Scripture: John 1:6-13
Date: May 1, 2011
Speaker: Sean Higgins
John 1:1-5 presents some wonderful realities about the Logos as the light and life of men. So why don’t all, or even more, men believe? The end of the first paragraph hints at the reason: sin and darkness and death.
This morning we will consider The Witness to the Light (verses 6-8) and the Reaction to the Light (verses 9-13). The points very well could be the Witness to and Reaction to the Logos, since we are in the middle of John’s prologue (1:1-18), and verses 1 and 14 bookend our attention on the Logos. Nevertheless, “light” is John’s word of choice in these paragraphs.
John introduces us to the first witness (of many in the fourth Gospel) to the Light, the forerunner of the Messiah.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John starts his gospel (verses 1-5) from the transcendent and Trinitarian perspective before time: “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and was God.” Now, in verse 6, he introduces us to a guy named “John”.
Unlike the other gospels (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 1:5-25, 57-80; 3:1-22), John the apostle says nothing about the John the baptizer’s background, no mention of his parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth) or of his unique birth (Elizabeth was barren and old, the angel of the Lord announced John’s birth and name) or of his extended family relations (Elizabeth and Mary, Jesus’ mother, were related). For that matter, John the apostle never refers to “John the baptist” because he never refers to himself by name. That leaves “John” to identify the other John.
All the apostle gives us for now is that John was “sent from God,” a significant but simple statement. The Jews expected God to send a prophet like Elijah to herald the Messiah based on prophecies from Isaiah (40:3-5) and Malichi (3:1; 4:5-6).
”Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me.” (Malichi 3:1)
John himself recognized himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy,
He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said [in Isaiah 40:3]” (John 1:21).
Jesus confirmed this to the Jews in Matthew 11:7-15, applying to John the same verse from Isaiah, and going so far as to say “if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come [in Malichi 4:5]” (Matthew 11:14).
This early description may be unimpressive, but at least it isn’t metaphysical. In other words, while this may not be gourmet theology, at least we know what to do with a burger and fries.
John was commissioned by God for a specific task: to herald the Light. The word “witness” falls out of this paragraph after an easy whack with the observation stick. It occurs three times, once as John’s role and twice as John’s objective.
He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
”Witness” is μαρτυρίαν, a “confirmation or attestation on the basis of personal knowledge or belief” (BAGD). A man’s witness is his testimony, it’s evidence he provides based on direct knowledge for a specific end. John came “to bear witness about the light,” to point those in darkness to light, those in death to life. And his purpose in witnessing was “that all might believe through him.”
We ought not witness with indifference about the light. Yes, we understand that we do not have the power, in ourselves, to cause men to believe, but this does not mean that we are satisfied because we’ve said what we’ve needed to. I understand that when the watchman warns faithfully, he has fulfilled his responsibility [Ezekiel 3:16-21]. Paul, similarly, “washed his hands of the blood of all men” [Acts 20:26-27]. But we want, we work, we pray, and we witness that men may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing they may have life in His name.
John summarizes verses 6 and 7 in verse 8:
He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Similar to John’s summary of verse 1 in verse 2, verse 8 repeats the primary point and clarifies that John was not the light, he was not the source, he was a signal to the source. Certain men did ask John if he was the Christ, at least early on in his ministry, and he clearly knew he wasn’t (John 1:19-20).
Before we step into the next paragraph, why does the apostle John include these verses (6-8) about John the Baptist here? The paragraph interrupts his concern with the light. How much more fluid would it be for verse 9 to follow verse 5, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The true light…was coming into the world.” Why not skip the detour and keep the flow and focus on the Word and then introduce the witness before his testimony begins in verse 19?
I’ll propose two reasons. First, John the Baptist fulfills Gods’s promise to send a forerunner to Christ. If the Logos, Jesus, fulfilled the Messianic promises, then the prediction of a prophet who preceded the Messiah also required fulfillment. John was God’s prophet and the fulfillment of God’s promise. Expect God to accomplish His promises, all of them, just as He says.
Second, John the Baptist illustrates God’s paradigm to send witnesses for Christ. The gospel is God’s story and His story includes many “beautiful feet” (cf. Romans 10:15, cited from Isaiah 52:7), those who are sent to proclaim the gospel in person. God chooses men and sends men to bear witness about the light. John witnessed to the Light while the Light was in the world, is there not need for witnesses while we await His return? Expect God to send witnesses, even you, just as He always has.
John indicates that the light was both rejected and received, foreshadowing the remainder of his gospel.
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
We started with the Logos, turned to John, and now turn back to the Logos, “the true light.” We started in eternity, moved into history, and stayed in time, as “the true light…was coming into the world.”
The “light” is not merely a principle, but a Person, the Word. Calling the Logos the “true light” is not comparing Him to a false light. John uses “true” throughout his gospel to refer to what is primary, what is ultimate. For example, manna was real “bread,” but Jesus is the “true bread” (John 6:32). Israel was really God’s “vine” (cf. Jeremiah 2:21), but Jesus is the “true vine” (John 15:1). The Logos is the “true light,” the essential light.
He “was coming into the world.” The coming of the Logos is not the same as the creating of the Logos, and John describes this further in verse 14.
The true light “enlightens everyone,” He “gives light to every man” (NIV). “Enlightens” or “gives light” picks up on the “life was the light of men” in verse 4. Two questions: what is this “enlightening” and how is “every person” enlightened? Another way to ask the question is, should we qualify “enlightens” or “every”? The next two verses (10-11) state that men, even His own people, did not know Him or receive Him. Does He enlighten even them and, if so, how?
”Enlightens” could be a type of general, internal illumination, a partial sense of what is true; the light on a dimmer. Verse 9, then, could be referring to the image of God in each and every human being, albeit an image now marred by the fall. Spiritual realities such as the presence of conscience in Gentiles (Romans 2:14-15), the fact that God put “eternity into man’s heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and that all men clearly perceive God through His creation (Romans 1:19-21), these invisible characteristics could be attributed to the enlightening work of the Logos, just as all visible creation is attributed to Him.
”Enlightens” could also be a reference to particular, internal salvation; the light in full blaze, no shade on the 10 billion watt bulb. If so, then “every man” must be qualified because again, not all men are saved according to the next verse. Augustine suggested the following illustration: in a small town there may be only one teacher though not all enroll in his class. The teacher could still be considered “everyone’s teacher” just as the Logos was “everyone’s light” because He is the only light.
”Enlightens” could also be a bad translation. φωτίζει could be translated, “shines on,” “put light upon” from the outside, rather than a reference to internal understanding. The light shines on all men, whether they hate the light or come to it (cf. John 3:20-21), whether they reject it (vv.10-11) or receive it (vv.12-13).
This is a tough call, but something has to give.
These verses are full of irony, or more accurately, tragedy.
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
John uses the word “world” (κόσμος) three times, and it appears that there are at least two different references, perhaps three. The “world was made through him” where the “world” consists of all made things in the universe, since “without him was not any thing made that was made” (v.3). He “was in the world,” where “world” seems to refer to the inhabitable parts of planet earth, and “yet the world did not know him.” This third use of “world” identifies the inhabitants of the inhabitable, specifically the human inhabitants. It’s the same Greek word; only context (and thinking) helps distinguish. (By the way, this may be important later when coming across “world” in John.)
The reason John repeats himself is to make clear that the Logos is responsible for the kosmos. The whole world is the Word’s, and that also means the creation is responsible to the Creator.
”He came to his own” means He came to what was His. This first “his own” is neuter (τὰ ἴδια), “his own things” referring to the world of stuff that He made, and the second “his own people” (or “those who were His own,” NAS) is masculine (οἱ ἴδιοι); so property and persons. It is a play on words, but it isn’t funny because “his own people did not receive him.” Based on the following chapters in John, “his own people” aren’t merely humans He created, but the Jews, His chosen people. They not only rejected Him, they killed Him.
Many rejected (and do reject) the light, but some received (and we pray many still will receive) the light.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
What does it mean to “receive him”? This terminology has certainly been abused in many modern appeals to salvation, heard in phrases like “Receive Jesus into your heart,” “Receive Him as Lord and Savior.”1 The trouble isn’t necessarily our vocabulary as much as our attitude, as if each person sits in the throne and decide whether to receive the light or not. No, the Light is on the throne, and we receive Him by welcoming His rule and gladly basking in His life.
In context, to “receive him” must mean to know Him, unlike the world at large in verse 10. To “receive him” also means to believe, as the next phrase in verse 12 demonstrates: “to all who…who believed in his name.” The receivers and the believers are the same group of people. The emphasis is probably more, “to the ones believing.” For observation’s sake, the apostle John never uses the noun “belief” in his gospel, but uses some verbal form of the word “believing” 98 times.
To the receivers, to the believers, “he gave the right to become children of God.” This means, if nothing else, that not all people are God’s children; to be created by God is not the same as to be born of God. Something has to change.
How does one be born a child of God? It is “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man.” In other words, it isn’t by physical descent or family lineage (of blood), it isn’t by personal desire or decision (of the will of the flesh), nor is it by someone else’s desire or determination (of the will of man).
Children of God are born by God, by God’s will. A wooden translation of verse 13 might go something like: “Those not from blood neither from fleshly desire neither from man’s desire but from God were born,” emphasizing God’s prerogative by starting with how it doesn’t happen, holding off the verb until the end, a passive verb at that, let alone the concept of birth itself. “Spiritual birth is not the result of human initiative but of supernatural origin” (Köstenberger).
[O]ur being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us WILLINGLY (James 1:18), that is, from undeserved love. (John Calvin)
These paragraphs foreshadow reactions to our witnessing. First, we should not be surprised by rejection. But more importantly, we should not be stopped by it either, since God is fathering children through His witnesses.
These paragraphs provide reasons for our worshipping. If we believe, our Father is God!
For what it’s worth, there are no imperative forms of λαμβανω (“take, receive”) with Jesus in the New Testament. John 1:12-13 and Colossians 2:6 (and perhaps Matthew 10:40; John 13:20) describe those who do receive Jesus but, again, there are no commands to do so. To be more consistent, Jesus commands us to believe. ↩