The New Testament Devotional Commentary, Volume 2: John - 2 Corinthians

By Bo Giertz and Bror Erickson

Bo Giertz wrote these commentaries in retirement after a lifetime of studying the Greek New Testament. These accompanied his own translations of the New Testament. This volume covers the Gospel of John through to Second Corinthians. Many have previously enjoyed Giertz's Romans commentary that is also included here, and they will not be disappointed with his treatment of the other texts.

Giertz' s views were heavily shaped by his mentor Anton Fridrichsen who wanted to counter both the liberalism of men like his friend Rudolph Bultmann, and the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth with Biblical Realism. Biblical Realism sought to avoid the pitfalls of biblicism by allowing for academic freedom while studying scriptures, while also maintaining that the events of the Bible were true events that happened in our history all centered upon the death and resurrection of Christ. The scriptures are therefore a salvation history meant to "declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 11:14).

• Language: English
• Publisher: 1517 Publishing
• Release date: Aug 9, 2022
• ISBN: 9781948969949

Book preview

Cover pictureTitle page: Bo Giertz, The New Testament Devotional Commentary (Volume 2: John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians), New Reformation Publications

The New Testament Devotional Commentary, Volume 2: John, Acts, Romans,

1 & 2 Corinthians

© 2022 New Reformation Publications

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher at the address below.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Published by:

1517 Publishing

PO Box 54032

Irvine, CA 92619–4032

Publisher’s Cataloging-In-Publication Data

 (Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.)

Names: Giertz, Bo, 1905-1998, author. | Erickson, Bror, translator.

Title: The New Testament devotional commentary. Volume 2, John, Acts, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians / by Bo Giertz ; translated by Bror Erickson.

Other Titles: Förklaringar till Nya testamentet. D. 2, Johannesevangeliet, Apostlagärningarna, Romarbrevet, Korinterbreven. English | John, Acts, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians

Description: Irvine, CA : 1517 Publishing, [2022] | Series: The New Testament devotional commentary series ; volume 2 | Translation of Förklaringar till Nya testamentet. D. 2, Johannesevangeliet, Apostlagärningarna, Romarbrevet, Korinterbreven.

Identifiers: ISBN 9781948969925 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781948969932 (paperback) | ISBN 9781948969949 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John—Commentaries. | Bible. John—Devotional literature. | Bible. Acts—Commentaries. | Bible. Acts—Devotional literature. | Bible. Romans—Commentaries. | Bible. Romans—Devotional literature. | Bible. Corinthians—Commentaries. | Bible. Corinthians—Devotional literature.

Classification: LCC BS2555.3 .G5413 2022 (print) | LCC BS2555.3 (ebook) | DDC 226/.07—dc23

Printed in the United States of America

Cover art by Zachariah James Stuef

This digital document has been produced by Nord Compo.

Contents

Title Page

Copyright

Preface

Introduction:

The Tradition of John in Ephesus

John 1

John 2

John 3

John 4

John 5

John 6

John 7

John 8

John 9

John 10

John 11

John 12

John 13

John 14

John 15

John 16

John 17

John 18

John 19

John 20

John 21

The Acts of the Apostles:

Introduction

Acts 1

Acts 2

Acts 3

Acts 4

Acts 5

Acts 6

Acts 7

Acts 8

Acts 9

Acts 10

Acts 11

Acts 12

Acts 13

Acts 14

Acts 15

Acts 16

Acts 17

Acts 18

Acts 19

Acts 20

Acts 21

Acts 22

Acts 23

Acts 24

Acts 25

Acts 26

Acts 27

Acts 28

Romans:

Introduction

Romans 1

Romans 2

Romans 3

Romans 4

Romans 5

Romans 6

Romans 7

Romans 8

Romans 9

Romans 10

Romans 11

Romans 12

Romans 13

Romans 14

Romans 15

Romans 16

First Corinthians:

Introduction

First Corinthians 1

First Corinthians 2

1 Corinthians 3

1 Corinthians 4

1 Corinthians 5

1 Corinthians 6

1 Corinthians 7

1 Corinthians 8

1 Corinthians 9

1 Corinthians 10

1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 12

1 Corinthians 13

1 Corinthians 14

1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 16

Second Corinthians:

Introduction

2 Corinthians 1

2 Corinthians 2

2 Corinthians 3

2 Corinthians 4

2 Corinthians 5

2 Corinthians 6

2 Corinthians 7

2 Corinthians 8

2 Corinthians 9

2 Corinthians 10

2 Corinthians 11

2 Corinthians 12

2 Corinthians 13

Appendix:

The Bible’s View of Itself

PREFACE

Bo Giertz loved the scriptures and made the New Testament the subject of a life-long in-depth study to which the commentaries he wrote testify. This study began under the mentorship of Anton Fridrichsen while he was studying for a bachelor’s degree in theology in Uppsala as a young man. It continued until late in life when he recorded the Greek New Testament onto cassette tapes so he could continue to listen to it when his eyesight failed. Fridrichsen is not well known in the English-speaking world, but he had an incredible influence on biblical studies through his students such as Bo Reicke and Krister Stendahl, who later taught at Harvard Divinity School.

Fridrichsen was a form critic who earned his PhD. at the University of Strasbourg. His thesis was entitled The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity. In it, Fridrichsen began to highlight the problems of higher criticism and its operative assumptions. Later he would advocate for a Biblical Realism in an essay titled Realistic Interpretation of the Bible (which can be found in Anton Fridrichsen, Exegetical Writings: A Selection [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1994]). Fridrichsen argued against liberal exegesis in this essay and maintained that the foundation of all theological interpretation must be the early Christian kerygma, the message and confession: Jesus is Lord, Kyrios Jesus! (here) and that any interpretation of the scriptures which starts with presuppositions other than the New Testament’s own is nothing but a re-interpretation in modern style. Even such an interpretation has its rightful place, but not in theological scholarship, where strict realism and an unconditional sense of reality must be demanded (here).

As late as 1991, Bo Giertz was quoted in his biography Atiesten som blev biskop (The Atheist that Became Bishop) saying that he was still a student of Fridrichsen and that much of what he wrote was an attempt to pass on to another generation what he had learned from him (here). Bo Giertz was also an independent thinker who developed his own style and approach to Biblical studies even if he remained indebted to his college mentor and travel companion to Palestine. It was typical of Bo Giertz’s all in approach to topics of interest to him that he should travel to Palestine and spend six months surveying the terrain and visiting archeological digs. This trip first bore literary fruit in With My Own Eyes, a particularly striking and impactful novelization of the life of Jesus. However, his memories and experiences of Palestine in 1931 would serve to color and add texture to his sermons (see A Year of Grace, volumes 1 and 2), devotions (To Live with Christ), and perhaps most stunningly in these commentaries.

In all these literary endeavors, Bo Giertz sought to build up the church and edify the laity. This was his primary concern. He especially wanted to make the scriptures accessible to the laymen of the church. Thus, he wrote in a style that avoided theological jargon as much as possible. Where it was necessary, it is thoroughly explained. Still, these commentaries show—despite their simplicity—intimate knowledge of scholarly research. He can, like Fridrichsen, be critical of both liberal and conservative positions from time to time. However, he was not interested in controversies and tried to avoid them. He would occasionally pass over a controversy by lightly touching upon it only to highlight the meaning of the text that he wanted to to expound. In this way he forced the reader, scholar and layman alike, to be confronted with the word of God—both in law and gospel—rather than avoiding it all by getting caught up in minutia, which can often spill ink for pages in more scholarly commentaries that never get around to expounding the word of God.

I suppose a person could go on for some time explaining the approach Bo Giertz wanted to take with these commentaries. Perhaps the best way is to let him explain. I’ve thus Included his essay The Bible’s View and the View of the Bible in the back of this book, which was translated and previously published in Then Fell the Lord’s Fire, a collection of ordination sermons and essays in pastoral theology by Bo Giertz.

I have owned these commentaries for almost a decade and have often referenced them in sermon preparation. They have deeply enriched my own life and understanding of scripture. Perhaps, from time to time, I’m given to pause and contemplate a disagreement I have with Bo Giertz on a point or two, but even then I find I have been blessed for the conversation.

I want to thank 1517 for encouraging me to translate and publish these volumes. My editor Steve Byrnes was incredibly supportive during this endeavor, as have been the rest of the team members at 1517 who have become great friends, brothers and sisters in the work of gospel proclamation. I also want to give thanks to Birgitta Giertz and the Giertz estate who have graciously given permission for these translations. Many of you have enjoyed Bo Giertz’s devotional commentary on Romans, which was published separately (and will be included in volume 2). I thank you all for sharing your reviews and appreciation of that work. They too have been an inspiration to me and an encouragement to complete the project. I know you will find the rest of Bo Giertz’s New Testament commentaries a rich treasure trove of blessing and enlightenment.

Pastor Bror Erickson

Exaudi Sunday,

May 16th 2021

INTRODUCTION

The Tradition of John in Ephesus

Who Wrote John’s Gospel?

The early church’s answer was unanimous: John wrote it, one of the twelve, the disciple that Jesus loved. He finished his life out in Ephesus, where he died of old age. He was the last of the apostles to pass away. He was still living when Trajan became Caesar (the year 98 by our calendar) and was the last to write a gospel.

Many sources record this tradition, which dates from the end of the first century, indicating that it was commonly accepted at that time. The chief witness concerning this is Irenaeus, the church father who was a native of Asia Minor and became bishop of Lyon in Gaul around 180 A.D. He says that in his youth, he had listened to a man that was a disciple of the Apostle John in Ephesus. This man was Polycarp. Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna and suffered martyrdom there around 155 A.D. Irenaeus speaks about how well he remembers the old Polycarp and how he listened to all that he said about John and about Jesus concerning his miracles and teachings. Not only had Polycarp socialized with John, but also with many others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus did not say all this for uncritical friends but in a letter to ideological opponents in Asia Minor to whom the relationships were well known. So, it can be shown that a personal disciple of Jesus named John had lived in Ephesus. Because Irenaeus calls him the old apostle, he can hardly mean anyone but John, the son of Zebedee. And it is said that he was the disciple who laid at the breast of Jesus and who, after the three other gospels were written, published his own gospel in Ephesus.

Critiques of the Early Church Tradition

This tradition remained practically unchallenged for a long time. Only in 1820 did anyone seriously question the apostolic origin of the Gospel of John. This critique grew stronger in the course of the 19th century. Around the turn of the century in 1900, many scholars considered it the proven result of historical-critical research that the Gospel of John could not be traced back to an eyewitness, and therefore must have come about a century or more after the death of Jesus, about the year 150 A.D or even later. So, it was thought to be of no historical worth, but on the contrary, to give a totally revisionist picture of the life of Jesus and his teachings.

The critique proceeded from the apparent differences between John and the other gospels, which are called the Synoptics because they have in large part the same view (in Greek, synopsis). They all have Jesus beginning his activity after the imprisonment of John the Baptist and place the main events of his ministry in Galilee. They also only speak of one visit to Jerusalem, namely the last Passover. Furthermore, they give the impression that the activity of Jesus only lasted one year. In contrast to this, John has a lot to say about how Jesus first worked in Judea in tandem with the Baptist, and how he made a long series of visits to Jerusalem where he had many disciples. He speaks about a minimum of three Passovers and shows that the ministry of Jesus lasted for at least three years, possibly four.

Furthermore, the critique maintains that John did not know the towns and roads of Palestine. He had never been there and did not know very much at all about the period in which Jesus lived. His thoughts about Jesus as the Word (logos) were thought to be taken from Greek philosophy. The picture he gives of Christ as the Son, who lived with the Father before the beginning of the world, was thought to be theological speculation utterly foreign to Jesus himself.

The pendulum has since swung. Sensational findings have shown that John was right in matters for which he was least expected to know anything. The dam at Bethesda has been excavated, and it was found to have had five colonnades, just as John says. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran has shown that even those thoughts and concepts in John, which were thought to belong to the second century, were actually current among the Jews in Jesus’s day. And in the desert sands of Egypt, which have preserved so many ancient papyrus records for us, fragments of John’s Gospel have been found that are older than any other gospel manuscript. The oldest fragment can be dated, because of the style, to the beginning of the second century or, in any case, the first half. If John’s gospel had been known and read so early in Egypt, there is every reason to take the early church tradition seriously when it says that it was written at the end of the first century.

Other facts have also caused the pendulum to swing. It has been shown that the Gospel of John gives a knowledgeable and informed picture of the relation between the Jews in the days of Jesus. The details concerning the prosecution of Jesus have been shown to fit. In the old dispute concerning the day of Jesus’s death, most researchers now consider John to be right when he claims that it was the 14th of Nisan (and not the 15th as the Synoptics indicate).

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

The Gospel of John itself has something to say concerning its genesis. In two places (19:35 and 21:24), the gospel relies on an eyewitness that can verify the truth of what is being said. He was at Golgotha when Jesus died, and at the sea of Tiberius when the Resurrected One showed himself to the disciples. On the latter occasion, it is expressly said that it is a question of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

In the Gospel of John, there is an anonymous disciple who usually goes by the name the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was the one who lay at Jesus breast during the Last Supper, thus closest to Jesus at the table, and who stood at the cross together with the mother of Jesus. He was the one who ran with Peter to the grave on Easter morning, and who recognized the Resurrected One on the Sea of Tiberius. So he plays a meaningful role in the gospel. But who was he?

He ought to have been one of the twelve because he was there at the last supper. We can eliminate those mentioned by name: Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, and Judas, the son of James. Among those that are left as the first to be considered are those who stood closest to Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels. These are the two Sons of Zebedee, James, and John. James is eliminated because he was one of the first apostles to meet martyrdom, while the beloved disciple was the last to remain alive. So once again, it is John. He is also the one Irenaeus pointed out based on information he received from a personal disciple of John himself. Even if we did not have the early church tradition to go by, we would guess that it was him.

But if now he is the beloved disciple, is he also the one who wrote the gospel?

So Who Wrote the Gospel of John?

It might be that we have the answer to this question in the next to last verse of the gospel. There it says that it was the beloved disciple who has written these things. Now these things can hint at the previous passage. The matter is discussed in the commentary, but we cannot be sure. Instead, we have to see what the gospel says about its author through its speech and contents.

As far as the language is concerned, it gives every indication that a bilingual Jew was in control of the pen. He writes flawless Greek but does not make use of a great vocabulary. The religiously meaningful words are laden with content of obvious Jewish background. His sentence structure is also clearly Semitic and not Greek. He uses short, simple sentences and piles them up, one on top of the other. Students, who work with the original Greek, usually think that it is easy to read John, especially if compared to Paul, who thinks like a Greek and loves long sentences with interlaced prepositions.

So here writes a Jew who learned Greek but has a Semitic mother tongue. He also shows himself to have excellent local knowledge regarding theplaces, culture, and traditions of Palestine, which indicates a Palestinian Jew. This is a strong argument for the traditional conception.

But there are also counterarguments.

First, a person might ask if a Galilean fisherman could speak such good Greek, or if a person could attribute to him the ability to dispense and design such thoughts that are so difficult to access. Of course, Luke says that John and Peter were uneducated commoners (Acts. 4:13). On the other hand, Luke says in the same place that it was John alongside Peter who became the leaders of the original congregation, and Paul considers him to be one of the three pillars there (Gal. 2:9). A person might also remember that there are fifty years between the recorded events and when John’s Gospel is considered to have been written. A man can manage to teach himself quite a bit in fifty years.

Second, some have asked if a Galilean disciple would be able to give such a picture concerning the life of Jesus that is so different from that of the Synoptics. Of course, John was incredibly close to Peter, who is regarded to have put his stamp on Mark’s Gospel. Why then does John describe everything from such a completely different point of view, and with a heavy emphasis on Jerusalem? It is hardly a question that can be answered if a person does not assume that John deliberately omitted such things as were already known. And this makes sense if he wrote in his old age and had seen the appearance of the first three gospels over the course of his life. Perhaps he wanted to complete the picture and wrote a different gospel with new aspects.

The Revelation of John causes us yet another problem. According to early church tradition, this book was also written by the Apostle John. But it is written in a language and in a style that is markedly different from the Gospel of John. Many rule out the idea that the same author would have held the pen. They have come up with a series of hypotheses. One of them says that there was a different John who became confused with the apostle.

John, the Elder

The man who wrote the two small epistles that we know as Second and Third John calls himself a presbyter. Plain and simple, it could mean the old one, but at the same time, it was the title of a congregational leader and in our present translation it is rendered elder. Peter also considered himself a presbyter (1 Pet. 5:1), and normally the presbyter John who speaks in these two epistles has been thought to be the same as the apostle. But in our day (and at times in antiquity), people have wanted to claim that there were two different Johns in Ephesus, one of whom was the one called the presbyter. They have cited a passage in Papias (who wrote around the year 130 A.D.), where he makes a list of sages whose words he has gathered. There he names a John among the apostles, and right after, a John the Elder (or the old John). If he had meant two different persons (which some contest), he doesn’t say anything about where this John the Elder might have lived or anything he may have written. Only in the year 250 A.D. do we encounter the assertion that there was a John the Presbyter who lived in Ephesus and wrote the Book of Revelation. He who says this wants to show that the Book of Revelation does not originate from an apostle. He says that he has also heard there were two different tombs in Ephesus in which John is claimed to have been buried. Later, we encounter an uncertain statement of a John who succeeded John as bishop.

On these very poor facts, a theory has been constructed in our time saying that the disciple beloved by Jesus would have been a personal disciple of Jesus, i.e., not a Galilean but a Jerusalemite. One is reminded of the anonymous disciple who followed Peter to Ananias’s palace when Jesus was taken prisoner. This disciple was known by the high priest and managed to slip in. Could a Galilean fisherman do that? Indeed, in this place, he was only referred to as another disciple, and it is not certain that this concerned the disciple whom Jesus loved. However, the Easter morning narrative also speaks about another disciple, and there, we know that this was the same as Jesus’s beloved.

Were this true that the beloved disciple’s home was Jerusalem, we would get a straightforward explanation for why everything in John’s Gospel comes from a point of view differing from that of the Synoptics. This is the strength of the theory. However, it is not entirely out of the question that even the son of Zebedee the fisherman could have relations with the priestly circles of Jerusalem. His mother may have been the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. We will return to the reasons for this when we speak about the women at the cross (19:25). Luke tells us that Mary had priestly relatives in Judea. In such a case, John ought to have had them also. This may explain why he was more at home in Jerusalem and with the high priests than Peter.

The theory about a John the Elder, a native of Jerusalem who would have been the beloved disciple, must be considered with skepticism, especially as the beloved disciple is described as a Galilean fisherman (2:6f). No one in antiquity said anything about a John the Elder having had anything to do with the fourth gospel. So if we hold fast to the Apostle John as the beloved disciple, then he must have been the one who stood behind the Gospel of John.

But in what way?

Is the Gospel of John the Work of One Man?

Once again, we return to the next to last verse. There, a group speaks that only identifies itself as we. They certify that the beloved disciple has testified about that which has just been said and that he wrote it. In antiquity, to write could also mean to allow to be written. Authorship does not necessarily mean that one wrote it while holding the pen himself. Paul liked to use scribes and coworkers. Though he dictated word for word, sometimes he seems to have allowed coworkers to write according to directions he had given them.

What should we think about the way John worked? If we assume that he really came to Ephesus, then he ought to have done it relatively late. In Acts (that which can be dated to 62 A.D. with certainty) and in Paul’s letters, there is no trace that he had come there yet. The probability is that he remained in Jerusalem until the year 66 A.D., when the great Jewish war began, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem. As a result of this catastrophe, the mother church and its leadership dispersed. If this was the context in which John came to Asia Minor, he ought to have been between fifty and sixty years old. He had belonged to the church’s leadership for more than three decades, and in actual fact, was engaged in uninterrupted instruction. He had repeated the words of his Master and meditated on them. He had put them together and attempted to figure out what the Master really wanted to say. He did this while continually dealing with the Jews who brought objections and critique, who had encountered Jesus in his own lifetime. It is likely that at this time, he had already become accustomed to bringing the message to the Greeks among the Greek-speaking Jews that filled Jerusalem to the brim during the festivals.

Then he came to Asia Minor. There was conflict with the Jews there too. This had already begun in Paul’s day. In Revelation, we can see how formidable the opposition was even at the end of the century (2:9, 3:9). John was received as a leader in Ephesus. He received disciples. He instructed orally, like Jesus and all the apostles. The disciples were supposed to memorize their teacher’s words, so the sentences were constructed with a rhythm that made it easy to memorize. In the Gospel of John, the words of Jesus take on a form that borders on poetry. They can be portioned into short verses (just as some modern translations have, in fact, done). Eventually, a whole group of disciples would have arisen that would spread this apostolic tradition further.

In the early church tradition, we encounter many citations saying that John did not write his gospel alone. A share of these citations are obviously legends, but perhaps they contain a kernel of truth. The gospel itself shows that this chapter is an addition by a group of disciples who, at the same time, knew that it was the words of their teacher they were repeating. Within the commentary, we will see that there may be other passages of the text that were taken from the apostle’s spiritual estate and added in the same manner.

Did John himself write? Or did he have some assistant who set to paper what he dictated? The answer to these questions depends, among other things, upon how one regards the book of Revelation. Those who think that it was written by the Apostle John personally during his exile on Patmos usually figure that he had assistants (one or more) in Ephesus. They were also responsible for the oral instruction. But even those who think the apostle himself wrote the gospel usually figure that he had amanuenses and coworkers who had not been without influence in the development. Perhaps, in the same way, the former professor Odeberg in Lund allowed his students to refer to what he said and publish it in his name and with his approval.

When Was the Gospel of John Written?

The early church tradition says that John wrote his gospel when he was very old, perhaps in his 90s. But the information on that point is not as old and reliable. Irenaeus only lets us know that John published his Gospel in Ephesus as last in the four series. Scholars are generally inclined to date it up to the end of the first century. Still, John Robinson, a known scholar from the historical-critical school, has recently claimed that it must have been written before the year 70 A.D., certainly after the other gospels but before the destruction of Jerusalem. He points to a series of well-known facts: It is at home in a Palestinian milieu, where the culture, customs, legal relationships, and problems reflect the circumstances before the year 66 A.D. It speaks about the Temple and the pool at Bethsaida as if they still exist, though they were totally destroyed in the year 70 A.D. It does not speak to heathen, but to men for whom it was a misfortune to be excluded from the synagogue.

So much can be regarded as certain, a significant part of the contents found their form already as John instructed in Jerusalem. The description of the pool (dam) at Bethesda (5:2) must have come before the year 70 A.D. On the other hand, there are, among other things, the many translations of Hebrew words that John turned to Greek as he would have done in Asia Minor.

Yet, it does not much matter which decade the gospel was written. The gospel contains what John had said and learned during the decades. It is also both possible and likely that it received additions and extensions during the life of John. In any case, it is important to remember what the early church tradition says: It was written while John was still alive. It belongs at home in a time when a person could still refer to eyewitnesses. Even the last chapter, which was likely added after the apostle’s death, refers to what he said and wrote during his lifetime.

So this commentary proceeds from the assumption that John, one of the twelve, is the author of the Gospel of John. However, we may remember that there are still unanswered questions regarding this. One of them is the relationship between the Gospel of John and Revelation. Still, that question is perhaps better discussed in connection with the study of the Revelation of St. John. Another unanswered question is how it can come about that there was no hint of John in the letter that St. Ignatius, the martyred bishop, wrote to the congregation in Ephesus around the year 115 A.D. when he passed through Asia Minor as a prisoner being taken to Rome. He reminds them of Paul, but not of John, who must have still lived in the memory of the Ephesians. This question remains unanswered.

Why Did John Write His Gospel?

This gospel is written, that you also may believe. So, it says in the description of Jesus’s death (19:35), and it is repeated at the end of the next chapter (20:31). So, this point is clearly specified. The Gospel of John is often called a missions (evangelism) book. This is not entirely right. When John says, so that you shall believe, he uses a Greek verb form that does not mean come to faith, but instead means to remain in the faith, continue to believe, and strengthen and deepen in the faith. The gospel directs itself to people who already believe. It is a faith strengthening book, a sort of Shepherd’s Letter. ¹ John does not only say what has been said; he turns directly to the receivers. He proposes that they have already received instruction. They know what all Christians are taught. There is an apostolic doctrine that the New Testament calls paradosis, the holy tradition that came from Jesus. It was mediated everywhere with about the same words. It is this that is recorded in the Synoptics. In general, John proposes that that was known. He did not care to repeat it. Instead, he wanted to give something different and more, something that he as an eyewitness can testify to and that he now wants to explain and expound upon.

While the other evangelists are mediators of a common Christian tradition, John is also a personal witness who lays out what he himself saw and understood. He had particular conditions for that. He was the disciple whom Jesus loved. It is not certain that he gave himself that name. Some believe that he used to speak about a different disciple when he himself came into the picture and that it was his disciples who called him the disciple that Jesus loved. In any case, there is no arrogance in the expression. No one has deserved the love of Jesus. No one can demand it. If anyone has received more of it than others, then it is evidence of Christ’s goodness. To be able to say Jesus loves me is, in actual fact, a way to glorify Jesus and his inconceivable love.

In any case, John was closer to his Master and understood him better than the rest. He has been able to render and formulate his innermost thoughts. He preserved and utilized what Jesus said in the most intimate circle of disciples and has understood what the Master meant, even when he only hinted at who he was. It is this that he explains now. That Jesus really spoke this way about himself, we can see from a couple of remarkable places in the Synoptics (Matt. 11:27f, Luke 10:21 f). These come from the common apostolic tradition but could be taken straight from the Gospel of John. At the same time, it is apparent that John has worked with these words he has in mind, processed them, and put a lot of work into giving them the right form.

So John did not want to write a gospel like the others. He wanted to complete the picture of Jesus found in the other gospels and give it depth. Already in the early church, people called his gospel a spiritual gospel. We might call it a spiritual portrait. He only describes external events when they give him a reason to clarify who Jesus was. What he wants to show is the picture of the real Jesus, he who was before the foundation of the world and was sent by the Father to give life to the world. He draws this picture against the background of heavy Jewish opposition. Because the objections they raised are the same in every generation, this argumentation never loses its timeliness. Apparently, these objections were highly relevant among the Greeks in Asia Minor. This is perhaps partly because there were so many deviant teachings concerning the person of Jesus early on. Paul is already fighting with them in his letter to the Colossians. Tradition says that the old John also encountered them in Ephesus. So, he must have found it urgent to clarify who Jesus really was.

That, however, is not the only chief theme in the Gospel of John. The other is that Jesus, through his Spirit, has come back and lives in his church. John wants to show that the eternal life has already begun, that Jesus comes even now, and that we are not just given to wait for his return. He is constantly repeating the promise of Jesus with new words to make it clear to us that we already possess this eternal life now by faith, whose full reality will be revealed in the future.

How John Tells the Story

The gospels are not biographies in any modern sense of the term. They do not give a description concerning the life of Jesus, but of his gospel, that of the words and deeds through which he carried out his work of salvation. The Synoptics want to give a contextual and otherwise complete picture of the words and deeds of Jesus. However, John does not have this goal. He concentrates on the actual heart points: that the Word became flesh, that God was in the Son, that he who sees him has also seen the Father, and that there is no other way to God than through him. Of all the deeds of Jesus, he selects seven that are signs, and to them, he links his teaching concerning Jesus, God’s Son. He builds this instruction up with words and thoughts that he has received from his Lord. He does it considering those who will now be reached by the message and does not concern himself with whether certain words were originally said in that particular situation or certain thoughts expressed in this particular form on that occasion.

When John looks back on that which occurred, he sees it as a totality. He knows: This is what Jesus wants us to see. It is the ripe faith he describes, not how the disciples gradually came to it. He looks at the reality just as we all do when we are old and look back. The distance in time begins to be erased. The events move closer to each other and flow together. That which remains is the essential, which emerged from the sum of his experiences and perceptions. At times, John explicitly says that what he records was not clear for the disciples before, but afterward (2:22, 12:16). At other times a person notices that he sees and explains and tells what happened in light of what finally stepped forth as the remaining truth. It may surprise us that he speaks about disciples as if on the first day the disciples understood that Jesus was the Messiah and God’s son. This was certainly not a problem for John. This was precisely that which Jesus wanted to show them, and what they wanted to show others now. How and when they understood it was irrelevant in this context. The most profound truth came forth when he saw the events with a clarity gained afterward.

John and the Synoptics

If what we said here concerning the purpose and life of John’s Gospel holds, then it explains a good deal concerning why John deviates so much from the Synoptics. He has wanted to say that which had not already been said before. He also had some things to add about the external events in the life of Jesus. He lets us know that before he stepped forth in Galilee, Jesus had worked in Judea, perhaps for even a whole year. He says that Jesus went up to Jerusalem repeatedly during the great festivals. In and of itself, this is not surprising. It was a good custom among pious Jews, a custom that the parents of Jesus seem to have observed. John may have followed him, even if other disciples did not. We do not hear much from John concerning the Galilean activity of Jesus, apart from chapter 6, but there they are obvious and commonly known things. The most significant difficulties in uniting John and the course of events with the Synoptics come about during the last winter and spring. John lets us know that Jesus visited Jerusalem at the Feast of Booths (in October) and the Feast of the Temple Dedication (Hanukah) in December. Then he drew away to the other side of the Jordan, but they cut their stay there short to visit the family of Lazarus in Betania. From there, they go to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim (11:54 [ESV]) in order to come back to Betania six days before the Passover. The Synoptics only say that Jesus came in the spring with pilgrim trains from Galilee through the land east of the Jordan on the way over to Jericho and up to Bethania and Jerusalem. If a person wants to meld these courses of events together, he has to take some quite bold guesses. We cannot get a real clear picture grounded in the gospels. And this perhaps was not the purpose.

Another problem is the obvious differences in Jesus’s manner of speaking about himself. According to the Synoptics, he does not want to publicly acknowledge that he was the Messiah. With John, he says he is the Messiah without reservation. This may be because the political expectations tied to the Messiah were strongest in Galilee. In Galilee, a man lived on the brink of revolution, and the title Messiah was a spark that could cause an explosion. The situation was not quite so explosive in Judea. Instead, the conversations Jesus had with the Jews of Judea always concerned the religious concept of the Messiah. Still, in John, we see that even during the last winter, Jesus had not yet directly said who he was (10:24). He spoke about a messiah that did not fit with the current Jewish expectations. Even the Synoptics let us understand that Jesus’s instruction was meant to clarify that he was God’s Messiah, but in a manner that the Jews never understood.

****

Scholars have sometimes compared John’s relationship to his Master with the relationship between Plato and Socrates. And there is a similarity there. Plato had learned something essential from Socrates, and he devoted himself with great thankfulness to the management of that heritage. However, there is also a foundational difference. Plato was his teacher’s superior, and he felt a sovereign freedom to put his own words into his mouth. John is the disciple who knows his total inferiority and wants to do nothing but put forth his Lord’s thoughts. The freedom he knows he has is to clarify and arrange, to select and sew the fabric together. He sees the message as a finished entity as it finally stood when the Master had fulfilled his work and when the disciples had finally understood it. How it grew forth and how it appeared at early stages—these things are unessential for John. Those things do not help us men. Jesus was the Father’s great gift to the world, and that means we have to receive his message in its fullness. It is this fullness that John wants to give.

---

1. A shepherd’s letter is a tradition among Swedish bishops upon being elected to bishop. This is often a book outlining the theological and ecclesiastical program the bishop intends to implement. Bo Giertz’s Shepherd’s Letter is known for one chapter previously translated and published as Liturgy and Spiritual Awakening. A full translation of Bo Giertz’s shepherd’s letter is now available: Bo Giertz, A Shepherd’s Letter: The Faith Once and For All Delivered to the Evangelical Church, trans. Bror Erickson (Irvine, CA: New Reformation Publications, 2022).

John 1

1–5 John’s Prologue: The Word that was from Eternity

In just the first few lines, John’s gospel differentiates itself from the other three gospels. Matthew, who knew scripture, begins with the lineage of Jesus. Mark, the apostle Peter’s disciple, says that he wants to lay out the gospel, which was the common possession of the church. Luke, the historian, describes his sources. But John, the beloved disciple, who was closer to his Master than anyone else, knew that he had more to say, something that lifts us even higher and lets us see everything from the viewpoint of eternity.

The scholars agree that this is a hymn, a Christian poem, that we have here before us. We know that such hymns were included as part of the early Christian worship (divine service). There is an interesting report that has been preserved from precisely these tracts of the Roman Empire, Asia Minor. It was written by the governor about twenty years after John wrote his gospel. It was during a time of persecution. Plinius wanted to get advice from his lord, Caesar Trajan, about how he should proceed. He had executed some Christians who had refused to sacrifice to Caesar and the Roman gods. He could not find them guilty of any other violations. Despite all the interrogation—among other things he had had two deacons tortured—nothing else had come up, except that on a particular day they would gather at dawn to sing praises to Christ as God responsively after which they would make the sacred commitment not to steal, or commit adultery, not to cheat anyone, or do any other evil.

Apparently, they sang hymns, and they sang them responsively just as the Psalms of the Psalter were sung. It is possible that this is one such hymn that we have before us. It could have been John himself who wrote it. Or he could have pulled from his congregation’s collection of songs. The learned discuss whether or not the whole prologue—thus verses 1-18—belongs to the hymn or if John added a few clarifying sentences here and there as when a preacher cites a hymn and adds a few words. In any case, most of the text allows itself to be broken up into small sections suitable for alternating songs, as indicated by the division of lines in this translation.

Thus, we can imagine that these words were sung during divine service in Ephesus. There, just outside, lay the great city with its endless colonnades, its marble grandeur and its slum, its huge theater, its immorality, and its contempt for Christians. And there inside the worship hall, a growing crowd of those who received a whole new perspective on their existence gathered and sang its defiant confession, both exorbitant and freeing.

What was it that was confessed?

The hymn certainly begins deliberately with the same words with which the Scriptures themselves begin: in the beginning. Every Jew knew that God was the creator and source of everything. With his mighty word, God had called forth the universe from nothing. However, here, John and his church now confess that Christ was already there at this time before everything was created. He is the Word. This means God, such as he steps forth and operates. In the Old Testament, God’s word is really not just an utterance. It is a living, creative word. It breaks down and builds up. It judges and creates new life. There is a series of scripture passages where the word—as well as wisdom—almost becomes a personal being. The Christians saw a prophecy concerning Christ in these passages.

So Christ was present at creation. Everything came to be through him. It is John, who walked with Jesus among the mountains in Galilee and saw him hang on the cross, that says this. When the world came to be and when man was created, Christ was already there, he who would become man and give his life for the world he created.

In him was the Life—the reality that cannot die, he who always has a purpose and is always a success. The division of verses between three and four is uncertain. The division, which this translation has followed, is found already in antiquity, and recently it has been preferred by more scholars and Bible translators. If one follows it, the text says that right from the beginning there was a share of creation that found life in Christ and received the unfathomable gift of his own life, the life that he received from the Father. This life was the light of men; it was the meaning, the joy, the privilege to become man and be chosen for communion with God. And this light still shines in the dark. The dark attacked and tried to extinguish it. With the fall into sin, God’s enemy drew people to him. But the light is not extinguished. God holds firm to his purpose for people.

6–8 John’s Prologue: Bearing Witness to the Light

So, we arrive at the hymn writer’s own time. A man stepped forward who was sent by God. John was his name. He was called with a word that has an Old Testament sound. Those singing this hymn immediately know who is meant. It is the Baptist. They did not need a detailed presentation, just as we do not need to know who is meant by Mary or David in a Swedish hymn. The hymn evokes the picture that they all knew so well. The Baptist was the great wonder, the prophet who broke the centuries’ long silence and suddenly with no preparation, with no external evidence but upon God’s command, stepped forward with the tremendous message: The time is fulfilled. Now it will happen.

He was not the light. But he was the herald of the morning, who prophesied the sunrise, and got it right.

9–13 John’s Prologue: The Light Comes into the World

John got it right: The true light, the Light of lights, radiated in the world. Christ the Word had been there from the beginning. But he had been hidden, and the world did not know him. Now he stepped forth in visible form. But then something inconceivable occurred: Though he came to his own, to the men he had created and the people he had chosen, his own did not receive him. The hymn turns on this dark mystery that the first disciples so often brooded over. The builders who ought to have known better, they rejected the cornerstone, the rock that could give redress to all that had fallen. But they who received the Light, they were able to experience the great wonder. They were able to be God’s children. They received the Life, a new life, not the life that is kindled when a child is conceived in his mother, but that which is created when the Word, that is Christ, enters the heart.

14 John’s Prologue: The Word Became Flesh

The hymn reaches its climax and sings of the most fantastic event that has ever happened in the universe, the greatest and most wonderful thing that God has done. The Word became flesh. The Word, that which was from eternity, became part of his own creation. The Word that was with God took his dwelling among us. The Word that was God became flesh, thus something that was created, material, visible, earthly. He who was God entered into his own work, united himself with it and became flesh himself. He didn’t try our human nature on as if it were an occasional costume, but the Word became man, true man. And at the same time, he remained what he was: divine and eternal. This miracle is the heart, the center point of all that God has done. It is the cornerstone of salvation. In his first epistle (4:2f) John says that this is itself the hallmark of the true gospel: that one confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

So, the Word could dwell among us. The original text uses a word that means set up his tent. The word points to the story of that tabernacle in the desert, the first temple where God dwelt. The actual word tent has a similar sound in the Greek to the Hebrew word that means God’s presence (schekina), his glory that could descend and dwell among men and that had rested over the tabernacle and the Temple. This glory had descended upon Solomon’s temple when it was consecrated (1 Chr. 8:11) and departed from there when it was sentenced to destruction (Ezek. 10 and 11). But with the prophets there was the promise that the Lord would turn back and dwell again with his people, and then many Gentiles would join the Lord and be his people (Zech. 2:11). It was this that was now being fulfilled. God’s glory returned to dwell among people. But now it came in the form of the Son. We saw his glory, glory as from the only begotten son of the Father.

It was this they sang about in Ephesus. Some had experienced it themselves. There were eyewitnesses, such as John himself, who could say: We have seen it—with these our very own eyes. He could be talking about that which happened on the Mount of Transfiguration. He might also be describing how they walked with Jesus and encountered something that they could only describe as a glory that came from God, something that only the Son, the Only One, could possess.

There were Jewish Christians who understood the whole of the infinite depth in the word: full of grace and truth. It was a word from the Old Testament laden with memories and meaning. The grace was God’s mercy for his people, his undeserved goodness for those he had brought up out of Egypt and cut a covenant with. And the truth was his faithfulness to the covenant, his truthfulness in his promise, his tenacity when it came to seeing his goodwill through. Such as it happened through him who was full of grace and truth.

And there was the great crowd of Gentile Christians who rejoiced that they all had received their share of his completion, and all were received into his people. Outside the darkness still ruled, but with this light it could not conquer.

15–18 John’s Prologue: So God Has Come to Us

The first part of this passage (v. 15) is thought by many exegetes to be an additional commentary because the same thought returns further on (v. 30), and the style is not what a person expects in a hymn. In any case, the meaning is that the Baptist confirmed what the hymn says: Jesus was from eternity. He existed long before his forerunner. He was far greater than him who then was greater than all the prophets.

Then the congregation’s confession follows—all have received a share in Christ’s fullness, an overflowing gift of grace upon grace. A person could also translate this as grace in place of grace; the meaning in such a case is that God, in his place before the great grace which he gave to his people in the time of the old covenant, has now given an even greater grace. But it probably means that this grace we have received in Christ is perpetually new and seems ever greater. No one can plumb its depths. It is inexhaustible and it surpasses all knowledge.

Then the prologue ends with two monumental sentences about the meaning of Christ. Only now does he mention Christ by name whereas before he had spoken about the Word, about the Life, the Light, the Son. Now he confirms that he means Jesus of Nazareth, a real man, a contemporary, who many saw with their own eyes, even of those who sang this hymn. So, this Jesus was the Christ, God’s Messiah, someone far greater than Moses. The law was given through Moses; something far greater came through Jesus. It was not only given, it had come, down to earth, in among men, in the form of a living person, a fellow man who at the same time was everyone’s Savior. He had carried grace and truth into the world. A person could attain them with him and through him. Never before had anyone been able to see God. Not even Moses. The pious of the old covenant knew that one could not see God without perishing. But now God had come to us in a way that made it possible to see him and learn to know his disposition. The only begotten Son had done this, he who stood nearest to God’s heart.

Because this is a hymn, we encounter a long series of content-laden words that are not explained for us. In his gospel John will come to them and return to them and give them content and depth: light, life, truth, faith in his name, born of God. He does not return to the Word as a name for the Son, and remarkably enough, neither does he return to the word grace, which John does not use. Instead, he speaks of God’s love for us. Whether or not John himself authored this hymn, one cannot imagine a more fitting introduction to his gospel. All that he speaks of and says can be read as a meditation upon this song of praise for the Light who came into the world, the Word who was flesh, and the Son who let us behold his Father.

19–28 The Baptist Witnesses about Himself

After the introductory hymn, John begins his story. He speaks in a completely different manner than the three other evangelists (those who wrote the Synoptics). He presupposes that his readers were familiar with the content of the Synoptic Gospels. There was a Christian body of knowledge that was mediated by the apostles and handed down to everyone in the congregations. The New Testament calls this material paradosis, which can be translated with tradition or knowledge that has been taken over, so that it can be spread. In large part, the Synoptics build upon this material. John wants to give more. He has his own memory to record and events which he finds illustrative and important. He comments on these events in detail, apparently with words that he used over the years in his own teaching.

So, when John begins to speak about John the Baptist, he also assumes that the readers (or rather the audience, as people normally read out loud in antiquity) are already familiar with him. He says that the Jews from Jerusalem sent out a delegation to ask the Baptist who he was. It is assumed to be well known that this preacher had awakened an immense movement and achieved a mighty spiritual movement. It is also assumed that he baptized and that great crowds were baptized. Both in the Baptist’s preaching and in his baptism lay a proclamation that God’s kingdom was near. Now was the time to prepare oneself to meet the Messiah.

The baptism among the Jews was a rite of purification. Among other things, Gentiles would be baptized when they wanted to become proselytes and be received into God’s people. It was also natural that priests and Levites, experts in everything that touched upon such purifications, were sent to the Baptist. They had a series of questions for the Baptist, and John tells us that they received clear answers. The Baptist confessed and did not deny, as it is usually said. It is the same word that is used about confessing or denying Jesus before men, and John means that here the Baptist already bore a confession of Jesus as the true Messiah. The first question, of course, was whether the Baptist was the Messiah. John the Baptist answers that he is not the Messiah. The next question was whether he was Elijah. There were many who believed that Elijah would first come and prepare the way. It was written by the prophet Malachi (3:23). But here the answer was also no. Then the delegation attempted a third possibility, the Prophet. Certainly, they meant the great prophet that Moses had spoken about (Deut. 18:15), he who would be like him. However, the answer to this was also no. When they finally demanded to know who he really was, he pointed to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the voice of one crying in the desert and preparing the way of the Lord.

John does not tell how the envoy received the answer. It was not important. Instead, he turns to a new question. It concerns baptism. What did this new baptism mean? What right did John have to baptize? The answer was that it was really a preparation for something great that would happen. Many expected that the messiah would keep himself hidden until he suddenly came forward. And the Baptist now implies that the Messiah was already there among them.

Neither did the Baptist consider himself to be Elijah. The strange thing is that Jesus still says that he was Elijah (Matt. 11:14). This is because Elijah means something for Jesus along the lines of a new Elijah, a prophet with the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). That a man really would be able to relive his life on earth is not in line with Biblical teaching.

This happened in Bethany on the other side of the Jordan. John often adds such a geographical detail at the end of his record. Here it is a question of a different Bethany than that which was on the Mount of Olives, unless the error is due to some early clerical error. A few manuscripts have the name Betabara instead. A Bethany on the other side of the Jordan is otherwise not known. The name Betabara is found in the Talmud. It means ford, and from of old, people have pointed to this well-known ford eastward from Jericho as the place where John baptized.

29–34 The Baptist Witnesses Concerning Jesus

The next day the Baptist stood up and saw Jesus passing by. He begins to speak about Jesus, apparently to his disciples. As we shall see right away, it is probable that one of these disciples was John