Brakelite
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2020
- 10,879
- 7,261
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
John’s gospel was the first systematic theology to deal with Christ’s
‘Sonship’. Although written by John, it is not a human theology. It is a
divine theology. It was God Himself, through the Holy Spirit, who led
John to write as he did.
John’s gospel is very different to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and
Luke. It contains no parables. It also omits a great many of the ‘life
events’ of Christ that are found in these other three gospels. This is
because it has a specific intent. It is to show that “Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his
name” (John 20:30-31). This is why, in our quest to understand why
Christ is called the Son of God, it needs to be given special attention.
As each section of John’s gospel is read, it would be profitable to keep
reminding ourselves; “God led John to write this to show that Christ is
the Son of God”, “God led John to write this to show that Christ is the
Son of God”. When John’s gospel is read this way, it will take on a
much deeper meaning. Everything that God led John to write is to
show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is why, if we take
John’s gospel overall, we shall better understand why Christ has this
designation. It is God’s way of revealing this to us. John’s gospel is
much more than a biography of Christ’s life on earth. It is a theology –
a divine theology.
Some say that the only reason why Jesus is called the Son of God is because of His birth at Bethlehem (the incarnation) but if this were true, John’s gospel wouldn’t make sense. First of all, John doesn’t mention anything about the events surrounding Christ’s earthly birth (e. g. the visitation of angels to Joseph and Mary, the
miraculous conception of a baby in Mary’s womb, the virgin birth, the
visit of the shepherds and the magi, also Simeon’s blessing of Jesus
in the temple etc), nor does he mention anything of Christ’s child-life. If Christ is called the Son of God only because of the incarnation, then
why didn’t God lead John to write about these things? John’s record of
Christ’s earthly life only begins at His baptism (John 1:29-34).
Secondly, John’s gospel portrays Christ as the Son of God before His incarnation – not because of it. This leads to the conclusion that when John said that the purpose of his gospel was to show “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-
31), he could not have meant that Christ has this title only because of
the incarnation. There must have been more to it. Which is why John leads his gospel with...
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ”
John 1:1-3 KJV
In order to lead the readers of John’s gospel to believe that Christ is
the Son of God (John 20:30-31), the very first thing that the Holy Spirit
led John to write is that the Word, who eventually became flesh (John
1:14), had pre-existed with God (John 1:1-2). John also wrote that the
Word was God (John 1:1). This reveals Christ’s divinity. John also
made it clear that by the same Word, all things were made that have
been made (John 1:3). This shows that before anything was created,
the Word (Christ) already existed. We shall return to that particular
thought later.
The more that John’s gospel is read, the more it will be realised that
its opening words strongly imply that Christ pre-existed as the divine
Son of God. This is because John doesn’t say anything that would
even suggest that Jesus, during His life on earth, did something that
would lead Him to become the Son of God – and that includes His
resurrection from the dead. On the basis of this therefore, it is only
reasonable to conclude that Christ, even in His pre-existence, was the
Son of God.
In these opening words, John accents on Christ’s deity. He certainly
does not describe Christ’s Sonship with God as a position (a status) to
which He attained on earth. At the very best, it should only be believed
that Christ, at His incarnation, became the Son of God in a new sense.
Some have understandably enquired: What is the “beginning” that
John speaks of in these opening verses? The honest answer is that
we have not been told, at least not specifically, but certainly it cannot
be the beginning of God. This is because with God, there is no
beginning. It is quite possible though that John was using this
expression to mean that this was the beginning of God’s revelation of
Himself. After all, it is a fact that by using the Bible, we cannot ‘go
back’ any further than when God and Christ existed together, or, to put
it another way; the most remote (distant) point we come to in the
Scriptures, is where God says He brought forth a son (Proverbs 8:22-
31, Psalm 2:7). This is the beginning of the revelation of God.
There is nothing in Scripture to explain how Christ was begotten
(brought forth) of God, neither is there anything to explain how God
has eternally existed. There is nothing either to show how God and
Christ have their existence together. This is where we must leave it.
Any attempt to explain these things would be sheer speculation. We
are not to speculate about the things that God, in His divine wisdom,
has chosen not to reveal. We are to study those things that He has
revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29). This is enough for our salvation.
