Home Page All Topics Top 30 articles Got questions??? Give us your feedback

 

Close this window


The Gospel of John (Endnotes)

1. J. Jocz, “The Invisibility of God and the Incarnation,” Judaica 17, 1961, p. 196. Close Close this window

2. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (Westminster Press, Philadephia, PA, 1978), p. 149. Close Close this window

3. Raymond Brown gives a good thumbnail definition of the terms “high and “low” applied to Christology: “In scholarly jargon, ‘low’ Christology involves the application to Jesus of titles derived from Old Testament or intertestamental expectations (e.g. Messiah, prophet, servant, lord, Son of God)- titles that do not in themselves imply divinity. ‘Son of God,’ meaning divine representative, was a designation of the king; (See 1 Sam. 16:16; “lord” need mean no more than “master”). ‘High Christology’ involves an appreciation of Jesus that moves him into the sphere of divinity, as expressed, for instance, in a more exalted use of ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God,’ as well as the designation ‘God.’” The Community of the Beloved Disciple, (Paulist Press, N.Y., 1979, p. 25). Close Close this window

4. One modern scholar suggests that it should be the last book of the New Testament to be translated and given to new converts in foreign lands: “Perhaps it should be the last of the Gospels to be translated for new churches in non-Christian lands, instead of being the first, as so often happens…The Church today must use and value the Fourth Gospel for what it is and not for what it is not.” Anthony T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament (T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1991), p. 371. Close Close this window

5. Hanson, op. cit., Prophetic, p. 1, et al. Close Close this window

6. Brown, Community, op. cit., p. 163: “At various times I have referred to the theology of the Fourth Gospel as challengingly different, volatile, dangerous, and as the most adventuresome in the NT…. Over the centuries John’s Gospel has provided the seedbed for many exotic forms of individualistic pietism and quietism (as well as the inspiration for some of the most profound mysticism). Brown also writes: “Johannine Christology is very familiar to traditional Christians because it became the dominant Christology of the Church, and so it is startling to realize that such a portrayal of Jesus is quite foreign to the Synoptic Gospels. With justice Johannine Christology can be called the highest in the NT” (Brown, op cit. Community, p. 45). Close Close this window

7. J. A.T. Robinson, ‘The Use of the Fourth Gospel for Christology Today’; Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honor of C.F.D. Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp. 61-78, who quotes (The Foolishness of God, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970, p. 144); Fount 1975, p. 154. Robinson makes the same point even more forcefully in another work: “These [‘I am’ statements of Jesus] are not assertions about the ego of human Jesus, which is no more pre-existent than that of any other human being. Nor are statements about the glory that he enjoyed with the Father before the world was to be taken at the level of psychological reminiscence. As such, they would clearly be destructive of any genuine humanness…” Op. cit., Robinson Priority, p. 384. Close Close this window

8. Hanson is one of many scholars who have noted this aspect of John’s Gospel. Though we do not share his doubts about John’s inspiration, we agree with his observation that the focus of John is not history, but theology. He writes:

The Church has consciously chosen to live with tension…One cannot resist the impression that in his Gospel, John was greatly concerned neither with historical accuracy nor with historical verisimilitude and consistency (p. 335). We may be sure that this picture of the God-man is not historically true, but [rather] John’s construction. Consequently, our doctrine of the incarnation needs to be modified…the first rule for the Church in its handling of the Fourth Gospel today must be this: do not treat it as a reliable historical record ..the Church must admit that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is not the Jesus of history. This, it must be confessed, demands something like a revolution in the Church’s preaching and in its Christology…Most students of the New Testament acknowledge this, but it is a truth that has still to reach the rank-and-file of clergy and church-goers, as far as these islands [Britain] are concerned, at any rate… (Hanson, op. cit., Prophetic, p. 368). Close Close this window

9. Proof texting is isolating verses that appear to support a particular theological or doctrinal position, but by weighting them too heavily, creating contradictions with other verses on the same subject. Close Close this window

10. J.A.T. Robinson underscores this reality with his candid admission in 1961:

But in practice popular preaching and teaching presents a supranaturalistic [the metaphysical God-man] view of Christ which cannot be substantiated from the New Testament. [Popular preaching] says simply that Jesus was God, in such a way that the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable. But nowhere in Biblical usage is this so. The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that (or rather not in any passages that certainly require to be interpreted in this way. Passages that may be so interpreted are Romans 9:5 and Hebrews 1:8. But see in each case the alternative translations in the Revised Standard Version or the New English Bible). (Op. cit., Robinson, Honest, pp. 70 and 71). See also Appendix M. Close Close this window

11. Moulds, A. J. Thinking Straighter (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975), p. 46. Close Close this window

12. Johannes Munck of Aarhus University, writing in an essay called “The New Testament and Gnosticism,” makes a great point about understanding difficult material in light of the clear. His criticism of the methods of those who propose that Gnosticism was antecedent to Christianity can be very appropriately applied to those who elevate John’s Gospel above the rest of the New Testament:

They abandon the valuable historical method of beginning with the certain and easily accessible material and then trying to understand the more dubious and difficult material; instead they begin with a construction built of dubious material and proceed to know with staggering certainty what is written in the New Testament and how it is to be understood. (From Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, a Festschrift in honor of Otto A. Piper, edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder, Harper and Row, N.Y., 1962, p. 224). Close Close this window

13. Hanson, op. cit., Prophetic, 368: “The Fourth Gospel may well instead prove to be something like the crown of our doctrine [of incarnation] rather than its basis…How then should this marvelous Gospel, a great gift to the Church, but one which, like a delicate piece of machinery, has to be handled with great care. Perhaps it should be the last of the Gospels to be translated for new churches in non-Christian lands, instead of being the first, as so often happens.” Close Close this window

14. For example, 1 Samuel 31:4 attributes the death of Saul to his falling on his sword in a battle against the Philistines, while 1 Chronicles 10:4 also mentions the fact of his suicide, but adds the true spiritual cause in verses 13 and 14: “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord. So the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David, son of Jesse.” Close Close this window

15. F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI), 1983, p. 63. Close Close this window

16. Holman, op. cit. The Aramaic word abba is not preserved in the Greek text of John, and is therefore not transliterated into English as it is in Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6. Nevertheless, in the Aramaic text of John the words aba and abi occur often, more than in any other Gospel. The Aramaic construction in Mark 14:36, et al, is “aba, abi” meaning “Father, my father” or “Father, our father” where the figure Epizeuxis (Duplication) is employed, bringing emphasis to the intimacy of the relationship between Father and son (see also Gaebelein’s Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, p. 764). In addition to the intimacy denoted by the word aba is the idea of authority inherent in his carrying out of his father’s purposes (Gaebelein, Vol. 9, p. 149). Thus, although Abba does not come through in the Greek, the entirety of its meaning is exemplified in the Gospel of John in the portrayal of Jesus’ intimate relationship with his Father and the power and authority that he derived from it. Close Close this window

17. This verse is used to teach that Jesus raised himself from the dead, because he said “I will raise it up,” referring to his “body.” See Appendix A, John 2:19. Close Close this window

18. Sundberg describes Jesus’ subordination to the Father as follows:

Like the heavenly courtiers of the Jewish scriptures, this Christ in John in no wise compromises the unity and soleness of God; he is obedient, subordinate, subservient, obsequious. His only strength is his intimacy with the Father and the strength of the Father who backs him up (Op. cit., p. 30). Close Close this window

19. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology comments that “in the early centuries, the struggle to understand the human and divine natures of Christ often led to placing the Son in a secondary position to the Father” and “this doctrine has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church.” (Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 1058). We assert that a simple reading of the Bible will clearly show that the Son is inferior to the Father, and that that is not only the “true doctrine,” but explains why the concept of subordination keeps coming up in the Church. In his eight volume work on the history of the church, Phillip Schaff remarks about the “heresy” of subordinationism, and the orthodox explanation of it:

The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality [i.e., that the Father and Son are of one substance]. But we must distinguish between a subordinationism of essence and a subordinationism of hypostasis, of order and dignity.

Scriptural argument for this theory of subordination was found abundant in such passages as these: “As the Father has life in himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also;” “All things are delivered unto me of my Father;” “My Father is greater than I.” But these passages refer to the historical relation of the Father to the incarnate Logos in his estate of humiliation, or to the elevation of human nature to participation in the glory and power of the divine, not to the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father to the Son [Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (William B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, 1994) pp. 681-683].

Thus, the orthodox church has condemned subordinationism as a heresy and given the explanation that the verses that ascribe inferiority to the Son are only talking about Christ’s function or his earthly relation to God and not his essence or “metaphysical relation” to the Father. The problem with this explanation is simple and straightforward: no such “explanation” exists in the Bible. We assert that the Bible states a simple truth: that the Father is greater than the Son in every way, and the Son honored the Father and acknowledged that fact. We further assert that the “explanation” the orthodox church offers was made up after the fact to explain otherwise clear verses in light of their unbiblical doctrine. Furthermore, the reason it took centuries to establish orthodox doctrine (often by the point of the sword) was that it was unbiblical. That is also why Church historians have to admit that “subordinationism” has consistently been a problem in the Church. See Appendix C. Close Close this window

20. We use the term “divine” in the biblical sense of “authorship” or “origin,” and fully recognize the “divinity” of Christ in this sense. But we distinguish “divinity,” meaning “of divine origin,” from “deity,” meaning “identical with God.” See Glossary. Close Close this window

21. See the chapter 9 for more on the term “only-begotten.” Close Close this window

22. Op. cit., Hanson, p. 366. Close Close this window

23. Ibid., p. 365. Close Close this window

24. It is important when reading the Bible to pay close attention to what God is focusing on and emphasizing in a particular part of Scripture. For instance, while reading the book of Galatians, one might be tempted to think that Abraham was not like the rest of us. Romans says, “he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God” (Rom. 4:20). Yet reading Genesis 16 shows that Abraham did have a weak time in his life and ended up having a child by his wife’s slave, Hagar. The proper understanding of the Bible is not to assert that Galatians is wrong and Genesis correct, or vice versa, but to see that the two accounts can be made to harmonize. If God gives you a promise, and you have a weak period but then rise up and claim the promise by faith, God may focus on and emphasize your victory without speaking of the weak time you went through. The example of Manasseh, son of Hezekiah and king of Judah is another good example. Manasseh did a lot of evil as the king, and the book of Kings records the evil that Manasseh did and then records that he died. Chronicles, on the other hand, focuses on a different aspect of Manasseh’s life and records that he repented, prayed, tore down the idols he had built and restored the altar of God. The point we are making is that what God reveals in different places of Scripture can be very different, but the diligent workman of the Word will see how they harmonize and use the various records to build a complete picture. Close Close this window

25. Some of the early Christian scribes realized that the resurrection was the time when Christ was clearly declared to be the Son of God, and that bothered them because it conflicted with their theology. Their easy solution to this problem was to change the texts they were supposed to be faithfully transcribing. Ehrman notes: “Some of the earliest traditions put the Christological moment par excellence at his resurrection. For these traditions, God appointed Jesus to be his Son when he vindicated him and exalted him to heaven. A textual corruption of this verse occurs as the addition of the prefix pro to horisisthentos, implying “that God ‘predestined’ Jesus to attain his status as Son of God at the resurrection. This would mean, of course, that Jesus already enjoyed a special status before God prior to the event itself (as the one “predestined”) so that the resurrection was but the realization of a status proleptically [before the fact] conferred upon him. In short, the variation, which cannot be traced beyond the confines of the Latin West, serves to undermine any assumption that Jesus’ resurrection effected an entirely new standing before God.” Ehrman, op. cit., pp. 71 and 72. Close Close this window

26. Dunn quotes C.E.B. Cranfield’s firm conclusion that the Greek word translated “declared,” horisthentos, means more than “declared” or “shown to be,” and actually has the force of “installed.” In other words, the resurrection was in some sense the time in which his Sonship was officially or actually realized. This leads Dunn to conclude:

  • that “Jesus’ divine Sonship stemmed from his resurrection.”
  • that “the resurrection of Jesus was regarded [by the earliest Christian communities] as of central significance in determining his divine Sonship, either as his installation to a status and prerogatives not enjoyed before, or as a major enhancement of a Sonship already enjoyed.”
  • that “there is no thought of a pre-existent Sonship here.”
  • that “Sonship is seen in eschatological terms: the divine Sonship of which the original formula speaks is a Sonship which begins from the resurrection.”
  • that “primitive Christian preaching seems to have regarded Jesus’ resurrection as the day of his appointment to divine Sonship, as the event by which he became God’s Son.”
    Dunn, op. cit., pp. 34-36. Close Close this window

27. Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Simon and Schuster, NY, 1983, p. 1439). Bullinger further defined prolepsis as follows: “An anticipation of some future time which cannot yet be enjoyed; but has to be deferred. From pro (“before”) and lepsis (“a taking,”), i.e., anticipation. The figure is employed when we anticipate what is going to be done, and speak of future things as being already present. Some biblical examples are: Genesis 1:27 speaks of both male and female, though only Adam is in view at the time; Exodus 10:29 describes the final departure of Moses, but Moses spoke to Pharaoh once more. 1 Kings 22:50 speaks of Jehoshaphat’s death as if it had already happened; Isaiah 37:22 describes the future rejoicing of Jerusalem; In Isaiah 48:5-7, God spoke of future things from the beginning.” E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1968 [originally published 1898] pp. 914-15). Close Close this window

28. Heterosis is also the exchange of one voice, mood, tense, person, number, degree or gender for another. Ibid., Bullinger, pp. 510-534. Close Close this window

29. Sundberg op. cit., p. 30. Close Close this window

30. Hanson, op cit., Prophetic, pp. 367-368. Close Close this window

31. R. I. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (E. T., London and NY, 1968 of German ed. Freiburg 1965, 3 volumes), p. 328. Close Close this window

32. E.g., John 16:26; 17:9,15 and 20. This point about Jesus having an intimate, conversational relationship with his Father is lost in the NIV. For example, in John 17:1 the NIV reads: “he looked toward heaven and prayed.” However, the Greek text, and most other versions, have “said” instead of “prayed.” The same is true in John 17:9, 15, and 20. The NIV has “pray” or “prayed” while other versions more accurately have “say,” “request” or “ask.” See Appendix P. Close Close this window

33. See Appendix A, John 3:13. Close Close this window

34. See also Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:38 and 39. Close Close this window

35. The word “Lord” in Acts 1:24 refers to the risen Lord Jesus because, in context, it is he who “knows everyone’s hearts.” We also recognize that the context is continuous from Acts 1:2 and concerns “the apostles whom he had chosen.” Since Jesus had chosen the original twelve, it seems evident that he would be the one asked about Judas’ replacement. See Appendix B (Acts 1:24). Close Close this window

36. Bullinger, a Trinitarian, recognizes that “all authority” was given him only after his resurrection. In his Companion Bible in a text note on Matthew 28:18, he writes: “[all authority] is given= has (just, or lately) been given.” (p. 1380). Close Close this window

37. Note the use of the figure of speech heterosis, which attributes our healing to the time in the past when Christ gave his body as a sacrifice on Calvary. In actual fact, we must invoke the power and name of Jesus Christ to heal us in the present (see Acts 3:16). However, this figure establishes the fact that the ground on which we stand in faith for healing was established at the Cross, and need not be re-established for each believer every time he has a need. Close Close this window

38. Cp. Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26 with John 19:17. Close Close this window

39. Isaiah 53:3-6, Colossians 2:14 and 15, Matthew 8:16 and 17. Close Close this window

40. Yet in John Jesus is accused on several occasions of having a demon. This makes sense because the Devil is insanely jealous of the Lord and tries to degrade and besmirch him in any way possible. Close Close this window

41. Ryken observes: “Assimilating religious knowledge and growing spiritually from it are likewise compared to a process of eating and digestion. Paul fed immature Christians with ‘milk’ because they were not ready to digest solid food (1 Cor. 3:1-2), and Hebrews 5:11-14 repeats the image. Similarly, Peter enjoins his audience to ‘long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation’ (1 Pet. 2:2 - RSV). God’s true shepherds feed the people with knowledge and understanding (Jer. 3:15). Conversely, the absence of hearing the words of the Lord is a famine on the land (Amos 8:11). Assimilating folly or falsehood is likewise pictured as assimilating food into the body (Prov. 15:14). In its ultimate metaphoric reaches, to eat is to participate in God’s salvation in Christ.” Leland Ryken, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1998), p. 227. Close Close this window

42. The Old Syriac reading of John 1:18 is “from the bosom of his Father.” This would harmonize with the emphasis in John upon God being his origin, having been “sent” from God. This reading is in the Curetonian manuscript (William Cureton, Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac (John Murray, London, 1858), p. 38. Close Close this window

43. See the discussion of the “prophetic perfect” in Chapter 9. Close Close this window

44. See also Appendix A, John 8:58. Close Close this window

45. The visionary “presence” of Moses and Elijah is very significant in this record, because each was escorted to his burial by God in a manner that pointed to the special death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah. God Himself buried Moses (Deut. 34:6), and the burial place was kept a secret, presumably to keep the Israelites from idolatrous worship of their dead hero. The burial of Moses’ body was apparently the occasion of a major spiritual battle (see Jude 9). Elijah was taken up into the air by a whirlwind and moved by God away from all who knew him, (2 Kings 2:11). The Bible does not mention the place he was set down, but we know he died because only Jesus has been granted immortality (see also Heb. 11:13- “these all died”). If Elijah, a man just like us (James 5:17), went to heaven without dying before Christ came to atone for his sin, then eternal redemption was available without Jesus’ sacrifice. See Is There Death After Life? published by Christian Educational Services. Close Close this window

46. Hanson, op. cit., Prophetic, p. 365. Close Close this window

47. We say “eternal” glory because it began, in the mind of God, at the creation of the present heaven and earth and will continue forever. Close Close this window

48. There are many Alexandrian texts that read “God the only Son,” or “the only begotten God,” and so the NIV and NASB translations are not baseless. However, there is much compelling evidence that this is an example of the orthodox corruption of Scripture, and that the original text reads “only begotten Son.” Ehrman points out that the term “only begotten son” occurs elsewhere in John’s writings, and always in the form of “only begotten Son.” Cp. John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 (KJV) (Ehrman, op. cit., pp. 78-82). Also, Kittel, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 740, footnote 14. See Appendix N. Close Close this window

49. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983), pp. 16,17). For more on this, see Appendix A, John 3:13. Close Close this window

50. It is important to realize that Jesus would never ask a man to break a commandment of God. It was the religious leaders of Christ’s day who had actually broken the commandments of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:1-9). Carrying a bedding mat from a place you were lying sick would not have been work, except according to the twisted religious traditions of the time. The man needed to leave the pool of Bethesda, where people went to be healed, and start walking out on the healing he had received. He could not very well have left his mat, or it would have been stolen. Jesus was being loving in telling the man to take his mat, but the religious leaders were so twisted by their dogma that they could not even rejoice with a man who was healed after 38 years of being crippled. Close Close this window

51. It is known as the “resurrection of the unjust” because it is the only resurrection when all the unjust people who have ever lived will be raised from the dead, judged and condemned. At the same time, people who believed on Jesus Christ and died during his Millennial Kingdom will be raised from the dead and receive salvation. Close Close this window

52. The Greek word for “one” is hen, and means “one single.” In Jesus’ prayer as recorded in John 17:20-23, he makes it very clear what “one” means. He prayed that all those who believe in him will be “one,” even as he and his Father are “one.” Obviously, this means one in unity of heart and in purpose. See Appendix A, John 10:30. Close Close this window

53. See Appendix A, John 10:33. Close Close this window

Home • Topics • Top 30 • Tell Friends • Contact Us

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. © 2002 by Christian Educational Services, a division of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International.

Christian Educational Services is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation. Our ministry and this site are funded by faithful donors. Please contact us for more information.