Contains over 20,000 high-quality notes and explanations covering virtually the entire spectrum of Scripture. Particular attention is paid to the interpretation of difficult passages of the Bible. The Study Bible with Commentary by John MacArthur is a unique work that brings together Dr. MacArthur's 30 years of study of the Holy Scriptures.
This translation of the Bible marked a special page in the history of the approach of Russian-speaking people to the “verbs of eternal life” set forth in the Word of God. It is this text that is used in the Russian edition of the study Bible with MacArthur’s commentary. It contains many corrections to the text of the study Bible with comments by B. Getse, as well as corrections to the text of the Bible published by the missionary union “Light in the East”. In the above-mentioned editions of the Russian Bible, many inaccuracies and mechanical errors made in its first editions have been eliminated.
The Synodal translation is one of the best and most accurate, but it contains many words and phrases borrowed from other languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - and, as a rule, difficult to understand for the modern reader. These words and expressions have been replaced by exact equivalents or explained by notes in the cross-reference column. Many Old Church Slavonic words, which had become archaic since the first edition of the Synodal Translation, have also been replaced.
The study Bible's distinctive design is designed to enhance understanding and encourage serious reflection on the Scriptures.
- Topical headings help readers easily navigate the Bible by topic or major storyline.
- Verse numbers are in an easy to read font
- Italic words or phrases that are not in the original and added by Bible translators for clarity and coherence of speech are typed
- Oblique Quotes from the Old Testament are highlighted in the New Testament font
- Prose is organized into paragraphs, displaying the structure of the text
- Poetry is framed as a poetic text, reflecting the poetic form and beauty of the verse in the original language
- Direct speech is placed in quotation marks for greater clarity and emphasis
- Punctuation marks are placed in accordance with the general set of punctuation rules of the modern Russian language, as far as this was possible due to the outdated sentence structure and vocabulary of the Synodal Text of the Bible
Created: 12/28/2017, 3519 6
“Say not, We have found wisdom: God will refute it, and not man” (Job 32:13)
The history of Christianity knows many wonderful theologians who brought the Word of God to people, pointing out the path of salvation to millions of people. Modern Christianity has a number of well-known names of theologians who, in one way or another, have influenced the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world. One such modern theologian who has had some influence on Christians around the world is John Fullerton MacArthur, Jr. Briefly, we can say about him that he is an American preacher, pastor of the non-denominational Grace Community Church, in Sun Valley, California. MacArthur is the author of more than 150 Christian books, where the most published work was the Study Bible, which sold more than a million copies. It is interesting that some sources of information call John MacArthur a Baptist pastor and preacher, although in reality he is the pastor of a church that does not identify itself with any of the denominations. Apparently the similarity with the Baptists, in the form and process of ministry in the Grace Community Church, led to such conclusions. However, in the process of reviewing the theology of John MacArthur, not only Baptist doctrines, but also Calvinist and even Seventh-day Adventist doctrines immediately catch the eye. Also, books by John MacArthur can be seen in the libraries of different denominations, and not just those of Baptists. Although it should be mentioned that MacArthur is an opponent of the charismatic movement, especially their teaching about modern prophets.
It is noteworthy that the works of John MacArthur have an influence in churches not only in the United States, but also in the countries of the former USSR, where his Study Bible, containing short commentaries and explanations of Biblical texts, stands apart. The Study Bible contains an excerpt from the multi-volume edition of MacArthur's commentary on the Books of the Bible. To be fair, the MacArthur Study Bible has a lot of good information, especially regarding the historical background of the Bible events. But at the same time, dogma is riddled with statements that contradict not only the Biblical context, but even themselves. Here we will look at some of the controversial dogmatic statements of John MacArthur that found their way into the pages of the Study Bible, and begin our analysis with simpler statements.
Some Biblical texts are missing from the main manuscripts. The MacArthur Study Bible is a modern English translation of the Bible with condensed commentary by John MacArthur. As is known, modern translations of the Bible, in part of the New Testament, are a translation of the Greek text from the critical edition of Nestle-Aland. This edition omits a number of Biblical texts that are found in all Reformation Bibles. Here we will not consider in detail the features of critical texts, but you can read about them in our articles: “Correct Translation of the Bible”, “Gnosticism in the Critical Texts of the New Testament”, “False Guidelines in Bruce Metzger’s Book - “Textology of the New Testament”, and “ Bible. The fight of the Catholic Church against the Reformation through the hands of the Protestants and reformers themselves." It is interesting that in the Russian version of the MacArthur Study Bible, the Synodal translation is used, where there are missing texts, and the reader in the comments to these verses sees the following inscription: “this verse is missing in the most common manuscripts.” For example, this can be found in the comments on Matthew 17:21, Matthew 23:14, Acts 8:37, and so on. In addition, in modern translations there are a number of changed verses that have a completely different meaning than in the Bibles of the Reformation, for example, Matthew 23:14 in the King James Version looks like this: “And he said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.”. However, in the modern translations that form the basis of the MacArthur Study Bible, the text appears differently: “And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (New American Standard Bible). Here the underlined text translated into Russian reads “why do you ask Me about good?”, and the focus is shifted from the person of Jesus Christ to “good” or “the common good,” which is the basic question of Greek philosophy. It is interesting that, commenting on such a text, MacArthur writes: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” Jesus did not deny His nature as God; He only told the young man that everyone except God is a sinner." (MacArthur Study Bible). And here we see the confusion when MacArthur refuses to see words about goodness in the text of the modern translation, and comments on the text contained in the King James translation about the person of Jesus Christ. This leaves the reader wondering why MacArthur quotes words that are not recorded in the modern translation, which is this moment does the reader see? The same situation applies to Matthew 17:21, Matthew 23:14, and Acts 8:37. It is MacArthur's gross inconsistency and careless handling of the Bible that raises many questions for the reader. As for the Russian version of the MacArthur Study Bible, the whole problem here is that the Synodal translation was made the base translation for MacArthur’s commentaries, which contradicts the modern translation that MacArthur read and commented on.
Septaugint. Continuing the theme of Biblical texts, it must be said that John MacArthur believes that the Apostles read and quoted the Septuagint - the Greek text of the Old Testament. He believes that the Septuagint texts were around in the pre-Christian period, and were used by Greek-speaking Jews. This was reflected in MacArthur's comments, for example, we read in the Bible: “Behold, the virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, which means, God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Commenting on this text, MacArthur says: "Virgin" - Theologians sometimes debate whether the Hebrew term in Isa. 7:14 “virgin” or “girl”. Matthew quotes here from the Septuagint, which uses an unambiguous interpretation of the Greek term for "virgin" (MacArthur Study Bible). Let's think about why it was necessary for Matthew, who was a Jew living in Israel, where they spoke mainly Hebrew and Aramaic, and also read Scripture in Hebrew, to suddenly begin quoting a text from the Greek Septuagint? Unfortunately, MacArthur does not answer this question. Moreover, he goes even further in his fantasies in his commentary on Matthew 24:3, which says: “When He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him alone and asked: Tell us, when will this be? And what is the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). Here MacArthur says: “When they asked about His coming (Greek: parousia, lit. “presence”), they did not realize that the Second Coming would be in the distant future. They spoke of His triumphant coming as the Messiah as an event which they had no doubt would happen very soon. Even if they were aware of His approaching death, which He clearly and repeatedly prophesied (see explanation at 20:19), they did not anticipate His Ascension and the long period of the church. However, He used the word parousia in His sermon, but He used it in a special sense as a reference to His Second Coming" (MacArthur Study Bible). In this commentary, MacArthur comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ, speaking to his disciples in Hebrew, suddenly uses the Greek word “parousia,” ignoring that the Gospel of Matthew was written after the ascension of Christ and was a translation of His words into Greek, and Jesus himself did not speak Greek to the students. That is, not only the Apostles quoted the Greek text of the Old Testament, but Christ himself began to use Greek words. Unfortunately, such stupidity has spread in millions of copies. In fact, the text that today is called the Septuagint did not exist at the time of the Apostles, and came into being already in the Christian period, as can be read in our article “Septuagint - what is it?” .
There is an opinion that it is quite possible that Jews in the 1st century spoke official languages Roman Empire, and since the time of the Babylonian captivity, Jews stopped speaking their native language. As a result, their native language was Aramaic. The answer to this opinion can be found in the text of the New Testament itself, which describes cases when the Hebrew language was in use among the Jews. So, let's look at the text that talks about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ: "Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was not far from the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Roman" (John 19:20). Here we see that on the “guilt” tablet of Jesus Christ there was an inscription in three languages, one of which was Hebrew. If the Jews had lost the Hebrew language and did not speak it, then why write the inscription in this language? Another important fact about the use of the Hebrew language was the communication of the Jews themselves in it, which can be seen below:
- “When he gave permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, gave a sign with his hand to the people; and when there was deep silence, he began to speak in Hebrew so" (Acts of the Apostles 21:40);
- "When they heard that he spoke to them in Hebrew, they calmed down even more. He said" (Acts 22:2);
- "We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice telling me in Hebrew: Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting Me? It is difficult for you to go against the pricks" (Acts of the Apostles 26:14).
In these texts we see that the Apostle Paul addressed to the Jewish people precisely in the Hebrew language, and they listened to it and understood it. Likewise, Jesus Christ, when he first appeared to Paul, also addressed him in Hebrew. These cases indicate that during the life of the Apostles, the Hebrew language was widespread among the Jews, and they spoke it quite well. This does not in any way negate the fact that the Aramaic language was also in use among the Jews, just like the fact that they could know the Greek language. However, we do not find in the Bible any cases where the Apostles spoke to the Jews in Greek. This situation confounds MacArthur's claim that Jesus Christ spoke to the Apostles in Greek and specifically used certain Greek words.
In addition, the Holy Scriptures were preserved among the Jews in the Hebrew language, as evidenced by the archaeological excavations of the Scrolls Dead Sea where found a large number of manuscripts from the period I-II centuries. Here, the largest number of Scripture texts are found in Hebrew, which eliminates the idea that the Jews of the 1st century did not use Scripture in Hebrew.
All of the above shows that MacArthur, in trying to show that Christ spoke Greek to the Apostles, made a failed attempt to make one believe that the first century Jews used the Greek Septuagint as their Holy Scripture.
Foundation of Judaism. Sometimes you can find some pretty strange words in John MacArthur's Bible Commentaries. One of these moments is the commentary on the following text: “Even so we also, while we were children, were enslaved to the material things of the world” (Galatians 4:3). Explaining the words of the Apostle Paul about the Law, MacArthur says the following: “The word “beginning” comes from the Greek. term meaning "row" or "step". They denoted fundamental things, for example, letters of the alphabet. In light of its application in Art. 9, the word here is best taken as a reference to the essential elements and rituals of human religion (see note on Col. 2:8). Paul describes the Jewish and pagan religions as merely human, never reaching God's level. Both Jewish and pagan religions are based on a man-made system of affairs. They are full of rites and ceremonies necessary to be performed in order to achieve God's favor. All these external elements carry with them immaturity, as is the case with children who are subject to their guardians." (MacArthur Study Bible). From this we see that MacArthur claims that the Jewish religion, that is, Judaism, contains human rituals at its core. After all, we know that the basis of Judaism is the Law given by God through Moses, and the rituals that exist in Judaism are given by God. But MacArthur sees that the rituals in Judaism are human, which is inconsistent with the context of the Bible and contradicts it. Perhaps MacArthur means by Judaism Pharisaism, which has survived to this day and occupies a dominant position in Jewish society. If you look at Pharisaism from this point of view, then indeed it contains a huge number of human rituals that are not written in the Law, but it is not the only representative of Judaism. For example, there are other movements in modern Judaism, such as Hasidism, Litvaks, Karaites, and so on. Particularly interesting are the Karaites, who do not recognize any teachings or books other than the Tanakh - the books of the Old Testament. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that Judaism is based on human commandments, because in reality it is based on the Torah - the Pentateuch of Moses, which represents the words of God, not man, including in terms of rituals.
Demons in the dungeon. The strange statements of John MacArthur did not end with the question of Judaism, and one can see in him a rather exotic commentary on the following Biblical text: “For Christ also, in order to bring us to God, once suffered for our sins, the righteous for the unjust, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient to God’s long-suffering which awaited them, in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by the water" (1 Peter 3:18-20). Regarding this text, MacArthur says the following: "in prison to the spirits" Refers to fallen angels (demons) who are forever bound in chains due to their great wickedness. Demons who are not yet in hell resist such a sentence (cf. Luke 8:31). Ultimately, they will all be cast into the lake of fire forever (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10). preached Between the death of Christ and the resurrection, His Spirit descended to the demons who were in the underworld, and preached there that, despite His death, He had gained victory over them (see notes on Col. 2:14,15). rebellious... in the days of Noah, Peter further explains that the underworld is inhabited by demons who have been there since the time of Noah and who got there because their rebellion overwhelmed God's forbearance. In the days of Noah, demons rebelled on earth, filled the world with their wickedness, meanness, deeds contrary to God, including sexual sins, so that even 120 years of Noah’s preaching while the ark was being built could not convince anyone to believe God, except 8 people from Noah's Family" (MacArthur Study Bible). That is, he claims that Christ descended to the demons in prison to preach to them His victory over them, and not to the spirits of people who died during the flood. This view is also held by Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, where the latter put it this way: “According to the apostle Peter, these spirits were “once disobedient when in the days of Noah God waited patiently” (1 Pet. 3:20). Undoubtedly, Peter was referring to spiritual creatures who decided to join Satan's rebellion. Jude mentions the angels “who did not retain their original position, but left their proper habitation,” and says that God “reserves [them] in everlasting chains under the cover of impenetrable darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6)... Probably through what Some time after his resurrection, Jesus announced to the evil spirits that they would receive an absolutely deserved punishment. Such preaching gave them no hope. It was a sermon of condemnation (Jonah 1:1, 2). Because Jesus demonstrated faith and devotion to the point of death and was then resurrected (which proved that the Devil had no power over him), Jesus had reason to declare such a guilty verdict." (The Watchtower, 6/15/2013, pp. 22-23). But such an interpretation of the text leads to a number of questions, namely: if demons on earth forced people to sin in the time of Noah, then why are some of them in prison, and some are free today, what is the difference between them? This text says “waiting for the long-suffering of God,” which means that God waited and endured for a long time. What was God waiting for? Repentance? Since MacArthur believes in the immortality of the soul, another question arises: where are the people who were in the time of Noah, and why did he decide that they were demons and not people from the time of the flood? In general, such an interpretation of this text leads to even more questions than answers received.
About the oath. Quite interestingly, MacArthur imagines the pronouncing of oaths, in the light of the New Testament, for example, let's look at the words of Jesus Christ: “But I say to you: do not swear at all: neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King; nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your word be: Yes, yes; no, no; and anything more than this is from the evil one" (Matthew 5:34-37). Reading this text, we can see the attitude of Jesus Christ to the oath, but MacArthur sees these words of Christ in his own way, where he says the following: “Do not swear at all.” Compare James 5:12. This passage should not be taken as a condemnation of an oath in all circumstances. God Himself sealed His promise with an oath (Heb. 6:13-18; cf. Acts 2:30 Christ Himself spoke under oath (26:63, 64). Under certain circumstances, the law permits oaths (e.g., Num. 5:19, 21; 30:2, 3)" (MacArthur Study Bible). In that small text John MacArthur made some serious statements that need to be examined in more detail.
First, he claims that Christ spoke under oath, citing Matthew 26:63-64, which reads: "Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to Him: I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are you the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus said to him: You have spoken; even I say to you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven" ( Matthew 26:63-64). MacArthur understands this text as follows: "I adjure." See the explanation of 5:34. Caiaphas tried to break Jesus' silence (v. 62). The oath was to legally force Him to answer. Jesus' answer (v. 64) suggests that He accepted the oath" (Study Bible MacArthur). That is, he argues that the words “I adjure you” mean bringing someone to an oath, and the fact that Christ did not remain silent meant that He accepted the oath. The word “conjure,” according to the Dictionaries of Ushakov and Ozhegov, does not mean an oath, but a request or prayer in the name of something holy. That is, when the high priest said these words, he expressed a prayer in the name of God that Christ would say whether He is the Son of God. This understanding of the curse is also present in other texts of the New Testament, for example, Mark 5:27 speaks of an evil spirit who said to Jesus Christ: “I adjure You by God, do not torment me!” Did the evil spirit really lead to the curse of Christ? It is impossible to take someone to an oath or oath without the consent of the other party and the recitation of the text of the oath. But Christ did not take an oath, and the fact that He answered the high priest did not mean at all that he accepted the oath; this is simply not in the text of the Bible.
Second, MacArthur argues that Matthew 5:34 is not about renouncing an oath and suggests a comparison with James 5:12, which says: “Above all, my brethren, do not swear by heaven or earth, no other oath But let it be with you: “Yes, yes” and “No, no,” so that you do not fall into condemnation" (Epistle of the Apostle James 5:12). However, this text says the words “by no other oath,” which includes any oath. In fact, this text does not leave any possible option for an oath, but completely prohibits any form of oath.
Based on MacArthur’s words, it is clear that he proposes not to notice in the New Testament the complete exclusion of the oath from the life of a Christian, and does not want to understand the words of Christ and the Apostles directly, as they are written.
Law. A characteristic feature of MacArthur, as a pastor of a non-denominational church, is the acceptance of certain dogmas from various denominations. One such teaching is the view of the Law that was given to Moses and its place in the Christian life, as John MacArthur says: “Between Jew and Gentile stood the greatest barrier in the form of the ceremonial law - the Law of Commandments. Christ abolished festivals, sacrifices, assemblies, laws, purifications and sanctifications, and all the commandments that distinguished Israel, which constituted its unique characteristics. But God did not abolish His moral law, as the word of teaching indicates. His moral law reflects His holy essence and is therefore never subject to change (cf. Matt. 5:17-19). This law was expressed in the Ten Commandments given to the Jews, and written in all human hearts" (John MacArthur, Commentary of the Books of the New Testament, Ephesians, Chapter 7 - "Unity of the Body - Church") . These words clearly show the teaching of Seventh-day Adventists about the division of the Law into ceremonial and moral, and that Christ abolished the ceremonial law and left the moral one. It is this idea that MacArthur repeats exactly, which is reflected in the interpretation of many other texts of the Bible, for example, in the following Bible text:“but to false brethren who crept in, secretly coming to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage” (Galatians 2:4) . Commenting on this text, MacArthur sees the following in it: « freedom" - Christians are free from the law as a means of salvation, from its outward rites and regulations as a way of life, and from the curse for disobedience to the law - the curse that Christ bore for all who believe (3:13)" (MacArthur Study Bible) . Here we see the statement that Christians are not saved by the law, where MacArthur implies external rites and lifestyle regulations. But here the question arises, what is meant by lifestyle regulations? If this means the moral norms of the Law, then MacArthur contradicts himself, because in the interpretation discussed earlier, he claims that the moral Law remains. But what is important here is not even this, but the fact that in the Bible there is no division of the Law into ceremonial and moral, and this division was invented by people. The law contains commandments that are difficult to classify as ceremonial or moral law, for example, the decree against eating blood. Which part of the Law does this apply to? If it’s moral, then by what criteria can we determine that this is a moral law, since this commandment is not in the Ten Commandments? If it’s ceremonial, then it turns out that Christ freed from all ceremonial commandments, but the Apostles, according to the book of Acts 15:29, forbade the consumption of blood as food, which means they renewed the commandment that Christ had abolished? There are many such commandments, and supporters of dividing the Law create difficulties for themselves. As already mentioned, this idea was taken from the Adventists, and supported by MacArthur. Another theologian, William MacDonald, spoke well about this view of the division of the Law, where he says:“Sabbath prophets usually begin by preaching salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. They use favorite gospel hymns to entice the ignorant and seem to place great emphasis on Scripture. But they soon subject their followers to the law of Moses, especially emphasizing the commandment of the Sabbath (Saturday is the seventh day). How dare they do this in light of Paul's clear teaching that the Christian is dead to the law? How can they get around what is clearly stated in Galatians? The answer is that they distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law is the Ten Commandments. The ceremonial law is other regulations given by God, such as rules regarding unclean food, leprosy, offerings to God, etc. The moral law, they say, has never been abolished. It is an expression of God's eternal truth. To engage in idolatry, commit murder, or commit adultery will always be against the law of God. However, Christ put an end to the ceremonial law. Therefore, they conclude, when Paul teaches that the Christian is dead to the law, he is talking about the ceremonial law, not the Ten Commandments... Paul does not distinguish between the moral and ceremonial laws. He rather insists that the law is one whole, and that cursed are those who try to achieve righteousness through it, and at the same time fail to fulfill it completely" (William MacDonald, Commentary on Galatians, chapter 6) .
The division of the Law into moral and ceremonial leads John MacArthur to misinterpret some other important passages of the Bible, for example, we read the text of the Apostle Paul about the New Testament: “By saying “new,” he showed the oldness of the first; but the things that grow old and grow old are about to be destroyed” (Hebrews 8:13). Following Adventist views, MacArthur comes to the following interpretation: "close to destruction." Shortly after the writing of Hebrews, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the worship of the Levites ended" (MacArthur Study Bible). With these words, MacArthur shows that the end of the Levitical ministry marked the destruction of the first covenant, but the Levitical ministry was not the whole essence of the covenant and the Law, but only a part. By this, MacArthur is trying to imagine that by the old covenant the Apostle Paul means the ceremonial law. In reality, Paul is speaking about the covenant as a whole, and there is no division in Paul's words. This division is a manipulation of facts, which is not reflected in the text in any way.
Commandments of Jesus Christ. John MacArthur accepted Adventist dogma not only regarding the division of the Law into ceremonial and moral, but also the view of the commandments of Jesus Christ. In order to understand what this position is, let's look at the words of Jesus Christ: “You have heard what was said to the ancients: do not kill; whoever kills will be subject to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to judgment; whoever says to his brother: “raqa” will be subject to the Sanhedrin; He will say, “You fool,” he will be subject to fire in hell” (Matthew 5:21-22). MacArthur's commentary on this text reveals the essence of his views on this issue, where he says the following: "Christ did not change the words of the law in any of these Scriptures. He rather corrected what they 'heard,' the rabbis' interpretation of the law" (MacArthur Study Bible). Here MacArthur argues that Christ was correcting the rabbinic interpretation and did not change anything. But in this case, the question arises: where does it say in the Old Testament, “whoever says, ‘He’s a fool,’ will be subject to fiery hell”? From this it is clear that MacArthur, like the Adventists, denies the existence of the commandments of Jesus Christ, and the fact that Christ brought a new teaching that came to replace the commandments of the Law. In light of this attitude, MacArthur's view of the following words of Christ is very interesting: “You have heard that it was said to the ancients, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you, that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). This text contains words that were never in the Law, namely the words that he who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her. Therefore, it is impossible to say that this is an interpretation of the Law, especially when these words are preceded by the phrase “but I say,” where Jesus Christ clearly shows that these are His words, and not from the Law. Because MacArthur had problems with in similar words Christ, and for this reason he does not have any comments on such texts, including no comments on the following text: “For you know the commandments which we gave you from the Lord Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 4:2). This is an extremely inconvenient text that directly points to the existence of the commandments of Jesus Christ, but to which MacArthur, like the Adventists, turned a blind eye.
This attitude towards the commandments of Christ, or rather the reluctance to acknowledge their existence, leads MacArthur to contradict himself. To see this contradiction, read the text: “His disciples said to Him: If this is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Looking at John MacArthur's interpretation of this text, it seems that he has forgotten a little about his attitude towards the commandments of Christ, and says the following: “The disciples correctly understood the obligations of marriage and that Jesus set a very high standard by allowing divorce only as a last resort.” (MacArthur Study Bible). Here MacArthur unexpectedly says that Jesus set the standard, that is, He gave some decrees from Himself. Moreover, MacArthur says that Jesus even allowed divorce in a special case, that is, again Christ gave permission from Himself. Such a statement in no way fits the words that Christ did not change anything, but only interpreted. And here is a question for MacArthur and his supporters: did Jesus Christ change something, or did he just clarify the Law? This is an obvious contradiction, where, on the one hand, Christ did not change anything in the matter of observing the Law, but on the other hand, He made His regulations.
Election and Predestination. The central tenet of John MacArthur is the Calvinist doctrine of God's predestination of people for salvation. For such statements, the basic text of the Bible is usually the following: “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). MacArthur says the following about understanding predestination: “foreknew” - Not just an indication of God’s omniscience - that in distant eternity He knew who would come to Christ. Rather, it speaks of the choice of those whom His love will touch and with whom He will establish a relationship of kinship, that is, His election (cf. Acts 2:23, where the inviolable rule of Greek grammar indicates the relationship between "predestination" and “foreknowledge”, see notes on 1 Peter 1, 2 and cf. 1:20 - this word should be translated the same in both verses). See explanation of election in 9:10-24. "predestined" - Literally, "set apart, appointed, or determined in advance." Those whom God chooses, he designates to be ultimately like His Son (see notes on Eph. 1:4, 5, 11)” (MacArthur Study Bible). In this explanation we see that MacArthur understands foreknowledge and predestination as the “destination in advance” of those who will be saved. This means that God has determined in advance who will be saved and who will not, and nothing can change this situation. This understanding leads him to contradictory understandings of other texts of the Bible, where he contradicts not only the context of the Bible, but also himself. An example of this can be seen in the interpretation of the following Biblical text: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:27 -28). MacArthur explains this text as follows: “This scripture reflects the first beatitude (5:3). Notice that this open invitation, addressed to all who will hear, is worded in such a way that only those who recognize their spiritual poverty and who are frustrated in trying to be saved by the law will respond to this invitation. The stubbornness of people is such that without a God-sent spiritual awakening, all sinners refuse to realize the full depth of their spiritual poverty. Therefore, as Jesus says in v. 27, our salvation is the result of God's influence. The truth of God's election in v. 27 is not inconsistent with the free offer of salvation to all in v. 28-30" (MacArthur Study Bible). In this interpretation one can see a clear contradiction to itself, where on the one hand it is said that God openly invites all people to himself, but at the same time, for some of these people he does not give spiritual awakening, and therefore they refuse to realize their spiritual poverty. In other words, the responsibility for rejecting God's grace lies not with man, but with God. The chosen one is the one who was appointed initially before its creation, but MacArthur says that this does not contradict the free offer of salvation. But the problem is that “purpose” and “freedom” are concepts that are not compatible from the beginning. That is, he says that on the one hand God appoints those saved in advance, and on the other hand there is freedom of choice to accept salvation or not, which is completely incompatible. This is an attempt to combine two opposing concepts, which also leads to a contradiction in the context of the Bible.
An attempt to reconcile incompatible concepts leads MacArthur to very unusual understandings of other texts of the Bible, for example those that deal with the punishment of sinners. To see an example of this understanding, read the following Bible text: “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14). Now let's see what MacArthur says regarding this text: "perished - this word can (and in this context does) mean spiritual death rather than eternal destruction. But this does not imply that God's children will die at all (cf. John 10:28)" (MacArthur Study Bible). Here MacArthur says that the word "perished" means a spiritually dead person, although the context of this verse is about salvation. We read a few verses above: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11). This text says that Christ came to save people who are lost, that is, in a position where they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, destruction in verse 14 does not mean spiritual death, but eternal destruction, because one who is already spiritually dead cannot die spiritually.
Some of MacArthur’s statements raise a lot of questions, especially against the backdrop of his understanding of predestination, for example, we read two texts:
1). “And then many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another” (Matthew 24:10). In the MacArthur Study Bible, the following interpretation can be found: “many will be tempted. Literally, “they will be made to stumble,” “they will be led astray.” In other words, professed believers will fall away and even turn against each other, shockingly with their spiritual betrayal. The falling away of such people from the church will be testify that they were never true believers at all" (MacArthur Study Bible). Here we see the statement that if a person was a member of the church, but fell away, then he was never a believer, that is, it excludes the possibility that a true believer can fall away from the church. In other words, we can say that a person who fell away from the church was never saved.
2). “But if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you as a heathen and a publican” (Matthew 18:17). MacArthur sees the meaning of this text as follows: “The point is not simply to punish the sinner or to shun him completely, but to remove him from the fellowship of the church as a harmful influence, and henceforth to treat him not as a brother, but as a object of evangelism" (MacArthur Study Bible). Here we see that he believes that a person removed from church society is an object of evangelization, that is, like an unbeliever who is again called to repentance. This point raises a number of questions: why evangelize someone if God has already determined in advance who will be saved? If a person who has fallen away from the church has never been a believer and saved, then he has not been destined for salvation, then why evangelize him?
In the interpretation of these two texts, MacArthur contradicts himself, where on the one hand the principle, if he fell away from the church, then he was never saved by the predestined God, and on the other hand, it needs to be evangelized, but it is not clear why, since the doctrine of predestination shows that nothing can help such a person.
It is interesting that the doctrine of predestination of some people for salvation and others for destruction does not come from Calvinists, but was formed long ago in Islam. In essence, the doctrine of predestination corresponds to the words of the Koran, where the following words are said:
- “We created many genies and people for Gehenna. They have hearts that do not understand, and eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear. They are like cattle, but they are even more lost. They are the careless ignoramuses" (Qur'an 7:179);
- “...So Allah leads astray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills” (Quran 74:31).
The doctrine of predestination is very consistent with the Koran, because it turns out that God determined some people for salvation, which means that other people were originally determined for eternal destruction, which leads to the idea that they were originally created for this. Therefore, we can say that this is not only a Calvinist teaching, but also a Muslim one, which appeared earlier than Calvinism.
In fact, Romans 8 is not talking about the predestination from the beginning of the world of some people to salvation, which is not in the text, but it is talking about the dignity and hope of Christians, and that God has predestined Christians to be conformed to the image of His Son, about than we read in the text again: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. And whom He predestined, them He also called, and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified” (Epistle Romans 8:29-30). From the text we see that God made a predestination to be conformed to the image of Christ to those people whom He foreknew. The word "foreknow", according to explanatory dictionaries Ushakov and Efremova, it means “to know in advance.” That is, God predestined those whom He knew in advance to respond to His call. In other words, God’s knowledge of the future in advance comes first, and only then the predestination of already saved people so that they are similar to the image of Christ. MacArthur, on the contrary, says: “it is rather about choosing those whom His love will touch.” Let us emphasize once again that we're talking about about the predestination "to be conformed to the image of Christ" for already saved Christians, and not the predestination for the salvation of a certain number of people. This text of the Bible does not speak at all about saved and unsaved people, and the predestination of someone to destruction; all this is not in the text. The text itself clearly emphasizes God's attitude towards people who respond to His call and describes the honor for the saved person. John MacArthur, like the Calvinists, did not see the purpose of predestination and what a group of predestined people represented.
Forgiveness. A large number of contradictory statements by John MacArthur led him to a natural result - a contradictory understanding of the forgiveness of sins and salvation. To see what MacArthur thinks about forgiveness, let's look at the following Bible text, where Christ says the following about forgiveness: “But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:15). Let's see what MacArthur's understanding of this text is: “It is not intended here that God will leave without justification those who have already received the forgiveness which He gives to all who believe. Forgiveness as permanent and complete liberation from guilt and negative consequences sin belongs to all who are in Christ (cf. John 5:24; Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:7). Additionally, Scripture tells us that God punishes those who disobey Him (Heb. 12:5-7). Believers must confess their sins to be cleansed from sin daily (1 John 1:9). This kind of forgiveness is a simple cleansing from worldly corruption by sin; he does not repeat the cleansing from sin that is given to us with justification. It is comparable to washing feet instead of taking a bath (cf. John 13:10). This is the kind of forgiveness God denies to Christians who do not forgive others.” (MacArthur Study Bible). With a non-Biblical position on predestination, MacArthur naturally falls into a trap when it comes to forgiveness and unforgiveness. After all, it is difficult to combine predestination with the unforgiveness of people who already believe, and therefore MacArthur made, in essence, the statement that a person not forgiven by God has salvation. Such a statement directly contradicts the context of the Bible, because in the Bible forgiveness and atonement are integral to each other, for example, we read: “In whom we have redemption through His blood, and the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14). If God does not forgive a person’s sin, then MacArthur says that the sinner can enter the Kingdom of God, but the Apostle Peter asks John MacArthur a question: “And if the righteous are barely saved, where will the wicked and sinful appear?” (1 Peter 4:18). Of course, MacArthur has already given his answer to this question, but it does not correspond to the Biblical teaching, because according to the Bible, nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of God, as it is written: “And nothing unclean will enter into it, nor anyone who practices abomination and lies, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:27). A person whose sin cannot be forgiven is unclean and sinful, and such people cannot be in the Kingdom of God, no matter how much MacArthur would like it.
Conclusion. Although the MacArthur Study Bible contains a lot of useful information, the dogmatic part of it is sometimes contradictory and does not correspond to the biblical text. John MacArthur, being a non-denominational pastor of the church, made a synthesis of various teachings from different Christian denominations, which was reflected in his commentaries on the Bible. Therefore, the MacArthur Study Bible is a distinctive and controversial collection of biblical interpretations.
Name
The title of the fourth Gospel follows the pattern of the other Gospels. It was first called “According to John,” and the word “Gospel,” as in other books, was added later.
Although the Gospel does not name the author, the early church strongly and unanimously names the Apostle John as the author. The early church father Irenaeus (c. 130-200 AD) was a disciple of Polycarp (c. 70-160 AD), who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus argued, based on the authority of Polycarp, that John wrote the Gospel in his old age, when he lived in Ephesus, in Asia Minor (“Against Heresies,” 2.22.5; 3.1.1). All the church fathers after Irenaeus considered John the author of this Gospel. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD) wrote that John, who knew the facts set forth in the other Gospels and was moved by the Holy Spirit, composed the “holy gospel” (see Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.14.7 ).
The essential distinctive features of the Gospel confirm the tradition of the early church. While the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) call the Apostle John by name approximately 20 times (including analogies), he is not directly mentioned in the Gospel of John. On the contrary, the author prefers to call himself the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). The absence of any direct mention of John's name is notable when considering the important role played by the other named disciples in the Gospel. However, John's repeated identification of himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved," that is, John's deliberate reluctance to give his name, reflects his modesty and shows his attitude towards his Lord Jesus. There was no need to mention his name, since his original readers knew definitely that he was the author of the Gospel. Also, analyzing mainly the material in chapters 20, 21, through the method of elimination, we come to the conclusion that this disciple “whom Jesus loved” is the Apostle John (for example, 21:24; cf. 21:2) . Since the author of the Gospel is precise in mentioning the names of other characters in the book, if the author had been someone other than the Apostle John, he would not have omitted the name of John.
The anonymity of the Gospel greatly strengthens the argument for John's authorship, because only a man of well-known and eminent apostolic authority could have written a Gospel so vastly different in form and content from the other Gospels, and receiving the unanimous approval of the early church. Conversely, the apocryphal gospels, which were written from the mid-second century and falsely attributed to the apostles or others famous personalities who had close contact with Jesus, were, however, with universal approval, rejected by the church.
John and James, his older brother (Acts 12:2), were known as the “sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 10:2-4), and Jesus called them “the sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). John was an apostle (Luke 6:12-16) and one of Jesus' three closest friends (along with Peter and James - cf. Matt. 17:1; 26:37), as well as a witness and participant in Jesus' early ministry (1 John 1:1-4). After the Ascension of Christ, John became a “pillar” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). He ministered with Peter (Acts 3:1; 4:13; 8:14) until he went to Ephesus (tradition says this was before the destruction of Jerusalem), where he wrote his Gospel and from where the Romans exiled him to Patmos (Rev. 1:9). In addition to the Gospel that bears his name, John also wrote three epistles and the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1).
Since the writings of some church fathers indicate that John was actively writing in his old age and that he was already familiar with the Synoptic Gospels, many date this Gospel to a time shortly after their writing but before the time of John's epistles and Revelation. John wrote his Gospel ca. 80-90 A.D., about 50 years after he witnessed Jesus' earthly ministry.
Historical background and background to writing
A strategically important fact for understanding the prerequisites for writing the Gospel of John in environment is that, according to tradition, John knew the Synoptic Gospels. Obviously, he wrote his Gospel in order to make a special contribution to the written record of the life of the Lord (the “spiritual Gospel”) and, in part, to complement the narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Characteristic features of the Gospel confirm this purpose:
1. John provided a large amount of unique material not recorded in the other Gospels.
2. He often provides information that helps to better understand the events described in the Synoptic Gospels. For example, although they begin the narrative with Jesus' ministry in Galilee, they assume that Jesus had a ministry before that (eg, Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14). John answers this by describing Jesus' previous ministry in Judea (chapter 3) and Samaria (chapter 4). In Mk. 6:45, after feeding the 5 thousand, Jesus encouraged his disciples to cross the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida. John wrote down the reason. People were ready to make Jesus king because He miraculously increased the food, and He evaded their crafty efforts (6:26).
3. The Gospel of John is the most theological of the Gospels, containing, for example, a deep theological prologue (1:1-18), more teaching material and conversation than narrative material (for example, 3:13-17), and the greatest volume of teaching about the Holy Spirit (for example, 14:16, 17, 26; 16:7-14). Although John was familiar with the Synoptic Gospels and gave his Gospel their form, in spirit he was independent of their information. Rather, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he used his own eyewitness memories to compile this gospel (1:14; 19:35; 21:24).
The Gospel of John is the only Gospel of the four that contains a specific statement about the author's purpose in writing (20:30, 31). He states that “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). Thus, the main purpose is twofold: evangelistic and apologetic. The fact that the word “believe” appears approximately 100 times in this Gospel (the Synoptic Gospels use the word less than half) confirms the evangelistic purpose. John wrote his gospel to provide his readers with a basis for saving faith and, as a result, to assure them that they would receive God's gift of eternal life (1:12).
The apologetic purpose is closely related to the evangelistic purpose. John wrote to convince his readers of the authenticity of Jesus as the incarnate God-man, whose divine and human natures were perfectly united in one Person and who was the prophesied Christ (“Messiah”) and Savior of the whole world (e.g. 1:41; 3 :16; 4:25, 26; 8:58). He builds the entire Gospel around 8 “miracles” or evidence that prove the true Person of Jesus leading to faith. The first half of his work centers around seven supernatural signs chosen to reveal the Person of Christ and awaken faith: 1) the turning of water into wine (2:1-11); 2) healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54); 3) healing of the paralytic (5:1-18); 4) feeding the multitude (6:1-15); 5) walking on water (6:16-21); 6) healing of the blind (9:1-41); 7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-57); 8) a miraculous catch of fish (21:6-11) after the Resurrection of Christ.
According to the evangelistic and apologetic purposes of John's Gospel, the overarching essence of the Gospel is found in 20:31 - "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Therefore, the book focuses on the person and work of Christ. The three dominant words (“miracles,” “believe,” and “life”) in 20:30, 31 are constantly given new emphasis throughout the Gospel to reinforce the theme of salvation in Him, which is first set forth in the prologue (1:1–18; cf. 1 John 1:1-4) and then different ways again reflected throughout the Gospel (e.g. 6:35, 48; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11-14; 11:25; 14:6; 17:3). In addition, John gives a description of how people responded to Jesus Christ and the salvation He offered. In summary, we can say that the gospel focuses on: 1) Jesus as the Word, Messiah and Son of God; 2) on the One who gives humanity the gift of salvation; 3) on people who accept or reject the offer.
John also presents comparative subthemes that reinforce his main point. He uses contrasts (life and death, light and darkness, love and hate, above and below) to convey vital information about the person and work of Christ and the need to believe in Him (e.g., 1:4, 5, 12, 13; 3:16‑21; 12:44‑46; 15:17‑20).
There are also 7 emphatic "I AM" statements that identify Jesus as God and Messiah (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5 ).
Problems of interpretation
Because John presented his narrative in a simple and understandable manner, there is a danger of underestimating the depth of this gospel. Because the Gospel of John is a “holy” gospel (see Author and Time of Writing), it conveys profound truths. In order to discover the vast wealth of spiritual treasures which the apostle, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (14:26; 16:13), lovingly left in his Gospel, the reader must prayerfully and carefully search the book.
Chronological calculation in the Gospel of John and in the Synoptic Gospels is difficult, especially regarding the time of the Last Supper (13:2). While the Synoptic Gospels depict the disciples and the Lord at the Last Supper, eating the Passover on Thursday evening (14th Nisan), and Jesus crucified on Friday, the Gospel of John states that the Jews did not enter the praetorium “so as not to be defiled but so that you can eat the Passover” (18:28). Consequently, the disciples ate the Passover on Thursday evening, but the Jews did not. Indeed, John (19:14) states that the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus occurred on the day of preparation for the Passover, and not after the Passover was eaten, so that by suffering and being crucified on Friday, Christ actually gave His life on the same time that the Passover lamb was sacrificed (19:14). The question arises: why did the disciples eat Passover on Thursday?
The answer is that the Jews counted the beginning and end of the day differently. It is known from Josephus, the Mishnah, and other Hebrew sources that the Jews in northern Palestine counted the days from sunrise to sunrise. This area included Galilee, where Jesus and all the disciples grew up except Judas. Apparently most, if not all, of the Pharisees used this number system. But the Jews in the southern part, of which Jerusalem was the center, counted the days from sunset to sunset. Since all priests necessarily lived in or near Jerusalem, like most of the Sadducees, they followed the southern system.
Undoubtedly, such a deviation sometimes caused misunderstandings, but it also had practical advantages. For example, during Easter, it made it possible to legally celebrate the holiday for two days in a row, thereby allowing sacrifices to be made in the temple for a total of not two, but four hours. This division of days may also have been intended to ease both regional and religious differences between the two groups.
Based on this, the apparent inconsistencies in the gospel narratives are easily explained. As Galileans, Jesus and the disciples believed that Passover began after sunrise on Thursday and ended at sunrise on Friday. The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Christ, being mostly priests and Sadducees, believed that Passover would begin on Thursday at sunset and end on Friday at sunset. By means of this difference, ordained by God's sovereign decree, Jesus could legally celebrate the last Passover supper with the disciples and yet give His life and be sacrificed on the day of Passover.
Once again, God can be seen sovereignly and wonderfully ensuring the precise execution of His plan of redemption. Jesus was Anything, but not a Victim of the insidious plans of people, and even less of a blind chance. Every word He spoke and every action He performed was guided and reliably protected by God. Even the words and actions of others against Him were controlled by God. See, for example, 11:49–52; 19:11.
Plan
I. The Incarnation of the Son of God (1:1-18)
A. His Eternal Existence (1:1, 2)
B. His actions before the incarnation (1:3-5)
B. His Forerunner (1:6‑8)
D. His rejection (1:9–11)
D. His acceptance (1:12, 13)
E. His Godly nature (1:14–18)
II. Testimonies of Jesus as the Son of God (1:19–4:54)
A. Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19–34)
1. To religious leaders (1:19–28)
2. At Christ’s baptism (1:29–34)B. Testimony to John's Disciples (1:35–51)
1. Andrew and Peter (1:35–42)
2. Philip and Nathanael (1:43–51)C. Evidence in Galilee (2:1–12)
1. First miracle: turning water into wine (2:1-10)
2. Faith of the disciples (2:11, 12)D. Testimonies in Judea (2:13–3:36)
1. Cleansing the Temple (2:13–25)
2. Teaching to Nicodemus (3:1–21)
3. Preaching of John the Baptist (3:22–36)E. Testimonies in Samaria (4:1–42)
1. Testimony to the Samaritan woman (4:1–26)
2. Testimony to the disciples (4:27–38)
3. Testimony to the people of Samaria (4:39–42)E. Evidence in Galilee (4:43–54)
1. Reception by the inhabitants of Galilee (4:43–45)
2. Second miracle: healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54)
III. Resistance to Jesus as the Son of God (5:1–12:50)
A. Resistance at the festival in Jerusalem (5:1-47)
1. Third miracle: healing of the paralytic (5:1-9)
2. Rejection by the Jews (5:10‑47)B. Resistance during the Passover (6:1–71)
1. Fourth miracle: feeding of the 5 thousand (6:1-14)
2. Fifth miracle: walking on water (6:15–21)
3. Teaching about the Bread of Life (6:22–71)C. Resistance at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1–10:21)
1. Hostility (7:1–8:59)
2. Sixth miracle (9:1–10:21)D. Resistance at the Feast of Renewal (10:22–42)
E. Resistance in Bethany (11:1–12:11)1. Seventh miracle: raising Lazarus (11:1-44)
2. The Pharisees plot to kill Christ (11:45–57)
3. Mary anoints Christ (12:1–11)E. Resistance in Jerusalem (12:12–50)
1. Grand entrance (12:12‑22)
2. Discourse on Faith and Rejection (12:23–50)
IV. Making Disciples of the Son of God (13:1–17:26)
A. In the upper room (13:1–14:31)
1. Washing the feet (13:1‑20)
2. Message of betrayal (13:21–30)
3. Discourse on the departure of Christ (13:31–14:31)B. On the way to the garden (15:1–17:26)
1. Instructing disciples (15:1–16:33)
2. Intercession with the Father (17:1–26)
V. Execution of the Son of God (18:1–19:37)
A. Rejection of Christ (18:1–19:16)
1. His arrest (18:1–11)
2. The Judgments of Christ (18:12–19:16)B. The Crucifixion of Christ (19:17–37)
VI. Resurrection of the Son of God (19:38–21:23)
A. Burial of Christ (19:38–42)
B. Resurrection of Christ (20:1–10)
B. Appearances of Christ (20:11–21:23)1. Mary Magdalene (20:11–18)
2. To the disciples without Thomas present (20:19–25)
3. To the disciples in the presence of Thomas (20:26–29)
4. Gospel Purpose Statement (20:31, 32)
5. To the disciples (21:1‑14)
6. Peter (21:15–23)
VII. Conclusion (21:24, 25)
Doctor of Divinity John MacArthur is known for his amazing devotion Holy Scripture. Shepherding and preaching are his main calling. For 40 years, John MacArthur has been a teaching pastor at Grace Church in Los Angeles, California, where about 9 thousand people gather every Sunday.
During his ministry, he preached thousands of sermons. Grace to You Ministries, of which he is president, has distributed more than 12 million audio cassettes and CDs of his sermons. John's sermons are heard daily on more than 1,300 radio stations, reaching many countries. These sermons have changed millions of lives by revealing the richness of God's powerful Word.
Dozens of books written by John MacArthur are published in many countries. The most famous of those that were published in Russian are: “The Good News of Christ”, “Our Sufficiency in Christ”, “The Dying Conscience”, “How to Meet the Enemy”, etc. The Study Bible with commentaries by John MacArthur has won several publishing awards and titles, surpassing over a million copies in distribution.
John MacArthur is also president of the seminary and college (The Master's College and The Master's Seminary). He and his wife Patricia have four children and 14 grandchildren.
1:1‑18 These verses form the prologue. He introduces many of the major themes that John will address, especially the main one, that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (vv. 12-14, 18; cf. 20:31). There are many key words here that are repeated throughout the Gospel (eg, life, light, testimony, glory). The subsequent content of the Gospel develops the theme of the prologue about how the Eternal Word of God, Jesus - the Messiah and Son of God, became flesh and served among people so that all who believe in Him would be saved. Even though John wrote the prologue in the simplest language in the New Testament, it conveys some of the most profound truths. The prologue presents six basic truths about Christ as the Son of God: 1) the eternal Christ (vv. 1-3); 2) Christ incarnate (vv. 4, 5); 3) the forerunner of Christ (vv. 6-8); 4) unrecognized Christ (vv. 9-11); 5) almighty Christ (vv. 12, 13) and 6) glorious Christ (vv. 14-18).
1:1 At the beginning Unlike 1 John. 1:1, where John used a similar phrase (“from the beginning”) to communicate the starting point of Jesus' ministry and preaching of the gospel, here the phrase parallels Gen. 1:1, where the same expression is used. John used this phrase in its absolute sense to refer to the beginning of the existence of the material universe in time and space. was The verb highlights the pre-eternal existence of the Word, i.e. Jesus Christ. Before the existence of the universe, there was always a Second Person of the Trinity, i.e. He has always been (cf. 8:58). This word is used in contrast to the verb “began to be” in v. 3, which means beginning in time. John did not include the genealogy that Matthew and Luke have because it reflects the theme that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, the Second Person of the Trinity. While in terms of His human nature He had a human genealogy, in terms of His Godly nature He had no genealogy. John borrowed the term "Word" not only from the terminology of the Old Testament, but also from Greek philosophy, in which the expression was essentially impersonal, meaning the reason-endowed first cause of "divine reason," "intellect," or even "wisdom." However, John filled the term exclusively with Old Testament and Christian meaning (for example, Gen. 1:3, where the Word of God created the world; Ps. 32:6; 106:20; Prov. 8:27, where the Word of God is His powerful self-expression in creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation) and made it a reference to the Person, i.e. Jesus Christ. Therefore, Greek philosophy is not the exclusive basis of John's thought. From a strategic point of view, the term “Word” serves as a bridge word to reach not only the Jews, but also the unsaved Greeks. John chose this concept because it was familiar to both Jews and Greeks . and the Word was with God The Word, being the Second Person of the Trinity, has been in close communion with God the Father throughout all eternity. However, although the Word, together with the Father, possessed the splendor of heaven and eternity (Isa. 6:1-13; cf. 12:41; 17:5), He willingly left the glory of heaven, taking the form of man, and was subjected to death on the cross (see notes on Phil. 2:6-8). was God In the Greek the construction emphasizes that the Word possessed all the essence or attributes of God, i.e. Jesus the Messiah was fully God (cf. Col. 2:9). Even during His incarnation, when He humiliated Himself, He did not cease to be God, but, having accepted real human nature - the body - He voluntarily abandoned the independent manifestation of God's properties.
1:3 All things came into being through Him Jesus Christ was the Representative of God the Father, who participated in the creation of everything in the universe (Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2).
1:4, 5 life... light... darkness John introduces readers to opposing themes that appear throughout the gospel. “Life” and “light” are qualities of the Word that are inherent not only to God (5:26), but also to those people who respond to the preaching of the Gospel about Jesus Christ (8:12; 9:5; 10:28; 11: 25; 14:6). The Gospel of John uses the word “life” about 36 times, far more than any other book in the New Testament. In a broad sense, it speaks not only of the physical (temporal) life that the Son gave to the created world during His participation in this creation (v. 3), but mainly of the spiritual (eternal) life imparted as a gift through faith in Him ( 3:15; 17:3; Eph. 2:5). “Light” and “darkness” are familiar symbols in Scripture. Intellectually, “light” refers to biblical truth, and “darkness” refers to error or deception (cf. Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). Morally, “light” refers to holiness or purity (1 John 1:5), while “darkness” refers to sin or transgression (3:19; 12:35, 46; Rom. 13:11-14; 1 Thess. 5:4-7; 1 John 1:6; 2:8-11). In relation to Satan, who currently rules the spiritually dark world as “the prince of the power of the air,” promoting spiritual darkness and rebellion against God (Eph. 2:2), and his demonic army (1 John 5:19) “ darkness" has a special meaning. Of the 17 occurrences of the expression “darkness” in the New Testament, John uses it 14 times (8 in the Gospel, and 6 in 1 Epistle), making it almost exclusively a Johannine word. In relation to Jesus Christ, the Word, the expressions “life” and “light” also have their own special meaning (v. 9; 9:5; 1 John 1:5-7; 5:12, 20).
1:5 did not embrace The meaning of this word is better conveyed as “not overcome.” Darkness cannot conquer or conquer light. Just as one candle can overcome the darkness that fills a room, so the Person and works of the Son (His death on the cross; cf. 19:11a) overcome the powers of darkness.
1:6 sent from God As the forerunner of Jesus, John had to testify about Him as the Messiah and Son of God. John's ministry ended the "400 years of silence" between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament period when God did not give His revelation. John In this Gospel, the name "John" always refers to John the Baptist, not to John the Apostle. Unlike the other Gospels, which use an additional description to identify him (Matt. 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 7:20), the author of this Gospel calls him simply “John” without the word “Baptist.” Moreover, the Apostle John (or the son of Zebedee) did not directly identify himself by name anywhere in the Gospel, although he was one of the three closest friends of Jesus (Matthew 17:1). Such silence decisively proves that the Apostle John wrote this Gospel and that his readers knew full well that he compiled the Gospel that bears his name. For more detailed information about John the Baptist cf. Mf. 3:1-6; Mk. 1:2‑6; OK. 1:5‑25; 57‑80.
1:7 testimonies... testify This Gospel places particular emphasis on the words “testimony” or “testify,” reflecting the courtroom language of the Old Testament, where the truth of a case had to be established on the basis of abundant evidence (8:17, 18; cf. Deut. 17:6; 19: 15). Not only John the Baptist testified about Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God (vv. 19-34; 3:27-30; 5:35), but there were also other witnesses: 1) the Samaritan woman (4:29); 2) the works of Jesus (10:25); 3) Father (5:32-37); 4) Old Testament (5:39, 40); 5) the people (12:17) and 6) the Holy Spirit (15:26, 27). so that everyone may believe through him The word “him” does not refer to Christ, but to John as the mediator who testified about Christ. The purpose of his testimony was to inspire faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world.
1:8 He was not light While John the Baptist was the subject of faith, Jesus Christ is the object of faith. Although John's personality and ministry were vital (Matt. 11:11), he was only a forerunner heralding the coming of the Messiah. Many years after John's ministry and death, many people were still unable to understand John's subordinate role to Jesus (Acts 19:1-3).
1:9 The true light... coming into the world The preferred translation is given in a marginal footnote. The words “coming into the world” would be grammatically more correct to refer to the word “Light” rather than “every person” and thus translate “the true Light coming into the world enlightens every person.” This highlights the incarnation of Jesus Christ (v. 14; 3:16). enlightens every person Each person is given sufficient light by God's sovereign authority to be accountable. Through general revelation in creation and conscience, God implanted His knowledge into man. However, general revelation does not produce salvation, but either leads to the perfect light of Jesus Christ or brings condemnation to those who reject such “light” (see notes on Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12-16). With the coming of Jesus Christ, the light that God placed inside the human heart was realized and embodied. world The basic meaning of this word in Greek, meaning adornment, is explained by the word “outward” (1 Pet. 3:3). While the New Testament uses the expression a total of 185 times, John showed particular affection for the word, using it 78 times in his Gospel, 24 times in his Epistles, and 3 times in Revelation. John gives several shades of its meaning: 1) the created physical universe (v. 9; cf. v. 3; 21:24, 25); 2) humanity in general (3:16; 6:32, 51; 12:19) and 3) invisible spiritual world evil, under the power of Satan, and all that he offers, in enmity against God, His Word and His people (3:19; 4:42; 7:7; 14:17, 22, 27, 30; 15:18, 19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 5:19). The latter concept is the essentially new purpose which the term acquires in the New Testament and which predominates in John. Thus, in most cases John uses this word with a certain negative connotation.
1:11 to His... His The first expression “to His own” most likely refers to humanity as a whole, and the second to the Jewish people. As the Creator, the world belongs to the Word as a property, but due to spiritual blindness the world did not even recognize Him (cf. also v. 10). John used the second word “His” in a narrower sense to talk about Jesus’ physical origin, the Jews. Even though they had Scripture testifying to His Person and coming, they still did not receive Him (Isa. 65:2, 3; Jer. 7:25). The Gospel of John places particular emphasis on the theme of the Jews' rejection of their promised Messiah (12:37-41).
1:12, 13 These verses are contrasted with verses 10, 11. John softens the general rejection of the Messiah by emphasizing the presence of a believing remnant. This book is previewed here, since the first 12 chapters emphasize the rejection of Christ, and Ch. 13-21 focus on the believing remnant who received Him.
1:12 who received Him, to those who believe on His name The second phrase explains the first. To accept Him - the Word of God - means to acknowledge His statements, to believe in Him and thus to be committed to Him. gave This word emphasizes that the grace of God is involved in the gift of salvation (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). power Those who accept Jesus - the Word - receive full authority to claim the high title of "children of God." His name The expression means the nature of the Personality Himself. See notes on 14:13, 14.
1:13 from God God's side of salvation: Ultimately, salvation is by God's will, not by man's will (cf. 3:6-8; Titus 3:5; 1 John 2:29).
1:14 The Word became flesh Since Christ, being God, was not eternal and uncreated (see the explanation of v. 1), the word “became” emphasizes Christ’s taking on human flesh (cf. Heb. 1:1-3; 2:14-18). Undoubtedly, of all the facts this is the most difficult to understand, since it testifies that Infinity became finite, Eternity was subordinated to time; The Invisible became Visible; the supernatural Person transformed Himself into a natural one. However, during the incarnation, the Word did not cease to be God, but became God in human flesh, i.e. the former God, but in human form (1 Tim. 3:16). lived The phrase means “to pitch a tabernacle” or “dwell in a tent.” This expression is reminiscent of the Old Testament tabernacle, where God communicated with Israel before the temple was built (Ex. 25:8). It was called the “tent of meeting” (Exodus 33:7), or the “tent of testimony” (in the Septuagint), where “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend” (Exodus 33:11). During the New Covenant, God chose to dwell among His people in a purely personal way by becoming man. In the Old Testament we read that when the tabernacle was completed, the cloud of God's presence (or shekinah) filled the entire structure (Ex. 40:34; cf. 1 Kings 8:10). When the Word became flesh, the glorious presence of God became incarnate in Him (cf. Col. 2:9). we have seen His glory Even though His divine essence was hidden in human flesh, there is evidence of His divine greatness in the Gospels. The disciples saw the radiance of His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8). However, the reference to the glory of Christ was not only visible, but also spiritual. They saw in Him manifestations of attributes or characteristic features God (mercy, generosity, love for mankind, wisdom, truth, etc.; cf. Ex. 33:18-23). glory as... from the Father Jesus, being God, displayed the same perfect glory as the Father. They are one in nature (cf. 5:17-30; 8:19; 10:30). only begotten The expression “only begotten” does not accurately translate the Greek word. It is not identical to the term meaning “to bring into being,” but, on the contrary, has the meaning of “the only beloved.” Therefore, it reflects the idea of someone’s exclusivity, uniqueness and indicates that someone is loved like no other. With this word, John emphasized the special nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son in God (cf. 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). It has the additional meaning not of origin, but of unique prominence; for example, the word was used of Isaac (Heb. 11:17), who was the second son of Abraham (Ishmael was the first; cf. Gen. 16:15 with Gen. 21:2, 3). full of grace and truth John was probably referring to Ex. 33, 34. There Moses asked God to show him His glory. The Lord answered Moses that He would bring all His “glory” before him, and then, as God passed by, he proclaimed: “The Lord... gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and truth” (Ex. 33:18, 19; 34:5 -7). These attributes of God's glory emphasize the graciousness of God's character, especially in relation to salvation. Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament (8:58; “I AM”), exhibited the same attributes of God when He dwelt among people in the New Testament era (Col. 2:9).
1:15 The testimony of John the Baptist confirms the statement of the Apostle John about the pre-eternity of the Incarnate Word (cf. v. 14).
1:16 grace upon grace This phrase places particular emphasis on the abundance of grace God has shown to mankind, especially to believers (Eph. 1:5-8; 2:7).
1:17, 18 These verses, confirming the truth in v. 14, are final in contrast to the prologue. The law given to Moses was not a manifestation of God's mercy, but was God's requirement of holiness. It served as a means of demonstrating man's sinfulness and pointing out the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:19, 20; Gal. 3:10-14, 21-26). God gave the law. Moreover, the law revealed only part of the truth and was of a preparatory nature. The real substance or complete truth that the law pointed to came through the Person of Jesus Christ.
1:18 who is in the bosom of the Father The expression signifies the intimacy, love, and understanding found in the Triune God (13:23; Luke 16:22, 23). revealed From this word theologians formed the term “exegesis,” or “interpretation.” John meant that everything that is in Jesus and everything that He does reveals and explains who God is and what He does (14:8–10).
1:19‑37 In these verses, John, reinforcing his main theme (20:30, 31), presented the first of many witnesses to prove that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. John the Baptist testified for three days different groups people (cf. vv. 29, 35, 36). Each time he spoke about Christ differently and emphasized His special aspects. The events described in these verses took place in AD 26/27, just a few months after John's baptism of Jesus (cf. Matt. 3:13-17; Luke 3:21, 22).
1:19 John John, born into a family of priests, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5). When he was approximately 29 or 30 years old, he began his ministry in the Jordan Valley and boldly proclaimed the need for spiritual repentance and preparation for the coming of the Messiah. He was a cousin of Jesus Christ and fulfilled the purpose of His prophetic forerunner (Matt. 3:3; Luke 1:5-25, 36). Jews... from Jerusalem Here, perhaps, we are talking about the Sanhedrin, the main governing body of the Jewish people. The Sanhedrin was governed by the family of the high priest, so the messengers would naturally be priests and Levites, to whom John's ministry, his preaching, and his baptism were of interest.
1:20 I am not Christ Some thought that John was the Messiah (Luke 3:15-17). Christ The word "Christ" is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew term "Messiah."
1:21 Are you Elijah? The prophet Malachi in 4:5 (see explanation there) promises that the prophet Elijah will return before the Messiah establishes His earthly Kingdom. They asked if John was the forerunner of the Messiah, then was he Elijah? Announcing the birth of John, the angel said that John would come before Jesus “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), thus indicating that the prophecy could be fulfilled not by Elijah literally, but by someone else. God sent John, who was like Elijah, i.e. a man who had the same type of ministry, the same authority, and similar personality traits (2 Kings 1:8; cf. Matt. 3:4). And if Jesus came as the Messiah, then John probably fulfilled this prophecy (see notes on Matthew 11:14; Mark 9:13; Luke 1:17; Rev. 11:5, 6). Prophet? Here is a reference to Deut. 18:15-18, which predicted that God would raise up a great Prophet like Moses to act as His voice. While some people in John's time interpreted this prophecy as referring to another forerunner of the Messiah, New Testament(Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37) refers this passage to Jesus.
1:23 John quoted and applied Isa. 40:3 (cf. Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). In the context of the original Isa. 40:3 the prophet heard a voice calling for a straight path through the eastern desert so that the God of Israel could bring His people from Babylonian captivity home. This call was a prophetic description that foreshadowed the final and greatest return of Israel to their God from spiritual darkness and alienation through the spiritual liberation brought about by the Messiah (cf. Rom. 11:25-27). In humility, John compared himself to a voice rather than a man, thus focusing solely on Christ (cf. Luke 17:10).
1:25 you baptize Since John identified himself simply as a voice (v. 24), a question arose as to his authority to perform baptism. The Old Testament associated the coming of the Messiah with repentance and spiritual cleansing (Ezek. 36, 37; Zech. 13:1). John focused on his position as the forerunner of the Messiah. He used the common baptism of proselytes for the Jews as a sign of the need to recognize that they, too, were outside God's saving covenant, just like the Gentiles. Before the coming of the Messiah, they also needed spiritual cleansing and preparation (repentance - Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:7, 8). See notes on Matt. 3:6, 11, 16, 17 to explain the meaning of John's baptism.
1:27 Here the words of John the Baptist continue the theme of the Messiah's superiority over him, touched upon in the prologue (vv. 6-8, 15), and show his amazing humility. Whenever John had an opportunity to focus on himself in such encounters, he turned his attention instead to the Messiah. John humbled himself to the point of asserting that he, unlike the slave who was required to remove his master's shoes, was not even worthy to perform this action in relation to the Messiah.
1:28 Vifavare This word replaces the original word "Bethany", since some believe that John mistakenly called Bethany the place of these events. The explanation is that there were two Bethany, i.e. one near Jerusalem, where Mary, Martha and Lazarus lived (11:1), and the other “by the Jordan” near the region of Galilee. Since John took great pains to name the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem as another Bethany, here he most likely referred to another city with the same name.
1:29‑34 This section talks about John's testimony about Jesus to another group of Jews the next day (see vv. 19–28 for information about the first group and day). This section forms something like a bridge. This continues the theme of the testimony of John the Baptist, but also presents an extensive list of names related to Jesus: Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36), Rabbi/Teacher (vv. 38, 49), Messiah/Christ (v. 41), Son of God (vv. 34, 49), the King of Israel (v. 49), the Son of Man (v. 51) and “He of whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets” (v. 45).
1:29 The next day This phrase probably refers to the day after John responded to the delegation from Jerusalem. It also begins the sequence of days (v. 43; 2:1), ending with the miracle at Cana (2:1-11). Lamb of God The Jews were exceptionally clear about the use of a lamb for sacrifice. The Lamb was sacrificed during the Passover (Ex. 12:1-36); in Isaiah's prophecies the lamb was led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7); Israel offered a lamb as a daily sacrifice (Lev. 14:12-21; cf. Heb. 10:5-7). John the Baptist used this expression as a reference to Jesus' final sacrifice on the cross to atone for the sins of the entire world. This is a theme that the apostle John pursues throughout his writings (19:36; cf. Rev. 5:1-6; 7:17; 17:14) and which is found in other books of the New Testament (for example, 1 Pet. 1:19 ). sin of the world See explanation to Art. 9; Wed 3:16; 6:33, 51. In this context, “world” refers to humanity in general, not to each person specifically. The use of the singular word “sin” in conjunction with the word “world” indicates that Jesus’ sacrifice for sin potentially applies to all people without exception (cf. 1 John 2:2). However, John makes it clear that it has an effective effect only on those who have accepted Christ (vv. 11, 12). For a discussion of the account of Christ's death for this world, see the commentary on 2 Cor. 5:19.
1:31 I didn't know Him Although John was a relative of Jesus, he did not know Jesus as the “Coming One” or the “Messiah” (v. 30).
1:32 Spirit descending Before this, God told John that this sign would point to the promised Messiah (v. 33). Therefore, when John testified to what was happening, he was able to identify Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22).
1:34 Son of God Although in a narrow sense believers may be called "sons of God" (e.g., v. 12; Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14), John uses this expression with the full force of a title that indicates a unique unity and the intimacy that Jesus maintains with the Father as “the Son.” The term conveys the idea of God's essence of Jesus as the Messiah (v. 49; 5:16-30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; see notes on Heb. 1:1-9).
1:35‑51 This section examines John's testimony about Jesus to the third group, i.e. to some of John's disciples on the third day (see vv. 19-28; 29-34, which speaks of the first and second groups). Consistent with his modesty (v. 27), John focuses the attention of his own disciples on Jesus (v. 37).
1:37 follow Jesus Although in the style of the apostle's language the verb "to go" usually means "to follow as a disciple" (v. 43; 8:12; 12:26; 21:19, 20, 22), it can also have an indefinite meaning (11:31). Here, "following" does not necessarily mean that they became regular disciples at that time. Perhaps they followed Jesus to get to know Him better because of John's testimony. Here the disciples of John the Baptist were first influenced by Jesus (eg, Andrew; 1:40). Ultimately, when Jesus called them into full-time ministry after these events, they dedicated their lives to Him as true disciples (Matt. 4:18-22; 9:9; Mark 1:16-20). From this point in the narrative, John the Baptist gradually disappears from the scene, and all attention is focused on the ministry of Christ.
1:39 ten o'clock The Jews divided the daylight hours into 12 hours (starting at dawn, approximately 6 o'clock). So it was probably around 4 p.m. Most likely, John mentions exact time to emphasize that he was that other disciple of John the Baptist who came to Christ with Andrew (v. 40). He was an eyewitness to the events that took place over the next three consecutive days, and his first meeting with Jesus was so significant in his life that John even remembered the exact time of this meeting with the Lord.
1:41 Messiah The word "Messiah" is a transliteration of Hebrew or Aramaic verbal adjective"Anointed" It comes from a verb meaning to “anoint” someone and refers to the action that entails ordaining that person to a special role or activity. The expression first applied to the king of Israel (“the anointed of the Lord” - 1 Sam. 16:6), the high priest (“the anointed priest” - Lev. 4:3) and, in one place, to the patriarchs (“my anointed” - Ps. 105: 15). Ultimately it reached its goal highest value in predicting the "Coming One" or the "Messiah" in the roles of prophet, priest and king. The term "Christ" - a Greek word (verbal adjective) that comes from a verb meaning "to anoint" - is used as a translation of the Hebrew term. The words "Messiah" or "Christ" are not personal names of Jesus, but His titles.
1:42 And Jesus looked at him Jesus knows hearts perfectly (vv. 43-51) and not only looks into them (vv. 47, 48), but also transforms a person into what He wants them to be. you will be called Cephas Until this time, Peter was known as “Simon the son of Jonah” (the name “Jonah” in Aramaic means “John”; cf. 21:15-17; Matt. 16:17). In Aramaic, the word "Cephas" means "stone", and it is translated into Greek "Peter". Jesus gave Simon the name “Cephas,” or “Peter,” at the beginning of His ministry (cf. Matt. 16:18; Mark 3:16). This statement not only predicts what Peter will be called, but also speaks of how Jesus will change his character and use Peter in founding the church (cf. 21:18, 19; Matt. 16:16-18; Acts 2:14 –4:32).
1:43‑51 This section reflects the fourth day from the beginning of the testimony of John the Baptist (cf. vv. 19, 29, 35).
1:44 from Bethsaida, from the same city with Andrew and Peter Although Mark in 1:21, 29 names Capernaum as Peter's hometown, John says that he was from Bethsaida. The solution to the problem lies in the fact that Peter and Andrew most likely grew up in Bethsaida and later moved to Capernaum, just as Jesus was constantly identified with His hometown of Nazareth, although He later lived elsewhere (Matt. 2: 23; 4:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 1:26).
1:45 Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote This phrase summarizes the position of the entire Gospel of John: Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scripture (cf. v. 21; 5:39; Deut. 18:15-19; Luke 24:44, 47; Acts 10:43; 18:28 ; 26:22, 23; Rom. 1:2; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11; Rev. 19:10). Can anything good come from Nazareth? Nathanael was from Cana (21:2), another Galilean city. While the Jews despised the Galileans, the Galileans themselves did not regard the inhabitants of Nazareth at all. In light of what is said in 7:52, Nathanael's disdain was probably based on the fact that Nazareth was not an important village and had no prophecy significance (cf., however, Matt. 2:23). Later, some would scornfully refer to the Christian faith as the “Nazarite heresy” (Acts 24:5).
1:47 there is no guile What Jesus meant was that Nathanael's straightforwardness showed that he was an Israelite with no double-dealing motives, inclined to personally verify the claims made about Jesus. The expression reveals an honest, searching heart. The reference here is to Gen. 27:35, where Jacob, unlike the sincere Nathanael, was known for his cunning. Perhaps the point here is that the use of deception characterized not only Jacob, but also his descendants. In Jesus' view, the honest and sincere Israelite was the exception rather than the rule (cf. 2:23-25).
1:48 I saw you A succinct allusion to the supernatural knowledge of Jesus. Not only were Jesus' brief conclusions about Nathanael correct (v. 47), but He also revealed information that only Nathanael himself could know. Perhaps Nathanael had an important or exceptional fellowship with God at that place, and Jesus' allusion to this was clearly recognizable. In any case, Jesus had knowledge about this event inaccessible to man.
1:49 Son of God... King of Israel Jesus' display of supernatural knowledge and Philip's testimony dispelled all of Nathanael's doubts, so John added Nathanael's testimony to this part. The use in the original of the definite article in the expression “Son of God” most likely indicates that the phrase must be understood in its full sense (cf. v. 34; 11:27). For Nathanael, here was One about whom it was impossible to speak in simple, human words.
1:51 true, true Wed. 5:19, 24, 25. Very often this phrase was used to emphasize the importance and truth of a subsequent statement. heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending In light of the context of Art. 47, this verse probably refers to Gen. 28:12, where Jacob saw a ladder coming down from heaven in a dream. Jesus pointed out to Nathanael that just as Jacob had experienced a supernatural or heaven-sent revelation, so Nathanael and the other disciples would experience communication that confirmed who Jesus was. Moreover, the expression "Son of Man" replaced the ladder from Jacob's dream, showing that Jesus is the means of man's access to God. Son of Man See explanation to Matt. 8:20. Jesus loved this name most of all, since He mostly pronounced it Himself (more than 80 times). In the New Testament, this phrase refers only to Jesus and is found primarily in the Gospels (cf. Acts 7:56). In the fourth Gospel, this expression appears 13 times and is most often associated with the theme of crucifixion and suffering (3:14; 8:28), revelation (6:27, 53), as well as with the theme of eschatological power (5:27; 9:39 ). While this term may sometimes speak simply of a person or replace "I" (6:27; cf. 6:20), it takes on a special eschatological meaning when referring to Dan. 7:13, 14, where the “Son of Man,” or Messiah, comes in glory to receive the kingdom from the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., the Father).
