1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In the beginning…God. The first sentences of John’s gospel seem intentionally crafted to parallel the first sentences of the book of Genesis, thereby establishing the deity of Jesus Christ. According to Genesis, God created the space-matter-time Universe by His spoken Word. At that moment, time had a beginning. Before that, God and the Word existed eternally. That is clearly implied in the Genesis creation record, where God is conversing with Someone, and that Being was surely the Word (Gen 1:26).
This passage demolishes the idea of some that Jesus Christ is not God, but was instead a created being; some say a human, others an angel. Besides being illogical and unbiblical, it is a tactic of Satan to diminish the work and person of Jesus Christ. That a human being or an angel, albeit a thoroughly perfect one, could atone for the sins of millions of other men is judicially incredible and impossible. No just and true judge would allow the death of one (good) man to substitute for the sins of more than one person. On the other hand, if Jesus is the infinite God, then His blood is able to atone infinitely and wholly, and is thoroughly effective to substitute for all mankind. This is an undeniable truth and cannot be refuted. It can only be ignored.
All things were made by Him and without Him was not any thing made that was made. The belief that Jesus was a created being cannot stand before this simple revelation (see also Col 1:16). The language is too direct and strong to circumvent. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, while John says that in the beginning the Word made all things, and that the Word was with God in the beginning. The concept of the Trinity may be difficult for the materialistic mind to comprehend, but it is not without terrestrial parallels. See my comments on Col 1:15. Note that the Word was with God in the beginning, making Jesus and the Father separate in some sense, although both are fully God. Where did God come from? Where did Jesus come from? According to the Scriptures, both have always existed.
Some folks attempt to deny the obvious truth that Jesus is God by translating, “And the Word was a god.” Then they point out that Satan is called the god of this world (2Cor 4:4), somehow thinking that relates to the subject. Their argument fails on two fronts. First, because that specious translation doesn’t change the final result of the passage at all. This god (using their term) already existed with God when He spoke the worlds into being, and this god created all things, nothing excepted! The Scriptures identify this god as the Creator, making Him one with the Word. Second, their translation is a flawed redaction of the original language. The Greek is: και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος, which is strictly translated, “And the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.” Jehovah’s Witnesses note that the second occurrence of “God” has no definite article in the Greek (just as it does not in the strict translation given above). Yet that fact gives no license to re-translate it, “a god,” because the “missing” article is common in Greek, being used to emphasize the “inherent quality” of the noun. And especially so in this case, seeing that “God” precedes “Word,” and word order is also used for emphasis in the Greek language. “God was the Word” emphasizes that Jesus was, and continues to be, God. This passage in John is one of more than 50 verses that I have found which substantiate that Jesus is God (Col 1:15 note).
The Word was…in the beginning…with God…and made flesh (v14). The apostle John is the only New Testament writer who calls Jesus Christ the Word, which he does also in his epistle and apocalpyse (1John 1:1; Rev 19:13). It is one of many names for Jesus Christ and its meaning must be understood by studying its usage elsewhere in the Scriptures. The Word immediately prompts allusion to the spoken Word creating the universe (Ps 33:6), but also to the written Word, which will be the judge of every man at the end of the world (John 12:48; Is 55:10-11). Additionally, God being titled the Word implies communication, revelation and knowledge. Jesus was all of the above, sent to reveal God and His will by verbally teaching the way of salvation (John 1:18). “Christ the Word” is thus a particularly appropriate title, for throughout His ministry, Jesus’ primary instrument was His spoken word. He wrought every miracle by the Word.
Some commentators have associated John’s title, the Word, with Platonic philosophy, in which logos (Gk-the Word), refers to Reason or Wisdom, or to Philo’s idea that logos refers to the Divine Mind. I reject those suggestions as arbitrary, and maintain that it is also inconsistent with the record. The Apostles were not interested in Grecian philosophy and worldly intellectualism! They were simple fisherman who were devoted to following the God of their fathers; they were thoroughly immersed in Jewish religion and culture. While the apostle Paul could have been influenced by philosophical ideas, the life and writings of John show that his goal was simple: to love the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who had sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to save the world.
The Holy Spirit moved John to call Jesus, the Word, because that title accurately portrays His identity and mission. Far from having some correspondence to contemporary Greek thought, the Word is a name that corresponds perfectly with many Old Testament passages which speak of God. It is ironic that these Bible scholars seek to define John’s usage of logos by looking at non-biblical sources, when the best “dictionary” of koine Greek (the language of the New Testament) is right under their noses. The Septuagint was the Bible of the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles, and without a doubt John used logos because of its usage and connotations in its pages. It is far more sensible to define logos, and any other Greek word of the New Testament, by first understanding its meaning in the Greek language Old Testament. The New Testament is based upon the Old, reveals the Old, completes the Old. Of course its terms will agree!
The word logos is very common in the Septuagint, ocurring about 1,000 times therein. It usually refers to written/spoken words, or to a decree/matter. An example is the oft-found expression, the word of the Lord (i.e. Ps 33:6). Chapter 119 of Psalms alone uses the words logos and logion more than 40 times in reference to God’s Word or Law. Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee (Ps 119:11); Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to Thy Word (Ps 119:9). Some scholars try to give logos a special meaning when it is accompanied by the Greek article (o logos), but that is a dubious suggestion given the frequent usage of that identical grammatic construction in both Greek testaments which do not refer to the second person of the Deity. Why propose an extra-biblical meaning? Jesus is not only the Word, He is also the Door, the Way, the Lamb, etc. John’s Gospel is filled with euphemisms for Jesus. The Word conveys particularly well the idea of the Messiah proclaiming the revealed will of God. Whosever heareth these logos of Mine, and doeth them (Mat 7:24) shall receive eternal life. True, saying Jesus is the Word is like Him saying, I am (John 8:58), for both Old Testament terms identify Him to be God. Yet it is more than that; the full significance of Jesus being the Word is a deep and interesting study.
Origen, who wrote perhaps the first commentary on the book of John (ca 250), wasted a lot of ink and paper to form his definition of the Word, and he concluded (consistent with Platonism) that by “the Word” is meant “Reason” or “Wisdom.” However, he can only weakly explain how those abstracts can define the real person of the Son of God who dwells in us. Origen believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were created beings, which is problematic in the face of these verses describing Christ the Word as creating all things. He was, however, not daunted by the task, and proposed that implied in the statement, without Him was not any thing made that was made, are things that exist which the Logos did not create.
The Gospel of John. The apostle John, who also wrote three epistles and the Revelation, was writer of roughly one-fourth of the New Testament. Only the apostle Paul and Luke the historian can rival that amount. The apostle John is sometimes called John the Beloved, in order to identify him among others by that name, and also because of his great devotion to Jesus Christ. Love is a primary theme in all that he wrote. It is believed that the Gospel of John was not only the last of the Gospels, but also one of the last books of the Bible to be written, succeeded in time only by the Apocalypse. One evidence for this idea is that, unlike the other Gospels, John records none of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the fall of Jerusalem; that event had already taken place. A second evidence is that John includes from the other Gospels only the high points in Jesus’ life, and adds a lot of new miracles, parables and teaching; he works from the position of having the three Gospels and wanting to share things that the others had not. Thirdly, the purpose of this book is not so much for eye-witness testimony (though John was certainly that), but to substantiate that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of the Jews and the Son of God (John 20:31). Accordingly, there is much new material in this Gospel.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
In the NT, the Greek word Life (zoe) is used more often in spiritual connotations (Mat 7:14; John 3:36) than in reference to biological life, and in particular to that Life which Jesus alone has the power to give to those who love Him (John 4:14; 10:28; 14:6). Study two other Greek words (bios and psuche) to appreciate the meaning of zoe, which is found often in the NT writings of the Apostle John. All life, spiritual or biological, is sourced in Christ, but among God’s creation spiritual life is available only to Man, being compatible only with such beings that have an immortal soul.
Jesus is the light of men. Again it is John that uses this figure most (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), which, coupled with God is light (1John 1:5) makes Jesus to be God (Rev 21:23; 2Cor 4:4). Light and Life are such common figures of speech for spiritual themes in the NT, that we almost forget that outside the Scriptures their primary meanings are physical. In verses 7-9 of the KJV, Light is capitalized.
The light shineth in darkness. This describes, in figurative language, the coming of the Word to reveal the truths of God to an ignorant and errant people. Spiritual darkness is that condition of men which lack true knowledge of God, or who have chosen to ignore it and walk according to their own selfish desires. See passages such as 1Pet 2:9; John 3:20; Rom 1:21; Micah 3; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; 1Thes 5:4. There is another, non-malevolent meaning for darkness in figurative language which is used to describe the mysterious and unknowable secrets of God (see Ps 97:2; Ex 20:21).
The early Christian writers used the sun as a means of illustrating the relationship between Jesus and the Father, saying that the body of the sun represented God the Father and the light of the sun represented Jesus (Heb 1:3). God the Father is the unbegotten auto-existant God, while the Son is the only begotten God (John 1:18). The early church believed that while the Father and the Son are both eternal and have the same divine nature, the Son was begotten of the Father and depends upon the Father for His existence. In other words, the Son could die and the Father continue, but not vice versa. Another illustration which the early church used was that of a spring of water: The well-source represents God and the stream that flows is Jesus Christ.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
This man sent from God was not John the Beloved, but John the Baptist, whose testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth is the key theme of the latter half of this chapter. If anyone had the ability to proclaim himself to be Christ it was John the Baptist, for all believed him to be a prophet of God. However, John flatly denied being the Messiah (John 1:20) and pointed out Jesus of Nazareth as that promised One (John 1:30; Acts 19:4). He knew that he was not come to be the Light, but to bear witness of the Light. The Apostles were eye-witnesses of the Messiah, but John the Baptist was a heavenly witness of Him, a man of the highest moral and religious integrity, of unparalleled zeal and committment to the God of heaven. This man’s unbiased and even self-demoting testimony was that this Jesus was the lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world! (John 1:29). Heaven revealed to John, before virtually all others, of the Messiah’s coming, and his witness is powerful, wholly trustworthy and irrefutable. It is one of the highest external proofs of Christ’s identity.
The preaching ministry of John the Baptist prepared, among the common people and the Jewish leaders, the way for the coming of Christ (Luke 7:24-28; Mal 3:1), and is prominently noted by each of the four Gospels (Mat 3; Luke 1:5-25; Mark 1:1-11). Likewise, the Apostle John places the witness of the Baptist that Jesus was the Christ at the forefront of his Gospel. First, because John the Baptist was a prophet without peer, both in the eyes of the people (Mat 21:26) and in the judgment of the Son of God (Mat 11:11).
The ministry of John the Baptist opened the eyes of the people to their need of a Savior. An angel had foretold his mission to John’s parents even before he was born: And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:17). John’s message was, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt 3:2). By the fore-working of God, the spiritual climate among many was expectant and tuned to recognize and receive the Son of God.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
The true Light is Christ, but the sense is not that Jesus gives saving light to each and every man. Rather, His light shines for every man to see, and is available to every man to obtain. He loved the whole world and gave His life to save the whole world, but that does not mean that every person in the world will be saved. Only those who sincerely believe on Him will be saved (John 3:16). However, there is a sense in which Jesus does light every man that comes into the world, and that is by giving every human being a conscience at birth. The great work of the Holy Spirit is to convince every man that Jesus is the only way by which he must be saved, and in that vein Jesus enlightens every man. When Jesus ascended into heaven He sent the Comforter to continue the work which He had begun on earth.
Perhaps there is another parallel here to the first chapter of Genesis, where God created the Universe and said, Let there be light. So too at the birth of every person, the Creator places an eternal soul in each body, in essence lighting every man by saying, “Let there be a light.” The early church writers describe Man consisting of three parts: the body, the soul, and the spirit. The soul is the real You, the identity that never dies, and life is a constant struggle in which the spirit and the body each seeks to influence the soul. The body is depraved, but the spirit is from God, and so is good and true. Perhaps the conscience is another term for this inner spirit.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
The Creator of the universe entered visibly in the world, but few recognized Him (Heb 1:1-2; 11:3). He tried to show them this by many infallible proofs: miracles of healing, raising the dead, controlling nature, revealing thoughts of men’s hearts, foretelling the future, answering the toughest questions, signs in the heavens, etc. Yet many were not able to affirm His identity, and the same problem continues today. Ask an agnostic what it would take for him to believe in God and you will hear him demand proofs that have already been given by Jesus Christ; he simply will not recognize the Son of God.
The idea of the Creator God transforming Himself into a man to live in and among His creation is an incredible thought, a spark of genius that could hardly be invented by the mind of a man! Why? How? The Gospels explain both questions. Authors and intellectuals are ever searching for novel plots and new ideas to surprise their readers, but the concepts of the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ individually surpass them all, and when taken collectively are convincing proofs of their authenticity. The human mind just could not have been capable of making this up. Indeed, we have enough trouble grasping the major points, to say nothing of the details!
Jesus came unto His own people, born in the land of their forefathers in the genealogical line of the kings. He came a righteous, practicing Jew and His ministry was directed to the house of Israel (Mat 15:21-24), yet most did not receive Him. They saw His signs and wonders, heard His wisdom and doctrine, but they refused to believe. The prophets had foretold this would happen (Is 53:3), and Jesus confirmed it (Luke 17:25). Obviously, many devout, sincere Jews did accept Jesus as the Messiah, although the ratio was much lower among the Jewish leaders, who were too proud and power-greedy to accept Him and His message.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Those who confess and believe in Jesus Christ are granted sonship into the family of God by way of adoption. They are given power to become sons of God. The word power is exousia, which means having the privelege, right, or authority to act. While being a son of God is not entirely foreign to the Old Testament, the New develops that theme to a much higher degree (1John 3:1-2; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5). The prophets spoke of a day coming in which God would make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Heb 8:10), in which they would have an identity superior even to being sons and daughters (Is 56:5; Jer 24:7; Zech 10:6).
Dispensationalists think this refers to a future event for the physical Jews in Palestine, but have failed to do good Bible study. The NT, especially the book of Galatians, is clear that the OT promises and blessings are granted to spiritual Jews of the heart and not the flesh, children of Abraham who worship the Father not in the land of Israel, but wherever and whenever a true child of Abraham’s faith is found (John 4:21; Gal 3:7). Sonship has nothing to do with being a physical descendant of Abraham and everything to do with being spiritual linked with the God of Abraham (Gal 3:29; Rom 9:8).
The gospel of John agrees. These children of God are born, not of blood…but of God. Jesus came unto His own, Jews of the same flesh and blood, the same culture, religion and nationality. But His own received Him not, and therefore He made sons and daughters of all those that believe on His name, whether Jew or Gentile. The will of the flesh and the will of man seem also to refer to the Jewish Covenant of flesh in the physical (Gen 17:11; Rom 3:28), but certainly could extend to the spiritual New Covenant meanings of those terms as well (1Pet 4:2; Rom 9:16).
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word was made flesh. The progression here is extremely strong and transcendentally powerful. At the beginning of the chapter, we read that the Word existed in the beginning, that the Word created all things, and that the Word is God; now we ae told that the Word became a human being. Nothing in all human experience can compare to this truth, this event. It not only changed the course of history, in some respects it changed the nature of the world.
The only begotten of the Father. While redeemed men will become sons of God through adoption (John 1:12), and the angels are called sons of God on account of their spiritual nature (Job 1:6), the Word is the only One who is begotten of the Father. It is unclear if Jesus being the only begotten of the Father refers to His supernatural birth and earthly manifestation as the God-man, or if it refers to His spiritual origin in the Father before the world began. The first option seems to fit better the context, which involves the coming of the Word into this world as a man of flesh yet fully divine, and the companion passage in John 3:16-18 is similarly oriented. The second option however, is more theologically satisfying, for it would explain the origin of the second person of the Trinity. We will try to develop the two options below, while first stating that both ideas are fully compatible with the belief that Jesus is fully divine.
Under the first opinion, Jesus being the only begotten of the Father is seen to correlate with, the Word was made flesh, and so describes God becoming human, ie. the already existing Word being born a human. No other person has been, or ever will be, begotten of the Father in like manner. There is no other name given under heaven whereby we might be saved (Acts 4:12). So Jesus as the Son of God has reference to His earthly work, the Word being made flesh. All must admit that Jesus the Nazarene, the Son of man and the Son of God, did not exist before He was born of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). And yet the Word is eternal, existing in the beginning with God, and was in effect God (John 1:1), not God the Father, but nonetheless God in nature. Only in a few prophetic verses does the OT refer to Christ as God’s Son (Ps 2:7; Pro 30:4), and yet the Word was clearly active in the Old Covenant (1Cor 10:4; Heb 11:25-26). Most likely then, it was the Word (not the Father) who dealt with Mankind throughout the history of the world, and when He stepped into His created world and was born of a virgin, His Father was God. In His human birth, He was begotten of God. So much for the first option.
Those of the second opinion see in the phrase, the only begotten of the Father, a statement describing the origin of the Word – begotten by the Father before the world and time began. Since this occurred outside of time, the Son is eternal like the Father. But since the Son’s origin is in the Father, He is subordinate to the Father and dependent upon the Father for His existence. Having His origin in God, He must be fully divine; He is the only begotten Son of God. Just as a human begets a human and a dog begets a dog, so a God begets a God (divinity begets divinity). It is essential to exclude time from this scenario, and that is consistent with Scriptural intent, for the Word did exist before time began according to this chapter. See more in note for Col 1:15.
I see valid points to both opinions, and see no real reasons why both could not be right. The core truths concerning God the Father and God the Son are that God the Word, second person of the Trinity, existed before He was made flesh and became the Son of man, yet He is always subordinate to the immortal Father, first person of the Trinity. The Father and the Son are both God, but they are not identical. Irenaeus writes: “For Christ did not at [His baptism] descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God…was made Jesus Christ.” (Against Heresies bk 3 ch6). The early Arians called the Father, “the unbegotten God” and that the Son, “the only begotten God.” That seems consistent with Scripture.
Those who deny that Jesus is God say the word begotten means that Jesus had a beginning, but they are wrong under both options! Under option two, the word begotten has reference to His origin, not His beginning, for the two have not the same meaning. While a beginning does imply time, an origin or source can be understood with no time at all. The source of a river may be a spring high in the mountains; a master document may be the origin of other documents. Time has no place in those usages. Therefore, the only begotten of the Father is a precise term that carefully defines the actual reality, for in truth God exists outside of Time. Under option one, the argument does not apply, for the birth of Christ did occur upon a particular date.
Perhaps the question may arise, “If Jesus was begotten of the Father before the world began, who was His mother?” But that is to confine the nature of God to that of humans, who can only beget by the union of male and female. Yet God is a Spirit, so how He begets a Son is entirely different. Even in the natural world there are many examples of offspring begotten from a single parent (parthenogenesis, fission, budding, etc), so the idea isn’t a novel one at all.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
See note on verse 30.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
These are the Apostle John’s words, and not part of John the Baptist’s testimony which appears in the previous verse. The fulness of Christ (see Col 1:19; Eph 3:19; 4:13) seems to be a reference to His abounding goodness and blessings of which all those who are Christ’s have so abundantly received, and of which the crowning grace is His work of redemption.
And grace for grace. The meaning is not entirely clear. Some think it is a way of saying, “From Him we receive one grace after another.” The Greek word for grace is charis, which means “favor, approval, goodwill, a gift, to be blessed.” Thus, grace for grace could mean, “As a man favors God, so God favors man; the man returns that favor and honors God even more, upon which God adds more favor and blessing.” This empowering cycle of growth couples well with the Apostle’s exhortation to grow in grace (2Pet 3:18). See note on Rom 1:7.
The Greek word translated “for” is anti, which typically means, “instead of, in the place of.” Some therefore see grace for grace as a reference to the Law of Moses being replaced by the Law of Christ. Both were graces, or God’s acts of favor toward mankind.
Grace (charis). Calvinists have developed a special, super-powerful meaning for grace in their systematic theology. To them, grace is nothing less than “God’s unmerited favor to man.” But that is an erroneous and unbiblical addition to its meaning that cannot stand before Scriptural scrutiny. The word grace is frequently used in the Bible in human-only contexts, and thus cannot be constrained to a God-only action. Moreover, there is no basis for specifying that grace is “unmerited favor.” From its very first usage it is clear that God’s favor is not bestowed unmeritoriously nor arbitrarily. Gen 6:8 says, But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. It is obvious that God favored, blessed and approved of Noah, not as an unmerited favor nor with no reason to do so. On the contrary, Noah was favored by God because of his piety and faith; the rest of humanity was condemned to die in the flood because they lacked the same. True, Noah did not earn God’s grace in the sense that his good deeds and sinless character obligated God to save him, but only in that narrow sense can grace be ever considered to be “unmerited.” Noah did do something that made God notice him and that caused God to extend grace and mercy to him and his family. The concept of grace did not change in the NT, although Luther and Calvin have poisoned the churches of Protestantism to believe that God’s grace is absolutely unconditional, unmerited and even arbitrary. They use verses such as Rom 11:6, and extrapolate the impossibility of man earning his salvation (a true statement) such that it eliminates any prerequisite act of man in the election of God.
In both testaments, grace is often used to describe the condition or a person in the eyes of another, or a Christian in the eyes of God. Mary found favor with God (Luke 1:30), Jesus increased… in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52). It is interesting to note that, while the word charis appears infrequently in the Gospels, it is used often in the epistles of Paul and Peter.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
The great Jewish/Christian contention over the Law of Moses and the New Covenant is opened early in the book of John. The Old Covenant made man to know right and wrong, and informed his conscience of sin and guilt (Rom 7:9; Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15), but it could not fully resolve that sad situation (Gal 3:21; Heb 10:11). The New Covenant brought grace and truth to mankind by the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. See that contrast also in Rom 5:21; Heb 7:19. While there was grace and truth in the Old Covenant, these could not fully abound until the atoning work of Christ was completed. The OT showed shadows of the real essence, or truth, in its many rituals and sacrifices (Rom 10:4; Heb 10:1), but the fulness of truth became clear with the establishment of the New Covenant.
Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), so it follows that truth came to Man by Him. The simple implication that results from coupling these two verses agrees closely with the first few verses of John, which revealed that the real Being of Jesus Christ existed with the Father before the world began. Only God has come into existence by Himself.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No man hath seen God. Human eyes cannot see the God who is a Spirit (John 4:24; 5:37). Nevertheless, God has manifested Himself in ways that allow man to “see” Him, which is called a theophany. Old Testament characters such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses saw a theophany of God (Gen 17:1; 32:24-30; Ex 3:6; Judges 13:22), but both testaments teach that no man can see God and live (Ex 33:20; 1John 4:12). Many, if not all, of the OT examples of God appearing to men were not the Father but the Word. We cannot say “Jesus” for that name did not yet apply to the second person of the Trinity.
This verse speaks about the most notable theophany of all time, the manifestation of God in the form of the Man, Jesus the Nazarene. The Word was made flesh (John 1:14); He appeared to mankind and declared to them the grace and truth of the Father. Indeed, by the unfathomable intricacies of the Trinity, He was the Father incarnate (John 14:9).
In some ancient manuscripts, the phrase, the only begotten Son, reads, the only begotten God (Huios being replaced with theos). The NIV and NASB versions are translated from one such manuscript. Additionally, when the early church writers quoted this phrase, they as well usually frame it, the only begotten God. It is also noteworthy that in the Septuagint, the highly prophetic messianic Psalm 22 contains a stunning reference to Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. Deliver my soul from the sword; my only-begotten one from the power of the dog (Ps 22:20).
The bosom of the Father. This phrase is simply a re-statement of many verses that declare the Father and the Son to be one in purpose and will (John 10:30; 17:21). See other uses of the word in Luke 6:38; 16:22; John 13:23.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
Much of the ministry of John the Baptist took place far away Jerusalem, and this particular episode took place on the east side of the Jordan River (v28), in the land of Reuben or Gad. Nevertheless, John’s fame spread throughout Israel and so many came to hear him preach (Mark 1:5; Mat 3:5-6) that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem began to take note. John cut a striking figure of a true prophet of God (Mat 3:1-4), such that on the lips of many and in the minds of all, the question lingered: “Could this man be the Christ?” (Luke 3:15). And so the chief rulers of the Jews sent a contingent of scribes and priests to investigate, and these asked him directly, Who art thou?
There was a great expectation of the people that the Messiah was about to appear (Luke 2:26, 3:15), for the Jewish scribes had been studying the prophesies of Him in detail (Mat 2:4-6). Surely they had also counted the years of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy, and they knew that the time was near at hand. However, John was quick to testify, I am not the Christ. Then he goes on to inform the Pharisees that he was preparing the way for the Christ, and the following day he points out Jesus in person. A few months later John reaffirms his witness that he was not the Christ (John 3:28; Acts 13:25).
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
John denied to the Pharisees that he was Elias, yet Jesus later told his disciples that John truly was Elias (Mat 17:10-13). And before John was born, an angel of the Lord had told his father Zacharias that his son would come in the spirit and power of Elias (Luke 1:17), even quoting Malachi’s prophecy (compare Luke 1:17 with Mal 4:6). John’s denial seems directed to the Pharisees’ erroneous idea of that prophecy, for while they correctly understood from Mal 4:5 that Elijah (Elias) would come before the Messiah (Mat 11:14), their concept of both personages were seriously flawed. Elijah had ascended into heaven alive by means of a whirlwind, and the Jews thought he would descend bodily before the Messiah appeared. In their minds, Elijah would be reincarnated before Messiah appeared, but John denies that idea: he is not the literal soul of Elijah the Tishbite, but had come in the same spirit and power. Thus, he was indeed the prophet that Isiah had foretold would make way the coming of the Lord (Is 40:3), but he was not Elijah (reincarnate).
There was also a belief among some scribes that the prophet Jeremiah would appear before the Messiah (Mat 16:14), and even Herod was caught up in this wild speculation of prophets reincarnated (Mark 6:14-16). These erroneous ideas seem to have been the basis for John’s denial that he was Elias, and they are equally valid to refute the idea of reincarnation, which is that God “reuses” souls, putting the same soul in different human bodies down through history.
That Prophet. The Pharisees also believed Moses’ prophecy in Deut 18:18, that a Prophet would someday arise, although they apparently failed to identify Moses’ Prophet as the Messiah (Acts 3:22).
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John the Baptist, the last prophet of Judaism and the first preacher of the Kingdom (Luke 16:16), was filled with the Holy Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15). By the Spirit, he was fully aware of his life’s purpose to prepare the way for the Messiah, and he fulfilled that mission humbly, sincerely, completely. John did not live to see Messiah’s kingdom come in power at His resurrection. He did not even get to see Jesus’ life of miracles. He died alone, in prison, a largely forgotten man only about 32 years old. Yet Jesus said of him, Verily I say you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist (Mat 11:11). The many references to John the Baptist illustrate his tremendous influence in Israel.
John quoted Isaiah 40:3 to explain who he was; the whole chapter is an amazingly accurate prophesy of the missions and identities of John and Jesus. The Pharisees, however, did not understand it all correctly. John has been called the “forerunner,” because he came before Christ, and stands as the counter-part of the Apostle Paul, the “afterrunner,” who as one born out of season, came after Christ. John and Paul had remarkable ministries, utterly without human rival in the history of the world. Both died in prison, both beheaded by the Roman axe, both felt very alone and rejected by their own when their time to depart this world came (Mat 11:2-3; 2Tim 4:16).
John’s message was: Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mat 3:2), which parallels Is 40:6-7. Jesus continued that theme at the beginning of His ministry (Mat 4:17). See note on Mat 3:3.
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
John created quite a stir in Judaism with his unorthodox method of preaching repentance and baptism. People from all over Israel came to hear him speak, and were baptized by him in the Jordan (Mark 1:5). Although he was a priest, John chose a site outside Jerusalem to proclaim his message of repentance in preparation for the Messiah.
The Christian rite of baptism almost certainly has its origin entirely in the ministry of John the Baptist (an appropriate title). There is no record of a baptizing ministry in any history of the Jewish religion. For a Jew, however, the washings of purification required by ceremonial uncleanness prescribed by the OT law did give baptism a certain legitimacy, and it does not appear that any Jewish ruler denied the validity of John’s new ceremony, although they did question his authority to officiate, and they did envy his standing among the people (Mat 21:25-26).
Some have proposed that baptism was a normal Jewish ritual, even though it is not found in the Torah. It is true that the Jews had many washings and cleansings, but never in connection with voluntary repentance, and never outside of priestly supervision. In particular, those who teach that only a baptism by complete immersion is valid attempt to connect Christian baptism with the Jewish tevilah, which was an extra-Torahic ceremonial bath required only of non-Jewish converts. That argument is flawed, because John’s hearers were Jews, not proselytes. Throughout the Greek NT and Septuagint, the word baptize (baptizo) is never used in connection with any Jewish rite, sacrifice, or cleansing, which fact emphasizes its Christian beginning (see note on Mat 3:6).
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
John readily confessed that he was not the Messiah, but testified that One was even then among them, unknown and unnoticed by all. The other gospels add a detail to John’s confession: I indeed baptize you with water, but One mightier than I cometh…He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Luke 3:16; Mat 3:11). Half of the phrase is found also in John 1:33.
He that cometh after me is preferred before me. Three times in this chapter the Baptist testifies these same words (v15, 27, 30). John’s message was that men should repent for the Kingdom was at hand, and although the text does not explicitly say so, his message apparently included prophecies of the imminent coming of the King of that Kingdom, the Messiah. That is certainly implied in his statement, This is He of whom I said...
After me cometh a man. The ministry of John began before Jesus’ ministry; John was famous and highly-regarded while Jesus was yet unknown. However, the Spirit showed John that Jesus was the One about whom he had been proclaiming the good news of the coming Kingdom.
Which is preferred before me. John recognized publicly that Jesus was greater than he, a statement which is true in every way: in authority, power, character, person and righteousness. Again, only a revelation of the Spirit could have made John aware of Jesus’ true identity; he did not come upon this conclusion by a visual and logical perusal of the facts. John says he is not worthy to even untie the shoes of this Man (also Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16), a startling statement given John’s peerless standing as a holy prophet of God.
He was before me. This is a confession of Jesus’ divinity similar to Jesus’ own words in John 8:58, Before Abraham was, I am. An amazing prophecy of the Messiah’s divine nature is found in Mic 5:2, which alludes to His immortality: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
The book of John contains many testimonies in the form of a triplet. Here are eight, how many more are there?
- three times John the Baptist testifies the same words concerning Jesus the Christ. (John 1:15, 27, 30).
- three times Jesus testified of Himself, I AM (John 8:24, 28, 58, repeated in John 18:5-8).
- three times Pilate testified of Christ, I find no fault in Him (John 18:38; John 19:4, 6).
- three times Jesus repeated an enigma foretelling His resurrection (John 7:33; 13:33; 16:16).
- three times Peter denied that he knew Jesus Christ (John 18:17, 25, 27).
- three times Jesus appeared visually to His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:14).
- three times Jesus asked Peter to “feed My sheep” (John 21:17).
- three times Jesus said He would be lifted up from the earth (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32).
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Most of the ancient Greek manuscripts read Bethany instead of Bethabara, but the reasons for the variation and which is correct is not easily discovered. Obviously, it could be due to a copyist mistake. Due to a passage in his commentary on the book of John, some speculate that Origen is the source of the variation, having changed the name to Bethabara because he believed Bethany was erroneous. I find that doubtful, first because Origen readily acknowledges the existence of both readings, and second because it would be highly unusual for him to change the Scripture. Actually, his testimony reads very believable, that he had personally investigated the area and found a town by the name of Bethabara in that region, but no Bethany, and so while admitting that almost all copies did read Bethany, he believed the correct name to be Bethabara. Furthermore, the OT does mention a Betharabah/Bethbarah in this area (Josh 15:6, 61; 18:22; Judges 7:24), being very near to the site that the children of Israel crossed into the promised land. The history of that event makes an interesting parallel with Jesus’ ministry being first announced here, the place that the miraculous establishment of the nation of Israel began under the leadership of Joshua (Jesus in Hebrew). See the first chapters of the book of Joshua.
Jesus returned to this out-of-the-way spot later, after being threatened with death by the Jews (John 10:40).
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
The Lamb of God. This term was apparently coined by John the Baptist, and pronounced only in these two occasions (v36). Coming at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, it is highly prophetic (Is 53:7) and completely contrary to the Jewish idea of the Messiah at that time. In the book of Revelation, Jesus is represented by a lamb 26 times, yet outside of this passage it occurs elsewhere in the NT only in allusions, such as 1Pet 1:19; Acts 8:32; 1Cor 5:7.
Which taketh away the sin of the world. Theologians debate the exact meaning. Did Jesus take away sins by simple pardon or by suffering the penalty Himself? Did He remove the actual sins, or did He provide a means to be free from the guilt of sin? See my notes on Romans 3.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
See note on John 1:27.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
In saying, I knew him not, John means that he did not recognize on his own that Jesus was the Messiah, but that the Holy Spirit had revealed it to him. The meaning becomes clearer in v33, where John explains that God had given him a sign: he would know the Messiah by seeing the Spirit descend from heaven and remain upon Him. John testified that he saw this happen to Jesus the Nazarene, and by that he knew that this is the Son of God (v34). While John the Baptist grew up in a priestly family in Jerusalem and Jesus grew up in the remote town of Nazareth, it is still likely that they knew of each other personally, at least a little. They were cousins, and their mothers were good friends (see Luke chapter 1). Surely they would have met from time to time at the Jewish festivals in Jerusalem. Many commentators deny this, thinking that it implies collusion between John and Jesus.
From the other gospels, we deduce that John saw this sign of proof when he baptized Jesus (Mat 3:13-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22), but it seems that only the two of them actually saw the Spirit descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove. It was an appropriate signal, since it was foretold by Isaiah (Isa 11:2). The form of a winged dove has much symbolism in the Jewish Scriptures. For example, the Shekinah glory of God dwelt between the outstretched wings of the two cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:20-22). A dove is symbolic of purity, peace, beauty and hope even to this day (Gen 8:11; Mat 10:16; Song 6:9). The Spirit of God hovers over His people, watching and protecting them from on high. He rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and He was seen upon the wings of the wind (2Sam 22:11).
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
The day following his interrogation by the Pharisees, John the Baptist saw Jesus walking by, and announced to those about him that this was the Lamb of God. Apparently Jesus’ baptism had taken place several weeks earlier, upon which He immediately secluded Himself in the wilderness for 40 days (Mark 1:12). Now He has returned, ready for the next step of the mission for which He had been sent.
Two of the men who heard this pronouncement were disciples of John, but they would later become important Apostles of the Lord. It is impressive that it mattered not in the least to the Baptist that by pointing out the Messiah he would lose his best disciples! He was glad of it (John 3:30), for it meant that his mission was being accomplished (John 1:31). One of the two disciples of John was Andrew (see v40), and the other was probably John the Evangelist, writer of this gospel. These two sets of brothers (Peter and Andrew, James and John) were fishing partners from Galilee (Mark 1:16-19), and probably all four had travelled to the Jordan to hear the preaching of the Baptist. Philip and Nathanael formed another set of Galileans who were present at Jesus’ initial presentation.
In keeping with his style of writing elsewhere in this gospel, John the Evangelist does not name himself as the disciple standing with the Baptist (John 13:23; 18:16; 20:2-8; 21:20-23), yet there can be little doubt that the unnamed disciple was indeed the Apostle John. Consequently, a good amount of detailed testimony in this gospel is dedicated to the witness of John the Baptist, and it is evident that the Apostle placed a very high regard upon the witness of the Baptist. This episode took place before Jesus called the four in Mat 4:18-22, and gives context and reason for why they would immediately forsake their jobs and follow Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
Apparently the two disciples, Andrew and John, had decided to follow Jesus to see where he was staying. It was the tenth hour so evening was near, counting by the Jew’s clock, which had 12 hours in a day, daybreak to setting sun. However, many commentators think that John’s Gospel uses Roman time, which would mean this was ten o’clock in the morning. Regardless, the men were surprised in their secret following when Jesus turned around and spoke to them, What seek ye?
The two answered honestly, Rabbi, where dwellest thou? Jesus responded, Come and see.
This is the first meeting or conversation that Jesus had with any of His disciples. He had apparently come alone to Bethabara, apparently direct from the wilderness temptation, and we are left to sincerely wonder about His nightly accommodations. Did He stay with others? Or was He camping outside, as they were accustomed to do later at the Mount of Olives?
Rabbi was a Jewish title of respect used to address religious scholars of that day. The disciples only occasionally used the title when talking to Jesus (see Mat 26:49; Mark 9:5; John 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). Jesus forbade this and all titles that elevate a man in the sight of others (Mat 23:8-11).
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Seeing that he is mentioned in verse 43, it is logical to wonder if Philip was Andrew’s unnamed companion when John the Baptist pointed out to them Jesus, and called Him, the Lamb of God (John 1:35-36). Likely, however, it was John, the writer of this gospel (see note v35), who is everywhere modest in his writings, and never once draws attention to himself by name (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:2). The other Apostles are similarly humble and self-deprecating, always faithful to recount their faults and failures, but diminishing their own gifts and successes. There is no comparable record or action to theirs in the history of the world, and for those men who are truly seeking the truth, it should speak loudly to the authenticity of their message, and provide a wise example for living.
Reading verse 39, one gets the impression that only Andrew and John stayed the night with Jesus, but these verses indicate that after following to His place of lodging, Andrew went to find his brother, We have found the Messiah! And Jesus did not disappoint, calling Simon by name and then re-naming him Peter, a person known by billions of people throughout the world. Cephas (kephas in Greek) comes from the Hebrew word for a rock or stone (keph); the Greek equivalent is petros, or Peter. Except for this verse, Peter is never called Cephas outside of the epistles of Paul (1Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:9). Apparently among the Aramaic-speaking Jews, Peter was known as Cephas, that being the word and language Jesus spoke this day.
Nothing is said about the activities of that other disciple, but I suspect that John also sought out his brother, James. If so, then the two sets of brothers, Andrew and Peter, James and John, had the whole evening to become acquainted with Jesus. And the day following, Jesus would return to Galilee (v43) with two more future apostles, Philip and Nathanael. This initial encounter must have taken place shortly before Jesus’ ministry began and before the formal calling of the four to be disciples of Christ as related in Mat 4:18-22. The fact that they were disciples of John the Baptist shows their spiritual sincerity and desire.
43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. 44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
While the text does not say so, it appears that the four were still with Jesus in the morning when He spied Philip and invited him to follow Me. Being from the same town, perhaps Philip already knew Andrew and Peter. With the addition of Nathanael, who seems to have been Philip’s companion, a full half of the Twelve became acquainted for the first time with Jesus during these two days. And while we cannot be sure that the six followed Jesus back to Galilee, it makes sense that they did, given the next chapter’s events (John 2:1). It is appropriate that these six became convinced that Jesus was the promised Messiah while attending this grand revival meeting led by perhaps the greatest “repent and be baptized” speaker the world has ever known, John the Baptist. Thus, when Jesus called them to be Apostles a short time later on the shores of Galilee, they did not hesitate!
Like Andrew the day before, Philip was convincing and unqualified in testifying to Nathanael that they had found the Messiah, the one long-awaited and foretold of old by Moses and the prophets. Philip said, “And guess what, He is from our own area! His name is Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph’s son.”
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
The Apostle Nathanael is not found so named in any other gospel, and most identify him as the Bartholomew of Mat 10:3; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13. Bartholomew is literally, “the son of Tolmai,” so his full name is Nathanael the son of Tolmai (or Ptolomy). According to many scholars, Nathanael means “gift of God,” and is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name, Theodore. He was from Cana, in the region of Galilee (John 21:2), which was the setting for Jesus’ first miracle only a few days later (John 2:1). Philip, Peter, and Andrew were all also from Galilee, but from the town of Bethsaida (John 1:44; 12:21). James and John were Galileans, but their birthtown is unnamed, however, since they were fishermen with Peter and Andrew, we may infer that they lived not far away (Luke 5:10). See note for Mat 10:2.
Nathanael, a Galilean acquainted with Nazareth, was apparently a little cynical: Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? He was, it seems, simply repeating the common conception of the day, that the nazarenes were were a lowly, uneducated and mean people group (John 7:52). In the NT, Jesus is ususally identified by His hometown rather than by the name of His father. Often the title is used derisively, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, Pilate had written on a sign for all to see (John 19:19). See my note for Matthew 2:23.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Philip replied to Nathanael’s skepticism by saying, “Come and see for yourself.” And Jesus dispelled his doubts by miraculously recounting Nathanael’s recent past: “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.” Nathanael was completely astonished. Many commentators speculate that Nathanael had secluded himself under that fig tree for the purpose of prayer, after all, this was an old-fashioned camp revival meeting. That might explain Jesus’ choice of words, “Behold, a true Israelite and no hypocrite!” On the other hand, it may be that Nathanael was just sitting alone under the fig.
I saw thee. The Greek word can mean more than seeing with the eye. In John chapter 21, for instance, it is used five times in the sense of knowing or understanding a thing or person (John 21:16). Thus, we could translate it: “Before Philip told you about Me, I knew you.” See Ps 139:1-2.
Thou art the King of Israel. While honestly confessing his belief that Jesus was the Messiah, Nathanael appears to also express the Jewish concept that the Messiah would be a king that would deliver them from the Romans (Mat 2:2; Mark 15:32; John 6:15). Jesus was a King (John 18:37), but not in the physical sense (John 18:36).
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Jesus gave Nathanael the expectation that he would see even greater things concerning Himself, but we nevertheless ask, when did Nathanael see angels round about Jesus? Perhaps the statement is more figurative than literal, for throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry Nathanael did see many evidences of His supernatural powers and divine identity. There were occasions that angels were seen with Jesus, for example, at His baptism the heavens were opened (Mat 3:16), in the Garden of Gethsemane an angel came and ministered to Him (Luke 22:43), and at His transfiguration on the mount (Mark 9:2-10). Also, the martyr Stephen saw heaven opened and Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56), and at His trial Jesus told His Jewish captors that they would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven (Mat 26:64).
From Jesus’ first coming unto His second, true seekers will spiritually see heaven opened and will experience the power of Christ descending from heaven in tune with ascending prayers of the saints (Rev 8:2-5). Consequently, there is an allusion to Jacob’s vision of angels ascending and descending a ladder that reached into heaven (Gen 28:12). Seeing heaven open indicates revelation, new understanding, power and divinity.
The Son of man. This is by far the most common title Jesus uses when referring to Himself, and is found in all four gospels. Throughout the book of Ezekiel, God addressed that prophet as, son of man, but that is not the origin of Jesus’ title (which omits “the”). Rather, He draws it from Dan 7:13, where the context is similar to this first recorded usage of the term in the gospels. Clearly Jesus was creating a link between His OT title and His affirmation that heaven would be opened.a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapter 1)
