Tagged: John

John 1:19-28 – John the Baptist’s Testimony – The Voice

Verse 19 of chapter 1 is where the narrative proper begins in John’s Gospel. The first 18 verses function as a Prologue, introducing people and themes that will be addressed and expounded upon throughout the rest of the Gospel. And here in verse 19 is where John the Baptist’s testimony is picked up on and explained. In this short section (vv. 19-28) John provides his testimony to the Jewish leaders.

In verse 6 John the writer introduced us to John the Baptist as a man sent from God. His purpose was to be a witness, testifying to Jesus with the purpose that people would believe Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (v. 7). The content of John’s testimony was not given there. It was hinted at in verse 15 but now in verse 19 it will be given in more detail.

“And this is his testimony.” Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John out in the wilderness on the other side of the Jordan in Bethany (vv. 19, 30). They wanted to know who this John was that was proclaiming a baptism of repentance. And so John’s testimony is initially given in the context of being questioned.

He is evidently asked if he is the Messiah, the Christ. But he responds that he is not.

If he is not the Messiah, then perhaps he is Elijah. He says he is not.

If he is not Elijah, then perhaps he is the promised prophet. He says he is not.

These three figures, the Messiah, Elijah, and the Prophet are all end time figures that in some way or other were expected by first century Jews. Some were looking for a Davidic Messiah, some a priestly one; some were looking for Elijah from Malachi 4:5 or the Prophet like Moses from Deut. 18:15-18 (Carson, The Gospel According to John, 142-43). But with three denials and no positive statement about his ministry the Jewish leaders are understandably not satisfied. They need a response to bring back with them to those who sent them (v. 22). So, they flat out ask, “What do you say about yourself?”

John responds in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice crying out in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord” (v. 23). In the Isaiah text the ground is being levelled to make a way for the return of the exiles and the coming of the Lord and now John picks up this text to apply to his work of announcing the coming of the Messiah in Jesus.

This still leaves open in their mind why he baptizes if he is not the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet. What authority does he have to do this? The Pharisees among the group ask him this question and he responds by saying, “I baptize in water. Among you stands one you don’t know. He comes after me and I am not worthy to untie the thongs of his sandals.” This water baptism is a pointer to the one who comes after and is greater. Even untying his sandals, the job of a slave, is too much honour for John, he believes.

John’s testimony can be summed up as it was in the Prologue with inclusion from this section: to bear witness to the Light by being the voice in the desert.

John 1:14-18 Part 2 – Seeing God

Having addressed Exodus 32-34, we can now look at John 1:14-18, assess the text, and also consider some possible allusions to the Exodus passage.

The text begins by bringing the Word (logos) back into focus as the subject and it tells that he became flesh. The one who was spoken of in verse 1 as being with God and God himself is now said to have taken on flesh, entering into the earthly sphere as a human being.

He made his dwelling among us or tabernacled among us. The Word became a human being and lived among us. Recall how Moses was seeking God to be among his people in light of God’s saying he would not lest he destroy them for their wickedness. Moses pleaded, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” (Ex. 33:15-16) And God grants that his presence will go with them. But now, in the 1st century A.D., John announces an even greater presence, the Word who is with God and himself God, has condescended to become human and live among his people.

John the writer goes on to say that “We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Exodus allusions continue. Moses asks to see God’s glory (Ex. 33:18) and God tells him he will cause all his goodness to pass before him and will proclaim his name to him, but Moses is not allowed to see God’s face since no one can see the face of God and live (Ex. 33:19-20). But now John the writer tells us that we have seen God’s glory and it is through seeing his one and only Son. We see God’s glory by seeing Jesus, who is full of grace and truth. And this expression, “full of grace and truth” echoes Exodus as well. When God does proclaim his name before Moses, he says, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…” (Ex. 34:6). The Hebrew expression is hesed v’emet which is captured nicely by John’s use of kharis kai alethia in Greek (see Carson, The Gospel According to John, 129-130, for full argumentation, I won’t recount it here). Jesus reveals God’s glory being full of grace and truth, part of the very nature of God.

Verse 15 breaks up verses 14 and 16 providing us with some of John the Baptist’s testimony: “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.” Despite John seemingly being prior to Jesus and therefore possibly of more importance, John states that Jesus is before him and is of greater importance.

Verse 16 then picks up from verse 14 stating that out of the Word’s fullness “we have all received grace in place of grace already given.” This phrase, “grace in place of grace…” has been variously translated with widely different understandings as a consequence. The TNIV rendering I just quoted, I believe, sticks to the meaning of the text very well. The preposition between the two uses of “grace” is best understood as “substitutionary” and so “in place of” is an excellent rendering of the preposition (see Porter, Idioms, 145). We have received grace in place of grace. But what grace was replaced? The text tells us in verse 17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” This means that the giving of the law was God’s grace upon the people but it has now been supplanted by a new grace: that of Jesus Christ.

Finally, John uses further Exodus language referring to God’s never being seen, making explicit in the negative what was stated above in the positive in verse 14 about God’s glory. “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” Even though no one has seen God, Jesus who is himself God has now made him known. It doesn’t say that we have now seen the Father (and this will be elaborated upon in later chapters by John) but we now know God through Jesus.

Do you want to see God? Do you want to see his glory manifest? Look to Jesus.

As we move through the narrative proper of John’s Gospel the themes we have seen in this Prologue will be expounded and expanded. Look to see Jesus and the glory of God as we proceed through the book.

(* Because of my semi-remote location in writing this it was easier to use the TNIV than my usual personal translations so the above quotations are all TNIV)

John 1:14-18 Part 1 – Excursus: Exodus 32-34

We have already seen some parallels and use of the Old Testament in John’s Prologue. It seems to me that these uses of the OT get stronger in the last 5 verses of the Prologue. As such, I have decided to breakdown the analysis into two parts starting in this study with an excursus into Exodus 32-34 and then analyzing John’s text in the next study having already looked at a potential background. This one is a long one but it is a good story so I hope you’ll be captivated.

Exodus Context

Chapters 32-34 of the book of Exodus take us back to approximately 1400 B.C. The book begins its story where Genesis left off. Joseph is now dead (1:6) and many generations have passed since his time. The Israelites had become a large group of people (1:7) and were now under a new king that did not look favourably on Joseph as in the past (1:8). They were oppressed by slave masters and were put through hard labour (1:11).

It is in this time that God raises up Moses. He was raised in Pharaoh’s household (2:5-10) and when he was grown up (2:11) he found himself killing an Egyptian for beating a Hebrew (2:11-12). When it was found out (2:14-15) his life was sought by the Pharaoh and so he escaped to Midian (2:15). A long time passes, the king of Egypt dies, and Moses grows old (2:23).

God then appears to Moses at the burning bush and calls him to go to Pharaoh to seek the release of the Israelites from bondage (Chs. 3-4). Not without a fight Moses ends up going to Pharaoh with Aaron and they seek the release of the Lord’s people. Through several plagues placed on the Egyptians God has the Israelites released into the wilderness (Chs. 5-11) by lastly killing all the firstborns of Egypt culminating in the first Passover (Ch. 12). The Israelites leave Egypt (Ch. 12) and head for the promised land through the desert.

With much grumbling the Israelites continually despise Moses and his leadership since the conditions of the wilderness appear to them to be worse than when they were under slave masters in Egypt. It is in this context that our story in chapters 32-34 take place.

Chapters 32-34

Moses was up the mountain speaking with God and receiving the law. But due to this delay, the people called on Aaron to make from them gods who would go before them (32:1). Aaron tells them to give them their gold and he fashioned it into the shape of an idol, declaring, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (32:4). They build an altar, call for a festival, and the next day sacrifice burnt offerings and present fellowship offerings, then drinking and indulging in revelry (32:5-6).

This blatant idolatry angers the Lord who tells Moses to go down to his people who have become corrupt (32:7-8). He says to Moses, “I have seen these people… and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

But Moses seeks God’s favour and entreats God to not destroy the people (32:11-13). He cites the promises God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their forefathers, to make their descendants a great nation (32:13) and God relents (32:14).

Moses then went down the mountain, sees the Israelites wickedness, is fuming angry and so he threw the tablets containing the 10 commandments to the ground and proceeded to burn the calf in the fire, grind it to a powder, scatter it over the water and make the Israelites drink it (32:15-20).

Aaron tries to pass the buck (32:22-24) and Moses then tells all who are on the side of the Lord to rally to him. The Levites rallied to him (32:26) and then they kill about 3000 that day (32:28).

Moses goes back to speak to the Lord and seeks forgiveness for their sin (32:31-32). The Lord says he will blot out of the book those who have sinned against him (32:33) and then tells Moses to lead the people to where they were going in the first place and he would send his angel before them (32:34). But God makes clear that he himself will not go with them since he would have to destroy them on the way due to their wickedness (33:3).

Along the way Moses meets with the Lord at the “tent of meeting” where he would speak to the Lord “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (33:11). He uses this friendship to entreat the Lord, saying, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people.’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me…. If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favour with you. Remember that this nation is your people” (33:12-13).

God answers by assuring him that his presence will go with him and he will give him rest (33:14). Moses responds by saying that if God’s presence doesn’t go with them he doesn’t want to be sent: “How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” (33:15-16)

Then Moses asks to see the Lord’s glory (33:18) and the Lord responds by saying he will cause all his goodness to pass in front of him and proclaim his name, the LORD, in his presence (33:19). But, the Lord goes on to say, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (33:20).

The Lord has Moses return to him in the morning and he then passes in front of Moses and declares his name: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children from the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (34:6-7).

Moses responds by bowing and worshipping the Lord. He says, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the LORD go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance” (34:8-9). The Lord then makes a covenant with Moses and tells Moses that those he lives among will see how awesome the Lord is (34:10).

When Moses returns from the mountain, his face is radiant from speaking with the Lord (34:29).

Summary

This passage of Scripture shows the grace of God in not wiping out his people though he had ample reason to do so. The Israelites were called to trust in the one true God but they continually went astray earning them the moniker, a stiff-necked people. Moses as the one who had found favour in God interceded on their behalf and God was pleased to honour his own promises to their forefathers through these actions.

A glimpse of his glory is also seen here as the climax of the story comes in 34:6-7. God reveals himself as “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” His grace, love and faithfulness would continue on throughout the entire Old Testament period.

This has now set the background for us to evaluate better John 1:14-18 in the next study.

*all direct quotations are from the TNIV

Why Four Gospels? Review

In writing Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels, David Alan Black has put what has become a minority opinion in scholarship into popular form. Working off of the ideas of Bernard Orchard and his own, Dr. Black has made a case to return to the majority opinion of the historic church: that of Matthean priority. The position is known as the Four-Fold Gospel Hypothesis.

The book weighs in at only 78 pages of text, consisting of three main sections. The prose is very readable making it an enjoyable read. Student and layperson alike will benefit greatly from this initial exposure into the world of the origins of the Gospels.

In his first section, “The Development of the Gospels,” Black has written a narratival reconstruction of how the Gospels were first constructed, including their circumstances. He breaks the development into four phases, wherein each of the Gospels finds a home. The four phases are the Jerusalem Phase, the Gentile Phase, the Roman Phase, and the Johannine Supplement. You can perhaps guess where each of the four Gospels fits and if you can, you will notice that the order of writing he proposes is Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, not the common proposal found today (priority often goes to Mark).

The narratival reconstruction is engagingly written but he says some strange things, at least they were strange to me. There were numerous occassions where I had no idea how he would justify, what I thought to be, a fanciful historical fiction. Black claims that Luke was written second, commissioned by Paul for use in his gentile mission, but not published until after they could get it authenticated by Peter in Rome, who then lectured in five sessions using both Matthew and Luke and his own recollections, which was immediately copied by competent scribes, including his assistant Mark, and in due course became the Gospel of Mark. I had decided ahead of time to read only the first section before going to bed one night but I had to hear more from him on it, so I proceeded to read section 2: “The Origins of the Gospels.” How on earth would he justify the story?

In the second section, Black sets forth his arguments to support the reconstruction he gave in section one. It is at this point where I started to see the pieces of the puzzle come together: he didn’t create a fanciful historical account! He actually bases his reconstruction on patristic evidence. As I now thought back to section one and saw the patristic evidence in front of me, I kept wanting to open my Bible and ask, “Does that work?” Indeed one of the best blessings of this book was the excitement to move back to the Bible to test and explore what I was reading for the first time.

But it is not as though Black is reading patristic writings that have been lost to every other scholar. So why the difference in opinion today? The problem is they have been dismissed and/or overlooked. The majority opinion is that Mark wrote first and so the patristics’ testimony must be explained away. But Black is reluctant to lose their testimony. In his preface (to the 2nd edition) he claims that they are necessary for this task. But, he says, “it is not that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem. It is that any approach to a solution that rejects their testimony is, by definition, illegitimate” (ix).

So what becomes of internal evidence? The sad truth is that internal evidence has not yielded the results expected of it: i.e. the priority of Mark is not proven by internal evidence. Just about any order can be justified by the internal evidence but with a guide like the evidence of the Fathers present, a more likely approach to the internal evidence is found.

Black’s final section returns to the story of the development of the Gospels by discussing each of their respective compositions. It was by the end of this section, and the end of the book, that I had the full picture in my head that bewildered me only 70 pages earlier. Only having studied Matthew and Mark heavily in the Greek (Luke much less so), I had not yet given much thought to the historical order of the Gospels besides the popular majority opinions. I now feel equipped to return to the study of the Greek Gospels with a viable hypothesis (indeed very viable) to test as I read through.

Given the target readership of the book, I have no criticisms. As I said above, it is readable and engaging. As for further study on the issue, I would love to see how the divisions of Mark’s Gospel into the five lectures of Peter proposed work with a discourse analysis approach to Mark’s Gospel. For example, can a division break be justified between 3:19 and 3:20? The text as we have it seems seamless. If so, should we attribute some redacting to Mark as well?

To read the reconstruction that at first bewildered me but gripped me, and later made perfect sense, get a hold of the book. At a very reasonable $10.19 (Amazon.com price as of 03/03/11), you can’t go wrong. It will expand your horizons, expose you to the historical majority viewpoint of the church on this issue, and help you read the Gospels with new vigour. No matter what your training, this book is worth reading. And more than that, I think Dr. Black has made a convincing case for Matthean priority. One I want to inspect more for myself now.

Thank you to Dave and Energion Publications for providing this book for review.

John 1:9-13 – Rejecting and Receiving

Verses 6-8 talked about John the Baptist’s witness to the light and now in verse 9 the light is made the subject again. Here the text also qualifies the light as the true light. Jesus is said to be true in the sense of ‘ultimate.’ Whatever one thought of ‘light’ in the first place, this here is the true light (cf. Carson, Gospel of John, 122; Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 166). And this true light, which gives light to all people, was coming into the world.

In fact, verse 10 tell us that the light was in the world (this earthly realm) now bringing focus to the Word and the Light as actually in space/time history. When verses 1-5 talk about the Word it is in his relationship to God and his relationship to creation. But only here does it begin to outline that the true light actually was in the world, a historical fact that could be looked back on from the time of John’s writing. The first 5 verses could be uttered at any time post-creation.

The second clause of verse 10 reiterates what we already know: the world was made through him, but the next clause tells us that the world did not know him, that is, it did not recognize him. Verse 11 goes on to specify this world even further as his own. He came to his own and his own did not receive him. Shockingly, even though the world was made through the Word, the world collectively has not acknowledged the Word’s entrance into space/time history.

But, this isn’t the whole story. The Word would not be rejected in total. There is a group that the author can refer to as receiving the Word. And to those who did receive him, to those believing in his name, he gave the right to become children of God! Though we start out separated from God, receiving God’s divine self-disclosure (Jesus) results in being adopted into God’s own family as children. This adoption is not the result of bloodlines, it is not the result of the will of the flesh, nor the result of the will of a husband, but rather it is being born of God. And this born of God language will return in chapter 3 in an exciting exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus.

But there it is, the result of receiving Jesus is to be born of God, adopted into his very family, something greater than we can ever achieve or have simply through natural relationships. Being born into a certain family, whether Jewish or Christian or any other will not ensure you are born of God, only receiving Jesus will ensure it, something that transcends natural bonds.