John 1:6-18 PDF

Preview

Summary

Hamblin, John 1:6-18 1 Jan 11, 2011 John 1:6-18, The Word (Part 2) The second half of the Prologue of John focuses on the coming of the Word-Light into the World, and World’s reaction. John testifies that the Light has come to enlighten the World (1:6-9). The World, on the other hand, does not know ...

Description

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

1

Jan 11, 2011

John 1:6-18, The Word (Part 2)

The second half of the Prologue of John focuses on the coming of the Word-Light into the World, and World’s reaction. John testifies that the Light has come to enlighten the World (1:6-9). The World, on the other hand, does not know or accept the Word (1:10-11). Those who do accept the Word become reborn as children of God (1:12-13). When the Word becomes flesh, it thereby reveals grace, truth, and the glory and knowledge of the Father (1:14-18). In a sense, these verses summarize the major themes of the rest of John’s Gospel.

1:6-8, the testimony of John the Baptist At first these three verses seem like an interruption or a digression within the description of the role of the Word. The “man sent by God” in 1:6 is John the Baptist (or “Baptizer” or, more literally, “Immerser”), whose story is told in detail in John 1:19-42.1 Here the Gospel describes the Immerser as “a man sent from God” (1:6), in other words, a prophet. Each biblical prophet had a special mission from God, and John’s mission is that of prophetic forerunner to testify of the messianic Light (1:7-8), that is, to testify of the Word/Jesus. As we shall see next week, John’s role as witness to the Light has a crucial function in the Gospel. John takes great pain here to emphasize that John the Baptist is not “the Light,” that is, the Messiah (1:8, 20). Rather, the Baptist’s role is to testify of the authenticity of the Word/Light/Messiah (1:9). The specifics of John the Baptist’s testimony of Jesus will discussed in the section on 1:19-42 in next week’s column

1:9-13, Word and World In John 1:9-13 there are three different responses to the manifestation of the Word-Light in the world: 1- the world does not know him, 2- his own people reject him, but 3- the disciples

1 A good

summary of our knowledge of John the Baptist can be found in J. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism, (1997).

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

2

Jan 11, 2011

believe in him. The implications of the different responses of these three groups to the manifestation of the Word-Light is a central theme of John’s entire Gospel, and will be further developed throughout the following weeks. In 1:9-10 the true Light comes to the world, which does not know him. The Greek term kosmos, generally translated as “world” in most modern translations, can mean the material or physical world in which we live, the inhabitants of that world, and even the natural and social order of the world. John, however, has a more technical sense in which he uses the term kosmos. In this special sense the kosmos is the natural and human order that stands in antithesis and opposition to Jesus and the disciples. On the other hand, paradoxically, although the kosmos was created and loved by God, and is something that God wants to save, yet the kosmos is an enemy to the Messiah and his disciples (Jn. 7:7, 15:18). I will develop these ideas further in my discussion of John 3. John’s next verse says that Jesus “came unto his own (ta idia) and his own (hoi idioi) did not accept him” (1:11). English translations of this passage can sometimes obscure the meaning of the Greek. In Greek Jesus “came to his own [idia, things/places, neuter plural], and his own [idioi, people, masculine plural] did not accept him.” That is, Jesus came to his own land/place, and his own people--the Israelites--did not accept him. The first idia does not refer to the kosmos, which had already been discussed in the previous verse. Rather it is plural, and refers to Jesus coming to his own places (Jn. 4:44, 13:1, 15:19)--that is, the lands of Galilee and Judea, Jerusalem, and--most importantly, as we shall see--the temple. This verse is thus allusive of the eventual rejection of Jesus by “his own [people],” as described throughout the Gospel, but culminating in John 19:13-16, where his own people reject him as Messiah, declaring, “we have no king-[messiah] than Caesar” (19:15). Those who accept Jesus, on the other hand, become the children of God, and are “born of God” (1:12-13). Indeed, one of the purposes of Jesus’ mission is to: “gather into one the children of God [that is, those who have been born of God, thus becoming his children] who are scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:52). It is worth noting that in John, only Jesus is called the “son (huios) of God;”

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

3

Jan 11, 2011

the disciples are consistently called the “children (teknon) of God.”2 The concept of becoming children of God will be analyzed in greater detail in my discussion of John 8.

1:14-18, The Word and the Believers John 1:14 reads: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” This verse introduces a number of ideas that are more fully developed throughout John’s gospel. The Word became flesh. This is a fundamental concept: that Jesus, the preexistent divine Word, has become flesh (sarx), that is, a human being. The Greek term sarx means literally the meat, or fleshy part of a body, and hence, the body as a whole. It is sometimes used in the New Testament in opposition to spirit (pneuma), especially in Paul. This spirit-flesh duality is occasionally found in John (3:6, 6:63). Jesus’ incarnation allows the complete fusion of the two. All of us, like Jesus, are born of the flesh, and all of us, through Jesus, can become born of the spirit (3:6). In a sense, the spirit becomes flesh so the flesh can become spirit. Entabernacled. John 1:14 is generally translated “the Word dwelt among us.” The term “dwelt” in Greek is skēnoō, which means literally to “pitch a tent,” (skēnē). It is an allusion to YHWH dwelling in a tent/tabernacle among the Israelites in the wilderness (Ex. 25:8-9, 33:7). The holy Tabernacle made by Moses for YHWH’s dwelling place is frequently translated as skēnē in the Greek Septuagint. Thus, in the Hebrew Bible’s conception, YHWH dwelt among ancient Israel in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple (Ex. 25:8-9, 29:45, 33:9, 40:34-5; 1 Kgs. 6:13, 8:10-11; Ezek. 43:7; Zech 2:10-11). Now, however, God dwells among his people in dwelling of flesh, rather than fabric or stone, in the form of Jesus, the divine Word entabernacled.3 This verse introduces a crucial concept of Jesus’ relationship to the Temple. As we shall see beginning in the discussion of John 2:13-25, for a first century Jewish reader, the entire Gospel of John focuses on Jesus and the Temple, and Jesus as Lord of the Temple. 2

But Mt. 5:9, Rom. 8:14, 8:19, 9:26, Gal. 3:26, 4:6 all these passages use the phrase “sons of God,” probably conceptually synonymous with John’s concept of the “children of God.” Paul uses “sons of God” and “children of God” interchangeably in Rom. 8:14-19. 3

Rev 21:3; Hoskins, P. Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, (2006) 116-24; Kerr, A. The Temple of Jesus’ Body, (2002) 121-128.

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

4

Jan 11, 2011

“We have seen his Glory.” In the first century Jewish context, “glory” (doxa) does not mean merely magnificence or splendor. When John talks throughout his Gospel of the glory of Jesus, he is using the term in its technical biblical sense. In the Hebrew Bible, when God appears in his Temple, the dazzling light and splendor of his theophany is described as the “glory of the LORD” (kābôd YHWH). (Ex. 33:22, 40:34-48; Num 14:10; Dt. 5:21-24; 1 Kgs. 8:10-11; Ps. 26:8, 102:15; Jer 17:12; Ezek. 10:4, 11:23.) It is important to note that these manifestations of divine glory almost always occur at the Temple or Tabernacle. When John says here that he has seen the glory of Jesus, he is saying that Christ is the “glory of YHWH,” the physical and visible manifestation of the presence of God on earth. I will discuss this concept in detail later. Full of grace and truth. For John, grace and truth (charis and alētheia) are not merely abstract qualities possessed by Jesus. Rather, they are specific characteristics of God (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 25:10, 26:3, 40:10, 83:12; Prov. 16:6), which Jesus possesses because he is the Word incarnate.4 These terms probably translate the Hebrew phrase ḥesed we-’ĕmet, which is often translated as “steadfast love and faithfulness” or “lovingkindness and truth”). The importance ḥesed/steadfast love/mercy/grace as a characteristic of YHWH is reflected in its repeated use as a liturgical refrain in Hebrew ritual (Ps. 118, 136; 1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr. 7:6, 20:21; Jer. 33:11; Ezra 3:11). It is precisely because God possesses ḥesed we-’ĕmet that he will forgive sins: “Because of steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for” (Prov. 16:6). Thus, Jesus embodies grace and truth because he is God embodied. And because he fully embodies divine grace and truth, he can “take away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29). Law through Moses. Verse 17 reads: “For the Law/Torah was given through Moses; [but] grace and truth came through Jesus the Messiah.” The “law” here is the Greek nomos and is an important technical term in the New Testament translating the Hebrew tôrāh, or Torah. Technically it refers to the commandments, statues, ritual system and covenants given from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. By the time of Jesus it generally meant the five books of Moses, or the Pentateuch. Of course all Jews would agree with John’s statement that “the Torah was given through Moses,” but why would John contrast that idea with the grace and truth of Jesus? John

4

L. Kuyper, “Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God and Its Use in the Johannine Gospel,” Interpretation, 18 (1964): 3-19.

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

5

Jan 11, 2011

is here alluding to the theophany of YHWH to Moses in Exodus 34, when the stone tablets of the Torah were given to Moses (Ex. 34:27-29). On that occasion, YHWH “passed before the face” of Moses (Ex. 34:6), and said: “YHWH is a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in ḥesed we-‘ĕmet (= John’s “grace and truth), keeping ḥesed (= John’s “grace”) for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Ex. 34:6b-7a). So, what John is saying is that Moses did indeed received the Torah, but that Jesus brings the ḥesed we-‘ĕmet, the “grace and truth” mentioned in Exodus 34:6. John is thus saying that Jesus is greater than Moses because, as the divine Word, he gave the Torah to Moses, and brings the “grace and truth” which allows atonement and forgiveness of sins, the key component of the Mosaic Torah.

1:18, No one has seen God The Prologue of John ends with a rather puzzling statement: “No one has ever seen God. The only Son/God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (Jn. 1:18; cf. Jn. 6:46; cf. 1 Jn. 4:12, 20; Lk. 10:22). The idea that “no one has ever seen God” seems to be based in part on the Hebrew Bible (Dt. 4:12). When Moses asks to see God, he is told “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Ex. 33:20; cf. 3:6). Many other Hebrew Bible passages likewise reflect fear of destruction if someone sees God (Gen. 32:30, Ex. 19:21, 33:18-23, Judg. 13:22, Isa. 6:5). Yet even these passages imply that God is at least theoretically seeable, since if he were completely unseeable, there would be no need to fear the consequences of seeing him. On the other hand, there are a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible which describe men seeing God, sometimes explicitly “face to face.” Examples include: Abraham (Gen. 16:13, Gen. 18), Jacob (Gen. 32:30), Moses at Sinai (Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:7-8, 14:14; Dt. 5:4, 18:15, 34:10; Sir. 45:5), the elders of Israel at Sinai (Ex. 24:9-11), Micaiah (1 Kgs. 22:19), Isaiah (Isa. 6), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 1). Some scholars believe that these apparently contradictory concepts about the visibility of God represent two different ancient Israelite traditions, which were merged together,

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

6

Jan 11, 2011

though not always seamlessly, sometime in antiquity.5 However that may be, this was not an understanding of the Hebrew Bible at the time of John. There is an equally strong early Christian tradition that God can be seen, especially in an eschatological sense (Mt. 5:8; 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 Jn. 3:2; Rev. 1:7, 22:4). Paul likewise claims the aoratos/unseen attributes of God can be “clearly seen” (Rom. 1:20). 3 Jn. 1:11 says that “whoever does evil has not seen God,” implying that the righteous are able to see God. So what does John mean here? The idea of an “invisible God” may also be reflected in New Testament passages that describe Jesus as being the eikon/image of the aoratos/unseen God (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17).6 The Greek term aoratos, however, is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean either “unseen,” or “unseeable.” Of course there is a fundamental difference between something that is “unseen” (we don’t see it right now, but in theory could see it), verses “unseeable” (inherently can never be seen). Aoratos is often translated in modern translations as “invisible,” which makes sense in some ways. However, in the Septuagint and New Testament the term is used in ways that make “invisible” inadequate. For example, in the creation narrative, when the earth is “void” (tōhû), it is described in Greek as aoratos (Gen. 1:2). However the created earth was not invisible, but is unseen because it is shrouded in darkness. Likewise, in Isaiah 45:3, in the phrase “treasures of darkness, the hoard in secret places,” “secret place” is translated as aoratos in Greek. Here the treasure is not invisible, but is hidden in darkness, and therefore unseen. Likewise, in Hebrews 11:27, Abraham is said to see the aoratos God, probably an allusion to the theophany in Genesis 15:7-21 (cf. Gen. 16:13, Gen. 18), where Abraham “sees” God carrying a lamp, but shrouded in darkness, rendering him “unseen.” Why does it matter if God is unseen or unseeable? In some way, it doesn’t. The Greek word aoratos is ambiguous, and should probably be translated into English with the same ambiguity: “unseen,” rather than “invisible.”7 So we are left with a bit of a paradox. On the one 5

For background to these types of issues in the Hebrew Bible, see M. Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible, (2007), and R. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, (1987). 6 7

See also Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:16.

Of course, its original Vulgate Latinate root, invisibilis, likewise means unseen rather than unseeable, and is thus an ideal translation for the Greek aoratos. In modern English, however, invisible has come to mean “unseeable,” and hence has lost this original ambiguity.

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

7

Jan 11, 2011

hand, there is a biblical tradition that God is unseeable, and on the other, there are passages which strongly suggest that God has been seen and will be seen. One solution is simply that there may have been different traditions and beliefs among biblical writers about the visibility of God; some believed God cannot be seen, others that he can. Some early post-New Testament Christians, on the other hand, tended to interpret theophanies in the Old Testament as manifestations not of the Father, but of the preexistent Word--that is Jesus as the second member of the Trinity. Thus God the Father was never seen in the Hebrew Bible because all biblical theophanies in which God was seen were manifestations of the preexistent Word, God the Son. The only God? There is an interesting variant in the ancient manuscripts of John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son/God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” Some ancient manuscripts read monogenēs huios (the only Son), while others, including the oldest fragments, read monogenēs theos (the only God).8 These manuscript variants probably arose during christological doctrinal disputes among early Christians, and may represent an interesting example of intentional manipulation of manuscripts by some early Christian theologians.9 Scholars dispute which reading is the original, but Jesus is called the monogenēs huios several times in John (Jn. 1:14, 3:16, 18), but never again monogenēs theos. Be that as it may, the context clearly shows that John is stating that the Son has revealed the Father (Jn. 6:46; 1 Jn. 4:12, 20). Actually, the verb in Greek, exēgeomai (from whence our term exegesis), means literally to “explain or expound divine secrets”--that is, Jesus has explained the divine secret of the Father. As a christological title, the term monogenēs is only found in John (Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18).10 Traditionally, it has been translated as “only begotten,” but modern translators tend to render it simply as “only” or “unique.” This leads to another ambiguity. Is Jesus the Only Son of the Father--meaning there are no other sons of the Father? Or is he the Unique Son--meaning there are other sons of God (the disciples, Jn. 1.12, 11.52), but the nature

8

G. Pendrick, “Monogenēs” New Testament Studies, 41 (1995): 587-600.

9

B. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, (1993) 78-82, discusses the issue, with bibliography to other studies. 10

Luke uses it in three places to refer to mortal only children: Lk. 7.12, 8.43, 9.38; cf. Heb. 11.17.

Hamblin, John 1:6-18

8

Jan 11, 2011

of Jesus’ sonship is unique? The Greek could be understood either way, but, as noted above, the fact that John calls Jesus the “Son of God,” but the disciples “children of God” would point to “unique” as the best translation.

Conclusion It is not until the end of the Prologue that John reveals his full meaning. The divine creator known as the Word has become flesh; he is the divine Light, enlightening the world. He dwells among Mankind, making us the children of God, and bringing us grace and truth. But not until 1:17 do we discover who John is describing: Jesus the Messiah. Literarily speaking, John is creating suspense for the readers, leaving them wondering until the final revelation of the identity of the divine Word. The Prologue gives both a quick summary of God’s plan of salvation, and a quick summary of the Gospel of John. In this brief synopsis, three key elements of God’s plan of salvation are emphasized: divine preexistence of Jesus (1:1-4, 10), manifestation of God as the incarnate Word in the World (1:9-11), and the Word’s atonement for all mankind (1:12-13). As we shall see, John uses the rest of his gospel to explore the implications of these ideas.

Updates and discussion can be followed on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/An-Enigmatic-Mirror/180889785272535...