Thoughts on John 17:5 by Dr. Daniel L. Segraves

In His prayer just before He was betrayed and arrested in Gethsemane, Jesus said, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Do these words prove that the Son was eternally a divine person distinct from the Father?

When we consider the prayers of Jesus, we must keep in mind that His prayers are unique to the Incarnation. What this means is that we have no biblical record of the Son praying to the Father prior to the Incarnation. Although some prayers of the Messiah are recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures and specifically in the Psalms, these prayers form part of the prophetic content of the Old Testament. In other words, they do not reflect prayers that had been prayed before the text was written, nor do they provide the content of prayers being prayed at the time they were written. Instead, they are prophecies of prayers the Messiah would pray when He came into the world. For example, the words of a messianic prayer are recorded in Psalm 40:6-8a: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God.’” The writer of Hebrews recorded this prayer, which Jesus prayed “when He came into the world” (Hebrews 10:5). The point is that the words of the prayer were first written by David, a prophet,[1] but they were not actually prayed until Jesus came into the world as God manifest in human existence.[2]

Another example is found in Hebrews 1:6. This demonstrates that not only the prayers of Jesus, but also the words of the Father concerning the Son as they are found in the Old Testament are prophetic. According to Hebrews 1:6, God said, “Let all the angels of God worship Him [the Son[3]].”[4] But these words were not spoken by God prior to the Incarnation; they were spoken “when He again brings the firstborn into the world” (Hebrews 1:6).

John 17:5, like all of Jesus’ prayers, must be read in the context of the Incarnation. It must be taken into account that Jesus was at once both God and man. The deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided and considered in isolation from each other. Everything that Jesus did and said He did and said as who He was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence. Thus, when Jesus referred to “the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” these words refer to the glory that He had with His Father not as a distinct person in the Godhead, but to the glory that He had as God manifest in the flesh [human existence]. Since the Incarnation had not yet occurred before the world was, this was an anticipatory glory that was a reality to the extent that it existed already in the mind of God even though it had not yet occurred in time. This is much like John’s description of the Messiah as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Although the word translated “slain” (esphagmenou) is a perfect passive participle, indicating that the slaying occurred in the past, Bible readers instinctively understand that this does not mean that Jesus was crucified at the time the world was created, but that His crucifixion was anticipated in the mind of God.

If Jesus’ words in John 17:5 do not take into account His humanity, that is, if they do not reflect the reality of the Incarnation, we are left with a Nestorian Jesus whose deity and humanity were not integrated in one person, but who could at one moment speak and act as a mere man with no regard for his deity and who could at the next moment speak and act as God with no regard for His humanity. In other words, when Jesus said, “I,” He referred to Himself as He really was: both God and man or the God-man. Jesus never said “I” to refer exclusively to His deity or to His humanity. In the Incarnation humanity was incorporated into the Godhead and everything Jesus said and did reflected this reality. As it has been said, we are body and soul, but Jesus is God and body and soul.

From the standpoint of Christology, what we have said here reflects the broad teaching of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. But now we must consider whether John 17:5 can be read in a way that does not conflict with the integrity of Christ’s person.

First, even before examining the Greek text, we should ask, If Jesus was truly God, what need did He have of prayer? To some, the prayers of Jesus prove that He was not God. To others, the fact that He was God proves that His prayers were merely meant to be an example to us. But I think it is safe to say that most who believe in both the deity and humanity of Christ also believe that the prayers of Jesus were genuine and that they reflect the fact that Jesus was not only God but also man. It was not because He was God that Jesus needed to pray; it is because He was also human. In other words, Jesus prayed for the same reason we do; human beings need to pray. The fact that He was a human being in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily[5] does not detract from the authenticity of His humanity. It did not render it unnecessary for Jesus to eat, sleep, or to participate in the full range of human activities. Neither did it render it unnecessary for Him to pray. This is bound up in the miracle of the Incarnation, and human attempts to explain this mystery will always fail. Miracles must be accepted for what they are; they lie completely outside the range of human understanding or explanation.

There are two words in the Greek text of John 17:5 that some insist prove that Jesus is distinct from the Father as the eternal Son. The first is eichon, translated “I had.” Since eichon is in the imperfect tense, active voice, and indicative mood (literally, “I was having”), and since the active voice means that it is the subject that is acting (in this case, Jesus), and since the indicative mood confirms the reality of the action from the viewpoint of the speaker,[6] it is claimed that this means that Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation as the eternal Son. Since He is the “doer” of the “having,” and since this was before the world was, then the Son must have possessed glory with the Father before the world was as an actual person distinct from the Father.

But if Jesus, who was both God and man, possessed glory with the Father before the world was – and He certainly did, as indicated in John 17:5 – He possessed it as who He was at the moment of His prayer: God manifest in flesh. Jesus could no more pray from the perspective of His deity while ignoring His humanity than we could pray from the perspective of the material part of our existence while ignoring the immaterial. No analogy is sufficient to explain a miracle, but Jesus cannot be bifurcated so that either His deity or humanity is irrelevant to any of His words or deeds. If before the creation of the world Jesus possessed glory with the Father as it relates to His deity, He also possessed glory with the Father at the same time as it relates to His humanity. Few would suggest that Jesus’ humanity pre-existed the Incarnation!

Those who wish to point to the imperfect active indicative form of eichon in John 17:5 to prove the eternality of the Son are reading more into the imperfect tense than is there. Although the imperfect tense expresses continuous action in the past, it says nothing about the origin or termination of the action or about how long the action continued. In other words, the imperfect tense is not an “eternal” tense. Although it does not specify the origin or termination of the action, it describes ongoing action that does indeed have a point of origin; that point is simply not within the scope of the imperfect tense. In this case, Jesus was having glory with the Father before the world was. The imperfect tense does not inform us about the beginning or duration of the possession of this glory.

To say that the imperfect tense indicates continuous action in the past is an incomplete description of its function. The imperfect may be descriptive, in that it vividly presents what was going on in the past. Like a motion picture, it shows the movement of an event. Nothing about this use of the imperfect addresses origin, ending, or even the idea of the lack of an origin or ending. On the other hand, the imperfect may be iterative, showing continual or repeated action in the past. In this case, the action occurs again and again. Then, the imperfect may be inceptive, emphasizing the beginning of the action rather than its progress.[7]

As far as the use of the imperfect is concerned, all that John 17:5 tells us is that at some point in the past, and specifically before the world was, Jesus was having glory with the Father. The verse does not tell us how long He had this glory, nor does it tell us whether He still had this glory after the creation of the world, although it may imply that He did not. Jesus did not say He was having this glory before the Incarnation. If He had said this, we could assume that the Incarnation was the reason He no longer had this glory.[8] But if the Incarnation was the reason Jesus no longer had this glory, how could the glory be restored to Him as long as the Incarnation endured (i.e., forever)?

It seems much more satisfying to understand Jesus to refer to the glory that belonged to Him in anticipation of the full range of His incarnational experiences, including not only His manifestation in the flesh, but also His death, burial, and resurrection. As Paul wrote, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.[9] If the glory for which Jesus prayed involved both His deity and humanity, His prior possession of this glory also involved both His deity and humanity, or it would not have been the same glory.

In what sense did Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, possess glory with the Father before the world was? The answer to this question may be found in the possible range of meaning in the words para soi, commonly translated “with thee.” The preposition para, when used in the dative case, includes the meanings “with” or “beside,” with position implied.[10] But this does not begin to exhaust the range of meaning possible with para in the dative case. Indeed, a red flag goes up immediately with the idea of physical position being indicated in Jesus’ prayer, whether one embraces a trinitarian or oneness view of God. It is widely understood that it is inadequate to think in terms of physical location or position when one thinks of God. For example, biblical scholars commonly explain references to the “right hand of God” in metaphorical terms. F. F. Bruce, for instance, comments on Hebrews 1:3:

That no literal location is intended was as well understood by Christians in the apostolic age as it is by us: they knew that God has no physical right hand or material throne where the ascended Christ sits beside Him; to them the language denoted the exaltation and supremacy of Christ as it does to us.[11]

To insist that we read para soi with its simplest and limited reference to position is to impose a literally materialistic meaning on the text. When we talk about God – again, from either a trinitarian or oneness point of view – in what sense could it be said that the Son was positioned with or beside the Father before the world was? If we go down this road, we shall soon embrace ditheism or tritheism.

But this choice is not necessary. Para, when used in the dative case, has a wider range of meaning than merely “with” or “beside.” As the Louw-Nida Lexicon points out, para with the dative includes within its range of meaning “in the opinion of,” from the viewpoint of a participant, marking a participant whose viewpoint is relevant to an event. Thus, para can be translated “in the sight of, in the opinion of, in the judgment of.”[12] Certainly Jesus, who understood more clearly than anyone that God is Spirit, did not mean by para soi that the Father has a physical location and that He, Jesus, was positioned beside the Father in that location before the world was. But nothing would prevent the translation “the glory which I had in Your sight” or “in Your opinion,” or “in Your judgment” before the world was. This avoids the problem of physical location within the Godhead and captures the essence of the same idea as Revelation 13:8. Jesus was with the Father before the world was in the same sense that He was slain from the foundation of the world. The slaying of Jesus required the Incarnation. The Incarnation did not occur in time and space until a specific date on the calendar. Yet John declared that the Lamb was slain long before this specific date. Indeed, the New Living Translation renders Revelation 13:8: “And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life, which belongs to the Lamb who was killed before the world was made.” If Jesus, the Lamb, could be killed before the world was made, He could also have glory with the Father before the world was. The one requires the other.

Jesus could say He “was having” this glory in the past just as surely as John could say He was slain in the past. That which exists in the mind of God is reality just as surely that which exists in the material world. The Lord knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah was formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). He declared Cyrus to be His servant over a century before Cyrus was born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). He renamed Abram (high father) Abraham (father of many) before Abraham had even one descendant. God can do this because he “gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Romans 4:17). Jesus Himself is God. Therefore, He can say, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” But because He is God manifest in human existence, this prayer must be read in the context of His manifestation in the flesh. He had this glory as God manifest in the flesh. Since this did not come into existence in time and space until the Incarnation, it was an anticipated, prophetic glory, no less real than it would be when the anticipation was fulfilled.

If we read the text any other way, we are at best embracing a Nestorian Christology. At worst, we are forsaking the biblical witness to the one God in favor of a materialistic ditheism or tritheism.
When miracles are involved—like the Incarnation—rationalistic explanations can only lead us astray.

 

Dr. Segraves is Academic Dean and Assistant Professor of Biblical Theology at Urshan Graduate School of Theology (Florissant, MO) and Professor Emeritus at Christian Life College (Stockton, CA). After graduating from Western Apostolic Bible College and Gateway College of Evangelism, I earned the M.A. in Exegetical Theology (with highest honors) and the Th.M. (with honors) from Western Seminary. I am currently in ABD (all but dissertation) status for the Ph.D. in Renewal Studies at Regent University School of Divinity.

 

Notes
[1] See Acts 2:30.
[2] I Timothy 3:16.
[3] See Hebrews 1:2.
[4] This quote is from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43.
[5] Colossians 2:9.
[6] See Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), 11-12.
[7] See Summers, 57.
[8] See Philippians 2:5-11.
[9] Romans 1:4.
[10] To say that para is in the dative case here reflects the five case system. In terms of the eight case system, the meanings “with” and “beside” reflect the locative case.
[11] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 7.
[12] See Louw-Nida Lexicon, Domain List 90, E, 90.20. BibleWorks 4.

The Logos and Apostle John by Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D.

For a collection of theological documents, there can be no greater sacrilege than adding or removing words so as to uphold a doctrine not specifically stated elsewhere. The most well-know New Testament addition occurs in 1 John 5:7. The King James Version (KJV) would have us believe that John wrote the following that only appears in the much later Vulgate manuscripts.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Logos), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, . . .

Of course, no such statement occurs in the oldest Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts state literally

And the spirit it is (which is) testifying, for the spirit is truth, (seeing) that three (there) are (that are) testifying, the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for one (thing).

As a nothing example, the KJV and most other translations imply that "logos" is a code-word for the supernatural entity termed the "pre-existent Christ." One place where John associates this term with Jesus is in Rev 19:13, where he writes, after describing the actions of an entity, that "His name is called the Word of God." John wrote this about a supernatural entity. The term logos as used here is an identification and all that needs to be determined is what John was identifying. In John 1:1-14, the term "word" is used in most translations for the Greek logos. It is clearly used in this manner to uphold the notion of the per-existent Christ. But, from the Greek, looc has no such meaning.

The following translation of John 1:1-14 uses the most basic and consistent forms that have been traced to the common first century Greek. This is done so as to eliminate doctrinal biases.

According to the article 2, the major question is whether John wrote his portions of the Scriptures in some poetic code-language that would only be understandable by a later generations? The Holy Ghost that guided his writings is certainly capable of stating a concept in clear and concrete terms, terms that would, indeed, be totally understood at the time John wrote 1:1-14. The ideas and language used by Justin in his description of the pre-existent Christ were most certainly understandable and usable by John. But, it's claimed, that the Holy Ghost did not supply John with a claimed major piece of Christian doctrine. "In the beginning was the word (logos)."

The term logos has a long, long history, especially throughout Greek philosophy. But, the most straightforward and comprehensible meaning at the time of John and in the form he uses it is that it represents a "complete logical account" relative to something. It can be but a "mental" accounting. The notion of logical means "an orderly" account. What is the "something" this accounting represents? As will be established from the most ancient Greek manuscripts in existence, this account is God's "conditional salvation account" and it existed when the universe began.

John writes "And the logos was toward the God." (Notice the past tense.) In this case, the Greek word for "toward" (pros) is a connective of the accusative case denoting "direction toward" and has been translated by such words as "to, for the sake, for the purpose of, pertaining to." Is it too much of a stretch to understand this statement as "The account pertained to (the) God"? The Bible is a linguistic model for God's operative behavior. This includes purely mental processes. Hence, this is God's "mental" account of "something". John tells us exactly that the mental logical account has as its underlying bases "God" when he writes "God was the logos." (Again notice the past tense.) (As will be seen, the use of the past tense is necessary since it is but an "account" and is not as yet realized in objective reality. It existed prior to its realization.) The missing Greek article would indicate that this account contains an "essence" of God, or that it is an account that has as its underlying basis some indispensable attributes of God, attributes that have always existed.

The account was not the "complete account" of God, in general, but is only relative to special attributes. Indeed, as will be more clearly shown shortly, these are the human-like attributes of God, and as implied by Genesis 1:26, God created the entire universe just so that He could populate the earth with entities that had similar, but highly weakened, attributes of this same type. John actually states that the "agent" that created the universe has the underlying attributes represented within the logos, when he writes, "All come into being through [the agent represented by] it and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." So, the entity that has these attributes is further identified as the creator God. Further, such a universe has a condition attached. The created entities can make choices. This is why this salvation account is conditional. I point out that an "account" or "narrative" cannot be a "him," in general. But, the Greek allows the word "it" to be translated into these forms if the context requires this meaning. Changing the term into a masculine pronoun significantly altersn in meaning and, appears, to change the original intent of what John writes. Writing a masculine pronoun for what is an "it" is done throughout orthodox Bible translations. This procedure tends to force the reader to accept the term "word" as a code-word of a pre-existent Christ.

The next verses John writes show the true significance of this account, since "In it was life, and the life was the light of men." This clearly refers to what John knew was the purpose of the account, it was the salvation account that was totally relative to the "light" which he now identifies. Verses 5 - 13 clearly identify the "light" as the forthcoming man Jesus Christ, the attributes He will display and the salvation truths He will present.

Of great importance is verse 14 "And the logos became flesh." The previous mental account is now materially realized and becomes objective reality. The account is the entire pre-designed conditional salvation account - the incarnation and everything there after. This account details the one and only one road to salvation and also describes the most complete set of Godhead manifestations that can be perceived by humankind within the physical universe. He displays His Son of God or Christ attributes. Notice that many of these attributes were not displayed during Old Testament times. This is an exact example of the "tri-category model" in that human comprehension is restricted to a specific list of divine attributes. When God displays these attributes, they often fall into three distinct categories. Obviously, these attributes are not those of distinct entities but are attributes of the single spirit we call God.

The orthodox Church uses the term "Word" as an additional "name" for Jesus based upon Biblical verses such as John 1:14 or Mark 16:20. Logos neither signifies this in John 1:14 nor Mark 16:20, where the whole account is an obvious meaning. But, in Rev 19:13, John wants us to know that the entity he describes has, among others qualities, the same attributes as those displayed when God manifested Himself as the Son of God. Further, God's complete account or plan for salvation is a major part of His attributes. Hence, He also represents the Word (plan) of God. This entity is the glorified Jesus and the entire list of glorified Jesus attributes designates all that humankind can ever perceive or understand about God both in the physical and supernatural worlds.

John 14:31: Understanding the Enigma

The Farewell Discourse (FD heron) is popularly known as being 13:31 – 14:31 of John’s Gospel. D.A. Carson concludes[1] that the discussion concerning the FD encompasses a portion of scripture that has been both a “favorite passage for Christians” for “study and meditation” as well as “considerable debate.” As F.F. Bruce points out,[2] the debate has arisen from certain textual arrangements made by earlier translators of the texts, one being James Moffatt. His unique arrangements are found in his translation of the NT and possibly his commentaries on the Gospel of John. Moffatt held that chapters 15 and 16 were to be placed in the middle of 13:31.

The major challenge in textual structure relates then to the closing remarks of Christ in 14:31, “Arise, let us go from here” (NKJV). These words have proven to be enigmatic for many (hereon this phrase will be referenced as the “Enigma”). Determining the textual relevance or relationship of the data before and after that break is what remains pertinent to the minds of students. “The common response throughout the church’s history has been that the first two chapters, John 13-14, are set in the upper room, while chapters 15-17 continue the dialogue along the road to the Mount of Olives, culminating in the prayer of John 17.”[3]

Many interpret the Enigma in a way that it only has spiritual meaning; possibly akin to “arise, let us march to meet the prince of this world” (See Carson here). I do not hold this view and therefore do not see the Enigma phrase as being a pure theological statement. It is plausible “to regard the remainder of the discourse as taking place in the open air, although in 18:1 Jesus is said to have ‘left’ with his disciples, and it would be necessary to suppose that chs. 15–17 were uttered on the way to the Kidron Valley… Some have supposed that ch. 14 should follow ch. 17, but there is no evidence for such rearrangement. The only other alternative is to suppose that 14:31 implied an intention which was fulfilled some time later. On the whole the first suggestion is fraught with the least difficulties.”[4]

After uttering the Enigma it is also plausible that Jesus simply stood up (the disciples may or may not have stood with him) to finish the discourse before finally departing (in John 18:1), but the disciples lingered and conversation continued. Leon Morris “suggests it is possible that the group probably was slow in making its departure and so Jesus continued to teach them in the room. But he prefers the proposal of Lightfoot that it is a “stage in the teaching.”192I believe it plausible but unlikely that Christ was uttering a spiritual command to get up and prepare “to meet the enemy who is on the way already in the person of Judas and the soldiers with him.”[5]

Borchert states that the “view of speaking en route offers a difficulty that a walking band is hardly a conducive setting for communicating major segments of teaching.” He goes on to advocate that, “total rearrangement theories make the contemporary restructuring person wiser than the original writer and means that the present order is a purposeless collection of writings. However one seeks to solve the problem, I refuse to accept any theory that proposes that the logic of this tightly knit argument is to be disturbed by rearrangement.”[6]

My conclusion seems to be shared, at least in part, gree with that of Carson when he states, “it is possible that Jesus and his disciples did not in fact leave until after John 17. Anyone who has frequently invited home ten to twenty graduate students knows how common it is, after someone has announced it is time to go, for another half hour to slip past before anyone makes a serious move to leave.”

Good reason for this delay could stem from Christ’s earlier statements. Consider:

“before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” (John 13:1 NKJV)


NOTES:

[1] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 476

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel and Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983, reprint 2004) pg. 292

[3] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 477

[4]Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Jn 14:1). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

[5] THE NET BIBLE®, New English Translation Bible Notes, John 14:31

[6]Borchert, G. L. (2002). Vol. 25B: John 12-21. The new American commentary, New International Version (136). Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

The Miraculous Messiah of the Fourth Gospel:

The ministry of Christ is very much concerned with the miraculous, supernatural events. People were often "amazed" by the acts of Christ. In fact, “the Gospels record a total of thirty-five separate miracles.”[1] In the Gospel of John, the very first miracle was the turning of water into wine, as recorded in 2:1–10. John wrote that the miracles performed by Christ, were “miraculous signs” (2:11) or just “signs” (NKJV). The Fourth Gospel has no deficiency in the presence of the miraculous. The miraculous happenings of Christ are only further evidences of an authentic Messiah. These evidences serve to identify Him as the Christ or "anointed one" in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 35:5–6; 61:1).

As John begins his prologue he reminds us of the most important Christological miracle—the Incarnation (John 1:1; 14, 1 Timothy 3:16). As John reminds us of the Creation story (John 1:1), the Incarnation of the Logos lays the context in which the rest of Jesus’ miracles will be performed.

Turning Water into Wine: Jesus the Creator

In the Gospel of John, the very first miracle was the turning of water into wine (2:1–10). This miracle was performed at a marriage. It is likely that the marriage took place in the home of some friend or relative of either Jesus or Nathanael. As in many ancient weddings, the most favored of wine was usually held until the end. It is possible that many withheld the best wine for last because many would have stopped drinking or would be very full at that time. In this particular wedding, however, the wine runs out. Mary, the mother of Jesus, asks that He do something about the apparent need of more wine. With only a few words and the heeding of the servants, suddenly the situation went from drought to inundation. Jesus had truly turned the water into wine. John claims this time, in 2:11, as the “beginning” (archē) of Jesus’ signs.

Creative miracles express a very special part of deity. The eternal God of the scripture is also the creator of all things. Jesus demonstrates that He has these very same creative powers. It should be mentioned as well, that this miracle occurs just after the Gospels record Christ being tempted by Christ. That which satan solicited with power Jesus gave to those who had genuine needs.

Healing of the Nobleman’s Son: Jesus the Healer

The second miracle performed by Christ is the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46–54). Two chapters and one year after the first miracle Christ finds Himself, once again, at the very same place—Cana of Galilee. Here a nobleman, possibly an official for Herod, has heard of the miracles of Christ. He simply sees Christ and implores Him to heal his son. Contrary to probably the majority of His miracles, Jesus did not need to physically see or touch the boy to heal him. It was by the faith of this nobleman that his son was raised to life, with Christ never touching him and being about 20 miles away. In this instance we see that our Creator is even our healer.

Healing of the lame man at Bethesda: Jesus is God

Not only does this miracle include the lame being made to walk again, it involves a miracle performed on the Sabbath—even further statement of deity. There was a feast going on simultaneously as well, this caused even more crowds and attention. To heal on the Sabbath involved insanity or a statement of a higher authority. This miracles is positioned to gain the attention of the Jewish leaders by violating their ideas of the Sabbath. Essentially, this miracle gave Christ’s claims to deity broad publicity in the nation's capital. It also positioned Him to testify of His deity in the Sanhedrin. This publicity, however, brought about the decision to kill him (v. 18).

Ironically, the man by the pool did not even know who He was. This stands in contrast to the nobleman prior, who had previously heard of Christ’s powerful acts. The pool of Bethesda would have been busy and crowded. The pool was also used to wash animals for use in sacrifice as well. According to the text, an angel would visit and people would be healed. A custom developed that only one could be healed with each visit of the angel. Jesus interacts with the man and simply tells him to stand and walk. By healing this man Jesus demonstrates that He possessed powers that transcend all human intervention—He was God in the flesh.

Feeding of 5,000 men: Jesus the Bread of Life

This massive supper is the only one of Jesus' miracles that is told in all four Gospels (c.f. Matthew 14:13–33; Mark 6:32–52; Luke 9:10–17). Scholars are undecided as to exact location of this particular miracle, but it was probably not far from the northern side of the Sea of Galilee.

A crowd had gathered and no doubt many were present due to the nearness of the Passover. Once the crowd had spent time with Christ they grew hungry. Financing the meal was out of the question, but miraculous provision from a small boy’s lunch pack would suffice. With two fishes and five barley loaves Jesus fed what John records as 5,000 men. As most prudent cultures indicate, all leftovers are to be gathered at the end of mealtime. The disciples began to take up the leftovers and were able to accumulate 12 baskets full!

John records later comments of Jesus that give us insight into the fuller meaning of this miracle:

“For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. (34) Then they said to Him, Lord, give us this bread always. (35) And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” (John 6:33-35 NKJV)

Christ tells us, above, that the “bread of God” is “He” who has come down from heaven. Ironically, Christ reveals to them that He is the bread of life. Coming to Christ ensures one that they do not hunger and he who “believes” on Christ shall not thirst.

Walking on water: Jesus Lord over Nature

After the miracle of feeding 5,000 Jesus ascends into the mountains to be alone. The text indicates Christ sought this solitude because his growing followership might force Him to be king. By a night’s sky the disciples sailed towards Capernaum, obviously Christ would tarry long to pray. Mark 6:48 indicates that the time was around 3 a.m. As they sailed a storm blew that caused rough sailing. About three or four miles out the disciples see Jesus walking towards them, on the water. This miracle plainly reveals that the Creator of all things can and even will exercise His sovereign control over the forces of nature.

Healing of the man born blind: Jesus the Light of the World

Once again Jesus performs a miracle (Chapter 9) on the Sabbath day. In fact, Wescott indicates that the Greek is quite emphatic and literally reads, “It was a sabbath on the day on which,”[2] On this day Christ brings light to the darkened eyes of a blind man. Christ’s violation of the Sabbath though, by restoring the sight of this man, angered the Pharisees. In fact, even the parents were called to testify which later gave testimony that this blind man had been so since birth. After intensely interrogating the ex-blind man they conclude that the blind man was born “completely” in sin; thereby condemning this man, by their power, into spiritual darkness—so they said.

Jesus came to bring light into the world, to illumine the hearts and minds of believers. Just prior to the healing of this blind man Christ had just told those following near that He was the “light of the world” (9:5). Indeed, what better way to prove this by bringing light to eyes that has never seen a mere glimpse of light itself?

Lazarus Raised from the dead: Jesus the Resurrection and life

This is a miracle (John 11) situated in irony. It can be determined that this miracle, involving the raising of the dead, probably occurred about a month before Jesus' own death. In fact, this was the third time Christ raised someone from the dead (Jairus's daughter, Mark 5:21–43; the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:11–17; and now Lazarus). Ironically, all of these miracles, especially this one, would climax in His own death and resurrection. Even more, this miracle was the very one which brought about a Sanhedrin decision to kill Jesus (John 11:53 ).

After being dead 4 days Lazarus was raised from the dead by Christ. Ironically, in verses 17-27, Christ had just prophesied of His future resurrection, albeit different from being raised from the dead, it does have great affinity.

Miraculous catch of 153 fish: Jesus the Provider

In John 21, the disciples had returned to Galilee, as Jesus had previously told them to do (Matthew 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7). Jesus went away into a certain mountain, for probably a set time. As is typical of the disciples, they resumed their old business and forgot the affairs of the spiritual. Some scholars attest that this location may have been at, or near, the same spot where two or three years before He had first called them to become fishers of men (Luke 5:1–11).

Besides giving them the call to feed the spiritually hungry, Christ gives them a miraculous catch of fish, as He had also done several years before. This particular miracle is actually the third time Christ has appeared to the disciples since His resurrection. He continues heavenly provision just prior to His ascension by providing for them once again.

Christ is our redeemer, our miracle worker. He is God in flesh.


JNA

NOTES:

[1] Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (nasb) (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 1973.

[2] The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and notes on the Authorized version. 1908. Greek text and "Revised version" on opposite pages.; Edited by Arthur Westcott. (B. F. Westcott & A. Westcott, Ed.) (146). London: J. Murray.

John: Gospel to The World?

It is often said that John is the Gospel to the world (Matthew to the Jew, Mark to the Roman, Luke to the Greek). But in 1924 Israel Abrahams said, "To us Jews, the Fourth Gospel is the most Jewish of the four!" How is that so? If it so, why do so many people tell new converts to begin reading this Gospel?

The opening remarks (1:1) of John’s Gospel are reminiscent of the Creation story in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In fact, it is very likely that John purposely arranged his Prologue to cause the reader to reflect back upon the Creation account. Immediately, then, we see John’s purpose is to interact with Old Testament theology or Jewish philosophy generally.

John’s “Gospel manifests perhaps the sharpest polemic in the NT against the “Jews”—a polemic matched in force only by passages such as Matthew 23”[1] Repeatedly, the Gospel of John refers to “the Jews” (sixty-four times) as if they were the antagonists of the church (Some suggest that neither Paul nor Luke writes with this same tone[2]). Some sources indicate that there are scholars who accuse the Gospel of John as being anti-Semitic[3]. As one reads the epistles of John (1, 2, and 3 John) one cannot help but notice the resistance and disagreement being experienced by John. 1 John 2:18 describes antichrists who have come into the world; later John identifies them as “liars” (2:2) who are denying genuine Christology. These signs should leave little doubt that much of Johannine theology is concerned with polemics and is situated in a time of theological debate.

Despite these facts we have the comments of Israel Abraham, as seen above. A better question is probably how we should interpret his comments and/or in what context were they spoken. The latter is not possible since the source is not available to me, but the former can certainly be attempted.

Israel Abraham was not a Zionist and therefore tended to have inclinations like those of Reformed Judaism. “His departure from the orthodox philosophy of Judaism was undoubtedly responsible for otherwise inexplicable errors in his exposition of some Jewish ritual practices.”[4] Therefore, from my limited perspective, it may be correct to consider the possibility that Abraham’s statements are not orthopraxis and were not intended as they are often received. Abraham’s comments probably address the generality that John’s Gospel possibly interacts with Jewish philosophy and the Old Testament more than any other Gospel and not any positive inclination toward the particular Christology that John describes.

The Gospel of John is certainly a tool for evangelism, but it serves didactical purposes equally, if not primarily. John’s disposition compels Him to declare, to all, that the person of Yahweh has come in human nature! He has revealed to us His glory in a way that Moses could not see, which Abraham could only dream, and which Jacob could only long.

The profound truths in the Johannine texts are au fait to introduce potential converts to Christianities most important character and work, but they are didactical, as well, for mature believers to understand proper Christology. John’s Gospel then is like a coin; it has two distinct sides, yet both sides share currency and significance. It seems unnecessary to even attempt to situate John’s Gospel entirely in one purpose. It is common in letter writing to cover various topics and have multiple intentions, even if embryonic, in what is being written. This is certainly plausible for the Johannine writings.

Dr. Elmer Towns notes John’s use of two key words, “believe” (98) and “life” (36). He goes on to say that “John wrote with a twofold purose—as noted in John 20:31[5]—to communicate Christ through His miracles and teachings so people might, first, believe that Jesus was indeed who He said He was, the Son of God; and second, have eternal life because of their belief”[6]

In 20:31, “there lies an ambiguity in the phrase “that you may believe,” and it is compounded by uncertainty as to whether the original text read ἵνα πιστεύσητε or ἵνα πιστεύητε; the former could suggest the making of an act of faith, the latter a continuing in faith, the former a missionary purpose, the latter an instructional or parenetic purpose, the former that the Gospel was directed to outsiders, the latter that it was directed to those within the Church. Whether in reality such distinctions can be justly maintained on the basis of the difference between an aorist and a present subjunctive is dubious; nevertheless, the majority of recent scholars incline to the latter view.”^[7]

---

[1] Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Editors:, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Copyright © 1992 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A, InterVarsity Press

[2] Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Editors: Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids. Copyright © 1997 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®. InterVarsity Press

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.bookrags.com/biography/israel-abrahams/

[5] “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31 NKJV)

[6] The Gospel of John: Believe and Live by Dr. Elmer Towns. Copyright © 2002 by Tyndale Theological Seminary

^[7]Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (lxxxviii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.