The Prologue and Chapter 1

The verses appear numbered and in bold font. Commentary in regular font.

The prologue of John’s Gospel, properly understood, is a creation story. It refers to the beginning (or “the head” from the Hebrew---more on that later). In first-century Palestine one could find several creation myths in use. The creation story found in the Hebrew book of Genesis was not the only creation story of the time. It came into use only about 600-700 years earlier. When read as a creation story, the prologue becomes more fruitful to the reader and can open the spirit to the deeper truth presented by the apostle.

1. In the beginning (head) was the (substance, word)* and this (substance, word) was with God, God was in fact that (substance, word).

*here the Aramaic word can be translated into several possible words. When the context of the entire Gospel is considered the term often translated as “word” exclusively is lacking. More appropriately this term conveys the idea of God’s very substance. It refers to the totality of that which God is. To understand this term as “Word of God” only is to limit the term considerably and therefore limit God and limit the understanding that the apostle is trying to give us through his inspired testimony. I have left the word in parenthesis throughout this translation as a reminder of the significance of the term and to help the reader in developing a deeper understanding of the Truth presented.

2. This (substance, word) was in the beginning (head) with God.

Before the created universe there was God. God was wholly God and complete. God was complete, but alone. With God was his own substance which, understood in a spiritual context, is his thoughts (though it can be understood as his “word,” we must admit that God’s inner words are infinitely full and even one word spoken in God’s own language would be out of our intellectual reach).

3. Everything existed through God’s action (hands), without God not even one thing existed of all that has existence.

Here we see the use of the term “hands” in many translations. In order to comprehend the scripture properly, one must have a precise as possible understanding of the terms used in scripture. For now, we will accept the term “hands” but without assigning any significance to it except for the fact that it involves “action.” As in “a man builds the thing by his own hand.” We will especially not think of this term as referring to an appendage extending from the human arm with five digits/fingers. The term “hands” cannot mean a material hand if we accept that God is a pure spirit---intellect and will. We can, however, presume that some world exists at this point from the context that “everything existed.” Simply because the author is not as concerned with the details of the creation of the material world (as found in the Genesis account) we cannot dismiss the fact that we are dealing with a creation story here. The question for us is: at what point in the creation of the world? Is it before or after the start of the creation of the material world? The next verse gives us a clue:

4. In God was life and this life was the light of men.
5. That light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it.

“In” God (or rather in the thoughts of God) was the idea of life. We see here the expression “light of men.” We encounter here, the creation of “men.” The nature of this “men” is not totally clear yet. What we do know is that God has created the ideal at least of life and men. The words “light” and “darkness” understood in the proper context here refer to the intellect and not to the material world because we see the terms referred to in the context of the life of the men. Light is enlightenment (or developed intellect) and darkness is its opposite. The use of the term “light” is also important because of its reference to actual light waves/particles; however, this blog will not be the appropriate place to introduce the marriage of science and faith that is evidenced by the study of the physics of light. For now, let us focus on a more philosophical understanding of “light” as encountered here.

A note on the translation of the word “comprehend:” Some manuscripts translate the word as “overcome” the root languages can allow for either translation however “overcome” is misleading. It can connote a material-world-like struggle. Here it is not such a thing. God does not struggle against material. Whereas “overcome” could be used when properly explained (to overcome an idea or a thought is to comprehend it and therefore we could never fully comprehend or “overcome” God’s infinite thoughts) it is often not explained in detail and often a misleading idea is formed in the mind of the reader. So, I have left to word translated as “comprehend” because it is the most accurate English language expression.

6. A man appeared, sent from God, named John.
7. This man came that he might testify as a witness concerning the light that all might believe through his action (hand).

I find the use of “appeared” to be important. Some early manuscripts refer to “manifested” as well. It is unfortunate that this word has sometimes been translated as “sent.” Even though this term “sent” can be understood properly (God is spirit so anything sent from God would be a spiritual sending and if a man were spiritually sent and then became perceivable in the material world he would “appear” or “manifest”) it is often overlooked. We must appreciate that in the context of a creation account, this “man” that appeared is (at least in this account) referring to the first material man or stage of development of men that came directly on God’s errand. (As if the race of men was already present but not developed enough to comprehend God’s message until after a certain time of development. When the first age of “thinking man” was present, this was the stage called “John”)

Since “light” is enlightenment/intellect, certainly an individual man would not be the totality of that substance, but a beneficiary of that substance. It is appropriate to understand that God sent into the world a race of man who possessed a developed intellect so that those who did not possess such would see his ability and believe that it is possible to attain (to some degree) that same “light” possessed by him and therefore seek to imitate him or rather learn from him.

We encounter “hand” again and might assume that the term refers to the human hand considering “man” exists materially at this point. I would urge you to keep your understanding of “hand” open to several possibilities including the understanding that “hand” refers to the action/work of this man.

As I stated above, I submit that this creation account refers to the first intellectual man or stage of men. If we take into account the evolutionary plan of God we can assume that “pre-historic” man existed on the Earth before man was developed enough to understand the spirit and pass on learning and skills. I believe that the “man” referred to here is the first stage of intellectual men. God let his creation develop until communication on the spiritual/intellectual level was possible. When life on the planet evolved to a point, God was able to send messengers/prophets into the world to teach men. This was the stage of “John.” The name John is a designation that is important. Think of “John” as a title and not a first name. There was John “the Baptizer,” John “the Beloved,” etc. We are reading about a time when names were very significant. The name “John” was preserved and passed on for a reason. We will digress if we entertain this topic of names further here, but it is worth consideration on the part of the reader because of the spiritual truth hidden here beneath the surface.

8. He was not the light; rather he would bear witness concerning the light.
9. The light was truth that which shines on all who come into the world.
10. He (light) was in the world and the world existed by his action (hand) and the world did not know him.

Here “light” is referred to as “he” which means that the (substance, word) that was in the beginning with God (and was God) is now given the attribute of person. God’s own thought, given to men to enlighten them, is now present in the world as a person. We see the expression “his own.” We will see in verse 13 who these were. These who were his own had the ability to accept and believe him or to reject him. Those who accepted and believed received authority as Sons of God. One is required to believe “in his name” before attaining the authority as a Son of God. What does this mean? We cannot know until we know his name. So for now, we must leave this point open.

11. He came to his own and his own did not receive him.
12. But those who did receive him he gave to them, who believed in his name, the authority that they might be the Sons of God.
13. Those whose birth came neither by blood nor by the will of the flesh nor by the will of a man, but by the will of God.

His own were those who came to exist by God’s will. Flesh, blood, and man’s action are not necessary for these to exist in the world. God sent these ones into the world for his purpose and they belong to him. We now must begin to contemplate just how a man could exist without need of flesh, blood, and other men. (More on this later)

14. And the (substance, word) became flesh and (pitched his tent/”tabernacled”) dwelt among us and we saw his glory, The One who is from the Father, who is full of grace and truth.

It would seem here that for the first time, God’s own direct thought manifested itself and became “flesh.” We will explore the expression “pitched his tent” later in our study. What is curious at this point is the fact that this light was in the world (v10) before becoming flesh. A subtle point often overlooked is that the “person,” who is the light, existed in the world and was working in the world before dwelling in the world as flesh. This light is God’s own intellect and more, light waves and particles.

15. John witnessed concerning him and cried out and said, “This is he whom I said would come after me and yet he existed before I existed.”
16. From his fullness we all have received a portion, grace answering grace.

Here we read a beautiful expression, “grace answering grace.” We can understand that from the fullness---the abundance---of God’s own intellect we receive our intellect, but this process does not end with our reception of intellect. We use that intellect for God’s purpose. We answer God by the action of our intellect in the world. This constitutes our acceptance of God’s grace---our response. What, though, is the nature of that response?

17. The law was given through Moses, but through The Jesus was given the Christ, which is truth and grace.
18. God has not seen man ever, The One of God---he who is in the bosom of his Father---he has interpreted him (man).

First let us look at the expression “the Jesus.” I believe this is significant in that early manuscripts refer to “the Jesus” and not simply “Jesus.” I have left this expression unaltered in this translation.

Looking at the Aramaic structure of this verses 17-18 we see a more precise rendering of the meaning here. The grace and truth we receive from The Jesus gives us the Christ (making us one of God’s anointed). We have obscured the nature of The Jesus (and done harm to his primordial status) by affixing the term Christ (a Greek term referring to “God’s anointing”) to the name of The Jesus in any way. The Jesus is not the recipient of God’s anointing (as was said of David and other Old Testament figures). The Jesus is that anointing and the vehicle through which we receive God’s anointing. God does not anoint himself with himself---he never lacked himself so there can be no self anointing because there was never a period when God did not fully posses his nature. The next verse is very interesting and continues this idea.

When translating the ancient languages properly we can attain a more precise understanding here. God---the creator, the Father---who exists in unspeakable perfection, has not directly “seen” man. Since God has no human eyes, but is pure spirit, it is difficult to debate this concept. Certainly God has “communicated” with man through the light (his own intellect) which has been at work since the beginning, but God did not “see” man with human eyes until his own intellect became flesh and walked among us in the world. Now, through The Jesus, God can “see” and interpret man---and in-turn interpret God’s thought for man. God can now “see” how man has responded to his gift of grace in the material world. Surely God could know men’s hearts and intentions but to be in the material world and “view” (and experience in the flesh) the actions and interactions of men is wholly different. It is only through his being in the world in this way that he “sees” the ones who are separated from him. If before the light became flesh, God’s only “interaction” with man was on an intellectual (spiritual) level, what of those who exist but do not seek communion with God? We see (v 10-11) that man has the ability to reject the light. If the light is the intellectual communion with God and it is rejected, then God (while still holding a man in existence) is cut off from any experience of the man---and the man from God. This accounts for the presence of what we call “evil” in the world. We cannot question why God allows evil to exist because he does not “see” it before it happens. This statement does not suppose a limitation on God; it asserts the universal reason found in God. God can only “see” the aftermath of man’s evil because he can see it through the eyes of those who are in communion with him. This he can see because The Jesus came into the world.

19. This is the witness of John given when, from Jerusalem, the Jews sent priests and Levites to inquire of him, “Who are you?”
20. He confessed and did not deny in declaring that, “I am not the Messiah (the one who ends the curse).”
21. They asked him again, “Who are you, Elijah?” and he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” and he said, “No.”
22. They said to him, “Who then are you? That we might give an answer to those who sent us, about what you say concerning yourself.”
23. He said, “I am the voice of the crying in the wilderness, ‘make straight the way of the Lord’ as had said the prophet Isaiah.”

I find this exchange to be most illuminating. If we accept the idea that this “John” was a single individual man in first-century Palestine, then we must ask several questions at this point: 1) Why would Jewish authorities question his identity in this seemingly strange way? Surely they would know his parents and place of birth. 2) Why would they ask if he was Elijah or one of the Prophets? Surely the time of Elijah and the Prophets was long past. Did the Jews believe that it was possible for a prophet of old to appear again in the flesh? 3) What does the term prophet really mean? Is a prophet a flesh-and-blood man? If so, how is it possible for a flesh-and-blood man to become alive again generations after he lived in the world? We will not resolve these questions presently (and it is not for me to give you all the answers as yet) but it would do you well to ponder this exchange because a deeper spiritual reality is hidden here. I advise you to ponder the exchange without attempting to fit your ideas into any currently fashionable denominational doctrine, because such doctrines did not exist when this Gospel appeared and so we should (at least for now) not consider later ideologies when trying to discover the original meaning.

24. Those who were sent on this errand were of the Pharisees
25. and they questioned him and said, “Why, therefore, do you baptize if you are not the Messiah (the one who ends the curse), nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26. John answered and said, “I baptize with water, but among you stands him who you do not know
27. this is he who will come after me yet is before me. I am not worthy to loosen the strap of his sandals.”

We find here a few items of interest. First, it seems certain that’s John’s baptism was bearing good fruit so why would religious authorities take such an aggressive stance with John? Surely John was not the Prophet, nor Elijah, nor the Messiah (the one who ends the curse)---but neither were the Pharisees. Why attack him this way if his work was a good work?

We also encounter a somewhat strange reference to the sandals of the Messiah (the one who ends the curse). This reference is important and often overlooked. For now I ask you to ponder this statement without the usual emotional attachment often preached when explaining these words. Look instead for other references in the scripture concerning shoes or sandals. You will find many in the Old Testament. See if you find any common details. We will discuss the reference more fully in later sections of this Gospel.

28. All this happened in Bethany at the crossing of the Jordan where John was baptizing.

Here we will begin to look at the phraseology of the Gospel closely. “At the crossing of the Jordan” requires attention. You must discover the meaning of the word “Jordan” in the Hebrew. Do not attach it to any particular river as yet. The words existed before the places; this is certain. When you have discovered the meaning of “Jordan” you will see the deeper spiritual reality hidden in the saying “the crossing of the Jordan.”

Throughout the Gospel we will see references to “crossing” or “the other side” or “going up,” coming down.” Be open to the possibility that the Gospel is purposely using these expressions and do not attach any modern colloquial meaning to them. Let your spirit connect with God and “see” their meaning unfold. This ultimately is where the Gospel is leading you: to the place of unfolding of the spirit.

29. On the day that followed, John saw The Jesus who was coming towards him and said, “Behold the lamb of God---he who takes away the sin of the world.

Reference to time (especially when referring to “days”) is important. Keep an account of the days spoken of in the Gospel. Do not assume that the reference is to a twenty-four hour period. If you look at the scripture as a whole and seek out the references to “day” you will discover a deeper truth connected to the use of this word.

30. This is he of whom I spoke will come after me. A man, yet he was before me because he existed before me.
31. I did not know him except that he be made known first to Israel. This is why I have come with water that I might baptize.”
32. John bore witness and said, “I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and it rested upon him.
33. I did not know him but he who sent me with water to baptize said to me, ‘the one whom you see the Spirit descend and rest upon will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
34. I saw and I testified that he is the Son of God.”
35. On another day, John and two of his disciples were standing.

Why does the Gospel make a point to tell us that John and his disciples were standing? Can you find any other reference in the scripture to standing and sitting? Notice also the reference “on another day.”

36. He stared at The Jesus while walking and said, “Behold the lamb of God.”
37. Both his disciples heard this when he spoke it and they went, after The Jesus.
38. The Jesus turned and saw those who were coming after him and said, “What do you want?” and they said to him, “Master, where are you?”
39. He said to them, “Come and you will see.” They came and they saw where he was and they remained with him that day, it was about the tenth hour.

The expression “where are you?” here is a form of an Aramaic expression that can be translated as: Where do you dwell? I have left it translated more closely word-for-word to bring attention to it. It is easy to let someone else do the discovering for us! We should be careful, however, not to outsource our salvation. Light is speaking to you directly. It is important to travel the road with the Light and make the appropriate discoveries of word. Here we can translate for the reader: where do you dwell? …or where do you live?

I think it is important for you to understand how the idiomatic expression in the Aramaic developed into a then-colloquial meaning close to our “Where do you live?” The followers of John were not simply asking a material man to tell them where his material house happened to be located in space. These men were asking the Jesus where he existed in life. The Jesus responds (at least on the surface) by not answering the question. “Come and you will see,” says the Jesus. Come where? See what? “Where” were they when they encountered him and asked this question? Does Jesus not exist “everywhere”? Is it possible to “not see” where Jesus exists? These questions must be pondered if we expect to travel the same road that the disciples traveled. Certainly the disciples thought it significant to ask. We should try to understand why they asked.

40. One of them who had heard, from John, and went after him, was Andrew the brother of Simon.
41. This one saw his brother Simon first and said to him, “I have found the Messiah (the one who ends the curse).”
42. He brought him to The Jesus and The Jesus gazed at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah, you will be called ‘stone.’”

There is much to understand concerning the curious statement made to Simon here. It will require a lengthy digression so I believe it is not the moment for the discussion. I will say this: the use of the word here is not the same word (in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) for rock, bedrock, foundation stone, or cornerstone. These other words are used in the scripture to refer to God. Here the word is specifically not referring to foundation stone or bedrock. Here the word used is the same word that would be used in the expression, “they picked up stones to stone her.”

43. On another day The Jesus wanted to depart to Galilee and found Philip and said, “Come after me.”
44. Now Philip was from the place of fishing from the city of Andrew and Simon.
45. Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, “He who wrote, concerning Moses and the law and the prophets, we have found him. He is The Jesus, the son of Joseph of Nazareth.”
46. Nathaniel said to him, “Is it possible that anything good be from Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and you will see.”

I stated in the preface that I would not comment on each point of value in the Gospel (certainly the points of value are myriad) but I would clear a little path for you. Here I wish to bring your attention not only to the different types of “calls” to discipleship but to the different types of actual discipleship.

First we encounter the Baptist who (based on what he heard from the one who sent him) had a knowing concerning who (and how to recognize) the one who was before him but would come after him and baptize with the Holy Spirit. He recognized Jesus but did not “follow” him. Instead he remained in the path prepared for him. Can he be called a disciple of Jesus? I don’t know many who would say he was not, however the Baptist did not “leave everything and follow Jesus.” Did he? Certainly I could comment more here, but suffice it to say that it is worth pondering the fact that we should be slow to judge the path of others since the Baptist certainly did not behave like a “good follower” on the surface. However if he had stopped his path to follow Jesus publically, would that not have had drastic implications on how the rest of the Gospel played out? For now we move on, but come back to this idea if it is of value to you. Especially recall the idea that “John” refers to an entire age of man---a certain stage of development.

Now let us look further at the different types of calls. We have just seen the call that can be termed “a knowing.” The second type we encounter can be termed “a being told.” The Baptist told his disciples of the one who would come after him and, when this one appeared, sent his own disciples to follow the one. In Phillip’s case we see the direct calling from Jesus. This can be termed “a personal encounter.” Concerning Simon and Nathaniel we discover a type of call that can be termed “a preached encounter.” They were brought to Jesus by others who themselves were called in some way.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the types of calls to discipleship. It is meant to inspire you to look at your own experience of Jesus. How were you called? Have you been? Perhaps you are one of the many who have not been called but are searching for the experience of God. If you cannot discover your call…if your encounter with the divine has not yet taken place, do not be troubled. If you seek that encounter, God will find you. Stay on course.

47. The Jesus saw Nathaniel coming toward him and said, “Behold, truly a son of Israel in whom there is no guile.”
48. Nathaniel said to him, “From where do you know me?” The Jesus said to him, “Before Philip called you, while under the fig tree I saw you.”
49. Nathaniel answered and said to him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the king of Israel.”

Here we encounter another essential moment in the life of the disciple: the confirmation of being called. Jesus will confirm your call if it is a true calling. If your call is “a personal encounter” your confirmation is implied in the encounter (but there is still an element left to seal your call---that is to come) but if you were called another way you will know that you are confirmed when Light permits you that personal encounter with the divine. In verse 47 we see Nathaniel’s confirmation: Jesus speaks directly to him.

This direct encounter with the divine can be jarring. Even though hearing Jesus’s word should be confirmation enough, Nathaniel responds the way many of us responds to such an unfiltered encounter with God. He becomes defensive and questions. Jesus, undaunted, re-affirms Nathaniel’s confirmation by telling something only God would know. The words of Jesus lead to Nathaniel’s amazement and transformation by the Light of God.

The beautiful example of Nathaniel’s call paints a clear picture of how discipleship begins: a call, a response, a confirmation, and a transformation.

50. The Jesus said to him, “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree you have believed? Even greater than these things you will see.”
51. He said to him, “So be it, so be it indeed: I say to you that from now on you will see the Heavens that are opened and the angels of God, while ascending and descending to the son of man.”

For the first time we encounter the expression usually translated as “Amen, amen I say to you…” or “Truly, truly I say to you…” (Ronald Knox employs: “Believe me when I say to you…” which comes closer to conveying the clear meaning). I have always found the tendency to only partially translate a document into a particular vernacular language to be curious. The Hebrew expression translated as “Amen” means “so be it.” In repeating the expression we can understand Jesus’s firm assertion that what is about to be said “will be so” or “it is certainly so.” To convey this I have included the word “indeed” because what Jesus speaks will become so “in deed” or “in action.” Of this we can be certain. We so over-use the expression “Amen” that it has become almost “invisible” to the eye and ear. Its over-use (and because it is not always properly understood when it is used) makes it ineffective in the Gospel text for most contemporary readers.

In verse 51 we encounter a more exact translation of the word order spoken by Jesus. I stated in the right-side introductory text of this blog, it is not for me to give you all the quick answers. You are on a journey of personal discovery in God, but here I will give you a clue to a deeper spiritual truth: Is Jesus not telling Nathaniel that from the moment he begins his journey of discipleship he will “see” from his own perspective two “things”: Heaven itself which is opened and God’s angels? And that Nathaniel will see these things as Nathaniel himself is ascending and descending to the son of man? Is Jesus not telling Nathaniel that a disciple will join in the work of God’s own Light? Jesus is the work and word and thought of God. To become a disciple is to become the thought and work of God…it is to become light. This means that our work in Jesus is eternal. If we are to follow his way, we should follow completely. Jesus is telling Nathaniel that he will become part of the flowing thoughts and ideas of God that come out from Heaven and fall onto the children on Earth by means of divine light. The disciple becomes like the seed being sown and the fruit being reaped all at once. Time and space hold no sway over the disciple and Heaven is opened to him. In a later edition we will look at the parable of the Good Shepherd (Ch. 10) and Jesus will confirm what I have just now preached to you. For now I invite you to ponder this idea and discover its value for your spiritual journey.

So ends the first chapter of the Gospel According to John. Now I hope that even the title as refers to “John” will give you a deeper understanding of the meaning of the text. If “John” is the stage of development before the Jesus, what comes next? What will the Gospel look like for those who are in light? It’s something to ponder as we continue this path.