Exegesis of Crucial Texts in John

Thomas D. Lea  |  Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 31 - Fall 1988

It was my privilege as a graduate student at Southwestern to study John initially under the leadership of Dr. Huber Drumwright. He aroused in me an interest in and a desire for further study of this book. I will always be indebted to him for his fine example as a scholar and his stirring enthusiasm as a Christian teacher.

The Gospel of John is filled with crucial texts. How does one decide which texts are truly crucial, or which are more crucial than others? The author selected texts in John which fell into three categories and then chose significant texts from each category.

First, there are texts which are of theological importance to Christianity. In this category are texts which treat such doctrines as the incarnation, salvation, crucifixion, and resurrection, among others. Second, there are texts which are significant in their application. Here are familiar texts which are rich in their usefulness to individual Christians. Some of these texts are abused or misused in interpretation and demand fuller explanation and ample warning. Finally, there are those texts which are of questionable textual authenticity. The most trustworthy Greek manuscripts omit several passages in John’s Gospel, and the reason   for this needs to be known and understood.

In approaching the Gospel of John, this author has assumed that John had a concern for both history and theology. It is fashionable today to view John as supremely concerned about theology and as little concerned with the facts which support this theology. It is at least possible that John could have used fictional stories to illustrate his theological statements, but he apparently did not follow this technique.[1]See the discussion in Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1971), 40-49. John’s concern about historical information appears when he inserts into his gospel bits of geographical information (John 4:3-4; 5:1; 6:1) and chronological notes (John 1:35; 2:1; 6:22; 12:1). The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has validated the fact that John’s Gospel contains reliable information. “The fact that John is in agreement with the Scrolls in many points makes it clear that there is reliable information here.”[2]Ibid., 42. There can be no theological significance in events which did not happen. What John was declaring was that God’s truth was seen in the events of Jesus’ life. He clearly outlined those events historically and their interpretation theologically.

In translation of the various verses the author has generally relied upon the King James Version. Where the translation given in the text of the paper differs from the KJV, the author has followed his own translation of the text.

 

Theologically Significant Texts in John

John 1:1-5

In these verses John outlined the activity of the Word, the Logos, prior to incarnation. Beasley-Murray compares this section to an operatic overture which “is calculated to whet the appetite of the hearers, preparing them for the work to be presented and bringing together themes developed in it.”[3]George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 5. There is a poetic quality about the verses, but there is disagreement about the extent or source of the proposed poem.

The statements in v. 1 fall into three distinct clauses. They state the pre-existence, the distinctiveness, and the deity of the Word.

The term “beginning” is a conscious reminder of the initial words of the Bible. It is a reference to that time when the universe was brought into existence.[4]F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1983), 30. In using the Greek term Logos for “Word” John employed a term with which both Jews and Greeks would be familiar. They might not fully understand its meaning, but they would know that it was an important concept, something like nuclear fission or lasers. Jews would remember the Old Testament expression that God had made the heavens by his word (Ps. 33:6). Greeks would think of it as the rational mind which ruled the universe. John used the term to refer to God’s means of expressing what was on his mind to human beings. As the utterance of words gives evidence of human personality, so God’s personal Word, Jesus, expressed and revealed his personality.[5]See the extensive discussion of “The Logos” in Morris, 115-26. The Greek imperfect tense is used for “was” to indicate that the Word preceded creation. It was a designation appropriate for a being who was eternal and unchanging.

The second statement in verse 1 distinguishes the word of God from God himself, but he exists in a close personal relation with God.[6]Bruce, 31. The preposition “with” implies not only the idea of accompaniment but also the idea of relationship. There was perfect communion between the Word and God, and there was active contact between them. This statement prepares readers for personal distinctions within the Godhead.

The third statement in v. 1 proclaims the deity of the Word. The Greek of this statement lacks the article before the word “God.” This has led some translators to demand that the statement be read: “The Word was a God.” Two observations can be made about the absence of the article. First, if John had used the article before “God,” it would have been a statement identical with the ancient heresy of Sabellianism.[7]B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (London: James Clark & Co., 1958), 3. This heresy denied the distinct personhood of the Son and made the Father, Son, and Spirit a complete unity. This would have contradicted what John had spoken when he said, “The Word was with God.” Second, the absence of the article before “God” can be explained by the fact that a definite noun preceding a “to be” verb normally lacks the article. If it follows the verb, it normally has the article.[8]D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 86-88. A careful application of Carson’s discussion can prevent an abuse of the rule. Thus, it is quite responsible to take the translation as “the Word was God” and not as “the Word was a God.”

In v. 2 John summarized the truth of v. 1 by restatement. Again he emphasized the eternity of the Word and the close relationship between God and the Word. The two are different, but they belong together in dynamic relationship. Even though they are distinct, there is no disharmony between them.

John outlined the relationship of the Word to creation in v. 3. Following a Hebrew style of writing, he first stated his view positively, and then he outlined it negatively. John stated that everything owed its existence to the Word. The language used by John indicates that all was made “through” (Greek-dia) the Word rather than “by” him. This method of statement safeguards the truth that the Father was the source of all creation. The Father performed his work of creation “through” the Word (cf. I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16). John carefully distinguished the parts played in creation by both the Father and the Word.

A punctuation problem lies at the end of v. 3. The question concerns whether or not the phrase “that which has been made” introduces v. 4 or concludes v. 3. Such versions as KJV, RSV, NASB, and NIV conclude v. 3 with the phrase. The NEB opens v. 4 with the phrase. Involved in the decision about punctuation is the question of whether v. 4 is a statement about the Word or about his creation. If the phrase “that which has been made” is linked with the opening of v. 4, the statement becomes greatly complicated. Also, John frequently began a sentence or a clause with the preposition en (sometimes translated as “by”) and a pronoun (John 13:35; 15:8; 16:26). The problem is better settled by following the translation of the KJV, RSV, NASB, and NIV.

John’s statement in v. 4 showed the life-giving agency of the Word.[9]Bruce, 33. Because the Father has given the Word (the Son according to 1:14) his self-existent life, the Word is able to give this life to others. The statement that the Word was the light of men “is true both of the natural illumination of reason which is given to the human mind and of the spiritual illumination which accompanies the new birth: neither can be received apart from the light that resides in the Word.”[10]Ibid. John’s statement in this context is more in reference to spiritual illumination than to merely natural illumination. Through Jesus, human beings are illuminated so as to learn how to have eternal life.

In v. 5 John pointed out the essential action of light in itself. It served to illuminate men, and, even as John was writing, the light was still shining.[11]Morris, 85. There is disagreement among translators concerning the meaning of the verb “comprehend” (KJV). Some translators (RSV, Morris, Bruce) feel that the meaning is more appropriately given as “overcome.” Morris, in suggesting that the translation “overcome” is more acceptable, points out that John’s gospel shows that there is a perpetual conflict between darkness and light. It is thus more natural to state that the darkness was unable to overcome the light.[12]Ibid., 86. The very nature of light is to drive away the darkness. John used “light” as a symbol of goodness and truth; “darkness” represented evil and falsehood. The power of darkness was quite unable to conquer or overcome the light from the Word of God!

John 1:14

John here indicated for the first time that the Word and Jesus are identical. Up until John’s specific identification of the two, a reader could have understood the Word as a reference to some impersonal principle of existence. After the identification of the Word with Jesus, that error of interpretation was no longer possible.

In v. 1 John had indicated the pre-existence of the Word, the personality of the Word, and the deity of the Word. Now he emphasized the incarnation of the word. In v. 14 John announced the fact of the incarnation, witnessed to the incarnation, and declared the character of the incarnate Word.

In noting what John said about the fact of the incarnation, we should observe the three facts about the Word mentioned in v. 1. This one whom John had described in v. 1 had now become flesh. It is likely that a form of theological heresy known as docetism was present in the area of John’s writing. The followers of this doctrine denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. They distinguished between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).[13]Bruce, 39.

The emphasis that the “Word became flesh” indicates that there was a change of state in the existence of Jesus.[14]Merrill C. Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:33. Jesus became something which he had not been previously. He did not cease to be God, but he assumed a complete, real, and permanent humanity. The term “flesh” refers to man in his entirety, both body and soul. It is a reference to man as a created and temporal being.[15]J. N. Sanders, The Gospel according to St. John, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 79. In choosing the term “flesh,” John deliberately selected a strong word to emphasize the reality of Jesus’ humanity. The word is quite blunt and would emphasize without equivocation that Jesus was a genuine human being.[16]Morris, 102.

To say that the Word “dwelt” involved the use of a verb which meant literally to “pitch a tent.” The term would remind Jews of the tent or the tabernacle in which God had shown his presence during the wilderness wanderings of the Jewish people. John probably intended to compare Jesus’ presence among them with the presence of God in the tabernacle. The glory which God formerly showed to his people in the tabernacle now had appeared to them in the person of Jesus (cf. Exod. 40:34).[17]Bruce, 41.

In witnessing to the glory of the incarnation, John could proclaim that believers, members of the body of Christ, could look upon this glory. Viewing the Old Testament glory of God was prohibited (Exod. 33:20). Now the people of God could view the very glory of God in the person of Jesus. Jewish writings made frequent reference to the presence of the Lord among his people. They came to use the concept with the Hebrew word shekinah, a term which meant “dwelling,” God’s dwelling with his people.[18]Morris, 104. John felt that Jesus’ miracles demonstrated the glory of God (John 2: 11; 11:4, 40). He also indicated that the cross of Christ manifested forth the glory of the Father (John 12:23; 13:31).

That glory of which John witnessed was the glory “as of the only begotten of the Father.” By using the term   “as,” John is introducing   an illustration   to compare the glory of Christ with that of an only son of a father. John was not declaring that Christ was “begotten” in the sense that he was created by the Father. The term is not discussing the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the Father. The reference is to “a quality of Jesus, his uniqueness, not what is called in Trinitarian theology his ‘procession’.”[19]Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible, ed. W. F. Albright and David N. Freedman (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 13. The same Greek word is used in reference to Isaac as the son of Abraham in Heb. 11:17. Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, but he was his unique son, the one through whom God’s promises operated. In the same way John was declaring that Jesus had a unique relation with the Father. It was without parallel.

John also declared the character of Christ as “full of grace and truth.” John was indicating that the incarnate Word of God was full of grace and truth. Grace is God’s steadfast love.[20]Bruce, 42. Grace signified God’s good­will and kindness especially shown to undeserving people. God has especially shown this in sending his son to provide for the needs of sinful people. Truth is God’s faithfulness.[21]Ibid. The use of the term indicates that God is completely reliable. Since the term is many-sided, it also may suggest an eternal reality, that which really is.[22]Beasley-Murray, 15. The idea is that Jesus revealed God, as he really was, to man sinful as he was.

John 3:5

Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ question in v. 4 is prefaced with a “Verily, verily.” Jesus was about to give a solemn answer, and his response urged Nicodemus to give a solemn attention.

The understanding of Jesus’ words has given rise to several interpretations. Some have seen “water” to be a reference to natural birth so that Jesus is saying that a man must be born both physically and spiritually in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Others have seen that the terms “water and Spirit” are both describing the word of the Holy Spirit so that Jesus is emphasizing the sovereignty and divine source of the regenerating work of God. Still others have felt that the best interpretation refers to water as a symbol of baptism.

Jesus would attempt to answer with terms which were familiar to Nicodemus, and this would likely rule out a discussion of natural birth in connection with being born again. Further, the introduction of a discussion about natural birth here would seem to be a needless tautology.

Jesus’ ministry came just after that of John the Baptist. It seems likely that Jesus was referring to that aspect of the preaching of John which dealt with the baptism of water. This baptism signified repentance. John also told of the coming messenger of God who would give men the Holy Spirit (John 1:31-33).[23]Tenney, 47.

Jesus’ words would have an immediate sense as Nicodemus heard them. They would have a final, more complete sense for us.[24]Westcott, 50. To   Nicodemus, the mention of water would signify John’s baptism as a symbol of repentance. The mention of the Spirit would represent that new life which resulted from the direct action of the Holy Spirit through Christ. John, in particular, had called attention to the necessity of repentance. Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).

For Christians today baptism becomes that experience by which they symbolize the repentance which John called for (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism also represents that outward symbol of the inward work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:1-4). For Christians today the public expression of repentance in baptism is linked typically with the inward work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Both the external and the internal cleansing are represented in the one act of baptism.

We must not think that Jesus is commending baptism as a magical act operative apart from the work of the Spirit and the repentance of the individual. Baptism symbolizes both the human response of repentance and the divine initiative of spiritual dynamic. Baptism does not supply any magical ingredient toward regeneration which operates apart from human responsiveness.

John 8:58

Jesus’ words came at the conclusion of a conversation with the Jews. Jesus had indicated that Abraham had looked forward to the time of Jesus’ incarnation, but Abraham had lived before that incarnation. Such a statement puzzled Jesus’ listeners who chose to regard Jesus’ statements as a comment that Jesus and Abraham were contemporaries.[25]Bruce, 205.

Jesus’ description of Abraham as one who “was” pictured him as one who had an existence which started with birth. There was a definite time to the beginning of Abraham. By contrast Jesus had an absolute existence. Jesus had existed continuously.[26]Tenney, 99.

The statement which Jesus makes here is in line with the description of him in John 1:1. It is a clear statement of Jesus’ pre-existence. Further, it is a forthright claim to divinity. Brown has stated, “No clearer implication of divinity is found in the Gospel tradition.”[27]Brown, 367. Jesus’ listeners indicated that they viewed this as a claim to divinity. They prepared to pick up stones to hurl at him for blasphemy.

The term “I am” represents the style of deity. It refers to Jesus as one who continually is. It is also a rendering of a similar phrase in the Septuagint (Greek) of Exod. 3:14 and Isa. 41:4. In both passages Jehovah identifies his name as the “I am.” It is true that Jesus’ metaphysical being. Jesus uses the phrase primarily to indicate that he is the revealer of God, at one with God, and thus is essential for the salvation of his people.[28]Beasley-Murray, 139. Nevertheless, the clear implication of Jesus’ utterance is that he is divine and must be accepted as such.

John 9:3-4

This passage is crucial because its exegesis touches upon an explanation of the link between evil and suffering. Jesus’ disciples had seen a man congenitally blind, and they wondered aloud about the cause of his blindness. To them there was no question that the blindness was due to sin. Their only question was “Whose sin caused the blindness?” Had his parents sinned, and was the son punished for their wickedness? Some rabbis entertained the idea that an infant could sin in the womb. This may have been the sense in which the disciples felt that the man had sinned.[29]Bruce, 208.

Jesus responded that the man’s blindness was not due to sin. His explanation of the cause of the blindness can be understood in different ways. Some feel that the clause in v. 3, “that the works of God . . . ,” is a result clause.[30]Tenney, 102. One who follows this interpretation will feel that Jesus does not explain the purpose of the blindness but simply sidesteps the question. What Jesus thus points out is that healing will be the result coming out from the malady. This method of handling Jesus’ statement leaves open the question of the cause of the man’s blindness and emphasizes the healing that will occur.

Still others punctuate the statements of vv. 3 and 4 differently.[31]Ibid. They place a period in v. 3 after the words “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.” Then they will link the clause, “but that the works of God . . . ,” with the following statement, “I must work the works of Him who sent me.” The result is that the statement does not express the purpose of the blindness but simply emphasizes that it is Jesus’ intention to perform a miracle of healing in order to do God’s works. This interpretation also neatly sidesteps the question of the cause of the blindness.

The most likely interpretation is that Jesus was stating that the purpose of the man’s blindness was that a divine work might be done in him and God’s glory be revealed. Bruce has summarized well the proper emphasis of this interpretation:

This does not mean that God deliberately caused the child to be born blind in order that after many years, his glory should be displayed in the removal of the blindness; to think so would again be an aspersion on the character of God. It does mean that God overruled the disaster of the child’s blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and others, seeing this work of God, might turn to the true light of the World.[32]Bruce, 209.

We should also avoid seeing Jesus’ comment as a statement about human suffering in general. All that Jesus has done is comment on the relation of this man to his mission.[33]Beasley-Murray, 155.

John 10:27-28

The importance of this passage to Baptists is that it contributes directly to the discussion concerning the question of eternal security for the believer. This is one of several passages in John’s Gospel which speaks of God’s will to bring his people to final salvation (cf. John 5:24; 6:37, 39). Each of these passages needs to be understood in light of the fact that such passages as Heb. 6:4-8 and 2 Pet. 2:20-22 seem to speak of the possibility of a believer’s falling away from faith. How are we to see the relationship between these two sets of passages?

There are three possibilities for interpretation of the differences.[34]I. Howard Marshall, “The Problem of Apostasy in New Testa­ment Theology,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 14 (Winter 1987): 74-75. We may see the texts in John as being primary and thus fit the warnings in Hebrews and 2 Peter into these passages. We may take the warning passages as primary and then force the passages in John to fit in. We may also recognize that there is a tension in the passages and avoid trying to change or ignore statements from either set of passages. This author writes from a modified Calvinistic perspective, but he feels that the most reverent approach to the passages is to take the truth which both the promises and the warnings contain.

The passage in John 10:27-28 emphasizes that eternal life is a gift. The fact that those who receive eternal life will never perish perhaps indicates the “impossibility of a steady decay setting in which would end in total loss.”[35]Morris, 521. The emphasis that no one can snatch believers from the hand of Jesus protects them from active evil. There is no possibility of a violent snatching from the hand of Jesus. Our continuance in the Christian life does not depend on our holding onto Christ. It is rather dependent upon his firm grip upon us. The verse does not contain a promise that God will protect believers from all earthly disasters. It suggests that believers will be saved no matter what earthly hardship may befall them.

The above statement in John is true, but we will not respond to it by assuring believers that they need not make any effort to grow or to follow Christ. Discipleship after Jesus demands that his followers take up their crosses and follow him (Mark 8:34). Believers are encouraged by John in their endurance and in their resistance of sin by learning that God holds them firmly in his grasp. Believers are also warned that their response to this fact must not be quietism or spiritual indolence. It must be further commitment, obedience, and willingness to follow Christ.

To borrow a phrase from J. I. Packer, there is an antinomy in the two previous statements.[36]J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1961), 18-36. It is true at the same time that believers are preserved from the effects of sin and evil and that they must also endure in their commitment. To our minds it is impossible to unravel such commands and promises. In the mind of God the matter is thoroughly transparent and clear.

Packer defines an antinomy as an “apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths.”[37]Ibid., 18. It exists when a pair of doctrines stand side by side, both undeniable and also irreconcilable. Packer advises that we should learn to live with the antinomy between divine sovereignty and human responsibility without regarding the doctrines as rival alternatives but as complementary truths.[38]Packer’s discussion concerns the application of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the doctrine of election. His words are equally true when the ideas are applied to the doctrine of the security of the believer.

Scripture at the same time teaches that believers are “kept by God’s power through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5) and that also they must avoid the practice of sin (1 John 3:6). Those who make a practice of sin demonstrate that they are not God’s children. Those who are God’s children do not make a practice of sin because God keeps them by faith. We must hold to both of these statements as true.

John 15:1-6

In the Old Testament, the figure of the vine was used to designate Israel (see Ps. 80:8-19). Here Jesus used the figure of the vine to teach that fruitfulness in the Christian life depended on a right relationship to him. The points of comparison in this passage are so numerous that we must see it as an allegory.[39]Morris, 668.

In v. 1 Jesus identified himself as the true vine. The Father was the cultivator of the vine.

In v. 2 Jesus pictured the activity of the Father in tending the vine. The Father performed all that was necessary to assure that the vine would produce. In particular he removed those who were unproductive and cleansed or “pruned” those who were productive. The mention of a branch which needed to be removed would bring Judas to mind (see John 13:10). Morris says, “We should not regard this (the removal of a fruitless branch) as a proof that true believers may fall away. It is part of the viticultural picture, and the point could not be made without it.”[40]Ibid., 669. The cleansing action of God involves his asserting discipline in the life of a believer (see Heb. 12:5-11). The fruit which the Father seeks to produce are those qualities of Christian character (Gal. 5:22-23).

In v. 3 Jesus indicated that his message had provided cleansing for his disciples. The message of Jesus condemned sin, demanded holiness, and encouraged growth. In v. 4 Jesus indicated that “continued production depends on constant union with the source of fruitfulness.”[41]Tenney, 151. The practical application of Jesus’ command calls for believers to live such a life that Jesus can continue to abide in them.

Jesus emphasized in v. 5 the urgency of remaining in union with him. He does not promise uniform fruit in quality and quantity, but he does promise inevitable productivity for those who abide. Jesus warned in v. 6 that rejection and uselessness lay ahead for those who fail to keep a vital link with him. The words of Jesus find fulfillment in the antichrists mentioned in 1 John 2:18-19 and 4:1-6.

Jesus’ message emphasized that only those who remain in union with him can produce the fruit of the Spirit. Paul used different language to express the same truth in Gal. 2:20 and in Phil. 4:13.

John 16:8-11

Jesus had already begun the discussion of the work of the Spirit in relation to believers. He now indicated the work of the Spirit in relation to unbelievers. He pictured the Holy Spirit acting as a counsel for the prosecution by convicting, exposing, and refuting the unbelief, ignorance, and self-will of man.[42]Bruce, 318-19.

In v. 8 Jesus summarized the work of the Spirit for unbelievers. “Conviction” is an idea which “involves the conceptions of authoritative examination, of unquestionable proof, of decisive judgment, of punitive power. Whatever the final issue may be, he who ‘convicts’ another places the truth of the case in dispute in a clear light before him, so that it must be seen and acknowledged as truth.”[43]Westcott, 228. The areas in which the Spirit exercised this convicting work were sin, righteousness, and judgment. John explained the meaning of each term in vv. 9-11.

The conviction of sin here is not primarily moral but theological. It is not that the Spirit merely convicts individuals that they have performed certain sins, but he drives home their self-centered rebellion and unbelief toward God. “The basic sin is the sin which puts self at the centre of things and consequently refuses to believe.”[44]Morris, 698. The Spirit drives the guilt of the world home to its own conscience and leaves the world without any covering or excuse for its evil.[45]Beasley-Murray, 282.

To the world, the lifting up of Jesus on the cross demonstrated his unrighteousness. The resurrection and ascension of Christ demonstrate openly that God has reversed the verdict of the world. Jesus is presented as innocent of the world’s accusations. The righteousness of men before God cannot be accomplished by their own effort but by the deeds of Jesus.

The world had previously passed judgment on success and failure according to its own standards. The Spirit would drive home the understanding that this standard had now been overthrown. The prince of this world is Satan. He had been overthrown and defeated by Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension (John 12:31; Heb. 2:14). The verb “judged” is a Greek perfect tense. This tense expressed a settled state. “Satan is already under judgment; the sentence is fixed and permanent.”[46]Tenney, 158.

The world has failed to submit to Jesus as the Son of God, and instead it has become a tool of Satan. The continued failure of the world to acknowledge Jesus involves it in the judgment which occurred at the cross. “Like the prince of this world, its cause is lost; it has been judged.”[47]Beasley-Murray, 282.

The presence of a promise such as this in Scripture reminds Christians that the understanding of the gospel does not merely depend on human cleverness and ingenuity. The Spirit of God is involved in pressing home the consequences of Jesus’ death and in bringing unbelievers to faith in him.

John 19:30

Both Mark (Mark 15:37) and Luke (Luke 23:46) speak of Jesus uttering a loud cry as he died. It appears that this cry was the “It is finished” of John 19:30.

Jesus’ exclamation was not a moan of defeat, nor was it a sigh of a patient resignation to fate. It was a shout of victory. “It is the triumphant recognition that He has now fully accomplished the work that He came to do.”[48]Morris, 815. The statement is true in both a chronological and a theological sense.[49]Sanders, 140. Jesus’ life was at an end. He was dying. Jesus also knew that he had accomplished the fulfillment of all those passages spoken of him in the Old Testament (John 19:28). He had completed the performance of the purpose for which the Father had sent him into the world. That purpose included providing salvation for all believers, and that salvation was now available.

The expression, “It is finished,” is a perfect passive tense of the Greek verb teleo. The verb was used in the first several centuries in the sense of paying a debt. It often appeared in receipts. The words of the gospel hymn, “Jesus Paid It All,” emphasize this idea. Ancient papyri contain phrases using this word such as “I will pay you for rent” and “I will pay you this sum.”[50]James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1930 ed., s.v. “teleo.” In both instances the word “pay” represents the Greek verb teleo. Jesus was effectively saying, “The debt of sin has been paid in full.”

John 20:30-31

In these two verses John summarized the strategy and purpose of his gospel.[51]Tenney, 196. Concerning the strategy John was selective. He used representative works of Jesus to accomplish his purpose. John wanted his readers to know that he had selected some signs out of a much larger number which was available to him. These signs were those done in the presence of his disciples, but we should not fail to include those signs which were done in the presence of both believers and unbelievers (see John 2:1-11). The term “signs” was one of John’s favorite terms for a miracle. The synoptic gospels frequently use another word dunamis. This term stresses the element of power in the miracles of Jesus.

The term “signs” represents the Greek semeia. It refers to a happening which is full of meaning. The sign is not an end in itself, but it points us beyond itself to God. Those who see the sign as coming from God will follow the sign to find God’s provision in Jesus.[52]See the additional note on “miracles” in Morris, 684-91.

The purpose of John’s writing was to stimulate faith in Jesus. A variation in the Greek text of v. 31 has led to a discussion about John’s specific meaning. There is disagreement concerning whether the word for “may believe” in v. 31 is a Greek aorist or a Greek present. “The aorist tense, strictly interpreted, suggests that the fourth Gospel was addressed to non-Christians so that they might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; the present tense suggests that the aim of the writer was to strengthen the faith of those who already believe . . . .”[53]Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (n.p.: United Bible Societies, 1971), 256. Evidence for each tense is almost equally divided. Most commentators hesitate to use the tense to determine whether the book was written to Christians or to non-Christians. Bruce concludes, “Probably we are not shut up to two mutually exclusive alternatives, regardless of the reading adopted: John’s record has the power to awaken new faith and to revive faith already awakened.”[54]Bruce, 395.

This faith in Jesus was not merely propositional. It was a personal faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. The Jews of Jesus’ time did not feel that the Messiah stood in as close a relation to the Father as John has indicated. They did not understand that the Messiah would be God’s Son. John’s understanding of messiahship was richer and more complete than that of the Judaism of his time.[55]Morris, 856.

The moral result of believing that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God was that believers would have life. This life involved a fullness of fellowship with Christ, and it was available only to those who had a full trust in his person.

 

Texts Significant for Application

John 3:30

These words by John the Baptist are sometimes used to support the idea that in the Christian life Christ must increase and the self must decrease. That statement is true, but the teaching of this passage concerns another matter.

In John 3:27-29 John the Baptist had acknowledged that the recognition which Jesus was receiving came from the Father. John likened himself to the ”friend” of the bridegroom, a position at a wedding comparable to our “best man.” This friend or best man is satisfied when the wedding goes well. His office is to assist the bridegroom, and he does not complain because he is not the bridegroom. John was expressing satisfaction that he had introduced Jesus to Israel. He suggested that now he was to retire from the scene and allow Messiah to grow and increase.

The “increase” of v. 30 suggests that Jesus is to increase in his significance and importance in God’s plan. Jesus’ preaching, ministry, and passion would dominate the plans of God. For John the Baptist there was “decrease” ahead. He would go to prison and eventually become a martyr. Jesus would increase in importance, and John would decrease in importance.

This passage is well applied in a situation in which a church is preparing for the coming of a new pastor. The new pastor will increase in his importance and significance for that congregation. On the other hand, his predecessor is gone. He may have had a meaningful ministry, but he is no longer the pastor and must decline   in importance.

To use this passage as an appeal to deny self and exalt Christ is well-intended but hermeneutically dangerous. We must apply a passage of Scripture in accord with its meaning. John the Baptist was not dealing with the issue of the prominence of Christ in the life of the individual. To appeal for self-denial and Christ-exaltation, it is best to use such passages as Gal. 2:20 and Phil. 1:20-21.

John 13:34-35

In these two verses Jesus provided a command (34a), a pattern (34b), and a result (35). Jesus called the command to love a “new” commandment. The command to love was not unknown, for the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) had spoken of the need to love. Jesus’ teaching about love and the freshness of his own example gave a new depth to the meaning of love.

Jesus had demonstrated to his disciples a pattern for loving. His example of unselfishness, constancy, and commitment to them gave them a visible example to follow. His coming crucifixion would leave them a permanent demonstration of sacrificial love which could inspire and encourage them (1 John 3:16).

Jesus desired that disciples show his love, not merely for one another, but also for the world (Luke 10:25-37). However, in v. 35 Jesus emphasized particularly love within the fellowship of God’s people.

When members of a Christian fellowship demonstrated a sacrificial, unselfish love within itself, they would demonstrate to outsiders that they were Jesus’ disciples.

Christians do not convince outsiders that they are Jesus’ followers by church attendance, right theology, or religious activity. The practice which convinces a suspicious world of the reality of commitment to Jesus is the evidence of love within the Christian brotherhood.[56]For an excellent contemporary discussion of the application of these verses, see Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970). The early church “was a church where an aristocrat like Manaen, an ex-Pharisee of the most rigid type like Saul, Barnabas, an erstwhile Levitical landowner in Cyprus, Lucius, a Hellenistic Jew from Cyrene, and ‘Simeon the Swarthy’, almost certainly an African, could all work together in harmonious leadership of the believers.”[57]Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1970), p. 181. Green is discussing Acts 13:1. The love among these Christians was such that Tertullian could describe the Christians of his days as collecting funds ”to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls who are destitute of means and parents, and of old people now confined to the house, and such as have suffered shipwreck . . .or any who happen to be in the mines or banished to the islands or shut up in prison for their fidelity to God’s church.”[58]Quoted in Green, 183.

Green points out that Tertullian’s description is interesting because there had been a mass conversion in North Africa just before he wrote.[59]Ibid. The quality of fellowship which these outsiders saw must have been crucial in leading them to Christ. People today will be attracted from existing shallow fellowship into the fellowship of God’s people only if they behold how Christians love one another.

John 20:24-29

Doubting Thomas has received bad publicity. We often picture him as an unwilling follower of Christ who had to be convinced against his better judgment that Jesus was truly alive. The fact is that Thomas did require evidence before he believed. However, the evidence which he received was only that which his other friends among the disciples had received the week before. If Thomas had been present for Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples, doubtless he too would have come away a believer.

In John 11:16 and 14:5 Thomas appeared as a loyal but pessimistic follower of Jesus. There is nothing culpable about his absence from the disciples when Jesus first appeared. Thomas apparently kept contact with them after that event, for v. 25 emphasizes that the disciples told Thomas about their visit from Jesus. Thomas obstinately refused to believe without material evidence. Perhaps he was so shocked by the events of the crucifixion that he found it hard to conceive of a resurrection.[60]Morris, 852.

A week after the first appearance, Jesus appeared again, especially for Thomas. Jesus came suddenly into the room through doors that were shut. A miracle occurred in Jesus’ entering the room.[61]Ibid., 844. In this appearance Jesus challenged Thomas with the words which Thomas had used in v. 25. Jesus challenged Thomas to use the sense of touch and sight to rekindle his faith, but there is no indication that Thomas touched Jesus’ body. The force of Jesus’ words and the evidence of the eye convinced Thomas that Jesus had arisen.

Thomas was slow to respond to belief in Jesus. However, when he did respond, his faith far out­ stripped that of the other disciples. He ascribed deity to Jesus. The Jews would have regarded it as blasphemy to call another being “my Lord and my God.” Thomas’ response demonstrated the maturity of his commitment to Jesus. When Thomas accepted the fact that Jesus had arisen from the dead, he made a leap of faith and spoke to Jesus with the language of worship.

Jesus’ response to Thomas in v. 29 was gentle. There is no stinging rebuke. His reply to Thomas indicated that the evidence of the eyes and not the touch of the finger was the deciding factor in Thomas’ life.

Since the first generation of believers died, succeeding generations have believed upon Jesus without seeing the evidence given to Thomas and the disciples. The special blessing which Jesus pronounced has been available for all who have believed since that time, and it applies to our generation. Faith in Jesus does not come by observing mere physical evidence but by hearing the preaching about Christ (Rom. 10:17). Jesus has reserved a special blessing for those with a faith which can trust absolutely.[62]Ibid., 854.

John 21:15-19

Peter had just concluded eating a breakfast prepared by the Lord (John 21:10-14). Likely Jesus took Peter on a stroll after breakfast during which he asked Peter the question of this section. The exact nature of Jesus’ question to Peter is slightly ambiguous. The question could mean “Do you love me more than you love these things?” The “things” would be likely a reference to Peter’s fishing activity. It could also mean “Do you love me more than you love these people, these fellow disciples?” It more likely means “Do you love me more than these (disciples) love me?” Peter had earlier boasted that his love for Jesus would outrun that of his fellow disciples (John 13:37; Mark 14:29-31). Now Peter affirmed his love for Jesus, but he refused to make a comparison between himself and the others in the fervency of love.[63]Bruce, 404.

In asking Peter about his love, Jesus’ first two questions used the Greek verb agapao. His final question in v. 17 used the verb phileo. Does the variation in words indicate any variation in meaning?

B. F. Westcott feels that Jesus’ use of agapao suggests a “higher love which was to be the spring of the Christian life.”[64]Westcott, 303. Peter’s response each time affirmed “his personal attachment to the Lord,”[65]Ibid., 302. but it lacked the high, lofty quality which Jesus was seeking. In Jesus’ third question he asked whether Peter possessed even the modified, lower form of love. Such probing by Jesus caused grief to Peter (John 21:17).

On the other hand, we should observe that John sometimes used the two verbs interchangeably in the Gospel (see agapao in 3:35; phileo in 5:20). Both passages describe the way in which the Father loves the Son. He also varied his usage in describing the disciple whom Jesus loved (agapao in 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; phileo in 20:2). It does not seem wise to press a distinction between the two words.

What Peter did was to reaffirm his love for the Lord three times. What Jesus did was three times to bestow a commission upon Peter. The granting of this com­ mission would complete the process of restoring Peter to a place of leadership among the apostles. Jesus used different words in expressing the commission, but essentially he gave the pastoral office to Peter. In the initial call to Peter, Jesus had given the commission of an evangelist (Mark 1:17). Now he added the commission of a pastor. Peter’s words in 1 Pet. 5:1-4 show that he took this commission seriously.

Peter’s response to Jesus lacked some of the pomp and pride of his earlier boasts (John 13:37). His experience of stumbling in denying the Lord three times and his subsequent repentance had contributed to humbling him.

Jesus’ words to Peter in vv. 18-19 are interpreted by John as describing the manner of Peter’s death. In his youth Peter had fastened his belt about his waist and had gone where he pleased. In his old age he would be restrained and would no longer be the master of his own movements. The stretching out of Peter’s hands could be done for the purpose of receiving handcuffs, but it could be understood also in reference to Peter’s stretching them out on the horizontal beam of a cross. John declared that Jesus spoke to Peter of his martyrdom. Peter made reference to this incident in 2 Pet. 1:14. Tertullian indicated that Peter suffered martyrdom by crucifixion.[66]Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15. The tradition that Peter was crucified with his head downward comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, and it is to be distrusted.[67]Bruce, 406.

 

Texts of Uncertain Authenticity

John 5:4

The whole of this verse is omitted from the best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.[68]Metzger, 209. Those manuscripts which contain the verse also frequently have asterisks or other signs to designate the words as spurious. Following this evidence, such modern versions as NIV and NASB include the verse only in notes which indicate that the verse should be excluded. In addition, these versions also omit that part of v. 3 from the KJV which reads, “waiting for the moving of the water.”

The insertion of the verse explained why the water was agitated intermittently. The true explanation for the agitation of the water likely lies with a spring which periodically stirred up the water.[69]Bruce, 123.

The omission of this verse does not in any way lead to a questioning of the reality of a miracle by Jesus. There was a lame man by the pool. Jesus healed him. However, there was no angel to stir up the water periodically. The idea that the first person who stepped into the pool after the stirring could be healed reflects local superstition rather than spiritual promise and hope.

John 7:5 3-8:11

These twelve verses are included in the text of both the NASB and the NIV, but both versions precede the pericope with either marginal notes or a warning in the text that the words are absent from the best manuscripts of the New Testament. The RSV omits this section from the text altogether and places it in a footnote.

To claim that John did not include it in his Gospel is not a denial of the historical character of the incident. The incident agrees with what we know of Jesus’ character. Its content has a unity about it. “It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.”[70]Tenney, 89.

Those manuscripts which contain this incident occasionally place it at other points in John’s Gospel (after 7:36, 44; 21:25), but the majority of these manuscripts place it between 7:52 and 8:12. Two features may have led to placing it in this context. First, it seems natural to feel that Jesus would have challenged the woman to follow in his light (8:12) after he commanded her to “sin no more.” Second, the content of the incident may have served as an illustration of Jesus’ words in 8:15, “I judge no one.”

The entire incident was an effort to catch Jesus in a trap. Jesus’ enemies posed for him a question which presented him with an apparently insoluble dilemma. The woman was guilty. She was caught in the act. Jesus himself did not dispute this.

The Old Testament commanded that an adulterer and an adulteress be stoned to death (Deut. 22:22-24). If Jesus did not confirm the death penalty, he could be charged with denying the law of God. If he affirmed the verdict of the Pharisees, he could be seen as lacking compassion. The Romans could also accuse him of arousing the people to an independent use of the death penalty.[71]Ibid., 90.

Jesus’ reply put the accusers on the defensive. In this type of offense there would normally be no witnesses since it was by nature a private act. The witnesses could have become such by accident. This would be unusual. They could have become witnesses by deliberate design in order to create a trap for Jesus. In this case they would have condoned the offense contrary to the Old Testament (Deut. 2:22-27). Their true response should have been to stop the deed rather than to permit it or to encourage it. Jesus threw back upon them the question of their own guilt. The witnesses of the deed were to initiate the stoning (Deut. 13:9; 17:7), and Jesus indicated that only the guiltless should carry out the sentence.

The departure by accusers indicated their own guilt in the procedure. The incident may have been a set­ up case of adultery encouraged in order to entangle Jesus. It may also be true that the consciences of the accusers were touched by their recognition of their own sins of adultery. In either case those responsible for the stoning left. Only Jesus and the woman remained.

Jesus’ reply to the woman (v. 10) was respectful. She had perhaps unintentionally provided bait to trick Jesus. The accusers tried to destroy Jesus. They had no interest in helping her. Their hatred of Jesus was as bad as her immorality. Jesus did not condemn her, but he did not condone her sin. His words stated, “Stop living your sinful life.” She was to make a clean break with sin. He showed mercy, and he called to righteousness. It is interesting that Jesus did not pronounce a word of forgiveness. The woman gave no sign of repentance or of faith.

References[+]

Category: Journal Article
Tags: ,


Share This Article:  

Southwestern Journal of Theology
To download full issues and find more information on the Southwestern Journal of Theology, go to swbts.edu/journal.