The Best of John Chapter One

The Best of John

by Daniel L. Herring

completed in 2020

Introduction

A study of the Gospel of John, in the fashion of “The Best of Romans,” pulling the special content to the surface for closer investigation. In my study, one may not always find a chapter and verse. I often treat multiple verses without numbering each one. The reader should, therefore, read my study in conjunction with his or her own study, keeping the Gospel of John close for handy reference. I have never been one for name dropping. You will not find an index at the end of this work. Neither will you find that I am writing about what previous authors have said. When I bring up references, it is usually from Wikipedia, a dictionary, encyclopedia, or online site of a current author. The study, as it is presented here, is solely my own and is the product of collaboration between myself and the Holy Spirit. It is not my intention to teach anyone what either is or is not. The work, at its most basic level, represents my thoughts only. However, it is hoped that as the thoughts of others have both inspired and spurred me forward, my thoughts may be of some similar use in leading the reader to his or her own thoughts. It is with a great sense of personal satisfaction that I forward this work and, because of the sure assistance of the Holy Spirit in my endeavors, I suggest to anyone with an interest in the truth, never strike out on your own nor lean on your own understanding but allow the Holy Spirit to lead.

Chapter One.

Verses one and two. The use of the word 'same' asks the reader to compare two beginnings, the beginning of the Word and the beginning of God. Each is an early, if not initial, point in time or process – one with the Word and one with God.

Verses three through five. Christ, being equal to God, perhaps one and the same, created reality, but that reality, from the beginning, was in full association to man.

Verse nine. Christ, the true light according to John (perhaps in contrast to John the Baptist) is a vital part of every human that enters the world.

Verses ten and eleven. Darkness is explained as ignorance of Christ in the world and ignorance of Christ in man. As for Christ, mankind is his kind (his own).

Verses twelve and thirteen. Those who are not ignorant of Christ in the world and of Christ in man are only different from the rest of his own in that they are empowered to progress spiritually – being born of the spirit (the light) and the express will of God.

Verses fourteen through eighteen. the Baptist's witness, an introduction to the savior, presents a problem. Verse fourteen seems to be the writer's opinion rather than John's witness, but the witness that follows that opinion, John's introduction to Christ, is couched in blatant specificity. Did the Baptist introduce the savior using Jesus' name or was that specificity the inclusion of the writer? It could have been either one, for all we know. The writer obviously knew Jesus by the title “Jesus Christ” but that in no way discounts the Baptist for he was Jesus' cousin. They may have grown up together.

Verses nineteen through twenty-six. John answered priests and Levites the “Jews” sent from Jerusalem. His answer to them, although vague on the surface, speaks of Jesus – that he stood among their ranks.

While Levites were considered to be high priests, priests were not necessarily levitical.

(Rabbinic Ordination (taken from Aish.com in regard to the Sanhedrin:)

Every member of the Sanhedrin must be ordained, following a tradition from Moses. It is thus written, "Moses did as God commanded him. He took Joshua... and laid his hands on him, commanding him, as God spoke through Moses" (Numbers 27:22-23). Moses also laid his hands on the other elders, ordaining them as members of the Sanhedrin. These, in turn, ordained others, generation after generation, in an unbroken line of ordination from Moses.

Although Moses ordained the first Sanhedrin with the actual laying on of hands, this was a special case, and was only done that one time. All subsequent ordinations were performed orally, granting the subject the title of "Rabbi" and declaring that he is "ordained with the right to judge cases involving fines.")

What did the writer mean when he said “the Jews”? He likely referred to the religious authority of the Sanhedrin.

New question. What clues or scriptures had alerted the authorities to grill John the baptist the way they did? They asked him “why” he baptized people if he was not 'that' Christ, or Elias, or 'that' prophet.

In John 1:21, who is ‘the (or that) prophet’?

(taken from Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts.)

(Answer: NOT Jesus, and not Mohammed either.

At least, not as it relates to the hermeneutics of this text. Theologians can debate the ‘correct’ formulation of (Jewish or Christian or Moslem or Mormon) messianic expectation and assert who fulfills that hope within their system. But I understand hermeneutics is about the meaning and function of words in a specific text; it is not a theological debate.

In this passage – in which there are no important critical problems of text or translation – ‘the prophet’ is simply a theological idea, the third component of a tripartite messianic expectation which the author ascribes to ‘the Jews’. As H.A.W. Meyers noted: “ὁ προφήτης is marked out by the article as the well-known promised prophet, and considering the previous question Ἠλίας εἶ σύ, can only be a nameless one.”)

Verses twenty-nine through thirty-eight. On the day following the Baptist's encounter with the priests and Levites, Jesus entered the camp at Bethabara where John was baptizing. It was a place described as 'beyond Jordan' – but, beyond from what reference point? Was it beyond Jordan from the wilderness that John inhabited? Was it beyond Jordan in relation to Jerusalem, or to Bethlehem?

“And I knew him not”, in verse thirty-one, is a reference to recognition of the deity of Christ. John was a close cousin to Jesus, as their mothers were close. The two likely grew up together. John said, “and I knew him not”, but that was not the end of the statement. He continued by saying, “but that he should be made manifest to Israel.” The statement as a whole indicates long conversations of deep import.

John said that he knew him not, not once but, twice. The second time, in verse thirty-three, is an indication of a previous vision – a vision in which he found his calling. Someone in John's vision, either God or an angel of God, told him the identity of Christ. He would know the one by seeing the spirit descend upon him. Both 'I knew him not' statements, taken as a whole, are presented in a single monologue. It was something that John said as he saw Jesus coming to him. He said all of it for the benefit of those around him. All of them nearby heard him name Jesus as the Lamb of God. What he said in that monologue was said prior to the baptism of Jesus.

Verse thirty-four is ambiguous. The person that bore witness in that verse is not necessarily the Baptist. True enough, it could have been a continuation of his monologue, bringing it to a conclusion. On the other hand, however, it could have been John, the author, who interjected with his own assertion. This verse is immediately followed by two of John's disciples leaving to follow Jesus. Was the author one of those disciples?

Verses thirty-five through thirty-nine. It was the day after Jesus entered the camp where John baptized. John had already introduced Jesus on the previous day. He had said, “Behold the Lamb of God.” He said the same thing the following morning. Jesus was leaving the camp at that time and the two disciples of John left John to follow Jesus. I assume that it was the morning because we are told in verse thirty-five, “after John stood, and his two disciples.” This wording suggests two things to me. First, I see in the wording that John only had two disciples present (at least at that time) and they left him for Jesus. Second, is the information 'after John stood' which suggests that they had just awakened – therefore the time frame would have been around the first hour or 6AM.

An alternate reason for the wording 'after John stood' might be the resumption of his ministry of baptism, where standing might indicate a more public aspect, as in standing before the people, perhaps in the water with his two disciples as aides in the process of baptism.

If Jesus had been baptized on the previous day and started early to return to the place where he then resided, we must consider that a long walk followed his first meeting with Andrew and John, the two disciples. I say a long walk because of the wording in verse thirty-nine. The reason the two disciples stayed there rather than go to their homes was precisely that it was late in the evening – around 4PM.

It could have been the time of year when the daylight hours were shorter so that any further travel beyond the 4PM mark would have included walking at night. The reason John mentioned the tenth hour as the reason they stayed rather than moved on could have had a purely Jewish connotation. As Jews, the whole baptism thing would necessarily have to close up for the Sabbath. People would need to return to their homes. Preparation for the Sabbath was required and needful. The Sabbath placed limitations on how far a person could legally walk. It also restricted even the work of cooking food to eat.

Caught out in the wilderness on a Sabbath would mean that the person could not eat, could not walk beyond the limit – and therefore might miss getting to the synagogue.

If Bethabara was way out in the boonies, then folks probably had a long way to go before they reached home. If Jesus began his ministry by calling fishermen to be his disciples, then the place where he stayed would have been somewhere on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps Jesus walked to the southern end of the lake and caught a boat up to the northern end, where it is believed that Peter lived.

If Jesus began his return just after everyone woke up around 6AM and he reached his destination around 4PM, that would give us a travel time of ten hours. One can easily walk three miles in one hour so that we are looking at a mean distance of about ten to eleven miles walking casually from the baptism site. It would have been about that time duration and distance to walk to Tiberius or Magdala.

It should be considered that Andrew left the place where Jesus stayed to bring his brother quick news of Jesus. It seems more plausible that such might be more easily accomplished from a town on the lake than from a site further south.

Verses forty through fifty-one. It should be noted that these verses describe a string of events that occur from one disciple to the next, and then again, to the next in line. The line is contiguous from one disciple to the next as well as from one day to the next. The timeline is restricted and runs from the first day of Jesus at the camp of John the Baptist to the 'next day' when Jesus leaves the camp to the tenth hour of the same day. This line continues unbroken with Andrew finding and returning with his brother before a new day is mentioned.

The author provides a current of events where each is listed immediately following the previous in an almost 'cause and effect' fashion. So this is where we are in the list of events: the two disciples are where Jesus resides, and it is in the early evening hours of the day. Andrew leaves. He takes off walking and walks only as far as he needs to reach his brother. There is enough time for both of them to return to the place of Jesus' residence.

If Andrew left at 4:30 PM and walked half an hour to reach Peter, then the round-trip would have seen them both with Jesus at approximately 5:30 PM. Had he walked an hour before returning, they would have returned around 6:30 PM.

The next listed event in this straight line of occurrences is found in verse forty-three; it is listed in these words: “The day following.” This verse is also important in that it gives a general location where Jesus, Andrew, Peter and John are found. More precisely, this verse shows where they are not found. If as the verse states, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee,” then the place where they spent the night was not in Galilee.

Jesus walked from where he was staying to the area generally, or at the time, considered to be Galilee. In other words, Jesus crossed a border. The historical ebb and flow of borders only matters to us in an oblique manner. We do not require exact measurements. Generally speaking, I think Jesus stayed somewhere near or on the sea of Galilee but not in the area of Galilee, as known in that day and age.

Jesus went forth into Galilee to find his fourth disciple, Philip, who was from the same city as Andrew and Peter: Bethsaida. That is not to say that Jesus went forth into Bethsaida, per se, but it is a good guess that Jesus had been staying in a house just over the border, and not far from the city where Andrew and Peter lived and worked as fishermen. That place across the border from Galilee was just a day's walk from the camp of the Baptist in Bethabara beyond Jordan.

Was the trek into Galilee another day-long trek? Philip was from the same city as Andrew and Peter but that is not to say he lived or worked there. The walk from the place where Jesus stayed into Galilee may have been short.

Why did Jesus go there?

A possibility is that Andrew and Peter invited him to stay with them. When they got to the residence of Andrew and Peter, somewhere close or along the way, Jesus acquired Philip, who went and found Nathanael.

My supposition is that Philip found Nathanael under a fig tree where he sat in the shade – signifying the warmer part of the day, say around noon. That would be less of a walk from the place where Jesus had been staying than the sojourn of the previous day. Were fig trees visible from the road upon which they arrived in Bethsaida? Had Jesus spotted Nathanael on the way into town?

I wonder about fig trees there and then. Did they dot the countryside? Were they cultivated in earnest? Was there an orchard or did Nathanael live at or work for a major fig producer near the fishing village?

More notes on verses forty-nine through fifty-one. Special comments are made at the end of the first chapter of John. Nathanael recognized Jesus as the Son of God – but then, so did Peter. I think it would be relevant to collect and synthesize all such comments.

Jesus made a special comment to Nathanael alone. I think it would be relevant to collect the comments Jesus made specifically to each disciple.