Category: Exposition

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Exposition

ROMANS 9:6-29

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 1. ROMANS 9:6-29

THESIS : It is not as though God’s word has failed (9:6).

9:6-18

‘It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.’ Rom 9:6-18 (NIV)

‘JEW’ AND ‘ISRAEL’

In Romans chapters 1-8 the term ‘Jew’ is used to distinguish between them and Gentiles. Chapter 9:6 introduces an important change in vocabulary; the term ‘Israel’ signalling a shift in emphasis from the Jewish nation (the people who live in the territory of Judea) to ‘Israel’, the covenant people of God. This becomes the foremost term in 9-11.

Dunn (1998, p.506) asserts: ‘In short, “Jew” defines primarily by relation to land and by differentiation from peoples of other lands, whereas “Israel” defines primarily by relation to God.’

In vv.6-18 Paul begins to build his case that salvation is through promise and not through physical descent. He anticipates a question that might arise from the previous section and says: ‘But it is by no means the case that the word of God has failed.’(9:6).

This assertion implies the question: ‘Since Israel as God’s covenant
people had received so many promises and privileges (vv.4-5) why have so few been saved?’ Those to whom God made promises of blessing now oppose the gospel so does Israel’s unbelief mean that God’s word has not taken effect? For Paul that was not the case. God’s word had not failed.

Hübner (1984, p.58) observes:

‘Paul clearly sees that the failure of the people of Israel in its history could prompt a thoughtful person to reflect that God’s word and God’s promise have also lost their force (see also Rom 3:3!) In other words, Israel’s failure is the failure of the divine promise and therefore God’s own failure. The answer Paul gives is surprising: it is not the promise that is problematic but rather what is meant by ‘Israel’. For since the ‘history of Israel’ cannot fail –being something which stands under the promise of God- but the historical Israel has failed, the entity ‘Israel’ must be taken in a new sense so that the divine promise may remain valid.’

Paul attempts to prove his point by introducing the concept of the remnant. He wrote: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ For Paul the remnant does not include Gentile believers but is a rather a true Israel existing within the nation of Israel. He has been clearly focusing on ethnic Israel from the beginning of chapter 9 (‘my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’) and there is therefore no indication that what he has in mind is a new spiritual Israel composed of all believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Moo (1996, p.574) comments:

‘Throughout these chapters, Paul carefully distinguishes between Israel and the Jews on one hand and the Gentiles on the other. Only where clear contextual pointers are present can the ethnic focus of Israel be abandoned.’

Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. He says that being a Jew, a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not a guarantee of salvation but that the true Israel is a spiritual, faithful remnant within ethnic Israel. Had God’s promise intended that all ethnic Israelites (all those who are descended from Israel) be saved then indeed his purpose had been frustrated and his word had failed.

Murray (1997, p.10) summarises Paul’s contention that not everyone
who is an ethnic Israelite is a spiritual Israelite as follows:

‘The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God’s covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated.’

In vv.7- 13 Paul explains why God did not promise that all ethnic Israelites would form the true people of God. In each of verses 7 and 8 he restates negatively his thesis of v.6 that the children of Abraham are not merely his physical descendants but are the children of the promise. As one might expect Paul points back to the origins of the people group known as ‘the Hebrews’ (Gen 14:13; 40:15) and shows that God’s call of Abraham and the associated promises relate to both ethnic and spiritual Israel. He
supports that distinction by quoting biblical examples of God’s sovereign choice.

ABRAHAM AND HIS TWO SONS

The first example he produces is that of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3) and that he would have a son (Gen. 15:4-5). Since Sarah was past the age of childbearing she and Abraham decided to fulfil God’s promise by having a son through Sarah’s ‘maidservant’ Hagar and as a result Ishmael was born (Gen. 16). Soon after this God’s covenant with Abraham was sealed by circumcision, a rite in which Ishmael was included (Gen.17:26-27). Ishmael was a physical descendant of Abraham and had been circumcised and was therefore technically a Hebrew. One would expect that the promises would flow through him. Abraham seems to have thought as much in Gen. 17: 18: ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’ God’s response in Gen. 17:19-20 was as follows: ‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.’ Subsequently Sarah bore a son and he was named Isaac (Gen.21:2-3). Paul looks to this story for an explanation of the distinction between physical and spiritual Israel and in Romans 9:7 he quotes Gen. 21:12: ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’

Having referred back to the establishment of the nation to argue that God has always dealt with Israel by means of sovereign election, Paul goes on to say that God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael began a pattern of election that still continues. Having first distinguished ‘Israel’ from ‘those who are descended from Israel’ (9:6) Paul now also distinguishes ‘Abraham’s children’ from ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (9:7) and proves that physical descent from Abraham is not a guarantee of inheritance. He proceeds in 9:8 to distinguish between the ‘natural children’ (kata sarka) and ‘the children of the promise’, using the example of Isaac’s children Esau and Jacob.

ESAU AND JACOB

These two were born, not just of the same father, but of the same pregnancy and yet God chose Jacob rather than Esau. Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen long before their birth and before their behaviour. The choice of Jacob was not based on some good deed that he performed as the choice was ‘before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad’ (9:11), nor was it based on physical connection. It was based on election. Paul describes it like this in 9:11: ‘in order that God’s purpose in election might stand’. God brings his purposes to pass and chooses those whom he wills. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael it was a choice between sons of different mothers, in the case of Jacob and Esau it was a choice between twin sons of the same mother. Jacob inherited the promise.

In vv. 22-13 Paul bolsters his argument with two Old Testament quotations; (1) ‘The older will serve the younger’ and (2) ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated’. He is stressing that God’s election does not necessarily conform to human practice and custom but is always according to his own will. The older son was normally the heir but God chose Abraham’s son Isaac rather than Ishmael. In the case of Isaac’s sons God did not choose Esau but Jacob.

The promise given to Rebecca in Genesis 25:23 would seem to suggest that the election in view is that of ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’. This verse reads:

‘The Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’

The second quotation, from Malachi chapter one, originally appears after a statement of God’s love for Israel (Mal 1:2) followed by the assertion that God’s love for Jacob is so strong that his attitude to Esau seems like hate by comparison. Again the original reference is not to individuals as Malachi (1:4) goes on to describe Edom as ‘the Wicked land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord.’

Witherington (2004, p.253) maintains:

‘As the OT context of the saying “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3) shows, the subject there is two nations, not two individuals, and, as we have said, even when individuals are in the picture, it is not their eternal destiny that is spoken of. The quoted verse, then, may speak of God’s elective purposes, but the concern is with the roles they are to play in history, not their personal eternal destiny.’

Moo disagrees. He contends (1996, p. 585):

‘First, Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv. 10b-11a when he mentions their conception, birth and “works” – language that is not easily applied to nations. Second, several of Paul’s key words and phrases in this passage are words he generally uses elsewhere with reference to the attaining of salvation; and significantly they occur with this sense in texts closely related to this one: “election” (see esp. 11:5,7); “call” (see esp. 8:28); and “[not] of works” (see esp. Rom. 4:2-8 and 11:6). These words are therefore difficult to apply to nations or peoples, for Paul clearly does not believe that peoples or nations –not even Israel- are chosen and called by God for salvation apart from their works.’

He continues (1996, p. 586):

‘The nations denoted by these names, we must remember, have come into existence in and through the individuals who first bore those names. In a context in which Paul begins speaking rather clearly about the individuals rather than the nations, we should not be surprised that he would apply a text that spoke of the nations to individuals who founded and, in a sense, “embodied” them. It is not the issue of how God uses different individuals or nations in accomplishing his purposes that is Paul’s concern but which individuals, and on what basis, belong to God’s covenant people.’

In vv. 14-18 Paul deals with an anticipated objection to his argument of vv. 6-13 in a question and answer format. He is not so much clarifying but rather defending his insistence (v12) that God makes his choices independently of human distinctions. He begins (v14) with ‘What then shall we say? Is God unjust?’ An objector might suggest that when God arbitrarily determines eternal destiny based on nothing but his own
choice, ignoring human claims whether by birth or self effort, then he is irresponsible and unrighteous. God, one might say, must choose people on the basis of moral qualities or else he is unjust.

ILLUSTRATION 1 THE POSITIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Paul makes his own position (v14) clear by use of a strong negative ‘Not at all!’ before proceeding to give two OT illustrations which he introduces with the word ‘for,’ and from each derives a proof introduced by the word ‘therefore’, The first quotation (v.15) that he presents is from Exodus 33:19. In the book of Exodus the quotation follows the worship of the golden calf, as a result of which the Levites, at God’s insistence, killed three thousand of their idolatrous fellow Israelites (Ex. 32:26-
28). Moses then asked the Lord to show him his glory (Ex. 33:18) after which the Lord said he would cause his ‘goodness’ to pass in front of Moses and proclaim his name ‘the Lord’. Then follows the quotation that Paul cites in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”.

Paul follows this up with v16: ‘It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.’ The subject (‘it’) implied in v.16 is not exactly clear. The reference may be to ‘God’s purpose of election’ (v.12) or, more likely, to God’s ‘bestowal of mercy’ (v15). The point is that nothing man does has any bearing on God’s choice to either withhold or bestow mercy.

God was showing Moses that all the Israelites deserved to die because of their sin against God on that occasion but that God in compassion spared many of them. The nation ought to have been wiped out then but God graciously spared it. Is there unrighteousness with God? Logic works in both directions. Was God unjust when he also spared many Israelites when they deserved to die?

Wright (2002), p. 638) says that:

‘The surprise, in other words, is not that some were allowed to fall by the
wayside, but that any at all were allowed to continue as God’s covenant people, carrying the promises forward to their conclusion.’

Paul shows that election, rather than being unjust, is merciful. Everyone deserves God’s judgement but God is merciful to those elected to salvation. God, in fact, would still be just if he did not choose to spare anyone.

ILLUSTRATION 2 THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Having thus shown the positive side of election Paul introduces (v.17) his second OT quotation beginning with the word ‘For’ and from it shows (v.18) the negative side. Verse 17 (quoting Ex. 9:16) reads ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Moo (1996, p.595) suggests that’ raise up’ has ‘the connotation “appoint to a significant role in salvation history”. The comment by Paul (v.18) that ‘therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden’ relates the ‘raising up’ of Pharaoh to his ‘hardening’.

It is interesting that Paul did not select a quotation from Exodus that explicitly mentions the word ‘hardening’ (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12). Piper (1993, p. 179) asks: ‘If Paul wanted to infer from an Old Testament quotation that God hardens whom he wills, why did he choose to cite Ex 9:16 in which the word “harden” is missing?’ Perhaps this is because in Ex. 8:15 and 8:32 it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. One might therefore infer that it was only then, and as an act of judgement in
response to this that God, in turn, hardened his heart. Paul, it would seem, wished rather to emphasise the sovereign action of God in election.

HARDENING

It is also interesting that in v.18, which restates what was said in v.16 (that God bestows or withholds mercy on whom he wills), ‘hardening’ is not the exact antithesis of ‘mercy’. ‘Mercy’ in this context refers to the bestowal salvation. ‘Hardening’ however, does not mean the infliction of eternal wrath. Paul has chosen his words with precision. At the time of Paul’s writing he considered the unbelieving Jews ‘hardened’ but was confident that they were not necessarily locked in that hopeless situation forever. Paul’s prayer was for their salvation (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:11-14, 28-32).

Some commentators try to keep their options open. Hendriksen (1981, p. 326), for example, maintains:

‘There is no reason to doubt that the hardening of which Pharaoh was the object was final. It was a link in the chain: reprobation – wicked life – hardening – everlasting punishment. This does not mean, however, that divine hardening is always final.’

Piper contends (1993, p.178):

Must we not conclude, therefore, that the hardening in Rom 9:18 has reference, just as the hardening in 11:7, to the action of God whereby a person is left in a condition outside salvation and thus “prepared for destruction” (9:22)?

In a footnote (1993, p.178 no.31), however, he somewhat qualifies this view:

‘This does not imply that the condition sometimes called hardness of heart (Eph 4:18) or mind (2 Cor 3:14) cannot be altered by the merciful revivifying act of God (Eph 2:1-4). But it does imply that God is the one who sovereignly decides who will be shown such mercy and who will be decisively and finally hardened. It is hardening in this decisive sense that meets the demands of the argument in Rom 9:1-18.

It is clear that God did not force Pharaoh to act against his natural bent, but the quotation (Ex. 9:16) chosen by Paul shows that he considered that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish his will.

ROMANS 9:19-29

‘One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.” Rom 9:19-29 (NIV)

Once again Paul anticipates the objections and, having just addressed the objection that ‘God is unjust!,’ he now turns his attention to the objection that ‘God is unfair!’ How can it be fair for God to find fault when no one can resist his will? If God hardens a person’s heart, on what basis does he then hold that person accountable for his unbelief? Paul treats this objection as an expression of arrogance against God rather than an honest inquiry and says (v.20): ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’ and goes on to make his point by using a biblical analogy.

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY

Quoting Isaiah 29:16 he compares the Creator and the creature to a potter
and clay. Only the potter (v.21) has the right to determine what types of vessels to produce. From the same lump of clay he can make a work of art or produce a vessel for common, everyday use. That which he forms has no say in the matter for he can mould it as he chooses. In the same way God can do as he pleases with human beings.

The analogy of the potter and the clay is then carried over into vv. 22-24 which Paul begins with another question: ‘What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?’ and continues ‘What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- even us…? The word ‘choosing’(NIV) or ‘wishing’ may be interpreted in one of two ways:

1) Causally = ‘because he wished’ to display his wrath.

Or:

2) Concessively = ‘though he wished’ to display his wrath.

The latter interpretation fits best with the assertion that God bears ‘with great patience’ the ‘vessels of wrath’. A threefold reason is given for this tolerance:

1) to demonstrate his wrath
2) to make his power known
3) to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

The pottery ‘for noble purposes’ (honour) and for ‘common use’ of v.21 are parallel to the ‘vessels of mercy’ and ‘vessels of wrath’ of vv.22-23. These ‘vessels of wrath’ are said to be ‘prepared for destruction’, but of the vessels of mercy it is said ‘whom he prepared in advance for glory’. Paul does not say by whom or by what the ‘vessels of wrath’ are found fit for disposal but does emphasize that it is God who has actively prepared the ‘vessels of mercy’ for glory. In v.24 he states that these ‘vessels of mercy’ are those whom God has called, which includes not only Jews but also Gentiles.

In vv. 25-29 he attempts to demonstrate from the OT scriptures that the salvation of Gentiles had been prophesied long before. He gives two quotations from Hosea (2:23; 1:10) and one from Isaiah (10:22-23). Hosea was addressing the ten Northern Tribes of Israel before the exile to Assyria and proclaiming their rebellious attitude (‘not my people’, ‘not my loved one’) as well as a future restoration (‘my people’, ‘my loved one’, ‘sons of the living God’). Hosea spoke these words to give ethnic Israel hope as the elect and yet, although he does not say so explicitly, Paul was quoting these verses to try to prove that the ‘vessels of mercy’ included Gentiles. Why did Paul cite and apply these verses to people outside ethnic Israel? Perhaps his thinking was typological (one story in scripture used by God to teach about another) and he found the rejection and restoration of Israel analogous to the exclusion and then inclusion of Gentiles in God’s saving plan.

Paul quoted these verses (that in their original context referred to the restoration of Israel after the exile) to prove that Gentiles would be saved but also uses them to point out that a believing remnant of Jews will be saved. None of these scriptures refer to all Israelites being saved and they suit Paul’s purpose well as here he is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so, with regard to the remnant and its size.

In v.27 he claims to be quoting Isaiah when, in fact, the reference is to Hosea 1:10 which makes no mention of a remnant. Perhaps he is combining this with Isaiah 10:22 to form a composite quotation. Heil (2002, p.706) views it as a ‘combined citation’ and explains that throughout Romans the term ‘Israelite’ (9:4) or ‘Israel’ (9:6, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25, 26) never refers to a ‘Christ-believing Jew’. It is always used in Romans to refer to Jews who have not yet believed in Christ. He states (2004, p. 707):

‘Grammatically, then, the Isaian quote in 9:27b is best translated and understood as an eventual conditional sentence expressing the hope that if, as is to be expected in accord with God’s promise that the sons of Israel (who presently do not yet believe in Christ) will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, then surely, at least a remnant of this great number will be saved in the future by eventually coming to believe in Christ.’

Verse 28 is likewise obscure. The main idea seems to be that God, having definitely decided that the Israelites will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, will accomplish it on earth. This makes the promise based on it (that at least a remnant will be saved), even more certain. Verse 29, (quoting Isaiah 1:9) is a reminder that although only a remnant will be saved (vv.27-28) the fact that God will save some is an indication of his grace.

In this discourse Paul, it would seem, denies that ethnic Israel is the elect of God (9:6) and maintains that the elect have always been a subgroup within Israel. Election is a matter of God’s sovereignty and does not depend on natural descent or on human efforts. Paul has argued for God’s right to elect as he sees fit. The question and answer format suggests his recognition that his readers would not necessarily find this an easy truth to accept. For Paul, it is God alone who has the right to elect or not to elect. Pharaoh (vv. 16-18) is an example of God choosing not to elect (to harden) and in vv.18-21 this is shown to be legitimate because God is the Creator. When God chooses not to elect some, or even most, he does not transgress his own righteousness because, while those who are elected receive grace (which is undeserved), those who are rejected receive justice (which they deserve). In Paul’s reckoning, God is neither unjust nor unfair. His word has not failed.

View my posts:

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Exposition

ROMANS 9:1-5. PAUL’S LAMENT

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen’ Romans 9:1-5 (NIV)

Romans chapter nine begins with a personal lament which introduces the problem that Paul intends to address; the failure of Israel to accept the gospel in spite of the privileges with which they had been blessed. This is the first of four times (9:1-5; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 11:13-14) in chapters 9-11 when Paul involves himself personally at major turning points of the discussion:

a) In 9:1-5, he stresses how much God’s mercy to Israel matters to him – to the extent that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his people.

b) In 10:1-4 he bears witness on behalf of Israel that they have good intentions: they have a zeal for God, but it is is not according to knowledge.

c) In 11:1-6 Paul testifies to the faithfulness of God who has, in fact, called a remnant of Israel in Paul himself.

d) In 11:13-14 he says that he glorifies his ministry as apostle to
the Gentiles; this is part of God’s plan to make Israel jealous.

Paul begins this section with a series of double expressions in vv. 1-2 (‘I speak the truth —I am not lying; in Christ – through the Holy Spirit; great sorrow – unceasing anguish’) by which he asserts his honesty and expresses his grief that his fellow Jews are lost.

In v. 1 he sets forth in one sentence a five-fold cumulative assertion of his sincerity:

a) ‘I speak the truth!’

b) ‘I speak the truth in Christ’

c) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying’

d) ‘ I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it’

e) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit’

Paul calls on Christ himself as the one who can vouch for the truthfulness of what he is about to say about Israel and reminds his audience that a second witness, his conscience, is testifying by means of the Holy Spirit. He may have had in mind the OT Law of Evidence which required at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-16).

Paul (v.2) describes his heartbreak as continual (adialeiptos) and his response to this as a wish (or prayer) that he might be condemned in order that they might be saved. Was Paul speaking in hyperbole or was he serious? Moo (1996, p.558) comments:

‘I prefer, in agreement with most English translations, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cranfield paraphrases, “I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfilment of such a prayer could benefit them”)’

Since Paul’s giving up of his own salvation was neither possible nor permissible the wish could not be fulfilled. He seems to model himself on Moses (Exodus 30:30-32), who had also at times been badly treated by the Israelites and yet expressed a willingness to sacrifice himself for them. That those for whom Paul is heartbroken are unbelieving Jews is emphasized in v. 3 where their identification as ‘my people’ is modified by ‘those of my own race’ and further in v. 4 by ‘the people
of Israel’. Paul may have been the Apostle to the Gentiles but he was certainly a Jew by race.

In the concluding words of this lament Paul lists eight special privileges given to Israel and bemoans the fact that the Israelites have not benefitted from these spiritual advantages:

1) adoption
2) the glory
3) the covenants
4) the giving of the law
5) the temple worship
6) the promises
7) the patriarchs
8) the Messiah – who was himself a Jew

Thus in verses 1-5 Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews and their failure to take advantage of their unique privileges, and expresses his overwhelming desire for their conversion. This introduces the subject that will occupy him throughout the rest of chapters 9-11; the unbelief of Israel and the question of God’s faithfulness.

See my posts:

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Exposition

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11

Posted on 25th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

The Apostle Paul had an interest in the church at Rome even though he had not been its founder and did not usually preach the gospel where Christ was already named (15:20), nevertheless in Romans 1:8-13 and 15: 23 he expressed his wish to visit the believers there. Why did he write to them and why did he want to visit?

We cannot know for sure why Paul wrote his letter since it seems that there were no urgent doctrinal issues requiring correction. Romans 1:11-16 and 15:23-29, however, would suggest that Paul wrote mainly to inform the Roman Christians of, and involve them in, his future missionary plans. He wished to encourage them in the faith and, after finishing his work in Asia Minor and Greece, move farther west to evangelize Spain.

In the key verses of the letter (1:15-17) Paul expresses his eagerness to preach the gospel and states that it is ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.’ The issue of the salvation of Israel is not addressed in the first eight chapters as Paul waited to deal with it later in the letter. He did so in Romans chapters 9-11, one of the most challenging sections in the Pauline writings.

Many of the major topics raised by chapters 9-11 are still subjects of theological debate. Not only are the contents of the unit 9-11 in dispute, there is also disagreement regarding the place of the chapters in the overall theme of the epistle. Some scholars argue that the section is a digression, an excursus unrelated to the theme of the letter (e.g. Dodd). Others view it as an integral part of Paul’s argument (e.g. Cranfield, Dunn, Morris, Moo, Schreiner, Stulmacher), perhaps even the climax of the Epistle (e.g Munck, Fitzmyer, Wright, Witherington).

Romans 9-11 is neither an excursus nor afterthought but to claim that it is the climax of the letter is an overstatement. It is an integral part of Romans as there are thematic links with chapters 1-8. It takes up the themes about God’s impartiality in chapters 1-3, Abraham in chapter 4, and predestination in chapter 8. The traditional view of Romans as a textbook of Christian theology takes Romans 9-11 as an appendix to the argument of chapters 1-8 and sees it as a new section of the letter dealing with a new theme; the place of Israel in salvation history.

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF ROMANS

1:1-17 The gospel reveals God’s righteousness through faith.

1:18-3:20 God’s righteousness is revealed in wrath against sinful humanity.

3:21-4:25 Justification is righteousness as a result of faith alone, not by the law.

5: -8:39 Justification liberates a person from the condemnation of the law to serve God.

9:1-11:36 The problem of Israel. The rejection of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

12:1 – 15:13 The Christian life. The law is fulfilled through love.

15:14 – 16:23 Paul asks for help to extend his gospel ministry.

16:25-27 Concluding doxology. God wants all nations to obey the gospel.

A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT OF ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11

In Romans chapter eight Paul calls those who believe in Jesus Christ ‘saints’ v.27; ‘called’ v.28; and ‘chosen’ v.33. The Jews would traditionally have reserved these terms for themselves. That raises the question as to whether the privileges implied by these descriptions have now been transferred from Israel to the Christian church.

Paul had just expounded the benefits of the new Christian faith and now turns to address the embarrassing problem that the majority of Jews had
rejected Jesus as Messiah. Those to whom God had made the promises
were precisely those who were rejecting the gospel. This might raise doubts in the Christian believers about God’s trustworthiness and faithfulness. If God has not fulfilled promises made to Israel, then how could the church be confident that the promises will be fulfilled for them?

Paul addresses the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel and defends God’s righteousness. He insists that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

Following an introduction in 9:1-5, Romans 9-11 has three discourses that deal with three main theses. The discourses are:

Discourse 1 9:6 – 9:29 This ends with an OT quotation.

Discourse 2 9:30 – 10:21 This ends with OT quotations.

Discourse 3 11:1-36 This ends with a doxology.

THESIS 1

It is not as though God’s word has failed. 9:6

What is the explanation for the rejection of the gospel by the majority of Jews? Has God’s word (his promises to Israel) failed? Paul struggles to explain why Israel has rejected the Messiah. Despite what might seem evidence to the contrary, Paul does not accept that God’s word has failed snd so he comes up with an ingenious solution. He redefines the true Israel as a sub-group within ethnic Israel (9:6).

He makes a distinction (9:8) between ‘the children of the flesh’ (Israelites by birth) and the ‘children of the promise’ (Israelites by God’s election) and interprets Old Testament verses to show that the fulfilment of the promises was not based on physical descent or merit gained by works. He maintains that God is not unrighteous because he shows mercy to whomever he wishes, and in his sovereignty, has extended his mercy to Gentiles. No-one can do anything to change this; God’s election is gratuitous.

THESIS 2

Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not. 9:30-31

Paul deals with the pursuit of a ‘law of righteousness’ by Jews who were not elect and their stumbling at the same time over the cornerstone laid in Zion (the Messiah). In 10:1 his prayer is that Jews might be saved. He says that they are currently pursuing righteousness but not according to knowledge which would have pointed them to Christ for righteousness (10:4).

Christ, whom they rejected, is the end of the Law for righteousness to whoever believes. Righteousness is not to be pursued but is by faith (‘confessed with the mouth and believed in the heart’ (10:9). In 10:16 Paul says that it is just like the time of Isaiah because the message of the gospel has been preached, but all have not obeyed. The section ends (10:17-21) with two rhetorical questions: ‘Has everyone heard?’ ‘Did Israel know?’ The answer to each must be ‘Yes!’ According to both Moses and Isaiah, Israel heard, but most did not accept the message.

THESIS 3

God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

What does the future hold for Jews? Paul admits that Israel has stumbled but maintains that it is not beyond recovery. He offers his own testimony and the story of Elijah as evidence and then expands on the concept of a remnant.

He claims that just as God brought Gentiles to faith because of the transgression of Israel so he will use the Gentiles to draw Jews to himself. In 11:13-24, he uses metaphorical language (the olive tree) to address the Gentile members of the Roman church and warn them against pride in their current ‘grafted-in’ status since it is a work of God and does not depend on man.

Paul winds down the third discourse and the whole unit (chapters 9-11) in vv. 11:25-32. He declares that ‘all Israel will be saved’ and states that God pronounced all disobedient so that he could have mercy on all. The section ends with a doxology extolling God’s incomprehensible wisdom, knowledge, justice, and sovereignty in the working out salvation.

View my posts:

Exposition

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

REJECTION

Verse five hints at rejection: ‘The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it’ but verses nine to eleven again take up the idea of Jesus as light and forecast his rejection, a major theme of the gospel. The world is generally indifferent to him (1:10) but ‘He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him’ (1:11) emphasizes the hostile response of Israel. The term ‘The Jews’, although not in the Prologue, is used sixty-nine times in the Gospel and, in the opinion of Lincoln (p.71), ‘frequently serves a representative function’. Their response ‘indicates different types of belief and unbelief’. The irony in the Gospel is that although Jesus was brought up in a Jewish home his own people wanted nothing to do with him. As the Gospel progresses ‘His own’ describes a new group consisting of those who accept him and heed his message (10:34; 13:1).

BELIEVE AND RECEIVE

In contrast to his rejection by the world (1:10) and Israel (1:11) there were those who ‘received’ him. These were given authority to belong to God as children (1:12). This birth into the family of God was totally an act of God and not dependent upon race or any human act. That it has nothing to do with ordinary human birth is stressed three times in 1:13: ‘not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will.’ The theme of the ‘new birth’ is taken up in chapter 3. This description of believers as God’s children occurs again in 11:52, with the diminutive ‘little children’ occurring also in 13:33. While all men may become sons (tekna) of God the Prologue emphasises that Jesus was in a unique sense the son (huios) of God.

INCARNATION

In verses 14-18 the author explicitly identifies the Logos as Jesus. He is said (1:14) to have ‘become flesh, and made his dwelling among us’. The Greek ‘skenoo’ for ‘made his dwelling’ literally means “to pitch one’s tent”, a term which, according to Kostenberger (2004, p.41),

‘suggests that in Jesus, God has come to take up residence among his people once again, in a way even more intimate than when he dwelt in the midst of wilderness Israel in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35).’

This statement that the Word became human is the highest point of the Prologue. God himself entered humanity and made it possible for human beings to enter the family of God. In Jesus as the Logos incarnate there was no more need for a tabernacle or temple. God’s shekinah glory was in the world and thus the author adds (1:14): ‘We have seen his glory’.

GLORY

Lincoln (2005, p.105) interprets this ‘seeing’ not in a physical sense but as ‘the perception of faith’ that ‘finds in Jesus the glory of the divine presence’. This mention of ‘glory’ in verse fourteen introduces a significant theme in the Fourth Gospel. ‘Glory’ occurs nineteen times and ‘to glorify’ twenty-three times. ‘We have seen his glory’ would have been encouraging for early Christians facing hostility from Judaism. The Jews would have seen no glory in the life and death of the crucified Jesus but the John’s Gospel insists that for those with faith to see it, there was glory throughout his life, even at what would seem to be the time of his greatest humiliation, the crucifixion.

Kostenberger (2004, p.42) draws attention to the fact that:

‘As the obedient, dependent Son, Jesus brings glory to God the Father throughout his entire ministry, but he does so supremely by submitting to the cross, which for John is the place of God’s – and Jesus’- ultimate glorification (cf. 12:23-33; 13:31-32; 14:13; 17:1, 4-5). In the Fourth Gospel the glory of Jesus is linked with the end of his life on earth rather than the beginning. At the time of triumphal entry he has not yet been glorified (12:16) and at the last supper his hour has come but he has not yet been glorified (12:23; 17:1). In 17:1-5 he asks the Father to glorify him and that the disciples may see his glory (17:24). He assures his disciples that it will happen soon (13:32). His request for glory was based on the work that he had accomplished on earth (17:4) and, as in the Prologue; it involved his revelation of God his Father (17:6).’

Exposition

WHY DOES GOD NEED A SACRIFICE TO FORGIVE?

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ Jn 1.29

This quotation from the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel records the words of the austere early first century Jewish prophet John the Baptist addressing a crowd of people which included Jewish religious leaders (Jn 1.19). In those days many flocked to the desert locations which John preferred in order to hear him preach. On the day in question John saw Jesus approaching and pointed him out to the assembled crowd with these immortal words: ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’

It may be difficult for anyone brought up in the western world to grasp what John meant by this expression, but to someone living in a culture where the ritual slaughter of animals to placate a deity is commonplace, his words would be more obvious. Certainly the first century adherents of the Jewish religion, with its temple and offerings, would have immediately understood that this son of a priest (Lk 1.5-25; 57-80) was using the terminology of sacrifice.

New Testament writers describe the death of Jesus Christ in various ways. It is called, for example, a ‘ransom’ (Mk 10.45) and a ‘redemption’ from bondage (Eph 1.7; Col 1.14). Terms implying the payment of a price occur also in 1 Corinthians 6.20; 7.23 and in Galatians 3.13; 4.5. It is viewed as an ‘expiation’ or ‘propitiation’, which have the idea of appeasement (Heb 2.17; Rom 3.25; 1 Jn 2.2, 4.10), releasing one from guilt, delivering from the fear caused by a bad conscience and restoring peace with God. But the writers of the New Testament most commonly explain His death as a ‘sacrifice’ for sin (1 Cor 5.7; Eph 5.2; Heb 7.27; 8.3, 9.14, 26, 28; 10.10, 12, 14).

Thus, when John cried out ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he may have reminded his hearers of the lamb slain at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Ex 12.1-14, 1 Cor 5.7) and commemorated annually in the Jewish Festival of Passover. Or he may have been thinking of countless animals offered over the centuries as Jewish offerings (Lev 1-7). More likely, however, he had in mind the haunting words of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy, which proclaimed the Suffering Servant of the Lord who gave His life for many:

‘He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.’ (Is 53.7)

The Christian faith is based on the doctrine that the death of Jesus Christ was a sacrifice that paid the penalty for the sins of mankind. So why was it necessary that one should be offered on behalf of others? In our search for an answer we must go back to the beginning, to the Book of Genesis. There we see that sacrifice was instituted by the one living creator God of the universe. We read about the first sacrifice, although it is not specifically so described, in the book of Genesis chapter three. The first human couple, Adam and Eve, warned by God not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, disobeyed, with the result that sin entered the world. This is often referred to as ‘the fall’.

The basic meaning of ‘sin’ is to ‘fall short’ of a target. For example, in Judg 20.16 the Hebrew word is used in its ordinary sense describing elite troops who could sling a stone at a hair’s breadth and not miss. To sin is therefore to ‘miss the mark’, to ‘fall short’ of God’s standard of holiness and righteousness (Rom 3.23). The first sin was no isolated act of disobedience to the will of God, but rather set in motion a host of disastrous consequences for humanity. Since then every one of us has been born with a fallen nature and has the disposition to disobey God (Gal 5.17).

In addition to this inherent sin nature, we have Adam’s sin imputed (credited) to us as members of the human race. Because he is head of the human race we are reckoned to have sinned in him, and are therefore liable to the same judgment (Rom 5.12). In addition we all habitually make wrong choices which the Bible refers to as ‘sins’. These are evident in our thoughts, words and actions. The only exception to this universal guilt is the Lord Jesus Christ who could not, would not and did not sin (2 Cor 5.21; Heb 4.15, 7.26; 1 Pet 1.19, 2.22; 1 Jn 3.5).

Not only are we all sinners (Rom 3.23), our sins result in alienation from God who is just and holy (Isa 59.2). He cannot overlook sin and requires that a penalty be paid. That penalty is death (Ezek 18.20; Rom 6.23). God must punish sinners and we are unable to save ourselves. How can we therefore escape the righteous judgment of God? That is only possible by a sinless sacrifice that satisfies God’s justice!

After the fall, Adam and Eve had a sense of their nakedness and tried to make coverings out of the leafy material available to them in the Garden of Eden. Their own efforts to conceal their shame were unsuccessful, leaving them exposed to God’s judgment. God, however, in His kindness and mercy provided them with coats of skins (Gen 3.21). This teaches us that our own efforts to deal with the effects of sin are useless; only God can meet our need. In the case of Adam and Eve the provision of the skins had a cost. For them to live animals had to die. This principle of the sacrifice of a life is set out in Leviticus chapter 17.11:

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The death of these animals, and others subsequently killed in Jewish worship rituals, pointed forward to the one great, perfect sacrifice provided by God. That was the Lord Jesus Christ who is God manifest in flesh. He is both human and divine and on earth lived a life of perfect obedience to the will of God, even to the extent of death by crucifixion (Phil 2.8). His offering was a once and for all infinite sacrifice (Heb 10.12), acceptable to God – as proved by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2.24-26) – and able to reconcile us to God, making amends for our offences.

Thus, drawing upon the rich Old Testament background of substitutionary sacrifice, John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God’. Those who heard him that day were privileged to have the Lamb of God among them, already on his way to the cross to bear the burden of sin and guilt. The accumulated transgressions, past, present and future, of God’s children in every tribe and nation worldwide, was summed up by John in that simple expression: ‘the sin of the world’.

When John the Baptist declared, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he was acknowledging that God demands a sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and was directing attention away from himself to the One who would be that all-sufficient sacrifice. Christ offered ‘one sacrifice for sins forever’ (Heb 10.12). The work of salvation has been completed. Neither you nor I can do anything to merit or to improve it; instead, we must accept salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2.8-9). Such loving sacrifice demands a response (Jn 15.13-14). May ours be that of the two disciples of John who heard his second proclamation the following day and ‘followed Jesus’ (Jn 1.35-37).

Exposition

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, P. N. 2006, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International

Ashton, J. 1991, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Barrett, C. K. 1978, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction With Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Bauckham, R. 2007, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Beck, D. R. 1997, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel, BRILL, Leiden

Bennema, C. 2002, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Brown, R.E. 1966, The Gospel According to John I-XII in Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York

Bruce, F. F. 1983, The Gospel of John, Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids

Carson, D. A. 1991, The Gospel according to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Endo, M. 2002, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Evans, C. A. 1993, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Evans, C. A. 1997, Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, Continuum International, London

Gieschen, C. A. 1998, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, BRILL, Leiden

Hallett, G. 2005, Identity and Mystery in Themes of Christian Faith: Late-Wittgensteinian Perspectives, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Farnham

Hamid-Khani, S. 2000, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harris, E. 2004, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, Continuum International, London

Harstine, S, 2002, Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Ancient Reading Techniques, Continuum International, London

Hurtado, L. W. 2003, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Jasper, A. E. 1998, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Keener, C.S. 2003, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Köstenberger, A. J. 2004, John in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Ada, Michigan

Kysar, R. 1993, John, the Maverick Gospel, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Kysar, R. 2006, Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas

Lindars B. 1972, The Gospel of John, Oliphants, London

Lincoln, A. T. 2005, The Gospel According to Saint John in Black’s New Testament Commentary series, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Longenecker, R. N. 2005, Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

McGrath, J. F. 2001, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, Cambridge University Press

Miller, E. L. 1989, Salvation-history in the Prologue of John: the Significance of John 1:3-4, Brill Archive, Leiden

Ngewa, S. M. 2003, The Gospel of John, Evangel Publishing House, Nairobi

Neyrey, J. H. 2007, The Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press

Phillips, P. M. 2006, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Continuum International, London

Pink, A. W. 1968, Exposition of the Gospel of John, Zondervan, Grand Rapids

Ratzinger, J, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, Doubleday, New York

Resseguie, J. L. 2001, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, BRILL, Leiden

Ridderbos, H. N. 1997, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Sadananda, D. R. 2004, The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Schnackenburg, R. 1980, The Gospel According to St. John, Seabury Press, New York

Thompson, M. M. 2001, The God of the Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Trites, A. A. 2004, The New Testament Concept of Witness, Cambridge University Press

Voorwinde, S, 2005, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human Or Divine?, Continuum International, London

Wallace, R. S. 2004, The Gospel of John: Pastoral and Theological Studies, Rutherford House, Edinburgh

Westermann, C. 1998, The Gospel of John in the Light of the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Willoughby, W. R. 1999, John: Believing on the Son, Christian Publications, Pennsylvania

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Barton, G. A. 1902, ‘On the Jewish-Christian Doctrine of the Pre-Existence of the Messiah’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 78-91

Borgen, P. 1972, ‘Logos was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John’ Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 2, pp. 115-130

Bowen, C. R. 1924, ‘Notes on the Fourth Gospel’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, No. 1/2, pp. 22-27

Boyarin, D. 2001, ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 243-284

Boyle, M. O. 1977, ‘Sermo: Reopening the Conversation on Translating JN 1,1’, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 161-168

Bruce, A. B. 1896, ‘Four Types of Christian Thought. IV. The Fourth Gospel’, The Biblical World, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 168-179

Burrows, M. 1926, ‘The Johannine Prologue as Aramaic Verse’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2, pp. 57-69

Coloe, M. 1997, ‘The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1’, Australian Biblical Review, Vol. 45, pp 40-55

Cowan, C. 2006, ‘The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine Subordination revisited’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 49. No. 1, pp 115-135

Giblin, C.H. 1985, ‘Two Complementary Literary Structures in John 1:1-18’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 87-103

Glasswell, M. E. 1985, ‘The Relationship between John and Mark’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol. 23, F 1985, pp 99-115

Kraaling, C.H. 1930, ‘The Fourth Gospel and Contemporary Religious Thought’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 140-149

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No 640, pp 398-413

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No. 639, pp 305-320

Matera, F. J. 2006, ‘Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: a Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology’ Theological Studies Vol. 67, No. 2, pp 237-256

Meagher, J. 1969, ‘John 1:14 and the New Temple’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 57-68

Middleton, R. D. 1938, ‘Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel’, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 101-133

Miller, E. L. 1993, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 445-457

Pagels, E. 1999, ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 477-496

Price, J. L. 1967, ‘The Search for the Theology of the Fourth Evangelist’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 3-15

Pryor, J. W. 1985, ‘Of the Virgin Birth or the Birth of Christians? The Text of John 1:13 Once More’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4, pp. 296-318

Pryor, J. W. 1990, ‘Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:11’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, Fasc. 3, pp. 201-218

Ridderbos, H. 1966, ‘The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of John’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 8, Fasc. 2/4, pp. 180-201

Rishell C. W. 1901, ‘Baldensperger’s Theory of the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 38-49

Schnelle, U. 2001, ‘Recent Views of John’s Gospel’, Word & World Vol.21 No. 4, pp 352359

Seitz, O.J.F. 1964, ‘Gospel Prologues: A Common Pattern?’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 262-268

Staten, H. 1993, ‘How the Spirit (Almost) Became Flesh: Gospel of John’, Representations, No. 41, pp. 34-57

Strachan, R. H. 1914, ‘The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Fourth Gospel’, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 81-105

Voorwinde, S. 2002, ‘John’s Prologue: beyond some Impasses of Twentieth-century scholarship’, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp 15-44

Wordsworth, W.A. 1957,‘The Bodmer Papyrus and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, Fasc. 1, pp. 1-7

Exposition

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

FATHER AND SON

In 1:14 the glory of Jesus is described as ‘the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father.’ The major claim in this Gospel is that that Jesus came from and returned to God.
This claim is so important that those who reject the son do not honour and obey the Father who sent him. Those who believe in Jesus believe in the one who sent him (12:44). On this theme the Prologue makes a fundamental statement (1:18);

‘No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’

The ‘only-begotten son’ (KJV) has seen God since only he was pre-existent with the Father before the creation of the world. This experience of seeing the Father only belongs to the One who has come from God – the incarnate Logos (3:11; 3:32; 5:37; 7:29; 8:42; 16:28).

The relationship between the Father and the Son is characterized by love (3:35; 5:20; 15:9; 17:24) and the intimacy is such that the Father continues to be present with the Son while he is on earth (8:29; 16:32). The pre-existent relationship is so close that it is described as a dwelling of one within the other (10:38; 14:10; 17:21) but the subordination of the son to the Father is emphasized. The son is viewed as having been sent on a mission initiated by the Father, and is therefore accountable to him (3:17; 4:34; 5:23; 6:38; 7:28; 8:29, 12:44, 14:24). He is dependent on and obedient to the Father who gives him things (3:34; 5:22, 26, 27, 36; 17:24; 12:49; 17:8; 18:11), and people (6:37, 17:6). The son says that he can do nothing on his own initiative but only as instructed by his Father. (5:19, 30; 8:28). Lincoln (2005, p.65) comments:

‘However, the language of dependency of the Son on the Father- ‘the Son can do nothing on his own’- stresses not so much the subordination of the former to the latter as the total alignment of the wills and activities of the two (cf. 5:19,30; 8:28; 12:59-50).’

The paradox that is developed throughout John’s Gospel is that while the Son is subordinate to the Father, it is this that makes him equal with the Father, not just equal but truly one with the Father. Jesus applies two interesting titles to himself in the Gospel. The first is ‘Son of Man’ (1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31), the second is the ‘Son’ or ‘Son of God’ (1:14, 34, 49; 3:16-18; 5:19-26; 8:36; 9:35; 10:36; 11:27; 17:1; 19:7; 20:31). The title “Son of God” connected Jesus with the being of God himself. He is God and he is with God. He is equal to God but also dependent on God. As son he does only what the Father wants him to do and only speaks what he hears from the Father. As Logos he is the expression of God but he does not point to himself, only to his Father. As Son he reveals God and enables human beings to have a relationship with God.

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE REVELATION IN CHRIST TO THAT ON WHICH JUDAISM IS BASED

The Gospel of John is firmly grounded on the Old Testament. The connection between Moses and Jesus is stated towards the end of the Prologue (1:16-18):

‘From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’

Lincoln (2005, p.75) aptly sums up the implications of these verses:

‘In the prologue not only is the grace and truth previously associated with the glory of Yahweh in the covenant with Moses (cf. Exod. 34.6) now associated with the glory of the incarnate Logos (1.14), but a contrast can also be made between the two – ‘the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ’ (1.17). This is not a denial that before the coming of the Logos the law was previously an expression of Yahweh’s grace and truth. It is rather an assertion on the part of believers in Jesus that now they have seen the fullness of grace and truth in the Logos’s glory, these qualities need no longer be sought in the law.’

The Prologue thus ends as it began; with a statement of the deity of Christ. Verses 1 and 18 mirror one another as in each the Son is called ‘God’, is viewed as the expression (logos) or revealer of God and is described as being intimate with God (‘with God’ and ‘at the Father’s side’).

CONCLUSION

Most of these main themes and leading ideas in the Prologue continue throughout the Fourth Gospel but ‘Logos’, the key term in the Prologue, does not appear (as a Christological title). The Prologue contains the substance of the Gospel, which explains the religious significance of Jesus. He is the pre-existent Logos, the source of existence, life and light, who became a human being and lived on earth. He was witnessed to by John the Baptist, was generally rejected by his own people but was received by some, to whom he gave authority to become God’s children. God previously revealed himself in a limited way in the law, but the Logos, Jesus Christ, was the ultimate self-expression of God.

Exposition

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘the fact that the light has never been quenched is proved by the witness of the prophets, above all by the witness of John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and the herald of Christ. But his function as a witness has to be clearly distinguished from that to which witness is given – the light, which became flesh in Jesus Christ.’

The Fourth Gospel identifies the purpose of John the Baptist’s appearance and ministry as that of ‘witness’. In the Prologue the two mentions of John as witness are inserted at strategic points, reinforcing what has been said. Verse seven (‘to bear witness of the light’) harks back to what is said in verse five about the coming of the light and verse fifteen to what is said in verse fourteen about what Ridderbos (1997, p.42) calls ‘Jesus’ antecedent transcendent glory.’

Trites (2004, p.78ff.) argues convincingly that the Fourth Gospel ‘presents a sustained use of juridical metaphor’. She maintains that ‘in the Fourth Gospel God Incarnate has a lawsuit with the world’ (p.79). She indicates that in the first twelve chapters, which deal mainly with the conflict between Jesus and “the Jews”, John is stating a case, advancing his arguments, challenging his opponents and presenting his witnesses. She understands the idea of witness in John’s gospel in terms of Old Testament legal language and points out that other juridical words such as judge, judgement, cause, accuse and convince are also used in a context of debate or hostility.

Her assessment of John the Baptist as witness (p.91) is insightful:

‘John is the first and one of the most important witnesses to Jesus and his testimony is a threefold one, as the Prologue makes clear: (1) He is not the Light. (2) He is sent to bear witness to the Light. (3) The purpose of his witness-bearing is that all may believe in Christ (1:6-8). This pattern is followed in subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist. John is mentioned at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel , for he is the first to point his fellow men to Jesus, and in that sense all believers have been brought to Christ through him (1:7b). While there had been other men sent from God, John’s task was unique. He bore witness to the incarnate Word, to his superiority to himself, and to his prior existence.’

Others said to be witnesses in the Fourth Gospel include: Jesus Himself (3:11; 5:31; 8:13-14; 18:37), the Samaritan woman (4:39), God the Father (5:32,34,37; 8:18; I John 5:9), Scripture (John 5:39), the works of Christ (5:36), the crowd at the raising of Lazarus (John 12:17), the Spirit (15:26-27; I John 5:10,11), the disciples (John 15:27; 19:35; I John 1:2; 4:14), and the author himself (John 21:24).

Although John the Baptist was sent from God as a witness to the Light he is portrayed as insignificant in comparison with the Light itself. Jesus called him a ‘lamp’ (5:35) but he was certainly not the Light. The writer of the Gospel asserts John’s subordination to Jesus (1:20, 27, 29, 33, 36) and strongly denies that John the Baptist is the Messiah. According to Luke 3:15 some people thought that John the Baptist might be the Messiah’. In the Prologue John gives no information on John the Baptist but concentrates only on his function as a witness to the Light.

‘It is employed with two different nuances in this verse. In the first two instances the reference is to the created world, the world that constitutes humanity’s environment and that includes humanity itself. In the third instance – the world did not know him- the reference is to the world of humanity that by its response reveals its devastating plight of having become alienated from and hostile to the Word/Light that sustains it. It is this second negative connotation of ‘world’ that will become dominant in the Fourth Gospel.’

Exposition

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Ngewa (2003, p.10) says of the background to Logos:

‘If Semitic, then the main idea is that God communicated himself through Jesus Christ. If the background is Greek, the central idea is that Jesus holds things together. Neither of these ideas is excluded in what John says about Jesus in this passage. ‘

In the Prologue the author presents three views of the Logos:

1) In verse one he presents the Logos as being with God and within this expresses three important ideas.

– The eternal existence of the Logos (‘In the beginning was the word’).

– The eternal relationship of the Logos (‘with God’).

– The eternal status of the Logos (‘was God’).

The Logos exists before creation, enjoys a special, intimate relationship with God and in his very nature is God. The writer is thus claiming that Jesus who lived on earth was in fact the eternal Word, God himself. The idea is repeated in verse two, emphasizing the point.

2) In verse three he talks about the Logos and Creation and emphasises the divinity of the Word by stating that he was God’s agent in creation . This is put both positively (‘Through him all things were made’) and negatively (‘without him nothing was made that has been made.’).

3) In verses ten to fourteen he speaks of the Logos in the world and deals with the rejection of the Logos (1:10-11), the new birth of those who accept him (1:12-13) and with the Incarnation (1:14).

The word ‘logos’ (word) is employed thirty-nine times in John’s Gospel but it is only in the Prologue, where it occurs four times, that ‘logos’ is used as a Christological title. The term ‘Logos’ is never again applied to Jesus in John’s Gospel. Jesus later identifies himself as ‘Light’ (Jn 8:12; 9:5), as ‘Son’ (Jn 5:19-24), and as ‘Life’ (Jn 11:25) etc. but never says ‘I am the Word.”

This is because from chapter 1:14 on, he is no longer called ‘the logos’ but ‘Jesus’ Jesus and ‘the logos’ are one and the same; ‘the logos’ is the pre-existent Christ.

Christ’s pre-existence is not only mentioned in the Prologue but also on several occasions throughout the Gospel of John there are references to his life before Creation. He speaks of himself as having ‘come down from heaven’ (3:13; 3:31; 6:33; 6:38; 6:62). He says: ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ in 8:58 and, in the prayer of chapter seventeen, ‘And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began’ and ‘you loved me before the creation of the world.’ (17:5, 24).

Kysar (1993, p.31) maintains that the affirmation that Jesus existed from the beginning is ‘one of the highest claims that the Christian has made for Christ’. He observes:

‘The pre-existence of the Logos affirms not only that he existed before creation itself, but that he existed ‘before all things began’. His existence goes back into that mysterious time before time – into the realm of temporality that eludes human conceptuality. While we cannot fathom what it would mean to exist before all else, we can try to fathom what the author is trying to affirm by saying this. Christ is so important that he could not simply have come into being like any other person or object. Christ is made to transcend beings and things by the assertion of his pretemporal existence….Christ is no created being. He is before creation.’

Exposition

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 20th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

More than two thousand years ago a carpenter from Nazareth in Palestine emerged from obscurity. His influence was to divide his own nation, transform the lives of his disciples and impact the world. Who was Jesus? Where did he come from? What did he do and teach? How did people respond to his claims? What was his destiny? John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, seeks to address questions like these. He sums up his purpose in a statement in chapter 20:30-31:

‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’

The author thus encourages the reader to consider Jesus Christ, whom he presents as the worthy object of faith.

THE PROLOGUE

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke) which all introduce Jesus by locating his ministry in a historical setting, John’s prologue presents Jesus as the Word (Logos) in eternity. According to Lindars (1972, p.77);

‘The prologue is a work of immense assurance and literary power. It moves with measured steps from the Creation to the climactic moment of the Incarnation (verse 14), and then indicates the fulness of the revelation which results from it – like the dawn gradually illuminating the sky until the sun suddenly bursts above the skyline and sends its rays horizontally across the earth.’

Carson (1991, p.111) comments; ‘The Prologue is a foyer to the rest of the Fourth Gospel (as John’s Gospel is often called), simultaneously drawing the reader in and introducing the major themes’.

It is my intention to identify and comment briefly upon the major themes in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel.