|
The BibleTexts.com Bible Commentary Copyright 1996-2004 Robert Nguyen Cramer THE GOSPEL OF JOHN |
|
.
|
|
Jump
to chapter ...
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| Other resources |
I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;...
http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm, including the following excerpts:
Theologians of varying, and often competing, persuasions appealed to John 1:1-14 as the scriptural warrant for their views. Yet the precise meaning of logos in this text has been open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. (Donald F. Winslow)
Both Athenagoras and Theophilus [both writing around 180 A.D.] are willing to call the Son or Logos the Mind of the Father (Clement calls the Logos the Son of the Father-Mind). (Robert M. Grant)
To explore additional references, browse "WORD WAS GOD" at http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/w.htm#word-was-god.
To explore additional references, browse "WORD WAS GOD" at http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/w.htm#word-was-god.
panta <3956> di <1223> auto <846> egeneto <1096>
Here the Greek word dia <1223> was shortened to di, because it preceded the Greek word auto, which begins with an a (alpha). It rolls off the tongue more smoothly to say di auto than to say dia auto. Many languages, ancient and modern, follow similar practices.
To explore the relationship of this verse to the teaching of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed, see http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm.
Joh 1:18 - correction of KJV's "the only begotten son"
BibleTexts.com comment: For Joh 1:18, the GNT's rendering of this particular verse would be the best substitute for the KJV's incorrect rendering, which is based upon the KJV's errant Greek text. (Instead of the Greek word huios [son]) in the KJV's text, the Greek word theos [normally translated God] appeared in the original text. Due to complex grammatical issues, theos in this phrase acts as an adjective and means divine or the same as God. Also since the only begotten one is grammatically male in the Greek text, it can be legitimately interpreted to mean the only son. It is unfortunate that the current word-for-word literal approaches taken by virtually all word-for-word translations, including the ESV, NRSV, NAB, and NASB , seem unable to properly address the nuances of some Greek grammatical structures, such as that found in Joh 1:18. Goodspeed, Moffatt, REB, Schonfield, and the GNT all succeeded in addressing this quite well. Hopefully, some day translating such nuances into English will be considered a natural part of even word-for-word translations.
Additional BibleTexts.com commentary: Detailed commentary on this verse, which also addresses the significant theological controversy surrounding the interpretation of this verse, can be found at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-joh.htm#joh01v18 and http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v18.htm.
The KJV with Strong's numbers is as follows: No man <3762> hath seen <3708> God <2316> at any time <4455>; the only begotten <3439> Son <5207>, which <3588> is <5607> in <1520> the <3588> bosom <2859> of the <3588> Father <3962>, he <1565> hath declared <1834> [him].
NASB:
18 No man has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God, who
is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
* divine: literally God (Theos), but the anarthrous grammatical construction in Greek makes it an adjective, meaning divine, godly, or the same as God
** Son: literally only-begotton ... male one (monogenes ... ho on). The grammatical construction of this verse dictates that the only begotten is male, which means son; therefore, it is legitimately interpretted as the only-begotton son, though literally translated as the only begotten male one.
*** God's: REB's and Schonfield's use of God's can only legitimately be explained as an interpretatve translation of the anarthrous grammatical construction of Theos, which here serves as an adjectival modifier for the only-begotten, which then becomes God's only-begotten.
SUMMARY OF CORRECT TRANSLATIONS OF JOH 1:18
Goodspeed - 18 No one has ever seen God; it is the divine Only Son, who leans upon his Father's breast, that has made him known.
Moffatt - 18 Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father's breast.
REB - 18 No one has ever seen God; God's only Son, he who is nearest to the Father's heart, has made him known.
Schonfield - 18 No one has ever seen God. God's Only-Begotten, who is in the Father's bosom, he has portrayed him.
GNT - 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
J.H. Bernard (The International Critical Commentary: The Gospel according to St. John, Volume I, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, no date, page 60) comments:
The Aramaic name Kephas... is familiar in Paul, who uses it to designate Simon always in 1 Cor. (1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5) and generally in Gal. (1:18, 2:9,11,14; but cf. 2:7,8). It appears in no other Gospel but Jn., and the retention of the Aramaic Kepha is a touch that could hardly have occured to any one whose mother speech was not Aramaic... By the end of the first century Simon was best known as Petros, and he has been generally called by this name ever since.
Raymond Brown (The Anchor Bible: The Gospel according to John, Volume 1, New York: Doubleday, 1966, page 76) comments:
Only John among the Gospels give the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name Kepha, or, perhaps, in Galilean Aramaic Qepha... Matt xvi 18 supposes the Aramaic substratum but does not express it (the play on "Peter" and "rock" is not good in Greek where the former is Petros [masculine] and the latter is petra [feminine]; it is perfect in Aramaic where both are kepha). Neither Petros in Greek nor Kepha in Aramiac is a normal proper name; rather it is a nickname (like American "Rocky" which would have to be explained by something in Simon's character or career.
Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, New York: United Bible Societies, 1980, page 45) comments:
The Greek word Petros renders the Aramic kepa, the Greek form of which Kephas, appears in this verse. This information can be conveyed by translating literally and providing a foodnote, as in the RSV. However it seems preferable to follow the technique of the TEV or NEB, which make this information explicit in the text: "Your name will be Cephas. (This is the same as Peter and means 'a rock.')...
A term chosen to translate "Rock" should have a meaning which focuses primarily on durability and permanence. The Greek word petros is a masculine form corresponding to the feminie form, petra, normally referring to bedrock (compare Matt 16.18). Since Peter is a man, the masculine form is required, even though it imperfectly renders the original Aramaic. Of course, in this context "rock" does not mean simply a large stone but rather a rock outcrop, on which a house could be built (compare Matt 7:24). One must be careful in the selection of a term for "rock," since such terms may carry special connotations. In some languages, for example, a term for "rock" can suggest "incurably stubborn" or "difficult to deal with." Although simon's new name is not explained in this verse, it clearly does not have these connotations.
Some persons have thought that the use of the name "Petros" (that is Peter) is a reference to the character of Simon, a person as dependable as a bedrock to be used as a foundation for a house. In Matthew 16:18, however, the reference to Peter as "a rock" is generally interpreted as being related to Peter's declaration (Matt 16:16) that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
In a different context, Paul used the Greek word petra (Strong's #4073) when he wrote (1Co 10:4):
The rock was Christ.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
Most modern translations translate the Greek word anothen <Strong's Greek # 509> as "again" and many also have a footnote such as, "again: or from above" (TEV). The NRSV does the opposite and translates the word as "from above" but includes a footnote, "Or born anew."
As in quite a few other verses in John, the Greek words have a dual meaning. In each account, the spiritually dull understand the word with one of the two meanings; whereas, Jesus obviously intended the other meaning. This is similar to the issues John's symbolic use of Greek as noted in the Web page commentary on Joh 21:15-17 (http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh21v15.htm).
Though all of the books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John, were first written in Greek, Jesus primarily spoke in Aramaic, a colloquial Semitic language related to Hebrew and entirely different from Greek. (Having come from Nazareth, Jesus also certainly did know and speak Greek, as is obvious from his conversation with the Syrophenician woman in Mar 7:26 and other accounts.) With only a few exceptions, all of Jesus' dialogue in the Greek New Testament is a translation from Aramaic to Greek.
In Aramaic there is no single word that has the dual meaning of "again" and "from above." However, though John was written in colloquial Koine Greek, it was written with very careful symbolic use of Greek words to articulate Jesus message, if not his actual words. (In terms of the artistry of its symbolism in the Greek language, the Gospel of John is unique in the New Testament. Even Revelation, which is full of outward symbolism, does not weave the symbolism into the use of the Greek language nearly to the extent that the Gospel of John does.)
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
16 What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me. 17 Whoever is willing to do what God wants will know whether what I teach comes from God or whether I speak on my own authority. 18 A person who speaks on his own authority is trying to gain glory for himself. But he who wants glory for the one who sent him is honest, and there is nothing false in him.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus expected his followers to follow his example and not to justify their respect or authority by scholarly credentials. He he said (Mat 23:2-13):
2 The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses’ Law. 3 So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do; do not, however, imitate their actions, because they don’t practise what they preach... 5 They do everything so that people will see them. Look at the straps with scripture verses on them which they wear on their foreheads and arms, and notice how large they are! Notice also how long are the tassels on their cloaks! 6 They love the best places at feasts and the reserved seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the market places and to be called ‘Teacher’. 8 You must not be called ‘Teacher’, because you are all members of one family and have only one Teacher. 9 And you must not call anyone here on earth ‘Father’, because you have only the one Father in heaven. 10 Nor should you be called ‘Leader’, because your one and only leader is the Messiah. 11 The greatest one among you must be your servant. 12 Whoever makes himself great will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be made great. 13 “How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You lock the door to the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, and you yourselves don’t go in, nor do you allow in those who are trying to enter! [See the commentary at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm#23-8.]
And after delivering a series of parables, Jesus concluded that his followers represented a new type of scribe/scholar. He said (Mat 13:51,52):
51 “Do you understand these things?” Jesus asked them. “Yes,” they answered. 52 So he replied, “This means, then, that every teacher of the Law who becomes a disciple in the Kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who takes new and old things out of his storeroom.” [See the commentary at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm#13-52.]
Raymond E. Brown (The Anchor Bible: The Gospel according to John, Volumes 1, New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 312) comments:
Before a man became a rabbi, he normally studied diligently under another rabbi; much of the rabbinical learning consisted in knowing the opinions of famous teachers of the past. Yet Jesus had not undergone any such training.
How is it that this man who has never been a disciple in the rabbinic schools can carry on a learned disputation? It would not be surprising that an ordinary man should be able to quote Scripture. Any reasonably intelligent man who heard the Law read through year by year in synagogue and recited the Shema daily would be able to quote parts. This is against a close connection between this verse and 5:47; in fact the question serves primarily to elicit the theme of the next verse, and indeed of the next two chapters -- the relation of Jesus to, and his mission from, the Father.
Jesus' assertion that the Scriptures (hai graphai) bear witness to him (5:39) and that it is only out of malice (5:40) that his interlocutors will not believe the written words (ta grammata) of Moses (5:47) is met by the Jews with the spiteful remark that Jesus has not had a scholastic education (me memathekos) and hence can scarcely 'know scriptures'. In ordinary contemporary usage this expression without the article meant 'to have learnt to read and write, to have the elements of knowledge'. This cannot however be the meaning here, since Jesus was able to read Holy Scripture (cf. Lk 4:16 ff), at an early age. The reference is rather to being learned in the Scriptures, a knowledge acquired in the school of a teacher of the Law and through association with him; only someone educated (memathekos) in this way would be credited with real knowledge of the Scriptures. But this was a kind of schooling that Jesus had not undergone... The objection is in line with other aspersions and denigrations put forward by Jesus' opponents with the idea of disqualifying him (cf. 7:20, 35; 8:22, 48, 52; 10:20).
Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, page 187-189) writes that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the text from John 7:53 to John 8:11 was not part of the original text of John. It was absent from important early and diverse New Testament manuscripts. He writes:
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places... Although the Committee was unanimous that [this passage] was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn. 7.52.
| Other resources |
Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, page 187-189) writes that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the text from John 7:53 to John 8:11 was not part of the original text of John. It was absent from important early and diverse New Testament manuscripts. He writes:
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places... Although the Committee was unanimous that [this passage] was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn. 7.52.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
1... It is striking that, although sayings that can be classified as proverbs occur in many places in the NT, only in few places (Jn. 10:6; 16:25, 29; 2 Pet. 2:22) are proverbs and saying designated by the word paroimia. The instances in Jn. occupy an exceptional position.
2. It is only in Jn., in fact, that paroimia occurs (10:6; 16:25, 29) in the sense of dark saying, or riddle. This meaning comes about because of the Heb. equivalent masal and the consequent approximation to parabole [parable]. In retrospect Jesus' discourse on the shepherd (10:6) and, indeed, his discourses in general (16:25) are characterized as dark sayings. The dark saying is contrasted with the later, clear revelatory saying (16:25, 29). This can be understood chronologically; the early Jesus spoke in riddles, the exalted Jesus speaks openly. But this interpretaion contains some difficulties. One cannot really characterize Jesus' words in Jn. as intectectually difficult to understand, nor can one distinguish between dark and clear sayings. Dark here probably does not mean intellectually difficult. The darkness of the words does not reside in the words but in the hearer. Therefore the words are dark and clear simultaneously. The words remain dark so long as the hearer tries to understand them intellectually. "It is possible to understand the words of Jesus only in the reality of the believing existence. Before that they are incomprehensible -- not in the sense of being difficult to grasp intellectually, but because intellectual comprehension is not enough. It is precisely this that the disciples must realize, namely that the commitment of one's whole existence is required to understand these words. They will be comprehensible in the new (i.e., eschatological) existence: rechetai hora hote ktl. ['the hour comes when etc.']: only then will Jesus speak to them parrhesia [openly]" (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 587).
S&H 505:20-28
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
37 ...Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth. Whoever belongs to the truth listens to me.” 38 “And what is truth?” Pilate asked.
3 Jesus answered, “I am telling you the truth: no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born again [or from above].” 4 “How can a grown man be born again?” Nicodemus asked. “He certainly cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time!” 5 “I am telling you the truth,” replied Jesus. “No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 A person is born physically of human parents, but is born spiritually of the Spirit. 7 Do not be surprised because I tell you that you must all be born again [or from above]... 10 You are a great teacher in Israel, and you don’t know this? 11 I am telling you the truth: we speak of what we know and report what we have seen, yet none of you is willing to accept our message.
31 ...Jesus said to those who believed in him, “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples; 32 you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 “We are the descendants of Abraham,” they answered, “and we have never been anybody’s slaves. What do you mean, then, by saying, ‘You will be free’?” 34 Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: everyone who sins is a slave of sin... 36 If the Son sets you free, then you will be really free... 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my message. 44 You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father’s desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies. 45 But I tell the truth, and that is why you do not believe me.
Pilate is now convinced that Jesus' "kingdom" is not a temporal one, and that He is innocent of revolutionary designs. His rejoinder is perhaps wistful rather than cynbical or careless: "What is truth?" But to this, the greatest of questions, he does not wait for an answer. He goes outside again ... to the Jews assembled in the courtyard and roundly tells them that he can find no reason why Jesus should be put to death.
Rudolph Bultmann (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971) comments (pages 656-657):
With his counter question: "What is truth?", i.e. he [Pilate] takes the point of view that the state is not interested in the question about the aletheia [truth] -- about the reality of God, or as perhaps it ought to be expressed in Pilate's way of thinking -- about reality in the radical sense. He remains on the outside. For the person who represents this standpoint that means that he shuts the door on the claim of the revelation, and in so doing he shows that he is not of the truth -- he is of the lie.
But the situation of Pilate is different from that of the Jews who represent the world, whose father is the devil, and who therefore are bent on murder and lying (8.44). As the representative of the state Pilate does not belong to them, as is immediately shown (v. 38): he declares to the Jews that he can establish no misdeed of Jesus that could serve as a cause for his condemnation. In fact therefore this possibility arises: the state is able to adopt the point of view that the question about aletheia [truth] has nothing to do with it... Pilate rejected the possibility of recognition and chose the possibility of neutrality.
John Marsh (Westminster Pelican Commentaries: Saint John, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) comments (pages 602):
Confronted with him who is 'the Truth' (14.6) and having been profoundly moved by his response under interrogation, Pilate stifles any incipient response he may have thought it possible to make, by turning from the personal to the abstract, and asks 'What is truth?'. Reluctant but inadequate sympathy had signally failed. For all his efforts Pilate was now bound to pass the death sentence upon his prisoner. He had reached and passed the point of no return.
Mary Baker Eddy (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Boston: The Writings of Mary Baker Eddy, 2000) comments (page 48:25-6):
Pale in the presence of his own momentous question, "What is Truth," Pilate was drawn into acquiescence with the demands of Jesus' enemies. Pilate was ignorant of the consequences of his awful decision against human rights and divine Love, knowing not that he was hastening the final demonstration of what life is and of what the true knowledge of God can do for man. The women at the cross could have answered Pilate's question. They knew what had inspired their devotion, winged their faith, opened the eyes of their understanding, healed the sick, cast out evil, and caused the disciples to say to their Master: "Even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
What John opposed ... includes what the Gospel of Thomas teaches -- that God's light shines not only in Jesus but, potentially at least, in everyone. Thomas's gospel encourages the hearer not so much to believe in Jesus, as John requires, as to seek to know God through one's own, divinely given capacity, since all are created in the image of God. (page 34).
If Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been joined with the Gospel of Thomas instead of with John, for example, or had both John and Thomas been included in the New Testament canon, Christians probably would have read the first three gospels quite differently. The gospels of Thomas and John speak for different groups of Jesus' followers engaged in discussion, even argument, toward the end of the first century. What they debated is this: Who is Jesus, and what is the "good news" (in Greek euangellion, "gospel") about him? (page 38)
It should be further noted that some scholars see evidence of at least two additional early redactions or editing of the Gospel of John, as represented by the version we now have. These would include the Prologue of Joh 1:1-18 and the Epilogue of Joh 21:1-25. Some scholars believe that in these redaction processes, some elements have been minimalized or eliminated. (E.g., the role of Mary Magdalene and/or Mary of Bethany is believed by some scholars to have been much more significant in the original, pre-redacted version of the Gospel of John.) Some elements have been added, modified, or given very different significance. (E.g., though Joh 20:28 seems to be declaring that Jeus is Lord and God, Joh 1:18 declares that no one has ever seen God, and Jesus in Joh 20:17 declares to his disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Even Joh 17:23,26 show Jesus' followers to have a potential for the same relationship with God as Jesus had with God.). The point of this that Pagel's comments above may have more to do with the redacted Gospel of John than with the original Gospel of John. None-the-less, it is the redacted version that we all have in our Bibles today, so that is the primary object of our study here.
(1, 2, & 3) Summary - Each of these three accounts/instructions about the forgiveness or finding/binding of sin is in the context of identifying/establishing the legitimate/orthodox authority by second-generation Christian writers for their second-generation audiences. Robert Funk and Roy Hoover (The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?, NY: Harper Collins, 1993) may be correct in saying the that John's and the other accounts "are to be understood as creations of the individual evangelists." (page 467) Each Christian community (represented by each gospel) was asserting its prerogative of self-government and autonomy to define its own theology and practices -- and what was not considered acceptible theology or behavior, i.e., what was considered sin. Each community therefore determined what theology or practice, if repented of, could be forgiven, and what theology or practice, if so far outside the acceptible bounds of that faith community, would disable that deviant individual from ever again being included in that faith community. Many, if not most, denominations or individual churches have established rules or bylaws which include forgivable and non-forgivable offenses, by which one can be permanently excommunicated.
It should be noted that even if one were to be excommunicated from any church denomination, one's salvation is not dependent upon card-carrying membership in any particular local or global denomination. Jesus (in both Luke's gospel and Thomas' gospel) reassured us that the kingdom of God is "within" us; thus, one's salvation ultimately is not dependent upon a church organization but upon one's individual relationship with God and upon demonstratively representing His reign within one. Jesus' very original Good Samaritan story clearly destroyed all religious boundaries that were believed to exist in the kingdom of God. (See http://www.bibletexts.com/texts/parables.htm#good-samaritan. The Samaritan, not the priest or Levite received Jesus' commendation.)
| Other resources |
| Abbreviations |
Copyright
1996-2004 Robert Nguyen Cramer
|
Bibliography |
|
|
editor@bibletexts.com. |