Scriptural translation is in the public domain courtesy of the World English Bible.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. En arche ain ho logos, a beautiful opening to the fourth gospel. These words are some of the most famous words of the Bible, beginning John’s exposition on the Christ. He begins with the beginning of all beginnings–not necessarily at the beginning of time but perhaps before the beginning of time, outside of time. He draws upon the Stoic idea of the Logos which is the blueprint of the universe, the active principle that designed all things. This intelligence behind everything this was not necessarily a Hebrew idea, but it was not antithetical to Hebrew thought either. (footnote a) He does not begin with the birth of Jesus; he does not begin with Nazareth or Bethlehem. Instead, he shows the importance and significance of Christ in the world and Christ over the world. Neither does he begin by telling us about Jesus, or “Yeshua.” He deals here with the eternal Christ–a view of the Messiah beyond all conceptions of the Messiah up to that point.
There is some evidence that this was sung as an antiphonal chant that is sung back and forth between two different groups within the Church. Perhaps one group would sing, “In the beginning was the Word,” and the other group might sing, “The word was with God, and the Word was God.”
There is mystery here. The Logos was both in the beginning with God, but it also was God. It was separate but not separate. This begins to explore the mystery of the Trinity, but there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is mentioned significantly in John 14.
Major ideas are introduced: God, Word, Life, Light, Darkness. These are much the same words that are used in the creation story of Genesis. Indeed this is a retelling of the Genesis story, retold in the light of the coming of the Christ. It is a Genesis story that starts even before the first verse of the book of Genesis, which reads, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. That first verse of the Old Testament seemed to be the final word about creation, but John now shows us even more.
There are the seeds of hope for some type of universal salvation perhaps because all things come from Christ. And as the book of Genesis says, “and God saw that it was good.” Nothing was made by the force of evil in the universe, and hence, nothing is inherently evil in the creation.
“The darkness hasn’t overcome it.” This raises the question of where darkness came from in the first place. But the Gospel writer does not address this at all. What is addressed is the power of the Christ over the darkness. It has no power over Him, except the power he freely turns over to it at the time of the crucifixion The darkness may at times appear to overcome the Light. as when Jesus is crucified. and the end of all hope occurs in the disciples, but it is only an appearance that darkness has won.
There is a hint here of an equally balanced conflict between good and evil, as found in Zoroastrianism; but that is not the message of the Gospel or the Bible. Evil will be eventually utterly vanquished, as in the Book of Revelation. The parousia of the king arrives; and the devil according to Revelation is cast into something akin to a lake of fire. But this verse in John also hints at what we all know–that on the surface it has often appeared to be an equal fight, or even that evil was going to win. This kind of reminds me of a sporting event in which your team appears to be behind at times. And you may even be tempted to give up on your team or switch sides; but in the end your team wins. because it is the better team. People might be tempted to switch sides at times. and give in to selfishness. But to live in selfishness is to side with the losing team.
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light. 9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.
Why does the gospel say “true light?” What other kind of light is there? Truth and light do not exactly go together unless light is a metaphor for enlightenment; then truth and enlightenment do go together. Perhaps the gospel here emphasizes “true light” because in the Roman Empire (just as today) there were so many competing religions and ideologies. each claiming to provide enlightenment. The words “true” or “truth” occur 23 times in this gospel.
The relating of the gospel story touches for a moment on the more familiar synoptic version–but just for a moment. Why was it so important to refer to John the Baptist here? Unclear. But we need to appreciate the Jewish idea of a witness. This comes up multiple times in the gospel. There has to be a witness to establish the veracity of a claim. But when the issue is the Christ, who can bear witness? He bears witness to himself but John the Baptist also bore witness to who he was and is. Maybe that is why an earthly event is mentioned before proceeding back to cosmic issues.
From a writer’s point of view, it could be difficult to transition from a cosmological view of eons and untold vastness of distance to the local story in a small Roman Province. Instead of making that jump all at once, he weaves two strands together by temporarily touching on John the Baptist then going back briefly to the cosmological point of view and then back to local history. This perhaps weaves things together more smoothly than one single abrupt transition.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right (c) to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
He begins to deal with a central problem. How could the Messiah not be recognized? Presumably it is due to being in the world and of the world that limits the vision of human beings. There is a kind of tragedy here–that the people most in need of the Christ are also the most blinded to him. But the passage also implies. that being in the world and of the world does not inevitably mean the impossibility of recognizing Him. The passage implies that despite this handicap of humans, there is still the possibility of seeing him for who he is. and that many did so and continue to do so.
“The world didn’t recognize him” seems straightforward, but the following phrase is less clear. “His own” could be Israel, or it could be humanity. The poignancy of this rejection should not be overlooked. He created us and came to save us and yet was rejected. Many analogies could be thought of here. One would be of a parent who at great risk travels to break a child free from unjust imprisonment in a foreign country; but upon arriving at the prison the child does not recognize the parent and refuses to go with them.
It is generally said that we are all children of God. There is probably scriptural support for that; after all we are “made in his image.” But that is not exactly what the 4th gospel writer is saying here. He is saying that for those who recognize Christ and receive him, they are given the right to become children of God. And they are born into a new life. not of flesh and blood but of God. Technically he does not say that they become God’s children but that they have the right to become God’s children. It is not clear if this is an important distinction or not. One could argue that this implies that some further process is needed, such as some further life of holiness or sanctification. However, the totality of John’s gospel does not imply that a further process is needed for us to become children of God. Moreover, when other translations of this Greek word are used and it is interpreted as “authority” or “power”, the whole issue seems to go away.
“nor of the will of man…” It is not clear how this is different from “the will of the flesh.” It may not be different; it may be a Jewish literary device of restating something.
14 The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only born Son of the Father, full of grace (b) and truth.
“The word becoming flesh” is literally in-carna-tion. that is in-flesh. It is not clear what the Gospel writer means by “We saw his glory.” It could mean on a daily basis or it could mean in the resurrection. or in the miracles. The phrase “such glory as of the only born son of the father” would perhaps suggest that being the sole son of the father, all of God’s wisdom and power was poured into him. It was not divided with siblings as brothers in a family might receive a divided inheritance. The term grace here means sweetness, delight, beneficence, and favor. Truth here can also be translated as simply “truth,” but I would elaborate and suggest that the writer is trying to convey the idea that he taught and embodied all that is true and without any misleading falsehood, so that one can put in him faith in his statements and leadership. As soon as one starts to try to size up different philosophies and different religions, an amazing number of competing claims are made that contradict each other, and there is no solid ground to stand on. I think the writer is saying, “Here is solid ground. Here is truth. Here is something you can stand on and count on.”
John testified about him. He cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.’” 16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only born Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.
“Cried out” Could mean that his voice was loud as he preached in the open air. It could mean that he was crying out in the sense of protesting the current. situation under Rome. It could mean that he was crying out in the sense that the prophet prophesied in second Isaiah, though. “A voice crying, ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.’ “
“For he was before me.” It may look to John’s listeners that John came first. John has been preaching before Jesus was preaching. John baptizes Jesus. In normal, everyday terms, Jesus would be seen as the disciple or follower of John; but John here states that it is absolutely not true. It only appears to be true. Jesus comes before John both in time and in preeminence,
“The only Son”–Jesus was not just a son of God but the only born son, who is God and deserves worship. That is, there is a special relationship within the Trinity and with God the Father. Even if humankind had never been created, presumably Christ would have still been within the Godhead. This idea is central. The claim made that he was coequal with the father. and had the prerogatives of God. brought on him the ire of the Sanhedrin and their support for the crucifixion. There is a fundamental difference between being a major prophet, such as Jeremiah, or an apostle such as Paul, and being part of the deity. John is trying to emphasize the great gulf between Jesus and himself, although to their listeners they must have seemed like mirror images at first.
19 This is John’s testimony, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
John was preaching in the Jordan River Valley and baptizing in the Jordan River. This would have been east of Jerusalem. It would have been a one and a half to two day’s journey through wilderness and dangerous territory. The current name for the site is “Al Maghtas”; and it is a UNESCO world heritage site. There were a variety of reasons why John might have chosen this spot for his ministry. There was moving water which was required for ritual washing. It was close to a mercantile road of caravans, giving him access to preach to many persons from a variety of nations. It was associated with Elijah and his prophetic ministry against corrupt rulers. Bethany beyond the Jordan was perhaps out of Herod’s jurisdiction and may therefore have been safer for John the Baptist to preach against the evils he was seeing in Herodian society. The city of Jericho would not have been far away, and one of Herod’s palaces was also close by. He would have been out of reach of the authorities to some degree. At least it would not have been easy for them to nab him if he did not want to be taken.
Priests were the highest religious classifier. They performed the sacrifices in the temple. They were born into the priesthood through their family blood ties. Levites were also involved in religious service in the temple, and would go spend a month in the temple assisting the priests in their duty.
It seems odd that the writer says that “the Jews” sent priests and Levites. Of course, there were Jews; almost everyone was Jewish. If he was writing to gentiles, this would make some sense.
The common people seemed to believe that he was the return of Elijah. And he was quick to dispel that idea. Some others thought he was actually the Messiah. The Book of John here uses the word Christos. which means the anointed one. which is the Greek for the Hebrew idea of the Messiah. John the Baptist quickly dispelled that idea, saying that it was not him, but someone to come after him. From the book of Luke, we know that John the Baptist was related to Jesus. and that they were cousins. If there is a lesson here, it might be that we should not jump to conclusions. and that we should take our time looking at the facts and evidence.
The reason why some thought that John the Baptist might be Elijah was that Elijah. was taken up into heaven in a chariot and did not. die no death. according to the Old Testament. There may be a lesson here to not try to put God’s new messages into old wine bottles. That is what some of the populace were doing here, trying to make John the Baptist into Elijah. Elijah, they knew something about. They had no idea who John the Baptist was and what he was about. So they were trying to stuff him into an old concept, which did not fit, and simply was not true.
20 He declared, and didn’t deny, but he declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21 They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?”
He answered, “No.” 22 They said therefore to him, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
They apparently were sent by the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling council of Judaism, and was composed of the various different parties. It is likely that they were sent, not out of an interest in John’s message. but in the interest of determining whether John the Baptist was a problem or not, someone that they needed to control. The inquirers seem to be telling John the Baptist, “We can’t go back empty handed. We have to tell our employer something. So just give us an answer so we can go back and do our job. Personally, we’ll be okay with whatever you say, but we have to answer to our employer.” On the other hand, this. may be prejudicial to assume that they were there in an antagonistic spirit. What if the Sanhedrin, whoever sent these men, really did want to know John’s message. But people being people, it is likely that the power elite were likely concerned that he would stir the people up and destabilize the situation.
23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”
There is a slight problem here. Many interpreters of the Old Testament argue that the original Isaiah quote is, “A voice is crying, ‘In the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord.’ “
24 The ones who had been sent were from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” 26 John answered them, “I baptize in water, but among you stands one whom you don’t know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, who is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I’m not worthy to loosen.” 28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Pharisees were one of the major religious parties. The other two major parties were the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees were strongest in the outlying regions (away from Jerusalem), and the Sadducees were strongest in Jerusalem. Some would argue that Jesus was actually closer to the Pharisees than any of the other groups. However, the Gospels make it seem that Jesus was against all of the Pharisees. It is possible that he was, but it is also possible that he was. mainly upset with the way religion was being practiced in general. and that the name Pharisees is used here as a general term for members of the religious establishment in Galilee. So it is unclear if he was truly against Pharisees. After all, Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus were Pharisees. and they were allies of Jesus. Jesus also called out the scribes at times, but they were not really a religious party. They were more of a class of professionls who were writers and interpreters of the law. Of course, Jesus did not condemn the knowledge of the law; he did however, point out how the wealthy. establishment class of religious persons took advantage of their position. to vaunt themselves and make others feel lowly.
“…whose sandal strap I’m not worthy to loosen.” From ChatGPT–This is a rich theme in the Gospel of John, drawing on ancient social customs to underscore theological meaning. In the Greco-Roman and Jewish world of the first century, footwashing was one of the lowliest tasks imaginable, typically assigned to the lowest servant in a household. Roads were unpaved and dusty. People wore open sandals, so feet became filthy quickly. It was considered beneath the dignity of most free people — even Jewish slaves were often exempt; it was reserved for Gentile slaves, women, or children. A disciple might wash a rabbi’s feet in extreme deference, but even then, it was exceptional. This background makes John the Baptist’s statement in John 1:27 particularly striking: “He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” This is a slave’s task, and John the Baptist — already regarded by many as a prophet — claims he is not even worthy of this lowest act in relation to Jesus. In John 13:1–17 Jesus performs a deliberately shocking act of washing the disciples’ feet. This reversal is deeply counter-cultural: The master becomes the servant. Jesus reframes footwashing as an act of self-giving love, humility, and symbolic purification. To skip over or rush over this idea is to miss one of the essential parts of the gospel: In the Kingdom of God everything is stood on its head: The greatest are also the greatest servants.
In first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, removing someone’s sandals and washing their feet was considered such a lowly, degrading task that even Jewish slaves were exempt from it. It was typically assigned to Gentile slaves, women, or children. Untying the thong of a sandal — the first step toward washing feet — was symbolically associated with this degrading role. So when John the Baptist says he is “not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal,” he is placing himself below even the lowest slave, emphasizing his unworthiness in the most extreme terms culturally available.“untying the thong” might indeed be shorthand for “removing the sandal and washing the feet,” Later in John 13, Jesus himself washes the disciples’ feet, taking on the very role John said he was unworthy even to initiate. This action would have been scandalous in that culture — a rabbi acting as a Gentile slave.In rabbinic discussion, the task of untying sandals is used as a boundary marker for the duties of disciples. Some rabbis said that a disciple must serve his teacher in all ways except untying his sandals — because that is slave work, not student work.So John is not just saying he’s not worthy to be a disciple — he’s saying he’s not even worthy to be a slave of the Messiah.
29 The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.’ 31 I didn’t know him, but for this reason I came baptizing in water, that he would be revealed to Israel.” 32 John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I didn’t recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘On whomever you will see the Spirit descending and remaining on him is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Surprisingly, the Gospel of John never actually says that John baptized Jesus. We know that from the synoptic gospels; and it was probably assumed by the readers of the book of John. It only says that Jesus was walking toward John.
It is strange that John would say he didn’t recognize him, since according to the synoptic gospels, he was a cousin, unless that is taken to mean that John initially did not recognize him as the Messiah. It does suggest that when Jesus arrived at the Jordan for baptism, he did so without fanfare or any attempt on his own to elevate himself. John did not immediately see him as the Messiah. Instead, John saw him as just another person to be baptized until the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to him.
35 Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and see.”
While Jesus lauded people who had faith and did not need miracles, he understood human’s need for proof and to see for themselves. I have always found this passage to be apparently disjointed; it doesn’t flow for me. There is much that seems to have been left out here. For example, why didn’t John himself follow Jesus? I say “apparently disjointed” because this gospel writer is always thoughtful and careful. But there is a gem here. “What are you looking for?” is a question for them and also for us. His question to them could reflect Jesus’ desire to have disciples of insight and perseverance rather than temporary enthusiasts who will leave him when some new, fashionable preacher comes on the scene. He could even be trying to screen out zealots looking for a military leader. But the question is a great one for all of us. What are we looking for when we approach Jesus? A teacher? A miracle worker? A savior? And what kind of savior are we looking for? We need to ask ourselves these questions.
They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.[g] 40 One of the two who heard John and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah!” (which is, being interpreted, Christ[h]). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is by interpretation, Peter).[i]
Peter’s name creates a few difficulties for the reader:
Cephas=the Greek form of the Aramaic word kepa, meaning rock–what Jesus nicknamed him
Simon= Peter’s given name
Simon bar Jonah=his full name in Jewish society, as in Simon Jonah or Simon son of Jonah
Petrus=Latin translation for “rock”
Peter=English version of Petrus
Simon Peter=one version of his full name
The confusion comes from the handing down of the name through four languages: Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English, as well as different cultural traditions about first and last names.
Jesus could have been making a quip, based on Peter’s physical appearance or something about his behavior. But Jesus could have had a substantial reason for the nickname, even looking down the road to Peter’s leadership of the church. The Catholic Church would maintain that this is a foreshadowing of Jesus giving Peter a preeminent role in the overall church, as in the story at Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus says, “upon this rock I will build my church.”
We have found the Messiah. The same linguistic and cultural issues occur here–Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. Is it any wonder that ministers need to study the original languages! It is not a sacralizing of a dead language but a necessity at times in order to understand what is being said.
Messiah=Hebrew meaning the prophesied savior of the Jewish people, the anointed one
Christos, χριστος in Greek, meaning annointed one
Christus=Latin form
Christ=English form
43 On the next day, he was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”
Bethsaida was a town at the uppermost shores of the Sea of Galilee and was close to Capernahum where Jesus centered Much of his ministry. Nathaniel appears to be looking down on Nazareth, which is ironic because Bethsaida could not be considered an important town either. So this is the irony– that the God of the universe was born into the backwater town of a backwater country, on a planet that had not yet even reached “the Dark Ages.” Nazareth was not known for anything. There was no prediction of a prophet coming from Nazareth. And that could be the main point of his statement. But it also could mean that it was a very average little town and that nothing could be expected from it. either way. It was inconceivable to many. that the Messiah would come from Nazareth. And this is the paradox of how God chooses to perform his saving action in the world. not through a Caesar, not through a king, not through a president, but through a seemingly average carpenter. in a less than average town, in a less than average country. That’s the way He chose to do it.
Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
Philip uses the same phrase with Nathanael that Jesus had used with Philip, that is. “Come and see.” Seeing pertains to light, and light is a central theme. There may be a play on words here meaning, “If you come with me, you will see who I am and what I am about.” Or it could mean that if he comes with Jesus he will gain spiritual sight.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!”
Just as nothing is hidden from God, this could be saying that nothing was hidden from Jesus. I would have been just as impressed as Nathanael; but what Jesus did in seeing him from afar supernaturally was so very very small compared to what He would do. This awareness of Jesus of what had been happening in Nathanael’s life before this meeting could be put in the theological category of prevenient grace, the idea that even before we come to Christ he has been active and working in our lives.
50 Jesus answered him, “Because I told you, ‘I saw you underneath the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these!” 51 He said to him, “Most certainly, I tell you all, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
“fig tree”–a highly specific piece of knowledge that showed that Jesus was more than a rabbi.
“Son of Man”–a title and concept found first in the Book of Daniel and also in intertestamental sources such as Third Enoch and Fourth Enoch. The latter are non-canonical books. That is to say, they are not accepted as standard and binding. or even educational. They are referred to as pseudepigrapha, meaning that such books are given a name that is from a character of the Bible to stamp it with a patina of authenticity. The Books of Enoch refer to Enoch in the Old Testament. However, while these are pseudopagrapha and not useful for the edification of Christians, the occurrence of the concept there helps us to understand more about how Jesus’ hearers might have understood the term. Before Jesus, the only canonical reference is in Daniel.
“…angels ascending and descending…” This of course is a reference to the patriarch Jacob. In this way, Jesus is preparing Nathanael for a deeper understanding of who He is later.
Chapter 1 Notes
a In later Jewish thought Wisdom is personified. and even named–Sophia–which is the Greek word for wisdom. She is mentioned in Proverbs. But she is not God. She is a force. proceeding from God.
b or Favor, kindness, blessing, liberality
c or Authority, power