New Testament Commentary - 4 - John (A New Testament Commentary)
Aside from his study Bible, Dr. The commentary series began 32 years ago when he published his commentary on Hebrews. First, when you look at most modern commentary sets, each volume is typically written by a different author. Whether or not you agree with what is taught, at least you know it will be consistent throughout the entirety of the series. Second, John MacArthur is not just a Bible scholar, he is also a pastor. You have little to no questions afterward because every passage is clearly explained.
His exegesis of the text also makes applying the text to your life easy. When beginning a study on a new book of the Bible, one of the first things you want to do is get some background information. Resource Guide makes this easy. Next, look at an outline to get a feel for how the book is laid out. Again, the Resource Guide shows us that MacArthur has an outline for our book, and we see that it is quite extensive. It is a requirement of tenure. They have to find an angle and it mostly involves their overly developed egos and their flawed reasoning, not the facts.
Much less faith in the well preserved word of the One True God introduced to us through the Original Jewish race. Thank you. You leap to so many unsupported conclusions in so few paragraphs, although clearly none of these are a leap of faith! It is unclear who the author of Mark was, true.
But the majority of scholars consider him to have been either an eyewitness or an associate of eyewitnesses, as evidenced by the details in Mark that do not exist in the other Gospels. Was he the young man who ran away naked at the arrest? Even if the accounts were not eyewitness stories, they were written in living memory of events, and many eyewitnesses were available. Could it be that the Gospel authors whom reported who saw the risen Lord.
And left out any that they were not certain of? When asked to tell a lawyer activities a girl claiming to be unable to work again after a car accident, I gave examples of the activities that she had posted afterward that myself and husband both remembered seeing. If he did not recall seeing her horse back riding or bridge diving, I did not include it. Just because there seem to be differences in the details between the books does not discredit the message of Jesus Christ.
Consider that these books were written years after the crusifiction, some of them decades apart. Now consider your own memory of events in your own life, and how the details of those memories compare to those of your friends who shared in the same experiences. I am still looking for someone who will provide me with an alternative scenario to the resurrection which would explain the actions of first century Christians who were willing martyrs or would be martyrs.
Passover is a single day. He was arrested either late on Thursday night the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread or early on Friday morning. Such an obvious error would seem to call the accuracy of your entire commentary into question. Gary: How many times have you heard conservative Christian apologists say that even if the authors of Luke and Matthew were dependent on Mark, the author of John was not. Scholars are currently divided on this issue. No one can claim either side of this argument as fact. We might have two independent sources for these stories, but it is also possible that the core story came from just one source: the author of the Gospel of Mark.
As long as the core story remained intact…that Jesus of Nazareth had been arrested by the Romans; tried and convicted of treason against Caesar; executed by crucifixion; buried in some manner; and shortly thereafter, his disciples believed that he appeared to them, in some fashion…the other details found in the Passion Narrative may be literary invention fiction! Think of that! It would certainly answer a lot of questions. Why does the original Resurrection Story in Mark have zero appearance stories?
My, my, my. The evidence for a fantastical, never-heard-of-before-or-since Resurrection is much, much weaker than the average Christian layperson sitting in the pew on Sunday realizes! Even though it is not certain who wrote the book of John I am thankful for the scriptures written. I read the Wikileaks site on John that claims the Gospels and Revelation were written by the same person or closely suggests such is true.
Introduction to the First Epistle General of John
Having read the Gospels numerous times I believe it is more likely that marginal Christians have collected fragments that may have been issued in a single volume and mistake that one book equals one author. The Peace of Jesus is not the peace of the world. Luke is clearly written in a style Yes I am able to read New Testament Greek but defer to scholars with a more profound ability and concur.
Each has a distinct character that survives transalton. More often than not translation errors are a gift for those who have more imagination than faith. The diversity of the Gospels apparent conflicts in retelling their memories is more likely when eye witness testimony is given.
The essentials are the same and the basic rule for establishing a dogma remains intact, the truth is given, Jesus was the Son of God understood in His time to mean he was the Messiah. That he was not accepted and did not establish an earthly kingdom has people as much confused today as it did then. John is testimony to faith based belief in the Divinity of Jesus the Christ.
It is this truth Christians throughout the ages have been persecuted. He is rather most likely a resident of Jerusalem and reports events which occurred in the city and environs, events which were not known to the other disciples. Bauckham argues that John is the anonymous Beloved Disciple by drawing on a variety of sources including, importantly, literary analysis, of course, the Beloved Disciple appears in the Gospel narrative only as a character.
This however allows the narrative to proceed without interruption and qualifies him as a witness and ideal author. What is your evidence? There are so many quotes above that a person searching for the truth a true skeptic would see right through. Instead several posters seem to just be trying to reinforce what they already believe. I would trust what they have to say over someone years using mainly linguistic evidence, any day of the week. Especially since, with the exception of Eusebius, the people above had nothing to gain but persecution for doing what they did. Another poster said that most scholars agree that John Mark did not right Mark.
Are you serious? Do they have someone from within that lifetime who says this? Do they have something listing characteristics of John Mark that disqualify him from righting Mark? Groundless speculation. Please look at all of the evidence as a whole. And do not just believe what PHD says.
There are multitudes on the planet and they do not all agree, so look at the evidence, listen to what scholars have to say. Think for yourself. Mark is the earliest of the gospels and there is pretty much consensus that it was written around 70 AD earlier that the AD Ryan seems so certain about. John himself died in 44 AD. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all anonymous. Most scholars no longer believe that Mark was John Mark the scribe of Peter.
Today we would call that a forgery, but in those times it was pretty normal. When if you believe and understand the bible from start to finish you should know as a child also understand as a child staying pure in your thoughts. Then you would understand that God would only accept a pure unblemished sacrifice. Now that being said if Jesus was married then he would not and could be a sacrifice pleasing to God.
If people would tell the truth?enter
Ephesians 4 Commentary - John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament
No it was her flesh. Her physical appearance. Also Jesus said if you have lusted after a woman then you have already committed adultery.
So tell the truth what was it that drew you to your wife? I already know sin. There for Jesus could not have been married. Watch the above five minute youtube video. Therefore, no one should believe the very improbable, 2, year old, tall tale that a three-day-dead guy walked out of his sealed tomb to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies and a few days later, flew off into outer space where he sits today on a golden throne, at the edge of the universe, as King of the Cosmos!
The fourth gospel was written by Lazarus. Newsflash: The majority of New Testament scholars no longer believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. This bible shows the true names. Since the rulers were seeking to kill him because of Jesus it is possible that he used an alternative name to hide his true identity. The name John in Hebrew is Yahukanon. Are Christian pastors honest with their congregations regarding the evidence for the Resurrection? It amazes me but it should not because heresy was alive in the 1st century.
The apostle Paul was struggling with this then when he wrote his letters re to the Galatians for example. The Enemy who is Satan seeks to confuse and deceive in order to keep us from the truth. Study the scriptures for yourselves and rely only those proven commentators and expositors that have survived the test of time. One of the greatest that was recorded is Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones. There are over sermons that were recorded at the Westminster Chapel in London in the s and 60s. The Dead Sea Scrolls would give you a clue.
The 31 banned gospels form the Bible was not written by the Romans with the collaboration of Josephus Flavius which were all pro-Roman and anti-Jewish. Those four gospels were used as propaganda scriptures against the Jews in favor of the Romans. The book of John is about a man called Jesus who at the baptism of the Lord An of the book of Matthew came the next day while Ani was a way in the wilderness fasting and praying to his father before being tested of Satan to see if he be the real son of God.
He too will b crucified and buried but Jesus of John is now in the grave for 24 hours. The moment that the Lord dies at three in the after noon there is a great earthquake and the living ones being righteous are aroused and made to stand up among the dead ones. They assemble and go into the city of Jerusalem are seen by many but the gentile Jesus is not seen among then for he is unrighteous and he will remain in the grave for 84 more hours until he is aroused on Sunday morning at sunrise, In the mean time the Lord is in the grave three days and three nights and he will rise with the second earthquake and angel from heaven but the gentile Jesus of John has 12 more hours in the grave until Sunday morning The Jesus of John is no more than a gentile Jew writing a story of a gentile Jew who was called the son of God but never approved by God the Father of the Hebrews.
The false messiah Jesus offered eternal life to those perishing but the sons of God of the book of Matthew were never perishing for there was prepared for them a place before the foundation of the earth. Only the evil and wicked gentiles all go to hell as they were assigned before the earth was formed. The gentile deceiver Jesus made a way for all gentile to be saved by believing in the false messiah Jesus, Ani the Lord came for his divorced wife and her children, He had to die to annul the first marriage vows that he could remarry his wife.
Ani then became the price to buy back the wife and the children from the one who possessed them, It was purely a financial transaction for those redeemed take no part in the act of redeeming and nothing is required of them, Only the evil and wicked gentiles have to believe in the false Jesus to be saved from nothing the wrath of God still awaits them when they die,. John is an eyewitness account of the Apostle John Mary was never an apostle, and women were forbidden to teach. Pick any handful of biographies of, say, Abraham Lincoln.
Or any figure. The tone, style, perspective, focus, choice of anecdotes, etc. And the ultimate author of the Gospels, God, might tell us one day to walk over the hill to town. He might spend the next day telling us about town. He might spend the third day giving practical logistical advice for the journey. On the fourth he might describe the people of town and their physical needs, while on the fifth brief us on the spiritual connection of traveling by foot and evangelizing door-to-door.
It is very clear if you read in John The author identified himself who he was in John The gospel of John was written by a ressurected Judas Iscariot. Jesus supernaturally caused Judas to betray Him, to fulfill the prophesy in Scripture. The story of Lazarus foreshadows this. Paul- I agree, what you wrote is directed by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was showing His appreciation because John loved what He loved which resulted in their close relationship. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned 1 Cor 2: 13, The Gospel of John was written by John. He descipled all four regularly, although neither Mark nor Luke were one of the first 12 apostles named by Jesus.
Mark was probably John Mark Acts 12 Luke was both a physician and a historian, to whom the book of Acts is attributed.
- Look Inside: MacArthur New Testament Commentary - Olive Tree Blog;
- Look Inside: MacArthur New Testament Commentary - Olive Tree Blog.
- Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel according to John.
He was the apostle John which penned the Revelation and also wrote 1st 2nd and 3rd John. The stories of the four Gospel writers vary, but only in chronology and perhaps in their inclusions. They do not vary in essence. Matthew, John Mark, and Luke collaborated frequently, resulting in their stories being synchronized. Jesus exuded the love of God profusely, without measure. John He loved all12 apostles, but John paid more attention to his love, while the others paid more attention to the events.
Some had said that Jesus loved John because John was his natural brother. He was not. He was a son of Zebedee. There is also spiritual significance; he was telling his own mother to now look to his ministry for guidence. John inclined his own heart towards what Jesus loved. John ; John ; and John , 20 are translated incorrectly. Many people, probably hundreds or even thousands were writing on parchment quickly and simultaneously as orations were presented by prophets, by Jesus and by the apostles.
Hundreds or thousands of people also hand copied letters and eye-witness accounts that were written by the apostles. In many cases, the oldest surviving copies that could be found had been hand written 10 to 50 years after the first writings. Many of those were not discovered until two to three hundred years after they were written. The accounts, both verbal and written of reliable historians must also be considered. However, other historical accounts will help verify who the original author was. The Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Thomas are two such examples.
Steve, yes spurious for the fact that a lot of the scriptural context of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quite contrary to Johns testimony. Not found in the other three. But there is a verse in john , like John himself wrote the Gospel of John.. I wanna get clarify with this.. I agree this author is sounding like some CNN host who knows nothing more than superficial media hear-say. One quick search on the topic online would help you clarify all those doubts and yet such lethargic unscholarly attitude. What I would like to know is, what book the author of this essay is reading?
Yahshua was taken to prison Passover night as He broke bread. He was hung on a tree a High Shabbat Wednesday. He resurrected on a Sabbaton Sabbath before dawn. I remain a firm believer that it was Mary Madgalene who wrote the gospel of John. Christ loved her the most, and in this gospel it is referred to as written by the one whom Jesus loved.
This is an amazing first hand account. I find reading these statements that there are some very studied people. But There are some who are just plain stupid. What have I lost by believing in Gods word Nothing. It makes a lot of sense that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John. Listen to the message in the following link. Though the book does not name its writer, it has been almost universally acknowledged that it was written by the hand of the apostle John. The internal evidence that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, was indeed the writer consists of such an abundance of proofs from various viewpoints that it overwhelms any arguments to the contrary.
Only a very limited number of points are mentioned here, but the alert reader, with these in mind, will find a great many more. A few are: 1 The writer of the book was evidently a Jew, as is indicated by his familiarity with Jewish opinions. The details mentioned concerning places named indicate personal knowledge of them.
He names individuals who said or did certain things Joh ; , 7; ; , 8, 22; ; he is detailed about the times of events , 52; ; ; ; ; ; ; he factually designates numbers in his descriptions, doing so unostentatiously. Mt , 37 Of these three apostles, James is eliminated as the writer because of his being put to death about 44 C.
There is no evidence whatsoever for such an early date for the writing of this Gospel. Great article and comments. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. Great stuff,, and understandably biased on account of this site is about history and archeology and factual truth. Just a humble comment.
It is said that he was exhiled to Patmos where he had the revelations came back to Ephesus and died there right after he had written the gospel. Today there are the ruins of a massive church over his grave and recognized by Vatican. So it is possible that the gospel might have been written by him. By the way I am a tour guide in the region, professional on biblical tours and this page is a great source for biblical history. Thanks a lot. Jesus Love was his identity. Jesus Love was more important than himself.
And after the meal they went out in a garden, possibly the Mount of Olives. Martha served, while a disciple, whom Jesus loved, was among those reclining at the table with him. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Unless Lazarus was just accompanying them, it seems the beloved disciple is a fisherman like them. Whether the beloved was Lazarus, John,etc, does it matters this much to the Catholic Church? If one day a strong evidence proves the tradiction wrong, what issues could it bring?
Furthermore it is inaccurate to portray the disciples as illiterate working class men. They were not. Matthew you should remember was a tax collector, and a wealthy man. Peter, James and John were not merely fishermen, but shipowners and partners in a fishing business. Jesus himself, by trade a building contractor or tekhnos, not a cabinet maker as he is often popularly portrayed , was expected to be able to read from the Torah at a local synagogue, as would most Jewish men.
Some disciples even from the beginning had Greek names such as Andrew , others such as Peter were widely known by Greek sobriquets. If anything 1st century Jews were more likely to speak fluent Greek and only have a rote familiarity with Hebrew only recognising certain ritual phrases and recitations. From E.
Bullinger behold your God Isaiah This is the one great feature which constitutes the difference between the other three. And that those incidents, words, and works are selected, in each Gospel, which specially accord with such presentation. Thus, they present The Lord on the side of His perfect humanity. The famous Mgr Alfred Gilbey, a former Catholic chaplain at Cambridge, told me during his 90th birthday year his take on John.
He said that, when studying for ordination, the fashion at the time, say the s, was to downplay John as being the reflective meditations of an old man and not very historical as he would be too old and forgetful. On the contrary, said Mgr Gilbey, as a 90 yeast old I can tell you quite clearly who came to my 9th birthday party and what we ate and drank. I have no idea who I sat next to at dinner last night, let alone what we ate.
The Gospel of John is undoubtedly of late second century CE origin. It is just as pagan in its nature as the rest of the Greek-speaking New Testament! This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it. Theologian Carsten Theide indictation is that it was written before 70 AD, because John the pool of Bethesda still existed when it was written.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD it no longer remained. Archaeologist excavation has unearthed this site. You have eyes but see not, and you have ears but hear not. John ; ; ;2; , The strongest proof of who an author of a biblical document is stands on the internal evidence — what the document itself divulges.
When he refused to believe unless he saw those marks, the church has branded him a doubter and for two millenia his name has become synomynous with unbelief. Read the Scripture in context and discover for yourself. The book of John showed how the Messiah fulfilled all the Feasts of the Lord in which we are commanded to observe. John was not in the earliest known manuscripts. When putting together the NT they took what there was the most of. John says it was Passover yet all the men including Pharisees were up in Gallilee instead of being in Jerusalem.
That would not happen. When Messiah ate the Passover meal as it was called, He said I wish I could have eaten this with you. So it was not Passover the bread was artos………leavened bread. Messiah was explaining that when they took the Unleavened Bread all those centuries of celebrating it that it was about Him. The bread that is pierced and has stripes on it. The wine represented the blood He would spill. He only taught one year, or the book of Daniel is a lie, and so is the rest of the Word. Everyone was multilingual at that time. Especially the Jews.
They spoke Aramaic and of course Hebrew. The scrolls were written in Hebrew. They were taught out of the scrolls. And historians saying there was illiteracy among them? How do they know this?? The teaching that they only spoke Aramaic is a fallacy.
Subscribe to our mailing list
If you want someone to know what our Father wants then have them start in Genesis and then when you get to the letters in the NT one can understand what they are talking about. Eusebius said that Matthew wrote the logos in the Hebrew language and each interpreted it the best he could. The Greeks did apparently have a problem interpreting Hebrew into Greek because they did not know the Hebraisms. Nor did they know what was written before. And this Friday Passover cannot work either. Messiah was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights.
He was already arisen before daylight on sunday morning, and no one knows how many hours He had been up. Several points: 1. There was no preparation day for feasts — According to the Law Exodus that servile work which was necessary to prepare the feast carrying wood, lighting a fire, cooking, carrying food, carrying water, washing dishes, etc.
The only day on which absolutely no work could be done and preparations had to be made the day before was the weekly Sabbath, even if it fell on a feast day. Therefore, the preparations for any feast that fell on Saturday had to be made on Friday. The lambs slain on the afternoon of Nisan 14 were not the only Passover sacrifices. All the sacrifices and offerings, both those required by Law as well as those offered voluntarily, were referred to as Passover sacrifices, even in the Scripture itself See Deut and 2 Chron for example.
This peace-offering was required by Law and had the Pharisees contracted defilement they would be excluded form eating it. Commenting on 2nd Temple Jewish practice mentioned in the Gospels without consulting 2nd Temple Jewish law and historical practice leads to unnecessary difficulties. Appendix of Dr.
If you apply this analysis, many contradictions disappear from the Gospels. And now a billion people believe his version of events? Pretty remarkable.