A STUDY OF JOHN
PART -A
Added 6/05/99
By: Dr. Kenneth Hart - 1999
Formatted By:
Haydn k. Piper - 1999
- - MAJOR QUESTIONS FROM THE GOSPEL OF JOHN - -
What does this book/story say to us about God? This question may be broken down further as follows:
What does this book/story say to us about God? This question may be broken down further as follows:
The name John (Ioannes in Greek) comes from Yehochanan or Yochanan meaning "Jehovah (Yahweh) is gracious." Nowhere in the gospel does John mention his own name. He refers to himself as "that disciple" (John 21:23), "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:20), and even "the disciple that testifieth of these things, and wrote these things" (John 21:24). Conservative scholars agree that he also wrote the three letters bearing his name and the book of Revelation.
A small papyrus document known as Rylands Papyrus 457 and commonly designated as P52, found in a small rural town in Egypt and written about 125 AD contains John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37,38 on the other. It is perhaps the earliest existing copy of any Biblical document. Together with other archaeological evidence it supports the fact that this book was written about A. D. 90 by John himself.
John, often referred to as the "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or "the beloved disciple" because Jesus "kept on loving him" (the meaning of the Greek expression) was closer to Jesus than any of the other disciples and also younger in age. John's childhood home was in Bethsaida on the northwestern shore of Lake Galilee.
John wrote his gospel about thirty years after the others wrote theirs. At the time he was the only disciple still living. Three grave dangers seemed to be threatening the Christian Church: 1) a decreasing commitment to Christianity even among church members described in Revelation 2:4 as "a loss of the first love;" 2) heresies, especially Gnosticism, and 3) persecution. "Christian Gnostic thought revolved around the concept that, in essence, good and evil are to be identified with spirit and matter, respectively. Those men in whose souls resides a spark of the heavenly light are said to be prisoners in this world of matter. Salvation consists in the knowledge of how to escape from the realm of matter into the realm of spirit. Gnosticism denied the true incarnation of Christ, holding that the human form men thought they saw, was an apparition. The divine Christ was supposed to have entered into the human Jesus at His baptism, and departed prior to His death on the cross." (5BC 893)
Most of the gospel of John deals with incidents that took place in Judea and involved the Jewish leaders. The other gospels deal primarily with His ministry in Galilee. Thus John is quite different than the others. He includes several long discussions with the Pharisees which occurred in the temple at Jerusalem. John's primary goal is to tell us about God. He states in no uncertain terms that Jesus was One with the Father. Twenty-six times he quotes Jesus as saying that the Father had sent Him.
John begins at the very beginning stating in clear terms that Jesus was "the Word," a word he uses to mean that Jesus was the living expression of the mind, will, and character of God. John makes it clear that Jesus existed from eternity with the Father. (John 1:1-3) Thus John goes back before the human story of Jesus to discuss His true identity as the eternal, immortal God who created all things. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16)
John 1:11 is perhaps the saddest verse in the Bible. Jesus came "home" and His "family" rejected Him! The onlooking universe must have been stunned! Of course, by the time John was writing down his gospel Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews taken captive and scattered throughout the Roman empire. But something of supreme importance needed to be demonstrated by these people who were so dedicated to following the "blueprint." Because they had a wrong picture of God, and thus rejected the picture that Jesus brought, (John 1:18; 17:3,4) these Bible-reading, health-reforming, Sabbath-keeping, tithe-paying, blueprint-following adventists (they believed in the coming Messiah/Christ) were determined to get rid of Jesus as fast as they could. This shows that if we obey God for the wrong reason, we are just as unsavable (maybe more so) than the heathen!
See previous question. They thought that because they were being so careful in doing what they thought was right and because they were descendants of Abraham they had a guaranteed ticket to the kingdom. When Jesus came along and began asking questions, He was in effect challenging their whole theological system. This is why Caiaphas felt it was better for this One Man to die rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed. (John 11:49-51) In our day we see the same kind of response from some when their "security of salvation" is questioned.
Mary had become so accustomed to having Jesus around and finding Him always so helpful, that she probably just spoke to him almost impulsively. It is likely that this wedding was a wedding of someone in the family, otherwise she would not have concerned herself with this issue. But running out of wine would reflect badly on the entire family. So Mary suggested the solution that she had become accustomed to: ask Jesus!
The Greek word used here for "wine" is a word that can mean either fermented or unfermented wine. Given all that Jesus had inspired the prophets to say in the Old Testament about the problems of drinking alcohol (Proverbs 23:29-35) it is highly unlikely that He would have produced 120 gallons of some alcoholic beverage for them to consume.
Jesus addressed His mother with the usual title of respect used for adult women in those days. The expression is a Hebrew idiom. Some modern versions capture this fact by translating the expression as follows:
John 2:4:
"What is it to Me and to thee, woman!" (Concordant Literal)
"What to me and to thee, woman? (Young's Literal)
"What is it to you and to me?" (Lamsa)
"What is to me and thee woman? (Rheims-RC)
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (Tyndale; Great, Geneva, Bishop's, KJV; Noyes; Darby, RV, ASV)
"Woman, what do I have to do with you?" (NASB)
"What part can I take with thee, O woman?" (Rheims-RC)
"O woman, what have I with thee?" (N. Scarlett)
"O woman, what hast thou to do with me?" (Dickinson)
"What have I to do with you, woman?" (New World)
"What wouldst thou have me do, woman?" (Douay-Confraternity-RC)
"Why dost thou trouble me with that" (Knox-RC)
"O woman, what have you to do with me? (RSV; Williams)
"Woman, Jesus said, what have you to do with me?" (Moffatt; Montgomery)
"What do you want with me?" (Twentieth Century)
"I can't help you now," (TLB)
"Leave it to me," (Weymouth)
"Leave that to me, mother!" (Kleist and Lilly-RC)
"Will you leave that to Me, woman?" (Beck)
"Is that your concern, or mine, Mother?" (Phillips)
"Woman, how does your concern affect me?" (NAB-RC)
"Woman, why need you concern yourself with my affairs?" (Greber)
"Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?" (NKJ)
"Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?" (NRSV)
"How does that concern you and me?" (The Living Translation)
"Why did you come to me?" (God's Word)
"Mother, why should that concern me? or you?" (Jewish New Testament)
"Woman, what do you want from me?" (New Jerusalem-RC)
"Woman, what has this concern of yours to do with me?" (Anchor) [footnote: It was Jesus' normal, polite way of addressing women (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 20:13)
"Do not try to direct me," (Goodspeed)
"You must not tell me what to do, woman" (GNB, the second edition leaves out the word "woman")
"Mother...you must not tell me what to do." (CEV)
"Why do you involve me?" (NIV)
[footnote: Greek involve me, woman (a polite form of address)
"Woman, why turn to me?" (Jerusalem)
"Your concern, mother, is not mine." (NEB)
"Mother, why are you interfering with me?" (Translator's NT)
"Mother, I love you, but why are you wanting me to help them?" (Clear Word)
"Is that any of our business, Mother yours or mine?" (Message)
"(Dear) woman, what is that to you and to Me?" [What have we in common? Leave it to Me.]" (Amplified)
"Dear woman, why come to me? (NCV)
1 Corinthians 10:4 says that the One who led Israel through the wilderness was Christ Himself. (Compare John 5:39,40,46; Luke 24:44) In the light of this verse we must either question the inspiration and authority of Scripture or begin to ask why Jesus would do what He did at Sinai. All through the Bible God has demonstrated repeatedly that He is willing to stoop down to meet us where we are even if that is at a pretty low level! God met Moses at a very high level of understanding and required a lot of him, but He met the people, who had just come out of slavery with a very distorted view of what it means to worship a real God at a level they could understand. As recent slaves they were not ready for a carefully thought out dissertation on theology.
In the New Testament, however, Jesus was speaking in John 3 to Nicodemus, who was a religious leader and should have understood a great deal about truth. To him, Jesus could speak in broad principles such as are included in John 3:16.
The answer to this question is a very basic one and depends on your understanding of the entire plan of salvation. In Greek, "salvation" is the same word as "healing." God is doing His best to "heal" us of the damage done by sin. In order to be saved we must be willing to let God "heal" us. So what does this have to do with judging?
1 John 2:1 suggests that the Son is pleading with the Father on our behalf. But John 5:22 suggests that all judgment has in fact been handed over to the Son. John goes even further to state in John 3:17-21 and John 12:47,48 that it is actually truth that is the final judge. In other words, God simply makes a "diagnosis" of our condition in the end. That is why John says in Revelation 22:11 that we will all actually remain in the same condition of character as we were in here on earth.
God simply opens the "books" and it is clear to anyone who cares to check things out that some are "savable" and others are not. God never excludes anyone unless there is nothing further that even He can do to save them.
The Jews had to overcome all their preconceived notions before they could give serious thought to accepting Jesus as the Messiah. So many of their national aspirations were tied to the idea that the "Messiah" was going to come and rescue them and help them conquer the Romans and rule the world, that it was literally impossible for them to accept a "Messiah" who didn't do what they expected. The Samaritans on the other hand had a lot less "baggage" that they had to get rid of before they could accept Jesus.