Introductory remarks:
"The prologue: The first eighteen verses contain a preface, or as it is usually called, the prologue to the Gospel. In this prologue the writer identifies the person, Jesus Christ, whom he is about to introduce on the field of history, with the Logos. He first describes the Logos in His relation to God and to the world, and then presents in abstract the history of His reception among men, which he is about to give in detail. That the Eternal Divine Word, in whom was the life of all things, became flesh and was manifested among men; that some ignored while others recognized Him; that some received while others rejected Him - that is what John means to exhibit in detail in his Gospel, and this is what he summarily states in this prologue" (The Expositor's Greek Testament).
The Word Became Flesh
Verse 1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
LGT "In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God."
"In the beginning was the Word,"
As you notice in the LGT 'the' is in brackets, because it is not in the original. The reason that John did not use the article 'the' in this first phrase is as A.T. Robertson points out that John is taking us back beyond creation to eternity past. He also points out that neither this verse nor Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," proves the existence of God; 'Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.' In the first chapter and the first verse of John's first epistle he takes the reader back to the 'beginning' of Christ's incarnation, and here John takes his readers back to eternity past, infinity. I do appreciate the statement that either a person believes in the pre-existence of the Godhead as stated in Scripture, or a person must invent a 'theory' to fill the void in the intellect that must take the place of faith in a Supreme Creator.
The next word 'was' is an imperfect tense of 'I am.' It is used three times in this first verse.
"Was (as Dr. Lenske points out) is known as a durative imperfect, meaning continued action. It means that the Word was in the beginning. What beginning? Just as far back as you want to go. The Bible says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' Does that begin God? No, just keep on going back billions and trillions and 'squillions' of years. I can think back to billions of years back of creation - maybe you can go beyond that - but let's put down a point there, billions of years back of creation. He already was; he comes out of eternity to meet us. He did not begin. 'In the beginning was the Word' - He was already there when the beginning was. 'Well,' somebody says, 'there has to be a beginning somewhere.' All right, wherever you begin, he is there to meet you, He is already past tense. 'In the beginning was the Word' - five words in the original language, and there is not a man topside of this earth who can put a date on it or understand it or fathom it. This first tremendous statement starts us off in space, you see" (T.T.B J.Vernon McGee).
The Word in Greek is 'ho logos.' The identity of the Word is the Lord Jesus Christ. The English language does not completely define 'logos' with 'Word.' The best it can do is by capitalizing it.
"No doubt the English term 'Word' is an inadequate rendering of the Greek logos, but it would be difficult to find one less inadequate. In a version or commentary intended for scholars it might suffice to retain logos untranslated, but it will not really do to retain it in a work intended for the general reader, like James Moffatt's translation. Moffatt's translation of the Gospel begins with the statement, 'The Logos existed in the very beginning,' and this is justified by the observation that 'Logos is at any rate less misleading than 'Word' would be to a modern reader.' But if Logos is not completely meaningless to an ordinary reader, it probably suggests something like 'reason', and that is more misleading than 'Word'. A 'word' is a means of communication, the expression of what is on one's mind" (The Gospel and Epistles of John, F.F.Bruce).
"And the Word was with God,"
The word 'with' in Greek is 'pros' and Robertson says that when 'pros' is used with the accusative, that is, with the direct object of the finite verb, it presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other, in perfect fellowship. Now notice in the LGT 'God' has the article so it means God the Father, and not God's essence. Whenever the article is used, generally, specificity is implied, and when it is not used, generally, quality is assumed. I use the term 'generally' in both cases because there are some rare exceptions to the rule. John is saying that Jesus Christ existed with the Father in eternity past, that is, go back in time as far as you like kids, and Christ and God were there existing.
"And the Word was God'.
Now if you notice the LGT 'God' does not have the article, so quality or essence is referred to. The last phrase states that Jesus Christ existed with the God in eternity past, and in this phrase John states that Jesus Christ is of the same eternal essence as the God. Now we must keep in mind that in the Greek it reads 'And God was the Word.' In Greek if you have two Words of equality the one with the article will be the subject, and so it should read, 'And the Word was God'. Now 'God' is preceded by the conjunction 'and' shows that the main emphasis is on 'God.' What this all means is that the Word is the subject, and that the Word is of the same essence with the Father. The NEB paraphrases this clause, 'what God was, the Word was'. F.F. Bruce quotes C. K. Barrett, "John intends that the whole of his Gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and Words of Jesus are the deeds and Words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous".
The Gnostic heretics of John's day were denying the deity of Christ, just as the Jehovah Witnesses (among other false cults) of today are denying the deity of Christ by saying that this phrase should read, 'And the Word was a god'. This interpretation is denying the Truth as John intended it.
Verse 2, "The same was in the beginning with God".
LGT "This One was in (the) beginning with the God".
John is stating here that this One, the Word of verse one, is this same one of verse two, and that He is with 'the God'. God has the article so it is the Father that John is referring to. Before John speaks of the incarnation of Christ, he makes it very clear, the eternal pre-existence of Christ.
Verse 3, "All things were made by Him: and without Him was not anything made that was made".
LGT "All things through Him came into being, and without Him not one thing came into being. That has come into existence".
"All things"
John is specific here as not to just mention the 'cosmos' as a whole, but he particularizes every part, that is 'all things'. Paul states the same principle in his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter eight verse six, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live". And in his letter to the Colossians chapter one verse thirteen through seventeen, "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" (NKJV).
"Were made by Him":
I looked up the verb 'were made' in my Analytical Greek Lexicon, and it is 'egeneto' which is a second aorist middle indicative meaning, has come into being'. This is where we get our word 'generate' and 'generation' so you can see how it is translated 'came into existence or being'. By Him is sufficiently explained in the last clause.
"And without Him was not any thing made that was made".
The LGT has it more correctly 'has come into existence or being'. F.F. Bruce says, 'That was 'made' is in the perfect tense and denotes the present state of all things is a result of its 'becoming' in the past'. The NEB renders it, 'No single thing was created without Him. All came to be was alive with His life'. 'Verse four begins about the creative Word, not creative life' (Bruce).
Verse 4, "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men".
LGT "In Him was life, and the life was the light of the men:"
"In Him was life;"
That which came into existence in verse three was life. The term for life here is 'zoe' from which we get our word 'zoology' the study of animal life. John usually uses 'zoe' when he speaks of spiritual life, but here he is making a reference to Christ as the indirect cause of all life, that is, as stated in verse three, 'All things were created through Him'. Christ is the center of all life. 'Here' as Robertson says, 'the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not bios (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree'.
"And the life was the light of men".
Men are endowed with a different form of life, which is distinct from other creatures in that we are able to distinguish the 'Light'. Calvin says, "As it is not vain that God imparts His Light to their minds (all men), it follows that the purpose for which they were created was, that they might acknowledge Him who is the Author of so excellent a blessing". Men are separated from all other forms of life in that we are able not only to perceive the Light, but also to communicate this life. Robertson also brings out an important grammatical point about this clause, 'Here the article with both zoe (life) and phos (light) makes them interchangeable, that is it is just as correct to say, 'The light was the life of men'. The verb 'was' is a copulative (connective) word that makes them interchangeable when they are each used with their own article. A clause that comes to mind that is separated by a copulative, but both do not have the article is 'God is love;' you could not say 'love is God'. John is very careful in his wording to support what he said in verse three that 'Through Him all things Came to be'. That Christ is the indirect creator of all things, that is, that God created all things through the Son, is brought out later in the fifth chapter verses 19-29, "Then Jesus answered and said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 'For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that he Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 'For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 'For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 'that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 'Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 'For as the Father has life in Himself, so He granted the Son to have life in Himself, 'and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man (The God Man - very God of very God). 'Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 'and come forth - those who have done good (believed on Christ), to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" (cast into the lake of fire) [NKJV]. This is a taste of things to come in this Gospel; I am sure we will have a really great time.
Verse 5, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not".
LGT "And the light in the darkness is shining (even now), and the darkness is not apprehending it".
"And the light shineth in darkness".
The world in its original state was covered with darkness, until Christ spoke the words 'Let there be light'. Darkness cannot stay off light. Light can drive away any and all darkness. One little candle can light a darkened room, just as Christ, 'the light of the world' can light a darkened soul. The problem with our society and every society since Paradise is, 'that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Light and darkness cannot 'peacefully co-exist'. A man must either live in darkness or accept the light. John uses the simile of light representing truth throughout this Gospel; 'light is a synonym for truth and darkness is a synonym of evil and falsehood' (Bruce).
The word 'shining' in the Greek is 'Phainei' and is a perfect tense meaning it started shining in the past and is still shining (as Vincent says, 'without interruption'), that is why I put 'even now' in parenthesis in my LGT. The light is shining in spite of the darkness, for the darkness cannot stop the light.
Calvin makes a very searching statement about this clause, "The statement that the light shineth in darkness is not at all intended for the commendation of the depraved nature, but rather for taking away every excuse for ignorance".
"And the darkness comprehended it not".
Men in general, that is, outside the light of salvation, cannot comprehend the light, because, even though they are created with the ability to reason, men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. I am sorry I cannot explain this phenomenon, but all I can do is explain why I personally believe in the Light of the world, Jesus Christ my Savior. I do know that men are endowed from birth with the ability to believe, so they are without excuse, however, only a few will believe.
"Man especially was endued with an extraordinary gift of understanding; and though by his revolt he lost the light of understanding, yet he still sees and understands, so that what he naturally possesses from the grace of the Son of God is not entirely destroyed. But since by his stupidity and perverseness he darkens the light which dwells in him, it remains that a new office be undertaken by the Son of God, the office of Mediator, to renew, by the Spirit of regeneration, man who had been ruined" (John Calvin's Comm. on The Gospel of John).
Verse 6, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John".
LGT "There was a man who was sent with a message from God, (the) name to him John".
. "There was a man sent from God",
The word 'sent' in this clause is 'apestalmenos' a passive participle, from which the word 'apostellow' an apostle is derived, one who is sent forth. The word 'sent' as used here, being a passive participle, means that John was 'one who is sent with a message or commission. Vincent says, 'the statement is not merely equivalent to was sent. The finite verb and the participle are to be taken separately, as stating two distinct facts, the appearance and the mission of John. There came a man, and that man was sent from God'. A fuller account of John's being sent to bear witness is in verses 19-34.
John Calvin makes an interesting statement that 'what is asserted about John, is required in all the teachers of the church, that they be called by God; so that the authority of teaching may not be founded on any other than on God alone'. I have heard so many testimonies from men and women who claim that God called them to such and such a place, or for such and such a ministry, but it is still a mystery to me what this call consists of. I agree that if a man is to teach the Word of God, the Word of God has to be the ultimate authority, but about the call, I have never heard anyone, who were being honest, say they were called in the same manner that John the Baptist was called.
"Whose name was John".
The name 'John' in the Hebrew means 'God has dealt graciously'. The Hellenized Greek form of John means 'Gift of God' (Vincent - Robertson).
Verse 7, "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through Him might believe".
LGT "He came for a witness in order that he might bear witness concerning the light, in order that all (men and women) might be believing unto Him".
"The same came for a witness",
The reason the KJV version is using the word 'same' is that it obviously is referring to John the Baptist of verse six. To be a witness is to 'bear testimony' of something, and that is why John is sent by God into the world.
"To bear witness of the Light,"
John the Baptist was sent into the world to bear witness or testify to the world of the 'Light of the world' Christ Jesus, and Christ would take away the sin of the world, that all men might be saved. This is the entire purpose for 'The Baptist's ' ministry, for after Christ began His public ministry, John prayed, 'I must decrease, in order that He (Christ) might increase'.
"That all men through Him might believe".
John the Baptist was simply a herald to point men to Christ, in order that they might believe. I believe the Apostle John could testify to the same purpose.
"The Baptist took up the work of the prophets, as respects their preparation for the universal extension of the divine call (Isaiah 49:6). His message was to men, without regard to nation, sect, descent, or other considerations" (Word Studies in the N.T. Vincent).
Verse 8, "He was not the Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light".
LGT "That one was not the Light, but (he came) in order that he might witness concerning the Light".
"He was not the light",
The demonstrative pronoun 'he' used with reference to a thing previously mentioned, or implied, or already familiar (Analytical Greek lexicon). This is the reason in my LGT I use the term 'that one'.
Robertson says that the Baptist was a light, just as all Christians are, but he was not 'The Light'. John the Baptist was just 'a voice crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord', 'behold the Lamb of God which is taking away the sin of the world'.
"But was sent to bear witness of that Light".
'There is no verb in this clause so 'was sent', lit. 'He came' is supplied from verse seven' (Robertson).
"If the Evangelist (the Apostle John) denies that John the Baptist was the light, we should not forget that Jesus speaks of him as 'the lamp that burns and shines' (5:35). The function of a lamp is to let the light be seen; that was 'Jesus' estimate of the quality of John's witness" (The Gospel and Epistles of John, F.F. Bruce).
Verse 9, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
LGT "There was the Light the true one, which was to be a light to every man, the one coming into the world".
"That was the true Light",
The emphasis I believe is on the 'Light' shining to all men, rather than as the KJV renders it 'which lightens every man coming into the world. The whole context of the last few verses is on the Light that will save. I don't believe it is John's intent to contrast different types of light, that is, true from false, but that Christ is the only 'Light'.
"Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world".
As you can see from my LGT it is the Light that is coming into the world that is emphasized; however, it is this Light that will shine unto all men for their salvation, if they will.
Every man has the light shining unto him; and if they refuse this light, they will not have an excuse before the Father. About those coming into the world with knowledge of this Light it is said, "If they remain in darkness, it is not because there is no illumination for them, but because they deliberately prefer the darkness". (Bruce)
Verse 10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not".
LGT "He was in the world, and the world through Him came to be, and the world did not know Him".
"He was in the world",
John in verse ten is using the personal pronoun 'Him', from earlier referring to the 'Light', which of course all refer to Christ. Christ was in the world from its creation on. Paul in Romans chapter one says that He was known in creation, but men prefer to worship the creation rather than the Creator.
"And the world was made by Him",
John stated in the first part of this chapter that all things exist through Christ. It should not surprise any believer to know that the unbeliever refuses to recognize that Christ is the indirect cause of all creation.
"And the world knew Him not".
It would better read 'and the world would not recognize Him'. John uses the Greek word 'cosmos' here meaning the godless world, in opposition from His created world. Christ is seen everywhere there is life.
"It follows that no proper excuse can be found for the ignorance of the world (godless world) in not knowing Christ, before He was manifested in the flesh; for it arose from the indolence and wicked stupidity of those who had opportunities of seeing Him always present by His power. The whole may be summed up by saying that never was Christ in such a manner absent from the world, but that men, aroused by His rays, ought to have raised their eyes towards Him. Hence it follows, that the blame must be imputed to themselves" (John Calvin's Comm. on the Gospel of John).
Verse 11, "He came unto His own [His own things], and His own [people] received Him not".
LGT "He came unto His own (lit. His own things), and His own ones would not receive Him".
"He came unto His own things".
"Unto his own" a neuter plural clause, and most commentators I am reading say, unto His own creation. Specifically it refers to the Jewish nation, and generally to the whole world.
"And His own people received Him not".
This I believe does refer to the Jewish nation, for we well know that the Jews as a whole would not receive Him as they're promised Messiah.
Verse 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".
LGT "But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority (including power-which would be expressed as legitimate 'right') to become children of God, to the ones believing unto His name".
"But as many as received Him",
John said in the previous verse that not all would receive Christ, but to the ones who would receive Him:
"To them gave He power to become the sons of God",
The ones that would receive Christ, Christ gives them the legitimate power and authority to be part of His royal family, that is, legitimate adopted children. Calvin points out that the 'Papists' taught that the clause simply meant that to the ones who received Him as the Son of God, they had the power to become the sons of God, but not that they necessarily would become sons. By saying this, the Papists were teaching that the people would be dependant on them (the Roman Catholic Church) for their salvation, and not God. The papists were taking the free will of man, completely out of the equation. Like all false cults, the Papists were reading only part of the Gospel, so there is no way they could possibly get the whole story of free Grace Salvation.
"Even to them that believe on His name".
And now for the 'rest of the story'. Whenever the word believe is used in regards to salvation John uses a preposition, such as, 'in', 'into', 'unto', or 'on', accompanying belief. The fact of putting your trust in Christ as Savior is understood in the term 'believe'. I find it very difficult to see how the 'Experimental Predestinarians' get the idea that to put your trust in Christ is a work, and therefore it would no longer be by Grace that one is saved. It is not a work of the flesh that one recognizes that Christ is who He says He is, and to merely accept this fact is not a work but an act of faith. Christ did all the work, and I believe on Him as my substitute, and that he paid the price for every one of my sins, and imputed on me His perfect righteousness, and made me a family member as one of God's dear children, all by faith, for it could not have been appropriated through my natural reasoning powers.
Verse 13, "Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".
LGT "Which (children of God) not of bloods neither out of the will of flesh neither out of (the) will of man but out of God were begotten".
"Who were born",
The 'as many' in verse twelve were begotten of God, spiritual generation, 'ek Theou' out of God.
"Not of blood",
Notice in the LGT blood is plural. I believe along with some good commentators that John uses the plural because the Jews that were claiming a long line of decent as God's chosen people. John Calvin has made a very concise statement regarding this use of 'bloods':
"Some think that an indirect reference is here made to the preposterous confidence of the Jews, and I willingly adopt that opinion. They had continually in their mouth the nobleness of their lineage, as if, because they were descended from a holy stock, they were naturally holy. And justly might have gloried in their descent from Abraham, if they had been lawful sons, and not bastards; but the glorying of faith ascribes nothing whatever to carnal generation, but acknowledges its obligation to the grace of God alone for all that is good. John, therefore, says, that those among the formerly unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ are not born the sons of God from the womb, but are renewed by God, that they may begin to be His sons. The reason why John uses the word blood in the plural number appears to have been, that he might express more fully a long succession of lineage; for this was part of the boasting among the Jews, that they could trace their descent, by an uninterrupted line, upwards to the Patriarchs" (John Calvin's Comm. on The Gospel of John).
"Nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God."
All of these clauses describe physical birth, as opposed to the last clause 'but of God'. John emphasizes these two births in the third chapter, 'born of the flesh, and born of the Spirit'. 'As many as receive Christ, to them gave He the right to become God's children, begotten of God'.
"There is a progress of thought in the three following clauses, describing the proper origin of a believers new life. Children of God are begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. 'The new birth is not brought about by descent, by desire, or by human power' (Wescott).
Verse 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".
LGT "And the Word became flesh and had His abode (tabernacled) with us, and we beheld (gazed intently on) His glory, as the glory of only (the) begotten from the Father, filled full of grace and truth".
"And the Word was made flesh",
The LGT is more Preferable in this clause, 'the Word became flesh'. The word made is 'egeneto' came to be or became. After all, it is the pre-incarnate Christ that caused all flesh to 'come to be'. Christ took on Himself in His virgin birth, his incarnation, all of our human nature, apart from sin. John is making a proclamation regarding the true humanity of Christ, against the Docetic Gnostics, that were teaching, some 'heavenly humanity of a different order' (Bruce).
"In becoming (flesh), He did not cease to be the Eternal Word. His divine nature was not laid aside. In becoming flesh He did not part with the rational soul of man. Retaining all the essential properties of the Word, He entered into a new mode of being, not a new being. The word sarks, flesh, describes this new mode of being. It signifies human nature in and according to its corporeal manifestation. Here, as opposed to the purely divine, and to the purely immaterial nature of the Word. He did not first become a personality on becoming flesh. The prologue (verses 1-14) throughout conceives Him as a personality from the very beginning - from eternal ages. The phrase became flesh, means more than that he assumed a human body. He assumed human nature entire, identifying Himself with the race of man, having a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit (see 12:27; 11:33:13:21; 19:30). He did not assume, for a time merely, humanity as something foreign to Himself. The incarnation was not a mere accident of His substantial being. 'He became flesh, and did not clothe Himself in flesh'. Compare, on the whole passage, I John 4:2; II John 7" (Word Studies in the N.T. Vincent).
The Gnostics denied both the humanity of Christ and the deity of Christ. In these first fourteen verses John has already dispelled both the Docetic and Cerinthian Gnostic heresies against the deity and the humanity of Christ. When the truth of God's Word is attacked, John becomes 'a son of thunder', a name given him by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. John's Epistles were a testimony for the truth, as well as this Gospel, for it is 'The Word of God'.
"And dwelt among us",
The word dwelt in Greek is 'eskinosen' form the word that is literally 'tent or tabernacle. Vincent says that only John, here in this Gospel, and once in Revelation, uses this verb. I think it is very interesting in that it not only points out the fact that Jesus came to fulfill all that was taught of Him in the Old Testament Tabernacle, how He filled the tabernacle and temple with His 'Shekinah' glory, but also He came to die for the world, and would not be here on this earth in His human nature long. A tent speaks of a nomadic life, not one of permanence. Just as Christ filled the tabernacle with His Glory, He now came to fill the earth with the same.
"And we beheld His glory,"
John uses the same word 'beheld' as he used in his first epistle, 'theomi' meaning to gaze intently upon. John wanted everyone to behold this 'Shekinah' Glory that pre-existed in Old Testament times. Robertson says, 'by this word John insists in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed with God. By this plural (the exclusive 'we') John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did.'
"As of the only begotten of the Father",
John by using the term 'only begotten' gr. 'monogenous' he is making reference to Christ's pre-existence with the Father, rather than Christ's incarnation. It is also more correct to translate 'from the Father'. 'Monogenous' - 'only begotten' distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (teknia) of God (verse 12); and further, in that the only Son did not become (genesthei) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic (i.e., attributing human form and human modes of activity to God, as when we speak of the hand, the face, the eye of God, or of begetting as here), and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation' (Vincent).
"Full of grace and truth".
The word grace is not as common with John as it is with the Apostle Paul. The word 'truth' is John's by-word. However, it is impossible to separate the two words. Whenever John speaks of 'truth', grace is inferred, and whenever Paul speaks of 'grace' truth is inferred.
Verse 15, "John bore witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me".
LGT "John is witnessing concerning Him and has cried out saying, This was of whom I spoke, The One who is coming after me, is become before me, because he was before me".
"John bore witness of Him",
Witness 'marturei' is in the present tense meaning that even though John the Baptist is dead when this Gospel is being written, the substance of his proclamation 'cried out' is permanently true (Bruce).
"He now relates what was the preaching of John. By using the verb testifieth (marturei) in the present tense, he denotes a continued act, and certainly this doctrine must be continually in force, as if the voice of John were continually resounding in the ears of men. In the same manner he afterwards uses the word cry, to intimate that the doctrine of John was in no degree obscure or ambiguous, and that he did not mutter among a few men ('That he did not speak between his teeth, and communicate the matter, as it were secretly, to a few persons'), but openly, and with a loud voice, preached Christ. The first sentence is intended to convey the statement, that he was sent for the sake of Christ, and therefore that it would have been unreasonable that he should be exalted, while Christ was lying low" (John Calvin's Comm. on The Gospel of John).
"And cried saying",
Cried kekragen is in the second perfect tense indicating that what he cried out loud in the past is still resonating in the future as a completed message, and is permanently true.
"This was He of whom I spoke",
John uses the imperfect indicative here throwing the tense back in past time (Robertson) when he himself 'was a voice crying in the wilderness' looking forward to the coming Messiah. John the Baptist had one mission, to call people to the coming Christ, and once Christ arrived and started His earthly ministry, John disappeared.
"He that cometh after me is preferred before me;"
The literal translation reads 'is become before me'. The term 'before' is used of time not rank. Vincent says, 'the expression is enigmatical in form: 'my successor is my predecessor.' What he is actually saying is, the One who is coming after me is the One I have been crying out about. John never had a reason to doubt the superiority of Christ, and that is not the issue here, as we will see by the next clause.
"For He was before me."
John the Baptist was born before Christ and he now says that Christ was before him, John recognizes that Christ pre-existed with the Father before John was. I like the translation of the NEB "Before I was born, He already was." John is the first to admit that just because Christ came after him in time, is no reason to assume Christ is not the first to be preferred; for this is the Christ of John's entire message.
Verse 16, "And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace."
LGT "Because out of His fullness we all received and grace upon grace."
"And of His fullness have all we received,"
This verse logically should be read following verse 14, because verse 15 is parenthetical. In verse 14, Christ is said to have taken the form of human nature and dwelt among men, and that he was filled full with grace and truth; of the fullness of Christ we receive His grace upon grace. 'The KJV has a conjunction 'and' beginning this verse, but the correct reading is 'because', 'hoti', thus connecting the following sentence with 'full of grace and truth' in verse 14. 'We know Him as full of grace and truth, because we have received of His fullness' (Vincent).
The Greek word for 'fullness' is 'pleromatos', meaning 'complete in every way,' and has a very important meaning in this context; the fullness in verse 14 and the 'full of grace and truth' in verse 16, are connected, and they mean that 'It pleased the Father that in Him (Christ) should all the fullness dwell' (Col. 1:19).
"In Him dwelleth all the pleroma (fullness) of the Godhead bodily (i.e., corporeally, becoming incarnate), and in Him ye are fulfilled (pleromenoi). This declares the whole aggregate of the divine powers and graces appeared in the incarnate Word (Christ), and corresponds with John's statement that 'the Word became flesh and tabernacled among men, full of grace and truth;' while 'ye are fulfilled' answers to John's 'of His fullness we all received.' Hence John's meaning here is that Christians receive from the divine completeness whatever each requires for the perfection of his character and for the accomplishment of His work" (Vincent's Word Studies in the N.T.).
I should explain that what 'Vincent' is saying in this quote is that it is the fullness of Christ that is bestowed on every believer, because He 'tabernacled' among us, that is Christ became a man in order to redeem man; by redeeming man, we all are recipients of the divine riches of the grace of Christ. I must add that it is impossible to fully appreciate these riches if we don't know what they are, and this is the reason we must study God's Word, that we may 'know Him, and the fellowship of His suffering, and the power of His resurrection.' You see kids, how it all ties together; first Christ died in order to save us, and then adopted us as His dear children, and at the same time He saved us, He bestowed on each and every one of us all the 'fullness' the Father bestowed on Christ (the divine riches of His grace), and then He exhorts us to study to find out what they are in order to be able to fully appreciate them. Once we learn what these divine riches of grace are, we are able to incorporate them in our lives, and we are able to relax and know the full purpose of our calling, and not to run around trying to save everyone, because we don't want their 'blood to be required at our hands.' When we share the 'Good News' of God's grace with someone it should be that they also would have these 'riches of divine grace.' You will be able to see all of these facts in the first part of chapter one, so you see what wonderful things await us in the remainder of John's Gospel.
"And grace for grace."
Here in this clause we have an example of how one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence. The word 'for' in the Greek is 'anti' meaning in exchange for, and it means one grace exchanged for another grace, in other words an endless supply of God's wonderful grace. This is evident in our lives as we grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; the more we learn the more we want to learn, and we are able to see how God revealed to us a portion of His grace to us at one point in our lives, and then as we grew up a little, he would reveal a little more of His marvelous grace.
Verse 17, "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
LGT "Because the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ came to be."
"For the law was given by Moses,"
The word 'by' is 'through' Moses as the intermediate agent of the Law. The law came from God, and it was not without grace and truth; as a matter of fact, the law was given by God, as a 'schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ,' Who was the fulfillment of the law.
"But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
As you can see, the KJV has the word 'but' in italics, and that is because it is not in the original. It could be a misleading interjection, for it seems to intimate that grace and truth did not exist in the law. John is simply referring to the fulfillment of the law by Jesus Christ; the grace of God that was seen in the types of the O.T. is revealed as complete in Jesus Christ in the N.T. Notice in my LGT grace and truth both have an article preceding them, and this means a particular grace and truth that is fulfilled in Christ. 'This is the grace and truth the Father revealed through Jesus Christ, as the intermediate agent; God is the active agent Who designed the Plan of Salvation, God the Son, the God man incarnate, is the One Who executed the Plan, and God the Holy Spirit is the One Who empowers the Plan' (Chafer).
Verse 18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him."
LGT "God no one has ever seen; only (the) begotten of God, the One who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."
"No man hath seen God at any time;"
John is saying that no one has seen God with the physical eye. His only begotten Son, inferring that He is eternal and pre-existent with the Father, He has declared Him. The One who has seen the Father is coming.
"The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,"
The best old Greek manuscripts, says Robertson, read, 'God only begotten.' This is the declaration of John, that the only begotten, who is in the presence of the Father, He has declared Him.
"He hath declared Him."
The Son of God is able to declare the glory of God based on His perpetual fellowship with the Father. The Son of God by coming in the flesh, and living a perfect life declares God's glory, Christ never lost fellowship with the Father but once, while He was paying the price for our sins on the Cross. Christ was out of fellowship with the Father for three hours in total darkness, while He paid the supreme sacrifice in atoning for yours and my sin. Christ died, and He died alone.
The Testimony of John The Baptist
Verse 19, "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, who art thou"?
LGT "And this is the testimony of the John, when the Jews sent [to him] priests and Levites from Jerusalem in order that they might ask him, thou who are you?"
"And this is the record of John,"
This is the first record of John concerning the life of John the Baptist; the apostle tells of the Baptist being questioned by a religious delegation sent by the Jewish leaders (either the Sanhedrin or the Temple authorities). The word for 'record' is 'marturia' meaning a 'testimony', John's personal testimony, if you will. Notice in the LGT the use of the article before 'John', meaning, a particular John (The Baptist).
"When the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him",
John was born into a priestly line of the Levites, and was a very commanding figure as an O.T. Prophet. It will be interesting to see the progression of the Jews rejection and complete hatred of Christ. John uses the term 'Jews' here so as to separate them from the common Jew who made up the multitude, some of which believed in the Christ.
"Who art thou"?
Literally, 'thou, who art thou'? The Jews were looking for the promised Messiah to set up His Great Kingdom, but when it is revealed to them that Christ came as their Savior, they seethed with hatred for Jesus. The Jewish leaders were wondering if John was this Messiah. As Christ did not set up His kingdom at once kindled hatred in the Jewish leaders because they were going to lose their leadership roles. If Christ set up His Church on earth, there would be no need for leaders other than Himself, through His inspired Word, and as the Apostle Paul stated it, 'There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek'. The Jews were proud that they were God's chosen few, and it galled them to think that all of Christ's disciples would be on equal footing with the Jew.
Verse 20, "And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ".
LGT "And he confessed and did not deny, and confessed that 'I am not the Christ'."
"And he confessed, and denied not;"
The word 'confess' is from 'homologeo' to say the same thing. The idea of his confession is, 'I have never claimed to be the Christ'. The priests and Levites were asking John if he was the 'Promised Messiah,' and John's answer is, you have the wrong man.
"But confessed, I am not the Christ."
This evidently was not a new question to John, and his answer is also not new, 'I am not the Christ, but Christ is here' (Vincent).
Verse 21, "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, no".
LGT "And they asked him, what then? Are you Elias" and he says I am not. Are you the prophet? And he answered, no."
"And they asked him, what then?"
In other words if your not the Christ, who are you?
"Art thou Elias? And saith, I am not."
The Jews that were questioning John were well aware of the O.T. prophesy that Elijah would be the forerunner of the Lord predicted in Malachi 4:5, "Behold, I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the coming of the great and [terrible] day of the Lord". John answered emphatically I am not.
"Art thou that prophet? And he answered no."
The prophet they are here referring to is Moses. The reason I make this comparison is that the word 'prophet' is preceded by an article, and is referring to a particular prophet, not just a prophet in general. There is no way to be dogmatic here, it just makes good sense to me, because first they ask him if he was the Messiah, and then Elijah, and now 'the prophet'. I did check with several commentators and they seem to agree based on the same principle of the use of the article. John's answer here is as short and to the point as possible, no!
Verse 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?"
LGT "They therefore said to him, who are you? In order that we might give an answer to the ones who sent us; what do you say concerning yourself"?
"Then said they unto him, who art thou"?
Same question as verse 19, only more brief. I imagine these Jews are beginning to get a little frustrated, except they give John a reason for their repetition in questioning him.
"That we may give an answer to them that sent us."
They explain to John that they did not want to go home from their deputation without answers.
"What sayest thou of thyself".
If you are none of the great ones we mentioned, who do you say you are?
Verse 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".
LGT "He said, 'I [am] a voice crying in the wilderness, you all make straight the way of [the] Lord, Just as Isaiah the prophet said".
"He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness".
John describes himself as the forerunner of Christ quoting Isaiah 40:3, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God". The O.T. fulfillment of this prophecy was God leading the children of Israel home from Babylonian captivity, and the N.T. writers saw in it the redemption of the Church through Christ.
"Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias".
John is quoting Isaiah in saying, 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord', that is, get ready the Lord is on His way, and it was John's high honor to announce it (Bruce).
Verse 24, "And they which were sent were of the Pharisees."
LGT "And having been sent were out from the Pharisees."
This verse simply explains what this deputation of Jews had already made known.
Verse 25, "And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet'?
LGT "And they asked him and said to him, why therefore do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elias neither the prophet?"
"Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet."
Robertson says that proselyte baptism was going on before John's time, and its use by John was treating them as if they were mere gentiles. There were many different types of washings in the O.T. each signifying a type of cleansing, and the Jews were looking at John's baptism as a ritual of the same sort. Baptism of any sort is strictly symbolical, and it is very strange how the early Church leaders taught that men must be baptized in order to be saved. Error crept into the church in the very first century.
"The Pharisees would be especially interested in the religious implication of John's activity, and particularly in his warrant for baptizing. Their question suggests that baptism in their eyes was an eschatological (end time prophecy) rite, to be administered by one of the expected figures of the end time. The community of Qumran and other Essene groups (esthetic groups living in the Qumran Caves by the Dead Sea) made a special feature of bathing in purifying water, invoking as their authority such passages as Ezek. 36:25, where the God of Israel tells His people how, in time of restoration, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean ." The men of Qumran considered themselves to be the righteous community of the end-time, and John in his turn was commissioned 'to make ready for the lord a people prepared' (Luke 1:17). His baptism was apparently distinctive in that he administered it personally; it was not self-administered, as proselyte baptism was. John had supreme authority for his baptism ministry: 'he who sent me to baptize with water' (verse 33) was God. That being so, his personal status was unimportant; he was an instrument in God's hand for the introduction of someone greater than himself" (The Gospel of John F.F. Bruce).
Verse 26, "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth One among you, whom ye know not;"
LGT "John answering saying, I am baptizing with water: midst of you standing firm, One whom you all are not knowing,"
"I baptize with water:"
John is saying that he is baptizing with water, which is a ritual cleansing, and a type of the baptism, which would follow. "There is a contrast here, which is not fully stated; for the spiritual baptism of Christ is not expressly contrasted with the external baptism of John, but that latter clause about the baptism of the Spirit might easily be supplied, and shortly afterwards both are set down by the Evangelist" (Calvin).
"But there standeth One among you, whom ye know not."
John had already baptized Jesus and recognized Him as the Messiah (Robertson). The best texts omit 'but' which brings out the sharp contrast between the Baptist and his Successor (Vincent). The verb standing in this verse has the connotation of 'one standing fast and firm.' The word 'ye' is emphatic, and could be rendered, 'you refuse to know'.
Verse 27, "He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."
LGT "He after me is coming, of whom I am not worthy in order to unloose His sandals."
"He it is, who coming after me."
John is making two statements about Christ in this verse, (1) Christ is following him, and (2) Christ is far superior to him.
"Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."
John can't emphasize enough that Christ is his superior. Notice in the LGT that the phrase 'is preferred before me' is not in the Greek text; John will make this statement soon enough. I have enjoyed reading of the willingness of John to be the servant of Christ without the glory that belongs to Christ alone. If our modern preachers could only convince themselves that they are not necessary, but that 'they only have a privilege of sharing God's wonderful Word with their family, then Christ would receive all the glory' (Brother Dave Graves).
"Verse 28, "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing."
LGT "These things in Bethany came to be beyond the Jordan, where was the John baptizing."
The reason the KJV has 'Bethabara' and my LGT has 'Bethany is explained by Bruce:
"Bethany in Trans-Jordan is so called to distinguish it from the better known Bethany near Jerusalem (cf. John 11:1). Its location cannot be certainly established. The variant reading Bethabara, meaning 'place of the ford', was known to Origen (c. AD 231), who preferred it on geographical grounds. His preference was probably based on local information; the same reading appears in the Sinai tic Syriac version of the Gospels. The place evidently lay in the Peraean part of Herod Antipas's tetrarchy (it was John's activity in Peraea that incurred Herod's enmity, and it was in the Peraean fortress of Machaerus that he was imprisoned and put to death). It has been identified by some with the Beth-Barah of Judges 7:24, by others (more plausibly) with the Beth-nimrah of Joshua 13:27" (The Gospel of John F.F. Bruce).
The verb 'was baptizing' is a participle indicating continued action; was engaged in baptizing (Vincent). Robertson calls it a 'periphrastic imperfect, common idiom to John, but who am I to argue? My Greek Lexicon says it is an 'present active participle' and it is more recent than either Vincent or Robertson, so I guess Vincent's evaluation is correct, not that it changes the meaning of the verse.
The Lamb of God
Verse 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."
LGT "On the morrow he seeing Jesus coming towards him and saying, 'Behold the Lamb of the God the One who is taking away the sin of the world."
"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him,"
Robertson says that this is the second day of John's spiritual diary. The multitude had gathered around the Baptist from day one, and now it is time for John to complete his ministry that he was called to.
"And saith, Behold the Lamb of God"
Every Lamb that has been slain on Jewish altars down through the ages now finds their fulfillment (McGee). Another reason John stated it this way is that the Jews were not looking for a suffering Messiah who was going to take away their sins, or I should say, in the process of taking away their sins, for they were not looking for a Savior, only a King.
"But was it not possible for John, the forerunner of the Messiah, to have a prophetic insight concerning the Messiah as the Paschal Lamb, already in Isaiah 53, even if the rabbis did not see it there? Symeon had it dimly (Luke 2:35), but John more clearly. So Westcott rightly. Bernard is unwilling to believe that John the Baptist had more insight on this point than current Judaism. Then why and how did he recognize Jesus as Messiah at all? Certainly the Baptist did not have to be as ignorant as the rabbis" (WPNT A.T. Robertson).
"Which taketh away the sin of the world."
The entire purpose Christ came into the world. Christ could not come as king, until He came as Savior. Notice the singular use of 'sin', harmatian. The only sin that Christ could not remove 'as far as the East is from the West' is rejecting the 'Lamb of God.' All other sin has been paid for on the Cross of Christ, past, present, and future, not only the believers sin, but also the sin of the whole world (I John 2:2).
Verse 30, "This is He of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for He was before me."
LGT "This is He on behalf of whom I said, a man comes after me who came before me, because He was first of or before me."
"This is He of whom I said,"
John spoke in general terms before this, and now he is able to point Christ out (Bruce). This is the mission for whom (notice the LGT has 'on behalf of whom') John was called; he was the forerunner of Christ. It must never be confused, especially in John's mind, which was the important figure in history.
"After me cometh a man which is preferred before me:"
The term John uses for 'man' here is a term of dignity. The Greek word for man is 'anthropos' from which we get our word 'Anthropology' (a generic term used for mankind in general not distinguishing the sex) the study of man in general. The word John uses for man in this verse is 'anere' which is a term for husband, a man distinguished from a woman, not a boy, and in ancient times used for the heroic soldier (Vincent); he quotes Homer's Iliad, 'O friends, be men (aneres), and take on a stout heart.'
The phrase 'preferred before me' is discussed on verse fifteen. The term is before me 'emprosthen'. The literal meaning is 'is come before me' which speaks of Christ existing in eternity past. The term 'preferred' does not give the full meaning John intended to convey. Even though John the Baptist was born before Christ, he says that Christ 'came before him.' John is speaking of the element of time here and not position.
"For He was before me."
The LGT has this phrase He was first of or before me. This brings out John's meaning more to the point. The Analytical Greek Lexicon defines first as 'first in order, first in dignity, first in importance, etc., chief, principal, most important.' Now don't you think this is what John the Baptist is saying, Christ is the main person for our attention, certainly I am not. John is saying, Christ is first even before he was born or came before me; in other words, He is the principal One we need to focus on.
Verse 31, "And I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."
LGT "And I knew not Him, but in order that He might be manifest to Israel because of this I came baptizing with water."
"And I knew Him not."
The verb 'knew' in this verse is 'adein' which is a pluperfect tense very rare in the NT. "Where it appears it expresses action that took place in the past with the effect continuing up to a point, but from the writer's (or speaker's) viewpoint the action and the effect are past experiences" (Sawyer and Summers - Essentials of NT Greek). John is saying, according to every interpreter I have read, he did not fully know that Christ was the promised Messiah until the Spirit descended upon Jesus.
Robertson says that John predicted and described the Messiah before He baptized Him. John was teaching the people the message of the Old Testament Scripture. John knew Christ through the Word and now personally, as the Messiah. Vincent said it would be inconceivable that John did not know Christ personally because of their being close relatives.' It seems what John is saying here is that he did not know Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy until this revelation. In Luke 1:80 we read, "And the child (John the Baptist) continued to grow, and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel" (NASV).
I am sure that Christ did not go around bragging about the fact the he was going to be the King of Israel, nor that He expected to be treated special, for He says later in His ministry, I come to serve, not to be served. I believe He spent His early youth in obscurity, working in His father's carpenter shop, helping the family make ends meet. It wasn't until He was baptized and the Spirit descended on Him, and remained on Him, that He was endowed with the power and authority from His Father. Just as John the Baptist knew he was called to be the forerunner of the Messiah, he was not the forerunner until his time had come. Christ was announced at His birth as the coming one, but it wasn't until He was baptized and empowered by the Holy Spirit, that even John publicly knew him, as the Messiah. When we accept Christ as our personal Savior we do not understand the whole doctrine of Soteriology, but we are still saved. We may only believe that Christ died for us, and by believing we have life everlasting. We then begin to study and we learn more about how Christ paid for all sin, and that he is not willing that any should perish, and that God loves us with the same love that He loves His only begotten Son, and that we are adopted into an eternal family, and we are recipients of all the divine riches of grace, in other words we get to know Him better and more fully. However, we were saved the moment we said to Him that we believe He died for us, and that we accept Him as our Savior. John knew that he was called to be the forerunner of the Messiah, but until he saw Christ as the Messiah (at His baptism), he did not know him as Messiah. I hope that explains this a little.
"That his testimony may not be suspected of having been given either from friendship or favor, he anticipates such a doubt, by affirming that he had no other knowledge of Christ than he had obtained by divine inspiration. The meaning, therefore, amounts to this, that John does not speak at his own suggestion, nor for the favor of man, but by inspiration of the Spirit and the command of God" (John Calvin's Comm. on The Gospel of John).
"But that He should be made manifest to Israel."
John sets out in this phrase his only purpose, 'to make known the Messiah to Israel.' The Greek word for manifest 'phanerothe' 'to bring to light, to set in a clear light; to manifest, display' (Analytical Greek Lexicon). John says, I have come to set out clearly whom the Messiah is.
"Therefore am I come baptizing with water."?
John knew that his baptismal ministry was divinely inspired, and that this was prophesied in the O.T. as the event that would sound forth the coming One, 'a voice crying in the wilderness.' Bruce calls it the 'curtain raiser for Christian History'. Calvin wrote about John's baptizing, 'For it is only the calling of God that makes lawful ministers, because every person who, of his own accord, thrusts himself forward, whatever learning or eloquence he may possess, is not entitled to any authority, and the reason is, that he is not authorized by God. Now since it was necessary that John, in order that he might lawfully baptize, should be sent by God, let it be inferred from this, that it is not in the power of any man whatever to institute sacraments (baptize or officiate the Lord's Supper), but that this right belongs to God alone, as Christ, on another occasion, in order to prove the baptism of John, asks if it was from heaven, or from men,' (Matt. 21:25). I realize that John Calvin was writing his commentary in the sixteenth century, at the beginning of the protestant reformation from Roman Catholic supremacy, but the principle still applies in the twenty first century. I believe that the sacraments were instituted for a purpose of getting the Word of God out by Spirit gifted apostles and disciples, and that there is no longer a need for the qualified gifted men to officiate, as there is no longer the purpose, and there are no longer Spirit gifted apostles (sent from God) since the Word of God is complete. What is the purpose of baptism or the Lord's Supper? From the first century on there were those in the church who taught that unless you were baptized you could not enter heaven, and if you didn't believe in transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, and the ubiquity of sacrament (that The Lord's Body and Blood literally infused into the wafer and wine, and mysteriously became through some sort of osmosis a power in you) you were an heretic. Zwingli was branded a heretic because he believed that the Lord's Supper was strictly symbolical, and that babies didn't go to hell that died without being baptized. What is weird is that he wasn't branded by the Roman Catholic Church, but by Martin Luther, the father of the reformation. The reason these early fathers believed what they believed is that they belonged to the 'mother church' at first, and they didn't study the Word correctly.
Verse 32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him."
LGT "And John witnessed saying I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven and it abode upon Him."
"And John bare record,"
The phrase 'bare record' is the Greek word for witness or testimony. John is saying that what he is about to relate he witnessed personally. The word for witness is also in the aorist tense meaning it has already taken place.
"Saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove."
The word for 'saw' is in the Greek 'tetheamai', and it is a perfect middle indicative and has the meaning that John didn't just see this event, he gazed intently upon the event. This was to John a convincing sign that Christ was the promised Messiah. Robertson says, 'This sight of the Spirit descending as a dove upon Jesus at His baptism (Mark 1:10 = Luke 3:22) became permanent proof to him.'
"And it abode upon Him."
Here John says that the Holy Spirit abode upon Christ in a sign as a dove, as the Holy Spirit descended upon the believers at Pentecost as cloven tongues of fire. John Calvin says that the Pentecost sign was that the Gospel would be preached in all different languages, and at Christ's baptism, it was a sign of the gentleness and peacefulness of Christ.' I am not sure if I would go that far, however, I do know that in His humanity, Christ was fully dependant on the Holy Spirit, for He left the powers of His deity in heaven, in order to be truly man. Christ of His own free will, submitted to the will of God to become man. At His baptism, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Son, and remained there. All through His earthly ministry, Christ was yielded to the Holy Spirit, for His power. In the entire scope of eternity past, 'God is the One who planned our salvation, Christ is the executor of the plan, and the Holy Spirit is the empowerment for the plan' (Chafer).
Verse 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."
LGT "And I had not known Him, but the One who sent me to baptize in water He said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He is the One who baptizes in (the) Holy Spirit."
"And I knew Him not:"
The word 'knew' is a pluperfect tense, which means that it was a past experience without any effect in the future. In other words John is saying that he did not know Christ as the promised Messiah until this experience.
"But He that sent me to baptize with water,"
The phrase 'in water' is translated in the KJV as an instrumental case, however three out of four of the Greek scholars I have access to, translate it as a locative case, which signifies the symbolical element of the baptism (Vincent). 'He that sent me' of course can only refer to God.
"The same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him,"
The better reading is 'He said to me' rather than 'the same said unto me' emphasizing John's personal relationship to Christ. The Spirit descending on Christ was a sign that erased John's ignorance of Christ as the Coming One, and the fact of the Spirit remaining on Christ, is a fact of Christ's deity; He was truly human and truly divine, contrary to the teaching of the Gnostics, the Spirit came on Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the cross. Here it says the Spirit descended on Christ and remained on Him.
"The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Again the better reading is 'He is the One baptizing in the Holy Spirit.' The absence of the article the stresses the influence of the Holy Spirit, rather than the person of the Holy Spirit (Vincent). This is very significant to those who teach salvation by baptism. We who understand correctly know the difference in the two baptisms; what is taught here is a symbolic water baptism (which I personally believe ended with the apostles and the completion of the Scriptures), and later as Christ will teach, Spirit baptism, which every believer receives at the moment he or she believes.
Verse 34, "And I saw. And bare record that this is the Son of God."
LGT "And I have seen and have witnessed that this is the Son of the God".
John is saying that he not only saw the dove, and heard the voice of God, but he is also bearing witness that this 'is the Son of God. This is a beautiful picture of the trinity; the Christ being baptized by John, the Holy Spirit hovering over the Christ, and God the Father speaking from heaven, 'this is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'
The First Disciples
Verse 35, "Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;"
LGT "Again on the morrow was standing the John and two of his disciples."
The apostle John always refers to John the Baptist as just John, unlike the other three Gospel evangelists who refer to him as John the Baptist. John the Baptist speaks of the two disciples. One was Andrew (verse 40), the other the Beloved Disciple (the Apostle John), who records this incident with happy memories (Robertson). John had his own disciples, and we will soon learn that they will become Christ's disciples; one definition for 'disciple' is a follower.
Verse 36, "And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!"
LGT "And looking at the Jesus walking about he says, 'Behold the Lamb of the God."
Notice in the LGT, I insert the article 'the' everywhere that it is in the Greek New Testament, because of the importance of the article in distinguishing the persons of the Godhead, and not just the their essence, even though it doesn't sound very smooth. Robertson says this is possibly the third and last glimpse of Jesus by John the Baptist, and that it must have been an emotional rapturous time for him.
Verse 37, "And the two disciples heard Him speak, and they followed Jesus."
LGT "And the two disciples heard Him speaking and they followed the Jesus."
Now this is where John the Baptist's disciples become followers of Jesus. Vincent quotes Bengal by saying that this is the beginning of the Christian Church. How different is the attitude of John the Baptist concerning Christ, his whole ministry was to introduce the Christ to the world, and then to decrease, and let Christ save the world; the Scribes and Pharisees, who were supposed to be the religious leaders, felt jealousy and were threatened by Christ, because He took away their pomp and authority, they eventually crucified Him.
"These two disciples of John the Baptist (Andrew and John) took him at his word and acted on it. John the Baptist had predicted and portrayed the Messiah, had baptized Him, had interpreted Him, and now for the second time identified Him" (Word Pictures of the N.T. A.T. Robertson).
Verse 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?"
LGT "But turning the Jesus also beheld them following saying to them, What are you seeking? And they said to Him, Rabbi, which is to say being interpreted teacher, where are you abiding?"
"Then Jesus turned, and saw them following,"
The two disciples had just left John the Baptist and began following Jesus; and Jesus heard them following Him, He turned around and spoke to them.
"And saith unto them, What seek ye?"
Jesus ask them what seek ye, not whom do you seek? The meaning is what is your purpose to follow Me? (Robertson)
"They said unto Him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted Master),"
The term 'Rabbi' the Aramaic title for 'teacher' is literally 'my great One' (Bruce), which John interprets for his Greek readers. The Greek word for teacher is 'didaskale'.
"Where dwellest thou?"
The two disciples desired a place to fellowship with Jesus Christ, that is, to listen to Him and learn from the Master.
Verse 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."
LGT "He saying to them, you all come and you will see. They came therefore and saw where He abides and abode with Him that day: it was about (the) tenth hour."
"Come and see."
Christ gives them a polite invitation, not an imperative, to come and see where He abode. Bruce says, 'The invitation for which, perhaps, they had scarcely dared to hope was forthcoming at once, as it still is to those who wish to get to know Him better.' We can get to know Christ better on a daily basis by the study of the Word of God.
"They came and saw where He dwelt,"
It is not recorded what they discussed but as Bruce points out it was enough to convince them He was the promised Messiah.
"For it was about the tenth hour."
It was about four o'clock in the afternoon.
Verse 40, "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother."
LGT "Andrew was the brother of Simon Peter one of the two who heard from John and followed him."
Whether it is John's purpose to speak of the prominence of Simon Peter or that this is simply part of the narrative of John that is bringing the twelve together is hard to say. What is clear is that Andrew would introduce Peter to the Lord.
Verse 41, "He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ."
LGT "He finding this one first his own brother Simon and saying to him, We have found the Messiah, which is interpreted Christ.
"He first findeth his own brother Simon,"
The first act by Andrew after learning that this is the Christ was to go and get his own brother Simon Peter, who later would become the Rock.
"And saith unto him, We have found the Messias,"
Robertson writes, "Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines. The Baptist had told about Him, and now we have seen Him."
The Greek word for the verb phrase 'have found' is 'heurekamen' from which we get our English word 'Eureka.' Vincent calls this the chapter of Eureka's.
"Which is, being interpreted, the Christ."
The title 'Messiah' is used in the N.T. here and 4:25 only, everywhere else it is translated into 'Christos', anointed One (Robertson).
"What Andrew would have meant at this time by the title Messiah cannot be stated with certainty; his understanding would no doubt have been colored by contemporary forms in which the hope of Israel was cherished. But as he and his fellow-disciples came to know Jesus better, earlier conceptions of the Messiah and his achievement were displaced in their minds by the actual character and ministry of Jesus" (The Epistles and Gospel of John F.F. Bruce).
Verse 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."
LGT "He brought him to the Jesus. The Jesus looked upon him saying, You are Simon the son of John, you will be called Cephas, which being interpreted, Stone."
"And he brought him to Jesus,"
Robertson points out that by the use of the word 'brought' Andrew must have had some resistance from Peter. I haven't found any other comments about this so I simply must pass it by as 'sanctified imagination.' It has to have some bearing on the passage, and it doesn't seem to. Bruce points out that Andrew must have been very proud of the fact he brought Peter to Christ, after the Lord used Peter in such a wonderful way. He goes on to point out how we never ever know how much is accomplished by the Lord, when we bring someone to Him. I believe this is the 'mystery' in the way the Lord works in all His dealing with us as children; I think all results are kept from us personally, so that we don't get puffed up and start counting numbers, in order to measure our success in service, you kids know what I am talking about; we should let the Lord keep the records, and simply serve Him out of gratitude.
"And when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona:"
In this greeting Christ mentions Simon's father's name, which was actually John, as a respectful tradition. However, as Calvin points out, Christ also mentions it because he came from a rather obscure and common stock, and He would make him a man of unwavering faith.
"Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone."
The name 'Cephas' was in the Aramaic language used here by Christ, and then translated into Greek as 'Petros,' meaning 'a stone.' As one studies the life of Peter, it becomes quite obvious why Christ renamed Simon. All that we will learn of Peter will certainly contradict what is taught about Peter being the first 'Pope,' namely, that he was a fellow apostle, and had no authority over another. The only authority Peter would claim would be the authority of preaching Christ and Christ crucified, inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Peter would be the first to admit that he personally was a man with feet of clay, except for what the Christ would do through him.
"This man, Simon, was as weak as water. Our Lord told him he would be a stone man. I think everybody laughed there that day because nobody believed he could become the rock man, the man who would stand up on the Day of Pentecost and give the first sermon, which would sweep three thousand persons into the church [see Acts 2:40-41]" (T.T.B. J. Vernon McGee).
The Calling of Philip and Nathanael
Verse 43, "The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow Me."
LGT "On the morrow He wills to go into Galilee and finding Philip, and Jesus saying to him, follow Me."
"The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee,"
On the verb 'would go' the Greek Lexicon has 'wills to go' or 'has a mind to go.' The point is that it is Jesus' idea to go to Galilee.
"And findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow Me."
'Follow Me' is a present active imperative used here by Christ for the first time. Christ had already four personal followers; John, Andrew, Simon and James, He has begun His work (Robertson).
Verse 44, "Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter."
LGT "And Philip was from Bethsaida, out of the city of Andrew and Peter."
Philip, Andrew and Peter were all three fishermen, for the city they were from, Bethsaida' means 'house of the fishermen' (Bruce). Christ didn't go to the local university to get the schoolmen to be His disciples; He got His followers from the common working class. The point is that Christ's makes disciples from people who are willing to follow Him. We have nothing He needs; Christ will supply His followers with all that is necessary.
Verse 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."
LGT "Philip finding Nathanael and saying to him, we have found Whom Moses and the Prophets wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph the One from Nazareth."
Nathanael means 'God has given' or Gift of God.' Nathanael and Bartholomew are probably the same person.
"This is how the number of Jesus' followers has gone on increasing to this day, as one has found another and shared the good news with him or her. The other early disciples mentioned in these verses figure in the lists of the twelve apostles given by the Synoptic Evangelists; it has theretofore been widely supposed that Nathanael also appears in those lists under the patronymic Bartholomew (i.e. the son of Tholomai or Ptolemy). In Matt. 10:3, Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:14 Bartholomew is linked with Philip (not so, however, in Acts 1:13).
"Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Philip had just come to the Lord recently, so he would not know that the statement was contrary to what John had said earlier that Christ is the only begotten of the Father. Philip is not denying Christ's deity; I believe the only point he was making to Nathanael was that this is the Promised Messiah of the Old Testament.
Verse 46, "And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."
LGT "And Nathanael said to him, is anything able to be out of Nazareth? Philip saying to him, 'Come and behold."
"Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"
Whatever the motive for Nathanael's remark here; McGee thinks he is a wiseacre, while Calvin sees him as misinformed by Philip about Christ being from Nazareth; I like Philip's reply.
" Philip saith unto him, Come and see."
Robertson says, 'wise is the one who knows how to deal with the skeptic'. Philip has the perfect answer, 'come and see for yourself'; for I know once you meet Christ, you will change your mind.
Verse 47, "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
LGT "Jesus saw Nathanael coming towards Him and saying concerning him, 'Behold truly an Israelite in whom guile is not."
"Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
This had to impress Nathanael for Christ to say this and to have never met him. Christ would never say anything like this if it were not true. Christ is not a social psychologist but a Savior. Christ simply contrasted truth with guile. 'Truly an Israelite, one living up to the covenant name, Israel at its best (Rom. 2:29), without guile' (Robertson).
Verse 48, "Nathanael saith unto Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee."
LGT "Nathanael saying to him, when do you know me? Jesus answering and said to him, Before Philip called you, being under the fig tree I saw you."
"Whence knowest thou me?"
Nathanael is completely baffled by Christ's comments. We have never met and yet you know about me.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree I saw you."
It is impossible to be sure of the significance of the fig tree, however, Jesus is letting Nathanael know that He knows more than he expected. Nevertheless, it made a deep impression on him. McGee says that Nathanael was the first doubter at the beginning of Christ's ministry, and Thomas was the last at the end of His ministry.
Verse 49, "Nathanael answered and saith unto Him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel."
LGT "Nathanael answering Him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel."
"Thou art the Son of God."
Whether or not Nathanael heard from John about Christ we don't know, we assume by the silence of the Scriptures he had not; what we do know as implied by verse 45 that Nathanael was a student of the O.T. Scriptures. 'Whatever doubts he had, instantaneously disappeared' (Bruce). This is all that is expected of anyone to receive the free gift of God's grace, salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord, that is, to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God.
"Thou art the King of Israel."
'To us this seems an ant-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are messianic titles in Psalms 2 and Jesus greeted in the Triumphant Entry as the King of Israel' (John 12:13) (Robertson).
Verse 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."
LGT "Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you I saw you under the fig tree, you believe? Greater than these you will see."
"Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou,"
Jesus answered him, is it because I said I saw you under the fig tree? This is the reason you believe I am the Son of God. Some believe Christ is rebuking Nathanael, if so; it is a gentle rebuke, for Christ goes on to say:
"Thou shalt see greater things than these."
And for the next three and one half years Nathanael will see greater miracles. Among all the miracles that Jesus performed in His earthly ministry I am sure He is referring to the miracle of the Cross.
Verse 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."
LGT "And He saying to him, verily, verily, I am saying to you, you will all see the heaven open (and standing open) and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you,"
John uses this double 'verily', which is distinctive to him. Translated into English it would be something on the line of: pay close attention now to what I am about to say. Christ always spoke the truth, so it could not mean 'truly, truly', unless of course it is simply 'confirming His authority' (Bruce).
"Hereafter ye shall see heaven open,"
The best manuscripts omit 'hereafter.' Christ is saying to all His disciples that they will witness the angels ministering to Christ. Notice in my LGT heaven has the article so it means the heaven of heavens, God's abode, not just the sky above.
"And the angels of God ascending and descending"
Bruce says, "Here the imagery is taken from the account of Jacob's vision at Bethel, when he saw 'a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and, behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it' (Gen. 28:12)."
"Upon the Son of man."
Jesus refers to Himself as the 'Son of man' making reference to His being true God and true man. This expression is referring to His humanity. All the titles given to Christ by others in this first chapter, 'the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, and the King of Israel', but the title 'Son of man' He gave to himself (Vincent).
"So quickly has this Gospel brought out in the witness of the Baptist, the faith of the first disciples, the claims of Jesus Christ, the fully developed picture of the Logos who is both God and man, moving among men and winning them to His service. At the close of the ministry Christ will tell Caiphas that he will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62). Here at the start Jesus is conscious of the final culmination and in eschatological language that we do not fully understand He sets forth the dignity and majesty of His person" (WPNT A.T. Robertson).
Share freely but cite the source: http://bbbiblehelps.epizy.com