Authority and Distraction

Just some thoughts I journaled as I wrapped up my study of Hebrews 1:5-14... Hebrews 1:5-14 can be summed up by saying that it refers to and exposes the writer’s belief that Jesus is a superior being on an equal plane with God. He says that Jesus, while being temporarily lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7, 9; we haven’t gotten there, but be patient!), has risen to a status that is now far superior to them. In a day and age when religion is so watered down with feel-good philosophy and New Age heresy as related to angels and human wisdom such, how do we define authority? Even Christians (myself included) look to popular authors, speakers, and conferences for wisdom and inspiration. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with that, but books, sermons, and conference lineups are all rooted in flawed man rather than in the Word of God. Even in a sermon, a pastor is giving me HIS interpretation of Scripture. How many pastors in the last five years have fallen in one type of disgrace or another? So the question is, “Why would I give them more authority in my life than the Bible?” In the time of the early church, angels were given very high regard. They had reached what appears to be near mythical proportions and were so highly acclaimed that even the worship of angels began to surface as a new heresy. Angels have been popularized in movies and television shows like “Touched By An Angel”. I know people who collect angel figurines. I have talked with people who talked non-stop about their guardian angel (I’m not disparaging the idea of guardian angels. Some people approach angels with a worshipful attitude, though.) George Guthrie notes that angels are clearly both popular and big business in Western societies. The question is, how should the church respond to this cultural trend? Keeping in mind that the author of Hebrews uses his first audience’s respect for angels to speak to their need for a higher opinion of the Son… In Hebrews, it’s possible that some of the people for whom this sermon was intended had been having a problem with Spiritual authority and the writer may have been using an inflated view of angels for his jumping off point for a discussion of where they should be placing their trust and focus. Angel worship isn’t the problem that it once was, however Christians do end up worshiping at the altar of personality way too much. How do we avoid venerating people while respecting them? For example, I am a big fan of Matt Chandler, who is the pastor of the Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas. He would probably tell me to go look somewhere else for an example of Godly living, because that’s the kind of guy he is. Anyway, I listen to his messages, subscribe to his podcast, and I even watch how he preaches for pointers on style. I really respect the guy and if there is a person I follow in contemporary church culture, it’s Chandler (Francis Chan is another one, but he isn’t as active as Chandler, but I digress…). The question is this: “How do I glean from a man and avoid venerating his word as Gospel? How do I respect him, but avoid putting him on a pedestal that would cause his voice to supersede the word of God?” How do I let him be AN authority without allowing him to become ULTIMATE authority? The secret is that, first of all, it isn’t a secret, and secondly, it isn’t that hard. 1 John 1:1-3 (NASB95) 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. Here’s the problem: many of the people in whom we see the world placing trust and whom we allow to have spiritual authority are NOT Christians. I’m not calling any specific individual out here. I am, however, addressing how it happens. I have been asking teenagers for years now how they know if I am telling them the truth. The answer always seems to go back to that one passage when Paul was in Berea and they searched the Scriptures to be sure that what he was saying was true. What is it that we’re looking for, though? Yes, we want to be sure that the doctrines are accurate, but how many of those doctrines fall completely apart without the centricity of Christ in our lives? Can I NOT murder and still not be a believer? Can I NOT steal and still not be a believer? If a guy preaches on not murdering and not stealing, does that make him a solid teacher if that’s what we find in the Bible? My question would be, “Did he mention the name of Jesus at ALL anywhere in his message?” I think hype can distract us. Sometimes I feel like guys go out and get into ministry and they can’t WAIT to write and publish their first book. It’s almost like today’s clergy is trying to make a name for itself instead of making a name of Jesus. Is the person whom I am following (i.e. Matt Chandler) trying to make a bigger name for Jesus than for himself? Is he confessing that Jesus is God and not himself or herself as God? I think that’s how we test the spirits. It’s not some sort of vague spiritual entity that we are consulting with. We don’t go get a Ouija board and start asking it questions to get guidance on whom to follow and whom not to follow. We test the spirit of the man or woman in question. Does the life match Scripture? More specifically, does that life match what the Bible says about Jesus? It’s a challenging question. It’s a question that causes a bit of fear and trembling in my own life and ministry. As Katy and I enter a season of searching out our first pastorate, I hope that this reality continues to humble us and keep us real.

Three "ism's": You DO need air to survive!

I ran across some thoughts in a commentary that really made me start to think deeply about three “isms” that we run across almost daily and are at odds with one another in almost every way. The three “isms” are theism, modernism, and postmodernism. Theism is the belief that there is a god or gods out there somewhere. We typically run into theism in a form that believes that a god of some kind created the universe. Theism has many flavors, but it can basically be boiled down into polytheism and monotheism. The opposite of theism would be modernism. I don’t want to oversimplify modernism as it has far reaching cultural implications, but as it relates to religion it pretty much rejects the supernatural in order to give way to science. So we have theism at odds with modernism right out of the gate. One says, “Some god exists”. The other says, “No god exists”. Both of these worldviews are very dogmatic, meaning that they both think that they are the truth. If that’s the case, then they are mutually exclusive of one another meaning that no person can hold these two truths simultaneously and not be looked at as a total moron. I can’t think up is both down and up at the same time. It’s either one or the other. To believe otherwise relegates me to the aforementioned realm of the moronic. Now let’s take a look at postmodernism. Again, I don’t want to oversimplify postmodernism, but for the purpose of a short writing here, let’s just say that postmodernism believes that everything is relative. While theism would say, “Some god exists”, and modernism says, “no god exists”, postmodernism would suggest that “your god exists and my god exists”. On top of that, the postmodern view of religion would further suggest that everyone’s god, whether they exist or not, can all coexist peacefully. Now, we know that this is just crazy. There are way too many religions out there that would argue this point literally to the death. No devout Muslim would agree with this. No serious Christian agrees with this. So what is it that postmodernism is trying to do here? Well, I am of the opinion that this postmodern outlook on religion is simply trying to help people relate to one another peacefully. So a Christian who takes on a postmodern way of thinking, believing that nothing is concrete and that all is relative, would suggest that Jesus is that Way, the Truth, and the Life, but this isn’t necessarily the truth for everyone. Those who don’t believe in Jesus, well, they’re okay. It’s fine for them to believe that Jesus isn’t God since that is what is true for that person. I would like for you to imagine someone trying to spike a postmodern volleyball over a net. Now, I would like for you to imagine a solid Christian jumping up, blocking that spike so hard that the person spiking the ball falls to the ground crying in pain, horror, and humiliation while the blocker screams, “Get that weak garbage out of here!” Christian postmodernists need to grow a spine. Why in the world anyone thinks that it is appropriate to stand halfway between theism and modernism is beyond me. Is it okay for a Christian to think this way? I would submit to you that it is not and I will explain further (if it’s not self-explanatory already) why I believe that. The postmodern Christian is caught between two worlds: the dogmatic and the pragmatic. Dogmatic people stand on what is true. Pragmatic people stand on what works. Does it “work” for Christians to just try to get along with others? Well, I suppose that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but is it okay when truth gets watered down? If Jesus is the way, truth, and life and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, then is it okay to say that this truth is okay only for those who want to believe it to be true? Is it less true if someone chooses not to believe it? Here’s the problem Mr. Postmodern Christian: if a person chooses to not believe it as a dogmatic truth, Jesus is still the Way, the Truth, and the Life and nothing changes the fact (not even unbelief) that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. I can believe all day long that oxygen isn’t necessary for survival, but I can’t make that true. If the “rule of three’s” is true, after about three minutes without oxygen, I will become very, very dead. So, if some guy claims that he can live without oxygen and puts a plastic bag over his head, am I okay to just let him suffocate since we all know that he will die? Wouldn’t I try to stop him from doing something that will result in his own asphyxiation? At least poke a hole in the bag, right? If I allow him to have his own postmodern way, he will die. His truth is going to kill him. The dogma that is the human body’s need for oxygen will win over his hard headed and hard hearted belief that he doesn’t need air to survive! Let’s say that I allow him to hold this view and act on it and he dies. What now? Am I now responsible for his death since I didn’t do anything to prevent it when I could have? I guess the courts will decide that one, but the obvious parallel here is that in the life of a Christian, some things are just true and they are DEADLY true! Those who don’t believe that Jesus is God and that trust in Him is essential for salvation are putting a plastic bag over their heads. If I just say, “Well, that’s what is true for him, so I shouldn’t step on his rights”, then I am basically saying, “I don’t believe my own truth enough to do something about it”. When does it end? When do we take a stand and just live out lives like we REALLY believe this “Jesus stuff”?

How to tell when your vision stinks

So what do we do in a culture that demands that we NOT commit to anything? I have been involved with my wife in young adult ministry in our time in service and I can tell you that none are less willing to commit to anything than today’s young adult. It seems that they just aren’t sure what they are going to be doing on any given night. They seem to be afraid of making solid plans out of fear that a “better plan” may come along. “I can’t commit to going to a small group because someone might want to hang out.” “I guess we can go to our young adult group since we don’t have anything else to do.” Of course, this doesn’t describe ALL young adults, but it certainly does seem to be a pervading attitude. Also, it doesn’t just describe young adults. It is bleeding into adult attitudes, as well. However, have you noticed that once today's young adult population DOES commit to something, they are ALL IN? Not just partially supportive, but ALL IN! How do we build into people a commitment to the word of God? Is that even my responsibility? How do we take folks who are marginal or even nominal followers and help them to develop a real hunger for deep things? I think it’s about planting a compelling vision in the hearts and minds of believers. I am a firm believer that people don’t give their time, money, or talents to other people or organizations. They give all of those things to a compelling vision. A vision compels when it’s going somewhere. It compels when we can see progress. We don’t have to be winning necessarily. The vision just can’t be a stagnant pool of non-moving garbage! Maybe most importantly, vision is compelling when it is participatory. I don’t think most people, and I am particularly speaking of young adults here, want to just give their money to an organization and watch the work happen. I think people want to give themselves away to a cause and be USED in the effort! Maybe this is where church is going wrong today. Maybe we aren’t about EQUIPPING people enough. Maybe we are just communicating, “We don’t really want YOU. We just want your MONEY so that WE can do good things for Christ. You just sit over there and clap when we sing, okay? We the, ‘professionals’, will take care of the sick and hurting.” This is exactly the attitude that stagnates a church. It stops people from NEEDING to develop faith. Stagnant people means stagnant vision. After all, if I’m the only one who is going to do ministry in my church and the average congregant never has an opportunity to share faith, why is there any need to DEVELOP faith! There is no vision for that person to MOVE in faith, so he or she just sits still in worship and wonders why he or she is even there. People become stagnant when there is no expectation to do anything with what they are taught about faith. So what do they do? They wait for something else to come along that will speak to them. If we aren’t careful, the world will plant vision in our congregation. They will begin to fall away from the vision that God set forth in Scripture and begin to chase after meaning elsewhere. Today’s young adult was not built to be stagnant. They were built to keep moving and growing. Maybe we need to stop complaining about a lack of commitment and start really re-evaluating whether or not our vision is worth following?

Satan's "innocent" alternatives...

1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Re 13:1–4. There is an intrinsic power in worship. There is also an intrinsic spiritual nature in man that engages in worship, even if the worship engaged is secular in nature. This is both good and bad. Man wants to worship and adore things. Take a look around at the number of entities that gain the recognition and adoration of people. We idolize sports teams, athletes, musicians, bands, politicians, preachers, models, The problem is that Satan knows this, too. One of the things that Satan is absolutely best at is mimicking good things. He does this in order to provide substitutes to those things that are holy. Think about it. Satan provides alternatives to love so as to pull us away from God’s true desire for love. He provides alternatives for justice so that we are pulled towards our own brand of justice and away from Gods desire for pure justice. He presents us with alternatives for hope. Is it any surprise that Satan provides us with an alternative to faith, as well? If he can just get us excited about ANYTHING that has nothing to do with Jesus he can begin pulling us away. It all seems innocent enough at first, right? I mean, I constantly struggle with my anger. Why not give in to it just a little and feel the power of rage? Why not give my heart to a football team so that my heart is pulled away on Sunday? Church will always be there, right? Why not just sit and keep staring at the woman who isn’t my wife? She’s pretty and I like pretty things, right? Subtle pulls away from true worship are what cause us to fall into sin. I’m only processing this for myself at this point, but I really feel like when I am focusing on the Lord and worshiping Him and Him alone, my worship of the worldly is eliminated. The struggle is real, folks!

Religious Pluralism: All Religions Don't Lead To Heaven

Just some thoughts from my Bible study of Revelation 2:18-29...

So what does this all have to do with you and me?  We have discussed the dangers of assimilation with the world in order to fit in with other groups.  There is also a danger of religious pluralism that seems to surface here.  Religious pluralism is that belief that two or more religious systems with competing views are equally valid.  Do all roads lead to heaven?  In other words, if I look at the sky with my wife and say it is blue and she says that it is red but we both belief that the other’s view is as valid as our own, that is a pluralistic view.  When it comes to religions, it would mean that a person believes that every religion on the planet is equally valid and true.  They all lead to either heaven or nowhere.  People who proudly display the “Coexist” bumper sticker on a vehicle are supporting religious pluralism.  The problem with the “Coexist” bumper sticker is exactly the fact that no world religions can coexist with any other world religion with the exception of Hinduism, which actually believes that all religions are valid as a part of its basic belief system.  This belief renders Hinduism illegitimate for a number of reasons.  There isn’t space or time to enumerate those reasons here, but I will just address one major issue with some common religions and why they are completely incompatible with Christianity and why they simply cannot “Coexist”. 

            Many world religions believe in God.  This actually isn’t an uncommon belief, however Christians understand that, just as their name suggests, the identity of Jesus is what matters to their faith.  Many other world religions actually believe in Jesus, as well.  There is a problem with these other religions’ belief in Jesus, however.  I have said many times that the one belief that sets Christianity apart from literally every other competing world religion is the belief that Jesus is God.  To say that every single religion on the planet is equally valid is simply false and ignorant because too many of them have divergent views as to who Jesus actually is!  To say that Islam and Christianity are equally valid is an example of this ignorance.  Muslims do NOT believe that Jesus is God!  Christians absolutely believe that Jesus is God!  They are 180 degree, polar opposites in their view of what matters to eternal salvation.  The only way around this is to say that none of these other world religions are correct, or to say that truth only matters to that person who holds to it.  In other words, Islam is true to Muslims and Christianity is true to Christians.  To say that a person gets into heaven by holding A belief is simply false.  What sort of higher power would allow a person to enjoy eternity side by side with a person who held an opposite belief?  Why would that eternity even matter?  Why would I want to serve or spend eternity with any god who said that my beliefs and character basically do not matter?  I could hold to atheism and say that this is my view on religion and decide that living an ethical life is my religion.  I don’t have to follow ANY god in this case!  That would certainly be the easy way to go, and it would make it easy for every person on the planet to go to a blissful eternity, so what is the problem with that view?  The problem is that you just can’t change truth!  You can’t change what truly IS!  I can’t redefine truth to be an arbitrary, individual preference.  If that were the case a pedophile could say that his or her truth includes the belief that raping children is okay and actually healthy.  Objective truth exists and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  To say that all I have to do is believe SOMETHING and I’m okay with some cosmic higher force is simply avoiding the truth that truth exists and the when some views directly oppose one another that makes one of them a LIE.  A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.  The sky is either red or blue.  End of story.  

Do YOU interpret God or Does God Interpret You? The Message to Smyrna

Just writing my Bible study for Sunday morning based on Revelation 2:8-11.  Some more reflections as a result of that study:

So a LOT of questions come up as we think about human suffering, particularly when we think about the suffering of a people who serve such a powerful So how do we understand Christian suffering?  Why does it happen?  Where do I put the fact that God allows suffering to happen to His people?  Why doesn’t he just rescue us?  In all of these questions, I believe that the focus is backwards.  In these common questions, we are trying to understand God in light of our own circumstances instead of trying to understand who we are in light of God’s revelation.  I’m not saying that we are to NOT try to understand who God is, but I do think that it is dangerous to interpret God through worldly interactions and happenings.  Should we be defining God or should God be what defines us as believers?  I think that it is God who tells us who we are.  When we pursue a line of questioning that ONLY seeks to make sense of God and define who God is in our minds by analyzing the world around us, we gain only a narrow view of who He is.  We must balance that out with a healthy dose of accepting that God has authority over certain things and begin to place ourselves into His story and realm rather than placing Him into our own context.  Is it okay to ask and ponder who God is?  Yes, I certainly believe that it is.  Should we ALSO ponder our reaction to who God is in light of the fact that He is eternal an unchangeable?  Absolutely!

Here’s what I mean.  Let’s say a terrible car wreck happens on a very public street.  There are twenty witnesses, including those in the car, who can relate just what happened.  Depending on the level of involvement, there will be at least twenty different accounts of what happened.  All twenty stories will be told with varying levels of emotion that depend on personal experience and proximity to the car crash.  Some of the details of the eyewitness accounts may even contradict one another.  Here’s the deal though: not one story or even contradiction change the fact that the car wreck happened.  There are certain things that are unchangeable about the situation.  Twenty people will tell their version of events based on how they interpret it and that interpretation will be based, in large part, on that person’s individual experience.  The fact that will not change is that the car wreck happened and it had an impact on the people surrounding the event.  Each individual witnessing the event will be changed in some way as a result of the event.  The event is not changed in one minor detail as a result of the interpretation of witnesses.

Our interpretation of who God is does not change who He is.  God simply is.  When we apply our own experiences and personal victories and tragedies to our story of Him, we begin to apply a very subjective slant to that story.  The question must then become, “Who is God and who am I in light of that truth?”  We cannot simply stop at the point of human understanding and apply our own version of truth to a God who is the very definition of truth.

Commentary on John 1:1-8

 Chapter 1

Three functions of chapter 1

1.     The prologue (1:1-18), in which Jesus is introduced and described. 

2.     John the Baptist before a Jewish committee describes Jesus further (1:19-28)

3.     Three cameos of witness (1:29-51).  Jesus provides testimony as to who he is. 

Word Study – “word”

Hebrew

1696 דָּבַר, דָּבַר, דָּבַר [dabar /daw·bar/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 399; GK 1818 and 1819 and 1820; 1143 occurrences; AV translates as “speak” 840 times, “say” 118 times, “talk” 46 times, “promise” 31 times, “tell” 25 times, “commune” 20 times, “pronounce” 14 times, “utter” seven times, and translated miscellaneously 38 times. 1 to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten, sing. 1a (Qal) to speak. 1b (Niphal) to speak with one another, talk. 1c (Piel). 1c1 to speak. 1c2 to promise. 1d (Pual) to be spoken. 1e (Hithpael) to speak. 1f (Hiphil) to lead away, put to flight.^[1]

Greek

3056 λόγος [logos /log·os/] n m. From 3004; TDNT 4:69; TDNTA 505; GK 3364; 330 occurrences; AV translates as “word” 218 times, “saying” 50 times, “account” eight times, “speech” eight times, “Word (Christ)” seven times, “thing” five times, not translated twice, and translated miscellaneously 32 times. 1 of speech. 1a a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea. 1b what someone has said. 1b1 a word. 1b2 the sayings of God. 1b3 decree, mandate or order. 1b4 of the moral precepts given by God. 1b5 Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets. 1b6 what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim. 1c discourse. 1c1 the act of speaking, speech. 1c2 the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking. 1c3 a kind or style of speaking. 1c4 a continuous speaking discourse—instruction. 1d doctrine, teaching. 1e anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative. 1f matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law. 1g the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed. 2 its use as respect to the MIND alone. 2a reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. 2b account, i.e. regard, consideration. 2c account, i.e. reckoning, score. 2d account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment. 2e relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation. 2e1 reason would. 2f reason, cause, ground. 3 In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds. Additional Information: A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.^[2]

λόγος, ου, ὁ    related to λέγω (arrange in order); (1) as a general term for speaking, but always with rational content word, speech (MT 22.46); often opposite ἔργον (deed) (1J 3.18); (2) with the specific translation depending on a wide variety of contexts; (a) question (MT 21.24); (b) prophecy (JN 2.22); (c) command (2P 3.5); (d) report (AC 11.22); (e) message, teaching (LU 4.32); (f) declaration, statement, assertion (MT 12.32), opposite μῦθος (legend); (g) plural, of words forming a unity of expression discourse, speech, teaching, conversation (MT 7.24); (h) of what is being discussed subject, thing, matter (MK 9.10); (3) of divine revelation; (a) word, message (of God) (JN 10.35); (b) commandment(s) (MT 15.6); (c) of God’s full self-revelation through Jesus Christ the Word (JN 1.1); (d) of the content of the gospel word, message (LU 5.1); (4) in a somewhat legal or technical sense; (a) accusation, matter, charge; (b) account, reckoning (RO 14.12); (c) reason, motive (AC 10.29)^[3]

John 1:1-5 (NASB95)

    1      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    2      He was in the beginning with God.

    3      All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

    4      In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

    5      The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

V.1 – It is clear that John is starting his witness of Jesus with a very clear statement of just exactly what he thinks of Jesus and who he believes Jesus to be.  Jesus is God.  No more, and no less.  I say all the time to my students that the one belief that Christians have that separates us from literally every other faith on this planet is our belief that Jesus was and is God.  The thing that is so elusive to us when we think of Jesus as God, however, is how He related to God the Father in the beginning.  When we read about the Logos before he was sent to earth as Jesus, we find that He existed as a spirit just as God existed.  What was Jesus like before he had skin on?  How do we try and reconcile a trinity in the very beginning when all three persons of the Trinity were all in the same place? 

Compare the very first words of John 1 to Genesis 1:1. 

Genesis 1:1 (NASB95)

1               In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It is interesting how the word for “Word” means a great deal about communication and command.  The Hebrew word, dabar, means pretty much the same thing.  In the OT, God is said to speak or is heard from, which means his word went forth to instruct, correct, and judge his people.  Jesus is said to be the logos.  He was sent to instruct, correct, and judge his people, but mainly to SAVE his people.  God’s word was sent forth to be nailed to a cross for our sins.  It is interesting how I can use words just like God can.  My words are with me and even could be said to “be me” in the sense that they represent my thought and intentions.  The difference is that my words do not literally create worlds.  In the Old Testament, the dāḇār of God is connected with God’s powerful activity in creation (cf. Gn. 1:3ff.; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Je. 1:4; Is. 9:8; Ezk. 33:7; Am. 3:1, 8) and deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Is. 55:11).^[4]

Three statements of verse 1:

1.     The Word has existed since the beginning. 

2.     The Word has existed “with God” since that beginning.  (Jesus exists separately/ distinctly from God.)

3.     The Word has existed AS God since that beginning.  (Jesus co-exists in unity with God). 

V.2 – John sums up the obvious from verse 1.  The Word, which is God, was with God in the beginning.  From these two verses, it is clear that the Word participates in the reality that we call God.  That Word was true deity, and John wanted there to be no doubt about it.^[5]

What are we without the very words of God?  God created by his very Words.  He spoke into being all living things.  How is it that those very words took on deity and personality of their own?  What a mystery!  In his pre-incarnation, was Jesus God’s actual not yet embodied, spoken Word?  Were God’s very Words just so powerful that they take on personality?  It’s amazing to think about!  Or was there a being that was yet the expression of God that had its own personality in such a way that it was a separate personality from God, yet of the same substance as God?  God spoke and deity came forth, but it was not an original coming forth.  He speaks and deity that already existed eternally came forth!  His words have the power to actually CREATE!  God’s words are more than just sound waves that vibrate an eardrum and cause someone to hear.  They are SO much more than that!  God does not have vocal chords, but His words still go forth.  He doesn’t NEED vocal chords to speak!  Humans DO!  That’s how limited we are!  God can actually just WILL his speech into existence.  He can WILL his words to go forth!  These words, this WORD, somehow just IS the very essence of God in a personal and distinct deity that IS God!  His words are ALIVE!  D.A. Carson describes the Old Testament concept of “word” by observing, “In short, God’s ‘Word’ in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’ makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God’s ultimate self-disclosure, the person of his own Son.”^[6]  Then there is this whole Holy Spirit that is a completely other personality.  Not doubting their existence and “three-in-oneness”, I wonder sometimes what it looked like for them to coexist prior to creation.  It is much easier to fathom God the Father, Jesus the Interceder and Savior, and Holy Spirit the Paraclete (each fully one God, and fully separate in personality) than it is to envision the “Trinity” when there was nothing.  This is the beauty of the mystery of God.  I don’t have to understand it.  I can shake my head at the wonder and know that God has that one under control and I need not worry myself about it but so much.  I'm going to worry myself with that whole, "go into all the world baptizing and teaching" thing and just do what I'm told to do and let God be God. 

V.3 – Clearly the Logos was present at the creation of the world.  Again, this takes us back to Genesis 1 where we find God creating the world.  So this Logos, who is affirmed to be God, was present in the creation.  This Logos was the part of the Godhead that evidently did the creating of the universe. 

V.4-5 – Life and light are juxtaposed against darkness here.  The concern would be that there is a dualistic struggle in which darkness would actually have a chance to win over the light.  This is not what is suggested in this passage, however.  The light of Christ was always going to win.  The observation that the darkness did not overcome the light in no way suggests that the darkness ever COULD overcome the light.  God is not worried about Satan somehow taking over the cosmos and plunging it into some sort of eternal darkness.  It just is not going to happen. 

Word Study – “comprehend”

2898 καταλαμβάνομαι (katalambanomai), καταλαμβάνω (katalambanō): vb.; ≡ Str 2638; TDNT 4.9—1. LN 57.56 acquire, obtain, implying effort (1Co 9:24; Mk 16:15 v.r.); 2. LN 39.48 attack, imply the gaining of control over (Mk 9:18); 3. LN 37.108 seize, arrest (Jn 8:3, 4 v.r.); 4. LN 37.19 overpower, overcome, gain control over (Jn 1:5; Jn 6:17 NA26), for another interp, see next; 5. LN 32.18 understand, comprehend, grasp (Ac 10:34; Jn 1:5), for another interp, see prior; 6. LN 27.10 (dep.) learn about, find out (Ac 25:25); 7. LN 13.119 (dep.) happen (1Th 5:4)^[7]

καταλαμβάνω    2aor. κατέλαβον; pf. κατείληφα; pf. pass. κατείλημμαι; 1aor. pass. κατελήμφθην; (1) with κατά adding intensity seize, grasp with force (MK 9.18); overpower, gain control over (possibly JN 1.5); (2) with κατά adding suddenness catch, overtake, come on (1TH 5.4); (3) with κατά adding certainty to possession attain, win, make one’s own (PH 3.12b); (4) middle, of intellectual appropriation find out about, comprehend, understand (AC 4.13; perhaps JN 1.5 as active with a middle sense)^[8]

Some translations use the word “overcome” instead of “comprehend.  I find this to be a weak and inaccurate rendering.  The Greek word is katalambano.  The root of this word is lambano, which means “to grasp” or “take hold” of something.  The sense of katalambano here is that the darkness can’t grasp what the light even is.  In other words, it is not that the darkness did not “overcome” the light, but that the darkness did not comprehend or understand the light.  This makes sense as to why there is conflict.  In a way, it suggests that the darkness/evil of the world could not understand the light of Christ, so the darkness rejected the light of Christ.  On the other hand, it seems to me to be wholly ignorant of the darkness to come against something of which it has no comprehension.  I mean, the darkness does not even know what it is dealing with and it still opposes this light.  And why would darkness NOT oppose the light.  IF the darkness truly loves the dark, then it would certainly not want its dark deeds and nature exposed by the light. 

            There is another aspect of V.4 that I would like to make a focus here.  When we put John 1:1-5 together with Genesis 1:1, we find a connection between Jesus and the Logos as a creative entity from the very beginning.  Genesis 2:7 speaks of God breathing into man’s nostrils and bringing life yet again.

           

Genesis 2:7 (NASB95)

7          Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Notice that God breathes into man’s nostrils and God’s breath becomes life.  In John 1:4, this same creative being that brought life was also referred to as light.  Now notice John 8:12, which says the following:

John 8:12 (NASB95)

            12        Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

This same light that brought life shined into a darkness that could not understand this Light.  The connection is clear.  The Logos would eventually put on the flesh of Christ and become the Light of the world who would lead all of mankind from sin into salvation.  I find it overwhelming that in the very beginning in his pre-incarnate state, the Logos was a life bringer and a light bringer.  When the Logos was placed into human flesh as Jesus, He was STILL a life bringer and light bringer!  Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (NASB95)”.  How interesting to think of the connection between what we know of the role of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ and the truth of the life-bringing ability of the Logos.  We know that the Holy Spirit is God’s manifestation in this world.  The Holy Spirit is, among other things, God’s very presence to humankind. I believe that when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, God actually sent to Holy Spirit to speak the Logos into Mary’s womb, thus conceiving the God-man, Jesus! 

Why is it important to allow the light of the Gospel and the Word of God to shine light into our hearts?  Perhaps it is because that which is dark and evil within us is that which suppresses truth as discussed in Romans 1.  When light is shone in the darkness of our lives, we begin to accept truth for what it is.  After all, when darkness comprehends light, then truth can be revealed, right?  When we turn the lights on in the cellar, we can see to navigate.  Then the lost become found! 

John 1:6-8 (NASB95)

    6      There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.

    7      He came ^aas a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

    8      ^aHe was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.^[9]

VV.6-8 – John the Baptist’s role is clearly identified.  It was important to the apostle John to point out that the apostle was NOT the Messiah.  While this may seem silly, there may have already emerged a group of followers who would become the later Mandeans.  The Mandeans, while I know not much about them, were a Gnostic sect who put a great deal of emphasis on John the Baptist.  Mandeans are still active today. 

In my opinion, it is not clear on the surface of this passage as to whether this passage refers to John the apostle or John the Baptist.  It would make more sense to me that it was John the apostle if John did not refer to himself in other places of the gospel, as “the one Jesus loved”.  He never referred to himself by name, so I am not really sure that it is accurate to suggest that the Apostle is meant here.  Whatever the case may be, most scholars (and I) agree that this passage refers to John the Baptist. 

In either case, the point is that John was not the light.  He was merely a person pointing others to the light.  As human witnesses, we can never do anything to eclipse the work of Christ or distract others from that work.  We point to the light of Christ so that others might be drawn to the light of Christ (V.7).  Jesus is light and we are witnesses to the light. 

V.6 – Could it be said of me, “There was a man sent from God whose name was Dave.”?  There is a bit of a test for how well I am “going and telling” when I think about it.  Am I a witness concerning the light?  If so, am I an accurate witness?  Just something to think about, I suppose.  The Greek word for “sent” is apestalmenos.

Word Study – “sent”

649 ἀποστέλλω, ἐμπέμπω [apostello /ap·os·tel·lo/] v. From 575 and 4724; TDNT 1:398; TDNTA 67; GK 690 and 1852; 133 occurrences; AV translates as “send” 110 times, “send forth” 15 times, “send away” four times, “send out” twice, and translated miscellaneously twice. 1 to order (one) to go to a place appointed. 2 to send away, dismiss. 2a to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of liberty. 2b to order one to depart, send off. 2c to drive away. Additional Information: For synonyms see entry 3992, pempo.See entry 5813 for comparison of synonyms.^[10]

The word apostello is a compound word that means “send away”.  The word that we render as “apostle” comes directly from the Greek apostello.  The point is that to be an apostle of Christ means that one is sent.  To be sent, one must receive a call and instructions.  The one receiving these instructions must, in an act of obedience, set out with the intention of fulfilling the instructions given.

Word Study – “witness”

3456 μαρτυρία (martyria), ας (as), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 3141; TDNT 4.474—1. LN 33.262 witness, through first hand knowledge (Jn 1:7); 2. LN 33.264 testimony, the content of what a witness tells (Mk 14:55); 3. LN 33.265 reputation (1Ti 3:7)^[11]

μαρτυρία, ας, ἡ    as concrete and objective information given in proof of something testimony; (1) active giving of a witness, testimony, declaration (JN 1.7); (2) passive, as the witness given testimony, evidence, record (JN 1.19); (3) as facts presented in court evidence, testimony (MK 14.55); (4) as a good report received reputation (1T 3.7); (5) as divine and human witness, with Christ as the content testimony, witness (JN 3.33); as a formula for the gospel message μ. Ἰησοῦ witness of (or about) Jesus (RV 19.10)^[12]

             The term for “witness” is an interesting one.  It is the word martyria, which means to give a testimony or declare information of some type.  Our English word, “martyr”, comes directly from this Greek root.  We often think of a martyr as a person who dies for a cause, but a martyr is a person who dies in such a way as to give credence to the cause by making it worth his or her life. 

To return to the question, “Am I receiving instructions and acting in obedience to fulfill those instructions”?  Christians obviously receive instruction, insight, or enlightenment from the Lord.  The obedience of going in response to being sent is what becomes a ministry.  When we place this passage in context with The Great Commission and passages such as the call of Isaiah we get a clearer picture of exactly what the Apostle John is saying here.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NASB95)

  19      “^aGo therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

  20      teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Isaiah 6:8-9 (NASB95)

    8      Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    9      He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;

Keep on looking, but do not understand.’

            When we further take into account the passages that describe the gifting of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4), the picture of being “sent” becomes a bit clearer.  Believers are clearly to act in obedience to the commands of God.  What are we supposed to do when we go, though?  How are we to carry out the Great Commission?  The Holy Spirit gives us supernatural abilities that will help us to make disciples.  So, I give my life to the Lord.  Now what?  Well, once I submit myself to God, I submit to a new way of life.  This way of life is focused on making disciples, which is just another way of saying that my primary mission is to bring others into relationship with the Lord.  Of course I am not saving anyone.  The Lord does that.  It’s simply my job to ensure that, through my words and actions, those who are lost meet with the One who finds.  The Holy Spirit will empower us in different ways to carry out this mission.  Some people are teachers.  Some are really good at evangelism.  Some are merciful.  Some are good organizers.  You can go down the list of spiritual gifts and see just how the Lord uses His people for His purpose.  At the end of the day, the Great Commission is a command to be witnesses for Jesus.  We declare what we know and have experienced with regard to Jesus and we often gain credibility in other people’s lives by using the gifts that we have been given and by obeying the command to Go! 

           

            What is an apostle?  An apostle is basically a “sent one”.  An apostle is a person who receives a command with a message and goes to deliver the message by whatever means necessary. 

---

^[1]           James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2001).

^[2] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2001).

^[3]           Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 248.

^[4]           D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 115.

^[5]           Borchert, 104.

^[6]           Carson, The Gospel according to John, 116.

^[7]           James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

^[8]           Friberg, 219.

^[9] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Jn 1:6–8.

^[10] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2001).

^[11] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

^[12] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 254.