John 1 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

1:1 the Word was God. The Gr. for “the Word was God” (theos ēn ho logos [TG2316/3056, ZG2536/3364]) has been misused by Jehovah’s Witnesses, who interpret the absence of the article before “God” as equaling the English indefinite article “a,” thereby yielding the translation “a god.” There are several serious errors here. First, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Greek article and the English article, as if it has to be “a god.” Actually, the absence of the article normally emphasizes the abstract aspect, namely that Jesus partook of “divinity” or “God-ness.” Second, it was common in Greek to highlight the subject with the article (the Word) and to designate the predicate nominative (God) when it came before the verb “to be” by leaving out the article (cf. Harris 1992:51-73). Finally, theos [TG2316, ZG2536] is also missing the article in 1:18, where it definitely speaks of God the Father (“no one has ever seen God”) as well as in 1:6, 12, 13 (cf. Keener 2003:372-374), and the connection between 1:1 and 1:18 has long been recognized (cf. the extensive discussion in M. Harris 1992:51-103). In short, to translate this as “the Word was a god” is an obvious error and a very bad translation.

1:1-18 It has often been suggested that the prologue was an addendum written by another author and added after the Gospel was finished (cf. Brown). However, the language and style are quite close to the rest of the Gospel, and such a theory is unnecessary. It is also often argued that this was originally a hymn with a couple of prose insertions (1:6-8, 15). Witherington (1995:47-48) calls it John’s “hymn to the Emperor” in four strophes (1-2, 3-5, 10-12a, 14). Others (Harrington) see the hymn in 1:1-5, 10-14, 16 or in 1:1-3; 4-5, 9; 10-12c; 14, 16 (so Hofius 1987:10-15). While it does have poetic elegance, the actual rhythm and organization of the lines of John’s prologue do not quite fit either Greek or Hebrew poetry. It is therefore better to understand it as heightened prose (so Barrett, Carson, Michaels). It is indeed possible that John was utilizing the form of prologue found in Greco-Roman drama here (E. Harris 1994:12-16). Others (Boismard, Culpepper, Pryor, Köstenberger) see the prologue as a chiasm (A = 1:1-5; B = 1:6-8; C = 1:9-14; B’ = 1:15; A’ = 1:16-18.

1:3b-4 everything that was created. It is debated whether the words at the end of 1:3 (lit., “that was made/created”) belong with 1:3 (so KJV, NASB, NIV, Schnackenburg, Carson, Ridderbos, Köstenberger) or 1:4 (NRSV, NJB, REB, NLT, Brown, Beasley-Murray, Whitacre). If it is the former, 1:4 would simply read “in him was life,” but the parallelism of the lines favors the latter option, seen in the NLT. In this sense, 1:3 ends with the statement “nothing was created except through him,” and 1:4 begins, “The Word gave life to everything that was created.” This fits the developing thought better than the redundant “apart from him nothing was created that was created,” and this was the older interpretation. However, when the Arians (fourth-century heretics) began to use this to argue that the Holy Spirit was a created being, the reading that placed the phrase with 1:3 became the accepted one.

1:5 can never extinguish it. Translators face a difficult decision as to whether to translate the verb here (katelaben [TG2638, ZG2898]) as “understand/comprehend” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT mg) or “overcome” (so NRSV, NJB, NLT, TNIV). The former could be favored by 1:10, 11, where the world does not “recognize” or “know” him, and in fact some (Barrett, Carson, Comfort, Burge, Keener) believe there might be a double meaning in the verb, in which the world cannot understand the light and therefore opposes it. This may well be correct, but the main thrust is on the conflict between darkness and light, making “overcome” the better choice (cf. the only other use of the verb, in 12:35, “so the darkness will not overtake you”; so Brown, Köstenberger).

1:6 sent. In this book the verb “sent” occurs 59 times, mainly of four cases in which God is the sender: Jesus (over 30 times), the Holy Spirit, the disciples, and John the Baptist. The verb in these instances partakes of the Jewish idea of the shaliach (cf. TDNT 1.414-420), the official envoy or representative sent on behalf of the sender—in this case, God. It is a major term used for the mission theme in John’s Gospel. Here, the Baptist is sent on a mission by God. Cf. 3:17.

1:9 coming into the world. This expression could modify “everyone,” thus meaning the light came to all who were in the world (so KJV), and by the Gr. word order, that is a distinct possibility. But the context is clearly that of the Incarnation, and the style of this expression is quite common in John (ēn . . . erchomenon would be a periphrastic, “was coming,” similar to 1:28; 2:6; 3:23; 10:40 and others; cf. Schnackenburg). Thus, it is best to see the expression as modifying “the true light,” as in the NLT.

1:13 not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan. Lit., “not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.” Whitacre (1999:56) thinks there is an ABA pattern here, with the emphasis on the middle concept (lit., “the will of the flesh”), borrowing Brown’s definition of “flesh” as “the sphere of the natural, the powerless, the superficial, opposed to ‘spirit,’ which is the sphere of the heavenly and the real.”

1:14 his glory. With the term “glory,” we have another of John’s major themes. In the Synoptics it describes primarily the glory of the risen Lord (Luke 24:26) and his second coming (Mark 8:38; 13:26 and parallels). The only use of it for the earthly Jesus is at the Transfiguration, when the disciples “saw Jesus’ glory” (Luke 9:32). In John, however, the glory of Jesus is visible to the disciples (2:11), and indeed it is always used of the earthly Jesus (18 times in chs 1–17). The divine glory was evident in the earthly Jesus for those with the faith to see it.

1:15 John testified. John’s disciples continued to follow him even after his death (Acts 18:25; 19:1-7), and there are indications that the movement lasted well into the second century. In fact, a sect called the Mandaeans in Iran and Iraq still claim a connection with him today. It is widely believed by scholars that many passages in the Gospels about the Baptist (e.g., 1:6-9, 15; 3:22-36) were partly meant to show his followers that he never intended to found a movement apart from Christ.

shouted. There is an interesting change of tense here: the testifying is stated in the present tense, indicating an ongoing witness, while the shouting is in the perfect tense (“has shouted”), which may well add a stative thrust, stressing the comprehensiveness of the witness (so Carson).

1:17 unfailing love. The term charis (“grace,” translated “unfailing love” here) only occurs four times in the fourth Gospel, all of them in 1:14, 16, 17. Yet in one sense, John’s whole Gospel is an account of the grace of God in Christ. It is a fitting introduction.

In this verse, John begins again with the experience of Moses in Exodus 33:18-23 (Cf. 1:14, 17, and comments). When Moses asked to see God’s glory, he was told to stand in the cleft of a rock as God passed by so that God could cover his face lest he look upon God’s face and die. John’s statement, “no one has ever seen God,” does not mean people have never seen visions of God (as does occur in Exod 24:9-11; Isa 6:1-13; Ezek 1–3). Those visions were partial, however, and no one has ever seen God as he truly is. In the case of the Word, this is no longer correct because Jesus is “the one and only God” (1:18, NLT mg). Note how clear a statement of his deity this is. The Word is uniquely God, and as such he was “near to the Father’s heart” (lit., “in the bosom of the Father”). Harris (1992:101) speaks of “the unparalleled intimacy that existed (and still exists) between the Son and the Father.” Here, we are at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is fully God and yet a different person than the Father. This is an expansion of 1:1b, “The Word was with God.” They had the deepest relationship imaginable. As a result, the Word “has revealed God to us,” the heart of the message. If the Word is indeed God’s “self-expression,” the living revealer, then he alone is able to make God truly known to us. The rest of this Gospel flows out of this essential truth.

In 1:18, John frames his prologue with the same truth with which he began—the deity of Christ (Cf. 1:1). As Comfort states: “The prologue begins and ends on the same theme; verses 1 and 18, in effect, mirror each other. In both verses, the Son is called ‘God’ and is depicted as the expression (‘the Word’) and explainer of God; the Son is shown in intimate fellowship with the Father—‘face to face to with God’ and ‘in the bosom of the Father’ ” (1994:40).

Picking up on the phrase “full of unfailing love and faithfulness” (1:14), John now turns to Christ’s “abundance” or “fullness,” reminding the reader that “we have all received” the benefits of what the Word has given us (1:16). Christ has filled us with blessings. The blessings are then spelled out in what is literally “grace instead of (anti [TG473, ZG505]) grace.” There are three major options for the term anti: (1) accumulation—as NLT, we could take it as “grace upon grace,” thus “one gracious blessing after another,” as Christ gives an inexhaustible supply of gracious gifts (so Barrett, Bruce, Morris, Schnackenburg, Comfort, Whitacre, Keener); (2) correspondence—it could mean “grace for grace,” thus saying that the grace shown the believer corresponds to the grace of the Word (so Bernard, Robinson); (3) replacement—in the more common use of anti, and it would be translated “grace instead of grace”—in other words, the grace of Christ replacing the grace of the law (so Brown, Edwards [1988], Michaels, Carson, Blomberg, Köstenberger). While the first makes good sense, the third is favored by 1:17, which spells out the implications of the new covenant blessings replacing the old covenant blessings. The Word has given us the full blessings of the Kingdom he has inaugurated. The previous time of grace was that of Moses, who gave God’s people “the law.” This was also a gift from the preexistent Word, as hinted at in 1:16-17, but it was a temporary blessing, meant to be replaced by a greater gift (cf. Gal 3:21–4:7). This greater gift is the full expression of “God’s unfailing love and faithfulness,” and it “came through Jesus Christ.” This will become a major emphasis of John’s Gospel, as it explores the implications of the final “grace” that Christ brought for the Jewish people.

This is even more true when we realize it is “the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.” This used to be translated “only begotten” (KJV), and indeed the term was used of an only child (Judg 11:34; Luke 7:12; Heb 11:17), but that is not the connotation here (contra Dahms 1983). The components of the word (monogenēs [TG3439, ZG3666]) mean “only one of a kind” and stress the uniqueness of the Word (cf. Pendrick 1995:597, 600, who argues that the idea of “only begotten” was introduced in the fourth and fifth centuries). He is the unique Son, the God-man, the one who alone shared the divine glory. Finally, this glorious Word is “full of unfailing love and faithfulness” (lit., “full of grace and truth”). It is commonly agreed that the background to this is Exodus 33–34, where Moses asks to see God’s glory (Exod 33:18), and God passes in front of him, declaring himself to be “the God of compassion and mercy . . . [full of] unfailing love and faithfulness” (Exod 34:6). It is here that God gives Moses the two stone tablets that summed up the loving relationship between God and his people. These last two terms (in italics) are key Old Testament characteristics of God, his khesed [TH2617, ZH2876] (“gracious lovingkindness”) and ’emeth [TH571, ZH622] (“covenant faithfulness”), and are reflected here in John’s (literal) “full of grace and truth.” The Word is the embodiment of God’s gracious love and the proof of his absolute faithfulness. John’s choice of “grace” and “truth” to express this is critical. In Christ, the “grace” of God is especially seen, and he is the only “truth” or reality (14:6).

Since God’s indwelling presence was in the Word, John adds that in Jesus “we have seen his glory.” No wonder there was no more need for a Temple; God’s shekinah glory now walked the earth, visible to all with the eye of faith! As Burge says , “Christ is the locus of God’s dwelling with Israel as he had dwelt with them in the tabernacle in the desert (Exod 25:8-9; Zech 2:10). Hence, the glory of God, once restricted to the tabernacle (Exod 40:34), is now visible in Christ” (2000:59, italics his). In actuality, the praise and worship of the church are simply the natural result of the recognition and affirmation of the glory of God in Jesus—when we feel God’s presence in a tangible way, we shout, “Glory!” as did the Israelites (Ps 29:1, 9). As Comfort indicates (1994:37-38), the image of Jesus being God’s Tabernacle “also speaks of God’s presence accompanying the believers in their spiritual journey.” God dwelt with the Israelites and walked with them (cf. Lev 26:12) via his presence in the Tabernacle. Throughout the Gospel of John, we see Jesus bringing God’s presence to people, especially the believers who saw the glory of God in Jesus.

It is clear that this salvation will come in an entirely new way, and John spells this out in 1:14, one of the deepest theological statements ever written. The only basis for mankind entering the realm and family of God is for God to enter the realm of humanity himself and provide redemption. John states it unequivocally: “The Word became human.” This is the high point of the prologue—indeed, the high point of history. God has entered this world; his Word has become “flesh”; the Creator has become a creature. More than that, he has “made his home among us.” John chose a very particular term here (skēnoō [TG4637, ZG5012]), which means he has “pitched his tent” or “tabernacled” among us. The image of the tabernacle (skēnē [TG4633, ZG5008]) is very prominent, especially with the correspondence between the glory of the Word (1:14) and the “shekinah glory” of God that filled the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple). The shekinah (cf. Heb. verb shakan [TH7931, ZH8905], referring to God “dwelling” among his people) or presence of God was seen in the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day in the Exodus (cf. Exod 13:21). This glory then filled the Tabernacle. This was what made the Tabernacle the most sacred object in the universe; the physical manifestation of God’s holy presence was there. The dwelling of God among his people was everything (cf. Exod 25:8-9; Ezek 43:7; Joel 3:17; Zech 2:13; 8:3) and will be the chief characteristic of the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:3). With this in mind, John was saying that in Jesus as the Word, God’s “shekinah” glory had become incarnate.

In 1:13, John emphasizes that this is not controlled by human effort but only by God. This new birth cannot come via “a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan.” In other words, we have no power over the process. It is a spiritual reality and so only “comes from God.” We cannot produce spiritual rebirth via human passion or family planning. Only God can accomplish it.

John divides mankind into two groups—those who reject and those who accept. In 1:12, the promise is given: all those who “believe” and “accept” the Word have an entirely new status and authority. God gives them “the right to become [his] children.” Believing and receiving are virtual synonyms, and they are further described as believing “in his name”—that is, accepting the reality of who he is. In the ancient world, a person’s name connoted the essence of who they were; thus, the belief here is focused on Jesus’ real self, not just his name. The result is that believers have the “right” or “authority” (exousia [TG1849, ZG2026]) to join a new family. While Paul utilizes the metaphor of adoption (Rom 8:15), John uses the image of the new birth (1:13; 3:3, 5). In both cases, the new believers become “children of God,” a wondrous truth describing in a powerful way the new status and authority they have.

To make certain that readers do not misunderstand, the author clarifies that John “was not the light” but was “simply a witness” regarding the light (1:8-9). His entire focus was upon introducing the world to Jesus, “who is the true light,” namely the only one who can light the way to God. The word “true” means he is the “genuine” or “ultimate” revelation of God, the final and only answer to the dilemma of sin (so Carson). For the third time (with 1:4, 7), the emphasis is that he “gives light to everyone,” meaning that every human being has experienced the light of God in their lives through Christ. This, however, does not support universalism, the belief that everyone eventually will be saved. The “light” does not guarantee that everyone will accept the light, just that everyone will see the truth. They cannot “extinguish” the light (1:5), but those who “love the darkness more than the light” will “hate the light” and reject it (3:18-20). Most wonderful of all is the fact that this true light “was coming into the world,” a reference to the Incarnation. He was no Olympian deity, dwelling in a society above humanity with little attachment to humans or their affairs. No, he became one of us so that he could bring us to God. He is the God-man! The fact that the Word came into the “world” (kosmos [TG2889, ZG3180]) is significant. Throughout John, the world is characterized as rebelling against God. Yet it is also the focus of God’s salvific love (3:16)—so much so that Christ gave his life for the world (6:51) in order to save it (3:17; 12:47). He came to take away the sins of the world (1:29), bring life to the world (6:33), and be the Savior of the world (4:42).

Moreover, he did not just come into the world—“he came to his own people,” the Jews (1:11). In the fourth Gospel, the Jewish people are regarded as part of the world. The reason is that they too “rejected him.” The parallelism between 1:10 and 1:11 is clear. Whitacre says it well (1999:54): the world had experienced “the general revelation of creation” and refused, but God’s own people had experienced “the special revelation of covenant” and rejected it. Then the most unbelievable affair of all occurred—God’s own Son arrived and they repudiated him. They had long speculated about and anticipated the Messiah, yet when he arrived they rejected him!

The darkness/light dualism (1:5) is a key feature of John’s Gospel. The light of the Word “shines in the darkness” of this world. In the original creation, “the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters” until God said, “Let there be light” (Gen 1:2-3). In this new era, a more important darkness—the darkness of sin—has felt God’s salvific light. Darkness is a common metaphor for sin in John (3:19; 8:12; 12:35), and here the idea is the war between darkness and light. When the Word shines in this world, “the darkness can never extinguish it.” Darkness hates light and fights against it (3:19-20), but the light must triumph. In our normal day-to-day experience, we may think of it this way: when we shine a flashlight into a dark closet, the closet can never say, “I don’t want the light; go away,” and cause the light to bend into another room. Darkness cannot “overcome” light and bend it to its will! Similarly, every person is brought under the light of Christ and must respond. Since this Gospel is an encounter Gospel (cf. “Literary Style” in the Introduction), this may also refer to the convicting power of the Spirit (16:8-11) as the light of Christ. As we will see throughout this book, the light of Christ will continually confront the darkness of sin and force the sinner to a “faith-decision.” That decision will determine their eternal destiny.

Life and light were the two essential aspects of the Genesis 1 creation, but Christ has brought more. There is a double meaning in “the Word gave life to everything that was created” (1:4). In the original creation, he gave physical life and light to all beings, but now he has also made spiritual life available to all. The Word breathed the breath of “life” into Adam; now as the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21), he brings eternal life to mankind—another major theological emphasis of the book. Moreover, the Word does so by bringing “light to everyone,” a theme emphasized in 1:7, 9. This has often been labeled “universal salvific will,” namely God’s desire that no one should perish but rather that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). Through the Word as “the light of the world” (8:12), God illumines every person with the light of the gospel. This looks to the revelation of God in Jesus, through whom every person is confronted with their sin and with the light that God has brought in the sacrificial death of Jesus. This is the heart of John’s message.

To affirm the divinity of the Word, John tells us that he was God’s agent in the very act of creation (1:3). To emphasize this truth, John states it positively (“God created everything through him”) and negatively (“nothing was created except through him”). The stress is on every single aspect of the created order. This is perhaps more astounding today than it was in John’s time: today we know there are more stars in our own galaxy than any human being could count in a lifetime, and there are more galaxies in this universe than there are stars in our own galaxy. And there are more complex cells in our bodies than we could begin to imagine. At both the micro- and macrocosmic levels, our universe is made perfectly. The created universe is beyond scientific understanding, and the Son of God made it all! The work of God’s Son in Creation is also stressed in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (“through whom God made everything”), Colossians 1:16-17 (“everything was created through him and for him”), Hebrews 1:2 (“through the Son he created the universe”), and Revelation 3:14 (“the ruler of God’s new creation,” NLT mg). He is both creator and sustainer of all there is.

John 1:1 tells us three things about the Word: he is/was preexistent (he “already existed”), he enjoys a special relationship “with God,” and he is the Deity. Note the progression. Each is more intense. The Word exists prior to Creation, then is in intimate communion “with” God (the idea is not just casual contact but special relationship), and finally is in his very nature God himself. This is a major theme in the fourth Gospel (cf. “Major Themes” in the Introduction), and everything flows from it. Only very God of very God could create the world and bring light and life to it. In fact, this is the most astounding claim John could pen. This Jesus who walked the earth was actually the eternal Word, partaking of the very essence of God! This is a truth so startlingly wondrous that John repeated key elements in 1:2 to make certain the reader caught these essential truths. Only one who had that special relationship “with God” and was there “in the beginning” could create the universe.

The prologue has an ABAB pattern, from the Word (1:1-5) to John the Baptist (1:6-9), to salvation by believing in the Word (1:10-14), to John and the law (1:15-18). We will explore each of these sections.

In his Gospel, John has given us a theological masterpiece centering upon key terms, the most significant of which are introduced in the prologue—life, light, darkness, sent, truth, world, believe, know, receive, witness, new birth, love, glory. Most of all, he has given us a theology of the Incarnation unmatched in the New Testament (with the exception of Phil 2:6-8). Here we see a powerful presentation of what it meant for God to become flesh in order to bring light and life to sinful mankind.

If you were to write a biography of a famous person, you would try to sum up the impact of that person’s life and give an overarching theme to your presentation before you provided all the details. This is what John did in his prologue. The purpose of a prologue or introduction in any New Testament book (e.g., Mark 1:1-15) is to introduce the major themes and to help the reader understand who Jesus really is. This is nowhere better exemplified than in John’s Gospel. Here, the primary truth of the book is clear—Jesus is God himself!

1:18 unique One, who is himself God. Lit., “an only one, God” (monogenēs theos [TG3439/2316, ZG3666/2536]). This is supported by the best mss (66 א* B C* L), and the reading with theos is also supported by 75 אc, though both include the definite article before theos. Inferior mss (A C3 Ws ) substitute huios [TG5207, ZG5626] (Son) for theos (God). The NLT translation follows the evidence of the earlier, better mss. It is likely that later scribes added “Son” under the influence of other passages that have “one and only Son” (3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). This is one of the clearest statements of Jesus’ deity in the fourth Gospel and forms a parallel to the assertion of 1:1 (“the Word was God”) to close the prologue. (For a further discussion on this, see Comfort 2007:[John 1:18]).

1:19 Jewish leaders. Lit., “the Jews,” occurring 71 times in John versus 17 total in the Synoptics. Most of the time it is used in contexts referring to the Jewish leaders, but John also intends to portray the Jewish people in their hostility and rejection of Jesus. Over half the occurrences are in conflict settings, and the leaders are portrayed as completely opposed to Jesus. Still, there are “Jews” who are believers (8:31; 11:45; 12:11), and the Samaritan woman calls Jesus a “Jew” (4:9). In spite of the conflict John portrays, Israel was still the focus of God’s salvific work (EDNT 2.195-196).

1:21 “Are you Elijah?” “No.” While John denied that he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet, Jesus identified him as Elijah in Matt 11:14: “If you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah” (cf. Matt 17:12; Mark 9:13). While some have held this to be a contradiction or seen Matt 11:14 as a later church reflection read back onto Jesus’ lips (so Brown), it is better to see the issue historically, namely that the Baptist “did not detect as much significance in his own ministry as Jesus did” (Carson 1991:143).

1:24 the Pharisees who had been sent. There are several ways to understand this. The KJV, due to a definite article in the TR, has “they which were sent were of the Pharisees.” The article is missing in the best mss (66 75 א* A* B C* L). Even with this reading, there are three ways to translate it: (1) “those sent by the Pharisees”; (2) “some Pharisees who had been sent” (NLT, REB, NIV); or (3) “some Pharisees had been sent” (Phillips). The problem with the first is that the Pharisees were not in charge of the Sanhedrin, and the problem with the third is that there is no hint of a separate delegation from that mentioned in 1:19. Thus, the second is the best translation, meaning that there were some Pharisees in the delegation that was sent from the Sanhedrin, a natural surmise due to Pharisaic membership in that council.

John answered the question indirectly (1:27; Cf. 1:15) by deflecting the attention from himself to the actual source of his authority—Jesus. John was also hinting that his water baptism was a preparation for the coming of the greater one. Everything he did was that of the “voice shouting in the wilderness” (1:23), preparing the highway to Zion. He declared that there in their midst was someone they did not recognize (1:26). There is double meaning here: on one level they had not seen Jesus before; on another level this restates 1:10-11 (the world does not know/rejects) Jesus. He repeated the message of 1:15 that Jesus was the one “coming after” him and also added a metaphor centering on Jesus’ transcendent superiority. Since rabbis received no pay for their ministries, it was common for their disciples to perform small services for them. There was a saying that a disciple would do everything for his rabbi that a slave would do except “untie the straps of his sandal” (b. Ketubbot 96a). That was considered too menial a task (cf. Morris). John was saying in effect that he was unworthy even to be Jesus’ slave. In keeping with 1:7, John provided a powerful witness regarding the true light. Yet there did not seem to be any effect; their unbelief obviously continued. The story closes simply by telling us that “this encounter took place in Bethany, an area east of the Jordan River.” John’s purpose may simply be to establish a literary connection between this Bethany and the one at the end of Jesus’ ministry (11:1), thereby framing his ministry with Bethany appearances.

There were some members of the delegation, mainly Pharisees, who were not satisfied with John’s response. The Pharisees were mainly a lay movement made up of pious groups from the Maccabean period that focused on contemporizing the Torah by introducing an oral tradition that would enable people in their day to understand how to keep the law in their culture, which was entirely different from that of Moses’s day. Because they were very concerned about faithfulness to the Jewish laws, they had serious problems with John’s practice of baptism. Since he denied that he was “the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right [did he] have to baptize?” (1:25). This was a viable concern in light of the difference between John’s practice and that of the rest of Judaism. Normative Judaism had regular washings for ritual purity (cf. Mark 7:1-4), and the people at Qumran practiced daily washings in a pool to signify their cleanliness before God. John’s was quite different from those in that it was a one-time initiation rite and was conducted by John rather than being self-administered. If the Jews practiced proselyte baptism at that time (there is no absolute evidence for it before AD 70; cf. Keener 2003:440-448), there would be an even more powerful message, for John would be saying the Jewish people had become like the Gentiles in needing to repent of their sins and get right with God (DJG 386). The question posed by the Pharisees is perfectly reasonable. Since John had begun an entirely new religious rite without true precedent, where did he get the authority to do such a thing? If he was not a messianic figure, how could he do it?

Finally, the delegation allowed John to tell them his own perception regarding his identity (1:22-23). They had to return with some kind of “answer” for their superiors. John responded obliquely, not saying who he was, but quoting Isaiah 40:3. In actuality, this was a proper response. There is no sense in which his inquisitors were actually searching for truth, so there was no reason for John to be direct. Yet it is clear that John knew he transcended a mere rabbinic role. Isaiah 40:3 was used in all four Gospels to identify the ministry of the Baptist (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4), but this is the only one in which John utters it himself. Isaiah speaks of the removal of obstacles (the leveling of roads, the removal of mountains) for the return of Israel from exile, but the Essenes at Qumran also used the verse in an eschatological sense for their study of Torah as preparation for the coming of the Kingdom (1QS 8:13-16). Moreover, this became a theme verse for the primitive church, which at the earliest date called itself “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), a name probably taken from this passage. Like Qumran and later the early church, John saw his purpose in life to be the fulfillment of the Isaianic promise as “a voice shouting in the wilderness”—in one sense less than a rabbi but in another sense far more, for he came to “clear the way for the Lord’s coming.” The Essenes at Qumran sought to bring about the Kingdom passively through reading Torah; John cleared the way actively by being the voice calling the nation to repentance.

Hearing this, the delegation went down the checklist of other expected figures for the last days. It had been prophesied in Malachi 4:5 that Elijah would come “before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Since John dressed and acted like Elijah did (Mark 1:6, “His clothes were woven from coarse camel hair, and he wore a leather belt around his waist”; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8), this was a natural question. John’s answer was unequivocal: “No.” They tried a third time and asked if he was “the Prophet,” namely, the “prophet like Moses” of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18, thought to be a legal Torah Messiah (both by those at Qumran and the Samaritans, cf. discussions in Carson, Köstenberger). Again, John answered, “No.”

There are two sections in this interrogation, one asking who John is (1:19-23) and the other asking what he does (1:24-28). We know from the synoptic Gospels that John quickly became extremely popular. In Matthew 3:5 we are told he attracted crowds “from Jerusalem and from all of Judea and all over the Jordan Valley.” He was perceived as the first prophet to appear in centuries. It was natural that an official delegation came from Jerusalem to test him to see if he were a false prophet. The “Jewish leaders” were probably members of the Sanhedrin, the high council of Judaism, a group of 71 men led by the high priest and composed mainly of the chief priests (Sadducees), the elders or lay aristocracy, and Pharisees. The Sadducees were the major ecclesiastical authority (consisting largely of the leading priests), and the Pharisees were the major lay religious leaders, the religious experts of the land. The Sanhedrin oversaw the civic responsibilities of the nation and would naturally have sent priests and Levites (who assisted in various ways in the Temple) to ask John key religious questions. Since John was the son of a priest (Zechariah; cf. Luke 1:5), this was understandable.

1:28 Bethany. This is not the same “Bethany” near Jerusalem where Mary, Martha, and Lazarus lived; this is the Bethany on the other side of the Jordan. There is no record of the location of the place, and some simply consider it another biblical site that has disapeared through the centuries (Brown, Morris, Witherington). Origen believed it was Bethabara (Commentary on John 6.24, 40), which is the reading in some mss and in the TR. This is Tel el-Kharrar in modern Jordan, a Bethany site that is now open to tourists. This place would allow a Joshua–Jesus parallel, since it means “crossing over,” but it remains unlikely. A viable possibility is Batanea, an area in the northeast of Judea ruled by Philip, a more benign ruler than Herod Antipas, and therefore a viable site for the Baptist’s ministry (Riesner 1987, so also Keener, Köstenberger). However, the timing of the events surrounding the raising of Lazarus (10:40; 11:6, 17) may make Perea (a district south of Batanea, containing Bethabara) a viable option as well (so Burge, see notes on those passages). I will tentatively side with Batanea as the better option because of 10:40.

There are three primary questions (1:20-21), all centering on Jewish messianic hopes. The Sadducees were the only ones without a messianic hope; they believed the messianic age had already come with the Maccabean revolt. The nation as a whole longed for a Messiah, but there was still a great deal of confusion regarding the actual figure. The Essenes at Qumran expected a royal Messiah but also a priestly Messiah and a prophet. Still, much of Judaism awaited the Anointed One (the meaning of “Messiah” and of “Christ”). Interestingly, the delegation never asked the primary question. Instead, John provided his own forceful testimony and confession: “I am not the Messiah.” He had already pointed to Jesus in 1:15 as the “greater” one. Now he made it clear that he was not the expected one.

1:29 The next day. The phrase “the next day” is used repeatedly, connecting the events of 1:29–2:1 and accounting for over a week’s time. The first day was when John was challenged by the questioners (1:19-28); “the next day” (1:29), John bore witness to Jesus as the Lamb of God; then “the following day” (1:35) several of John’s disciples followed Jesus. Finally, on “the third day” (2:1, NLT mg) Jesus’ ministry began. At first the events may not appear to span a week, but it is possible (cf. Brown, Morris, Carson) to understand it as a week by recognizing that Andrew brought Peter (1:42) the day after he met Jesus and spent the evening with him (1:39), and that Philip brought Nathanael the day after Andrew brought Simon Peter. Finally, the “third day” (2:1) would refer to two days after the events of 1:43-51, which makes sense because it involves a trip from Judea (the scene of 1:19-51) up to Cana of Galilee.

Look. This is a favorite expression in John (15 of the 29 NT uses); it points to an important saying.

The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. While most agree with the idea of a sacrificial understanding in John’s Gospel, there are three options for interpreting how the Baptist historically understood “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”: (1) the apocalyptic Lamb who will triumph and crush evil (thus take away sin by force; so Dodd, Barrett, Brown, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Witherington)—this is found in several intertestamental works (Testament of Joseph 19:8; Testament of Benjamin 3:8; 1 Enoch 90:9-12), and Revelation 5:5-6 also pictures Jesus as the Lamb who triumphs. (2) The Suffering Servant of the Lord (Boismard; cf. Blomberg)—since the suffering servant theme in Isa 53 is used of Jesus, and since the same Aramaic word for “servant” can also be “lamb,” it is possible that John made this connection. (3) The sacrificial Lamb (Hoskyns, Bruce, Morris, Grigsby [1982], Michaels, Whitacre, Burge, Köstenberger)—some link this particularly with the Passover lamb, others with the scapegoat, still others with the lamb of the daily sacrifices, but all center on the sacrificial overtones. The Suffering Servant is linked with the lamb image in Isa 53:7, but this implicitly shows that it should be taken as secondary to sacrificial or paschal lamb imagery. The major argument against the sacrificial Lamb is the statement in Matt 11:2-19, which may show that the Baptist “was not prepared for a suffering Messiah” (Carson 1991:149, italics his). This, however, is not clearly indicated in Matt 11, which seems to be centered on Jesus as the expected Messiah in general and represents the Baptist’s personal doubts at a later period. On the whole, the sacrificial interpretation is perfectly viable for the Baptist and is in keeping with his general preaching on sin and repentance. It does not mean he understood the implications clearly but that he had a dawning understanding of the purpose of Jesus. In short, the apocalyptic interpretation is historically possible but unnecessary and not indicated by the text here.

1:34 Chosen One of God. There is a text-critical debate as to whether this should be “Son of God” (NLT mg) or “Chosen One of God.” The word huios [TG5207, ZG5626] (son) is found in 66 75 A B C W 083 (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV), while eklektos [TG1588A, ZG1723], (chosen one) is found in 5vid 106vid א* ite syrc,s (cf. NJB, REB, NLT). While the ms evidence is slightly stronger for “Son of God,” most scholars (Comfort, Barrett, Brown, Schnackenburg, Morris, Carson) tend to prefer the latter because it is unlikely that later scribes would have replaced “Son of God”—a major title in John (Cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31)—with one that does not appear elsewhere in the book. Thus, it is more likely that “Chosen One of God” is original.

When John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God,” he used a sacrificial image that had powerful implications. It is hard to know how much he understood about the sacrificial destiny of Jesus. He may have meant it to refer in a very general way to Jesus effecting forgiveness of sins for the people, but the Spirit was using him to introduce the key purpose of Jesus’ coming. The lamb was one of the primary animals used in the sacrificial system. In the phrase “takes away the sin of the world,” there is certainly an idea of atonement, Jesus bearing the sins of the nation. Did John understand Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? This is difficult to know because mainstream Jewish interpretation did not understand the Servant of the Lord messianically but rather as symbolic of the nation or perhaps of Isaiah himself. Still, there is no reason why the Spirit could not have led John to that conclusion, especially since the Essenes at Qumran also linked the Servant with messianic expectations (so Morris). Note also that atonement for sin is made for the “world,” not just for the Jewish people, in keeping with the world as the focus of the divine mission (3:16; 4:42; 8:12).

John then reminded his listeners of what he had said in 1:15—that this Jesus, the Lamb, was to follow him but would supplant his ministry because of his “greater” status than John as the preexistent one. This has great emphasis, for it tells the reader of the importance of this Jesus and highlights once more the fact that the great significance of the Baptist’s ministry was his witness to the identity of Jesus (1:7, 15, 19-20). John then proceeded to relate the moment when he came to his conclusion about Jesus’ identity—namely, at Jesus’ baptism, which had apparently taken place a few days earlier. First, he said that until that time, he “did not recognize him as the Messiah.” It is difficult to know how much time John had spent with Jesus prior to the Baptism; they were relatives (Luke 1:36), but that does not mean they had known each other growing up. Until the Baptism itself, however, he had longed for the Messiah but did not know who he would be. The only thing he was sure about was that his ministry of baptism was messianic in nature—that is, it was preparing for the moment when the Messiah might be revealed to Israel. While in one sense John baptized people “to show that they had turned to God to receive forgiveness for their sins” (Mark 1:4), even the preaching of repentance was preparing for the Messiah who alone could “[take] away the sin of the world.”

But then the moment of realization had come when John baptized Jesus. As he testifies in 1:32-33, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him.” In a sense, this event was Jesus’ messianic “anointing” (the meaning of “Messiah” and “Christ”) for public ministry, but it was also a sign to John. In the Old Testament, kings were anointed by the high priest or a prophet, but here Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Throughout the fourth Gospel, the Spirit is seen in his revelatory function as the Spirit of God who infuses Jesus’ ministry and carries it on (cf. comments on 14:16). Thus, the Spirit inaugurated Jesus’ ministry here. God had previously told John that “the one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” (1:33). When John saw this occur, he knew Jesus was the designated Messiah. The baptism John administered by water was preparatory for the Spirit-baptism that Jesus would bring about. This is made explicit in 7:38-39, where out of Jesus’ heart flow “rivers of living water,” namely the Holy Spirit. Through him, the Spirit flows out to all mankind (cf. also 16:8-15).

Then John gave his fourth official “witness” to Jesus’ identity (1:34; Cf. 1:15, 19, 32, all building on 1:7-8)—“he is the Chosen One of God,” that is, the one God had chosen to be Messiah and Redeemer. This is probably an allusion to Isaiah 42:1 (“Look at my servant, whom I strengthen. He is my chosen one, who pleases me”), which was also part of God’s testimony at the Baptism (Mark 1:11). This continues the Servant of the Lord imagery from 1:29, pointing forward to Christ as the Suffering Servant who was destined to die as a sacrifice for sin.

1:38 Rabbi. This was not a title of office (like “priest”) in Jesus’ time, and it did not become one until late in the first century. Rather, it referred to a person recognized as a teacher of Torah. These were lay leaders, often scribes or Pharisees. Köstenberger (1998b:108-111) says that half the Gospel occurrences of “rabbi” are in John (8 times); these express the earthly ministry of Jesus, with chs 13–17 moving beyond that designation into an emphasis on Jesus’ exalted status.

The clear implication is that the two were searching for a deeper allegiance, and Jesus was offering them the greatest opportunity of all. Witherington (1995:70) says, “Jesus is being depicted not merely as a sage but as Wisdom, who elsewhere in Jewish literature appeals to her audience, ‘Draw near to me, you who are uneducated, and lodge in the house of instruction’ (Sir 51:23, 25-27, cf. also Wisdom of Solomon 6, ‘Wisdom . . . is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her’).” The process of coming to salvation is implied in the rest of 1:39. They went with Jesus at “four o’clock in the afternoon . . . and they remained with him the rest of the day.” They did more than change their physical residence at this time; they found a new home with God in Christ. Brown (1966:75) thinks this may have been a Sabbath eve, which means they stayed with Jesus until dusk the next day, observing the Sabbath.

It is interesting that John used Simon’s full name, “Simon Peter,” here. “Peter” was not part of his actual name (cf. below) but is the name Jesus gives him in 1:42, where Jesus actually prophesies what Simon would later become. The whole scene shows Jesus’ divine foreknowledge (cf. also 1:47). When Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, we are told that Jesus looked intently at him, hinting that he saw into the very heart of Simon. The name of a person in the ancient world spoke of their very essence. When parents named a child, the meaning of that name described their hopes for the destiny of that baby. Jesus began with his actual name (“Simon son of John”—people took the name of their father as their surname, like the Scandinavian names Johan-son, Eric-son, Soren-son, etc.). Then he gave Simon his new name: “You will be called Cephas” (1:42). “Cephas” was an Aramaic name; “Peter” was the Greek equivalent, meaning “rock.” This is similar to the time when God gave Jacob the new name “Israel” (Gen 32:28). This spoke not only of Peter’s future significance but also of the authority of Jesus in giving him the new name. We see the human Peter in the Gospels—rash and impulsive, unsteady as “shifting sand.” God was at work in his life, however, and the post-Pentecost Peter did indeed become the “rock of the church” (as prophesied in Matt 16:18). Jesus was not only a prophet but the all-seeing mind of God.

Andrew’s conversion is seen in his immediate response (1:40-41). He went to his brother Simon and did what any good evangelism program intends—each one reaches one! He could not wait to share his newfound faith. The first thing he said to his brother was, “We have found the Messiah.” This is rather startling after the rather abbreviated story thus far. Yet it is natural in light of the Baptist’s testimony, and it is obvious that their night with Jesus had confirmed the reality of the Baptist’s confession. Jesus indeed was the “Christ” (Christos [TG5547, ZG5986], the Greek equivalent for the Jewish term “Messiah”). For the Jewish people, the Messiah was the expected deliverer who would be anointed by God to destroy their enemies and vindicate them as his people. The redemptive overtones, and especially the idea of a suffering Messiah, were not understood. While the Baptist glimpsed some of this (cf. notes on 1:29), it is doubtful if the disciples ever understood it until after Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Peter’s response to Jesus’ passion prediction in Mark 8:27-33). Still, Andrew had become a true follower and wanted to introduce his brother, possibly another disciple of the Baptist, to Jesus.

The conversion of these disciples is never described but, as elsewhere, is rather implied by the dramatic flow in 1:38b-39 (cf. the Samaritan woman in ch 4 and the blind man in ch 9). They called Jesus “rabbi,” meaning “teacher.” Without even spending time with him, they were ready to accept him as their rabbi. Their question, “Where are you staying?” (1:38), again contains more than appears on the surface. As Brown notes (1966:75, 79), it means on the normal level, “Where are you lodging?” Yet the verb is a major concept in John and implies a desire to “abide” or “dwell” with God at a deeper level. Jesus responded with an invitation to salvation. His response, “come and see,” has two terms that imply coming to a faith-decision throughout John (“coming”—e.g., 3:21; 5:40; 6:35; 7:37; “see”—e.g., 6:40; 9:39; 16:16; 17:24). These words are used in a similar invitation by Philip to Nathanael in 1:46.

The interaction between Jesus and the two disciples is enigmatic. There is no call as such, and the whole narrative seems fairly innocuous; yet it is filled with double meaning. The two disciples heard the Baptist’s witness and followed Jesus. The initiative was theirs; they heard and decided to follow. We know one of them is Andrew, but the other is not named. It may well be Philip (1:43) or perhaps “the beloved disciple,” John (the traditional view), who never names himself in his own Gospel. While we cannot know for sure, John’s presence would fit in light of the eyewitness touches in this scene. The double meaning begins with “follow”—on one level merely the act of going with Jesus, yet on another level, the first step to discipleship (cf. its use in 1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 21:19-20).

This section continues the theme of 1:10-12. Many of “his own” people rejected him (1:11; 1:29-34), but others “accepted him” (1:12; 1:35-50). This, the first of John’s salvation dramas, adds an important bit of historical information regarding the process by which Jesus chose his twelve disciples. It did not begin with the lake scene, when Jesus called the inner circle to be “fishers of men” (Mark 1:16-20); rather, at that time Jesus already knew them. It began when, after his baptism, Jesus spent some time with his relative, John the Baptist. The day after John identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God” and God’s “Chosen One,” he was with two of his disciples and saw Jesus again. Upon seeing Jesus, he repeated his declaration, “Look! There is the Lamb of God” (1:36). It seems clear that John the Baptist had carefully thought through what he said in 1:15, 30 (“a man is coming after me who is far greater than I am”), and in a sense he was passing on his ministry to his successor. Van der Merwe (1999:288-290) thinks that the entire purpose of the Baptist in John 1 is to witness to Jesus and to bring followers to him; this is how he was “sent” to “witness” (1:6-7). The greater one had come, and John the Baptist wanted his followers to know it. The time of witness had finished; the time of messianic action had arrived. Jesus’ first two followers were drawn from the circle of John the Baptist’s disciples.

1:39 four o’clock in the afternoon. The Romans counted the hours of the day from midnight on, while the Jewish people counted the hours from dawn. It is most likely that John was using the Jewish system here (Schnackenburg, Carson, contra Westcott), so “the tenth hour” mentioned in the Gr. here would be four in the afternoon.

This continued when Jesus saw them following and said, “What do you want?” (1:38; lit., “What are you seeking?”). The question is far more than a simple inquiry: “What would you like to talk about?” As Carson says (1991:155), “the Logos- Messiah confronts those who make any show of beginning to follow him and demands that they articulate what they really want in life.” This is more confrontation than question. R. A. Smith (1988:52-54) says this introduces a critical theme in this Gospel, as Jesus was in effect asking, “What do you want out of life?” This motif of seeking Jesus is at the heart of the evangelistic purpose in John (cf. “Salvation” in the Introduction).

Jesus encountered Nathanael via affirmation (1:47). Jesus’ approach was quite similar to his prophecy about Simon in 1:42, and it is a sign of Jesus’ divine omniscience that he could look so deeply into Nathanael and know his character. To understand what Jesus meant about “a genuine son of Israel—a man of complete integrity” (lit., “in whom there is no deceit”), one must turn to the story of Jacob in Genesis 27. The name “Jacob” connoted deceit, and that certainly characterized the man. His brother Esau, after being tricked out of his birthright, even said, “No wonder his name is Jacob, for now he has cheated me twice. First he took my rights as the firstborn, and now he has stolen my blessing” (Gen 27:36). God renamed him “Isarel,” denoting his new character (Gen 32:28). Jesus was saying that Nathanael is not like the old Jacob (filled with deceit) but like the new Israel. L. F. Trudinger (1982:117) translates this well, “Look, Israel without a trace of Jacob left in him.” Jesus may have also been alluding to Psalm 32:2, “What joy for those . . . whose lives are lived in complete honesty” (lit., “no deceit”). Whitacre (1999:74) calls Nathanael a “model disciple,” saying he has “a clear heart in which there is no deceit and a humble docility that is open to God.”

Their faith was still inadequate, as is indicated by Jesus’ rather surprising response to Nathanael’s exclamation (1:50). This must be understood in light of the Johannine view of true faith—actual belief happens when one has both heard Jesus’ teaching and observed his works. Nathanael believed when Jesus told him who he was after seeing him “under the fig tree.” Soon he would “see greater things than this,” and his faith would deepen. The “greater things” comment points forward to the first sign-miracle at Cana in 2:1-11, and this hints that Nathanael was one of the disciples mentioned in 2:2 who saw Jesus’ first miracle.

As such, this section (1:35-49) contains an extraordinary set of titles attributed to Jesus by his followers: Lamb of God (1:29, 36), Chosen One of God (1:34), Messiah (1:41), a “prophet like Moses” (1:45), Son of God, and King of Israel (1:49). The Synoptics contain nothing like this, and thus many have said that John’s Gospel is unhistorical at this point. Still, as several writers have pointed out (Morris, Carson, Blomberg, Keener), there is nothing actually contradictory here. There had to be some reason for these disciples to leave John the Baptist’s group and follow Jesus, and they were uttering titles that had to do with messianic expectation—the very thing the delegation had been asking John about (1:19-25). This does not necessarily mean that they understood at a deep level what they were saying. This exemplifies the flowering of faith and understanding. The scene makes sense. Everyone was asking about the coming Messiah, and while the Pharisees rejected Jesus, these men believed he was the Messiah.

Nathanael justified Jesus’ insight by making an astounding leap of faith. He called Jesus “rabbi” (as did John’s disciples in 1:38) but then went far beyond what anyone had ever called a rabbi and declared Jesus the “Son of God—the King of Israel.” When he called Jesus “Son of God,” it is doubtful that he meant everything the title connotes to modern Christians. He probably meant it in terms of the royal Messiah, for David is called a “son” of God in 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7; 89:27. Moreover, Israel is called God’s “child” in Deuteronomy 1:31; Jeremiah 31:9. The later overtones of the special sonship of Jesus were not understood at this early stage by Nathanael but are still present in John’s retelling of the story. “King of Israel” was a definite messianic title, used later in John at 12:13 (with “King of the Jews” in 18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21). It is remarkable that Nathanael understood this so early, and in John’s Gospel it is part of the theme of messianic understanding. The glory of Jesus was indeed observable from the beginning (Cf. 1:14; 2:11), and 1:35-49 traces the stages by which the disciples’ understanding grew.

Nathanael was shocked at the insight Jesus had shown and asked, “How do you know about me?” Can we imagine a complete stranger coming up and demonstrating awareness of who we are at the core of our being? Jesus’ response seems enigmatic on the surface: “I could see you under the fig tree.” Scholars have had all kinds of speculations regarding the meaning of the fig tree, like the place where rabbis studied Torah or an Old Testament symbol for home (Isa 36:16; Zech 3:10). None of these are that helpful, and this is probably simply a historical reference—Jesus actually saw him under a fig tree and knew what kind of person he was. The emphasis is not on the fig tree but on Jesus’ supernatural ability.

In identifying for Nathanael the person he has in mind, Philip used the formal method, mentioning the father and the hometown: “Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.” This was normal practice at that time. “Jesus” was a common name, so Philip needed to distinguish him from others. Nathanael’s reaction—“Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (1:46)—was curt, and there are three possible reasons for this: (1) rivalry between Nathanael’s hometown of Cana (Cf. 21:2) and Nazareth, so that Nathanael was quoting a “local proverb” (so Brown, Blomberg, Burge); (2) the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and Nazareth was inconsequential prophetically (so Comfort, Witherington). (3) Nazareth was a small, insignificant town of not more than 2,000 people, about 3.5 miles southeast of the capital of the region, Sepphoris (Köstenberger). From the reaction of people throughout the Gospels to the fact that Jesus was a “Nazarene” (cf. Matt 2:23; Acts 4:10; 24:5), the first or third seems likely. At the same time, the prophetic problem of Nazareth versus Bethlehem is stressed in 7:41-42. Thus, all three are probably part of the reason. The only possible response for Philip is, “Come and see for yourself.” Note that Philip repeats the challenge of Jesus in 1:39. It implies an invitation to salvation, not only for Nathanael but also for the reader (so Carson).

Following the evangelistic pattern set by Andrew, Philip decided to introduce his friend Nathanael to Jesus (1:45). Nathanael is never mentioned in the lists of the Twelve, but it is commonly held that he is Bartholomew in the lists (Mark 3:18). This is viable for three reasons: (1) Bartholomew is coupled with Philip in the lists; (2) the name “Bartholomew” actually means “son of Tolmai,” and he almost certainly had a first name, which is not mentioned in the Synoptics (cf. “Simon son of John” in 1:42); (3) in 1:50, Jesus hints that Nathanael will see “greater things,” probably the miracle of Cana in 2:1-11, meaning Nathanael is one of the “disciples” in 2:2. This identification of Nathanael with Bartholomew is an interesting possibility but not ultimately certain (Beasley-Murray 1987:27 calls it “gratuitous”). Still, since the three others in this passage became members of the Twelve, it may be that Nathanael (“son of Tolmai”) did as well. Philip’s message is similar to that of Andrew in 1:41—“We have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about.” The emphasis on scriptural fulfillment was a major theme in early Christian preaching (cf. the sermons in Acts 2, 3, 13, and the first part of ch 17), as it is in apologetics today. Philip’s point is that the law and the prophets (that is, the entire OT) point to Jesus as the Messiah.

Before leaving for Galilee, Jesus chose another member for his discipleship band—Philip (cf. the list of the Twelve in Mark 3:16-18 and parallels), who may have also been a follower of the Baptist. We do not know much about Philip; John is the only Gospel to give us much (Cf. 6:5-7; 12:21-22; 14:7-9). Later tradition tells us that he was martyred at Hierapolis near Laodicea in Asia Minor (cf. the Acts of Philip). Philip was “from Bethsaida, Andrew and Peter’s hometown,” a fishing village northwest of Capernaum just on the other side of the Jordan River going north from the Sea of Galilee (not the same as the Philip of Acts 6:5; 8:4-7, 26-40). Since Mark 1:29 tells us that Peter made his home in Capernaum during Jesus’ ministry, Bethsaida is probably where he, Andrew, and Philip grew up.

In 1:35-42, the initiative lay with Andrew and the unnamed disciple. Now Jesus took the initiative and encountered Philip and then Nathanael. This is unusual because in the Jewish world disciples chose which rabbi they wished to follow (cf. Köstenberger 1998b:120). Thus, Jesus was acting more like God in choosing his followers. “Come, follow me,” is another pairing of two major Johannine terms for coming to salvation (Cf. 1:39; 1:46). As was the case with Andrew, the hint is that Philip was converted at that time (note his confession in 1:45). Jesus decided on “the next day” to leave for Galilee. Bassler (1981:246-251) makes a study of “Galilee” in John and concludes that it is used both topographically and typologically—Galilee signifies receiving the Word, and Judea signifies rejecting the Word. John is remarkably different from the Synoptics in another way as well. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there are no journeys between Judea and Galilee. Jesus is depicted as beginning his ministry in Galilee and never going to Judea until Passion Week. John tells us that Jesus followed his parents’ practice (Luke 2:41, “every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival”), traveling often from Galilee to Judea and back. In just the first few chapters, Jesus is in Judea (1:29-42), returns to Cana of Galilee (1:43; 2:1), travels to Jerusalem for Passover (2:13), and returns again to Galilee by way of Samaria (ch 4). Thus, John’s account provides an important historical addendum.

1:43 Jesus decided. The actual subject of 1:43 is not named. While Peter is the nearest person named, few believe he is the one deciding to go to Galilee here. While it is possible that Andrew (also mentioned in 1:42) brought Philip to Jesus (so Carson), it is most likely that Jesus is the intended subject because he was the main focus of the context (so most commentators).

1:51 I tell you the truth. The Greek is amēn amēn [TG281, ZG297] (“amen, amen”). It was used in the ancient world as an official response of affirmation or confirmation for a truth and was also often used to end prayers as an indication that the person or congregation was assenting to its contents. Jesus used it to highlight especially important statements, giving them his divine imprimatur and emphasizing their truthfulness. In the Synoptics we find the use of a single amēn and in John, the double amēn (doubling a saying [e.g., holy, holy] gives it greater emphasis [so Morris]).

you will all see. Jesus here was not just addressing Nathanael, for the plural “you” in 1:51 includes all the disciples.

Son of Man. The “Son of Man” sayings are particular to Jesus, occurring 83 times in the Gospels, but only found three times outside them—once when Stephen saw Jesus himself in heaven (Acts 7:56) and twice when “someone like the Son of Man” is used of Christ in Rev 1:13; 14:14 (some also see Heb 2:6 as a title). This title is sometimes used as a circumlocution for “I,” (this stems from the “son of man” in Ezekiel, used of him as a mortal human), and it is sometimes a reference to the glorified heavenly being of Dan 7:13-14. Both aspects were utilized by Jesus because both apply to him. On the historicity of the title, see DJG 778-781.

This is the first “Son of Man” saying in the Gospel of John. Jesus drew the title from the phrase “someone like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14, a reference to the heavenly figure who is “given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world.” (In other places, Jesus drew from Ezekiel’s use of “son of man” [e.g., Ezek 2:1, 3, 6, 8] to designate his earthly aspect.) In John, this title occurs 13 times and is associated with Jesus’ heavenly origin and access (3:13; 6:62), his glory (12:23; 13:31), his exaltation on the cross (the “lifted up” sayings, 3:14; 8:28; 12:34), and his authority to judge (5:27) and to give life (6:27, 53). John built on the synoptic “Son of Man” sayings with the emphasis on Jesus’ heavenly glory (for the historical authenticity of this material, see Carson 1991:165-166; Blomberg 2001:84-85).

The expression “the stairway between heaven and earth” must be understood by again looking at the story of Jacob—in particular Jacob’s ladder or “stairway” in Genesis 28:12. In Jacob’s vision, he saw a stairway that reached from the earth up to heaven with the angels of God going up and down it—a strong picture of Jacob’s new authority and access to heaven. Jesus is the final Jacob, the new Israel, the one on whom the angels ascend and descend, the “stairway between heaven and earth” (1:51). This being who is one with God has brought heaven down to earth and united the two spheres in himself. In a sense, the “new heaven and a new earth” of Revelation 21:1 is now found in Jesus as the God-man. In fact, even the word order is important: since Jesus is God on earth, the angels first “ascend” from earth rather than descend from heaven (so Schnackenburg). The idea of the “open heaven” is first seen at Jesus’ baptism, when “the heavens [split] apart” (Mark 1:10) and indicated that in some sense the last days had begun. The “open heaven” also implies a new period of divine revelation, as heaven is opened to God’s people in Jesus (so Rowland 1984:501-505). As Whitacre says (1999:76), “The one Isaiah saw (Isa 6:1-5; John 12:38-41) has come into our midst. Jesus, not heaven, is the focal point of revelation.”