Scripture, but inspiration has taken on some strange meanings in the modern age. We modern, western, and civilized people like our information straightforward, categorized, and with all loose ends tied up. God never provides that. If you don’t believe me, just keep your eyes open as you walk with God.

John 7:53 (the last verse of chapter 7) to 8:11 is probably the most disputed textual passage in the Bible. The note in the New International Version, one of the most popular modern Bible translations, says:

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

On this page, a discussion by Samuel P. Tregelles gives an excellent exploration into the early church fathers use—or rather lack of use—of this passage.

NotJustAnotherBook.com has a very honest but positive evaluation of the passage. Between this link and the one in the passage before, you’ll learn more about the textual evidence for this passage than you will ever have wanted to know.

However, the web page that was easily my favorite was by James Patrick Holding of tektonics.org. He suggests that the passage was originally written by Luke, but that it didn’t make it into Luke’s final cut, perhaps even because of lack of room on the final scroll.

If the idea that our English version of John might have a story that is not original to John bothers you, then you better find a way to deal with it. An argument could be made that this passage was originally in the Gospel of John, but the argument would be very weak. On the other hand, in the first letter of John is a verse for which no argument at all can be made that it is original. That verse is 1 John 5:7, and there is no doubt it was added later. It has no Greek manuscript support whatsoever except a forgery that was made specifically to get the verse included in Erasmus’ third revision of the Textus Receptus. Erasmus knew it was a forgery, so he took it out of his fourth edition. Ironically, though, the King James Version of the Bible was based on Erasmus’ third revision.

The web pages I link above seem agreed that there are some specific things about the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman that make it ring true and sound like an eyewitness story. For example, the testimony that Jesus wrote on the ground without an explanation of what he wrote, is the kind of thing a real eyewitness would give that a storyteller would probably not give.

Several of them suggest that the early churches were worried that the story might make it look like the church was lenient about adultery, and that is why it was not more well known in the early churches. (Origen, for example, doesn’t seem to even know about it in A.D. 225. His commentary on John jumps straight from John 7:52 to 8:12.)

The story is important, but it speaks for itself. Now that I’ve talked about the text, I’m not going to comment on the story because it’s so clear.

John 8:12-59

How does one keep a commentary on John 8 short?!

We’re going to go light on the commentary here even thought it’s so tempting not to.

In verse 24, Jesus tells the Pharisees that unless they believe that "I am," they will die in their sins. The NASB has a note that says, "Most authorities associate this with Ex 3:14, I AM WHO I AM."

Some Bible translations will have "I am he" in that verse, but the Greek only has "I am."

If there’s any doubt that Jesus was referring back to Exodus 3:14, he will erase it in verse 58, but let’s get there first.

In verse 28, know that whenever Jesus mentions the Son of Man being lifted up, he is talking about his crucifixion. Knowing this makes me a little nervous about singing songs about lifting Jesus up from the earth, knowing that was Jesus’ terminology for being crucified, but perhaps we are right in assigning that phrase a double meaning. As we exalt him with our worship and the preaching of Gospel, he draws all men to himself (see Jn. 12:32).

Verse 34 is a strong verse. "Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (NASB). The last half of Romans 6 argues the same thing. Those who say that we can live however we want and go to heaven if we believe in the atonement are deceived about this. The point of the Gospel is to set us free from our slavery to sin, and if we are still practicing sin, then we are still slaves to sin. The truth will set us free!

We must pursue holiness and strive against sin (Heb. 12:4,14). It is not necessarily a simple thing. We must believe. We must walk by the Spirit. We must discipline our body (1 Cor. 9:27). We must not make provision for the lusts of the flesh (Rom. 13:14). We must look for the way of escape that God provides from temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). We must exhort one another (Heb. 3:13). We must restore each other with spiritual words (Gal. 6:1), give thought to how to provoke one another to love and good works (Heb. 10:24), and help bring about conversion when one of us "errs from the truth" (Jam. 5:19-20). Finally, we must diligently add to our faith, and thus be growing in our faith (2 Pet. 1:5-11).

It sounds overwhelming, and indeed it would be impossible if we were not spiritual children of God. As it is, we can believe, and we will find grace to be growing in all the things above, then rushing to the throne of grace for mercy and grace at the points where we stumble on the path to the fullness of the life of Christ.

We should learn from verses 39-47. Far too often we waste our breath and our reason on those who are completely deaf. They are not of God, and God has no intention of letting them hear our words. Jesus didn’t do that. He told them their condition straightforwardly, explaining that they were children of the devil, that they would die in their sins, and that they were not of God. The one that is of God hears the words of God, Jesus tells us. That is not just true when Jesus was speaking 2,000 years ago. According to John’s letter, it is true when Jesus speaks through us as well (1 Jn. 4:6).

We must remember that Jesus said not to throw that which was holy to dogs (Matt. 7:6). And, by the way, we can only know who the dogs are if we judge, though we must judge with righteous judgment.

In verse 51-58, Jesus finally begins to speak clearly enough about himself to enrage the Pharisees and have them charge him with blasphemy. They even attempt to stone him. His statement in verse 58 is clear. He is the great I Am who appeared to Moses (Ex. 3:14) and Abraham and judged Sodom and Gomorrah by calling fire down from his Father in heaven (Gen. 19:24).

Sigh … I have not kept this short, but I should add one more thing. One early Christian, one of the most well known and respected Christians of the late 2nd century, who started several churches in Gaul among the Barbarians and was eventually martyred, used John 8:57 to argue that Jesus had a ministry that was over ten years long and that he was at least 40 when he was crucified. Why, he argues, would the Pharisees have said he was less than 50 years old when he was only 33 years old? Wouldn’t they have acknowledged as few years as possible and said, "You’re not even 40 years old," if Jesus was only 33 or so? (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II:22:4-5).

In all of church history, there is no one else who suggests such a thing, but it was so interesting that I thought I ought to pass it on.

John 9

The story of the blind man speaks for itself. It is a great story, full of powerful lines from the healed man to the Pharisees. It’s rewarding and satisfying for a Christian to read. This man is brave and speaks up. Everyone who reads the story loves him.

I want to touch on just a couple things.

In verses 4 and 5, Jesus says he is working while it is day. The night is coming. Then he adds, "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world" (v. 5, NASB).

What about when he is not in the world?

I want you to remember our discussion of Genesis 1 and its spiritual application. The sun and moon are not called the sun and moon when they are created. They are called "a greater light" and "a lesser light." One rules the day; the other rules the night.

Jesus is the sun of righteousness that rules the day. He was shining when it was still day, but he tells his disciples that night is coming. He’s the light during the day because he is the sun. When the night comes, there will be a lesser light, but it will rule the night.

That lesser light is the church, and the moon is a perfect picture of the church. It does not have its own light. It reflects the light of the sun/Son. The light the church produces waxes and wanes, though unlike the moon, we have control over how much light of the Son we reflect.

The picture Jesus paints here goes very deep and is covered by many Scriptures. Jesus says that he is the Light of the world while he’s in the world. Ephesians 5:8-14 explains that now we are the light of the world. Matthew 5:14-16 tells us the same. Romans 13:12 says that we are far into the night, so we must cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Finally, in verse 41, we see that Jesus gives preference to those that admit they are blind over those who assert in their arrogance that they can see. This reminds us of the tax collector in the temple who beat his chest over and over, asking for the mercy of God (Luke 18:10-14). Jesus said he went to his house made righteous.

Of course, we all know this, but we do not always consider that we may be the arrogant Pharisee rather than the repentant tax collector! Are we looking to learn? Or can God teach us nothing because you can’t add water to a full cup?

In Isaiah 50, the prophet is clearly prophesying about the Messiah, and he has even the Messiah—Jesus, the Logos of God—saying, "The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of the learned, so that I would know how to speak a word in its proper time to the one that is weary. He awakens me morning by morning; he awakens me to listen like one who is taught" (Isaiah 50:4).

Even the Messiah loved to learn from God.

Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but the one who hates reproof is foolish. (Prov. 12:1)

This Week’s Readings

Monday, June 25: John 1:1-3
Tuesday, June 26: John !:4-3
Wednesday, June 27: John 4-6
Thursday, June 28: John 7-9
Friday, June 29: John 10-12

Next week we will finish the Gospel of John, then cover more Psalms and Proverbs on Thursday and Friday.

The overall year’s plan is here.

John 4

Here we can see the importance of paying attention to the things we paid attention to as we were reading through the history of Israel. We know who Jacob was. We may not remember exactly where Sychar was (and I have no internet as I type this, so I can’t look it up and give you a link), but we do know where Samaria is, as far as it being a territory. It was north of the kingdom of Judah.

We also know the reason that the Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans (v. 9) because we read about how the Assyrians captured the ten northern tribes and settled Israel with people from other countries. The Samaritans were "half-breeds."

Jesus has a strange conversation with this Samaritan woman. He doesn’t really answer any of her questions until the end, after he has thrown her off balance by telling her what he knew about her. Instead, he gently leads her to a spiritual desire, which she doesn’t really understand ("Give me this water so that … I don’t have to come here to draw"). Then he throws her off balance by pointing out here marital situation, which she is not proud of.

The Samaritan woman then does something all of us should be aware of. She tries to shift the subject to a religious debate. "Oh, you’re a prophet," she says. "Let’s talk about the temple controversy, Jerusalem vs. Samaria. Let’s ignore my sin and discuss theology, not obedience to God."

We love theology because discussing doctrines we have no control over is not threatening. Discussing the commands and judgments of God is much more threatening because it requires us to think every time we pull money out of our wallet. It requires us to question whether we care, whether we help people, whether we love the world, whether we’re more fascinated with Hollywood or Apple than we are with the things of the kingdom and the Spirit of God.

Notice, too, that Jesus did not berate the Samaritan woman for her sin. Instead he calls her to worship God in spirit and truth, then reveals who he is.

In the verses that follow, my opinion (for what it’s worth) is that Jesus didn’t eat because he was excited, not because he was fasting. He was satisfied by doing the will of the Father, and he was excited about reaching the Samaritan woman’s heart. He told us in Matthew that there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (15:7). Since Jesus is the Lord from heaven, he shares the joy of heaven over that repentance.

John 5:1-16

There’s a verse in this chapter that was quite surprising to me. In verse 14, Jesus tells the man he healed to stop sinning so that something worse didn’t happen to him. I think that surprises me every time I read it. When Jesus heals the blind man in chapter 9 of John’s Gospel, he tells his disciples that the blindness was not caused by sin but brought about so that God could be glorified.

The fact is, there are many sources for sickness. Whatever we wish were true, the fact is that God has not devoted himself to answer our question, "Why?" He reveals himself, he heals, and he transforms lives, but overall he does not answer our pleas to know why bad things happen.

At one time Jesus says that a bent over woman has been oppressed by satan for 18 years. Here he says that the healed man must stop sinning to prevent a worse problem than his paralysis. In chapter 9 he says that God let the blind man be blind so that his works would be glorified.

Right now, Steve Saint of Itec Ministries—son of Nate Saint who was martyred by Waodani Indians with Jim Elliott in Ecuador in 1956—is lying in a hospital bed in Florida. He is trying to get movement back in his legs, arms, hands, and feet after being hit in the head by an airfoil that snapped loose from a safety strap.

Steve’s testimony is incredible. He said (paraphrasing), "Despite all the pain, I have not been tempted once to ask why, which really encourages me." Steve simply says that he wants God to write this chapter of his story, just as he has written all the others. (See his book Walking God’s Trail.)

Concerning the Pharisees’ blind reaction to this man’s healing, focusing on a ridiculous religious technicality rather than an incredible miracle from God, we must all beware of how we exalt our own theology. We see the Pharisees exalting their theology above a miracle from God, but the worst exaltation of theology is to exalt it above love. Love can be found even in the judgment of God, not just in the mercy of God, but it cannot be found in pharisaical condemnation based on the traditions of men.

It’s easy to condemn the Pharisees for the traditions of men, but are we really willing to look at the Word of God (I’m referring to Jesus here, not the Bible) and the Scripture and face our own traditions that stop God’s commands from being carried out?

John 5:17-20

Oddly enough, the Pharisees had a little understanding of the idea of divinity, probably better than most of the modern church. They understood that the claim to be the Son of God was a real claim. The Son is called the Son because he really is a Son. He was actually begotten of God in the beginning, the firstborn of all creation.

Thus, referring to himself as the Son of God meant that he was equal to God. He was eternal. He was not made, and he never came into existence. The divine substance has always existed and is not created.

Equal, however, is not a universal word. There is a sense in which the Son is not equal. He will tell us in 14:28 that the Father is greater than he is. In Mark 13:32, he told us that there are things the Father knows that he does not.

Verse 19 is crucial to following God. Do we have our eyes open to what our Father is doing? Have we made any effort to be those that watch for what God is doing? Or are we concerned with our own plans and doings.

If we will give ourselves to God, we will find that he begins to intervene in our lives. Our plans will begin to go astray. Hurdles and roadblocks will arise, detouring us from our own path into his. After some time of this, you will begin to see quickly where God is going and where you should be following.

But if we complain and buck and kick, we will find that we learn nothing at all and remain carnal throughout our Christian life. This is bad because living according to the flesh will lead to our dying. It as we put the deeds of the body to death by the Spirit that we will live (Rom. 8:12-13).

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go. I will guid you with my eye. Don’t be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding and whose mouth must be controlled with bit and bridle. (Ps. 32:8-9)

In verse 20, Jesus says that the Father shows him great things to do because the Father loves him. This does not leave us out! In chapter 14, Jesus tells us that we will do even greater works than he did (v. 12). That is not because any one of us is going to be more powerful than Jesus. It is because as there are many living by the Spirit of God, some with gifts of healing, some with miracles, some who teach, others who evangelize, some who shepherd, some who administrate, and many others … as we together do these things, our effect on the world and the miracles we perform will far outstrip those done by Jesus when he was living in just one body.

The fact is, anything we do is still being done by Jesus, but now he has a corporate body!!! He can work through all of us. We are called his body; in fact, we are called his very limbs (1 Cor. 12).

John 5:21-30

Jesus has a lot to say about judgment here. It is the Son who will resurrect us at the end of the age. It is the Son who will judge us.

There are two resurrections mentioned in this passage. In verse 25, Jesus is not talking about the physically dead, but about the spiritually dead (which we all are prior to knowing Jesus – Eph. 2:1-3). The dead will hear his voice and live.

In verses 27-29, he is talking about those in the graves. Notice that he says "all that are in the graves" rather than "the dead."

John 5:31-47: The Word and the Church (Advanced)

Verse 38 says something interesting. It’s important to remember. Jesus says that the Word is not living inside of the Pharisees because they don’t listen to the one God has sent. We may tend to think of that as only applying to Jesus, but that’s not true. In John’s first letter, he tells us that is true for the church as well.

We are of God. The one that knows God listens to us. The one that is not of God does not hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 Jn. 4:6)

The next two verses add to Jesus’ point. You can make all the Scriptural arguments you want, but those who are not of God and who do not listen to the ones God has sent have already read the Scriptures. They study them, thinking that life is in them, but they refuse to come to Jesus Christ so that they will actually have life. The Scriptures testify of Jesus, which means …

It means that the Scriptures testify of the church, too, because the church is the body of Christ! The church is called the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). God has promised to lead the church into what is "true and not a lie" (1 Jn. 2:27). As the church speaks to each other, they are preserved from doctrinal error and they grow—together— into the fullness of Christ.

By church, if I haven’t explained it before, I do not mean this organization or that organization. I mean the local church. I mean the disciples who live in a town together and who are able to be in fellowship with each other, whether or not they actually are in fellowship with each other. They are the possessors of the promises. They are the ones who can be led into what is true. In most cases, they are not being led and they are not being taught by God because they are scattered, being taught by organizations not much different than the Pharisees—groups that had good beginning, but have settled into tradition and are unable to change or to receive the revelation of God.

Towards the end of the chapter, we see Jesus backing up Moses. Jesus always backed up Moses. This is not strange because God conversed with Moses face to face, like a friend (Ex. 33:11). That God would have been the Logos, the Word of God. So Moses is Jesus’ friend, and not just Jesus’ friend while Jesus is in a human body, but the friend of Jesus when Jesus was in the divine form of God’s Wisdom (whatever form that is).

Jesus is charging the Pharisees with misusing the Law to condemn the one that Moses spoke of.

Surely, too, when Jesus says that Moses spoke of him, he is referring back to the prophecy about "the prophet" like Moses that God would raise up and to whom Israel would be obligated to listen (Deut. 18:15-19).

John 6:1-35

Here we find two of Jesus’ most well-known miracles, the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water. John doesn’t mention that Peter attempted, and partially succeeded at, walking on water as well.

When Jesus is asked what the work of God is (v. 29), he replies that the work of God is to believe in the One God has sent. That is because real belief will issue forth in all other works, for the works we are to do are prepared since the foundation of the world (Eph. 2:10). We find those works by walking by the Spirit, which is the same as letting Christ live through you. The issue is not just good deeds, but doing spiritual deeds, those that are the product of a spiritual life and the motivations put in our hearts when we set our minds on spiritual things.

Jesus was apparently very patient. "What sign can you give us?" they ask in verse 30.

Oh, I don’t know. How about feeding 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish, then gathering up baskets of scraps?

They may not have known about the walking on water, but the passage tells us that the majority of them were part of the 5,000 who were fed by the loaves and fish. Did no one notice that the apostles never had to refill their baskets when they passed out the food?

Jesus says in v. 35 that he’s the bread of life. He’ll have a lot more to say about that in this chapter.

John 6:37 and Predestination (Advanced)

In verse 37, he says that all that the Father gives him will come to him. Predestination is a true doctrine, and it’s mentioned several times in the Scriptures (Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2). When I object to Calvinism it is not because I object to predestination but because I object to capricious predestination, wherein God randomly selects a few to be saved. Calvinists like to hide this random consignment of the majority of mankind to eternal fire with nothing they can do about it by calling it "sovereignty," then claiming that if God isn’t cruel tyrant they portray him to be, then he isn’t sovereign.

Predestination is based on foreknowledge. God knows in advance the response people will give, just as I know the response my wife, children, and friends will give to many questions because I know them. I’m finite, so I only know the answer to a few questions for my family and friends, but God, being infinite, knows everything. This does not mean that he predetermines everything, just foreknows it.

The elect are those inside of Christ. If you’re in Christ, you’re elect. If you’re not, you’re not elect. It is up to you to "make your calling and election sure" by diligently adding godly qualities to your faith through a spiritual walk and trust in God (2 Pet. 1:5-11).

Thus, those that the Father gives to Jesus are those that he foreknows will believe and continue to the end.

John 6:38-46

In verse 38, can we say what Jesus says? Can we say that we are living on earth to do God’s will and not our own? Are we really seeking first the kingdom of God and allowing God to provide for us the things that we need? (Matt. 6:33).

The Jews were a little bothered by his disagreement with them that Moses brought them the bread from heaven. They ignore his foray into his mission on earth, and they get right back to the issue of his being the Bread of Life and particularly his being the Bread that "came down out of heaven." That sounded like blasphemy, as heaven was almost a euphemism for God among the Jews of the first century.

Jesus answers their complaints by saying that these Jews need to listen to God, not their traditions or their favorite Bible characters (such as Moses). Isaiah 54:13 is where the prophets say that everyone will be taught of the Lord, and Jesus points out that if they will be taught of God, they will come to him.

Thus, in verse 44, those who are drawn by God are the same ones who are open to learn from God. These will come to Jesus. Those who are not open will be given parables and stumbling blocks so that "hearing, they may not hear, and seeing, they may not perceive." We saw parables in the synoptic Gospels; here we see Jesus putting a stone of offense before them (Matt. 21:42-44).

In verse 46, we have John 1:18 explained. John 1:18 says that no man has seen God, yet the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly talk of seeing God. As explained several times in these commentaries it was the Logos of God that was seen. Verse 46 makes that clear, as Jesus explains that it is the Father who has never been seen by man.

John 6:47 and Eternal Life

We talked about this when we went through Romans, but Paul and John use eternal life differently. For Paul, eternal life is a reward still to be obtained. When he speaks of the life we have through Christ on this earth, he only uses the word "life" (e.g., Rom. 2:5-7; 6:22; Gal. 6:7-9). That is also true of Mark (10:30).

The reason for this is explained in John’s letter. 1 John 5:11-13. The eternal life we have now is the life that is inside the Son. It is not our possession. If we have the Son, we have the life. If we do not have the Son, we do not have eternal life. At the judgment, it will be made our possession. We will be given immortality, becoming sons of God just as (well, not just as, but equally immortal) Jesus is, so that "he might become the firstborn among many siblings" (Rom. 8:29).

Thus, John, Paul, and Mark have the same thought in mind. On this earth, we live by the life that is in Jesus, but at the judgment, we will receive eternal life in ourselves if we have continued in the faith, not moved away from the hope of the Gospel (Col. 1:21-23).

John 6:48-71: The Great Offense

If the Jews struggled with the concept of Jesus as being the Bread from heaven, he made it far worse by explaining that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to partake of that bread. They were horrified! Cannibalism was far outside the morals of Judaism (and, thank God, still is), and even animal blood was forbidden to them, much less human blood.

Jesus did not bother explaining himself except to tell them that his words were Spirit and life (v. 63). By this, he did not mean, "Interpret this figuratively, and thus ignore what I said about eating my meat and drinking my blood."

He meant, "All of you are thinking carnally. I’ve been trying to tell you that it is the Father who must draw you to me, or you will never last. Go to the Father! Learn from him, and you will understand what I am saying. Become those who have the Word of God inside of them and then you will be able to recognize the Word of God when it is spoken to you!"

The apostles understood this. When many of the Jews either didn’t understand or refused to go to the Father for guidance and revelation, they were offended enough to quit listening to him. So Jesus asked the apostles if they would leave, too. Their answer is rich:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (v. 68)

John 6:48-66: The Bread of Life and the Eucharist/Communion (Advanced)

So, while I have said that Jesus wasn’t declaring his words figurative in verse 63, how does that apply to communion which has to come to mind in this passage. Protestants say Jesus’ words are figurative. Catholics say they are literal, and they not only teach that in some way communicants (those who take the Eucharist or communion) are eating the literal body and blood of the Lord, but they also keep the consecrated pieces of bread in a chalice in a small tabernacle on an altar in their church buildings and cathedrals. Worshipers literally bow down to this cup of bread, believing Jesus to be present in it, an act that many Protestants (and I) consider entirely inappropriate if not outright idolatry.

Let’s cover several things, beginning with the difference in wording: Eucharist vs. communion.

The word "Eucharist" comes from the Greek word for thanksgiving. It was used because Jesus gave thanks over the bread and wine at the last supper (Matt. 26:27). Justin Martyr says that "Thanksgiving" (Gr. Eucharist) is what the churches in general called the meal (First Apology 66, c. A.D. 155).

The word "communion" means fellowship. It is koinonia in the Greek. and Paul calls the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper "communion" or "fellowship" of the body and blood of Christ.

Both words are perfectly good words to use.

As far as whether the bread and wine of communion is figuratively the body and blood of Christ, the first thing we need to admit is, of course it is; at least to a certain extent. Jesus did not expect the Jews to begin biting him and lapping at his blood when he gave that speech. When we—whether we are Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, or refuse to be called such names—eat the fellowship meal, we are eating bread and drinking wine, not meat and blood. (Some Roman Catholics have written me arguing that science has proven that the molecular structure of the bread really becomes meat when the priest blesses it, but the Roman Catholic Church itself does not teach or believe this. And the rumor is a rumor, not a real scientific study.)

The second thing we need to admit is that the idea that the Lord’s Supper is completely symbolic is unscriptural. Such an idea was rejected by everyone except gnostic heretics until at least the time of the Reformation.

By unscriptural, I suppose I am referring primarily to 1 Corinthians 11, where we are told that eating the Eucharist unworthily leads to the judgment of God, which can include sickness and death. If the Eucharist can bring such judgment, then does it not bring grace to those who eat it worthily?

Further, Paul calls the Eucharist the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ. While the bread and wine is not literally meat and blood, it does cause us to interact (commune) with the body and blood of Christ, something Jesus clearly wanted us to do when he spoke in John 6.

As far as the tradition of the church, the teaching that the bread and wine is in some sense the body and blood of Christ is as early as it is possible to go. From the earliest Christian writings onwards, we read things like:

… breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote which prevents us from dying, and a cleansing remedy driving away evil so that we should live in God through Jesus Christ. (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 20, c. A.D. 110)

we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (First Apology 66, c. A.D. 155)

He has acknowledged the cup as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and he has established the bread as his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported … (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V:2:2-3, c. A.D. 185)

What to do with that information is up to each church, but to the early churches the Eucharist was important, providing grace and being the food of eternal life. I love the terminology, "the medicine of immortality."

I have several more early Christian quotes on the subject at Christian-history.org.

This Week’s Readings

Monday, June 25: John 1:1-3
Tuesday, June 26: John !:4-3
Wednesday, June 27: John 4-6
Thursday, June 28: John 7-9
Friday, June 29: John 10-12

Next week we will finish the Gospel of John, then cover more Psalms and Proverbs on Thursday and Friday.

The overall year’s plan is here.

John 1

I wrote a lot yesterday about the Father and his Son, the divine Logos (or Word). It would be easy for that to be left as a theological issue. I didn’t know how to avoid that, but today I want to make sure we moved on to a better approach.

Theological issues easily turn into divisive issues. Because I think I have an excellent explanation on the relationship between the Father and the Son that answers several Scriptural problems that modern Christians have and that is based on the consistent, united testimony of the earliest churches and the confirmation of 250 church leaders at the Council of Nicea, I am always tempted to maintain that people ought to listen to me and agree with me. My position is not my own; it is the tradition of the church, and, in my opinion, clearly more Scriptural.

But what good does it do for me to worry about converting people to my position. If I fought vigorously enough for it, I could get followers and create much division. Creating division is a much worse violation of the traditions of the apostles than a misunderstanding of the difficult concept of how the Son can be divine, yet there be only one God.

On the other hand, there are much better purposes to understanding who the Son is. John is glorying in what he has to say about the Word of God throughout the first part of this chapter.

I don’t know that I’m very good and conveying poetry or excitement, but that’s what I’m trying to do there. I think that’s what John was trying to do in chapter 1. This is the Logos of God who was in the beginning! He came to earth to be with us!

In 1 John (the first letter of John, towards the end of the Bible), he says it this way:

Look at the kind of love that God has shown to us, that we should be called the children of God! (3:2)

Finally, he ends this glorious rejoicing in the Word and Son of God by saying that no one has seen God at any time, but the Son, who has lived in the bosom of the Father, has "expounded" him.

That word, in v. 18, that is translated "declared" (KJV) or "explained" (NASB) or "made known" (NET) is exegeomai. It’s the word we get "exegesis" from. Exegesis is the act of interpreting a text to find its true meaning.

Jesus interpreted the Father for us. He lived the life of the Father so that we could watch him live it.

John 1:11-12: The Gospel

This is a very important passage. "Those who are his" could be everyone in the world because he created them all. Most likely, though, this is a reference to the Jews, because the Logos is the Word and Reason of God. He is the Jews’ God. All the speaking from God to the Jews came through him because he is the Word of God.

This is also why John can say that no one has seen God at any time (v. 18) despite the fact that God was seen relatively often in old covenant times. They did not see the Father, who is the one God (Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6), but they saw the divine Word of God, who proceeds from God and is of the divine substance.

Jesus came to his own, the Jews, and they did not receive him. John was probably writing this 65 years after the coming of Christ, and certainly at least 45 years. He saw the Jews not only reject their Messiah and put him to death, he also saw that the Gentiles were flocking into the church even when the Jews were not. Paul calls it a "partial hardening" (Rom 11:25).

The important part of this passage, though, is verse 12, which promises that those who do receive Jesus will be given authority to become the children of God.

Today we often teach that if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, then we have received him and we are believers. That’s not belief. Belief is belief in Jesus, not in things about Jesus, no matter how true or important those things are. We need to receive him, not just receive a teaching about him, no matter how true or important that teaching is.

Later in the Gospel, John will record this prayer from Jesus:

This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (17:3)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses want to translate this as "take in knowledge about you" rather than know you. If there was ever a deadly mistranslation, that is it. Jesus Christ is the Life, and that Life enlightens every man that comes into the world. You don’t need to take in knowledge about the Life and Light, you need to know the Life and Light.

John 1:19-51

We’re over 1,000 words already. I think we’ve established a good basis, though. I’ll have to not be quite so thorough in from here through chapter 2.

In verse 21, when the Pharisees mention "the prophet," they are referring to Moses’ prophecy that God would raise up a prophet like Moses to whom the people would be obliged to listen.

Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptizer is another chance for the apostle to honor our Lord. John baptizes in water, but the Logos of God is able to baptize in the Holy Spirit! If ever there was a great power to have, that is the power to have!

In fact, as I try to emphasize over and over and over again, the ability of Jesus to baptize in the Holy Spirit is the very foundation of the New Testament. Jesus’ death brought forgiveness of sins and washed away the past. Jesus’ resurrection brings us a new life. But when he comes to live in us by the Spirit of God, that is the New Covenant (Acts 2:17-21).

More on that in chapter 3.

In verse 36, I suspect that John the Baptizer was not sure why he called Jesus the Lamb of God. There’s nothing in what we read about John to suggest that he knew that Jesus would give his life for the sins of the world. Jesus is "the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), but I don’t think John knew that.

So what do I think? I think that John saw Jesus and was moved to call him the Lamb of God. I suspect that there are many times that a prophet doesn’t understand why he said what he said. There are no prophets unless they are willing to take some risk in obedience to the Word moving in their heart. The revelation of God sometimes reveals itself to the mind, but often it does not, and the prophet must proclaim what he does not understand.

John 2

There’s plenty of interesting things about the wedding in Cana. One of them is the interaction between Jesus and his mother.

I read a book once, called Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek (which I HIGHLY recommend). He used Jesus statement to Mary, "What have I to do with thee?" (v. 4), to explain why those who are not experts should not trust their knowledge of Greek to back up novel interpretations.

The literal Greek of that statement is, "What to me and to you?" It really doesn’t mean much in Greek, but it is a standard Hebrew idiom, employed several times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Goodrick, the author, sends you to those various places, and he lets you put the statement in context of other uses of the Hebrew idiom.

That idiom is more strongly negative than we realize. David used it to Abishai when he wanted to put someone to death. The multiple demons in the man in the tombs at the Gaderenes said it to Jesus.

Despite such a strong statement to his mother, Jesus did what she said!

Drunkenness is expressly and repeatedly forbidden in the apostolic writings (e.g. Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:19-21). Drinking, however, is not forbidden, and I’m pretty sure that no culture in the world besides the American one would ever have considered forbidding alcohol completely. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus not only made wine from water, but he made wine after everyone had drank until the original wine was all gone! The headwaiter clearly thought that the guests had drank enough that their ability to taste the wine was impaired (v. 10).

Note, too, that John calls this the beginning of the signs Jesus did. This is a bit of evidence for Eusebius’ assertion that John wrote the Gospel to cover the first year of Jesus’ ministry which the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) did not cover.

In verses 13-17, we need to remember to learn about Jesus from what the apostles wrote about him, not interpret the apostles by what we think about Jesus. We’re Americans. We believe in being nice. Jesus wasn’t being nice. I think it’s clear from the narrative that Jesus was only trying to scare the merchants out of the temple, but I think it’s also clear that hitting a merchant or two with the whip would not have been out of the question.

In verse 19, Jesus gives a prophecy that could not possible have been understood by the Pharisees (and wasn’t). It wasn’t understood by the apostles, either, but after he rose again, the prophecy provided comfort and helped them believe.

The New Testament was the same way. No one understood the prophecies until after the events they portrayed happened, but they provided comfort and assurance once those things transpired.

In verses 24 and 25 we see that Jesus could read the hearts of man.

John 3

This is another of the most famous passages of Scripture. "Ye must be born again" (v. 7).

Shane Claiborne, whom I admire for the work he does, once wrote that we base our "born again" theology on one passage of Scripture. He didn’t object to the born again theology, just to the emphasis on it without also emphasizing taking care of the poor and widows and giving, which have many more verses.

His point is good, but this is nowhere near the only passage of Scripture that talks about new birth. 1 Peter 1:23 talks about the fact that we are born again, and James 1:18 says that God gave birth to us through the word of truth. There are other references to new life and to dying and rising again throughout the prophets and in the apostles writings.

I have heard it suggested relatively often that "born again" can also be translated "born from above." I read one really strong argument for that translation. The theologian who wrote on it spent an entire chapter defining the Greek word anothen. I got home and told my wife about it, and she took his argument apart with one question. "Then why did Nicodemus talk about entering a second time into his mother’s womb?"

We’ll stick with "born again" as the proper translation.

Being born again means being born of the Spirit and of water (v. 5). Since many Protestants don’t like what the Bible has to say about water baptism, they have come up with a couple alternate interpretations of water in verse 5. We will ignore those alternative interpretations because there are no value to them. I think David Bercot may have said it best in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. "If Jesus meant something other than baptism, then he was a terrible communicator because everyone for 1500 years thought that’s what he meant."

My favorite description of being born of the Spirit and walking in the Spirit is in this chapter. You don’t know where the spiritual man is going or coming from. He’s like the wind. You can’t see his source, but he is moved by it all the time.

I like it. I want to live like that. I do live like that, and you can, too. It is the New Covenant.

In verses 14-15 we are treated to a shocking statement by Jesus. He compares his crucifixion to the lifting up of the bronze serpent in the wilderness!

The first time I read that, I couldn’t believe it. I had to go see a commentary to make sure I understood what I was reading.

My mind isn’t so narrow now, though, and I can see the excellent typology of the bronze serpent. The story is in Numbers 21:4-9. The serpent on the stick did provide the shape of the cross, which was a prophecy of Christ. More so, though, as we are horrified by snakes, so the raising up of Christ on the cross because of how we lived and what we did ought to horrify us even more.

From verses 13-36, no one is certain whether Jesus is continuing to talk to Nicodemus or whether those verses are John’s commentary after Jesus asked Nicodemus, "How will you believe if I tell you heavenly things" (v. 12, NASB). Because of what we have read already in John, we can know that it doesn’t matter. Jesus is the Word of God. Whether those are his direct earthly words, summarized by John 60 years after the fact, or whether those are John’s words, inspired by the living Word of God, doesn’t really matter. The source is still Jesus, the Word.

John 3:16 is the most famous verse in the Bible, of course. It really needs to be taken in context, though. Those who believe in verse 16 are the same ones who "practice the truth" in verse 20 (NASB). Those who believe are also those who walk in the light so there deeds may be exposed. John says in his letter that anyone who says he is in the light but hates his brother is in the darkness no matter what he says (1 Jn. 2:9).

I haven’t pointed out that there are groups of people who believe that Jesus did not exist prior to coming to earth. He was just a man like the rest of us, but he was exalted to be the Son of God because of his obedience. John the Baptizer disagrees with them. John believes Jesus created all things, and he believes that Jesus "comes from heaven" (v. 31).

John 3:36 can be very confusing. Some Bibles translate "believe" twice in that verse; others have "believe" and then "obey."

There are two different Greek words there. One is pisteuo and the other is peitho. The same two words are used interchangeably in Hebrews 3:18-19, though peitho is used first in that passage.

Peitho carries the connotation of "be persuaded by," and it is often translated "obey," especially in modern translations. The KJV translates apeitho (= not peitho) as "disobey" 7 out of the 16 times it is used. Peitho is used 55 times, and it is translated as "persuade" or "obey" 29 of those times. It has various translations the other 26 times, only being translated "believe" 3 times.

Okay, enough Greek. I think it’s clear that John used those two words on purpose. Belief in a person, in this case Jesus Christ, means that you are persuaded by them and that you intend to do what they say. That is not just an exposition of the Greek, that’s what we mean in English. If I were to tell you that I believe in the Libertarian party and I’m an advocate of big government and social programs, you’d know to tell me that I don’t really believe in the Libertarian party, which strongly opposes those things.

Belief in Jesus Christ is not some kind of joke, where you say you believe, announce that Jesus’ blood has paid for your sins, and then also announce that you’re not really interested in turning the other cheek when someone does you wrong. God is not mocked. The spiritual man will reap eternal life, but the fleshly one will reap corruption (Gal. 6:7-9). There is far too many "Christians" willing to say that the words of Jesus are "overboard" and unnecessary to follow.

Eternal life is an incredible gift! Until Jesus came, we had no promise of living forever. Forget cryogenics. Here is an opportunity right now, without technology to receive eternal life: to partake of it here through the deposit of the Spirit and then to experience it at the judgment as a reward.

The way to that is faith in Jesus, and it is well worth being a real believer, who does the work and reaps the benefits (Jam. 2:14-26). We don’t work to become a believer. We believe in Jesus to become a believer so that we can, through grace, be made new creatures who can do the works that God has prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:8-10).

This Week’s Readings

Monday, June 25: John 1:1-3
Tuesday, June 26: John !:4-3
Wednesday, June 27: John 4-6
Thursday, June 28: John 7-9
Friday, June 29: John 10-12

Next week we will finish the Gospel of John, then cover more Psalms and Proverbs on Thursday and Friday.

The overall year’s plan is here.

Introduction

The introduction and first three verses of John’s Gospel seem important enough that they are all I am going to cover today. I spent almost four hours just on this section, and it is over 2,000 words long. My commentary on the first three verses mainly addresses the subject of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, a subject far too big for 2,000 words. I have provided links for further study, which you can follow as you feel led. You can also just leave the subject for teachers. In the early churches, most believers simply received the explanation of the Trinity as a teaching handed down by the apostles. It was to be believed, not researched, but teachers have a greater responsibility. Their job is to preserve the truth and, far too often today, to recover it when it is lost.

The Gospel of John

Eusebius, the famous fourth-century church historian, tells us that the Gospel of John was written later than all the others in order to cover the early part of Jesus’ ministry, which the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) leave out (Church History III:24:7-14).

The note in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series two, volume one, says that this position is untenable mostly because Eusebius, more than two centuries after the Gospel was written is the first to propose it. In its defense, there are several "this was the first … " statements in John’s Gospel.

The Muratorian Fragment is a list of the books that were considered Scripture. It is easily the earliest such list. It dates itself, saying that Pius was recently bishop of Rome, which would put it shortly after A.D. 155. That document says this about the Gospel of John:

The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow disciples and bishops pleaded with him, he said, “Fast with me for three days, and then we’ll tell each other whatever may be revealed to any of us.” That very night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write everything in his own name as they remembered them. (text of Muratorian Canon at Christian-history.org)

This seems very unlikely to be correct because all other testimony is that John composed his Gospel late in life. By then the apostles were split up all over the world, and John outlived them all by up to 20 years. He is said by several early Christian writers to have lived until the times of Trajan, and Trajan’s reign began in A.D. 98, 65 years after the crucifixion of our Lord.

Irenaeus was a missionary to Lyons, Gaul (modern Trier, Germany) who is connected to John in history. Irenaeus was with Polycarp in Smyrna as a young man, and Polycarp was a bishop said to be appointed by the apostles in Asia. (Asia was Asia minor, not the huge continent containing Russia, China, and India. It was much smaller, found in modern Turkey, and included Ephesus.) The primary apostle in Asia was John.

Irenaeus says that John wrote his Gospel primarily to refute the gnostic Cerinthus (Against Heresies III:11:1). The gnostics, where they did use Scripture, tore it apart with bizarre figurative interepretations so that the Word, Church, Man, Light, Wisdom, Life, Truth and many others were all separate beings, manifestations of an unknowable god named Bythus, which means profundity (as in "profound").

To commend Irenaeus’ view, in the very first chapter, John refers to Jesus as the Word, the Light, and the Life. He also says that we have received of Jesus’ fullness. "Fullness" was the word the gnostics used to describe the dwelling place of these manifestations of Bythus, whom they called "aeons." John tells us that Jesus is the fullness. ("Aeon" is a useful Scrabble^™ word if you have a handful of vowels in Words with Friends.)

John himself says that he wrote his Gospel to convince us that Jesus was the Son of God, so that believing we would have life through his name (20:31).

Whatever the reason, it is clear to anyone who reads his Gospel that it is much different in tone from the others. Bible.org gives a list of specific differences between John and the synoptics.

So let us take a look at it.

John 1:1 (Advanced, but really important)

John 1:1-3 and 1:14 is one of the most famous passages of the Bible. It is used in religious debates all the time, especially between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants.

The debates come, however, because people don’t know history or context of the Bible (or don’t care). John 1:1-3 is explained thoroughly by early Christians whose testimony is that the apostles taught them not only about the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—but also specifically about the Word, the Logos (Greek for "word" or "reason"), who proceeded from the Father before the beginning began.

We talked about this some when we looked at Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

Let’s see if we can parse these few verses without being overwhelming.

John 1:1-3 can leave you wondering if there are two Gods. There’s the Word, who was God, and then there’s God, whom the Word was with. Do we worship one God or two?

Here’s the early Christian explanation of those verses, which Theophilus’, seventh bishop (= head elder) of Antioch (the apostle Paul’s home church), said that they had learned from the holy writings and from the teaching of the apostles themselves.

But when God wished to make all that he determined, he begot this Logos, … the firstborn of all creation. This is what the holy writings teach us, as well as all the Spirit-bearing men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God" [Jn. 1:1], showing that at first God was alone, and the Logos in him. (To Autolycus II:22, A.D. 168, brackets mine)

Before the beginning—in fact, before even time was created—God was alone. Inside of him, however, was his Word, his Logos. Tertullian, a Greek and Latin speaking Christian of the late second and early third century, explained logos by saying that it is the voice we hear in our heads when we think or read.

God, they say, in some mysterious way that is beyond our understanding, was able to give birth to his Logos as a being second to himself. They are always careful to say that this did not involve "cutting off" or complete separation from each other. Instead, they explained that the Logos proceeds from the Father much as a stream proceeds from a spring or a sunbeam from the sun. There is no division in substance, but we do consider the spring and the stream as two separate things.

This power was begotten from the Father by his power and will, but not by abscission [i.e., cutting off], as if the essence of the Father were divided. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 128, c. A.D. 155)

The plant that springs from the root is something distinct from that which it grows up, yet it is of one nature with it. The river which flows from the spring is something distinct from the spring. For we cannot call either the river a spring or the spring a river. Nevertheless we allow that they are both one according to nature and also one in substance, and we admit that the spring may be conceived of as father and that the river is what is begotten of the spring. (Dionysius [the Great], Of the One Substance, A.D. 247)

Don’t let anyone think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. … The Son of God is the Logos of the Father … for after the pattern of him and by him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. … The understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God. But if … it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for from the beginning God … had the Logos in himself … but he came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things. (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 10, A.D. 177, brackets mine)

I have not given you the benefit of a long introduction to help you understand the concept of the difference between God who is eternal and material things, which are not. I have a longer, hopefully easier to understand, explanation of these things at The Trinity on my Christian history web site.

In the Beginning Was the Logos also has two chapters on the Trinity that an apologetics minister in Wales said ought to be required reading for the church history module in Bible school. In fact, you can just download chapters 16 and 17 of my book by right clicking and saving or you can left click the link and the .pdf should open in a new window.

Hopefully, however, the idea of the Son proceeding from the Father as a sunbeam proceeds from the sun is not difficult to grasp because it will help understand why John 1:1-3 does not teach two Gods. The unity of the Father and the Son that makes them one God, with the Holy Spirit, is that there is only one divine substance. The Son is the Wisdom and Logos of the Father, distinct in personality, but of the same essence or substance, undivided from the Father in that sense.

This is not a teaching found in one of the early church fathers, but it is explained thoroughly by Justin Martyr in A.D. 150, Theophilus in A.D. 168, Athenagoras in A.D. 177, Clement around A.D. 190, Tertullian around A.D. 210, and Origen and many others in the third century (the A.D. 200’s) before finally being defined at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 in the very terms I’m using in this commentary.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father; that is, of the substance of the Father … (Nicene Creed)

Thus John tells us that the Logos was with the Father in the beginning. However, he does not tell us that the Logos is God in exactly those terms, despite what your Bible translation says. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John 1:1 uses a special construction. Word for word, the last phrase says in Greek, "… and God was the Word."

Greek scholars explain that when two words surround a reflexive verb (a verb like "to be," or in this case "was"), then the word without an article (an article is "the" or "a") is being used as an adjective, not as a noun. Thus, the word "God" here in John 1:1 is being used as an adjective to describe the Word.

I have heard this concept explained four times, each time as an answer to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who want to translate that passage, "And the Word was a god." You can read it at this web site, which teaches Greek.

After scholars explain John 1:1 this way like to translate John 1:1 as "The Word had the character and nature of God." I prefer something more simple because we have a word that is "God" used as an adjective. That word is "divine."

Thus, I would translate John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine."

A lot of people object to that wording, but it’s based on exactly what all mainline Christian scholars say that verse means. Again, see the Greek web site I linked (where he uses "same essence and nature" repeatedly). I don’t know Greek well enough to take a stand on those kind of things, but those who do consistently explain the verse just as I have explained it to you.

If any of this is confusing, rather than as simple as I’m hoping it might be, please look through my Trinity pages or download the two chapters of my book I linked above.

John 1:2-3

Now that we’ve had this long discussion of the Logos or Word of God, let’s simply point out that the Word is the Creator of everything.

His dear Son … is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him everything was created, that are in heaven or on earth … All things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things are held together. (Col. 1:13b,15-17)

I know we’ve already gone through Proverbs 8 in our read through the Bible, but I love what it says about the Logos (in the form of Wisdom) creating the earth with the Father:

He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth … before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. … When he prepared the heavens, I was present with him … and when he strengthened the foundations of the earth. I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight; and daily I rejoiced in his presence continually. For he rejoiced when he had completed the world, and rejoiced among the children of men. (Prov. 8:23,25,27,29-31, Septuagint Online)