The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor, The Emmaus Journal.

This is article four in a six-part series “The Living Word in John 1:1–18.”

Years ago John Baillie, then principal of New College in the University of Edinburgh, gave an address to students and faculty in the chapel of an American university. Afterwards a middle-aged man, who was one of the university’s legal representatives, approached him. He wanted to talk to Baillie, so they took a walk. He had a complaint about Christianity. “You speak,” he said, “of trusting God, of praying to Him and doing His will. But it’s all so one-sided. We speak to God, we bow down before Him and lift up our hearts to Him. But He never speaks to us. He makes no sign. It’s all so one-sided.”[1]

Many people, like this man, would like to have a sure word from God, but have not heard it. The apostle John assured his readers, however, that God has spoken. The problem is not the silence of God; it is the refusal of people to hear what He has said.[2] People regularly complain of God’s indifference to human suffering and pain. They say that if God would appear, take some responsibility, and offer some help, then they would see Him, recognize Him, and follow Him.

In fact, however, as the Gospel of John makes clear, God does care. Because He cares so much, He came to this world; but the reception He received was not what people often assume it would be. He was met by indifference and hostility. Nor would it be any different if He were to come to earth again, as Studdert-Kennedy surmises in his poem “Indifference.”

When Jesus came to Golgotha they hanged Him on a tree,
They drove great nails through hands and feet, and made a Calvary;
They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds and deep,
For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap.

When Jesus came to Birmingham they simply passed Him by,
They never hurt a hair of Him, they only let Him die;
For men had grown more tender, and they would not give Him pain,
They only just passed down the street, and left Him in the rain.[3]

Yet the picture is not all negative. Some did respond positively to Him, and many have done so since then. The lesson of this paragraph in John’s Gospel may be summarized in this way: When Jesus Christ, the λόγος, came into this world, He was treated with indifference and hostility; yet those who received Him in faith were made members of the family of God.

The Indifference of the World to the Word (v. 10)

The “Hidden Years” of Jesus

In John 1:6–9 the apostle interrupted his recitation of the hymn to add some explanatory comments about the witness of John the Baptist to the true Light, Jesus Christ. He then resumed the λόγος hymn at verse 10,[4] and his subject switched from the Light back to the Word or λόγος.[5] He, the λόγος as the incarnate Christ, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἤν (“was in the world”).[6] The Lord Jesus “did not pay a fleeting visit, but was there continuously”[7] from the day of His birth until the public ministry of John the Baptist about thirty years later. Unlike the gods of the pagan world, who were unconcerned and aloof, transcendent and unreachable, Christ was in the world.[8]

The True Identity of Jesus

The significance of Christ’s appearance in the world is brought out in the next line, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (“and the world was made through Him”). John used the word κόσμος (“world”) more often in the New Testament than any other writer,[9] and he used it with a variety of meanings.[10] Some commentators say κόσμος in verse 10 suggests the world as the abode of people, the theater of history, the inhabited world.[11] Others conclude that κόσμος here refers to people who are able to respond to the λόγος. Still others argue that it means humankind viewed negatively.[12]

Most likely, verse 10 is an example of the polyvalent usage of κόσμος in the Gospel. The first occurrence in the verse probably refers to humanity—“He was in the world.” The second occurrence of κόσμος refers to the πάντα (“all things”) of verse 3—“the world was made through Him.” This One, Jesus of Nazareth, is the creative Word who made the universe. This usage does, of course, include the earth, and the world of humanity to whom He had come. The Creator was walking among His creatures.

The Blind Indifference to Jesus

Jesus was in the world, but He was here incognito,[13] that is, His real identity was not readily seen: “and the world did not know Him.” In this third usage of κόσμος in verse 10 the world is almost personified as a character in the story. It is the world of humankind viewed negatively.[14]

John observed, “And the world did not know [ούκ ἔγνω] Him.”[15] John meant more, of course, than that the world did not mentally perceive or intellectually acknowledge Him. In John’s thinking—in spite of Jesus’ appearance as an ordinary human—the world was not innocent when it overlooked Christ. Rather this was a matter of spiritual indifference and blindness.

A verse that explains the response theologically is John 3:19. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil.” People are indifferent to Christ because they do not want Him, the Light, to expose their sins. So the world did not acknowledge Christ. They did not get to know Him and love Him. The aorist tense of the verb (ἔγνω) views the world’s reaction as a single act. Though He was among them, they missed a great opportunity to know Him.[16]

With this third use of the term “world,” John’s nuance again changed. This is the main use of the term in John’s Gospel, namely, “the divine creation which has been shattered by the fall.”[17] Chesterton once said that there was only one thing certain about humanity: Man is not what he was meant to be. Barclay adds that there is only one thing certain about the world: It is not what it was meant to be. Something has gone wrong, and that something is sin.[18]

Because of sin, the Bible says, people walk in darkness and they have been blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:3–4). At the beginning of World War II Donald Grey Barnhouse, famed pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, was preaching in Ireland. Because of the German bombing, a blackout was imposed at a certain hour each evening. It happened that the blackout was to begin each evening before his meetings were scheduled to begin. The church’s leaders had determined to go ahead with the meetings in the dark. One evening, after he had been preaching for about twenty minutes, someone in the back room accidentally threw on the main switch, which turned on all the lights in the church.

Instantly there was considerable commotion in the congregation, and Barnhouse paused in his remarks. One man in the front row began to grasp at the person next to him and ask in a loud whisper, “What happened? Why did he stop?” He was quite agitated until his friend explained that the lights had come on accidentally. The man, of course, was blind. He was the one person in the auditorium who could not see the light.[19]

This man represents humanity when the light of Jesus Christ first shone on the world. He was the Light. He was in the world. But the world went about its business until John the Baptist came exclaiming, “The light is on! The light is on!” And when that happened, people asked, “What is light?” And they did not respond until God reached down and began to touch their eyes so that some of them might see.

The Rejection of the Word by His People (v. 11)

The Public Ministry of Jesus Among His Countrymen

In verse 11 John moved from the indifferent response of the world in general to the hostile response of Israel in particular. Εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν (“He came to His own”)[20] could be translated “He came to His own possessions,” that is, to the land of Israel. The Mishnah, the Jewish oral law written toward the end of the second century A.D., states, “Five possessions did the Holy One, blessed be He, make especially His own in His world, and these are they, the Law—one possession, heaven and earth—one possession, Abraham—one possession, Israel—one possession, and the Holy Temple—one possession.”[21]

However, the clause in verse 11 should probably be translated even more intimately: “He came into His home” (in 19:27 the same expression is used of John’s taking Mary into his home),[22] that is, He came to His own people, His fellow countrymen.[23] There might be some excuse for the world at large, John implied, but this was His home and homeland. In coming to Palestine, rather than to Greece or Rome, the Word of God came to His own home on earth.[24] The Lord had chosen Israel as His own from all the nations of the world (Exod. 19:5; Ps. 84:4). Never did they seem more ready than when Jesus arrived. Their monotheistic zeal and hatred for idolatry had reached a high point when Jesus appeared. They were waiting for “the Coming One” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος, Matt. 21:9). The welcome should have been a solemn and official reception on the part of the whole nation hailing the arrival of its Messiah.[25]

The National Hostility to Jesus by His Countrymen

John then recorded the tragic words καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον (“and those who were His own did not receive Him”). There is no greater expression of human folly and perversity than Israel’s rejection of Christ.[26] The verb παρέλαβον suggests the kind of warm welcome a person receives from loving family members who have been impatiently waiting for him.[27]

Instead, when Jesus appeared, they dismissed Him. As Haenchen wrote, they flatly rejected Him as if slamming the door in the face of an unwelcome tramp.28 They swapped Him for the notorious criminal Barabbas, and in riotous ignorance, they shouted, “Crucify Him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Luke 23:21).

In pagan drama there was no more tragic event than the death of Agamemnon.[29] He was the king who, according to Homeric lore, commanded the Greek expedition against Troy in the twelfth century B.C. The other two great leaders were Achilles and Odysseus. Agamemnon returned home quickly, Achilles was killed at Troy, and Odysseus returned after years of wandering and hardship. When Agamemnon arrived home, he kissed the ground, hot tears streaming down his face. As he marched to his palace, his wife ordered rich tapestries to be strewn in his path. She told him she had sorrowed for him and wept for him. But when he entered the palace, his adulterous wife (Clytaemnestra) and her secret lover (Aegisthus) killed the brave king with an ax.[30] This story, tragic as it is, is not of course nearly so tragic or significant as the rejection of Jesus Christ by Israel.

Israel should have recognized and welcomed her Messiah. She had the great messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, prophecies of Christ’s suffering, death, and glorious reign (Ps. 22; Isa. 53). She had the evidence of Christ’s miracles, promised by the Old Testament prophets as the badge of the Messiah (Luke 7:20–23; Isa. 35:5–6; 61:1). And she had the ministry of John the Baptist who pointed to Jesus, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Israel had no excuse, but neither does anyone else. The continuing widespread rejection of Christ today is a constant witness to the universal rebellion against the living God.[31]

The Reception of the Word by the “Children” (v. 12)

The Gracious Terms of the New Birth

Verses 10–11 are certainly a grim description of Israel’s rejection of Christ. The picture is not all negative, however. There were those both in Israel and in other nations who believed.[32] The contrast is introduced by the adversative particle δέ (“but”).[33] Verse 12 states that there were those who welcomed Christ at His coming, and in welcoming Him they were born into the family of God. John was here anticipating the doctrine of the new birth, or regeneration (cf. Titus 3:5), that Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3.[34]

Describing the process of welcoming Christ, John used three verbs to illustrate that this new life is a free gift of God. The first verb, ἔλαβον (“received”), suggests receiving something that has been handed down by another.[35] John the Baptist “offered” Christ to his hearers and many received Him.

The second verb is πιστεύω (“believe”), which means “to rely on, trust, believe.”[36] This is John’s favorite word to describe how a person receives membership in God’s family.[37] It is the means of receiving.[38] John used the expression (πιστεύω plus εἰς plus an accusative noun) that means something like “to believe into.”[39] The nominal form (πίστις) of the verb is usually translated “faith.”[40]

The English words “I believe” can convey several ideas. They may mean “I suppose,” “I think,” “I have an opinion,” “I consider that to be true,” “I accept,” or “I have a firm religious conviction.” It is important that one be clear what John meant when he wrote about “believing in” Christ.

Students of Scripture point out that believing in Christ has three elements.[41] The first element is knowledge. When one believes in Christ, it is necessary to know who He is and what He has done (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:1–8), that is, He has died for sins, He was buried, and He has risen from the dead. Of course knowledge is not enough, for even the demons have knowledge and shudder (James 2:19). The second element is approval or assent. One must agree that the facts are true. But by itself this is not faith. Agrippa (Acts 26:27) knew certain facts and agreed that they were true, and yet he did not have faith in Christ. The third element is dependence or trust.[42] The kind of faith that is needed is putting one’s trust in Jesus Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God. True faith is not just believing facts; it is personal trust in Jesus to save.

John said they believed εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“in His name”). The word “name” is not referring simply to a personal label whereby one person is distinguished from another. Here, as often elsewhere, it also encompasses character or the individual himself. For example the psalmist said, “May the name of the God of Jacob set you securely on high” (Ps. 20:1; cf. 5:11). He did not have in mind merely uttering God’s name. He meant, “May God protect you.” To believe in the name of Jesus Christ is to put one’s trust in His person, that is, in Him.[43]

The third verb, ἔδωκεν (“gave”), indicates that becoming a member of God’s family is not something one merits by good deeds or promising to do good deeds. It is something God gives the one who believes in Christ. It is something one simply “receives.”

The Universal Scope of the New Birth

This gift of membership in God’s family is available to everyone: ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν (“But as many as received Him”).[44] Philosophy offers a kind of “salvation” to those who are intelligent enough. The mystery cults in John’s day offered “salvation” to the few who were among the initiated. But the gospel message is that becoming a member of God’s family is open to everyone regardless of his or her intellect, age, gender, race, or religious background.[45]

The Incredible Privileges of the New Birth

Then John wrote, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι (“to them He gave the right to become children of God”).[46] Paul spoke of believers becoming God’s “sons” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) by adoption. The term “sons” carries with it the idea of the rights and privileges that go with sonship. John, however, reserved the term υἱός for Christ alone (John 3:16). He called believers “children” (τέκνα), which draws attention to the community relationship of the Father and His own. Peter spoke of the same thing: “so that … you may become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).

In John’s day, when rank counted for everything and the majority of the population were slaves without rights or freedoms, the gospel was an astonishing message. The gospel promises personal membership within the family circle of God to everyone regardless of rank. Even today some come into the family of God with a crippling lack of self-worth. What a joy to learn that, whatever others may think of a believer, to God that person is nothing less than His personally valued, dearly loved child.[47]

One of the unique privileges of New Testament believers is that of calling God “Father.” Before Christ Jewish literature has no example of an individual Jew addressing God as Abba (“Father”).[48] This is a privilege granted to those who have been “born … of God” (John 1:13; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

In 1918, just after the Armistice that ended World War I, a great Bible conference was held in Carnegie Hall in New York City. The minister who opened the session with prayer addressed God in this manner: “O Thou great and terrible God, great in Thy majesty, great is the distance that separates us from Thee! From the abyss of our helpless and lost condition we cry after Thee, guilty sinners that we are! Have mercy upon us, oh, God…. ” As he continued in the same vein, one of the Bible teachers on the platform, a venerable old man of God, whispered softly to the man next to him, “Why doesn’t someone give that man a New Testament?”[49]

Believers, John wrote, are given ἐξουσία (“the right”) to become children of God. The King James Version translation (“the power”) is somewhat misleading. The idea is better conveyed by “right,” “authority,” or “privilege.” When Napoleon was on one of his military campaigns he had dropped the reins of his horse in order to read some papers and the horse reared up and nearly threw him. A corporal of the grenadiers, a lowly soldier, leaped forward and caught the bridle of the emperor’s horse, so that in a few seconds he had the animal under control. Napoleon turned to the corporal and said, “Thank you, Captain.” “Of what company, sir?” asked the soldier who had just been called “Captain.” “Of my guards,” answered Napoleon. In an instant the young man threw aside his musket and walked across the field toward the headquarters of the general’s staff, tearing off his corporal’s stripes as he went. He took his place among the emperor’s officers. When someone asked what he was doing, he replied that he was a captain of the guards. “By whose authority?” they asked him. “By the authority of the emperor,” the young captain answered. Believers are given the right (“empowered”)[50] to be God’s children by God Himself.[51]

The Sovereign Means of the New Birth

In verse 13 John explained how people are born into the family of God. His stress was on the fact that it is a divine act whereby God begets believers. John’s comments in this verse anticipate Jesus’ teaching on the new birth in chapter 3. The new birth, which includes cleansing from sin and the impartation of new life (Titus 3:5), is a sovereign act of God (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν).[52]

The new birth described negatively. In a series of three negations John made the same point Jesus made later when talking to Nicodemus. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). First, the new birth is οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων (“not of bloods”). The term “bloods” refers to a blood relationship, on the assumption that natural procreation involves the mixing of bloods.[53] People today come close to speaking this way when they refer to a person’s “noble blood,” or when they call someone a “blue blood,” meaning that the person comes from a privileged background.[54]

The Jews thought of themselves as uniquely the children of God (8:41).[55] But John was saying that heritage and race, even the Jewish race, are irrelevant to spiritual birth. John’s first negative statement is that no one is able to claim a position in God’s family on the basis of his or her relationship to important people. “Even the children of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley were not saved on the basis of their family relationships.”[56]

The great Bible teacher Harry Ironside was speeding across Colorado in a train. His little boy had taken a package of gospel tracts and had gone through the train, giving them to the passengers. A little later a lady approached Mr. Ironside and complimented him on his little boy and his Christian booklets. “You can’t imagine how pleased I was to know there are other religious people on board besides myself.” She invited Mr. Ironside to sit in her section, and she began to tell him of her church connections and share with him some of the good works in which she was engaged. With great satisfaction she said, “It is so nice to feel you are of some use in the world, and that you love the church and the Sabbath.”

Ironside asked, “May I ask if you have been converted yourself?” Her face expressed the surprise she felt at such an abrupt question. “Why, I’ve always been interested in these things. My father was a class leader, and I have an uncle and two brothers who are all clergymen.” “Indeed!” Mr. Ironside answered. “And have you been converted yourself?” “You do not seem to understand,” was the grieved reply. “These things have always interested me. My father was a class leader for many years, and my uncle and two brothers are earnest clergymen.” “Yes, ma’am, I understood all that; but I mean, have you been truly converted to God yourself?”

Looking at the preacher in a bewildered manner, she said, “I guess it is I who do not understand you. I thought, when I told you of my father, and my relatives who are clergymen, you would see that religion runs in our family, sir!” Ironside asked, “But have you not read the words of the Lord Jesus, ‘Except you repent and become like little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’?” (Matt. 18:3). “Yes, sir, I remember the words,” she answered in a dazed kind of way, “but in a religious family like ours—do you think they have the same application as to others?” At that point Ironside sought to show her that mere religious acts are not enough.[57]

The second of John’s negations reads, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς (“nor of the will of the flesh”). This points to sexual desire, but it should be noted that the term σάρξ (“flesh”) does not have an evil connotation in this context (cf. v. 14, “the Word became flesh”). Here it simply refers to natural physical desires. People do not become members of God’s family through natural means.

The third of John’s negations is οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς (“nor of the will of man”). Here the apostle singled out the man or husband. The thought is not sexual, for the second negation dealt with that. Rather this phrase speaks of human volition. A man may decide he wants a child without any consideration of the sexual process. He simply wills to have a child. The new birth, on the other hand, is not a result of the human will (cf. Rom. 9:16).

No one can be born again by his own will, just as no one has anything to do with his own physical birth. James wrote, “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth” (James 1:18; cf. Eph. 1:5; 1 John 3:1).58 As Ironside wrote, “Human resolutions, vows, determinations, turning over new leaves, and such like, will never effect new birth…. Neither church, priest, nor clergyman, with all the ordinances [or sacraments] combined, can make one a child of God. It is beyond the power of the holiest man on earth to recreate one soul.”[59]

In these three negations John was emphasizing the inability of humans to bring about spiritual birth.[60] Many people resent this fact because it seems to detract from human effort. But that is exactly the point. The biblical doctrine of the new birth takes all the glory away from individuals and gives it completely to God.[61]

The new birth described positively. A sharp adversative ἀλλ᾿ (“but”) introduces the contrast. Those who enter God’s family are ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (“begotten of God”). The new birth “is always sheer miracle.”[62]

Conclusion

John 1:10–13 teaches that God has spoken through His Son, Jesus Christ, who is the true Light. Those who receive Him become children of God. John gave his readers the opportunity to see the world in its rebellion, as illustrated in the Jews (“those who were His own did not receive Him”). Having seen this rebellion, the readers are challenged to admit their sin and be saved.

While John set forth the human requirement of belief in order for a person to be admitted into God’s family, he also set forth the twin truth of divine sovereignty, emphasizing that God takes the initiative in a person’s salvation. These two planks of the Christian worldview, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, involve what Packer calls an “antinomy,”[63] that is, an apparent contradiction between a pair of principles that seem irreconcilable, yet both are undeniable. As Packer advises, Christians must “accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it.”[64] Chesterton wisely observed that the “sane” believer is the one who sees two truths that seem to contradict each other and nevertheless accepts the two truths and the apparent contradiction. “His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.”[65]

Notes

1. John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 137 (italics his).
2. James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John: An Expositional Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 36.
3. Woodbine Willie, The Best of G. A. Studdert Kennedy, 3d ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963), 210.
4. Cf. J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1928), 1:13; and Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 1:3, 9–10. As Brown notes, verses 10–12 are the third strophe of the Logos hymn.
5. John went back to the λόγος as his subject, as indicated by his use of the masculine (αὐτὸν) pronoun at the end of verse 10. Τὸ φῶς (“light”) is neuter, while λόγος (“word”) is masculine. The masculine pronoun suggests that the earlier pronoun (αὐτοῦ) in the verse is also masculine (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 84 n. 69).
6. Many commentators do not believe that John was here describing the incarnate Christ. Rather they believe John was describing the λόγος as immanent in the world as its Sustainer during the Old Testament era (e.g., Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight, 3d ed. [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969], 1:260; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes [London: John Murray, 1908], 1:14; and Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:13). Brown notes that in the Old Testament the basic sin was to fail to obey God, while the basic sin in the New Testament era is to fail to know and believe in Jesus (The Gospel according to John, 1:10).
7. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 84.
8. Paul O. Wright, “Except through Me” (unpublished manuscript, 1982), 60.
9. The word κόσμος occurs 185 times in the New Testament, with 55 percent of those being in John’s writings: 78 times in the Gospel of John, 23 times in 1 John, once in 2 John, and 3 times in Revelation, for a total of 105 times.
10. John used κόσμος in the following ways: (a) the universe, the sum total of creation (17:24); (b) the planet earth (11:9); (c) the natural sphere of human existence, the world of physical activity and daily work (1 John 3:17); (d) the world of humanity, which because of its sin stands in need of salvation (John 3:16; 1 John 4:14); (e) believers (John 3:17c); (f) the Creation as fallen. In this last sense people are not viewed simply as lost people but as part of an evil system controlled by Satan (1 John 5:19). See Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., rev. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 561–63; H. Sasse, “κόσμος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 883–95; H. Balz, “κόσμος,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 309–13; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:508–10; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 111–13. N. H. Cassem argues that John used the term in a more favorable way in the first half of the Gospel and in a more ambivalent or hostile way in the second half (Cassem, “A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of κόσμος in the Johannine Corpus with Some Implications for a Johannine Cosmic Theology,” New Testament Studies 19 [1972]: 89). Building on Cassem, Bill Salier nevertheless took issue with his conclusion. “It must be said that ‘positive’ is probably not the best term to describe this passage if it is implied by this that the κόσμος is somehow seen in a favorable light. It is more accurate to say that the κόσμος is the object of positive action from God and His Son in the first half of the Gospel. This actually implies a negative view of κόσμος in and of itself; that is, that it requires a savior. Overall the Fourth Gospel’s view of κόσμος is negative” (“What’s in a World? Κόσμος in the Prologue of John’s Gospel,” Reformed Theological Review 56 [September 1997]: 107).
11. Cf. Sasse, “κόσμος,” 3:888.
12. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:10.
13. Wright, “Except through Me,” 60.
14. “By ‘world’ John most often means not ‘the creation’ but humanity, the world of men … the place and object of God’s saving activity. ‘World’ consists of the people and the forces and power structures that characterize this earthly domain. The world is not simply a place, but a place viewed from the standpoint of its inhabitants and the forces that influence them and establish the directions of their life” (Philip H. Towner, “Paradigms Lost: Mission to the Kosmos in John and in David Bosch’s Biblical Models of Mission,” Evangelical Quarterly 67 [1995]: 107; cf. Jacques Ellul, What I Believe, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 201).
15. The classical distinction between γινώσκω (knowledge acquired by effort and attention) and οἶδα (intuitive knowledge) cannot be pressed in John. Although both can be used for knowledge of facts (John 7:49; 9:20; 11:57; 18:2), they usually refer to human knowledge of the divine persons and the relationships between those persons (Morris, The Gospel according to John, 85 n. 71; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2d ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 162; and D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 138).
16. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 85.
17. Sasse, “κόσμος,” 3:893.
18. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 2:18.
19. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:76.
20. Some older commentators understood verse 11 not of Christ’s historical coming at His first advent, but of His “coming” in the theophanies and prophetic revelations of the Old Testament (e.g., John Peter Lange, John and Acts, trans. Philip Schaff, vol. 9 of Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange [1871; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960], 66–67).
21. Avoth 6.10, in Mishnayoth: Order Nezikin, trans. Philip Blackman, 2d ed. (Gateshead, UK: Judaica, 1983), 549–50 (italics in the original).
22. Rudolf Bultmann argues that the neuter adjective τὰ ἴδια here means “property” or “possessions” (The Gospel of John, trans. and ed. George R. Beasley-Murray [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], 56 n. 1). He sees no reference here to Israel or the Jewish people. However, the masculine οἱ ἴδιοι later in the verse tilts the meaning in favor of a reference to the Jewish nation and heritage (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 124). The translation “possessions” is perfectly valid as long as it is recognized that the reference is to Israel and not the world generally. “To the Messiah belonged the divine institutions of Israel” (Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Religious Authority [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 50).
23. Pryor has convincingly argued that οἱ ἴδιοι in verse 11 does not refer to Israel in the technical sense of the Old Covenant people. Rather it refers in a more immediate and relational sense to the Jewish people of Jesus’ own day, the people of His homeland. He notes that in the Septuagint οἱ ἴδιοι is never used to translate those passages where Israel is referred to as God’s covenant people (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4; Mal. 3:17). His point is valid, yet it cannot be overlooked that Jesus’ own people according to the flesh were Israelites to whom the promises had been given. See John W. Pryor, “Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel,” Novum Testamentum 32 (1990): 202-18, esp. 214–17.
24. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:15.
25. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:262.
26. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 43. The parallel thoughts in verses 10–11 suggest some kind of identification between Jesus’ own people and the κόσμος. Pryor says that Jesus’ own countrymen represent the world. “His own people by race, have shown by their rejection of him to belong totally to the world” (“Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel,” 218). Salier says, “The Jews exemplify or typify the response of the κόσμος to the λόγος” (“What’s in a World? Κόσμος in the Prologue of John’s Gospel,” 113, 115).
27. Morris notes that the verb παραλαμβάνω is sometimes used of taking a person to oneself in intimate relationship (The Gospel according to John, 86). It is used of Joseph taking Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:20, 24), and it is used of Christ taking believers with Himself to heaven (John 14:3).
28. Ernst Haenchen, John, Hermeneia, trans. Robert W. Funk (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:117.
29. Cf. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:262. Agamemnon’s story was dramatized in 458 B.C. by Aeschylus (Agamemnon 1343–71, in Aeschylus, trans. Herbert Weir Smith, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926], 2:118–23.
30. Cf. Will Durant, The Life of Greece, vol 2 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939), 59, 387–88. The story of Agamemnon demonstrates also that no illustration is perfect. He was, himself, unfaithful to his wife with Cassandra, the Trojan princess and prophetess.
31. Milne, The Message of John, 44.
32. Ibid. “John’s prologue summarizes the twofold response to Jesus that the rest of the book develops” (Paul R. Raabe, “A Dynamic Tension: God and World in John,” Concordia Journal 21 [April 1995]: 135).
33. Cf. Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:15.
34. In both John 3:3–5 and Titus 3:5 regeneration involves two elements: the cleansing or forgiveness of sins and the impartation of new life.
35. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:15–16.
36. Πιστεύουσιν (“those who believe,” v. 12) is a present participle.
37. John did not use the word “repent.” He used “believe” more than any other New Testament writer: John (98 times), Matthew (11 times), Mark (14 times), Luke (9 times), Acts (37 times), Paul (54 times).
38. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:265.
39. John used πιστεύω in seven ways: (1) πιστεύω plus εἰς, 36 times; (2) 12 times with ὅτι, giving the information or concept to be believed; (3) 30 times absolutely, that is, with no object or modifier; (4) 19 times with the dative case, used of believing people or of Scripture; (5) once modified by περὶ αὐτοῦ (9:18); (6) once with the demonstrative pronoun (τοῦτο) as the object in reference to Jesus’ resurrection power (11:26); and (7) once with a meaning different from “to believe” (2:24). See Wright, “Except through Me,” 64; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 296.
40. John did not use πίστις, possibly because it was used by heretical thinkers (Morris, The Gospel according to John, 87 n. 81).
41. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 709–10.
42. Cf. William Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life—A Johannine Inquiry,” Expository Times 64 (1952–1953): 50-52. One wonders how helpful the definition of Bruce is (cf. The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 38). He says saving faith means “to yield one’s allegiance to him and thus, in the most practical manner, to acknowledge his claims.” Likewise Barrett asserts, “Allegiance as well as assent is intended” (The Gospel According to St. John, 164). Brown’s definition is also troubling. Faith, he says, “involves more than trust in Jesus or confidence in Him.” He adds that faith is “active commitment … a dedication of one’s life to him … a willingness to respond to God’s demands” (The Gospel according to John, 1:513). Evangelicals agree that saving faith leads to good works, but the New Testament (cf. Rom. 4:2–4) demands that justification be carefully distinguished from progressive sanctification. Brown’s view conforms to Roman Catholic theology, but it is an addition to John’s concept that faith is trust and confidence in Christ.
43. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 88.
44. The expression ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν (“all who received Him”) is an example of casus pendens (Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:10; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 86 n. 76; Wilbert Francis Howard, Accidence and Word-Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: Clark, 1929), 423–25; and Nigel Turner, Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (1976), 71.
45. Milne, The Message of John, 44–45. “In the Old Testament Israel was called out of the nations of the world to become God’s son; now in the Gospel of John the individual is called out of Israel, and at the same time out of the world, to become a child of God.” He sees implications in this concerning the so-called anti-Semitic nature of John’s Gospel. “The Gospel is not anti-Semitic as such, but anti-‘the world’ in its rebellion against its maker; the Jews are the specific expression of this more general posture” (Salier, “What’s in a World? Κόσμος in the Prologue of John’s Gospel,” 115 n. 28).
46. In the interest of reserving the introduction of the idea of the Incarnation to verse 14, some older commentators (e.g., Lange, John and Acts, 66–68) argued that verses 12–13 refer to believers under the Old Covenant. It is true that the Old Testament uses the terms “son” (Jer. 31:20; Hos. 11:1) and “sons” (Ezek. 16:20) for Israel and for the Davidic king (2 Sam. 7:14) as expressions of affection, tenderness, and compassion. However, the idea of regeneration in the concrete sense in which it appears here goes further, and is in fact a prophesied blessing of the New Covenant (cf. Ezek. 36:25–27).
47. Milne, The Message of John, 45.
48. Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 57.
49. Donald Grey Barnhouse, The Love Life: A Study of the Gospel of John (Glendale, CA: Regal, 1973), 5–6.
50. Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Davey Noel (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 146.
51. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:89–90.
52. The Old Latin manuscript b has the singular qui natus est (“who was begotten”) in place of the plural. This reading, which makes verse 13 refer to Jesus’ virgin birth, is found in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.16.2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. A. Roberts and James Donaldson (1867; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 441 n. 1; and Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 19, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (reprint, 1993), 537. Tertullian regarded the plural as an invention of the Valentinians, a heretical cult. The singular reading has been supported by M. E. Boismard, St. John’s Prologue, trans. Carisbrooke Dominicans (London: Aquin, 1957), 35–45; Theodore Zahn, quoted in James Orr, The Virgin Birth (New York: Scribner’s, 1907), 269–73; and others. The popularity of the reading is no doubt due to a desire to find the virgin birth in the Gospel of John. The singular reading must be rejected, however, for several reasons. First, there is no Greek evidence supporting the singular reading of ὅς …ἐγεννήθη. Second, the plural is demanded by the plural τοῖς πιστεύουσιν in verse 12. Third, John nowhere else spoke of Christ’s having been begotten by God, but he did write of the new birth (3:1–7; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1; 4, 18). Fourth, the corruption may be explained by the observation that texts in the process of transmission tend to become more, not less, Christological. It is easy to see how copyists might move from the plural to the singular by arguing a fortiori: If Christians are born of God, how much more true is this of Jesus? See Boismard, St. John’s Prologue, 35–45; Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 163–66; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 59 n. 5; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:11–12; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 138–39; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 196–97.
53. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 126. There are other interpretations of the phrase “of bloods”: (a) the multiplicity of elements that make up the blood, the seat of natural life (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:266–67), (b) the action of both parents (Turner, Syntax, 27), (c) the seed of the father and the blood of the mother, a view held by Greek physicians (Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:18), (d) physical birth, which involves loss of blood by the mother (Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 146–47).
54. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:94.
55. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:16.
56. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:94.
57. H. A. Ironside, The Only Two Religions; and Other Gospel Papers (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.), 51–55.
58. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:96–97.
59. Ironside, The Only Two Religions, 54.
60. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 182. The three negations of verse 13 seem “unnecessarily extravagant if their sole purpose is to contrast natural and spiritual birth.” Rather they underscore “human inability in spiritual birth.” Furthermore the negations “lay waste to human pretentions,” which is an emphasis found elsewhere in John (6:40–45, 66–70) (ibid.). On the contribution of 1:12–13 to the thorny question of the ordo salutis see Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith in a Theological Ordo Salutis,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (fall 2002): 77-81.
61. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:98.
62. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 90.
63. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961), 18–21.
64. Ibid.
65. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ed. Philip Yancey (Colorado Springs: Harold Shaw, 1994), 24–25.