Studies in John's Gospel: Stephen Irving

By Stephen Irving

Why is John's Gospel so different to the other accounts of Jesus' life? This book proposes the view that John's approach is thematic rather than biographical, and that once understood, this sets the interpretation of John's gospel into clear context. John himself identifies this chosen themes; he tells us (john 20.31 NKJV) that the things he recorded were written that:
1 - you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
2 - that believing you may have life in his name.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dawn Christadelphian Publications
• Release date: Jun 24, 2016
• ISBN: 9781874508588

Book preview

Acknowledgements

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Author's preface

Like many other Bible students, I often found that reading John's gospel prompted many unanswered questions. I determined that the only way to answer some of those questions was to undertake a systematic study of the gospel. A series of Bible Class addresses, and now this book, are the outcome.

I have satisfied my mind on some questions, but John's writings are a deep mine of spiritual treasures, and I have only been able to scratch around at the surface. There are many deep sayings, some of which I have tried to unravel. But there are also some powerful and exhilarating narratives to enjoy – who can fail to be moved by the story of the man born blind, or the raising of Lazarus? So hopefully there is something in this volume that will help and encourage any who take the trouble to read it. My hope and prayer is that it will stimulate more careful reading of, and prayerful meditation on this unique gospel narrative.

Although some of the thoughts in this book are original (at least to me), I take this opportunity to acknowledge other works that have helped me get to grips with the subject. Their ideas are often reflected in these pages. John Carter's The Gospel of John and Harry Whittaker's Studies in the Gospels have both provided many useful insights. A special acknowledgement is due to William Barclay's The Daily Study Bible two volumes on John. His widely acknowledged expertise in New Testament Greek has been particularly helpful in coming to a better understanding of what John was trying to convey.

For those who find difficulty with passages that might seem to support the false doctrines of the Trinity or the pre-existence of Christ, The Trinity – True or False? by Peter Southgate and Jim Broughton is recommended reading.

I would also acknowledge the help of those who have assisted in the production of this book. Particular thanks are due to the following:

Over and above those mentioned, we must acknowledge the work of the beloved apostle John, who dedicated his life to following his Lord and who, under the guidance of the Spirit, set down for our benefit a considered account of the things that Jesus did.  But the greatest debt of gratitude must go to the one whose life John sets out so powerfully; the one whose love was so great, that he laid down his life for his friends. Our prayer is that this book might help each of us, so that we will be recognised as the friends of Jesus.

One final point. As you will see from the introductory chapter, John's gospel is a thematic account of Christ's life and work. This book attempts to explore those themes as they are developed. This is not therefore a verse-by-verse exposition; indeed there are whole passages that are given relatively little attention. That is not because those passages are not important, but because I wanted each chapter of this book to be largely self-contained, in the hope that such an approach would make the book more accessible and enjoyable. Only you, the reader, can decide if that objective has been achieved.

S.J.I.

April 2015

1 Introduction

Many people have wondered why John's gospel is so different from the other three accounts of Jesus' life and work. To begin with, we note how John's gospel surprisingly omits to mention incidents we think of as key aspects of Jesus' ministry. John provides no account of Jesus' birth, nor does he record any of Jesus' parables. Nor does John give any details of Jesus' wilderness temptations, the Sermon on the Mount or the Mt. Olivet prophecy. Neither does he record the institution of the memorial feast, despite devoting five chapters to the other events that took place on that last night in Jerusalem. Equally, there are some very striking events that you would have thought warranted prominence in any account of Jesus' life and teaching, yet only John records them. For example, only John records Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus, the washing of the disciples' feet, and the great prayer of John 17 – three examples of many.

Why is John so different?

So why is the Gospel of John so different in character to the three synoptic accounts of Jesus' life? The approach of the synoptic writers can be summarised by the words of Luke: "it seemed good to me also .... to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1.3). Thus Luke, like Matthew and Mark, was concerned with a biography of the life and work of Jesus; he set out in chronological sequence the key events that shaped the life and work of Jesus. In contrast, I believe that John's intention was not to set out an orderly account, but rather to provide a thematic exposition of the work of Christ. This means that the things he records are chosen very specifically to illustrate the themes he has selected. I think there are two themes, distinct but related, which when understood, set the interpretation of John's gospel into a clear context. Identifying those themes is obvious with hindsight, for John himself tells us exactly what they are: "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that [1] you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and [2] that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20.30-31).

Jesus is the Christ

Thus, I think that the first half of John's gospel concentrates on demonstrating that Jesus is the Christ; this is done through the four-fold witness listed in John 5. First there was the witness of John the Baptist; and so, in John's gospel we have the most detailed of all the accounts about the Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus. Secondly, there was the witness of the miracles; these demonstrated that Jesus was working the works of God, and so we have John's account of those specially selected signs. Thirdly, there was the testimony of the Father through the Scriptures, and finally there was the particular witness of Moses, whom the Jews revered.

When you look at the miracles and the discourses that flowed from them, you come to realise that Jesus was using them to show how he was the fulfilment of all the things that were anticipated by Moses in the Law. Jesus is recorded as declaring himself to be Lord of the Sabbath, the true manna, the water of life that provided refreshment in the wilderness, and the light of the world foreshadowed by the pillar of fire that led Israel through the wilderness. The miracle of the man born blind is the climax of this first theme, with its outcome summarised by the words of Jesus to the formerly blind man: Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of God?' He answered and said, ‘Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?' And Jesus said to him, ‘You have both seen him and it is he who is talking with you.' Then he said, ‘Lord, I believe!' And he worshipped him (John 9.35-38).

Life in his name

In chapter 10, we shift to the second great theme of John's gospel, namely that we might have life in his name. Thus Jesus is revealed as the true shepherd, and as the door to the sheepfold (John 10.9-10): I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. Having introduced this second theme, it is dramatically emphasised by the next great event recorded in the gospel – the raising of Lazarus. Think of Jesus' response to Martha's declaration of faith: Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even though he dies, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?' She said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world' (John 11.25-27). Here is encapsulated John's purpose in writing his gospel; by bringing people to believe in Christ, so that through that belief, they will find life.

The new life in Christ

Having established the certainty of the hope of life in Christ, the remaining chapters describe how that life is to be found. It is the way of service; and so we have the account of the washing of the disciples' feet. It is the way of love; and so Jesus explains to the twelve the new commandment that they must love one another. It is a way that must bring forth fruit to the glory of God; hence the discourse on the need to stay in the Christ vine. This new life is also a life of fellowship, and so John 17 records the prayer that is not mentioned in the other gospels, whereby Jesus talks of the unity that can and must exist between Father, Son and believer, both now and in perfection in the future. It is a life made possible through the resurrection of Jesus, and so John provides more detail than the other gospels concerning Jesus' resurrection appearances.

A gospel for us

As we progress with our study of John's gospel, we will find these twin themes emerging time and again. They are themes that are especially important for each of us as individuals. By focusing on the things John has to tell us, our confidence in the unique nature of Christ's life and work will grow ever more certain. By learning the lessons John expounds, our hope in the new life in Christ will become increasingly secure.

2 The Word made flesh

We begin our studies by looking at one of the hard sayings of John. The prologue to his gospel about the Word made flesh is enigmatic to say the least. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God (John 1.1-2). In that passage there are twenty-four different words, and only one of them has more than one syllable. The words are very simple; their meaning less so! They are often used as a mighty pillar that supports the doctrine of a pre-existent Christ as part of the Trinity, but as we hope to show, they prove no such thing.

Any study of John would not be complete without a consideration of this prologue to the gospel. Yet because it is one of the hard sayings, you may find that this first study is not the easiest of reads. To understand what John was trying to convey requires some detailed analysis. So we will look at the way John uses the key words of the prologue in the rest of his writing. We will also review how those same words were understood in contemporary thinking, both Jewish and Greek. If you find such material too heavy, skip over this chapter; subsequent chapters are much less analytical. But before moving on, take note of the conclusions that are developed in this chapter. They are that:-

'The Word' does not refer to a pre-existent Christ; rather is it a description of the mind and purpose of God in action.

'The beginning' does not refer primarily to the first day of creation; rather does it refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

The word that was in the beginning is therefore a description of how God intervened in the human condition by bringing His son into the world to become 'the Word made flesh'.

The prologue's key words

It seems to me that there are two key words on which an understanding of these verses hinges; those key words are beginning and Word. So let's begin by thinking about the Word. The first thing to note is that the original Greek word, logos, is a very common one. It is used 331 times in the New Testament; 36 times by John in his gospel, 8 times in his epistles and 17 times in the Revelation, a total of 61 occurrences in John's writings.

Admittedly I am no expert, but there seems to be no justification in making some uses of logos special by capitalising it, as most translations do here in John's prologue. Such capitalization is done on just 7 occasions out of the 331 occurrences in the New Testament. All of them are in John's writings; 4 times in the prologue to the gospel, once in the opening verse of his first epistle and finally once more in the book of Revelation.  The other instance can be discounted because it is contained in the spurious verse in 1 John 5. So for no apparent textual reason, the translators have decided that on just 6 out of the 60 times John uses the word logos, the meaning should be understood in a different and special way. That fact alone should make us cautious about the robustness of the translation.

Did Jesus ever claim to be the Word? He certainly claimed to be many things – the light of the world, bread from heaven, the water of life; but never the word of God. Indeed in John 17.14, he is at pains to show a distinction, for there he says to his Father in prayer: "I have given them Your word [logos]".

The word as a person

But you might say, the special character of the logos in John 1.1 is indicated by the use of the masculine pronoun at the beginning of verse 2. This surely personalises the way we should interpret the meaning. There we read: "He [that is the word, the logos] was in the beginning with God". However, by reference to Strong's Concordance we find adopting the personal pronoun He is a questionable translation. In 80% of cases where the original word houtos (translated as He) is used in the New Testament, the AV utilises this, or the same , or their plural equivalents. In fact the word can be applied to inanimate objects, abstract ideas, or male or female persons; the correct translation is dictated by the context. In the context of John 1.2, there is no explicit indication of which of these options we should choose.

But you might continue, there is a similar personalisation in verse 3, where we have reference to him: (All things were made through him). However, it would seem to be equally correct to say it – again, the correct translation is determined by the context. Thus the translators seem to have come to these verses with a preconceived idea of what they mean. We have to be careful not to make the same mistake.

To highlight the inconsistency of the translators, look at Luke 4.36: So they were all amazed and spoke among themselves, saying, 'What a word [logos] this [houtos] is! For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out'. Here the translators give no hint of a pre-existent Christ, yet the words used are exactly the same as in John 1. In Luke, the translators make it plain that the logos is a pronouncement of the Divine will, referring to the voice of command which said: Be quiet and come out of him; and houtos is a reference to those same words. As we shall see shortly, this interpretation is in perfect agreement with the understanding of John 1 that we shall develop.

Now there is another personalisation at the end of verse 1, where we have the phrase the Word was God. As our last bit of analysis of the Greek, I will quote some words of William Barclay, a very well respected Greek scholar. He says in his commentary on John:

When Greek uses a noun, it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is theos, and the definite article is ho. When the Greek speaks about God, it does not simply say theos, it says ho theos. Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, that noun becomes more like an adjective; it describes the character and quality of the person. John did not say the Word was ho theos; .... He says that the Word was theos, without the definite article, which means that the Word was of the same character and quality and essence of God.

On that basis, it would seem to me that a better translation would be to say that the Word was Godly, which gives a very different impression from the Word was God.

The meaning of the Word

I apologise for that somewhat academic analysis, but it seems to be important, for it shows that there is no justification in the immediate text for associating the meaning of the Word with another person. So what are we to understand by the term? It is obviously something intimately associated with God, but how would it be understood by John's audience? John was writing for both Jews and Greeks, and to both audiences, the concept of the Word would have been very familiar. Indeed it may well have been for that very reason that John used the phrase to introduce his gospel. It was an inclusive concept that would immediately make all his readers comfortable, both Jew and Gentile.

Quoting William Barclay again :

To the Jew, a word was far more than a mere sound; it was something ... which actually did things. He says elsewhere: ... for the Jew, a word was not simply a sound in the air; a word was a unit of energy and effective power.

Thus the Word of God is the mind of God in action. There are many examples in the Old Testament that illustrate this concept of a powerful, creative word. A classic example is Isaiah 55.11: so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Another is Psalm 33.6,9: By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. ⁹For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Thus we see the Word is used to describe the means by which God declares His purpose, and then carries it out. This is of course what happened at the Creation, when God spoke, and it was done.

Barclay goes on to explain how that when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Aramaic (the language of the common people in New Testament times), the Jews after the exile were reluctant to associate God with human thoughts and feelings. Consequently, whenever they came across such a reference in the Hebrew, instead of using the particular name or title of God, in the Aramaic they adopted the phrase the word of God, much as today a pious Jew will not speak the name of God but use some alternative phrase.

For example, we read (Exodus 19.17): And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God. The Jews thought it inappropriate to think that God would meet with man, and so in the Aramaic, this was changed to Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with the Word of God. Consequently, the phrase the Word of God became a very commonly used and understood expression to describe God at work amongst men. This is what the Word of God would mean to the Jew of John's day.

But how would the Greek mind understand logos? The concept of the Word developed in Greek philosophy around 500 BC. The Word was used to describe the power that brought order to what would otherwise be a world of chaos. It kept the stars in their courses, it controlled the seasons. To the Greek, order implied a mind and a purpose, and that mind and purpose was termed the Word, or the Reason of God. They saw the embodiment of this Word in the pantheon of their idols. As John opens his gospel, he is directing the Greek mind to the one true God and the true purpose of God. Thus to both Jew and Greek, the logos conveyed the sense of the mind and purpose of God in action.

The beginning

Now we turn to think about the beginning. In itself, beginning is not a difficult word to understand. Our only problem is to identify what is, or what was, the thing John was referring to that commenced in the beginning. The mind and purpose of God was certainly active at the beginning of time when the world was created, but is that the beginning John was referring to?  To try and answer that question, we shall look at how the word is used in the New Testament, and especially by John himself.

Mathew uses the word rarely, and in a variety of ways, one of which includes a reference to Adam and Eve, though not to creation per se. But as soon as we open Mark's gospel, we get a beginning mentioned in an identical context to that in John 1. Mark opens his record with these words: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1.1). This beginning is surely not a reference to the creation of the world; rather it would seem to refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, for the passage goes on to introduce the work of John Baptist as the herald of the Messiah.

It is interesting to note how the sequence in Mark 1 seems to mirror precisely that found in John 1. Trace the parallels at your leisure, and you will see that in both gospels, following the reference to the beginning, John the Baptist is introduced as a fulfilment of the writings of the prophets in preparing the way for the Messiah. Then there comes the account of the multitudes that flocked to John at the Jordan. This is followed by John's admission that he was not worthy to loose Jesus' sandals, and then by the account of Jesus' baptism. This is followed by the account of the call of Peter and Andrew. Thus we have precisely the same sequence of events in both Mark and John. If these parallels are intended to mean anything, they suggest that the beginning referred to by John is the same beginning mentioned by Mark, namely the beginning of Christ's life and ministry.

Now look at how Luke opens his gospel: "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us" (Luke 1.1-2). What beginning does that refer to? Clearly it was not the beginning of creation, for the disciples were definitely not present to witness the dawn of time. But as Acts 1 makes plain, an essential qualification for apostleship was that they had to be "... men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1.21-22). Comparing these two passages, both penned by Luke, it is clear that the beginning that Luke had in mind when he opened his gospel record was the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

And with this understanding, we can go back to Matthew and find that he opens his gospel with these words: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The Greek word translated genealogy is genesis, which has the meaning of birth, genealogy or history of origin; hence its adoption for the first book of the Bible, the book of beginnings. Matthew opens his gospel with a discussion of the beginnings of Jesus, describing in detail his family tree starting from Abraham. Again, his beginning relates to the beginnings of Jesus life and work, and has nothing to do with the creation record.

So all four gospels open with reference to a beginning; three of those four are clearly referring to the beginning of the life and ministry of Jesus. We therefore need a very good reason to apply a different meaning to the opening of John's gospel. But how does John go on to use the word beginning? As I briefly summarise every use of this Greek word in John's gospel, ask yourself if this most sensibly relates to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

Firstly we have the account of the miracle at Cana which was (John 2.11) the beginning of signs. Jesus later says that he (6.64) knew from the beginning that Judas was to be the betrayer. In response to a question about who he was, Jesus says (8.25): Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. Talking to the disciples he says (15.27): you have been with me from the beginning. Later he says when talking of the coming of the