The RISV Version, with updates as new information is learned
Chapter 1 "God Became Flesh"
My Thoughts
For verse 1, combining the first two verses, I maintain a philosophical structure that places emphasis on the distinction of the relationship of the Word and the God. While "the" God is the Father, God is the divine nature. The Word 'existed', imperfect tense as an ongoing state, in the Beginning, as in before the creation, and was there before with God the Father. The Word is also Theos, God, as understood in the Tri-Unity model. Ending with the rhythmic repeating of the first line about this Word existing in the Beginning.
Verse 2, originally verse 3, could be structured differently in English with each line being shorter while maintaining the thoughts of the author but I tried to stick to more of a word for word translation. I'm also creating a distinction between the Word existing and everything else coming after though him. While this means I won't be using the word 'exist' here, the word for 'became' notes that things are ordered more than created from nothing. This doesn't remove the idea that the Word was before all these things but rather that it is because they existed before that all these things could be ordered.
The light is said to shine from eternity on, never stopping. The darkness, that is obscurity, was unable to comprehend it and thus failed. The darkness is defeated by the light that was and is and is to come.
Throughout, Jesus is called the Word, God, Life, Light, Truth, Flesh, and Christ. John will repeat these 7 themes to explain who Jesus is as he continues to write his testimony. These themes will accompany 7 signs that have a beginning and a conclusion.
John the Baptist's introduction breaks from the poetry of the prior but still carries with it a lot of parallels. This man came on the scene to be a witness and speak to these things for the purpose of people's faith in the Light. There were sent by God to do this. We might assume that this John is the author of this book but later we will see that this is a different John. It is very similar to the Introduction of Revelation that does point to John being the witness of that testimony. Then again, the fact that they share a name might lead to confusion either way. If the John in Revelation 1:1 is the Baptist but the John in 1:9 is the the Apostle, then we might call the first John "John the Witness" or "his Servant John". This would be the author's way of separating the two in these books.
Jesus, the Light, the Life, the one that owns, came to his world and was not received by the very people that were his own. They did not know him or welcome him. John then says "However" to bring us back to the fact that there were those that did receive him and those that are still to this day trusting him are welcomed and given freedom to be God's children.
John goes on to equate the glory that they saw from the Word that became flesh as coming only from the Father. This is a statement that can also be said to say that Jesus is the Son of God. It also states that the glory of the Father is full of grace and truth.
It would appear much more coherent for the words to follow "John cried out" and precede "And this is the testimony of John" to be the Baptist's words. They are both giving account of what this John said to different groups. Otherwise, the author interrupts themselves to say something they could have said before starting to quote John.
Verses 9-12 RISV are John responding to the priests and Levites that were sent to him by the leaders in Jerusalem. They want to know who he is and he starts by saying that he is not the Christ, a confession and not a denial. Then they ask if he is the resurrected Elijah but he says no. They ask if he is the prophet that comes after Moses/Elijah but again he says no. Then they ask who he is and he says that he is fulfilling the role of the Forewarner of whom Isaiah spoke. This identifies him as the archetypal Moses before Joshua or the Elijah before Elisha.
John is then questioned by a group from the Pharisees, either it is the same group that now brings up their specific question, that group went back to report but then were sent again by the Pharisees specifically, or a new group was sent with this new question. Either way, the priests and the Levites don't seem to be the ones asking the question about cleansing people in the Jordan river by immersion. They would be more familiar with the practice anyway. The Pharisees would be more concerned with the practice and why the people would need this, also, if he is not the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet, then why is he out there doing what they expect those people to do?
John then tells us why he was baptizing people. He was there to make a cleansing, by washing people, immersing them in water to remove unclean spirits, preparing the road of the Lord, so that when the Christ was immersed, he would be revealed to the people, that they may see that he is the beloved Son of David, in whom God delights and is pleased with.
John's full confession ends here. Though he said more and has more to say, as far as what he came to do is concerned, he has done it. He says that Jesus is the Son of God, the one that will baptize with the Holy Spirit, on whom the Spirit remains.
No comments:
Post a Comment