The Gospel According to
JOHN
Prologue
1
1 In the beginning was the Word,*In the beginning (of this world, or perhaps this universe) He already existed. But why the ‘word’? If we take the word as the basic unit of verbal communication, and even representing that communication, then we have an important figure. Jehovah the Son in human form becomes the ultimate communication of God to the human race. and the Word was with God,†The idea seems to be that He was face to face with God (the Father), in His presence. Actually, the Text has “the God”—since the Greeks had any number of gods, the New Testament writers usually refer to Jehovah as the God. In verse 2 the Text also has “the God”. and the Word was God.‡The New World Translation (of the JWs) renders “a god”. They defend their choice because the noun ‘God’ occurs without the definite article, and the absence of the article in Greek has the effect of the indefinite article in English—hence ‘a god’. However, another frequent use of the absence of the definite article (in Greek) is to emphasize the quality inherent in the noun—in this case ‘God’. Grammatically, the construction is ambiguous, so those who wish to deny the deity of Christ will naturally translate ‘a god’. Since John will himself make perfectly clear that Christ is very God, we take it that he is here emphasizing that inherent quality. A faithful translator will attempt to reflect the meaning intended by the author, so I would say that the New World Translation is not faithful here, since John will repeatedly make clear that Jesus is God. But there is a further consideration. If John had used the definite article we would have an equation (in Greek)—the Word = the God—which would do away with the Trinity. So John could not write ‘the God’; he will quote Christ Himself making very clear that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. 2 He Himself existed in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be by Him; that is, apart from Him not even one thing that has come into being came to be.§This passage, along with Hebrews 1:10 and Colossians 1:16, makes clear that although the Trinity was doubtless involved in the creation of this planet it was Jehovah the Son who was the primary agent. 4 In Him was life, and the Life was the Light of mankind.*In what sense can ‘the life’ be ‘the light’? In John 8:12 the Lord said, “I am the Light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness but will have the Light of the Life.” Only as we participate in the Life that Christ offers do we have access to the Light. Without His Life we walk in the darkness. 5 Now the Light shines in the darkness,†The word here translated ‘darkness’, and another closely related word, are frequently used of both physical and moral/spiritual darkness. The latter is associated with Satan's kingdom, in fact characterizes it, while the light characterizes Christ's kingdom. Presumably the “darkness” here is moral/spiritual—Satan's kingdom. and the darkness has not overcome it.‡To this day: in Matthew 5:14 Jesus said to His disciples, “You are the light of the world”—as long as there are followers of Jesus here, there is moral/spiritual light in the world.
John—a witness to the Light
6 There was a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the Light but was to testify about the Light— 9 the true Light which illumines everyone who comes into the world.§In what sense can we say that everyone is “illumined” since we are all born with an inclination to sin, and most people die lost? Perhaps the answer lies in Romans 1:19-20. One of the expressions of the Life is the material creation that surrounds us—everyone has the light of the creation; there must be an incredibly intelligent and powerful Cause, and since we are persons He must be more so. We also believe that each human being is born with a conscience. 10 He was in the world, the world that came into being by Him, yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own things, yet His own people did not receive Him. 12 But, as many as did receive Him,*‘Receive’, not ‘accept’—if you ‘accept’ something it is inferior, or is offered by someone who is socially inferior; superior people or things are ‘received’. If you merely ‘accept Jesus’ that Jesus can't save you; he is less than you are. to them He gave the right to become children of God,†No one is born a child of God (God has no grandchildren); you may become one by receiving Christ. Presumably ‘receiving’ is a conscious act. Each of my two children did this when four years old. to those who believe into His name:‡Never does the Text read ‘believe in’ (Greek εν) Jesus or His name; always it reads ‘believe into’ (Greek εις). People believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the goodness of man, or whatever, but it makes no difference in their lives. Many millions of people say they ‘believe in Jesus’, but it makes no difference in their lives either. You have to believe into Him—commitment and identification are involved, that go along with the change in location, from being outside to being inside. As Jesus Himself said in John 6:53-56, you have to “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood. If you eat something your body assimilates it, it becomes part of you. 13 who were begotten, not by blood, nor by the desire of the flesh, nor by the will of a man,§“The will of a man” seems obvious enough—many, perhaps most, people are born because a man decides he wants children. “The desire of the flesh”—many others are born because a man and a woman are carried away by physical attraction, whether or not they are planning to have a child. “By blood”—the best sense I can make out of this is to assume that it refers to levirate marriage; a man fertilizes his brother's childless widow to produce an heir for that brother, precisely because of the blood relationship between them. but by God.*For a human being to be begotten physically a man must implant the seed of life, and to be begotten spiritually God must implant the seed of the Life.
Jesus—the Only-begotten
14 So the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we observed His glory, glory of an Only-begotten,†Jesus was very literally God's ‘only-begotten’ Son. Since the Holy Spirit fertilized the virgin Mary, Jesus was literally begotten by God, but He is the only one in all human history who was begotten in that way. from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and called out saying: “This is He of whom I said, ‘The One coming after me is now ahead of me, because He existed before I did.’ ” 16 Now we have all received from His fullness, yes, grace upon grace. 17 Because the Law was given through Moses;‡Why “because”? What does the Law have to do with verse 16? We are not accustomed to associate the Law with grace, but as a revelation from God to men would it not be a manifestation of His grace? Of course the Son of God incarnate was a much greater manifestation of that grace—“grace upon grace”. the Grace and the Truth came through Jesus Christ.§“The life”, “the light”, “the grace”, “the truth”—these things the Lord Jesus Christ offers us. In contrast Satan offers death, darkness, hate and the lie. Hey, I don't know about you, but I'm with Jesus! 18 No one has ever seen God. The Only-begotten Son,*Instead of “the only begotten son” (as in over 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts), some five manuscripts (of inferior quality, objectively so) have “an only begotten god”, while another two (also inferior) have “the only begotten god”. Since the absence of the definite article (in Greek) can have the effect of emphasizing the inherent quality of the noun, the second reading could be rendered “only begotten god”—this alternative has appealed to many evangelicals who see in it a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. But if the God-part of the Christ was begotten in the womb of the virgin Mary, then He is not eternally preexistent; and in that event Christ could not be God the Son, one of the three persons of the Trinity. Notice the precision in Isaiah 9:6—“unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” Jehovah the Son was given, not born. Notice further that the context is about the Incarnation, not the Son's eternal preexistence. But in any case, why follow seven manuscripts of demonstrably inferior quality against 1,700 better ones? The original and therefore true reading is certainly “the only begotten Son”. who exists in the bosom of the Father, He has interpreted Him.†Instead of “interpret” one could render ‘explain’, ‘describe’, ‘give a report about’… I connect this statement to verse 1—the Word shows us who the Father really is. As Jesus said to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
John the Baptizer performs his office
19 Now this is John's testimony, when the Jews‡John uses “the Jews” to refer to the religious leaders, the hierarchy. sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed, he did not deny but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”§“Christ” in Greek is a translation of the Hebrew “Messiah”. The people were looking for the Messiah. 21 So they asked him, “What then, are you Elijah?” And he says, “I am not.”*Note that John declares that he is not Elijah. The point of their question relates to Malachi 4:5, where Elijah is the forerunner of the Messiah. But the context in Malachi is the second coming, not the first. John performed the function at the first coming that Elijah, literally, will perform at the second. John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17—the angel Gabriel cites Malachi), but was not Elijah. “Are you ‘the Prophet’?”†“The Prophet” is presumably a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15—the Jews figured that this prophecy refers to the Messiah, and so do we. “No,” he answered. 22 So they said to him: “Who are you?—so that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am ‘the voice of one calling out: “Make the Lord's road straight in the wilderness,” ’ just as the prophet Isaiah said.”‡The reference is to Isaiah 40:3. Hebrew poetry, and prose, makes heavy use of parallel or synonymous statements. From the context in Isaiah it seems clear that “in the wilderness” goes with the verb “make straight”, not “call out”. But why a straight road in the wilderness? Any road facilitates the movement of people and goods, but a straight road through accidented terrain is a major asset. (Actually, Isaiah 40:3-4 describes the construction of a modern superhighway.) John was the voice, but it was the people who had to make the road. So how about us? Are we supposed to be making such a road, and if so, how? At the very least we should be proclaiming biblical values to the world by every available means.
24 Now those who had been sent were from the Pharisees. 25 So they asked him saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor ‘the Prophet’?” 26 John answered them saying: “I baptize with water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 He is the One coming after me who is now ahead of me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.” 28 These things happened in Bithabara,§Some 65% of the Greek manuscripts read “Bethany” instead of the familiar “Bethabara” (I follow the best line of transmission in reading ‘Bithabara’, with 25% of the Greek manuscripts, while ‘Bethabara’ has 10%), but in either case we do not know the precise location. However, many Bible maps place ‘Bethabara’ near Jericho, on the west side of the river, but the Text states plainly that it was “across the Jordan” (=on the east side). A combination of such maps plus the true reading sets up an apparent contradiction or error in the text, which is actually in the map. across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
“Behold the Lamb of God!”
29 The next day John sees Jesus coming toward him and says: “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!*A tremendous statement! The Sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices is now physically present in the world. 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is now ahead of me, because He existed before I did.’†John was six months older than Jesus, so he is affirming that Jesus had a prior existence. Since a mere man cannot have a prior existence, John is affirming Jesus' divinity. 31 I did not know Him; but so that He should be revealed to Israel, that is why I came baptizing with water.”
32 And John testified saying: “I observed the Spirit coming down like a dove out of heaven, and He rested upon Him.‡John does not record the baptism of Jesus, as such, but we know from the other Gospels that this incident took place at that baptism. Nor does John record Jesus' confrontation with Satan in the wilderness. In general, John does not repeat information available in the other Gospels. (John wrote after the other Gospels had been in circulation for well over a decade.) 33 Now I did not know Him,§This is curious. John and Jesus were related, and their mothers were close, so it seems improbable that they would never have met as boys or youths. Perhaps John means as the Messiah—until His baptism Jesus gave no overt demonstration that He was the Messiah. (However, given the circumstances surrounding both Mary and Elizabeth, I suppose it is possible that the two boys never met.) but He who sent me to baptize with water, He said to me,*Notice that the Baptizer affirms that God spoke to him directly, in audible or distinguishable words, which he quotes. God spoke like that 2000 years ago, and He continues to do so. ‘The One upon whom you see the Spirit coming down and resting—this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’†In John's baptism, John is the agent; in Christ's baptism, Jesus is the agent; the baptism where the Holy Spirit is the agent is distinct from these. In John's baptism the substance used for the ritual was water; in Christ's baptism the substance used is the Holy Spirit. In John's baptism the person got wet but then dried off, so presumably the real point of the exercise was a spiritual transaction; how much more, then, in Christ's baptism. I am inclined to link Christ's baptism (He is the agent) with John 4:13-14 and 7:38-39. “Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never ever thirst; rather, the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up into eternal life’ ” (4:13-14). “Jesus stood up and called out saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. The one believing into me, just as the Scripture has said, out from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ (Now He said this about the Spirit, whom those believing into Him were going to receive, in that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)” (7:37-39). In other words, when Jesus baptizes you, you are regenerated, you receive a new nature, you receive the Holy Spirit. 34 So I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”‡That is what he said, “the Son of God” (actually, ‘the Son of the God’), which here probably means that there is only one. John clearly identifies and presents the Messiah to the populace. He performed his office.
Jesus begins His public ministry
35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples. 36 And seeing Jesus walking by, he says, “Look, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 So turning and observing them following§Presumably Jesus waited for them to catch up, so He was observing them during that time. His purpose in passing by there was precisely to attract those two men (so I imagine), and He was doubtless aware when they started out after Him. Jesus says to them, “What do you want?” So they said to Him, “Rabbi” (which translated means ‘Teacher’), “where are You staying?” 39 He says to them, “Come and see.” So they went and saw where He was staying, and stayed with Him that day—it was about the tenth hour.*This is significant. John uses Roman time, so this is 10 a.m. Which means that Jesus spent most of the day with just those two men. You had better believe they were talking the whole time. Jesus knew they would be two of His disciples and was already investing in them—to such good effect that the next day they bring in two more. The Text does not clarify whether or not they spent the night as well. 40 One of the two who heard John and followed Him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first finds his own brother Simon and says to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated ‘Christ’). 42 And he led him to Jesus. Looking at him Jesus said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah;†The Text says, “the son of Jonah”. Since Peter obviously had at least one brother, he was not an only son. Perhaps we should understand that Peter was the firstborn. Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts (of objectively inferior quality) read “John” for “Jonah” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).‡Cephas is Aramaic for ‘stone’; πετρος is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a ‘rock’). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of πετρος, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point.
Nathanael
43 The next day He decided to go to Galilee, so He finds Philip§I cannot prove it, but I suspect that Philip was the second man, of John's disciples, who spent the day with Jesus. If so, it seems unlikely that he and Andrew spent the night with Jesus, because in that event Jesus would not have to “find” him. and says to him, “Follow me.” 44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the hometown of Andrew and Peter.) 45 Philip finds Nathanael and says to him, “We have found the One of whom Moses in the Law—and also the prophets—wrote: Jesus the son of Joseph, from Natsareth.”*The Hebrew spelling of the town's name comes over into English as ‘Natsareth’, not ‘Nazareth’. This is crucial to a correct understanding of Matthew 2:23 (please see the note there). 46 So Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Natsareth?” Philip says to him, “Come and see!”†“Come and see.” “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” In the final analysis you have to decide for yourself. Check it out.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him and says about him, “There, a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael says to Him, “From where do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 In answer Nathanael says to Him: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”‡Wow, that was a real switch—from disdainful doubt in verse 46 to faith and submission in verse 49. What caused the change? A mature fig tree's branches reach to the ground and form a curtain—there is a clear space around the trunk that is cool and private [I have been there]. It was a great place to be alone with God. But for Jesus to see Nathanael there (there were probably hills in between as well) meant that He was supernatural. That statement convinced Nathanael that he was looking at the Messiah, and he immediately declared allegiance. Of the four Gospels, only John uses the name ‘Nathanael’, the others do not; they all use the name ‘Bartholomew’, while John never does. Since Nathanael was one of the apostles, evidently (John 21:2), we may conclude that we have two names for the same person. 50 Jesus answered and said to him: “You believe because I said that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater than these.”§The demonstrative pronoun is plural but ambiguous as to gender. Since I would expect the singular (presumably it was the single statement that caused Nathanael's belief) the plural leaves me in doubt. Is it greater things or people, or both? 51 And He says to him, “I tell you (pl) most assuredly, later on you will see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of the Man.”*So far as I know, we have no record of when this took place, but no doubt it did. Jesus addressed Nathanael in particular, “He says to him”, but used the plural, “ye”, about seeing the heaven opened. “The Son of the Man” appears to be a phrase coined by the Lord Jesus to refer to Himself; the Text does say “the son of the man”, which does not make very good sense in English, at first glance, but if “the man” refers to pristine Adam and “the son” to an only pristine descendant, it makes great sense. It seems to indicate a perfect human prototype, like Adam was before the fall—the human side of the God-man.

*1:1 In the beginning (of this world, or perhaps this universe) He already existed. But why the ‘word’? If we take the word as the basic unit of verbal communication, and even representing that communication, then we have an important figure. Jehovah the Son in human form becomes the ultimate communication of God to the human race.

†1:1 The idea seems to be that He was face to face with God (the Father), in His presence. Actually, the Text has “the God”—since the Greeks had any number of gods, the New Testament writers usually refer to Jehovah as the God. In verse 2 the Text also has “the God”.

‡1:1 The New World Translation (of the JWs) renders “a god”. They defend their choice because the noun ‘God’ occurs without the definite article, and the absence of the article in Greek has the effect of the indefinite article in English—hence ‘a god’. However, another frequent use of the absence of the definite article (in Greek) is to emphasize the quality inherent in the noun—in this case ‘God’. Grammatically, the construction is ambiguous, so those who wish to deny the deity of Christ will naturally translate ‘a god’. Since John will himself make perfectly clear that Christ is very God, we take it that he is here emphasizing that inherent quality. A faithful translator will attempt to reflect the meaning intended by the author, so I would say that the New World Translation is not faithful here, since John will repeatedly make clear that Jesus is God. But there is a further consideration. If John had used the definite article we would have an equation (in Greek)—the Word = the God—which would do away with the Trinity. So John could not write ‘the God’; he will quote Christ Himself making very clear that the Father and the Son are distinct persons.

§1:3 This passage, along with Hebrews 1:10 and Colossians 1:16, makes clear that although the Trinity was doubtless involved in the creation of this planet it was Jehovah the Son who was the primary agent.

*1:4 In what sense can ‘the life’ be ‘the light’? In John 8:12 the Lord said, “I am the Light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness but will have the Light of the Life.” Only as we participate in the Life that Christ offers do we have access to the Light. Without His Life we walk in the darkness.

†1:5 The word here translated ‘darkness’, and another closely related word, are frequently used of both physical and moral/spiritual darkness. The latter is associated with Satan's kingdom, in fact characterizes it, while the light characterizes Christ's kingdom. Presumably the “darkness” here is moral/spiritual—Satan's kingdom.

‡1:5 To this day: in Matthew 5:14 Jesus said to His disciples, “You are the light of the world”—as long as there are followers of Jesus here, there is moral/spiritual light in the world.

§1:9 In what sense can we say that everyone is “illumined” since we are all born with an inclination to sin, and most people die lost? Perhaps the answer lies in Romans 1:19-20. One of the expressions of the Life is the material creation that surrounds us—everyone has the light of the creation; there must be an incredibly intelligent and powerful Cause, and since we are persons He must be more so. We also believe that each human being is born with a conscience.

*1:12 ‘Receive’, not ‘accept’—if you ‘accept’ something it is inferior, or is offered by someone who is socially inferior; superior people or things are ‘received’. If you merely ‘accept Jesus’ that Jesus can't save you; he is less than you are.

†1:12 No one is born a child of God (God has no grandchildren); you may become one by receiving Christ. Presumably ‘receiving’ is a conscious act. Each of my two children did this when four years old.

‡1:12 Never does the Text read ‘believe in’ (Greek εν) Jesus or His name; always it reads ‘believe into’ (Greek εις). People believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the goodness of man, or whatever, but it makes no difference in their lives. Many millions of people say they ‘believe in Jesus’, but it makes no difference in their lives either. You have to believe into Him—commitment and identification are involved, that go along with the change in location, from being outside to being inside. As Jesus Himself said in John 6:53-56, you have to “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood. If you eat something your body assimilates it, it becomes part of you.

§1:13 “The will of a man” seems obvious enough—many, perhaps most, people are born because a man decides he wants children. “The desire of the flesh”—many others are born because a man and a woman are carried away by physical attraction, whether or not they are planning to have a child. “By blood”—the best sense I can make out of this is to assume that it refers to levirate marriage; a man fertilizes his brother's childless widow to produce an heir for that brother, precisely because of the blood relationship between them.

*1:13 For a human being to be begotten physically a man must implant the seed of life, and to be begotten spiritually God must implant the seed of the Life.

†1:14 Jesus was very literally God's ‘only-begotten’ Son. Since the Holy Spirit fertilized the virgin Mary, Jesus was literally begotten by God, but He is the only one in all human history who was begotten in that way.

‡1:17 Why “because”? What does the Law have to do with verse 16? We are not accustomed to associate the Law with grace, but as a revelation from God to men would it not be a manifestation of His grace? Of course the Son of God incarnate was a much greater manifestation of that grace—“grace upon grace”.

§1:17 “The life”, “the light”, “the grace”, “the truth”—these things the Lord Jesus Christ offers us. In contrast Satan offers death, darkness, hate and the lie. Hey, I don't know about you, but I'm with Jesus!

*1:18 Instead of “the only begotten son” (as in over 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts), some five manuscripts (of inferior quality, objectively so) have “an only begotten god”, while another two (also inferior) have “the only begotten god”. Since the absence of the definite article (in Greek) can have the effect of emphasizing the inherent quality of the noun, the second reading could be rendered “only begotten god”—this alternative has appealed to many evangelicals who see in it a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. But if the God-part of the Christ was begotten in the womb of the virgin Mary, then He is not eternally preexistent; and in that event Christ could not be God the Son, one of the three persons of the Trinity. Notice the precision in Isaiah 9:6—“unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” Jehovah the Son was given, not born. Notice further that the context is about the Incarnation, not the Son's eternal preexistence. But in any case, why follow seven manuscripts of demonstrably inferior quality against 1,700 better ones? The original and therefore true reading is certainly “the only begotten Son”.

†1:18 Instead of “interpret” one could render ‘explain’, ‘describe’, ‘give a report about’… I connect this statement to verse 1—the Word shows us who the Father really is. As Jesus said to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

‡1:19 John uses “the Jews” to refer to the religious leaders, the hierarchy.

§1:20 “Christ” in Greek is a translation of the Hebrew “Messiah”. The people were looking for the Messiah.

*1:21 Note that John declares that he is not Elijah. The point of their question relates to Malachi 4:5, where Elijah is the forerunner of the Messiah. But the context in Malachi is the second coming, not the first. John performed the function at the first coming that Elijah, literally, will perform at the second. John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17—the angel Gabriel cites Malachi), but was not Elijah.

†1:21 “The Prophet” is presumably a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15—the Jews figured that this prophecy refers to the Messiah, and so do we.

‡1:23 The reference is to Isaiah 40:3. Hebrew poetry, and prose, makes heavy use of parallel or synonymous statements. From the context in Isaiah it seems clear that “in the wilderness” goes with the verb “make straight”, not “call out”. But why a straight road in the wilderness? Any road facilitates the movement of people and goods, but a straight road through accidented terrain is a major asset. (Actually, Isaiah 40:3-4 describes the construction of a modern superhighway.) John was the voice, but it was the people who had to make the road. So how about us? Are we supposed to be making such a road, and if so, how? At the very least we should be proclaiming biblical values to the world by every available means.

§1:28 Some 65% of the Greek manuscripts read “Bethany” instead of the familiar “Bethabara” (I follow the best line of transmission in reading ‘Bithabara’, with 25% of the Greek manuscripts, while ‘Bethabara’ has 10%), but in either case we do not know the precise location. However, many Bible maps place ‘Bethabara’ near Jericho, on the west side of the river, but the Text states plainly that it was “across the Jordan” (=on the east side). A combination of such maps plus the true reading sets up an apparent contradiction or error in the text, which is actually in the map.

*1:29 A tremendous statement! The Sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices is now physically present in the world.

†1:30 John was six months older than Jesus, so he is affirming that Jesus had a prior existence. Since a mere man cannot have a prior existence, John is affirming Jesus' divinity.

‡1:32 John does not record the baptism of Jesus, as such, but we know from the other Gospels that this incident took place at that baptism. Nor does John record Jesus' confrontation with Satan in the wilderness. In general, John does not repeat information available in the other Gospels. (John wrote after the other Gospels had been in circulation for well over a decade.)

§1:33 This is curious. John and Jesus were related, and their mothers were close, so it seems improbable that they would never have met as boys or youths. Perhaps John means as the Messiah—until His baptism Jesus gave no overt demonstration that He was the Messiah. (However, given the circumstances surrounding both Mary and Elizabeth, I suppose it is possible that the two boys never met.)

*1:33 Notice that the Baptizer affirms that God spoke to him directly, in audible or distinguishable words, which he quotes. God spoke like that 2000 years ago, and He continues to do so.

†1:33 In John's baptism, John is the agent; in Christ's baptism, Jesus is the agent; the baptism where the Holy Spirit is the agent is distinct from these. In John's baptism the substance used for the ritual was water; in Christ's baptism the substance used is the Holy Spirit. In John's baptism the person got wet but then dried off, so presumably the real point of the exercise was a spiritual transaction; how much more, then, in Christ's baptism. I am inclined to link Christ's baptism (He is the agent) with John 4:13-14 and 7:38-39. “Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never ever thirst; rather, the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up into eternal life’ ” (4:13-14). “Jesus stood up and called out saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. The one believing into me, just as the Scripture has said, out from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ (Now He said this about the Spirit, whom those believing into Him were going to receive, in that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)” (7:37-39). In other words, when Jesus baptizes you, you are regenerated, you receive a new nature, you receive the Holy Spirit.

‡1:34 That is what he said, “the Son of God” (actually, ‘the Son of the God’), which here probably means that there is only one. John clearly identifies and presents the Messiah to the populace. He performed his office.

§1:38 Presumably Jesus waited for them to catch up, so He was observing them during that time. His purpose in passing by there was precisely to attract those two men (so I imagine), and He was doubtless aware when they started out after Him.

*1:39 This is significant. John uses Roman time, so this is 10 a.m. Which means that Jesus spent most of the day with just those two men. You had better believe they were talking the whole time. Jesus knew they would be two of His disciples and was already investing in them—to such good effect that the next day they bring in two more. The Text does not clarify whether or not they spent the night as well.

†1:42 The Text says, “the son of Jonah”. Since Peter obviously had at least one brother, he was not an only son. Perhaps we should understand that Peter was the firstborn. Perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts (of objectively inferior quality) read “John” for “Jonah” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).

‡1:42 Cephas is Aramaic for ‘stone’; πετρος is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a ‘rock’). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of πετρος, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point.

§1:43 I cannot prove it, but I suspect that Philip was the second man, of John's disciples, who spent the day with Jesus. If so, it seems unlikely that he and Andrew spent the night with Jesus, because in that event Jesus would not have to “find” him.

*1:45 The Hebrew spelling of the town's name comes over into English as ‘Natsareth’, not ‘Nazareth’. This is crucial to a correct understanding of Matthew 2:23 (please see the note there).

†1:46 “Come and see.” “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” In the final analysis you have to decide for yourself. Check it out.

‡1:49 Wow, that was a real switch—from disdainful doubt in verse 46 to faith and submission in verse 49. What caused the change? A mature fig tree's branches reach to the ground and form a curtain—there is a clear space around the trunk that is cool and private [I have been there]. It was a great place to be alone with God. But for Jesus to see Nathanael there (there were probably hills in between as well) meant that He was supernatural. That statement convinced Nathanael that he was looking at the Messiah, and he immediately declared allegiance. Of the four Gospels, only John uses the name ‘Nathanael’, the others do not; they all use the name ‘Bartholomew’, while John never does. Since Nathanael was one of the apostles, evidently (John 21:2), we may conclude that we have two names for the same person.

§1:50 The demonstrative pronoun is plural but ambiguous as to gender. Since I would expect the singular (presumably it was the single statement that caused Nathanael's belief) the plural leaves me in doubt. Is it greater things or people, or both?

*1:51 So far as I know, we have no record of when this took place, but no doubt it did. Jesus addressed Nathanael in particular, “He says to him”, but used the plural, “ye”, about seeing the heaven opened. “The Son of the Man” appears to be a phrase coined by the Lord Jesus to refer to Himself; the Text does say “the son of the man”, which does not make very good sense in English, at first glance, but if “the man” refers to pristine Adam and “the son” to an only pristine descendant, it makes great sense. It seems to indicate a perfect human prototype, like Adam was before the fall—the human side of the God-man.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD