Excursus: Evidence of the Authenticity and Authorship of This Gospel
The Prologue and the Preparation; the Word and the Witness (John 1)
John 1:1-19 may be called the Preface about the Word, the link between God and Man, and covers the following matters: 1) the Word’s eternal relations, his divinity; 2) his work in Creation and the sustaining of the physical world; 3) his work in the heart and conscience of men; 4) his special revelation of himself to the chosen people; and 5) his Incarnation and humanity, the new dispensation. These truths are set forth through a contrast between the Word and the Witness.
As a general rule Lightfoot does not give headings and titles in his notebooks, so I have created some in these volumes to make finding the divisions in the manuscripts easier. (BW3)
Vs. 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ There is doubtless here a reference to Gen 1:1. In a sense the Gospel is to Genesis as the book of Revelation is to Malachi. It is the work of the Old Testament to provide the revelation of the absolute, sole supremacy of God, and of the New to provide the revelation of the connecting link between God and Man. The leading doctrine of the Old Testament is monotheism, of the New theanthropism. As the Old advanced in time, new words were prepared for the New, but monotheism necessarily preceded. This fundamental truth of the unity and independence of God must first be established before the supplemental truth of the communion of God and man could be promulgated. The Incarnation was the historical manifestation, the culminating act of the communion. The contrast between the Old and the New is again brought out as a contrast of Law (the absolute fact of a supreme ruler) and grace (the condescending love of fatherly goodness).
Ἐν ἀρχῇ So Col 1:15; Heb 1:10. Compare the language used of Wisdom in Prov 8:22 (however ἔκτισέν would not be applicable here). See Sirach 24:9 which is taken from Proverbs. See especially Rev 3:18. Ἐν ἀρχῇ in itself does not necessarily imply past eternity, but it does so in its present relation.
ὁ Λόγος the ‘Word’ however no adequate translation of Λόγος is possible. It implies both ‘reason’ and ‘language’ i.e. it represents both the counsels proceeding from God and the manifestation to man. The oldest Latin translation represented it by sermo (adv. Hermos 20), but Tertullian pleaded for ratio (adv. Prax. 5). Ultimately verbum was chosen and it appears in all the existing manuscripts. Yet sermo is a more adequate representation than verbum which is primarily a way to render ῥῆμα.
ὁ Λόγος is applied to our Lord elsewhere in Rev 19:13 and in the Epistle of St. John 1:1—περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The Christology of the Gospel and Revelation is the same. In Col 1:25 the expression τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs of the revelation, not of the person revealed. See Heb 4:12, 13. It is never used in the Bible as an equivalent for the Scriptures, the written word. The common restriction of the word is calculated to mislead. The ‘Word of God’ includes the γραφή and much more.
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν—not ἐν τῷ Θεῷ because of the distinction of person, not σύν τῷ Θεῷ lest it should seem to divide the Godhead. Comp. 1:18; 17:5 (and see the references to πρός in Lücke, p. 297). In Prov 8:30 it is παρ᾿ αὐτῷ in Sir 1:1 it is μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ but perhaps a different preposition is purposely chosen here.
καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Θεὸς is undoubtedly the predicate here, because of the analogy of the order of the usage of the article, and the confusion of sense that would otherwise be introduced. See John 4:24; 1 John 4:8, 16. The gradations of possible meaning are: 1) the eternal pre-existence; 2) the divinity; 3) the deity of the Word. These nuances of the Greek cannot be reproduced in English. Here it is Θεός not ὁ Θεός. The latter would be the absolute God, the Father (see Origen on this). In terms of word order, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος makes the word Θεός emphatic. The restatement of the relationship of the Word to God is given in vs. 2, introducing the idea of the instrumentality of the Word in the work of creation.
Vs. 2 Going from πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in vs. 2 to δι’ αὐτοῦ in vs. 3 transitions us from his relationship to God to his relative relationship to the work of creation.
Vs. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ The English ‘by’ is ambiguous as a translation here. The same preposition as here (διά) is used 1) in the Old Testament and Apocrypha of Wisdom (Prov 8:22sq.; Wis Sol 9:1, 2); 2) in Philo of the Word (de cherub. 34, p. 162; Leg. All. iii.31, p. 106); 3) of the Lord in other parts of the New Testament (Heb 1:2; Col 1:16). Contrast this with ὑπό or ἀπό used of the Father.
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ A strengthening of the preceding proposition by the negating of its opposite.
ὃ γέγονεν Should this be attached to the foregoing sentence or the following sentence? In favor of the latter is all of antiquity. Perhaps this unanimity is due to the influence of the first commentator, Heracleon.
There seems to be no ante-Nicene or immediately post-Nicene witness for the comma punctuation. We only have the printed texts of one or two passages in Eusebius (see Tregelles) and Cyprian (adv. Jud. II.3, p. 251). There is nothing in the context which requires it. In Eusebius Praep. Ev. xi.17, p. 540d it is quite clear from the interpretation that the words should be connected with what follows. The other reference in Tregelles is wrong, it should be p. 321d, and there is nothing in the context there to decide the punctuation.
Vs. 4 On the other hand, in favor of the common punctuation, all things have not only been created in Him but also sustained in Him. He is not only the origin but the sustainer of life, not only the Creator but the Preserver. The sense is that that which has been made was life in Him. We do not want a past tense here, but some however read ἐστί. Of this, more hereafter. We have to take ζωή in the first place of the things endowed with life. This is no difficulty in itself. But in the following clause, ἡ ζωή is the principle of life. And the translation is in the highest degree awkward.
The real issue is the usage of St. John (see passage quoted in Alford). The manifest sense of the text must take precedent over early tradition, and therefore we should acquiesce with the now common punctuation which attaches ὃ γέγονεν with what goes before (cf. 11:25; 14:12; 1 John 5:11). To what is the change in punctuation to be attributed? The more modern (and I think more correct) punctuation seems to have been introduced to cut the ground from under the Manichaeans. They maintained that the Holy Spirit was created because St. John perhaps said πάντα etc. It is to be noted that St. Basil, in reply to this view is still unacquainted with the modern punctuation (see ad Eunom. p. 278a, 303d, 308a; the text does not seem to be quoted in the de Spiritus sancti). Gregory of Nyssa still quotes the text with the older punctuation (Cant. I, p. 495a). In another passage it may seem to suggest he adopted the new punctuation (Eunam.? II.T.II, p. 461) but this is not necessarily required by the language there, and is otherwise improbable. Chrysostom on the other hand has adopted the correct modern punctuation.
ἦν v.l. ἐστί So the authorities in Tregelles (I.IV, p. 7) and add א.
A reading of the second century. If we take the punctuation ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ then ἐστί seems to be required. And perhaps it was adopted as a necessary consequence of the faulty punctuation (if indeed it was faulty).
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν Life was in Him, was sustained in and through Him. The manner of the ‘Logos’ and his action is described by διά, his sustaining of things by ἐν. Comp. Col 1:17, 18.
ζωή life, the life physical but as leading to and merged with the life moral and spiritual. The expression starts from the idea of the natural life, and loses itself in the idea of the spiritual life. See Ignatius, Rom. 7. βίος would be out of place here. The ‘Logos’ is the sustainer of life natural as well as life spiritual. The ζωή prepares the way for the φῶς. In the next clause it is no longer ζωή but rather ἡ ζωή.
Vs. 5 φαίνει ‘shines’ but we should have expected ‘shone,’ but the Apostle would speak of its eternal, absolute, unchangeable character, hence the present tense. This is substituted for by an aorist in the next clause (κατέλαβεν) where an historical fact is stated.
οὐ κατέλαβεν See Sir 15:1—ὁ ἐγκρατὴς τοῦ νόμου καταλήψεται αὐτήν (i.e. Wisdom). The sense of over-powered has been suggested and would have a parallel in [John] 12:35 μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ. In itself the meaning ‘over-powered’ makes excellent sense here, but it does not seem to be wanted here, see especially vss. 10, 11.
Vs. 6 The introduction of the Witness is a fit prelude to the Incarnation of the Word. Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης· The preposition παρά denotes the source of his commission. Note it is not ἀπό here.
Vss. 7-8 It was necessary to the theological purpose of St. John that he distinguish between the office of Jesus and of John. At the same time, he may have been determined by historical reasons to lay stress on the distinction. See vs. 8 and the emphatic language there, and vss. 15 and 20—καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο. See 1 John 5:6-8 and compare the whole narrative in John 1:19-23; 3:22-36; 4:1; 5:33-36; 10:40-42. On the disciples of John in Asia Minor see Acts 19:2-4. Here we may have an indication of where the Gospel was written. See also Orac. Sybll. iv.160; Clem. Hom. ii.23; Hegesippus in Eusebius Hist. Eccles. iv.22; Ephraem, Haer. 17. The importance of John as a teacher was recognized by Josephus, Ant. xviii.5.2.
Vs. 7 δι’ αὐτοῦ i.e. through John.
Vs. 8 comp. 5:35: ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ.
ἀλλ’ ἵνα see 9:3; 13:18; 15:25; 1 John 2:19 (a reference from Meyer). We must not therefore understand ἦλθεν (vs. 7) definitely.
Vs. 9 Two ways of taking the passage: 1) ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ‘was coming into the world’ i.e. was on the point of manifesting itself to the world; 2) πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον. The latter is to be preferred for reasons given hereafter, but observe: 1) ἦν must be ‘there was’ not ‘it’ or ‘he was’; 2) ἐρχόμενον is not ‘who comes’ but ‘when he comes.’
There existed already the true light.
ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον i.e. the capacity of truth and holiness, the light of conscience, which is innate in man. This interpretation is to be preferred to the other for three reasons: 1) There is a contradiction in terms between Ἦν . . . ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν (vs. 10) [if they refer to the same thing]. Is there anything in the form of the sentence to show that the latter is intended as a corrective of the former? 2) Ἦν . . . ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον are too far separated. Mark 2:18 is no parallel. In itself, indeed, John would hardly have said ‘the light was coming at the world,’ inasmuch as the whole theme of this prologue was to show that the light was there from the beginning.
τὸ ἀληθινόν ‘the true’ i.e. the essential, the original light, the source and fountain of light. It does not imply that all other lights are false, in the sense of being no light at all, but that they are only faint, imperfect, fragmentary, reflections or emanations of the true light. See 1 John 2:8; comp. John 6:32; 15:1. This word is one of the points of resemblance between this Gospel, the Epistle, and the Apocalypse. See Rev. 3:7, 14. On this word, see Trench sec. viii.
Vs. 10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν The Logos was in the world at large. The natural capacities of the human spirit, the work of the conscience, the yearning towards a higher life.
δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο repeated from vs. 2, emphasizing the topic of gratitude.
οὐκ ἔγνω means they did not recognize, appreciate, appropriate the offer of his.
κόσμος A favorite word of St. John. It occurs more frequently in his writings than in all the rest of the New Testament together. It is curious to note that the word κόσμος never has the sense of ‘the universe’ or ‘the world’ in the LXX of the Old Testament. Sometimes we find κόσμος with a qualifier, e.g. Deut 4:19; comp. Gen 2:1, but there it represents the hosts, the angels (צְבָאָ). In the Apocrypha, especially in the Platonic Wisdom of Solomon this sense first comes. In the Latin word mundus the idea of beauty precedes, the idea of order is secondary though present. κόσμος involves not only the idea of order (τάξις), but also of beauty. It is a very beautiful word in its origin. The Pythagoreans tell a story about this, but Pythagoreus is too much of a mythical, mystical person. It is Plato who makes a great step philosophically—Tim. p. 886B and 28B; cf. Isocrates, Panes, p. 78. There seems to be three stages: 1) it seems to have been invented (and is frequently so used) in reference to the regular motion of the stars so that sometimes ὁ κόσμος signifies the heavens as opposed to ‘the earth’; 2) sometimes more comprehensive, and of course the comprehensive sense would encroach on and supercede the other sense, as the prevalence of law and order in the terrestrial, the material universe; 3) inasmuch as the immediate neighborhood of the speculative plenaera (?) was recognized . . . hence ultimately ὁ κόσμος gets to be almost a synonym for ‘the lower world’ not indeed to the exclusion of the more comprehensive sense as the material universe, but to the description of it, more specifically referring to the world with its inhabitants, its interests, its tendencies etc.; Hence, 4) the moral sense, in which it is used by the Apostles (and by them, for the first time I believe). The Apostles felt themselves in an exceptional position. They were placed outside the common interests and tendencies of society of the age, of the world. It was wholly opposed to them. Hence κόσμος is used in contrast to the light, to the truth, to the kingdom of heaven. Thus, from signifying ‘order and beauty’ has come round to the direct opposite meaning, signifying what is directly opposed to order, to beauty.
There is a parallel case with the word φιλοσοφία that is likewise a Pythagorean word. See Diogenes Laertius, Prom. Sec. 12. But from being an expression of modest diffidence, of humble truth-seeking, the word got debased in time. It got to signify the very opposite of this—what was conceited, self-opinionated, not truth-seeking but untrue, fallacious. Comp. Col 2:8.
Vs. 11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια The manifestation of the Logos in the Old Testament dispensation. One must observe that the Incarnation is not brought forward until vs. 14 and there as something distinctly new—Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The sequence is: 1) his revelation to the conscience of mankind generally; 2) his revelation of himself to the Hebrew race especially; and 3) his distinct and definite revelation of Himself as man Incarnate.
τὰ ἴδια . . . καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι The A.V. here is inadequate. The Vulgate on the other hand has preserved the difference in gender of these terms but not the identity of the Word. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. His own inheritance, his own people (or servants). Comp. Matt 21:33-34. The ἀμπελῶνα is τὰ ἴδια, the γεωργοῖς are οἱ ἴδιοι. On τὰ ἴδια see John 16:32, 19:27. On οἱ ἴδιοι see 13:1. On the latter phrase see also Deut 14:2, 26:10; Ps 35:4.
But the work of the Logos is not confined to the sending of the Son in the parable in Matt 21, but comprises the sending of the servants. For the Logos manifested Himself through the prophets, as well as in the Incarnation, in the Man, Christ Jesus.
Παρέλαβον ‘received as their own, received as directly offered to them.’ This is the force of the preposition. The ἔλαβον of the following verse is comprehensive. Where natural opposition is implied 1) κατέλαβεν (vs. 5) is used; 2) where natural alliance is implied παρέλαβον (vs. 11) is used; 3) where there is neutrality, the simple word ἔλαβον (vs. 12 from λαμβάνειν) is used.
Vs. 12 ὅσοι δέ, i.e. whether Jew or Gentile, whether through the medium of the natural conscience or the Old Testament revelation. We find that the meaning of the sentence is well illustrated by 1 Cor 2:23, 24, except that St. John is speaking of the Word pre-Incarnate, St. Paul of the Word Incarnate, the man Jesus Christ. This will give a meaning to the following verse—οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς etc.
ὅσοι δέ The grammar, placed absolutely not the relative with αὐτοῖς, this would require τούτοις as e.g. Matt 7:24, see references in Meyer.
ἔδωκεν Not merely ‘he made it possible for them’ but ‘he empowered them’; cf. 5:27; 17:2.
τέκνα Θεοῦ The nature of this new birth is stated afterwards. The idea of ‘children of God’ in St. John is the moral and spiritual endowment derived from the Father (see 1 John 3:9), in St. Paul rather the privileges to which the child is entitled as heir (Rom 8:16sq.—without, again, excluding the other idea). See Deut 14:1. Each idea implies the other, but the starting point of the two Apostles is different. Frequently in St. Paul we have υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, never in St. John. See Gal 3:26; 4:7 (the son of the family as opposed to the slave). The natural relationship has furnished the metaphor to St. John, the legal relationship to St. Paul. And against the exclusiveness of the Jewish boast of Abrahamic descent we have here, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. See the parallel in Rom 9:7, 8; Matt 3:9; comp. Luke 3:8.
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ This is the only expression which presents any obstacle to referring the passage to the work of the Logos prior to the Incarnation, and the obstacle here is only apparent. No doubt, elsewhere ‘in the name of Jesus Christ, of the Son of God’ is a common phrase (2:23; 3:18; 1 John 3:23; 5:13). But, ‘the name of God’ is also a common phrase, and Logos here takes the place of God, for ‘name’ signifies title, majesty, honor, office, the original idea of mere ‘appellation’ having passed out of sight (see Phil 2:9).
Vs. 13 οἳ etc. not referring to τέκνα Θεοῦ as the antecedent (with Meyer) but to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. In the expressions that follow there is a gradation: 1) the blood; 2) the passions or affections; 3) the choice of rational men. Hence οὐδὲ . . . οὐδὲ. But observe that we have here not ἄνθρωπος but ἀνδρός, not homo but vir Comp. Is 2:9, 5:15; 31:9. Note the very early reading ὅς ἐγεννήθη, an example of what we said, namely that the text has had a history before it emerges.
The Apostle here has in view Abraham, the hero, the patriarch of the race. His object is not to deprecate but to exalt, but the spiritual birth may be much more exalted by the contrast. Comp. 8:33.
αἱμάτα See Euripides, Ion 693, which is the only instance given in the lexicons of this sense. In classical usage the term means ‘bloodshed,’ which also has an analogy in the Hebrew—דָּמָם and therefore it is more usual in Hebraic Greek. The explanation of the use of the plural is the same in the one case (Greek) as in the other (Hebrew).
ἐκ Θεοῦ absolutely, as more emphatic, not ἐκ θελήματος Θεοῦ.
Vs. 14 Καί ‘and then,’ ‘and at length’—a new stage, a new aspect of the operation of the Word.
σὰρξ ἐγένετο See Clem., Rom. II.9. The Word appeared under the limitations of mere human nature, for the σὰρξ implies the perfect [or unfallen] humanity. It is not σὰρξ ἐνεδύσατο, but stronger, σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν apparently an unimportant word, but in fact, it is a summary of a people’s past history, and contains in itself the substance of a people’s hope. The tabernacle, מִשְׁכָּן from שְׁכַן to settle down, inhabit, dwell. The abode, the visible symbol of the Almighty God, the heart of the religious worship of the Israelites, the center, the focus of the nation.
The Greek rendering σκήνη adopted for it in the LXX (σκήνη is אֹהֶל more probably). This word chosen partly no doubt to the similarity in sound. I cannot find that there is any etymological connection, though there may be. Hence σκήνη used especially of the divine Majesty dwelling in the midst of the chosen race, as being a very present help to His people, as manifesting Himself especially to them. See especially Sirach 24:8-10. Hence the latter Chaldee word, Shekinah, to denote the visible representation of Deity, the manifestation of Yahweh to His people. This derived form established a still stronger connection between the Hebrew and the Greek. In sound they were almost identical. A fact, not to be overlooked. Thus the Shekinah of the Lord becomes a synonym for the Word of the Lord. See especially Is 6:5, 6 (and Smith’s Dictionary article on Shekinah s.v.). It is in fact (as defined in Smith’s Dictionary) a periphrasis for God, whenever he is said to dwell on Zion amongst Israel, between the cherubim and so on. The Shekinah, said the Jewish teachers, was wanted in the second Temple, but it would be returned in the days of Messiah (cf. Hagg 1:8; Zech 2:10; 8:3; Ezek 43:7).
The Incarnation of the Logos, the birth of Jesus Christ in the flesh was, says St. John, the reappearing of the Shekinah, the restoration of the visible symbol of the divine Majesty, after which the Jewish teachers from every generation had yearned.
Similar doubtless was the application that St. Stephen would have made of the σκήνη (Acts 7:44) when he was rudely interrupted. Similar is the application made of the σκήνη in Heb 8, 9 see especially 8:5, 7, 8; 9:11. The restoration of the σκήνη, the Shekinah, had taken hold of the national mind. The Christian Apostles and early teachers respected this sentiment. They thought however that the σκήνη was only a type, a shadow, a foreshadowing of the good things to come, and that the Incarnation of the Son of God was the true fulfillment of these yearnings. But nowhere has the definite idea and definite image so close a parallel as in the Apocalypse. The restoration of the σκήνη is a prominent idea there. See 7:15; 8:6; 15:5; especially 21:3. The word σκηνόω is used nowhere else in the New Testament than in John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. Note Shekinah/σκήνη compare מְאוּם/ μώμος. Hebrew and Greek sound alike words with similar meanings.
ἐθεασάμεθα see 1 John 1:1; 4:14.
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ The explanation of σκήνη prepares the way for the explanation of δόξα. Δόξα in the New Testament has the idea of visible splendor, brilliant light. See Luke 2:9; Acts 7:55; especially Acts 22:11; 1 Cor 15:41; Rev 18:1. It is used especially of visible brightness, which symbolized the presence of the divine Majesty within the σκήνη. See Rom 9:4; Heb 9:5. Hence it is used especially in connection with the Shekinah in the Targums. See again the passages already mentioned Is 6:6; Hagg 1:8; Ezek 43:7. This is the meaning here as well. And the concidence with the Apocalypse can be noted—Rev 15:8, in connection with the σκήνη as here. See Rev 21:11, 23; 22:5; and John 2:11 (more references in Meyer).
ὡς μονογενοῦς 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; comp. Heb 9:17; Ps 21:21; Ps 34:20, see especially Wis. Sol. 7:22. On πρωτότοκος see Col 1:15; Heb 1:6. It means here the sole representative, the sole heir of the Father. The phrase ‘eternal generation’ is an expression and an idea borrowed from finite human relations.
παρὰ Πατρός with μονογενοῦς see also 6:46; 7:29; 16:27. The point is the generation of the Word/Son is something different from that of the τέκνα Θεοῦ, not the transmission of ethical characteristics, but the communication of the absolute nature.
πλήρης Two possible accounts of the construction here: 1) a parenthesis consisting of καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός; 2) an absolute nominative. The first seems somewhat too intricate for the simple constructions of St. John. The second accords with the language of the Apocalypse (see 1:4, 5). See Winer, sec. lix, p. 557. The reason for the nominative is the same here as there. It gives emphasis, puts forward the reason (?) absolutely. πλήρης elsewhere, as though indeclinable (an alternative to this offered by Hort); see Mark 4:28 (B, D and compare the t.v. in C*); Acts 6:5, again with two main textual variants.
χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας A tacit contrast with the Law. See vs. 17.
Vs. 15 The witness [i.e., John] ‘cries,’ καὶ κέκραγεν, not as the E.V. has it ‘cried.’ An indirect reference perhaps to Isaiah 40:3—φωνὴ βοῶντος. See vs. 23. But whether or not there is this allusion, the point is that the testimony of John to the Messiahship of Jesus was clear and distinct.
Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον etc. The Baptist has announced Him before he saw Him. See vss. 30, 33. Comp. Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16.
Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν ‘Has been set before me.’
ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν ‘He was first in respect of me.’ πρῶτος is used rather than πρότερος because not only relative but absolute priority is intended. πρῶτος is substituted for ἔμπροσθεν, ἦν for γέγονεν. πρῶτος is not simply πρότερος. In Aelian (?), An. ix. 12 (in Herder p. 8). John 15:18 πρῶτον ὑμῶν is hardly a parallel, because the plural makes a difference. Again Luke 2:2 cannot be so taken. Cf. Herm. on Elus. (Ned. v.67, p.343); Herm. Opus. III, p. 168. See e.g. Orch. (?) Etem. 30. See Winer, Gramm. sec. xxxv, p. 258. The sense of πρῶτος here is the same as the thrust of 8:58.
The doctrine here has a parallel in Phil 2:6sq. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων compares to πρῶτός μου ἦν. The ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν here compares to διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν in Phil 2:9. The original glory pertained to the Logos in his absolute personality. The subsequent glory to the Logos Incarnate, the God man Jesus Christ.
Vs. 16 The testimony of John closes with vs. 15. This is clear from the distinct reference to the work of Christ as a historical past (ἡμεῖς πάντες) and more especially from the aorist ἐλάβομεν.
Πληρώμα His plenitude. See my notes of Ephes. i.22.
ἡμεῖς πάντες ‘we all,’ whether Jews as in 1 John, or Gentiles as in ‘you my disciples.’
χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος See Philo, de Poster. Ca. sec. 43, p. 254 M.
Vs. 17 ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια The grace is opposed to the rigor, the narrowness, the strictness of the Law, as in Aristotle’s famous contrast between the ἀκριβοδίκαιον and the ἐπιεικές.
The ἀλήθεια is opposed to the typical, partial, temporary character of the Law. On the σκιά (‘shadow’) as opposed to the σῶμα (‘body’) see especially Col 2:17. ἀλήθεια is more frequently opposed to idol-worship, as the substantial and the true as opposed to the purely imaginary and false, as e.g. in Rom 1:25. The contrast there is more direct, but still in an inferior degree it holds here. Observe the definite articles ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια, perhaps a reference to vs. 14.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, no longer ‘Logos’ but the historical manifestation, the Incarnate Word.
ἐγένετο not ἐδόθη for the function of Jesus Christ in the one case was different from the function of Moses, in the other Moses was only the medium of the transmission of the old covenant, Jesus Christ was the historic center, the creative agency of the new. He Himself was the grace, was the truth. For a similar distinction see Gal 3:19—ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου.
Vs. 18 From the οἰκονομία of the new dispensation, the Apostle passes on to the θεολόγια. Having spoken of the Gospel, as superceding the Law, he speaks of the Logos as the Revealer of God. Thus in these two senses, the Christian dispensation is viewed in two aspects: 1) as an answer to the prophetic Jew, the realization of the Messianic hopes; 2) as an answer to the philosophic heathen, the solution of his difficulty of the unknowable Absolute Being.
Observe the order here, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε. Comp. Gal 2:6, πρόσωπον ὁ Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει.
ἑώρακεν Comp 6:45, 46 and 14:7 and Sir 43:41. The word is plainly not used in a physical sense merely, but in an intellectual sense. Even in the most striking of the Old Testament theophanies, this truth is not forgotten—see Exod 33:20.
μονογενὴς Θεὸς or ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός? 1) Both readings are found as early as the latter half of the second century. In Irenaeus they occur on successive pages (pp. 255, 56); 2) As a matter of authority, unquestionably Θεός is better supported than υἱός; 3) On the other hand, the sense seems to require υἱός of the two. Unless the verbal paradox was intentional (which is quite possible), we are at a loss to reconcile Θεὸς οὐδείς with Θεὸς ἐξηγήσατο. Nor again is μονογενὴς Θεός an expression we should expect. There is however the expression in Philo about the δεύτερος Θεός. 4) ΘC and VC are abbreviations and the one might be substituted for the other. 5) μονογενὴς υἱός occurs several times—John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9, but μονογενὴς Θεός never elsewhere. It is very unlikely then that a scribe would substitute Θεός for υἱός, though quite naturally he might do the converse. On the whole, if the choice were just between Θεός and υἱός, the former would seem to have greater claims, but 6) there is some authority for reading μονογενής or ὁ μονογενής only.
Pseudo-Ignatius, Phil. 2 however is not decisive. In Tris (?) iv, p. 102 the quote is not direct, whereas in the context where it is directly quoted it is in the form μονογενὴς υἱός and all the other passages in Ignatius seem to be equally indecisive. Moreover, we have υἱός Θεὸς, Clement p. 956 and elsewhere filius dei.
εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς expresses intimate union with the Father. The present participle denotes his eternal relationship with the Father.
ἐκεῖνος See Meyer.
ἐξηγήσατο See Plato’s Republic iv, p. 448C and Eum. 565, 579.
Vs. 19 The beginning of the narrative proper. The preaching of John hitherto has been directed to contrasting the Word and the Witness, and thus has been subservient to the theological purpose of the Evangelist, in developing the doctrine of the Person of Christ. The commencement of the historical narrative seems as that of the Synoptic Gospels.
τοῦ Ἰωάννου The other Gospels style him John the Baptist, in the Fourth Gospel he is never so called. This may be a slight indication of authorship. There was no third John from whom it was necessary to distinguish him.
οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ‘the Jews,’ characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. See 2:6, 13, 18; 4:9; 5:1 etc. What is the inference—that the writer was not a Jew? This is contradicted by the language and the tenor of the Gospel throughout. But it shows that the writer, when he wrote, was widely separated in time and place from the national life of the Jews. The aged Apostle, writing at the close of the first century (thirty years after the fall of the Temple and the polity of the Jews) and writing moreover in a Gentile city, and mostly for Gentile converts who would naturally use this mode of speech.
Σὺ τίς εἶ; Note the emphatic Σύ. ‘Art thou one of these imposters, these false Messiahs who from time to time have been disturbing the peace and imperiling the existence of the nation?’
Baptizing, cleansing was connected in the popular conception with the preparation for the Messiah’s kingdom. See Ezek 36:26; Zech 8:1, hence their anxiety to know what his baptism portended.
Vs. 20 καὶ ὡμολόγησεν The words are omitted in א. Reiterated obviously with a view to making the declaration emphatic, and thus directed against the Henobaptists. These Henobaptists must have formed, not a large, but an appreciable sect at the time when and in the neighborhood where John wrote. The Evangelist is not content with reaffirming his view by merely denying the negative.
Ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ The correct word order as in the best manuscripts and versions, and the most appropriate as well. The T.R. has οὐκ εἰμὶ Ἐγώ. Perhaps this order would form a better reply to the question, but the Baptist’s answers are not direct replies. They are so framed as to lead his inquirers into some further truth. See vs. 25. Therefore he does not reply ‘I am not the Christ’ but rather ‘I am not the Christ’ i.e. ‘the Christ is here, but I am not he.’
Vs. 21 Ἠλίας See Mal 4:5, 6. See Smith’s Dictionary s.v. p. 531. Comp. Luke 9:8.
σὺ Ἡλίας εἶ; The true word order is expressive. Some contempt and disappointment expressed in the emphatic σύ.
Οὐκ εἰμί Not in the sense in which the question was asked. He is not the same person, but nevertheless, he was the fulfillment (or rather a fulfillment) of the prophecy of Malachi (see Matt 11:12; 17:12; Mark 9:3), for he came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17).
Ὁ προφήτης The one predicted in Deut 18:15, 18. See below on 6:14; 7:40. This figure was sometimes connected with and (mis)identified with the Messiah in national expectations. According to some, here Jeremiah was foretold (see Smith’s Dictionary s.v. p. 970). The Apostles set forward our Lord as the fulfillment of this prediction, see Acts 3:22; 7:3 and this is perhaps the allusion below in 1:46.
Vs. 22 Τίς εἶ; All these conjectures are exhausted, and the questioner is put in despair.
Vs. 23 Ἐγὼ the emphatic position of the word points to the suppressed contrast. ‘A voice of one crying.’ The distinction here is clear, and the difference of reference between φωνή and Λόγος. See my notes on Ignatius, Rom. 2 and Smyrn. 4.7 (Trench, Syn. xxxix, p. 172, who seems silently to endorse this view). But though the words are each appropriate in their proper place, there is nothing to show that the Evangelist had this distinction between the two words in his mind. There is no emphatic contrast of φωνή and Λόγος here.
On the other hand, by the form of expression ἔφη Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος it is probable that the Baptist intends to represent himself simply as the mouthpiece of the divine will and that the Evangelist in quoting his words lays stress on this fact. Notice it does not say ‘my voice’ or ‘in the voice of’ but ‘I am a voice.’ It is a voice clearly articulate indeed, and intensely significant, but nothing more. His message, his witness is all in all. The Witness must decrease and the Word must increase.
βοῶντος means shouting, loud and clear in its utterance. See κέκραγεν in vs. 15. We have here an abridged quotation of Is. 40:3. In regard to its form in the original, the parallel clauses seem to suggest that ‘in the wilderness’ ought to be taken with what follows. Otherwise, the order is in favor of the common punctuation. The LXX reading retains the order, but omits ‘in the desert’ perhaps because the translator could not readily find another synonym for ἔρημος. This facilitates taking ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ with what goes before, inasmuch as it removes the reason for taking it otherwise.
The Evangelists preserve the order, and to some extent the words of the LXX (as here cf. Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4sq.). It is therefore still open to us to take ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ with what follows, as e.g. Tregelles does. Both the order and application will admit this, but the other seems more natural in itself, at least more natural in the Synoptics but perhaps less natural in John (see Ewald, p. 135). We must ask about the meaning of the passage as it occurs in its original context.
Here are some points of contact between the prophecy and its application: 1) There is the superficial resemblance. The solitary voice in the desert. In both cases ἔρημος, but two different regions are intended in the two cases. On the locale of the Baptist’s preaching see Sinai and Palestine, p. 304; 2) There is the true and fundamental resemblance—the harbinger of a great deliverance. The key here is that the prophecy was pitched sufficiently broadly that it could have designated something more than a temporary deliverance. The immediate fulfillment was, and was felt to be, inadequate. The prophecy was not exhausted by safe passage over the wasteland and deliverance from the land of captivity. Now the true link of connection between the prophecy and its fulfillment had to do with the Messianic hope of the nation. The superficial resemblance in 1) [see above] struck the minds of the contemporaries of the Apostles. It appealed to the mode of thought of the age, and consequently the Apostles and the Evangelists lay a stress on this sort of coincidence that is hardly intelligible to us, which does not take any hold upon our minds.
On the other hand, all study of Jewish history and all criticism of Scriptural books seems only to bring out more clearly the strong Messianic yearnings of the Jews. If the angst brought on by individual texts becomes weaker, the angst from the national history becomes stronger. The whole life of the nation was one loud, clear, unbroken prophecy. It was a remarkable utterance and is a remarkable occurrence. It was answered by the most striking incident, by the appearing of the foremost character (to say nothing more at present), that has ever appeared on the stage of this world’s history by the greatest moral emancipation that the human race has ever encountered—prophecy and fulfillment conceived as lock and key.
Vs. 24 ἀπεσταλμένοι v.l. with the definite article added before the word, but the former is better supported. Observe the naturalness with which this notice comes in. ‘And they were sent from the Pharisees’ not ‘and they were persons sent.’ The point seems to be the jealousy of the Pharisees at any interference with their authority. Comp. 7:47, 48. They were the self-constituted guardians of religious community power. Notice no reference here to the careful observance of ritual practices.
Vs. 25 Neither the Christ nor one of his expected forerunners or companions.
Vs. 26 Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω Notice there is no direct answer to the question asked. The answer is indirect indeed, so far as being a reply to the question, but the Baptist has the further design to lead their thought to some ulterior truth, as Heracleon truly saw and Origen vainly disputed.
ἐν ὕδατι The contrasting clause is suppressed. ‘Another baptizes with a higher baptism.’ See vs. 33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; 3:16; especially Acts 1:5; 4:16; comp. 19:4.
στήκει probably the right reading here, this or ἕστηκεν.
οὐκ οἴδατε ‘know not’ i.e. in His true person. See vs. 31. In a lower sense they may or may not have known him.
Vs. 28 Βηθανίᾳ Note the form of this reading. The general (almost unanimous) consent of the old manuscripts, etc. supported by the assertion of Origen, and see e.g. Heracleon. However, the reading Βηθαβαρᾶ (T.R.) has the following in its favor: 1) the fact that no such Bethany is mentioned in either the Old Testament or the New Testament and that Origen who lived in Palestine did not know of any such place in that locale; 2) There is the tradition mentioned by Origen at Bethabara was the place of the baptism. In the days of Eusebius (Onamastic. s.v.) it was still seen as the traditional location and resorted to by persons wanting baptism; 3) the higher probability that Bethany would be substituted for Bethabara, a less familiar name, rather than the converse; 4) the few manuscripts contemplated by Origen—the Cureton Syriac (this must have been independent). Later manuscripts may have been influenced by Origen’s criticism. The Ethiop. has both readings. In any case the name Bethabara signified ferry house. See Beth-barah (Judg 7:24), Beth-arabah (Josh 15:61). Neither identification has much to recommend it. Note in Mark 7:27 there is a confusion between Bethany and somewhere else.
Vs. 29 Τῇ ἐπαύριον The notice of time here is very precise. Comp. vss. 35, 44; 2:1. Afterwards they are looser, see 2:12: Μετὰ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, and 3:22: Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν, and 4:3: ἀφῆκεν τὴν Ἰουδαίαν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, and note vss. 44, 45, 54 refer to Galilee.
The baptism and the temptation, where are they to be placed? The baptism is placed before all the events just mentioned, comp. 1:26, 31, 32. The temptation seems to follow immediately (Matt 4:1—Τότε; Mark 1:12—εὐθύς; Luke 4:1—ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, καὶ ἤγετο) after the baptism. This is not however absolutely certain from these expressions. The narrative of St. John from vs. 28 onwards seems to give continuously our Lord’s public life and there seems to be no room for his retirement [to the desert]. We must suppose it also took place before the point in time where St. John’s narrative commences.
ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ The reference is to Is. 53. See especially vs. 7 for Ἀμνὸς and for ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου see vss. 4, 12. This passage was commonly interpreted of the Messiah, apparently before the Christian era (see Brown’s [?] Sermons p. 98). Thus the Baptist’s expression would be a natural sequel to the revelation which he had received that Jesus was the Messiah. The two points in the expression are: 1) the humility, tenderness of his character; 2) the sacrificial character of his career. The first of these was realized in the actual character of Jesus as he was standing before John. The second followed from the circumstances of the cases. All the great prophets and reformers had in some sense been sacrifices to the cause of God, had in some sense borne the sins of the people, more especially those who had died in the righteous cause (see the passages quoted by Alford about the seven brethren). Whether John also foreknew how Jesus would, in a special and unique sense, bear the sins of the world we cannot say. He may have uttered the words without a full and entire consciousness of their deep meaning.
The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah is again and again applied in the New Testament to Jesus (see especially Acts 8:32, Philip; 1 Pet 1:19 compared with 2:22-24). But this was after the passion and crucifixion had given a new meaning to the application of the prophecy. St. John here delights to reveal how the Baptist at the commencement of our Lord’s career had applied the text that afterwards was so signally fulfilled, hence the repetition in vs. 36. Not once only did he announce this truth.
αἴρων The idea here is twofold: 1) to take up, lift up, bear; 2) to take away, remove i.e. it involves the idea of 1) with the suffering of the victim, and 2) the release of the sinners. i.e. the scapegoat concept. See my notes on Gal 3:13; comp. 1 John 3:5; 1 Sam 15:24; 25:28. In 1 Pet 2:24, ἀνήνεγκεν after the LXX of Isaiah, adding ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον. Perhaps St. John had the same idea in αἴρων.
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν viewed as one. ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.’ Is there any reference here to the Paschal lamb? Perhaps not, as John the Baptist used the words, but probably yes as John the Evangelist repeats them. For the coincidence of time, not at once here suggested by the connection Jesus is the slain lamb of Isaiah’s prophecy, and Jesus dies on the first day of Unleavened Bread, hence in St. Paul and elsewhere. And in St. John comp. 19:36 from Exod 12:46.
Again there is the coincidence with the Apocalypse, τὸ ἀρνίον, about thirty times. It is as if it is the designation under which Jesus was first introduced to his disciples. See vs. 15. The words were said before Jesus had come to be baptized and therefore before he was revealed to John as Messiah. John’s commission was to preach that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, i.e. to preach the near approach of Messiah. Not without the sign revealed from heaven did he know who was the Messiah.
Vs. 31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν i.e. did not know his true personality. So St. John uses οἶδα elsewhere—4:10; 7:28; especially 8:19; 20:9. This is perfectly consistent with: 1) the relationship between Jesus and John as recounted by the other Evangelists. Even supposing (though of this there is no evidence and all of the circumstances actually related i.e. the descent to Egypt, the abode of John in the wilderness) that the two cousins were brought up together, as the Italian painters represent it. For ᾔδειν does not refer to actual knowledge but to spiritual appreciation. And as Jesus’ own brothers, even at a later period, did not in this sense know him (John 7:5) so John may have been equally ignorant of Him, until the special revelation came to him; 2) Matt 3:14, for this only implies moral superiority and not necessarily any recognition of his Messiahship.
ἀλλ’ ‘not withstanding my ignorance of who was the Messiah, I was sent (this much I knew) baptizing that messiah (whoever he was) might be made manifest.’ See the Jewish tradition in Justin, Dial. Trypho p. 226B.
ἐγώ ‘I am not the Christ,’ the ‘I’ emphatic here, keeping up the contrast.
ἐν ὕδατι The water as opposed to the Spirit, the reading here however is more than doubtful.
Vs. 32 ἐμαρτύρησεν, a favorite word and thought of St. John’s. Again a point of contact with the Apocalypse.
Τεθέαμαι Whether this vision was confined to John or not we cannot safely infer from the expression itself. There is nothing in the narrative of significance which implies it was seen by others or indeed that anyone else was present on the occasion. N.B. St. John’s narrative here assumes the account in the Synoptics, and the history of the Baptism. This is only one of several instances, e.g. the Lord’s Supper, that is the most remarkable of all the stories St. John wrote to supplement the other Gospels and is also an exaggeration of a fact. He did not write to supply deficiencies but rather from a different point of view, he assumed facts already known.
Is περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ mere resemblance to the language of St. Matthew and St. Mark?
ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν On its special force see John 3:34.
Vs. 33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν emphatic repetition.
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων again the Synoptic narrative is assumed (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16).
ἐπ’ αὐτόν is determined by the καταβαῖνον. The baptism with the Holy Ghost, was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and in subsequent similar manifestations.
Vs. 34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα A connection not only within the Gospel, but with 1 John 1:1, 2; comp. 4:16.
ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ not a Son of God. For to him is given the Spirit without measure (3:34). The v.l. ὁ ἐκλεκτός in Syr., א, some Latin mss., Syr. Harcl. Comp. Luke 9:35. Tregelles, Tisch., and Alford do not mention the v.l.
Vs. 35 Observe the part the disciples of John play in this Gospel.
Vs. 37 ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ Was it this fact and a less remembered incident in John’s connection with our Lord that suggested the phraseology in Rev 11:4? This however was only a temporary following, as appears in vs. 40. Note the connection of following and the lamb in the Apostle’s memory.
The call comes later (Matt 4:18sq.; Mark 1:16sq.; comp. Luke 5:1sq.). It appears from the Synoptic narrative (or at least it seems probable) that they had some acquaintance with Jesus before. Otherwise his abruptness and their ready response seems hardly intelligible.
Vs. 39 ὄψεσθε the correct reading. ἴδετε doubtless an emendation to make the grammar uniform.
ὡς δεκάτη A v.l. ἓκτη. The question is, is this a Jewish reckoning of time?
Vs. 40 ὁ ἀδελφός older or younger? Probably younger if we may judge from the order of the lists of the Apostles. This however is not conclusive since the list may be geared to preserve the precedence of St. Peter. Epiphanius, Haer. 51, sec. 17, p. 440 makes Andrew the elder. See Cave, p. 4. The name Andrew is Greek. Does it represent some similar Hebrew name just as ‘Simon’ is similar to Simeon? At all events it is probable that the brothers spoke Greek as well as Aramaic.
The Apostles were called ἀγράμματοί καὶ ἰδιῶται (Acts 4:13), but this does not exclude all culture. We know that it was customary even for those of the class of fishermen to be educated. See the article in the Quarterly on Talmudim.
εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο The other doubtless John himself: 1) compare the way he speaks of himself elsewhere; 2) the incidents are very precise and doubtless related by an eyewitness. The succession of days, even the hour of this critical event in the writer’s life.
Vs. 41 πρῶτος (so א and others). Some excellent authorities (A, B) read πρῶτον but this is obviously a correction of an apparently awkward reading. He was the first to find him. The word is obviously emphatic. This is a reply, we may suppose, to some inquiry from the writer’s disciples, or a corrective of some false impression derived from an earlier Gospel narrative. There is a possibility that Alford’s explanation is correct.
τὸν ἴδιον explaining πρῶτον, so Alford.
Εὑρήκαμεν As though John was following him from a distance, and at least assuming that Simon would know they had been together.
τὸν Μεσσίαν comp. 4:25. St. John alone uses the Jewish equivalent of ‘the Christ.’ In both passages it is in the mouth of another. Elsewhere in the A.V. it occurs only in Dan. 9:25, 26.
Vs. 42 ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου The name of Peter’s father as given by John is Ἰωάννης or the more correct form Ἰωάνης. So here and at 21:15, 16, 17. In all places however, most ancient authorities have Ἰωάνα, as it is read in the Received Text. This however is plainly an adaptation to Matt 16:17—Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ. John is doubtless the reading in the Fourth Gospel. There is a temptation to change from Ἰωάννης to Ἰωάνα, not convincingly however. How then are we to explain the difference? The Greek Ἰωάνας or Ἰωάνα is used to represent two different Hebrew names—יוֹנָה the prophet’s name, Jonah (meaning dove), and also יוֹחָנָן Johanan meaning the grace or gift of God, and so abbreviated as ‘John.’ This latter word appears in Greek under diverse forms:
At all events it is doubtful what Hebrew name is represented thereby. The English equivalent (A.V.) are Jehohanon, Johanan, Joannan (Esdr 9:1), Joanna (Luke 3:27), Jonan (Luke 3:30), Joannan (1 Macc 2:2), Jona (John 1:42 comp. Matt 16:17), and Jonas (John 21:15sq.). The name ‘James’ is also explained sometimes as = Johannes, John but this is more than doubtful. From all this it will appear that Βαριωνᾶ is only the equivalent of ‘son of John’ ( Ἰωάννης). In an old list of Apostles we hear about the father Ἰωνά and the mother Ἰωννά (see Cotcher, Nam. Ap. (?) I p. 275). This is obviously a mistaken attempt to reconcile the account in St. John and St. Matthew, an attempt based on ignorance. The Codex Am. has ‘Johanna’ here.
Why is this stress laid on his parentage, son of John, son of Jonas here and in John 21:15sq. and Matt 16:17? It appears from this repetition that the Lord delighted to dwell on the expression. Is it: 1) simply to distinguish him from others e.g. Simon the Zealot? This is a supposition. Is it 2) to describe his natural position and contrast his loftiness in the Kingdom of grace? ‘Simon son of the poor fisherman John thou shalt become the foundation stone of the Kingdom of Heaven.’ Is it 3) to try out the significance of the name John—‘the grace gift of God’? So Zecharias consents that his heaven given son shall be called ‘John.’ Comp. τοῦ Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt 7:21).
Κηφᾶς the name is new, for the first time given here. Matt 16:17 refers to a later occasion. It is there said not ‘thou shalt be called Peter’ but rather ‘thou art Peter.’ Κηφᾶς only here and in St. Paul (1 Cor. Gal.). The names and verbage of this Gospel are much more Jewish than the Synoptics.
Excursus: Evidence of the Authenticity and Authorship of This Gospel
The narrative unit concluded in relation to the question of the authenticity and genuineness of this Gospel: 1) We have the precision of detail, the precision of an eyewitness might be inferred, yet we are not told that the author is an eyewitness. 2) Nevertheless, there is room for such an eyewitness. One of the two persons is mentioned by name, Andrew, and the other is not. Still there is not the slightest indication that the anonymous person is the author. 3) Looking at other parts of the book however we find that an anonymous person appears and reappears in the narrative. He is the disciple whom Jesus loved, and sometimes simply ‘the other disciple.’ Still however not a word about the authorship. The fact that he is never named is the more remarkable considering that he is a very important and prominent character. 4) At length in a postscript to the Gospel (Joh. 21:24, 25) written apparently at a later date, (by a different hand), it is stated that this disciple is the one ‘who bore this testimony and wrote it down.’ Still even there, the name is withheld. This is confirmed by the knowledge of certain anonymous witnesses. 5) John the son of Zebedee is the only prominent disciple of Jesus who does not appear by name, and therefore, independently of the tradition, it would seem probable that we must identify the anonymous disciple with him. 6) The eldest tradition has held this to have been John son of Zebedee. 7) No one critical incident in his life would dwell on his mind. He would recall the minute circumstances, even the hour of the day. All this forms a very convincing body of evidence, being convincing because it is of the most auspicious kind. The mode of procedure is wholly unlike that of a forger. The Apocryphal Gospels declare at their opening in the most explicit terms who was the author. This is not only unlike a forger, it is wholly unintelligible on such a supposition. For in order to produce its result, it supposes a control over the traditions of the writers of a succeeding generation, and yet makes no effort to give them the desired direction.
But it is quite intelligible and quite natural on the supposition that the writer was known to those among whom the Gospel was first circulated and that their own knowledge would supply all that was wanted in regard to the person, the circumstances, and the opportunities of the writer. In other words, it is quite natural on the supposition that St. John wrote as tradition says he wrote to instruct a body of disciples who had gathered about him, and with whom he lived on familiar terms. And (it may be added), it is natural on this supposition alone. But 8) A certain prominence is given to Andrew in this narrative as though he was a person in whom the reader would be especially interested. Moreover, he is spoken of in such a manner, as to suggest that a certain chapter in his past ministry had been the subject of arguing or perplexity. He was the first to find his own brother (εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα—1:41) and to reveal the Messiah to him. What is the account of this? It does not explain itself but supposes some previous occurrence. Was it that the call of the Apostles Peter and Andrew as related in the Synoptics had seemed to clash with information derived from Andrew himself or from those around him? And that St. John was anxious to correct these misapprehensions and to give the honor due to Andrew as the first to call his more famous brother Peter, the leading Apostle, to the side of Messiah? He thus relates an incident prior to the formal call, in which Andrew plays the chief part.
And here we are reminded of the notice contained in the earliest tradition related to the writing of St. John’s Gospel. It is there stated that Andrew was instructed by revelation that John should write his Gospel. The tradition may not be true, probably is not true, in the dress that it now wears. But it bears testimony at least to the fact that Andrew in the earliest witness was believed to have been a companion of St. John in Asia Minor and to have had some influence on the writing of this Gospel. Andrew also appears first in the list of Papias’ oral authorities.
Vs. 44—Introduction of Philip. Note his prominence in the Gospel of John—here, 12:21, 22; 14:8, 9. In fact we know nothing of him from any other source than St. John’s Gospel. As is the case with Andrew, may we not trace some historical connection with St. John’s Gospel? He too has a prominent place in the list of Papias, coming right after Andrew and Peter. Moreover, he is related by Polycrates of Ephesus to have lived at Hierapolis, and he is quite clear it is the Philip who is one of the Twelve and mention is made of his three daughters. In the mention of the daughters there is apparently a confusion with Philip the Evangelist (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.24. Philip the Evangelist and his daughters certainly lived in these parts for Papias is concerned with the daughters—Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii.39). But the confusion is perhaps best explained by the supposition that both the Philips were in Asia Minor. The confusion is not confined to Polycrates. The Acts of Philip take him to Hierapolis and make him preach in Phrygian Asia.
Vs. 45 The three mentioned together as in Papias—Andrew, Peter, Philip. Note the naturalness of the narrative in vss. 44-46. He is starting for Galilee. He finds Philip who is a native of Bethsaida. Philip, when or where we are not told, finds Nathanael and the next incident occurs at Cana in Galilee.
There is nothing very remarkable in this, but at the close of the Gospel (21:2) Nathanael is described (quite incidentally) as ὁ ἀπὸ Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Here at length we have the explanation of the occurrence. The writer unconsciously assumes on the part of his readers a fact well known to himself which makes the whole sequence of events intelligible, namely that Nathanael lives at Cana and so he omits to explain how the notice ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (vs. 43) bears on the incident following. The key to the explanation is found in a wholly different place.
Βηθσαϊδά house of fish, therefore a common name on a lakeside. There was another Bethsaida on the east side of the lake where the 5,000 were fed (Luke 9:10sq.).
Vs. 46 Ναθαναήλ Identified with Bartholomew? This is probable but not certain. Bartholomew like Barnabas, Barabbas, Barjona, Bartimaeus, Barjesus is simply a patronymic, not a proper name. He therefore must have had some other name. Now it would appear from 21:2 that he was one of the personal followers of Christ, most probably one of the Twelve. But if so, which one? In all three lists of the Twelve, Philip and Bartholomew are named and connected together (see Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 4:14). In Clem. Recog. i.59 (from the Ascent of James), Bartholomew takes up the argument against an opponent of Philip. In the Acts of Philip (see Tisch.) Philip the Apostle and Bartholomew (who however is called one of the ‘70’), travel and preach together.
Ὃν ἔγραψεν Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εὑρήκαμεν i.e. we have found the Messiah. Doubtless a reference to the passage in Deut 18:15.
υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσήφ Alford says, ‘This expression seems to show previous acquaintance on the part of Philip with Jesus.’ Hardly so. The narrative is not complete. Many things must have occurred. Many conversations had been held with Jesus and with others between the Ἀκολούθει μοι (vs. 43) and εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναήλ (vs. 45), so that no inference can be drawn of this kind. υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ speaks to how he appeared to men. See Matt. 13:55—ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός. This occurs in the same Gospel that records his genealogy (Matt 1) and see Luke 2:49—‘your father and I seek you.’ The inference therefore that the Fourth Gospel writer did not believe (perhaps did not know of) the miraculous conception is false. John certainly knew of it. Philip may not have known of it. The people of the place certainly did not know of it.
Vs. 46 Ἐκ Ναζαρέτ? Not from the smallness or insignificance of the town (this might be inferred from the passage here standing alone), as Alford. Rather Nazareth had a bad reputation. It is not the size but the quality ἀγαθόν that Nathanael remarks on. The Nazarenes appear as a violent, unscrupulous, irreligious people (Luke 4:16, 29; Matt 13:12, 58). This is perhaps the simplest explanation of Matt 2:23. There is an irony in the inscription over the cross—‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.’ See ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5). Nazarene was a contemptuous appellation of the Christians in early as in later times. Generally applied by the Jews to the Christians, hence the Palestinian Christians called this by the Emperor Julian the Apostate. ‘This last conquered Nazarene’ is his uttered last exclamation.
Vs. 47 Ἰσραηλείτης This is the retort for Nathanael’s contempt of the Nazarenes. ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλείτης, Ἰσραηλ being the correct name of Jacob, Israelites being the people of the covenant. ‘Men of Israel’ is the Jewish equivalent to the Roman ‘Quirites.’ Non possum ferre, Quirites. See Acts 21:28: Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλεῖται, βοηθεῖτε· cf. Acts 5:35 from Gamaliel: Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλεῖται. So too the Apostles when they seek to elicit a favorable hearing—see Acts 2:22; 3:12. See also 2 Cor 11:22. The term Ἰσραηλείτης in St. Paul’s case is on the religious side what ‘Romanos’ is on the political side.
Vs. 48 με γινώσκεις; ὄντα etc. goes with what follows. ὑπό in this context ‘beneath.’
τὴν συκῆν συκῆ is the tree, συκῆ with a final accent, the fruit, Palestinian fig. Cf. 1 Kngs 4:25; Micah (?) 4:4; Zech 3:10—תְּאֵנָה from the Hebrew verb meaning to stretch out. Whether Nathanael was or was not in sight is a matter of little question. We need not stop to imagine whether Jesus saw him with his outward eyes. The fact that he read his heart is alone important. All this would appear to have happened before Nathanael’s own house.
Vs. 49 σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺ Βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ i.e. the Messiah described on both sides, in his relation to God, and in his relation to man. On ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ as Messiah see Ps 2:7; John 11:27. The Evangelist takes the expression in a deeper sense than that in which Nathanael uttered it. It was the consciousness that his thoughts were real, which dictated his reply to Nathanael. It is called forth in what was implied by our Lord’s words, rather than what was actually said.
There is the same apparent inconsequence, the same deep-rooted connection, and significant fullness, in the connection between our Lord and his mother at the marriage feast. The unexpressed thoughts must be supplied before the sequence is complete. Nathanael has been convinced by this single isolated manifestation of the divine Spirit in Jesus. He shall see hereafter how heaven and earth are connected in Him, how he is the Jacob’s ladder by which God’s grace descends on man and man’s spirit rises to God. Nathanael’s expression of faith has its counterpart in the promise, the descending angels correspond to the ‘Son of God,’ the ascending to the ‘King of Israel.’
Vs. 50 εἶπεν αὐτῷ It is an answer to Nathanael but it is also addressed to the others present also—Philip, and probably Peter, Andrew, and John.
Vs. 51 On ‘the heavens opened’ i.e. God revealed, cf. Acts 7:56—Ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς διηνοιγμένους καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ Θεοῦ. On the angels descending and ascending see Gen 28:12. The narrative of Jacob’s dream is here used figuratively. No external, visible appearance is meant. The figure receives its explanation in such passages as John 3:23; 11:38; 13:13; 14:10, 20; 16:28; 17:21sq. The idea pervades John’s Gospel in diverse forms.
ἐπὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Nathanael had called him the Son of God. Both are titles of the Messiah. The one is the necessary counterpart to the other. The Son of Man, derived originally from Dan 7:13, 14. He is the typical ideal man, the representative head, the crown, the absolute sovereign of the human race (see Herzog [?] on Daniel, p. 114). ‘Son of Man’ was the common Aramaic expression where we would simply say ‘man.’ The Son of Man is ‘the Man.’ In St. John it seems to be used formally (always?) in connection with the exaltation either of Jesus Himself or of the human race through Jesus. Jesus is the second Adam, the man in whom all men are quickened.