2.Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

2.Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

II. THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY (1:19-51)

A. THE WITNESS OF JOHN (1:19-34)

1. John and the Pharisees (1:19-28)

19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.^a" 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not. " "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." 22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "^b 24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? " 26"I baptize with^c water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. 27He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." 28This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

a. 20 Or Messiah. "The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One"; also in verse 25.

b. 23 Isaiah 40:3

c. 26 Or in; also in verses 31 and 33

The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the Baptist. "The next day" we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 (see the notes on v. 39). It tells of Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the "In the beginning" that opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity.

The first activity to be recorded is that of an official party of questioners who came to interrogate the Baptist. This gave him the opportunity of bearing his witness to the One who was to come after. Characteristically the writer says nothing about John's baptismal activities. He concentrates on his witness (see on v. 7).

19 We do not read in the other Gospels of these messengers who were sent to John from "the Jews." But it is plain enough that John's preaching attracted a good deal of attention. Matthew, for example, says, "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan" (Matt. 3:5). It is accordingly not only natural, but to be expected, that the authorities would make diligent inquiry about the new religious movement. They could not ignore a man with such a following. Jews in high places were very sensitive to movements that might culminate in disorders and lead to trouble with the Romans. The inquisitors came from Jerusalem¹ from "the Jews." This expression is rare in the Synoptic Gospels. Each of them refers a few times to "the King of the Jews" and scarcely uses the term otherwise. But in John it is used 71 times. Sometimes the Evangelist employs it in a neutral sense (e.g., 2:6, "used by the Jews for ceremonial washing"). He can even use it in a good sense (e.g., "salvation is from the Jews," 4:22). But much more often he uses it to denote Jewish people hostile to Jesus ("the religious world, organized and established apart from faith in Jesus," New-bigin). It does not necessarily denote the whole nation. In fact characteristically it means the Jews of Judea, especially those in and around Jerusalem.² Now and then it is used in such a way as to exclude some of those who were certainly Jews by race. Thus the parents of the man born blind were clearly members of the Jewish nation, but they are said to fear "the Jews" (9:22). It is the aspect of hostility to Jesus that "the Jews" primarily signifies in this Gospel. It may mean Jews from Galilee (6:41, 52), but more usually it points to those in and around Jerusalem. Not infrequently it refers to the leaders of the nation. We should probably deduce from this and from the composition of the delegation mentioned here that it came from the Sanhedrin.³

It is not certain whether we are to understand verse 24 to indicate that the whole delegation was Pharisaic. Probably this is not the case (see the note on that verse). But it is plain that Pharisees were prominent in connection with the inquiry, and it is equally clear that the Pharisees were the real religious leaders of the nation. So it is not surprising that Pharisees should be linked with "the Jews." Consistently the nation that should have welcomed Jesus opposed him. Consistently the religious leaders led the way in this opposition and rejection. As the Gospel unfolds, this antagonism becomes clearer and clearer.

The delegation is said to have consisted of "priests and Levites."⁴ We might have expected some Sadducees⁵ since the high-priestly families mostly came from this party, or some scribes. But for some reason John never mentions either group.⁶ We should probably understand them to be included under the general term "the Jews." Among the lower priests some were sympathetic to the Pharisees,⁷ and it is likely that some were sent on this errand. Since the Baptist came from a priestly family (Luke 1:5ff.), the priests would be especially interested in his behavior.⁸ From all this it seems that the delegation was official and widely representative. It asked⁹ a simple question, "Who are you?" John was a puzzle. He did not conform. Officialdom wanted to know more about him.

20 No one in the delegation is reported to have said anything about the Messiah. But John discerned the drift of the inquiry. Messianic speculations were in the air,¹⁰ and he framed his reply accordingly. The Evangelist might have written simply, "And he said." Instead we have a rather complicated expression: "And he confessed and he did not deny and he confessed . . ." (NIV shortens this). This piling up of one expression on top of another is perhaps intended to indicate the seriousness of the Baptist's reply. He vigorously repudiated any suggestion that he might be the Messiah.¹¹ The impression conveyed by the solemn way of introducing his reply to the question is strengthened by his use of the emphatic pronoun "I": '7 am not the Christ" (as though to say, "It is not I who am the Christ!"). This emphatic pronoun is a marked feature of John's speech in this chapter. He uses it constantly, and each time he contrasts himself with Jesus and takes the lower place. He says: '7 am the voice" (v. 23), '7 baptize" (v. 26), '7 am not worthy" (v. 27), "when I said" (v. 30), '7 did not know him" (vv. 31, 33), "I came baptizing" (v. 31), and "I have seen" (v. 34). The series is noteworthy and the effect is to make it quite clear that John claimed a subordinate position.¹²

In this verse the point is that, whatever John was, he was certainly not the Christ. There was a Christ, but it was not he. With us "Christ" has become little more than a personal name for Jesus, but properly it is a title, "the Christ," which means "the anointed" (as does "the Messiah").¹³ In the Old Testament various people were anointed, but notably priests and kings (for the latter, cf. the phrase, "the Lord's anointed"). The rite was used to set men apart for special functions. When in due course the expectation grew up that one day God would send into the world an exceptionally great Person, a mighty Deliverer, One who would represent him in a very special sense, this coming great One was thought of not as "an anointed one," but as "the anointed one," "the Messiah." Among those set apart by God for special functions he stood out. So the title was applied by believers to Jesus, and it remains to remind us of this public and official aspect of his ministry.¹⁴

21 It had been foretold by the prophet Malachi that before "that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes" God would send Elijah the prophet (Mal. 4:5). This was understood to mean that Elijah would precede the Messiah, Accordingly when John made it so clear that he was not the Christ his interrogators bethought them of this prophecy and inquired whether then¹⁵ he was Elijah. His denial puzzles many, for Jesus explicitly asserted that John was "the Elijah who was to come" (Matt. 11:14). This is one of the passages that seem to show that this Gospel was written in independence of the Synoptics. It is not in contradiction of them, but had John had their statement before him he would scarcely have left his own account in just this form.

The solution to the difficulty is probably that there was a sense in which John was Elijah and a sense in which he was not. He fulfilled all the preliminary ministry that Malachi had foretold (cf. Luke 1:17), and thus in a very real sense Jesus could say that he was Elijah. But the Jews remembered that Elijah had left the earth in a chariot of fire without passing through death (2 Kings 2:11), and they expected that in due course the identical figure would reappear.¹⁶ John was not Elijah in this sense, and he had no option but to deny that he was.¹⁷ And, of course, we must bear in mind the possibility that John may not have known that he was Elijah.¹⁸ No man is what he is in his own eyes: he really is only as he is known to God. At a later time Jesus equated John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy, but that does not carry with it the implication that John himself was aware of the true position. It is further proper to point out that, whereas the Synoptists give something of a biography of the Baptist, this Evangelist does not. Instead he concentrates on John's theological significance, and derives this rigorously from his relationship to Jesus. Jesus confers on John his true significance. John's own estimate of himself matters little.

John's denial provoked a third question, "Are you the Prophet?" The Jews appear to have expected all sorts of prophets to appear before the coming of the Messiah (cf. Matt. 16:14; Mark 6:15; Luke 9:19).¹⁹ More particularly they thought of the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). But John was not that prophet either, so he answered²⁰ briefly, "No."²¹ It is not without its interest that from the days of the very earliest Christian preaching it was held that "the prophet" was identical with the Christ (see Acts 3:22), whereas the Jews distinguished between the two, as we see from this passage and 7:40-41²² The increasing curtness of John's successive answers should not be missed. It appears to stem from a dislike for answering questions about himself. He had come to bear witness about Another.

22 The questioners were in a difficult position. So far all they had elicited from John had been a string of denials; they had no positive statement to put in their report. Yet John was preaching, drawing crowds in the wilderness, and baptizing. They must have something to say about him. So they turn the matter over to John. Instead of making another suggestion they ask him what he thinks about himself. They must²³ have some answer to take back to those who had sent²⁴ them.

23 John's reply is given in words from Isaiah 40:3 that are applied to him in each of the four Gospels (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). In each of the others the words are applied to John by the Evangelist; here John uses them himself. The point of the quotation is that it gives no prominence to the preacher whatever. He is not an important person, like a prophet or the Messiah. He is no more than a voice (contrast the reference to Jesus as "the Word"). He is a voice, moreover, with but one thing to say. John's ethical teaching is not large in amount, nor striking in content (see Luke 3:10-14). As T. W. Manson says, "It is an anticlimax and it is important to realise why. It is because it is Interimsethik, the genuine article: telling men how to make the best of a bad job till the new day dawns."²⁵ John's real function was not to teach ethics, but to point people to Jesus. "Make straight the way for the Lord" is a call to be ready, for the coming of the Messiah is near. The imagery is that of preparing a roadway by clearing away the obstacles.²⁶ This was an important process in ancient times, especially for roads in the wilderness country.

It is not without its interest that the Qumran sect made use of the same passage from Isaiah: "they shall be separated from the midst of the session of the men of error to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of the Lord; as it is written, 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.' This is the study of the law, as he commanded through Moses."²⁷ But they understood it to apply to themselves as they sat down quietly reading their Bibles in the desert. Whatever happened to people outside, they would be ready when Messiah came. John, by contrast, understood the words as a clarion call to the nation. He was not concerned with himself and his own safety at all. He was trying to prepare the way of the Lord by getting people ready to meet the Lord. He was only a voice. But he was a voice, proclaiming the Lord's message.²⁸

24 The meaning of this verse is not quite clear. Traditionally it has been understood as "they which were sent were of the Pharisees" (KJV). But this involves the inclusion of an article that most textual critics agree should be omitted.²⁹ If we omit it, we are still left with different ways of taking the words. They could mean, "they had been sent from the Pharisees" (so Ber-nard). But this implies that the whole delegation was Pharisaic, which is most unlikely (see on v. 19). Alternatively we could take the words as "Some Pharisees who were in the deputation asked him" (REB), which makes part of the delegation Pharisaic, or, "Now some of the Pharisees had been sent to John" (Phillips), which gives the Pharisees a delegation of their own in addition to the official one.³⁰ It is difficult, to be sure, but I incline to the sense of REB. The words scarcely point to two delegations, but they do seem to indicate that some Pharisees were not content with the progress made by the official delegation and accordingly added some questions of their own. The Pharisees³¹ were a religious party, dating from the time of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus. They seem always to have represented the ordinary people as against the aristocracy, and pure religion over against the ecclesiastical policies so characteristic of the Sadducees.³² They made a great deal of the study of the Law (see on v. 17). But they tended to surround it with a mass of their own interpretations. In practice this meant that the keeping of their traditions loomed larger than the Law. On occasion, as Jesus pointed out, the traditions hindered people from living in accordance with the spirit of the Law (Mark 7:6-13). Some of the Pharisees were men of noble spirit, but all too often their multitudinous regulations led to an emphasis on the outward, and this in turn to spiritual pride. This was accentuated by the fact that ordinary people did not have the time (nor the inclination!) to learn, let alone practice, the host of traditions that the Pharisees valued so highly. On this occasion their inquiry was the natural outcome of the position they had arrogated to themselves in the Jewish religion. A man was preaching and baptizing. He was drawing crowds in the name of religion. The Pharisees must know all about him.

25 John had given them an answer as to his view of his activities. But it could not have satisfied them. What had they really discovered of a positive nature? Nothing. So they try a new tack. Since John does not claim to be either the Messiah or a messianic person, why does he baptize? Baptism was not a new practice in Judaism. It was the regular rite in the admission of converts from other religions.³³ When such a conversion took place, the males of the family were circumcised and all, of both sexes, were baptized. This was seen as the ceremonial removal of all the pollutions contracted in the Gentile world. The novelty in John's case and the sting in his practice was that he applied to Jews the ceremony that was held to be appropriate in the case of Gentiles coming newly into the faith.³⁴ All Jews were prepared to accept the view that Gentiles were defiled and needed cleansing. But to put Jews in the same class was horrifying. The Jews were God's people already. It is true that on the basis of certain Old Testament passages some people expected that there would be baptizing when the messianic age dawned (Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1). But John had denied being the Messiah. It was all very perplexing and the Pharisees wanted to know more about it.

26, 27 John's reply points them to Jesus in accordance with his characteristic role. "I" is emphatic (as is "you"); all that he does is to baptize in water.³⁵ After this we expect a reference to another kind of baptism, like the baptism in the Holy Spirit to which in fact all three Synoptists refer in a corresponding statement. But instead our Evangelist passes on to the greatness of Jesus and drops the subject of baptism. This should not be taken as indicating that he does not regard his baptism as important. He does. He does not depreciate it. But his baptism is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to point people to Christ (v. 31). John's interest is in the Christ and in nothing less. So he proceeds to tell his inquisitors that the Great One stands among them, though they do not know him (cf. v. 11).³⁶ Then he repeats the words about his coming after him (v. 15). Finally he brings out the greatness of the one who was to come by referring to his own personal unworthiness. He was not worthy to loose the thongs of the great one's sandal. Loosing the sandal was the task of a slave; a disciple could not be expected to perform it. To get the full impact of this we must bear in mind that disciples did do many services for their teachers. Teachers in ancient Palestine were not paid (it would be a terrible thing to ask for money for teaching Scripture!). But in partial compensation disciples were in the habit of performing small services for their rabbis instead. But they had to draw the line somewhere, and menial tasks like loosing the sandal thong came under this heading. There is a rabbinic saying (in its present form dating from c. A.D. 250, but probably much older): "Every service which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong."³⁷ John selects the very task that the rabbinic saying stresses as too menial for any disciple, and declares himself unworthy to perform it. He is unworthy of the most menial of tasks for the one who was to come after him.³⁸ Humility could scarcely take a lower place.

28 The section closes with a note of place. These things happened at John's normal spot for baptizing on the other side of the Jordan (i.e., from Jerusalem). The name of the place varies in the MSS. Some read "Bethabarah" and some "Betharabah," but both seem due to Origen, who early in the third century visited the land and reported that he could find no town called "Bethany" on the other side of the Jordan. He says that the ancient manuscripts read "Bethany."³⁹ But because he thought the place must be he adopted that reading. Origen was a great scholar, but for once it appears that he is not to be relied on. Close attention to his words shows that he did not actually go to Jordan; he says only, "they say that Bethabara is pointed out." He appears to have been misinformed.⁴⁰ It seems that "Bethany" is the right reading. But quite early the location was lost sight of. The Evangelist adds "on the other side of the Jordan" to distinguish this locality from the better-known Bethany, which was near Jerusalem.⁴¹

2, John and Jesus (1:29-34)

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, Ά man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

On the second day of this momentous week John publicly pointed out Jesus as the Messiah to whom he had given his witness. He went on to tell how he had come to know that Jesus was he.

29 For the note of time see the commentary on verses 19-28. "Coming" will here mean "approaching," not "coming to him for the first time." Verses 26 and 32-33 show that John had recognized Jesus⁴² as the Christ on an earlier occasion. "Look" is a favorite expression in this Gospel, and John uses it more often than all the other New Testament writers put together⁴³ The expression "the Lamb of God"⁴⁴ has passed into the general Christian vocabulary. But for all that it is very difficult to know exactly what it means. It is not found elsewhere in the New Testament (though Jesus is sometimes spoken of as "the Lamb," especially in Revelation⁴⁵ ), nor in any previous writing known to us.⁴⁶ Thus we are not able to appeal to some other writing as John's source. The genitive "of God" may mean "provided by God" (cf. Gen. 22:8), or "belonging to God."⁴⁷ Perhaps in his usual manner the Evangelist wants us to combine both meanings. But to what does "the Lamb" refer? Many suggestions have been made, among which we notice the following: (i) The Passover Lamb, a suggestion supported by the apparent identification of Jesus' sacrifice with the Passover in 19:36. Against it are two main points, the one that the Passover victim was not necessarily a lamb at all,⁴⁸ and the other that the proper term in use at the time for the Passover victim was not "lamb" but "Passover" (pascha).⁴⁹ Another objection, that the Passover was not an expiatory sacrifice (and thus could not be said to take away the world's sin), is not valid. All sacrifice was held to be expiatory,⁵⁰ and, specifically, the Passover was sometimes viewed in this way.⁵¹ (ii) The lamb "led ... to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7). This is possible, but nothing in the context points to it. We can hold this view only if we can feel that there was such a widespread acceptance of the view that Isaiah 53 applied to the Messiah that an unexplained reference to a lamb and to the taking away of sin would be seen to refer to that chapter. That Christians in due course came to understand the chapter in this way is clear enough. That those who heard John the Baptist did so is not. This explanation of the words is unlikely.⁵² (iii) The Servant of the Lord. This is another way of seeing the origin of the expression in Isaiah 53. Some scholars think that an ambiguous expression in Aramaic, meant as "the Servant of the Lord," was mistranslated.⁵³ The difficulties here are linguistic. It is not easy to think that so well known an expression as "the Servant of the Lord" should be unrecognized, and should be translated by so difficult and unusual a phrase as "the Lamb of God."⁵⁴ (iv) The lamb of the daily sacrifices offered morning and evening in the Temple.⁵⁵ Once more we must admit the possibility. But we must add that there is nothing that clearly indicates it. We have no knowledge of the daily sacrifice ever being called "the lamb of God." (v) The "gentle lamb" of Jeremiah 11:19. This should probably be dismissed, for that lamb was apparently not thought of as taking away sins, (vi) The scapegoat. This accords well with the thought of the taking away of sin. But it suffers from the fatal defect that the scapegoat was not a lamb, (vii) The triumphant Lamb of the apocalypses. This is undoubtedly the meaning of "the Lamb" in Revelation, and Dodd accepts the idea in this passage.⁵⁶ But it is more than difficult to see this as the reference. John is not talking about victory over enemies, but sacrifice for sin. Why should the language of sin-bearing be used if what is meant is the defeat of foes? (viii) The God-provided Lamb of Genesis 22:8. This draws attention to one important aspect of Christ's sacrifice, the divine initiative.⁵⁷ But it does not help with the others. And in any case there is no indication in Genesis 22 that the lamb was considered to effect or foreshadow the far-reaching atonement of which the Baptist speaks.⁵⁸ (ix) A guilt-offering, since sometimes this was a lamb (passages suggested are Lev. 14:12ff., 21, 24-25; Num. 6:12; cf. the expression "the lamb for the guilt offering," Lev. 14:24),⁵⁹ or a sin offering (Lev. 4:32). The objection to such views is that neither a guilt offering nor a sin offering was characteristically a lamb. Since the victim was so often another animal (e.g. a ram), the allusion would be almost impossible to detect.

From all this it is clear that there is no agreement (though two or three of these views would have many supporters). The fact is that a lamb taking away sin, even if it is distinguished as God's Lamb, is too indefinite a description for us to pinpoint the reference. If the writer really had in mind an allusion to one particular offering we are not able any longer to detect it with certainty. But it seems more probable that of set purpose he used an expression that cannot be confined to any one view. He is making a general allusion to sacrifice. The lamb figure may well be intended to be composite, evoking memories of several, perhaps all, of the suggestions we have convassed.⁶⁰ All that the ancient sacrifices foreshadowed was perfectly fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ.⁶¹

The verb "takes away" conveys the notion of bearing off.⁶² It is perhaps not specific enough to point to any one particular means of atonement, but it does signify atonement, and that by substitution. "Jesus bears the consequence of human sin in order that its guilt may be removed" (Hoskyns). It is removed completely, carried right off. John speaks of sin,⁶³ not sins (cf. 1 John 1:9). He is referring to the totality of the world's sin rather than to a number of individual acts. The expression "the sin of the world" does not appear to have been used prior to this passage. The reference to "the world" is another glance at the comprehensiveness of Christ's atonement. It is completely adequate for the need of all people. Right at the beginning of his Gospel John points us forward to the cross and to the significance of the cross.

Objection has been made to the authenticity of this saying. It is pointed out that the Synoptic Gospels (as well as general probability) show that Jesus was not held to be the Messiah until some considerable time later than this. But this is to overlook the significance of Zacharias and Simeon and Anna. Luke tells us that, even before Jesus' ministry started, "The people . . . were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ" (Luke 3:15). Messianic speculations were in the air, and there is no reason why the man whom Jesus called the greatest of those born of women (Luke 7:28) should not have had the prophetic insight to have greeted Jesus thus.⁶⁴ Again, it is urged that the disciples found difficulty to the very end in accepting the truth that Jesus must suffer. Yet before his ministry has begun the Baptist is here depicted as referring to his sacrificial death. To this there is a threefold answer. In the first place, what John knew of the Christ he knew by way of revelation, as the succeeding verses make clear. It is not a matter of what the unaided human reason or intuition could discern in Jesus of Nazareth, but what God has made known. He would be a bold man who would set limits in advance to what God can reveal to his prophets. That John's words made little impression on the followers of Jesus need cause no surprise. Neither did Jesus' own predictions of his passion.⁶⁵ In the second place, the Qumran scrolls have made acceptance of the saying "not so impossible as it once seemed," as Brownlee puts it. He points out that the scrolls link suffering, and specifically the Suffering Servant, with messiahship, and he discovers "important Essene conceptions in John's messianic expectation."⁶⁶ They have not been taken over unaltered, but the point is that the Qumran evidence indicates that a saying like this on the part of a man like John no longer looks improbable. In the third place, if it is not authentic it is difficult to ascertain where the saying comes from. It possesses none of the characteristic marks of a Johannine construction.⁶⁷

30 For the most part this verse repeats the thought of verse 15 (where see note). There is a change from the participles of that verse and of verse 27 to the indicative, which states the fact with greater directness. There is also the use of the word "man."⁶⁸ While the Christology of this Gospel is of the highest order, the writer never loses sight of Jesus' manhood. Before leaving this verse we should perhaps also notice that, though the Baptist says he is quoting words he spoke on a previous occasion, there is no record of that occasion in this Gospel.

31 John begins this sentence with "and" (which NIV omits), a construction very common in this Gospel, especially in speeches. The construction is found in all languages, but it is much more common in Aramaic than in most, certainly much more so than in Greek. John's fondness for using it is further evidence that Aramaic lies behind this Gospel, more particularly the speeches.⁶⁹ I" is emphatic.⁷⁰ John had been looking for the Messiah, but he did not know who he was. Yet the whole purpose of his baptism was to make the Messiah manifest to Israel. The Greek construction emphasizes this point.⁷¹ One might have thought that John's baptism was concerned largely with leading people to repent. But this was not its final purpose; John baptized so that the Messiah should be "revealed ('made manifest') to Israel." "With water" may perhaps be another small depreciation of the Baptist, for it contrasts him with one who "will baptize with the Holy Spirit" (v. 33). But it is no more than a small depreciation, for it is no mean task to reveal the Messiah to Israel.

32 For "testimony" (= "witness") see on verse 7. This second act of witness is to make clear how John had come to know Jesus for what he was (cf. Rieu, "John gave proof"). "I have beheld" renders a Greek perfect that should be given its full force. John is not writing of something that he saw once and that soon passed away, but of something that had continuing effects. The verb is used in this Gospel of seeing with the bodily eye.⁷² John is not talking about a vision. He actually saw the Holy Spirit come down⁷³ upon Jesus in a form like that of a dove.⁷⁴ The Spirit not only descended but remained⁷⁵ on him (a detail not in the Synoptists). We should probably understand that the Spirit remained with him permanently.

33 John repeats his statement that until the time of this descent of the Spirit he did not know him. This does not necessarily mean that he did not know Jesus at all, though some have taken this to be the meaning of the words.⁷⁶ It is, of course, quite possible that this is his meaning, for Jesus was brought up in Galilee and John in the lonely parts of Judea. They may never have met until now, although they were related. But it seems more probable that John means that he did not know Jesus to be the Messiah who would baptize with the Holy Spirit until he saw the sign. Recognition came not from prior knowledge, but from supernatural revelation. John does not say how and when he had been given the sign, but he says that he had it from God,⁷⁷ who had sent him to baptize that the Spirit would descend and abide on the one whom he awaited.⁷⁸ He does not say whether the sign of the dove was included in the original revelation, or whether he simply recognized the dove for what it was when he saw it alight on Jesus. But what is clear is that he had a divinely appointed sign, and that he knew Jesus by that sign. This divine leading marks the Baptist out from all others: "every other disciple is dependent upon a human witness for the reception of divine illumination about the true nature of Jesus" (Marsh, p. 132; cf. Matt. 11:11). John goes on to describe him as "he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit." All three Synoptists make this point; Jesus came that people might be brought into contact with the divine Spirit. But baptism is a figure which stresses abundant supply. So John will mean that the Spirit leads people into the infinite divine spiritual resources. This had not been possible previously, for there is a quality of life that Christ and none other makes available. This life is a positive gift from the Spirit of God. Baptism with water had essentially a negative significance: it is a cleansing from — . But baptism with the Spirit is positive. It is the bestowal of new life in God.⁷⁹

34 Again the Greek perfects must be allowed their full force. "I have seen"⁸⁰ means much the same as "I saw" (v. 32). "I testify" is another perfect and points to the continuing effect of the Baptist's words. They were not the idle utterance of the moment, said and then over. They continued with full effect. At the end of the verse there is a textual problem, whether we should read "the Son of God" (so NIV) or "God's Chosen One" (REB).⁸¹ On the whole "God's Chosen One" is probably the correct reading. It has good attestation, and it is unlikely that an original "Son of God" would have been altered into it, whereas the reverse process is quite intelligible. If we accept this reading, John is saying that Jesus is the object of the divine call. The choice of none less than God has fallen on him.

If the reading "the Son of God" were accepted there would be a certain stress on the deity of Christ. Each of the Evangelists in his own way brings out the deity of the Savior at the beginning of his Gospel. Matthew and Luke do it with the birth stories and Mark with his reference to Jesus as "the Son of God" in his opening sentence. John has already done this in the Prologue, and with this reading he does it again. The climax of the Baptist's testimony would then be that "this is the Son of God."⁸² This is all the more important in that this Gospel was written to bring people to a knowledge of this truth (20:31). "Son of God" is, of course, an expression that might mean much or little. The term was used of Solomon (2 Sam. 7:14) and in the plural of all Israel (Hos. 1:10). People who believe and are thus admitted to the heavenly family address God as "Father" and are said to be "sons of God" (though John never uses that term of them; see on v. 12). But here the expression will have its fullest force; it will point to the closest personal relationship to the Father. It will be an assertion of the deity of the Messiah.⁸³ Either reading makes good sense, but "God's Chosen One" seems to have the weight of the evidence.

B. THE FIRST DISCIPLES (1:35-51)

1. Andrew and Peter (1:35-42)

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39"Come,"he replied, "and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour. 40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42Then he brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will he called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter^a).

a. 42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.

It was the Baptist's mission to point people to Jesus. In the previous section we have seen him bearing his witness. Now we find him sending some of his followers after the Lord. There are accounts of a "call" in the Synoptists (e.g., Mark 1:16-20), but they differ greatly from this. Despite Barrett's hesitation we should not fear to accept both as authentic. The Fourth Gospel tells of a call to be disciples; the Synoptists of a call to be apostles. "John's theme is not the calling of the apostles into office; it is their congenial association with Christ."⁸⁴ Strictly speaking, there is no "call" in this Gospel (except in the case of Philip, v. 43). Neither does Jesus call, nor John send. The disciples of John recognize the Messiah and spontaneously attach themselves to him. A minor confirmation is that John tells us that Simon was given the name "Peter" when Jesus first met him (v. 42), whereas in the Synoptists, who do not recount this meeting, there is no indication of when the name was bestowed. Psychologically it may well be that some such contact as is here recorded is almost the necessary prelude to the far-reaching call narrated by the Synoptists, with its requirement that the called abandon everything for Jesus. See further Godet's note on verse 43.

35-36 Once again there is a precise note of time (see on vv. 19-28). One of the two disciples (i.e., "learners"; the word meant those who had attached themselves to a given teacher) is subsequently named Andrew, but the other's name is not given. From early times it has been thought that he was the beloved disciple, and, while this is not proven, it may well be the case.⁸⁵ It would accord with this that we have some touches of an eyewitness, the picture of John "standing," and the look⁸⁶ he gave Jesus as he walked. For "the Lamb of God" see on verse 29.

37 The Baptist on this occasion said⁸⁷ nothing about following Jesus. But his whole ministry was forward-looking, and he had instructed his disciples well. Thus when this pair heard Jesus acclaimed as "the Lamb of God" they knew what was expected of them. They immediately left John and followed Jesus. The verb "followed" is in the tense appropriate for once-for-all action, which may indicate that they cast in their lot with Jesus. They did not mean to make a tentative inquiry but to give themselves to him. We should also notice that the verb has both a general sense of "follow" and a more specific sense of "follow as a disciple." In this place both senses may be in mind. They walked down the path after Jesus and thus followed. But they also symbolically committed themselves to him.

Let us not overlook the light all this sheds on John's greatness. It is not particularly easy to attach disciples firmly to oneself when one is calling for a strenuous following of the right. But when this has been done it is the mark of a truly great man that he can gently, but firmly, detach them, so that they may go after a greater.

38 As the two approached Jesus he turned and asked, "What do you want?" It is a very natural touch that they did not know what to say, for "where are you staying?" (Knox, "where dost thou live?") is not really an answer to the question. They may have been a trifle shy. And their words probably imply that what they wanted with him could not be settled in a few minutes by the wayside. They looked for a long talk.⁸⁸ They address him as "Rabbi," the customary form of address for disciples speaking to their teacher.⁸⁹ The Evangelist explains the Aramaic word for the benefit of his non-Jewish readers.

39 Jesus welcomed them. "Come, and you will see" is equivalent to "Come and see" (v. 46, where see note). This invitation implies more than that they should see for themselves the place where he was lodging; it is an invitation to visit him. It led to their staying with him that day, and probably means that they spent the night with him. The time is given as "about the tenth hour," that is about 4 p.m. on our time scale.⁹⁰ The Jews measured their days from sunset to sunset, and divided both night and day into twelve hours.⁹¹ John's habit of noticing the time of day is one of the small touches that point to an eyewitness (see 4:6, 52; 18:28; 19:14; 20:19). Coming to Jesus in the late afternoon and then having the kind of conversation that the circumstances indicate almost requires us to understand "spent that day" as "remained overnight." This means that the Evangelist is regarding the coming of the two to Jesus as the events of one day. The next happenings belong to the following day.

40 The name of one of the two was Andrew, who came from the city of Bethsaida (v. 44). Although his brother has not yet appeared on the scene, nor been given the name "Peter" by Jesus, the full name "Simon Peter"⁹² is used and Andrew is identified with reference to him. When the Gospel was written, the great apostle was well known and this way of writing was both intelligible and natural. The more obscure is described in terms of his relationship to his famous brother.

41 There are difficulties about the word rendered "first." There is a textual problem, for the manuscripts differ.⁹³ One reading is the nominative of the adjective, and gives the meaning "Andrew was the first to find. . . ." This probably implies that the unnamed disciple also found his brother, but Andrew did it first. A second could be taken in either of two ways. It might be an adverb, when it will mean that Andrew found his brother before he did anything else. Or it might be the accusative of the adjective, when the meaning will be that Andrew found his brother before he found anyone else. A third reading, not well attested, means "in the morning" (Bernard accepts this, as also Moffatt, Schonfield, etc.). The second of these is most likely to be correct, and in the sense of the adverb. This probably means that the next morning Andrew promptly went in search of his brother. When he found him he told him that they (his plural "we" means that he was already thinking of a community) had found the Messiah⁹⁴ (an expression that occurs only here and in 4:25 in the New Testament). In his customary manner the Evangelist explains that this word means "Christ" (see on v. 20). This early recognition of Jesus as the Messiah puzzles some in view of the indications in the Synoptic Gospels that it was a long time before the disciples had anything like an adequate view of his Person. But, as Hoskyns puts it, "the Evangelist does not, as is often supposed, idealize the first disciples, since it is precisely the title Christ which requires interpretation." There is no great mystery about the disciples' thinking of Jesus as the Messiah. There seem to have been many claimants to messiahship in that period. It was the content put into the term that mattered. All the evidence is that it was quite some time before any of Jesus' followers reached anything like an adequate understanding of the term. But that does not mean that they did not use it. It was easy to call Jesus "Messiah"; it was quite another thing to understand what this should mean as he interpreted his vocation. Part of John's purpose appears to be to refute erroneous ideas about messiahship. It would be quite in accordance with this that he should record the disciples' first inadequate recognition of Jesus as Messiah, preparatory to unfolding in his Gospel the true meaning of the messianic office. Messiahship means a good deal to John. He writes his whole Gospel to make us see that Jesus is the Messiah. For the further development of the thought see verses 45,49; 3:28-29; 4:25-26,29,42; 5:45-46; 6:15; 7:26-27, 31,40-43; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27; 12:34; 17:3; 20:31.

42 Andrew brought his brother to Jesus, an act of which Temple says, "perhaps it is as great a service to the Church as ever any man did." Each time we meet Andrew in this Gospel he is bringing someone to Jesus (6:8; 12:22), a consistency worth noting. Jesus gave the newcomer a searching look ("gazed at him," Moffatt), and proceeded to rename him. This must be understood in the light of the significance attaching to the "name" in antiquity (see on v. 12). It stood for the whole person. It summed up the entire personality. The giving of a new name is an assertion of the authority of the giver (e.g., 2 Kings 23:34; 24:17). When done by God it speaks in addition of a new character in which the person henceforth appears (e.g., Gen. 32:28). There is something of both ideas here. Simon is from this time Jesus' man. But he is also a different man, and the new name points to his character as "the rock man."⁹⁵ Peter appears in all the Gospels as anything but a rock. He is impulsive, volatile, unreliable.⁹⁶ But that was not God's last word for Peter. Jesus' renaming of the man points to the change that would be wrought in him by the power of God.

2. Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me. " 44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see, "said Philip. 47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." 48"How do you know me ? "Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you. " 49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. " 50Jesus said, "You believe^a because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that. " 51He then added, "I tell you^b the truth, you^b shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

a. 50 Or Do you believe . . . ?

b. 51 The Greek is plural.

The process of adding to the number of followers of Jesus continues. Jesus himself seeks out Philip and calls him, the only disciple said in this Gospel to have been called by Jesus. Philip repeats the earlier pattern by going out and bringing Nathanael. Very little is known of this man, but the story of his coming to Jesus is full of interest.

43 For the note of time see on 1:19-28. In the previous section Jesus is not said to have done anything to draw Andrew and the others. They heard the Baptist's words and followed or were brought by one another. Here Jesus takes the initiative. He determined⁹⁷ to leave for Galilee, and sought out Philip. No reason is given for this, nor is there any explanation of how Jesus knew Philip. It is not even said where he found him. There is nothing to show whether it was in the same general area as the preceding, or somewhere on the way to Galilee, or even in Philip's city of Bethsaida.⁹⁸ We are not told whether Philip was a disciple of John the Baptist, though this seems likely. The name "Philip" is Greek (and means "lover of horses"). It is, however, found among the Jews, so we need not think that its bearer was of Greek descent. It has been conjectured that he was named after Philip the tetrarch (mentioned in Luke 3:1), who rebuilt Bethsaida Julias. The Synoptists mention Philip in lists of the apostles, but give us no further information about him. John brings him before us on a number of occasions. Each time he seems somewhat out of his element, and it is probable that he was of limited ability. His contribution to feeding the multitude is the information that they could not be fed even with two hundred denarii worth of bread (6:7). When the Greeks came to him asking to see Jesus he did not know what to do, and he had to consult with Andrew before bringing the men to Jesus (12:21-22). And it was Philip who asked Jesus in the upper room to show them the Father — that is all they ask! (14:8-9). The fact that on this occasion he did not seek out Jesus, but Jesus went to find him may indicate some lack of initiative. If so it is encouraging to reflect that Jesus went out of his way to find this rather limited man and to enlist him in the apostolic band. Some of the apostles were undoubtedly men of great ability, but Philip compels us to realize that others were perfectly ordinary people. Jesus had (and has) use for such followers. The verb "Follow" will be used here in its full sense of "follow as a disciple." The present tense has continuous force, "keep on following."

44 Philip's home city is given as Bethsaida. Andrew and Peter were also natives of this place (though they had a house in Capernaum at the time of Jesus' ministry, which may mean that they lived there then; Mark 1:21, 29)⁹⁹. Not much is told us in the Gospels about the city (Mark 6:45; 8:22; Luke 9:10), but Jesus' denunciation of it as one of the cities wherein "most of his miracles had been performed" (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-14) shows that he exercised a considerable ministry there. We are reminded that there is much that is not recorded in our Gospels (cf. 21:25). The exact site of the city is not known, and there is dispute as to whether there was a Bethsaida "of Galilee" (12:21) in addition to Bethsaida Julias.¹⁰⁰ This latter had been rebuilt by Philip the tetrarch and named Julias after the daughter of the Emperor.

45 The process of one disciple finding another is repeated, as Philip seeks out Nathanael ("One lighted torch serves to light another," Godet). The plural "we" shows that Philip had already identified himself with the little group about Jesus. Nothing is recorded of Nathanael other than this incident and his presence among the fishermen in 21:2 (which adds the information that he came from Cana). The name means "God has given" (and is thus equivalent to our Theodore). This has led to the conjecture that the passage is allegorical and that an ideal disciple is meant (one "given by God"), but there is little to be said for this. While the name is not a common one among the Jews, it is found. There is no reason for doubting that a real person is meant. The incident reads like the record of an actual happening rather than a pious fiction. Others think that Nathanael is another name for Matthew, since the two names are of similar meaning. Others again suggest that Nathanael is to be identified with Bartholomew, an apostle who is never mentioned (at least by this name) in John, just as Nathanael is never mentioned in the Synoptists. Bartholomew is coupled with Philip in all three Synoptists (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14), and another link is found in that he is mentioned immediately after Thomas in Acts 1:13 while Nathanael is in the same position in John 21:2. Moreover, Bartholomew is not really a personal name, but a patronymic meaning "son of Tolmai" (cf. Barjona = "son of Jona"); the man who bore it almost certainly had another name. The other disciples mentioned in this chapter all became apostles, and it is suggested that Nathanael is likely to have done so too. If he is to be identified with one of the apostles, Bartholomew is probably our man. But why should we identify him with an apostle? Jesus had many disciples outside the Twelve, and there seems no reason for holding that Nathanael was anything other than one of them. It is certain that John wants us to think of him as attaching himself firmly to Jesus, but this does not make him an apostle,

Philip speaks of Jesus as the object of prophecy; both Moses and the prophets have spoken of him.¹⁰¹ This is, of course, another way of calling him Messiah. In an unobtrusive but very definite way John, in accordance with his declared aim (20:31), is emphasizing that Jesus is the Messiah. Andrew and his friend recognized him, and now Philip does the like. Philip does so in terms that show that the messianic ministry of Jesus was to fulfill the purposes of God from of old as they have been recorded in Holy Writ. Westcott thinks that the form of the sentence, with "we have found" coming last in the Greek, implies that Philip and Nathanael "had often dwelt on the Old Testament portraiture of the Messiah." When Philip speaks of Jesus as "the son of Joseph" we should not take the words as a denial of the Virgin Birth.¹⁰² Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, and the Lord would accordingly be known as Joseph's son. In any case it is unlikely that the Virgin Birth would have been communicated already to such a new disciple as Philip. This is a good example of "the irony of St. John." Again and again he allows his characters to state, without refutation, ideas that Christian people would know to be false.¹⁰³

46 Nathanael's sceptical question¹⁰⁴ does not reflect, as far as is known, a widely held opinion of Nazareth. It was not a famous city,¹⁰⁵ but we have no reason for thinking it was infamous. We should probably understand Nathanael's words as the utterance of a man who could not conceive of the Messiah as coming from such an insignificant place.¹⁰⁶ Moreover, since Nathanael himself came from Cana, it is not at all improbable that we have here a trace of the rivalry that often grips small centers (and bigger ones!) not far from one another. Philip was not a particularly resourceful man (see on v. 43), and he did not attempt to convince his friend by argument. Instead he invited him to see for himself, which, in the circumstances, was probably as wise an answer as he could have given. It is good advice still. "Come and see" was a formula common among the rabbis.¹⁰⁷ They used it to show that a solution to a particular problem was possible and that it should be sought together. The expression might also point to something new or important or the like.

47 As Nathanael approached, Jesus spoke of him as "a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false"; NRSV has "no deceit!" This last word is used in earlier Greek writers for the "bait" used in catching fish. It comes to signify "any cunning contrivance for deceiving or catching, as the net in which Hephaestus catches Ares ... the Trojan horse ... Ixion's bride ... the robe of Penelope."¹⁰⁸ It is used in the Bible of Jacob before his change of heart (Gen. 27:35), which is the point of Temple's translation, "an Israelite in whom there is no Jacob!" (Morgan also gives this as the sense of the verse.) Jesus salutes Nathanael as a straightforward person. "Israelite" is used here only in this Gospel, though "Jew" (especially in the plural) is common, as we have noted. It means here a true son of Israel (cf. Rom. 2:29). The most frequent use of the term in the New Testament is as an address in the speeches in Acts.

48 Nathanael's reaction is a surprised question as to the source of Jesus' knowledge of him, a reaction incidentally that shows the accuracy of Jesus' description. A more guileful man would have "modestly" asserted his unworthiness. Jesus' reply¹⁰⁹ was evidently convincing to his questioner, but it is not at all clear to us. He said that he had seen Nathanael before ever Philip called him,¹¹⁰ and the time is specified as "while you were still under the fig tree."¹¹¹ There is no further explanation and no other reference to the incident. We are left to conjecture. The fig tree was almost a symbol of home (cf. Isa. 36:16; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10). Its shade was certainly at a later time used as a place for prayer and meditation and study,¹¹² and there is no reason for thinking that the practice does not go back as far as this. It seems probable that Nathanael had had some outstanding experience of communion with God in the privacy of his own home, and that it is this to which Jesus refers. Whatever it was, Nathanael was able to recognize the allusion. It is difficult to explain Jesus' knowledge of the incident on the level of merely human knowledge.¹¹³ Nathanael had never met him before this moment. We are required to understand that Jesus had some knowledge not generally available to the human race (cf. 2:24-25).

49 The effect on Nathanael of these simple words is more than surprising. His immediate response is to salute Jesus in terms implying divinity. "Nathanael capitulated for ever to the man who read and understood and satisfied his heart" (Barclay). For the respectful "Rabbi" (which Nathanael did not use at first) see the comments on verse 38, and for "Son of God" see those on verse 34 (cf. 11:27). Here, as there, the article is important. It indicates that the expression is to be understood as bearing a full, not a minimal content. While Nathanael could not as yet have understood all that Jesus' sonship involved, Jesus' knowledge of the fig tree incident impressed him. Here was someone who could not be described in ordinary human terms. In his case terms that indicate the closest possible relationship to God were needed. "King of Israel" is an unusual expression. In the New Testament it is used, apart from this passage, three times only. At the triumphal entry Jesus was hailed in these terms by the multitude (12:13).¹¹⁴ As he hung on the cross Jesus was saluted as "King of Israel" and invited to come down (Matt. 27:42; Nathanael used sincerely at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry a title that was to recur in mockery at the very end!). And Mark reports mockers as referring to "this Christ, this King of Israel" (Mark 15:32). In the Old Testament God is the King of his people, and it is clear that in the intervening period the Messiah came to be thought of as exercising the divine prerogative of rule. Nathanael is speaking in the highest terms available to him.¹¹⁵ In recording this estimate John is adding to the evidence accumulated throughout this chapter that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Nathanael expresses this truth differently from the others, but the essential meaning is the same (see on v. 41). Nor should we overlook the fact that Nathanael has just been called an "Israelite," In calling Jesus "King of Israel" he is acknowledging Jesus to be his own King: he is submitting to him. John uses the term "King" 16 times, and on almost every occasion it refers to Jesus (John refers the word to Jesus more than twice as often as any other Evangelist), the exceptions being at the trial when Pilate and the Jewish leaders both use the term; but even here the use is brought about solely because of Jesus' claim. The royalty of Jesus is important, even though it is veiled by his lowly life and death.

50 Jesus' words,¹¹⁶. You believe" (alternatively the words might be taken as a question, "Do you believe . . . ? so NRSV), mark Nathanael as the first man explicitly said to believe in this Gospel (though cf. vv. 7, 12, and the notes there). The previous exchange had led Nathanael to put his trust in Jesus, with all that that implies. From this time forth he was a "believer." It was Jesus' statement that he had seen Nathanael underneath the fig tree that had brought this about. Now the Master promises that his new disciple will see greater things.¹¹⁷ The Master's ministry was only beginning. There would be many more examples of his power to reveal.

51 "I tell you the truth" is NIV's way of handling Amen, which is the transliteration of an Aramaic or Hebrew word, the participle of the verb that means "to confirm"; it was used to indicate one's assent. For example, it was (and still is) the response of the congregation to a prayer voiced by the one who leads the worship; it was the way the people made it their own (1 Cor. 14:16). Very occasionally it was the conclusion to one's own prayer (e.g., Tobit 8:7-8), when it had the nature of a wish. But this use is rare. Characteristically the word is one's assent to words uttered by somebody else. In the Gospels it is used only by Jesus, and always as a prefix to significant statements. Presumably this is to mark them out as solemn and true and important. This use of Amen to introduce one's own words appears to be Jesus' own, no real Jewish parallel being adduced.¹¹⁸ In view of the associations of the term it almost certainly has a religious significance. It marks the words as uttered before God, who is thus invited to bring them to pass. There are probably also christological implications. Jesus identifies himself with the words and also with the God to whom he appeals.¹¹⁹ In the Synoptic Gospels the word always occurs singly, whereas in John it is invariably doubled.¹²⁰ No satisfactory explanation of this has been put forward, but it certainly marks what follows as important.¹²¹

The change in the Greek from the singular in verse 50 to the plural here shows that this saying is meant for a wider circle, though addressed in the first place to Nathanael. There is no subsequent reference in this Gospel to the heavens being opened (the verb is used mostly of the opening of the eyes of the blind, and once of the opening of a door). In the rest of the New Testament we read of the heavens being opened only in the accounts of the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Luke 3:21) and in visions (Acts 7:56; 10:11; Rev. 19:11), none of which is likely to be in mind here. That the expression points to some vision of the divine is clear enough, but beyond that it is not easy to go. The ascent and descent of angels seem to be a reference to the vision of Jacob (Gen. 28:1 Off.). But in the patriarch's dream there is no mention of the heavens being opened, while conversely here there is no mention of the ladder Jacob saw. In both passages, however, there is the thought of communication between heaven and earth. In both the angels are said to ascend first, which may imply their presence on earth already. In this passage the place of the ladder is taken by "the Son of Man."¹²² Jesus himself is the link between heaven and earth (3:13). He is the means by which the realities of heaven are brought down to earth, and Nathanael will see this for himself. The expression then is a figurative way of saying that Jesus will reveal heavenly things, a thought that is developed throughout this Gospel. Philip's view of Jesus (v. 45) is true but inadequate. Jesus is indeed the fulfiller of prophecy, but he is also the Son of man, the revealer of God, the means of establishing communication between earth and heaven. The force of the perfect, translated "open," should not be overlooked. They would see the heavens opened and remaining opened. For "the Son of Man" see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52. Strachan regards this verse as "the key to the Evangelist's whole conception of Jesus."¹²³ His conclusion is, "The wide open heaven, and the ascending and descending angels symbolize the whole power and love of God, now available for men, in the Son of man."¹²⁴

In this chapter Jesus has been accorded several titles: the Logos (v. 1), God (v. 1), the light of men (v. 4), the true light (v. 9), the only begotten from the Father (v. 14), a greater than John the Baptist (vv. 15, 26-27, 30), Jesus Christ (v. 17), the only begotten God (or Son, v. 18), the Lord (v. 23), the Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36), he that baptizes with the Holy Spirit (v. 33), probably God's Chosen One (v. 34), the Son of God (v. 49), Rabbi (vv. 38, 49), the Messiah (v. 41), he of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (v. 45), and the King of Israel (v. 49). We may fairly comment that by recording all these John makes a beginning on the picture of our Lord that he is to paint throughout the Gospel. He is out to show him as the Christ (20:31), and this is how he begins to do it. But all these are titles used by others. Jesus calls himself simply "the Son of man."

ADDITIONAL NOTE C: THE SON OF MAN

"The Son of man" is a curious expression, and just as unusual in Greek as in English. The literature on it is vast, and it is impossible to do justice to it in a short note in a commentary. This Note is not intended to be comprehensive; it is no more than a short indication of some of the more important points.

The expression is a literal translation of the Aramaic which means "man" or "the man." In the Gospels it is used by Jesus as his favorite self-designation, occurring in this way over 80 times. Nobody else ever uses it of him¹²⁵ except Stephen (Acts 7:56) and the people in this Gospel who ask who Jesus means by the term (12:34). The fact that they ask this question shows that the term was not an accepted messianic designation. In general we can say that Jesus uses the term in a threefold way: (1) as a periphrasis for "I," (2) of the heavenly Son of man, who will come in glory, and (3) of the Son of man who suffers to bring people salvation. The origin of the term is probably to be sought in Daniel 7:13-14, where a heavenly being is so designated.¹²⁶ I have discussed the expression in my The Lord from Heaven,¹²⁷ and perhaps I may repeat my conclusion: Jesus adopted the term, "firstly because it was a rare term and one without nationalistic associations. It would lead to no political complications. 'The public would .. . read into it as much as they apprehended of Jesus already, and no more.'¹²⁸ Secondly, because it had overtones of divinity. J. P. Hickinbotham goes as far as to say, 'the Son of Man is a title of divinity rather than humanity.'¹²⁹ Thirdly, because of its societary implications. The Son of man implies the redeemed people of God. Fourthly, because it had undertones of humanity. He took upon Him our weakness."¹³⁰ It was a way of alluding to and yet veiling his messiahship,· for his concept of the Messiah differed markedly from that commonly held.

"In spite of considerable differences of vocabulary and imagery, the fundamental significance of the title 'the Son of Man' in John is not different from that which it has in the synoptic gospels."¹³¹ This assessment of Robert Maddox is true, but in the Fourth Gospel one or two additions should be made. In this Gospel the term is always associated either with Christ's heavenly glory or with the salvation he came to bring. Thus there are references to him as having access to heaven or even being in heaven (1:51; 3:13; 6:62). The first of these (1:51) carries the idea that he brings heaven to people on earth. He is the only one who has ascended into heaven and come down (3:13). He will be our Judge at the last day (5:27; here the term lacks the article — it is "Son of Man," not "the Son of Man"). Twice Jesus refers to the Son of man as being lifted up (3:14; 8:28; cf. 12:34), and twice to his being glorified (12:23; 13:31). The Son of man gives the living bread, the food that abides forever (6:27), and those who receive it eat his flesh and drink his blood (6:53). His gift of eternal life is probably implied also in his demand on the man born blind that he believe on the Son of man (9:35). In typical Johannine manner there is sometimes a combination of the themes of suffering and of glory (12:23; 13:31). The true glory lies precisely in his sufferings. The term "the Son of Man" then points us to Jesus' conception of himself as of heavenly origin and as the possessor of heavenly glory. At the same time it points us to his lowliness and his sufferings for our salvation. The two are the same.

Moloney makes the point that "While 'the Son (of God)' is predicated of Jesus for all stages of his activity (see 17,1-5), 'the Son of Man' refers only to the incarnate Logos. It refers to Jesus as a man. Even his being 'lifted up' on the cross is only possible because of his human state."¹³² He speaks of the Son of man in Daniel 7 and says, "However, John has shifted the stress somewhat. No longer does the glory come in Jesus' future role as the son of Man, but in his 'elevation' on the cross."¹³³ As he brings his discussion to a close he says, "The Johannine Son of Man is the human Jesus, the incarnate Logos; he has come to reveal God with a unique and ultimate authority and in the acceptance or refusal of this revelation the world judges itself."¹³⁴

The literature on the subject is enormous.¹³⁵

—————————————————

1. This Evangelist always uses the Hellenized form of the name 'Ιεροσόλυμα (preferred also by Matthew and Mark) rather than 'Ιερουσαλήμ, the transliteration of the Hebrew, which is the form used in LXX. Luke uses both forms, but prefers the latter.

2. In a very valuable note G. J. Cuming argues that in this Gospel " 'the Jews'.. . means Judaeans as opposed to Galileans." Especially does it apply to "the chief priests and the Pharisees, whom he depicts as our Lord's bitterest opponents. The indictment is not drawn against the whole Jewish nation but against its religious leaders. The choice of the word 'Judaeans' to describe them strongly suggests that the Evangelist was a Galilean" (ExT, LX [1948-49], p. 292). This last point is not to be overlooked. Some maintain that the use of the term makes the author a foreigner, whereas it is sufficient explanation that he came from Galilee. For a full examination of the term see T. L. Schram, The Use of "loudaios" in the Fourth Gospel (date and place of publication not given). He says, "They are portrayed as people whose actions are determined by the Law and usage, and their refusal of Jesus is expressed accordingly. On the point of disbelief they contrast not with Jesus but with his disciples" (p. 208).

3. The membership of the delegation brings together two terms neither of which is found again in this Gospel, and which are not linked elsewhere in the New Testament, namely, "priests and Levites." John is apparently stressing the part played by official Judaism; the words point to an official embassy. Support for this has been claimed by suggesting that the inquiry constituted a trial of "a false prophet," which was the prerogative of the Sanhedrin (Sank. 1:5). But this seems farfetched. The point is clear enough without this dubious argument.

4. For the Levites in New Testament times see E. Schiirer, A History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1885), II, i, pp. 264ff.; A. Edersheim, The Temple (London, n.d.), pp. 63ff. Their principal duties were to provide the Temple police and to supply music at the Temple services (for the latter of which there must always be at least twelve of them on the platform, 'Arak. 2:6). McClymont reminds us of the connection of the Levites with teaching (2 Chron. 35:3; Neh. 8:7-9). If this continued in later times the Levites would have special reason for examining the new teacher. But the regulations scattered throughout the Mishnah stress two functions only, those of providing music (orchestral, Sukk. 5:4, Kel, 15:6, and especially vocal, Rosh. Hash. 4:4, Tam. 7:3, 4, etc.), and of acting as guards (Midd. 1:1, 2, 5, etc.).

5. Some commentators (e.g., Wright) speak of Sadducees as being in the delegation. This is not unlikely, but there is no evidence.

6. "Scribes" are mentioned in 8:3 (NIV, "teachers of the law"), but there is no reason for regarding this as part of the Gospel.

7. Josephus is an example of a man who was both a priest and a Pharisee (Vit.1:2).

8. Barclay makes the point that Jewish orthodoxy frowned on John because he did not conform to the accepted ideas of either a priest or a preacher. He reminds us that the church is always in danger of repeating the mistake.

9. The verb is έρωτάω, which John uses 27 times (Matt. 4 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 15 times). The use of αίτέω is not so distinctively Johannine, being found in John 11 times (Matt. 14 times, Mark 9 times, Luke 11 times). This probably is mostly a matter of style, for in the New Testament the words do not appear to differ greatly in meaning. Properly, of course, ὲρωτάω means "ask a question," and it is thus appropriate in the present passage. See further on 11:22.

10. J. B. Lightfoot points out that we learn more about contemporary Jewish views on the Messiah from John than we do from the Synoptics. The topic is discussed in Galilee (1:41, 45, 49, etc.), in Samaria (4:25, 29, 42), and in Judea (5:39, 45-46; 7:26-27, etc.). "Among friends, among foes, among neutrals alike, it is mooted and discussed. The person and character of Jesus are tried by this standard. He is accepted or he is rejected as he fulfils or contradicts the received idea of the Messiah" (E. Abbot, A. P. Peabody, and J. B. Lightfoot, The Fourth Gospel [London, 1892], p. 152). See also on v. 41.

11. S. Mowinckel points out that the term "Messiah" has an eschatological character but also that "it has a political sense from the beginning" (He That Cometh [Oxford, 1959], p. 7). This must be borne in mind in reckoning with the sparse use of the term in the New Testament.

12. The emphatic pronoun έγώ is unusually frequent throughout this Gospel. John uses it 465 times, while Matthew has it 210 times, Mark 104, times and Luke 215 times. It is plain that John is much more ready than the others to use this emphatic form. This is not the case with the plural ήμεΐς (Matt. 49 times, Mark 24 times, Luke 69 times, and John 48 times), nor with σύ (Matt. 207 times, Mark 89 times, Luke 224 times, and John 151 times), nor with ύμεĩς (Matt. 247 times, Mark 75 times, Luke 220 times, John 255 times).

13. The word "Christ" is the transliteration of the Greek Χριστός, "anointed." This in turn is a translation of the Hebrew which we transliterate as "Messiah" (cf. v. 41). Since Χριστός is a translation, not a transliteration of the Hebrew, it can be argued that we should translate it here and read "Anointed.'' But we are so accustomed to the term "Christ" that it is probably best to retain it.

14. See further my The Lord from Heaven2 (London and Downers Grove, 1958), pp. 28-31, and New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, 1986), pp. 228-32.

15. This is John's first use of οΰν, a word he employs 194 times in all, far more than does any other New Testament writer (next is Acts which uses it 62 times). It is so much a mark of his style that we cannot always insist on an inferential sense.

16. LXX reads "Elijah the Tishbite" and not simply "Elijah" in Mai. 4:5 (LXX, 3:22), which would have encouraged the idea. The animal vision in Enoch 90 appears to depict Elijah's return before the judgment (En. 90:31; cf. 89:52). The contemporary Jewish expectation is attested in Mark 8:28; 9:11. We read of the functions of Elijah in the Mishnah (e.g., 'Eduy. 8:7). See also LT, II, pp. 706-09; SBk, IV, pp. 764-98. Justin reports the Jewish view that the Messiah "is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all" (Dial. Try. 8; ANF, I, p. 199). Augustine had the idea that Elijah was to come before Christ's second advent, so that John was not he (NPNF, I, vii, p. 27). This idea has been taken up in modern times by J. C. Ryle, who cites Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, and Gregory in support of the theory of two advents of Elijah, or more accurately of two Elijahs, an Elijah in the spirit and an Elijah in the flesh.

17. It is objected that if this was John's meaning he should have explained himself further. But John was in no mood for a long discourse about himself as his severely curtailed answers show. He wanted to bear witness to Christ, not to talk about himself. In any case, in his modesty he may not have dared to claim that he was Elijah in any sense; he thought of himself as no more than "a voice." That this Evangelist did not deny that the Baptist was Elijah in any sense is perhaps indicated by his description of John in 5:35 in terms that recall the description of Elijah in Sir. 48:1.

18. C. F. D. Moule points out that it is too simple to see a straight contradiction between John's account and that of the Synoptists. "We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The Synoptists represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?" (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [London, 1967], p. 70).

19. Yet this should not blind us to the startling effect on them of a man who looked and acted like a prophet. For them prophecy was dead. It was congealed in parchment and ink. John stabbed them into a new awareness of what prophecy really is.

20. John is fond of άποχρίνομαι, which he uses 78 times (Matt. 55 times, Mark 30 times, Luke 46 times). In the great majority of instances he has the aorist passive as here, the aorist middle being found twice only (5:17, 19), and the present, which might be either middle or passive, four times (12:23, where see note; 13:26, 38; 18:22).

21. The form is the accented οΰ, which is the negative answer, "No" (see BAGD). John uses it again only in 7:12; 21:5. In all three places the negative is a very firm one.

22. The Jews seem to have made very little use of the prophecy in Deut. 18 and when they did use it they do not seem to have identified the prophet with the Christ. Sometimes they thought that Jeremiah was meant (see SBk on Acts 3:22). F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake suggest that the application of the prophecy to the Christ came into Christianity from Samaritan sources (The Beginnings of Christianity, I [London, 1920], pp. 404-8). In the Qumran scrolls the prophet and the Christ seem to be distinguished. Thus we read in the Manual of Discipline, "Until the coming of the Prophet and of both the priestly and the lay Messiah" (SDSS, p. 67). Millar Burrows renders "a prophet" (DSS, p. 383), but M. Black accepts the reference to the prophet of Deut. 18:15 (SJT, VI [1953], p. 6). J. T. Milik points out that the Qumran texts display a concern for the due recognition of this prophet as a true prophet, but apart from this show little interest in him. "Once it becomes clear that the Priestly Messiah's functions include the proclamation of the eschatological law, it is hard to understand what the Prophet can be except a precursor of the Messiah" (Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea [London, 1959], p. 126). The Christian (and Samaritan) view is thus distinctive. For Jewish speculations about the coming of prophets see SBk on John 6:14.

23. For the suggestion that ίνα is imperatival see on v. 8. An imperative here would yield the sense "let us give an answer" which seems improbable. The meaning is surely "(Tell us) so that we may give an answer."

24. The verb is πέμψασιν. For the alleged distinction of this verb from άποστέλλω see on 3:17.

25. The Servant-Messiah (Cambridge, 1953), p. 45.

26. εύθύνω was used not only in the literal sense"to straighten," but also with the derived meaning "to correct." Thus in the papyri the passive participle "the corrected ones" has the meaning "the culprits" (see MM, s v.). Similarly, the active participle is used of the steersman of a ship, "the one guiding straight." The word does not occur in the Synoptic parallels, nor in LXX, from which they quote (they all read έτοιμάσατε). John may be making his own translation from the Hebrew. And he may, as Edwin D. Freed thinks, have been attracted to this verb because of its frequent use in an ethical or moral sense (Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John [Leiden, 1965], pp. 1-7).

27. 1QS 8:Off. (DSS, p. 382).

28. Cf. W. H. Brownlee: "John's ministry is well explained as that of a 'voice' not in any vague sense that adheres to Is. 40:3 itself, but in the dynamic sense that here was a neglected function which the Essenes had not been performing as they sought to prepare the Lord's way in the wilderness" (SNT, p. 47).

29. It is not found in p66 χ *A*Β syr^P co. See the note in Field, p. 84.

30. Dodd finds significance in the difference in the kind of questions asked by the two groups; "The official deputation, as such, is content with obtaining from the Baptist a disavowal of any dangerous pretensions; its Pharisaic members (or the Pharisaic deputation) wish to probe more deeply into the theoretical basis of his baptism. There is nothing here inconsistent with what we know of conditions at the time. At this point the evangelist seems to be following a well-informed tradition" (HTFG, pp. 264-65).

31. The name "Pharisee" is usually said to derive from a root that means "to separate," so that the name basically means those who have separated themselves from all loose religious practices and live in strict accordance with the law. This may indeed be the correct way of understanding it, but T. W. Manson suggests that the name derives from the word for "Persian": "The word Pharisee originally meant simply 'Persian'; and it was applied to the innovators in theology in much the same way that the term 'Romaniser' has been used in theological controversy in our own day. The name stuck, and at a later date was furnished with an edifying etymology. It was explained that it was really connected with a Hebrew root meaning 'to separate', and so signified that those who bore it were separated from all that is abominable in God's sight" (The Servant-Messiah, pp. 19-20). Whatever be the truth about the origin of the name the Pharisees were the party of strict orthodoxy.

32. "In theology" the Sadducees "are the representatives of an ossified orthodoxy with no guiding principle except quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" (Manson, The Servant-Messiah, p. 20).

33. Some deny that proselyte baptism is as old as this period, but see SBk, I, pp. 102-13; G. F. Moore, Judaism, I (Harvard, 1958), pp. 323-53; ΙII (Harvard, 1959), pp. 107-14; T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah, pp. 43-44.

34. Perhaps it was also new in that he baptized people (as his title "the Baptist" indicates). Previously people seem to have baptized themselves before witnesses. E. Stauffer thinks that John was "an apocalyptist of levitical stamp." He raises the question whether John may not have expected "a levitical Messiah" (New Testament Theology [London, 1955], p. 24). T. W, Manson devotes ch. II of The Servant-Messiah to John the Baptist. Inter alia he says, "John was not the first to preach repentance and moral reformation: he was not the first to make washing a ritual act charged wih religious significance: he was not the first to indulge in Messianic propaganda. But he was the first to bring all three things together in an organic unity" (p. 39). See also W. H. Brownlee, "John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls" (ch. ΙII of SNT).

35. We should notice that John is interested in water, both literal and symbolic. He uses the term 21 times, whereas it is found 4 times in 1 John and 18 times in Revelation but no more than 7 times in any other book.

36.Among the Qumran Thanksgiving Psalms is one that says:"this tree which is planted in Truth puts forth upon its boughs blossoms of Holiness, keeping its secret hidden, unknown, sealed and unsuspected." (SDSS, p. 165)If, as a number of scholars believe, this refers to the Messiah, we have a striking parallel to the thought of this verse, though the language is very different.

37. SBk, I, p. 121.

38. ίνα (in the expression ἄξιος ίνα λύσω) has lost most of its telic force and is practically equivalent to the infinitive, as often in John. But Abbott points out that it is used in this way only in sentences when it is preceded by words like "good" or "command," never words like "evil" or "forbid." He proceeds, "The reason is that 'goodness' and 'command' suggest a positive object to be attained or a positive object in commanding; and object suggests purpose" (2094). Note further the use of the redundant pronoun αύτοῦ, complementing the relative pronoun oh. Burney points out that in Semitic languages a statement like "I saw the man to whom I gave the book" would appear as "I saw the man who I gave the book to him." He sees this construction again in 1:33; 9:36; 13:26; 18:9 (AO, pp. 84-85). Each of these is in direct speech, which reinforces the view that an Aramaic source lies behind the sayings of this Gospel.

39. His words are, "We are aware of the reading which is found in almost all the copies, 'These things were done in Bethany.' This appears, moreover, to have been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read 'Bethany.' We are convinced, however, that we should not read 'Bethany,' but 'Bethabara.' We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. Now Bethany . . . is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, and the river Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor is there any other place of the same name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there" (Commentary on John, VI,24; ANF, X, p. 370).

40. Cf. the comment of R. D. Potter: "How did the name disappear in 100 or 150 years? The answer is that Origen, despite his pious assertion about visiting the scenes of our Redemption, had never been there. He is reporting hearsay (δείχνυσθαι δέ λέγουσιν). He never discovered Bethany beyond Jordan because he never went to look. He did not even get to Bethabara on this side of Jordan" (SE, I, p. 332).

41. Pierson Parker has put forward the interesting suggestion that the Bethany meant is the one near Jerusalem. He thinks a correct paraphrase would be, "These things took place in Bethany, which is across from the point of the Jordan where John had been baptizing" (JBL, LXXIV [1955], pp. 257-61; cf. also the adaptation of this by Dr. Harold Greenlee, BT, IX [1958], pp. 137-38). His argument is interesting, but I remain unconvinced that the Bethany near Jerusalem could naturally be described as "across from" a point on the Jordan. The distance is more than 15 miles, and there are hills in between.

42. There is an article with Ίησοῦν a, s often. For this construction see Richard C. Nevius, "The Use of the Definite Article with 'Jesus' in the Fourth Gospel" (NTS, 12 [1965-66], pp. 81-85); also the note in Bernard.

43. The word is ΐδε, which John uses 15 times out of its 29 New Testament occurrences. Matthew has it 4 times and Luke 9 times (the other occurrence is in Galatians). By contrast ιδού is found 62 times in Matthew, 7 times in Mark, 57 times in Luke, and only 4 times in John. There seems to be little difference in meaning, both forms being originally imperatives from εϊδον. But they have become conventionalized particles and, for example, both may be followed by the nominative (ΐδε here, ĩδού in 19:5).

44. The nominative 'Αμνός shows that ΐδε is no longer a real imperative ("Look at—"), but an exclamation ("Behold!").

45. The word used in Revelation (and in John 21:15) is άρνίον, whereas that used here is άμνός (elsewhere in the New Testament only in v. 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19). There does not appear to be any real difference of meaning. MacGregor thinks it "likely that the Evangelist is throwing back into John's words a title which, as applied to Christ, had in his own day become stereotyped." So far from this being the case, it is very difficult to find any evidence for the use of the term that does not depend on this passage. As far as I know, the expression is found nowhere before its occurrence here, and it does not seem to be attested in later times other than in passages ultimately dependent on this one. There is evidence for referring to Christ as "the Lamb," but with a different word and without the qualifier "of God."

46. There are references to "the Lamb of God" in the Testament of Joseph 19:11; Testament of Benjamin 3:8, but these are generally seen as included among the several Christian interpolations in these writings. H. C. Kee remarks that the Christian interpolations "seem to have a special affinity with Johannine thought" (J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I [New York, 1983], p. 777).

47. It may possibly be a Hebraism that describes anything great by referring it to God (e.g., Nimrod was very mighty hunter, literally "a mighty hunter before Yahweh," Gen. 10:9). In that case it would describe Jesus as "that eminent, great, divine, and most excellent Lamb" (Ryle).

48. It might be a kid. I am not convinced by the contention that, while a kid was possible, a lamb was more usual. This may have been the case, though I have never seen it proved. But it fails to deal with the main point, namely that "the Passover lamb" is a modern expression, not an ancient one. Even if a lamb was offered most often, the term "the Passover lamb" was not used of it (τό πάσχα was the term as in 1 Cor. 5:7; curiously NIV imports "lamb" into this verse with no MS support). We are looking for the source of an expression that explicitly mentions a lamb.

49. G. Buchanan Gray says, "the Paschal victim was . . . neither as a matter of fact necessarily a lamb, nor in the usage of the time was it called a lamb; the proper term for it was 'Passover', and it is only reasonable to suppose that had the author of the Fourth Gospel intended this he would, like St. Paul, have used the correct and unambiguous designation" (Sacrifice in the Old Testament [Oxford, 1925], p. 397).

50. SBk cites evidence that even the meal offering was regarded as having atoning value (ΙII, p. 699; notice that Lev. 14:20 regards the burnt and meal offerings as making atonement). Lev. 17:11 connects atonement with "the blood" simply, not the blood of any particular sacrifice or sacrifices. Johannes Pedersen can say, "Everything in any way connected with sacrifice acquired an expiatory power" (Israel, III-IV [London, 1947], p. 634). Similarly C. R. North: "By the close of the OT period, too, all sacrifices were believed to have atoning value" (TWBB, p. 206).

51. G. Dalman cites Exod. Rab. 15 (35b), "I see the Paschal blood and propitiate you," and again (35a), "I mercifully take pity on you by means of the Paschal blood and the blood of circumcision, and I propitiate your souls" (Jesus-Jeshua [London, 1929], p. 167). Josephus says of the Passover that the Israelites "in readiness to start, sacrificed,

purified the houses with the blood" (Ant. 2.312).

52. See the authorities cited by Η. H. Rowley, BJRL XXXIX (1950-51), p. 103, n. 4. Those who accept this view usually agree that other ideas are present also. Thus Vincent Taylor says, "The dominant conception appears to be that of the Servant, freely used in association with other sacrificial ideas" (Jesus and His Sacrifice [London, 1939], p. 227). But Rowley's arguments seem conclusive that the association of Isa. 53 with the Messiah was not made in pre-Christian times. He says specifically, "There is no serious evidence, then, of the bringing together of the concepts of the Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah before the Christian era" (The Servant of the Lord [London, 1952], p. 85). Similarly H. Wheeler Robinson: "There has been no success in all the endeavours made to find previous or contemporary identification of the Messiah with the suffering servant of Yahweh" (Redemption and Revelation [New York and London, 1942], p. 199).

53. J. Jeremias says, "the expression ό άμνός τού θεού conceals both a factual and a linguistic difficulty. (1) The description of the Saviour as a lamb is unknown to late Judaism. (2) The expression is an unparalleled genitive combination. Both difficulties are solved if we refer to the Aramaic where means (a) the lamb, (b) the boy, the servant. Probably behind the phrase ό άμνός τού θεού lies an Aramaic in the sense of (W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God [London, 1957], p. 82).

54. Dodd puts the criticism of Jeremias's view succinctly: "άμνός in the LXX never translates . No examples are adduced of as a rendering for. . . . Thus we lack evidence in support of the view either that the Aramaic-speaking Church (or John the Baptist) could have spoken of the , or that a bilingual translator who took in the sense of 'lamb' would have chosen άμνός as its equivalent" (IFG, pp. 235-36). (A Palestinian Syriac text is now known to have "servant" in Isa. 52:13, as also in Gen. 18:3; Jer. 30:10; cf. J. Jeremias, TDNT, VI, p. 679, n. 156; p. 702, n. 356.)

55. Hoskyns is one of few commentators who adopt this view. He speaks of John as declaring "Jesus to be the property of God, by whose complete obedience the normal sacrifices in the Temple — a lamb without blemish was offered daily both morning and evening (Exod. xxix.38-46) and even during the siege of Jerusalem these sacrifices were maintained in spite of very great difficulties . . . — were fulfilled and superseded (ii.18- 22)."

56. IFG, pp. 230-38. More recently Beasley-Murray finds "little doubt as to what figure is in mind: the Baptist has in view the Lamb who leads the flock of God, and who delivers them from their foes and rules them in the kingdom of God."

57. A. Richardson finds more than one allusion here, but certainly this one among others. He says, "St John would seem (as is his way) to have caught the subtle allusion to the sacrifice of Isaac implicit in the (Synoptic) tradition of the Baptism of Jesus, and he is emphasizing the truth in his own way: Christ is the Lamb of sacrifice promised by God to Abraham, the father of many nations, and thus he is the God-given universal Sin Bearer" (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament [London, 1958], p. 228).

58. Yet we should not overlook the tremendous importance assigned in Jewish thought to the Binding of Isaac. This was held to be a supremely significant sacrifice (see the evidence cited by G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [Leiden, 1961], pp. 193-229; H. J. Schoeps, Paul [London, 1961], pp. 141-49). Vermes maintains that in the light of this the Johannine passage ceases to be a crux: "For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation" (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, p. 225). Those who advocate this view do not give weight to the fact that in Genesis 22:13 it was in fact a ram, not a lamb, that God provided.

59. Cf. J. Morgenstem: "Here, beyond all doubt, Jesus is conceived of, precisely as the Servant, as an 'a guilt-offering', sacrificing himself for the redemption of mankind from its iniquity and thus effecting its salvation" (Vetus Testamentum, XI [1961], p. 425).

60. Feliks Gryglewicz argues that, in accordance with John's habit, the expression is used with a double meaning, the Servant of the Lord, and the Passover Lamb (see "Das Lamm Gotten," NTS, 13 [1966-67], pp. 133-46). This is all right as far as it goes, but it seems that the meaning is more likely to be multiform than dual in this case.

61. The complex background is stressed by C. K. Barrett in his article "The Lamb of God" (NTS, 1, [1954-55], pp. 210-18). He gives special place to the eschatological element. S. S. Smalley holds that "the Baptist's description of Jesus as God's Lamb obviously alludes to the salvific activity of God's Son. It presupposes the entire OT pattern of sacrifice, especially that associated with a vicarious offering for sin" (ExT, 93 [1981-82], p. 326). G. L. Carey has a very useful survey in his article, "The Lamb of God and Atonement Theories," Tyndale Bulletin, 32 [1981], pp. 97-122. See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross³ [London and Grand Rapids, 1965], pp. 120-43.

62. The verb is αίρω, which John uses more than any other New Testament writer (26 times). It is found with the object άμάρτημα in 1 Sam. 15:25. and άνόμημα in 1 Sam. 25:28, both times in the sense "forgive." The idea of bearing sin in Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24 is conveyed by αναφέρω, but there is not likely to be a great difference in meaning. MacGregor, agreeing that the verb αίρω means not "take upon oneself." but "take out of the way," yet says, "But the latter thought, while enriching the former, also includes it, for a lamb can only 'remove' sin by vicariously 'bearing' it, and this Christ did." J. Jeremias finds two possible meanings of the verb in this passage: "to take up and carry" and "to carry off." He says, "In both cases it is a matter of setting aside the guilt of others. In the former, however, the means of doing this is by a substitutionary bearing of penalty; in the latter sin is removed by a means of expiation" (TDNT, I. pp. 185-86). 111 the Johannine manner probably both meanings are in mind. For the concept of sin-bearing see my The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 322ff.

63. John's interest in the people's sins should not be missed. He uses the noun άμαρτία 17 times, the same total as in 1 John. The only New Testament books that use the term more are Romans (48 times) and Hebrews (25 times). Curiously Haenchen says that sin "is not a basic concept in the message of the Evangelist."

64. Cf. Vacher Burch: "He is a man of uncommon powers, and his words flash out from his intuitive genius which owes nothing to the teaching method of his abrogator" (The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel [London, 1928], p. 58).

65. Cf. C. F. Burney: "From these considerations we deduce the conclusion that the fact that our Lord was to fulfil the role of the ideal Servant, though not understood by the Apostles, was in some measure realized by the Baptist" (AO, p. 106; Burney's italics).

66. SNT, pp. 50. and 51. He goes on to speak of "the validation of the Fourth Gospel as an authentic source concerning the Baptist" (p. 52). This is not in contradiction of n. 52 above. There the point was that the linking of the Messiah with Isa. 53 was not widely made: here it is that the link was occasionally made, and specifically that this was done in circles to which John was apparently indebted.

67. Thus άμνός does not occur in John outside this saying, nor does this Evangelist use αϊρω for the removal of sin, nor, though he uses both αμαρτία and χόσμος often, does he speak elsewhere of "the sin of the world." It is worth pointing out that C. H. Dodd concludes his discussion of this passage with, "There seems no real reason why the whole expression, ό άμνός τού θεού ό αΐρων τήν άμαρτίαν τού χόσμου, should not have been used by John the Baptist, or in a traditional account of his preaching" (HTFG, pp. 270-71).

68. άνήρ. "Of whom" is ύπέρ ού, "on behalf of whom." Many MSS read περί, but this preposition, besides giving a somewhat easier sense, is very common in John and is not likely to have been altered. The Baptist thinks of himself as an ambassador speaking"on behalf of" Christ.

69. See AO, pp. 56ff.; AA, pp. 44ff.

70. χάγώ. John uses this term 30 times, three times as often as in any other New Testament book (1 Corinthians has it 10 times). Clearly he finds this form of emphasis congenial.

71. ĭν ahas its full telic force, and it is reinforced by διύ τ ούτ ο .The importance of making Christ manifest to Israel is given prominence by putting the ĭνα clause first. John has διά with the accusative 45 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book, but he has no special fondness for διά with the genitive (14 times).

72. It is sometimes alleged that John uses several verbs for seeing with distinctive meanings and that θεαόμαι, which is used here, has the notion of spiritual insight. But it is impossible to see this in some of its occurrences (e.g. v. 38; 6:5). Brown has a good note on John's verbs for seeing (pp. 501-3). He agrees that there are different kinds of sight in John, but not that these are conveyed by different verbs. He concludes, "Those scholars who think that the verbs are synonymous have almost as many texts to prove their point as do the scholars who would attribute specific meanings to the verbs" (p. 503). John

uses θεάομαι 6 times, the most in any New Testament book.

73. It is uncertain whether έξ ούρανού should be taken with χαταβαίνο ν("descending from heaven like a dove") or with περιστεράν ("descending like a dove from the sky").

74. The symbolism is puzzling and perhaps inexplicable. The dove was not, as is sometimes said, a recognized symbol of the Holy Spirit (see LT, I, pp. 286-87; C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition [London, 1947], pp. 35-39). It sometimes symbolized Israel, but it is difficult to see it having this force here. But perhaps Jesus is being seen as the true, ideal Israelite at the very time that he received the Spirit.

75. The verb is έμεινευ, aorist of μένω, a characteristic word of this Evangelist, here denoting the beginning of the Spirit's permanent dwelling in Jesus and the inception of the new order: the whole of Jesus' ministry is accomplished in the power of the Spirit.

76. Chrysostom held that Jesus was quite unknown to John until this moment, the reason being that John "had passed all his time in the wilderness away from his father's house" (17.2; p. 60). Godet follows the same line of reasoning, and thinks he would have known from the birth stories that Jesus was the Messiah (on v. 31). It is possible, as Brownlee points out (SNT, p. 35) that John's aged parents died while he was very young, and that he was brought up by a community of Essenes (who frequently adopted children, according to Josephus, Bell. 2.120). Origen thinks the reference is to the pre-incarnation period, with the added thought that "perhaps he is here learning something new about Him," namely that he is to baptize with the Holy Spirit (Commentary on John, 1.37; ANF, X, p. 317).

77. The use of the emphatic έχεΐνος should not be missed: "he that sent me to baptize with water, he (and none less) said. . . . " For εχείνος in this Gospel see on v. 8.

78. For the significance of the redundant pronoun αύτόν see on v. 27.

79. For the idea of baptism with the spirit cf. the Manual of Discipline, "Like waters of purification (God) will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth" (1QS 4.21; SDSS, p. 55).

80. έώραχα. For John's use of verbs of seeing see n. 71 above.

81.ό υιός has far and away the best attestation, p66 75 ABC Θ boh etc. But ό έχλεχτός is read by p5vld it^b.e syr^c.s Ambrose, a strong combination. Two other readings, ό έχλεχτός υιός and ό μονογενής υιός, appear secondary. There would be every reason for scribes to substitute υιός for another reading before τοϋ Θεού ,but it is difficult to see how έχλεχτός could have been derived if υίός was original. R. V. G. Tasker gives an additional reason for preferring έχλεχτός, namely that it "is in harmony with what would

appear to have been the early tradition about the significance of the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism"; he refers to Matt. 3:17: Mark 1:11 (GNT, p. 425).

82. See further Dom J. Howton's article " 'Son of God' in the Fourth Gospel" (NTS, 10 [1963-64], pp. 227-37). He argues that "Whereas God of old chose a nation to work out his purpose in the world, and in that nation raised up prophets to direct his people, now he has chosen only one individual who in himself represents God active in the world (cf. Heb. i. 1 -2). It is this meaning of the title 'son of God' that is primary for the Evangelist" (p. 233).

83. Brown notes the christological richness of this section of the Gospel: "When we look back on the wealth and depth of the material contained in the intervening verses (i.e. vv. 19-34), we appreciate John's genius at incorporating a whole christology into one brief scene."

84. Luther, vol. 22, p. 182.

85. J. A. T. Robinson finds "little to set against the traditional view that the unnamed disciple of the pair was the actual source of this material (i.e. the material in this Gospel) — whether or not he was also the author of the Gospel" (NTS, 4 [1957-58], p. 264, n. 2).

86. The verb is έμβλέπω. Cf. Swete on Mark 10:21, "'Εμβλέπειν . . . is to fix the eyes for a moment upon an object, — a characteristically searching look turned upon an individual." But see n. 72 above.

87. John's verb is λαλούντος p, resent participle of λαλέω. This verb is unusually frequent in John, where it occurs 60 times (Matt. 26 times, Mark 21 times, Luke 31 times). We see the significance of these figures by comparing them with those for λέγω, which John has 266 times (Matt. 289 times, Mark 202 times, Luke 217 times). John thus has an unusual preference for λαλέω. His reason is not clear. LS gives the meaning of this verb as "talk, chat, prattle," while BAGD points out that in the classics it usually means "chatter,

babble." This, however, is certainly not the meaning in John. MM cites examples from the papyri that "all bear out the usual distinction that, while λέγω calls attention to the substance of what is said, the onomatopoetic λαλέω points rather to the outward utterance." It does not, however, seem possible to find a real difference between the two verbs in John; this Evangelist seems to use them interchangeably. His unusual use of λαλέω appears to be no more than a stylistic preference.

88. Calvin views in the words as a rebuke to those who are satisfied "with a bare passing look For there are very many who merely sniff at the Gospel from a distance, and thus let Christ suddenly disappear, and whatever they have learned about Him slip away."

89.means literally "my great one." But the personal pronoun tended to become conventional, as in monsieur or madame. The word was used very much like our "Sir." Some scholars maintain that John's statement is anachronistic, on the grounds that the title was not in use before A.D. 70. Brown, however, cites Sukenik, who discovered an ossuary on the Mount of Olives that he dates several generations before the destruction of the Temple and that uses ιδάσχαλος as a title. This may well indicate that "Rabbi" was in use in this way, though it is not absolutely conclusive, for διδάσχαλος does not always represent W. D. Davies has no doubt about the usage in Jesus' day, for he devotes a section of his great work on the Sermon on the Mount to Jesus as "The Rabbi," and he says explicitly: "He was called rabbi. While in his day the title did not have the exact connotation of one officially ordained to teach that it later acquired, it was more than a courtesy title: it did designate a 'teacher' in the strict sense" (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge, 1964], p. 422).

90. J. Jeremias interprets this as the time of the evening meal: "Jesus admits the two disciples of John the Baptist to His table" (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Oxford, 1955], p. 17, n. 4). One manuscript, A, reads εχτη, sixth, but this is difficult to accept, especially without support.

91. Westcott and others think the incident occurred around 10 a.m., holding that John follows the Roman system of reckoning the day from midnight to midnight. But it is not at all clear that this Roman usage is relevant. It is true that the Romans counted from midnight when reckoning the legal day on which leases or contracts were dated (see Dods), but for all other purposes they seem to have computed from sunrise. For example, they marked noon on their sundials with VI, not XII. Both Greeks and Romans measured from sunrise: "The Romans when they spoke of 'the first hour5 meant as a rule the point of time when the first hora from sunrise was completed" (Sir R Harvey, ed., The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, [Oxford, 1959], p. 88). J. Carcopino gives a table showing the hours of the day and comparing them with our time (Daily Life in Ancient Rome [Penguin Books, 1962], pp. 167-68); he sees the tenth hour at the summer solstice as lasting from 3:46 p.m. to 5:02 p.m. on our reckoning. Similarly Gepp and Haigh's Latin-English Dictionary defines prima hora as "daybreak, sunrise" and reckons other hours accordingly; it notes no other usage. For Jewish use there is an instructive passage concerning evidence in which R. Judah accepts the testimony of two witnesses when one speaks of the third hour and another of the fifth, but rejects it if one spoke of the fifth hour and the other of the seventh, "since at the fifth hour the sun is in the east and at the seventh it is in the west" (Sank. 5:3). H. R. Stroes gives a full examination of the biblical evidence in an article entitled "Does the Day Begin in the Evening or Morning?'' (Vetus Testamenturn, XVI [1966], pp. 460-75). As the title indicates, Stroes presents just two views and does not even mention as a possibility that the day might begin at midnight. In New Testament times he thinks the day was regarded as beginning at sunset when precision was required; otherwise at sunrise (p. 462). It is difficult to understand why this Evangelist alone should have such an unusual mode of reckoning time as the Roman legal use. The early commentators seem to have accepted without question that John used the same method as the other Evangelists. Thus Chrysostom speaks of "the tenth hour" here as when "the sun was already near its setting" (18.3; p. 65). Augustine finds only an allegorical reference to the law "because the law was given in ten commandments" (7.10; p. 51)! MacGregor also adopts an allegorical explanation, " 'the tenth hour,' the number of perfection, would mark the beginning of the Christian era" (Bultmann also sees allegory). J. Edgar Brans has a note in which he regards all the Johannie time references as symbolic (NTS, 13 [1966-67], pp. 285-90). But this seems to be going beyond the evidence and the probabilities. It is preferable to regard this and other such passages as straightforward notes of time. See further on 19:14.

92. John uses the compound name "Simon Peter" 17 times (Matt. 3 times, Mark 1 time, Luke 2 times). He also uses both "Simon" and "Peter," but his fondness for the compound is noteworthy. See further on 21.15.

93. The readings are πρώτος in Κ L W, πρώτον in p66 p75 ^c Α Β Θ f l fl3, and πρωΐ in some Old Latin MSS. The attestation of πρώτον is thus superior. Some scholars hold that the use of τόν ϊδιον. "his own," favors πρώτος. But this argument is worth little, for in late Greek ίδιος often means no more than "his" (though Moulton denies that this applies here, Μ, I, p. 90).

94. The transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "anointed." See further n. 13 above. "In Jewish lips 'we have found the Messiah' was the most comprehensive of all eurekas" (Dods).

95. Cephas is our transliteration of the Aramaic , meaning "rock." Peter is from the Greek πέτρος with much the same meaning. Strictly the Greek equivalent of Cephas is Πέτρα, but this has a feminine ending and the less usual masculine form is used for Simon's new name. Originally πέτρα meant the solid rock and πέτρος a stone, a piece of rock, but the two seem not to have been sharply distinguished in New Testament times (see O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [London, 1962], pp. 20-21). Cephas does not occur in any of the other Gospels. It points to an Aramaicspeaking author, as anyone else would use the common form, Peter. Simon's father is called John, though in Matt. 16:17 the name is Jonah. This is John's only use of the name Cephas. Indeed, apart from this passage the term is found only in Paul. See further the note on 21:15.

96. A. J. Droge says that the name "is not symbolic of his potential for 'solid' leadership... in the Fourth Gospel Peter is a 'rock' because of his obtuseness and persistent inability to understand Jesus" (JBL, 109 [1990], p. 308). But this is perhaps too harsh; Brown detects "no attitude deprecatory of Peter in the Johannine writings" (p. 1006).

97. The meaning of the aorist ή θέλησαν is probably "he resolved." Grammatically the subject could be "Peter" (who was last mentioned), but the sense of the passage plainly requires us to understand "Jesus."

98. Barclay understands the passage to mean that the event took place in Galilee. He translates, "and there He found Philip." So Moffatt.

99. There is a change of preposition, Philip being άπό Βηθσαϊδά and έx της πόλεως 'Ανδρέου xαΐ Πέτρου. Some writers find a distinction between them, with άπό signifying place of residence and έx place of origin (Abbott, 2289). But John uses the two prepositions more or less interchangeably. In this Gospel we read of Christ as both έx and άπό heaven (6:33, 38), as έx Galilee and ἀπό Bethlehem (7:41-42). There is no real difference. For John's habit of variation see SFG, ch. 5. John is much more fond of έx than of ἀπό. He uses έx 165 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book (next is Revelation 134 times, then Luke with 87 times). But he uses ἀπό only 40 times

(Matt, has it 113 times, Mark 47 times, Luke 127 times, and Acts 114 times).

100. There is good evidence that Bethsaida was to the East of Jordan. Josephus locates it in lower Gaulanitis (Bell. 2.168), and it appears to be near the place where the Jordan flows into the lake of Galilee (Bell. 3.515); Pliny and Jerome are also cited in support. It is urged that Mark 6:45 shows that there was a Bethsaida in the general region of Capernaum, and this is supported by the use of the expression "Bethsaida of Galilee" (John 12:21). But George Adam Smith cites evidence that by the time of the war of 66-70 the term "Galilee" had extended its meaning to include territory around the lake. He thinks that even earlier the jurisdiction of Galilee's ruler extended to the East of the lake (EB, 566). On the whole it seems probable that there was but one Bethsaida, with perhaps a suburb across the river (R. H. Mounce favors this view, though noting some objections, ISBE, I, p. 475). The name incidentally means "House of fishing."

101. The prominent position of "Ov έγραψε νmay indicate that Philip and Nathanael had previously discussed the fulfilment of these scriptures. Philip cites no specific passage. Edersheim notes that the Rabbis interpreted no less than 456 passages messianically (LT, Π, pp. 710-41). For Jesus' messiahship see on v. 41. For other passages showing that the Old Testament speaks of Jesus, cf. 2:22; 5:39, 46; 20:9).

102. "It is in accord with (John's) ironical use of traditional material that he should allow Jesus to be ignorantly described as 'son of Joseph' while himself believing that Jesus had no human father" (Barrett). Godet vigorously exclaims, "as if it were the evangelist who was here speaking, and not Philip! And that disciple, after exchanging ten words with Jesus, must have been already acquainted with the most private circumstances of His birth and infancy!"

103. For this characteristic of the Evangelist cf. G. Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (London, 1892), pp. 280ff. As Salmon says, "no one understands better the rhetorical effect of leaving an absurdity without formal refutation, when his readers can be trusted to perceive it for themselves" (pp. 281-82). This is brought out by P. D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, 1985, though curiously he does not see it in this passage). Duke finds irony running right through this Gospel and indeed finds the central truth of which John writes as essentially ironical:"They had beheld a man — and now, 'Behold the Man!' They had beheld flesh — and he was the Word; in him what they had beheld was glory. He came graciously to a world he had made — and was unrecognized. He visited his own chosen people — and was spurned. They lifted him up to shame — and he was lifted up indeed. He was beheld there by the outcast and accursed — and he made them his friends and children of God. So crucial is this irony to the Johannine message that it may fairly be said, if we do not grasp the Irony we do not grasp the Gospel" (p. 156).

104. G. D. Kilpatrick points out that the adjective άγαθός is used predicatively here and at 7:12, while it is pronominal at 5:29. χαλός, he finds, is always attributive (BT, 11 [1960], pp. 173-74). The difference between the two then in this Gospel appears to be purely grammatical; there is no real difference in meaning. John uses άγαθός 3 times and χαλός 7 times.

105. It does not appear to be mentioned before the New Testament. D. C. Pellett says that apart from the New Testament, the earliest evidence for the city is in Julius Africanus, A.D. 170-240 (IDB, 3, pp. 524-25). Bruce, however, cites its inclusion in a list of towns in an inscription in Caesarea discovered in 1962 and referring to places in Galilee to which priests emigrated after the disaster of A.D. 135.

106. "Nathanael uses intelligent human observation to set a firm limit to the power of God" (Hoskyns).

107. See SBk, II, p. 371.

108. LS, sub δόλος.

109. Burney claims that άπεχρίθη (or άπεχρίθησαν or αποχρίνεται) without a connecting particle (which is found 66 times in John, elsewhere in the New Testament once only) points to Aramaic. He also suggests that άπεχρίθη χαι ειπεν is a literal rendering of an Aramaic idiom (AO, pp. 53-54).

110. The articular infinitive (πρό τού . . . φωνήσαι) is a construction rare in this Gospel. Abbott takes from Bruder the information that it is found four times only, here, 2:24; 13:19; and 17:5 (1995a). It occurs in Matthew around 24 times, Mark around 15 times, Luke around 70 times, so that John's use is exceptional.

111. ύπο τήν συχήν. If υπό (with the accusative here only in this gospel) has the idea of motion toward it may imply that Nathanael had withdrawn to the fig tree. There is probably no significance in the change to ύποχάτω της συχής in v. 50, for John often repeats an expression with slight variations (see SFC, ch. 5). Grammatically it is possible to take "while you were still under the fig tree" with "called you" (as Chrysostom, for example, does). This would mean no more than that Nathanael had been under a fig tree at the time Philip called him. But little to be said for this view, and it is contradicted by v. 50. Calvin comments: "We should also gather from this passage a useful lesson, that when we are not even thinking of Christ we are observed by Him; and this must needs be

so, that He may bring us back when we have withdrawn from Him."

112. See the passages in SBk, II, p. 371.

113. It is likely that we should understand the passage as meaning not only that Jesus had knowledge of some incident, but of what went on in Nathanael's thinking. "His surprise is not merely that Jesus in some clairvoyant way saw him in his own home, but that He knew what was going on in his mind" (Strachan).

114. There is an article with "king" in 12:13, but not here, and Abbott notices a difference: " 'The Son of God' reigns over, or is 'king of,' all the nations of the earth including Israel. David, or Hezekiah, or a merely Jewish Messiah, might naturally be called 'the king of Israel,"' i.e. the king for the time being. Nathanael is made to utter a confession much more inclusive than that of 'the great multitude' " (1966). This must, however, be rejected in the light of the rule established by E. C. Colwell, that where a definite predicate noun precedes the verb it does not have the article (see on 1:1). βασιλεύς here is surely just as definite as is υιός.

115. "Note the strongly Hebraic mentality for which it is in the order of climax to pass from Son of God to King of Israel" (Temple).

116. The use of causal ότι introducing a clause preceding the main clause is to be noted. This construction is not common, and Prof. G. D. Kilpatrick in a private communication says it is completely absent from Matthew, Mark, Ephesians, the Pastorals, Hebrews, etc. There is no certain example in Luke-Acts and the Pauline Epistles, but he finds six examples in John, here, 8:45; 15:19; 16:6; 19:42; 20:29 (of which 15:19 is textually uncertain), and at least one in Revelation. For John's fondness for ότι see on 1:15.

117. This may be another reference to Nathanael as an Israelite (as Bernard, for example, thinks). The name "Israel" was widely held to be derived from "the man seeing God." Thus Jacob was thought of as the man of vision par excellence.

118. See the note by D. Daube, JThS, XLV (1944), pp. 27-31 and the literature there cited. Also H. Schlier, TDNT, I, pp. 335-58, and G. Ebeling, Word and Faith (London, 1960), pp. 236-38.

119. Schlier holds that in άμήν used in this way "we have the whole of Christology in nuce. The one who accepts His word as true and certain is also the one who acknowledges and affirms it in his own life and thus causes it, as fulfilled by him, to become a demand to others" (TDNT, I, p. 338). Ebeling is of the opinion that Jesus' use of άμήν gives expression to the fact "that Jesus identifies himself entirely with his words, that in the identification with these words he surrenders himself to the reality of God, and that he lets his existence be grounded on God's making these words true and real" (Word and Faith, p. 237). G. E. Ladd says, "Jesus used the expression as the equivalent of an oath, paralleling the Old Testament expression, 'As I live, saith the Lord.' Jesus' usage is without analogy because in his person and words the Kingdom of God manifested its presence and authority" (Jesus and the Kingdom [London, 1966], p. 163). E. Kasemann comments, "it signifies an extreme and immediate certainty, such as is conveyed by inspiration" (Essays on New Testament Themes [London, 1964], p. 42).

120. Matthew uses the single άμήν 31 times, Mark 13 times, and Luke 6 times. John has the doubled άμήν άμήν 25 times. Clearly he is fond of the expression.

121. The translators adopt a variety of devices to bring out the meaning: "Truly, truly" (Moffatt, RSV), "Very truly" (NRSV), "in all truth" (Rieu), "Believe me" (Knox), "in most solemn truth" (Weymouth), "for a positive fact" (Schonfield), "most assuredly" (Wuest), "in truth, in very truth" (NEB), "in very truth" (REB), "I am telling you the truth" (GNB).

122. Yet it is possible to take in Gen. 28:12 as meaning "on him" (i.e. Jacob), not "on it" (the ladder). This interpretation was held by some Rabbis, though not until after New Testament times as far as our present knowledge goes. C. Rowland, however, argues that the ambiguity is there in the Massoretic text and "in the light of the sophistication of exegetical methods practised by Jewish interpreters, this ambiguity would have been exploited to the full from a very early time" (NTS, 30 [1984], p. 501). Burney holds that John accepts this view (AO, pp. 115-16), as does Odeberg. See also the notes in Bernard and Barrett. It should be noted that the rabbinic tradition is that the angels "ascended and descended on Jacob: they raised him up and put him down, they leapt on him, ran on him, teased him. . . . They ascended on high and found (beheld) his image, they descended on earth and found him sleeping" (FG, pp. 33-34). The thought in John is not this, but rather that the Son of man is the means of bridging the gap between earth and heaven. He takes the place of the ladder. Bernard has a valuable Additional Note in which he cites the patristic interpretations of Gen. 28:23, and John 1:51. He shows that Augustine is the first to connect the two.

123. Strachan, p. 6. His whole note is important (pp. 5-11).

124. Strachan, p. 11.

125. Cf. T. Preiss: "The title which Jesus himself prefers and remarkably enough, as in the Synoptics, is found only on his lips — is that of Son of Man. Do we not see there another proof, indirect but very substantial, of the definitely ancient character of the Johannine tradition?" (Life in Christ [London, 1954], p. 24).

126. B. Vawter argues convincingly that Ezekiel's use of the term is one of the influences behind the significance of the "Son of man" in this Gospel (CBQ, XXVI [ 1964], pp. 451-55),

127. London and Downers Grove, 1974, pp. 25-28.

128. R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London, 1954), p. 106.

129. The Churchman, LVIII (1944), p. 54.

130. The Lord from Heaven, p. 28.

131. R. Maddox in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope (London and Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 203.

132. Moloney, p. 17. He objects to A. J. B. Higgins's view that there are no"earthly" Son of man sayings in John: "It could be argued that all the sayings are earthly" (and cites F. H. Borsch in support, p. 18).

133. Moloney, p. 180.

134. Moloney, p. 220.

135. Particular reference may perhaps be made to Ν. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia, 1944), pp. 110ff., 249ff.; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (London, 1955), pp. 108-11; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 211-34, and The Servant-Messiah (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 72-74; Η. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord (London, 1957), pp. 196-205; C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1953), pp. 116-18; IFG, pp. 241-49; Bernard, pp. cxxii-cxxxiii; R. Maddox in R. Banks, ed.; Reconciliation and Hope (London and Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 186-204; also to articles by M. Black, ExT, LX (1948-49), pp. 11-15, 32-36, and SJT, VI (1953), pp. 1-11; J. Bowman, ExT, LIX (1947-48), pp. 283-88; E. Schweizer, NTS, IX (1962-63), pp. 256-61; C. Colpe, TDNT, VIII, pp. 400-477; O. Michel and I. H. Marshall in DNTT, ΠΙ, pp. 613-34; and for its use in the Fourth Gospel, Ε. M. Sidebottom, ExT, LXVEI (1956-57), pp. 231-35; There is a useful list in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962), p. 63. Very valuable is F. J.

Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome, 1976).

↑ Back to top