The Next Chapter in the EEC

Köstenberger has already written 5 commentaries on the Gospel of John and a substantial theology on John's Gospel, what more can he add that is not available in those volume.

He is a capable scholar with various expertise in biblical studies, I would have thought that another New Testament book would be assigned to him.

Hopefully we will not be seeing a lot of replication but new material in the EEC volume.

Mattillo said:

I have heard of the BTNT but I do not own it. I just assumed it was more of a theology versus a commentary. Not familiar with the other one but it looks more akin to a study bible?

Okay Mattillo, you do have a point. I will be comparing his Baker's volume with his EEC volume when it come out for fresh material

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1): In this opening verse of John’s Gospel, God is set in relation to the Word. The Word, which in verses 14-18 is clearly identified as Jesus Christ, is an eternal being that existed prior to creation. However, it is not simply that the Word was with God (so, too, was Isaiah’s personified Word and Wisdom), but John refers to the Word itself as God. This is quite a claim coming from a Jewish monotheist. From the patristic era (Arius) to the present (Jehovah’s Witnesses), some have argued that, because there is no definite article in front of theos, this verse merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than as God. Interestingly, around 1950 there was a change in how Jehovah’s Witnesses dealt with this verse. Before 1950, they carried a copy of the American Standard Version of the Bible. However, the problem they faced was that the ASV rendered verse 1 accurately with the phrase “the Word was God.” In an effort to resolve the difficulty this rendering posed for its theology, the Watchtower Society (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publishing group) issued its own translation of the Bible, which rendered the verse as “the Word was a god” (Reed 1986, 71). However, there are several reasons why this translation is inaccurate.

First, John, as a monotheistic Jew, would not have referred to another person as “a god.” The Jews had no place for demigods in their belief system. Second, if John had placed a definite article before theos, he would have abandoned the distinction between the two persons he established in the previous clause (“the Word was with God”). Third, the view defended by Jehovah’s Witnesses misunderstands Greek syntax. It is common in Greek for a predicate noun to be specific without having an article. For example, later in this chapter reference is made to Nathanael’s confession of Jesus, “you are the King of Israel” (1:49), with no article being before “King” in the Greek (for other NT examples of this construction, see 8:39; 17:17; Rom 14:17; Gal 4:25; Rev 1:20). From these examples, it is clear that the lack of an article in Greek does not necessarily imply indefiniteness (“a” god). Finally, John could have used the word theios if he were simply trying to say that Jesus was “divine” (i.e., that he had God-like qualities) rather than being God himself. The anarthrous (article-less) theos is most likely used to explain that Jesus “shared the essence of the Father though they differed in person” (Wallace 1996, 269). As D. A. Carson explains, “In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God” (1991, 117).

The Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1): Critics often say that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical. While it is true that no verse specifically spells out that God is “three divine persons in one essence,” as our historic creeds have stated, the fact is the biblical witness demands the Trinitarian doctrine. The present verse disproves any monistic model of God, for the Word is at one and the same time “with” God, meaning there is some way of making distinction between Word and God, while at the same time the Word is God. Hence from this verse one would conclude that there are at least two personal beings united in the one godhead. A sampling of other verses supporting Trinitarianism includes Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 2:10; and Colossians 1:17.

The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world (1:7, 9): Some have used these verses to teach that all people will in the end be saved through Jesus, a view called “universalism.” Yet, this confuses the desired with the actual result of John the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus. In other words, while God desires all people to believe (cf. 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9), this is not the actual outcome, because not all people will in fact believe.

John does not speak here of internal illumination in the sense of general revelation (contra Morris 1995, 84), but of external illumination in the sense of objective revelation requiring a response (Brown 1966, 9). The rest of the Gospel illustrates clearly that not all did in fact receive the light, though it was available to all through Jesus’ presence and teaching (Borchert 1996, 113). In the present verse, John is emphasizing the universal scope of Jesus’ coming and the potential spiritual enlightenment available to all who believe, an enlightenment available not only to Jews but to all people (cf. 1:12-13; 3:16; 10:16; 12:32; cf. 1:10; 3:19-21).

Reading the verses following verse 9, it becomes increasingly apparent that John is not proposing a form of universalism: “He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not recognize Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him” (1:10-11). Even though the world was created through the Word (an echo of 1:3), it did not recognize that Word, because it was estranged from him (Ridderbos 1997, 44). Yet the world should have recognized the one through whom it was made. Keener is correct to point out that “God did provide the light for all humanity in Jesus’ incarnation [for instance, T. Levi 14:4 says that the law was given to ‘enlighten every person’] just as in the Jewish tradition he provided the light of Torah to all nations at Sinai. But just as the nations rejected Torah, so the world rejected God’s Word made flesh” (2003, 395).

Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible - Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible – Gospels to Acts.

DAL said:

Leo Wee Fah said:

For those who do not have Köstenberger's BECNT on John, they may be glad that he is now doing for EEC. 

I hope is a correction plus new material of the now gone BECNT on John.  Even if he replicated most of the material, it’d be like a new commentary since the others are out of print due to an academic mistake which I don’t think it was intentional.

Maybe they could invite O’Brien and have him correct his volumes and publish them as part of the EEC series.  I definitely wouldn’t mind and it’ll help speed up the process in pumping new volumes out.

I think the series was supposed to be finished or almost finished by now, but hey, it’s a huge undertaking to write a full fledged commentary on the entire Bible.

I hope/wish they do the apocryphal books too (deSilva comes to mind for those).

Anyway, great technical series but useful for everyone.  Keep them coming! 👍😁👌

DAL

i'm trying to remember: was the series bent toward a premillenial or dispensationalist perspective?