Introduction to John
THE FOURTH GOSPEL
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
GREATEST OF BOOKS
The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most beautiful, John's Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters Joh 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.
THE BELOVED DISCIPLE
The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh 21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh 20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh 21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).
A PERSONAL WITNESS
It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh 1:14 he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh 21:25 he employs the singular "I suppose" (οιμα) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (οιδαμεν) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (μαρτυρεω, μαρτυρια) so common in this Gospel (Joh 1:7, 8, 19; 3:11, 26, 33; 5:31; 12:17; 21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Lu 1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.
WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM
It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home" (εις τα ιδια, Joh 19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh 18:15f.). Delff (Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh 7:45-52; 11:47-53; 12:10ff.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh 13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh 21:1ff.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the "Beloved Disciple" (Joh 21:20).
ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS
It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (ο πρεσβυτερος Ιωαννης) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh., p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.
NO EARLY MARTYRDOM FOR THE APOSTLE JOHN
In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus, Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews (υπο Ιουδαιων ανηιρεθη) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace (εν ειρηνη ανεπαυσατο). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mr 10:39; Mt 20:23) and realized by James first of all (Ac 12:1f.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh 21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.
THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN
Loisy (Le Quatr. Evangile, p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume. Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author's name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter Joh 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Ac 12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.
EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN
Ignatius (ad Philad. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh 3:8. Polycarp (ad Phil. S 7) quotes 1Jo 4:2, 3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.
THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh 2:23; 6:4) and another (Joh 5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (Joh 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (Joh 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in Col 1:14-20 and Heb 1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (Λογος -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.
A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING
So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's Memorabilia and of Plato's Dialogues. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters Joh 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mt 11:25-30; Lu 10:21-24). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.
THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES
It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh 3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or 21? So in Joh 12:44-50. Does John give here a resume of Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter Joh 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Mt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter Joh 21 with that in Lu 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter Joh 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Lu 7, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter Joh 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).
LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES
Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (ο πρεσβυτερος), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe 5:1) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (ο συνπρεσβυτερος). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo 1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo 2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.
BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE
It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Re 1:4, 9; 22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (Prolegomena, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Ac 4:13 where Peter and John are described as αγραμματο κα ιδιωτα (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's Greek Papyri, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.
THE UNITY OF THE GOSPEL
This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, Joh 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, Joh 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, Joh 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh 20:31 and then added Joh 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh 21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK
The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koine Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.
THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
He tells us himself in Joh 20:30f. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.
JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST
No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (Joh 1:1) and in the correct text of Joh 1:18, "God only begotten" (θεος μονογενης). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (Joh 1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh 5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh 5:20-23; 6:48; 8:12, 58; 11:25; 14:9; 17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh 20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term θεος applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah, 1900; St. John's Portrait of Christ, 1910).
A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT
LITERATURE (SINCE 1880)
ABBOT, EZRA, On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, The Fourth Gospel (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., Johannine Vocabulary (1935). ,Johannine Grammar (1906). APPEL, Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910). BACON, B.W., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums (1898). BARTH, K., The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (1907). BAUER, W., Das Johannes-Evangelium. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes (1905). BERNARD, J. H., Gospel according to St. John (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, Das Evangelium des Johannes (1922). BLASS, F., Evangelium secundum Johannem (1902). BROOKE, A. E., The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel (1928). BURNEY, C. F., The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922). CALMES, L'Evangile selon S. Jean (1904). CANDLER, W. A., Practical Studies in the Gospel of John (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, The Johannine Writings (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, According to St. John (1925). CLEMEN, C., Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums (1912). D'ALMA, La Controverse du quatrieme evangile (1908). ,Philo et le quotrieme evangile (1911). DAUSCH' Das Johannesevangelium (1909). DELFF, H., Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt (1890). ,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., Expositor's Bible (2 vols., 1891). ,Expositor's Greek Testament (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel (1904). EVANS, H. H., St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (1888). EWALD, P., Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung (1890). FOUARD, S., Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique (1904). GARDNER, P., The Ephesian Gospel (1915). GARVIE, A. E., The Beloved Disciple (1922). GOBEL, Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., Comm. on the Gospel of St. John (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion (1910). ,Le quatrieme evangile (1924). GORDON, S. D., Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel. GORE, C., Exposition of the Gospel of John (1920). GREEN, A. V., The Ephesian Canonical Writings (1910). GREGORY, C. R., Wellhausen und Johannes (1910). GRILL, J., Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums (1902). GUMBEL, Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel (1917). HAYES, D. A., John and His Writings (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., The Record of the Loved Disciple etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel (1919). ,The Fourth Gospel (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, Hand-Comm. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., In American Comm. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, Gospel of John (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism (1906). ,The Problem of the Fourth Gospel (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel (1909). KEISKER, The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel (1922). KREYENBUHL, Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage (1905). LARFIELD, Die beide Johannes von Ephesus (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, The Witness of St. John to Christ. LEPIN, L'origine du quatrieme evangile (1907; 1927). ,La valeur historique du quatrieme euangile (1910). LEWIS, F. G., The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel (1908). LEWIS, F. G., Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., Biblical Essays (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., The Son of Thunder (1932). LOISY, A., Le quatrieme evangile (1903). LOWRIE, The Doctrine of John (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today (1931). MANSON, W., The Incarnate Glory (1923). MAURICE, F. D., The Gospel of St. John (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., The Moffatt Commentary (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John (1923). MOUSE, Johannes und Paulus (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., The Message of the Fourth Gospel (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., The Fourth Evangelist (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence. OVERBECK, Das Johannesevangelium (1911). PLUMMER, A., Cambridge Greek Testament (1913). REVILLE, J., Le quatrieme evangile (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., Gospel of John (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., The Gospel of the Rejection (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (1916). ROBINSON, A., The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., The Gospel of John (1925). SANDAY, W., Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905). SCHLATTER, Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., The Johannine Writings (1908). SCOTT, E. F., The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology (1906). SCOTT, E. F., The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet (1909). SELBIE, W. B., Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel (1916). SMITH, J. R., The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel (1903). SMITH, P. V., The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance (1926). SPEER, R. E., The Greatest Book in the World (1915). SPITTA, F., Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu (1910). STANGE, Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion (1914). STANTON, V. H., The Fourth Gospel (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., The Johannine Theology (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., Gospel of John (Hastings, D C G 1906). ,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment (1917). ,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart (1931). VEDDER, H. C., The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., The Problem of the Fourth Gospel. WATKINS, W. H., Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel (1890). WATSON, H. A., The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel (1916). WEARING, The World View of the Fourth Gospel (1918). WEISS, B., Meyer Komm. 9 Aufl. (1902). ,Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., Das Evangelium Johannis (1908). WENDT, H. H., The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value (1911). ,Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., The Gospel according to St. John (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, The Gospel of John (1888). WINDISCH, H., Johannes und die Synoptiker (1927). WORSLEY, The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists (1911). WREDE, W., Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium (1903). ZAHN, TH., Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921).
Verse 1
In the beginning (εν αρχη). Αρχη is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Ge 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (ην). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of ειμ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (εγενετο, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (γενεσθα) I am" (ειμ, timeless existence).
The Word (ο λογος). Λογος is from λεγω, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Λογος is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (ανιμα μυνδ) and Marcus Aurelius used σπερματικος λογος for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pr 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Λογος, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Λογος is applied to Christ only in Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13; 1Jo 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Heb 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co 8:9; Php 2:6f.; Col 1:17) and in Heb 1:2f. and in Joh 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than σοφια (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the αεον Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (σαρξ εγενετο, verse 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (προς τον θεον). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Προς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo 2:1 we have a like use of προς: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα). See προσωπον προς προσωπον (face to face, 1Co 13:12), a triple use of προς. There is a papyrus example of προς in this sense το γνωστον της προς αλληλους συνηθειας, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of προς here and in Mr 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In Joh 17:5 John has παρα σο the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in Joh 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Verse 2
The same (ουτος). "This one," the Logos of verse 1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.
Verse 3
All things (παντα). The philosophical phrase was τα παντα (the all things) as we have it in 1Co 8:6; Ro 11:36; Col 1:16. In verse 10 John uses ο κοσμος (the orderly universe) for the whole.
Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of γινομα, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of ην in verses 1, 2. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (γινομα) in contrast with being (ειμ).
By him (δι' αυτου). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Col 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (εξ ου) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (δι' ου).
Without him (χωρις αυτου). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in Php 2:14, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in Joh 1:20; 1Jo 1:5. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation.
Not anything (ουδε εν). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (ο γεγονεν) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of γινομα. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ο γεγονεν. The early uncials had no punctuation.
Verse 4
In him was life (εν αυτω ζωη ην). That which has come into being (verse 3) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb εκτιστα (stands created) in Col 1:16. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (Joh 11:25). This is the idea in Heb 1:3 "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John ζωη means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not βιος (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have εστιν here instead of ην to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the Λογος.
And the life was the light of men (κα η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων). Here the article with both ζωη and φως makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (Joh 8:12). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (των ανθρωπον, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.
Verse 5
Shineth (φαινε). Linear present active indicative of φαινω, old verb from φαω, to shine (φαοσ, φως). "The light keeps on giving light."
In the darkness (εν τη σκοτια). Late word for the common σκοτος (kin to σκια, shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin. In 2Pe 2:17 we have ο ζοφος του σκοτου (the blackness of darkness). The Logos, the only real moral light, keeps on shining both in the Pre-incarnate state and after the Incarnation. John is fond of σκοτια (σκοτος) for moral darkness from sin and φως (φωτιζω, φαινω) for the light that is in Christ alone. In 1Jo 2:8 he proclaims that "the darkness is passing by and the true light is already shining." The Gnostics often employed these words and John takes them and puts them in the proper place.
Apprehended it not (αυτο ου κατελαβεν). Second aorist active indicative of καταλαμβανω, old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in Joh 12:35 (ινα μη σκοτια υμας καταλαβη) "that darkness overtake you not," the metaphor of night following day and in 1Th 5:4 the same idiom (ινα καταλαβη) is used of day overtaking one as a thief. This is the view of Origen and appears also in 2Macc. 8:18. The same word appears in Aleph D in Joh 6:17 κατελαβε δε αυτους η σκοτια ("but darkness overtook them," came down on them). Hence, in spite of the Vulgate comprehenderunt, "overtook" or "overcame" seems to be the idea here. The light kept on shining in spite of the darkness that was worse than a London fog as the Old Testament and archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Crete, Asia Minor show.
Verse 6
There came a man (εγενετο ανθρωπος). Definite event in the long darkness, same verb in verse 3.
Sent (απεσταλμενος). Perfect passive participle of αποστελλω, to send.
From God (παρα θεου). From the side of (παρα) God (ablative case θεου).
Whose name (ονομα αυτω). "Name to him," nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, Grammar, p. 460).
John (Ιωανης). One ν in Westcott and Hort. In the giving of the name see Lu 1:59-63, Hellenized form of Jonathan, Joanan (Gift of God), used always of the Baptist in this Gospel which never mentions the name of John son of Zebedee (the sons of Zebedee once, 21:2).
Verse 7
For witness (εις μαρτυριαν). Old word from μαρτυρεω (from μαρτυς), both more common in John's writings than the rest of the N.T. This the purpose of the Baptist's ministry.
That he might bear witness (ινα μαρτυρηση). Final clause with ινα and aorist active subjunctive of μαρτυρεω to make clearer εις μαρτυριαν.
Of the light (περ του φωτος). "Concerning the light." The light was shining and men with blinded eyes were not seeing the light (Joh 1:26), blinded by the god of this world still (2Co 4:4). John had his own eyes opened so that he saw and told what he saw. That is the mission of every preacher of Christ. But he must first have his own eyes opened.
That all might believe (ινα πιστευσωσιν). Final clause with ινα and first aorist active subjunctive of πιστευω, ingressive aorist "come to believe." This is one of John's great words (about 100 times), "with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists" (Bernard). And yet πιστις, so common in Paul, John uses only in 1Jo 5:4 and four times in the Apocalypse where πιστευω does not occur at all. Here it is used absolutely as in Joh 1:50, etc.
Through him (δι' αυτου). As the intermediate agent in winning men to believe in Christ (the Logos) as the Light and the Life of men. This is likewise the purpose of the author of this book (21:31). The preacher is merely the herald to point men to Christ.
Verse 8
He (εκεινος). "That one," i.e. John. He was a light (Joh 5:35) as all believers are (Mt 5:14), but not "the light" (το φως).
But came (αλλ'). No verb in the Greek, to be supplied by repeating ηλθεν of verse 7. See similar ellipses in 9:3; 13:18; 15:25. In Johannine fashion we have the final ινα clause of verse 7 repeated.
Verse 9
There was (ην). Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic conjugation with ερχομενον (coming) near the end, though that is possible.
The true light (το φως το αληθινον). "The light the genuine," not a false light of wreckers of ships, but the dependable light that guides to the harbor of safety. This true light had been on hand all the time in the darkness (ην imperfect, linear action) before John came.
Even the light (not in the Greek). Added in the English to make plain this interpretation.
Lighteth every man (φωτιζε παντα ανθρωπον). Old verb (from φως) to give light as in Re 22:5; Lu 11:35f. The Quakers appeal to this phrase for their belief that to every man there is given an inner light that is a sufficient guide, the Quaker's text it is called. But it may only mean that all the real light that men receive comes from Christ, not necessarily that each one receives a special revelation.
Coming (ερχομενον). This present middle participle of ερχομα can be taken with ανθρωπον just before (accusative masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world." It can also be construed with φως (nominative neuter singular). This idea occurs in Joh 3:19; 11:27; 12:46. In the two last passages the phrase is used of the Messiah which makes it probable here. But even so the light presented in 11:27; 12:46 is that of the Incarnate Messiah, not the Pre-incarnate Logos. Here κοσμος rather than παντα occurs in the sense of the orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See Eph 1:4.
Verse 10
He was in the world (εν τω κοσμω ην). Imperfect tense of continuous existence in the universe before the Incarnation as in verses 1, 2.
Was made by him (δι' αυτου εγενετο). "Through him." Same statement here of "the world" (ο κοσμος) as that made in verse 3 of παντα.
Knew him not (αυτον ουκ εγνω). Second aorist active indicative of common verb γινοσκω, what Gildersleeve called a negative aorist, refused or failed to recognize him, his world that he had created and that was held together by him (Col 1:16). Not only did the world fail to know the Pre-incarnate Logos, but it failed to recognize him when he became Incarnate (Joh 1:26). Two examples in this sentence of John's fondness for κα as in verses 1, 4, 5, 14, the paratactic rather than the hypotactic construction, like the common Hebrew use of wav.
Verse 11
Unto his own (εις τα ιδια). Neuter plural, "unto his own things," the very idiom used in 19:27 when the Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home." The world was "the own home" of the Logos who had made it. See also 16:32; Ac 21:6.
They that were his own (ο ιδιο). In the narrower sense, "his intimates," "his own family," "his own friends" as in 13:1. Jesus later said that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country (Mr 6:4; Joh 4:44), and the town of Nazareth where he lived rejected him (Lu 4:28f.; Mt 13:58). Probably here ο ιδιο means the Jewish people, the chosen people to whom Christ was sent first (Mt 15:24), but in a wider sense the whole world is included in ο ιδιο. Conder's The Hebrew Tragedy emphasizes the pathos of the situation that the house of Israel refused to welcome the Messiah when he did come, like a larger and sadder Enoch Arden experience.
Received him not (αυτον ου παρελαβον). Second aorist active indicative of παραλαμβανω, old verb to take to one's side, common verb to welcome, the very verb used by Jesus in 14:3 of the welcome to his Father's house. Cf. κατελαβεν in verse 5. Israel slew the Heir (Heb 1:2) when he came, like the wicked husbandmen (Lu 20:14).
Verse 12
As many as received him (οσο ελαβον αυτον). Effective aorist active indicative of λαμβανω "as many as did receive him," in contrast with ο ιδιο just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers.
To them (αυτοις). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel.
The right (εξουσιαν). In 5:27 εδωκεν (first aorist active indicative of διδωμ) εξουσιαν means authority but includes power (δυναμις). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right.
To become (γενεσθα). Second aorist middle of γινομα, to become what they were not before.
Children of God (τεκνα θεου). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Ac 17:28). Paul's phrase υιο θεου (Gal 3:26) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Mt 5:9), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in Re 21:7). It is possible that John prefers τα τεκνα του θεου for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (Joh 11:52) because of the community of nature (τεκνον from root τεκ-, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of υιο since Jesus uses υιο θεου in Mt 5:9. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in Joh 3:3.
Even to them that believe (τοις πιστευουσιν). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with αυτοις, dative case of the articular present active participle of πιστευω.
On his name (εις το ονομα). Bernard notes πιστευω εις 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also 2:23; 3:38 for πιστευω εις το ονομα αυτου. This common use of ονομα for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and εις το ονομα is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary). See Ac 1:15 for ονοματα for persons.
Verse 13
Which were born (ο εγεννηθησαν). First aorist passive indicative of γενναω, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, εκ θεου), not by physical (εξ αιματων, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; εκ θεληματος σαρκος, from sexual desire; εκ θεληματος ανδρος, from the will of the male). But b of the old Latin reads qui natus est and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads qui natus est as does Tertullian who argues that qui nati sunt (ο εγεννηθησαν) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read ο εγεννηθησαν and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14, but it is not stated in verse 13.
Verse 14
And the Word became flesh (κα ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο). See verse 3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than ην of verse 1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive σαρξ, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in Mt 1:16-25; Lu 1:28-38, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also 2Co 8:9; Ga 4:4; Ro 1:3; 8:3; Php 2:7f.; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 2:14. "To explain the exact significance of εγενετο in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity.
Dwelt among us (εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of σκηνοω, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (σκηνος or σκηνη), in N.T. only here and Re 7-15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son.
We beheld his glory (εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου). First aorist middle indicative of θεαομα (from θεα, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (δοξα) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (Jas 2:1). John employs θεαομα again in 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also 4:35; 11:45; 1Jo 1:1f.; 4:12, 14. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did.
As of the only begotten from the Father (ως μονογενους παρα πατρος). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with μονογενους or with πατρος. In Joh 3:16; 1Jo 4:9 we have τον μονογενη referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of πατηρ of God in relation to the Logos. Μονογενης (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (τεκνα) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in Lu 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. It occurs also in the LXX and Heb 11:17, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words παρα πατρος (from the Father) are to be connected with μονογενους (cf. 6:46; 7:29, etc.) or with δοξαν (cf. 5:41, 44). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. 8:54; 14:9; 17:5.
Full (πληρης). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with δοξαν (or genitive with μονογενους) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative πληρης can agree with the subject of εσκηνωσεν.
Of grace and truth (χαριτος κα αληθειας). Curiously this great word χαρις (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in 1:14, 16, 17, though αληθεια (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In 1:17 these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.
Verse 15
Beareth witness (μαρτυρε). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. 1:17f.). See 1:32, 34 for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos.
Crieth (κεκραγεν). Second perfect active indicative of κραζω, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years.
This was (ουτος ην). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in Ac 3:10 where we should prefer "is" (εστιν). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things."
Of whom I said (ον ειπον). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have ο ειπων "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ.
After me (οπισω μου). See also 1:27. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (ο ερχομενος) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in Mt 3:11 ο οπισω μου ερχομενος (cf. Mr 1:7). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels.
Is become (γεγονεν). Second perfect active indicative of γινομα. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking.
Before me (εμπροσθεν μου). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, ο ισχυροτερος μου "the one mightier than I" (Mr 1:7) and ισχυροτερος μου "mightier than I" (Mt 3:11). In Joh 3:28 εμπροσθεν εκεινου (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (Joh 3:25-30).
For he was before me (οτ πρωτος μου ην). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (ην ιμπερφεχτ) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. Πρωτος μου (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular Koine. So the Beloved Disciple came first (πρωτος) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4). So also πρωτον υμων in 15:18 means "before you" as if it were προτερον υμων. Verse 30 repeats these words almost exactly.
Verse 16
For (οτ). Correct text (Aleph B C D L) and not κα (and) of the Textus Receptus. Explanatory reason for verse 14.
Of his fulness (εκ του πληρωματος). The only instance of πληρωμα in John's writings, though five times of Christ in Paul's Epistles (Col 1:19; 2:9; Eph 1:23; 3:19; 4:13). See Col 1:19 for discussion of these terms of the Gnostics that Paul employs for all the attributes of God summed up in Christ (Col 2:9) and so used here by John of the Incarnate Logos.
We all (ημεις παντες). John is facing the same Gnostic depreciation of Christ of which Paul writes in Colossians. So here John appeals to all his own contemporaries as participants with him in the fulness of the Logos.
Received (ελαβομεν). Second aorist active indicative of λαμβανω, a wider experience than beholding (εθεασαμεθα, verse 14) and one that all believers may have.
Grace for grace (χαριν αντ χαριτος). The point is in αντ, a preposition disappearing in the Koine and here only in John. It is in the locative case of αντα (end), "at the end," and was used of exchange in sale. See Lu 11:11, αντ ιχθυος οφιν, "a serpent for a fish," Heb 12:2 where "joy" and "cross" are balanced against each other. Here the picture is "grace" taking the place of "grace" like the manna fresh each morning, new grace for the new day and the new service.
Verse 17
Was given (εδοθη). First aorist passive indicative of διδωμ.
By Moses (δια Μωυσεως). "Through Moses" as the intermediate agent of God.
Came (εγενετο). The historical event, the beginning of Christianity.
By Jesus Christ (δια Ιησου Χριστου). "Through Jesus Christ," the intermediate agent of God the Father. Here in plain terms John identifies the Pre-incarnate Logos with Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The full historical name "Jesus Christ" is here for the first time in John. See also 17:3 and four times in 1John and five times in Revelation. Without Christ there would have been no Christianity. John's theology is here pictured by the words "grace and truth" (η χαρις κα η αληθεια), each with the article and each supplementary to the other. It is grace in contrast with law as Paul sets forth in Galatians and Romans. Paul had made grace "a Christian commonplace" (Bernard) before John wrote. It is truth as opposed to Gnostic and all other heresy as Paul shows in Colossians and Ephesians. The two words aptly describe two aspects of the Logos and John drops the use of Λογος and χαρις, but clings to αληθεια (see 8:32 for the freedom brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all through his Gospel.
Verse 18
No man hath seen God at any time (θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of οραω. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Ex 33:20; De 4:12). Paul calls God αορατος (Col 1:15; 1Ti 1:17). John repeats the idea in Joh 5:37; 6:46. And yet in 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.
The only begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after ως μονογενους παρα πατρος in verse 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read μονογενης θεος (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ο μονογενης υιος to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called θεος in verse 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14, where he is also termed μονογενης. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase.
Which is in the bosom of the Father (ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like προς τον θεον in verse 1. In 3:13 there is some evidence for ο ων εν τω ουρανω used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father.
He (εκινος). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son.
Hath declared him (εξηγησατο). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of εξηγεομα, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35) and four times in Ac (10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.
Verse 19
And this is the witness of John (κα αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια του Ιωανου). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem.
When the Jews sent unto him (οτε απεστειλαν προς αυτον ο Ιουδαιο). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (απεστειλαν, first aorist active indicative of αποστελλω).
Priests and Levites (ιερεις κα Λευειτας). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24 the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in Mt 3:7 we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Lu 3:7). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Lu 3:15). So the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent.
To ask him (ινα ερωτησωσιν αυτον). Final ινα and the first aorist active subjunctive of ερωταω, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the Koine to ask for something (Joh 14:16) like αιτεω.
Who art thou? (συ τις ει;). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of συ, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.
Verse 20
And he confessed (κα ωμολογησεν). The continued paratactic use of κα (and) and the first aorist active indicative of ομολογεω, old verb from ομολογος (ομον, λεγω, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Mt 10:32) as here.
And denied not (κα ουκ ηρνησατο). Negative statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle indicative of αρνεομα, another Synoptic and Pauline word (Mt 10:33; 2Ti 2:12). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was.
And he confessed (κα ωμολογησεν). Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition.
I am not the Christ (Εγω ουκ ειμ ο Χριστος). Direct quotation again with recitative οτ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah," he means by ο Χριστος (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Lu 3:15).
Verse 21
And they asked him (κα ηρωτησαν αυτον). Here the paratactic κα is like the transitional ουν (then).
What then? (Τ ουν;). Argumentative ουν like Paul's τ ουν in Ro 6:15. Quid ergo? Art thou Elijah? (Συ Ελιας ει;). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from Mal 4:5. In Mr 9:11f. Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration.
He saith (λεγε). Vivid dramatic present.
I am not (ουκ ειμ). Short and blunt denial.
Art thou the prophet? (ο προφητης ε συ;). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (De 18:15) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Ac 3:22; 7:37), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (Joh 7:40). It is not clear in Joh 6:15 whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Lu 7:19). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mr 8:28; Mt 16:14).
And he answered (κα απεκριθη). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of αποκρινομα, to give a decision from myself, to reply.
No (Ου). Shortest possible denial.
Verse 22
They said therefore (ειπαν ουν). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb ειπον with α instead of usual ο. Note ουν, inferential here as in verse 21 though often merely transitional in John.
Who art thou? (Τις ει;). Same question as at first (verse 19), but briefer.
That we give answer (ινα αποκρισιν δωμεν). Final use of ινα with second aorist active subjunctive of διδωμ with αποκρισιν from αποκρινομα, above, old substantive as in Lu 2:47.
To those that sent (τοις πεμψασιν). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of πεμπω.
What sayest thou of thyself? (Τ λεγεις περ σεαυτου;). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.
Verse 23
He said (εφη). Common imperfect active (or second aorist active) of φημ, to say, old defective verb.
I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Εγω φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω). For his answer John quotes Isa 40:3. The Synoptics (Mr 1:3; Mt 3:3; Lu 3:4) quote this language from Isaiah as descriptive of John, but do not say that he also applied it to himself. There is no reason to think that he did not do so. John also refers to Isaiah as the author of the words and also of the message, "Make straight the way of the Lord" (Ευθυνατε την οδον του κυριου). By this language (ευθυνω in N.T. only here and Jas 3:4, first aorist active imperative here) John identifies himself to the committee as the forerunner of the Messiah. The early writers note the differences between the use of Λογος (Word) for the Messiah and φωνη (Voice) for John.
Verse 24
They had been sent (απεσταλμενο ησαν). Periphrastic past perfect passive of αποστελλω.
From the Pharisees (εκ των Φαρισαιων). As the source (εκ) of the committee of Sadducees (verse 19).
Verse 25
Why then baptizest thou? (Τ ουν βαπτιζεισ;). In view of his repeated denials (three here mentioned).
If thou art not (ε συ ουκ ε). Condition of first class. They did not interpret his claim to be "the voice" to be important enough to justify the ordinance of baptism. Abrahams (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels) shows that proselyte baptism was probably practised before John's time, but its use by John was treating the Jews as if they were themselves Gentiles.
Verse 26
In the midst of you standeth (μεσος υμων στηκε). Adjective as in 19:18, not εν μεσω υμων. Present active indicative of late verb στηκω from perfect stem εστηκα. John had already baptized Jesus and recognized him as the Messiah.
Whom ye know not (ον υμεις ουκ οιδατε). This was the tragedy of the situation (1:11). Apparently this startling declaration excited no further inquiry from the committee.
Verse 27
Coming after me (οπισω μου ερχομενος). No article (ο) in Aleph B. John as the forerunner of the Messiah has preceded him in time, but not in rank as he instantly adds.
The latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose (ου ουκ ειμ αξιος ινα λυσω αυτου τον ιμαντα του υποδηματος). Literally, "of whom I am not worthy that I unloose the latchet (see Mr 1:7 for ιμας) of his sandal (see Mt 3:11 for υποδημα, bound under the foot)." Only use of αξιος with ινα in John, though used by Paul in this saying of the Baptist (Ac 13:25), ικανος ινα in Mt 3:8, but ικανος λυσα (aorist active infinitive instead of λυσω, aorist active subjunctive) in Mr 1:7 (Lu 3:16) and βαστασα in Mt 3:11.
Verse 28
In Bethany beyond Jordan (εν Βηθανια περαν του Ιορδανου). Undoubtedly the correct text, not "in Bethabara" as Origen suggested instead of "in Bethany" of all the known Greek manuscripts under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem.
Was baptizing (ην βαπτιζων). Periphrastic imperfect, common idiom in John.
Verse 29
On the morrow (τη επαυριον). Locative case with ημηρα (day) understood after the adverb επαυριον. "Second day of this spiritual diary" (Bernard) from verse 19.
Seeth Jesus coming (βλεπε τον Ιησουν ερχομενον). Dramatic historical present indicative (βλεπε) with vivid present middle participle (ερχομενον). Graphic picture.
Behold the Lamb of God (ιδε ο αμνος του θεου). Exclamation ιδε like ιδου, not verb, and so nominative αμνος. Common idiom in John (1:36; 3:26, etc.). For "the Lamb of God" see 1Co 5:7 (cf. Joh 19:36) and 1Pe 1:19. The passage in Isa 53:6f. is directly applied to Christ by Philip in Ac 8:32. See also Mt 8:17; 1Pe 2:22f.; Heb 9:28. But the Jews did not look for a suffering Messiah (Joh 12:34) nor did the disciples at first (Mr 9:32; Lu 24:21). But was it not possible for John, the Forerunner of the Messiah, to have a prophetic insight concerning the Messiah as the Paschal Lamb, already in Isa 53, even if the rabbis did not see it there? Symeon had it dimly (Lu 2:35), but John more clearly. So Westcott rightly. Bernard is unwilling to believe that John the Baptist had more insight on this point than current Judaism. Then why and how did he recognize Jesus as Messiah at all? Certainly the Baptist did not have to be as ignorant as the rabbis.
Which taketh away the sin of the world (ο αιρων την αμαρτιαν του κοσμου). Note singular αμαρτιαν not plural αμαρτιας (1Jo 3:5) where same verb αιρω, to bear away, is used. The future work of the Lamb of God here described in present tense as in 1Jo 1:7 about the blood of Christ. He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews.
Verse 30
Of whom (υπερ ου). Not περ, but υπερ. "On behalf of whom." John points to Jesus as he speaks: "This is he." There he is. See verse 15 for discussion of these words of John.
Verse 31
And I knew him not (καγω ουκ ηιδειν αυτον). Repeated in verse 33. Second past perfect of οιδα as imperfect. He had predicted the Messiah and described him before he met him and baptized him. See the Synoptics for that story. Whether John knew Jesus personally before the baptism we do not know.
But that he should be made manifest to Israel (αλλ' ινα φανερωθη τω Ισραηλ). Final clause with ινα and first aorist passive subjunctive of φανεροω. The purpose of John's ministry was to manifest to Israel with their spiritual privileges (1:49) the presence of the Messiah. Hence he was baptizing in water those who confessed their sins, he means, as in Mr 1:5. The Synoptic account is presupposed all along here.
Verse 32
Bare witness (εμαρτυρησεν). First aorist active indicative of μαρτυρεω. Another specimen of John's witness to the Messiah (1:7, 15, 19, 29, 35, 36).
I have beheld (τεθεαμα). Perfect middle indicative of θεαομα, the realization of the promise of the sign (verse 33) by which he should recognize the Messiah. As a matter of fact, we know that he so recognized Jesus as Messiah when he came for baptism before the Holy Spirit came (Mt 3:14ff.). But this sight of the Spirit descending as a dove upon Jesus at his baptism (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:16; Lu 3:22) became permanent proof to him. John's allusion assumes the Synoptic record. The Semites regarded the dove as a symbol of the Spirit.
Verse 33
He said (εκεινος ειπεν). Explicit and emphatic pronoun as in verse 8, referring to God as the one who sent John (verse 6).
With the Holy Spirit (εν πνευματ αγιω). "In the Holy Spirit." Here again one needs the background of the Synoptics for the contrast between John's baptism in water (Joh 1:26) and that of the Messiah in the Holy Spirit (Mr 1:8; Mt 3:11; Lu 3:16).
Verse 34
I have seen (εωρακα). Present perfect active of οραω. John repeats the statement of verse 32 (τεθεαμα).
Have borne witness (μεμαρτυρηκα). Perfect active indicative of μαρτυρεω for which verb see 32.
This is the Son of God (ο υιος του θεου). The Baptist saw the Spirit come on Jesus at his baptism and undoubtedly heard the Father's voice hail him as "My Beloved Son" (Mr 1:11; Mt 3:17; Lu 3:22). Nathanael uses it as a Messianic title (Joh 1:49) as does Martha (11:27). The Synoptics use it also of Christ (Mr 3:11; Mt 14:33; Lu 22:70). Caiaphas employs it to Christ as a Messianic title (Mt 26:63) and Jesus confessed under oath that he was (verse Mt 26:64), thus applying the term to himself as he does in John's Gospel (5:25; 10:36; 11:4) and by implication (the Father, the Son) in Mt 11:27 (Lu 10:22). Hence in the Synoptics also Jesus calls himself the Son of God. The phrase means more than just Messiah and expresses the peculiar relation of the Son to the Father (Joh 3:18; 5:25; 17:5; 19:7; 20:31) like that of the Logos with God in 1:1.
Verse 35
Again on the morrow (τη επαυριον παλιν). Third day since verse 19.
Was standing (ιστηκε). Past perfect of ιστημ, intransitive, and used as imperfect in sense. See same form in 7:37.
Two (δυο). One was Andrew (verse 40), the other the Beloved Disciple (the Apostle John), who records this incident with happy memories.
Verse 36
He looked (εμβλεψας). First aorist active participle of εμβλεπω, antecedent action before λεγε (says).
As he walked (περιπατουντ). Present active participle in dative case after εμβλεψας and like ερχομενον in verse 29 vividly pictures the rapture of John in this vision of Jesus, so far as we know the third and last glimpse of Jesus by John (the baptism, verse 29, and here).
Saith (λεγε). Historical present, change from ιστηκε before. He repeats part of the tribute in verse 29.
Verse 37
Heard him speak (ηκουσαν αυτου λαλουντος). First active indicative of ακουω and present active participle of λαλεω in genitive case agreeing with αυτου, object of ακουω. "Heard him speaking" (kind of indirect discourse). John had disciples (μαθητα, learners, from μανθανω, to learn).
They followed Jesus (ηκολουθησαν τω Ιησου). Associative instrumental case after verb (first aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist, of ακολουθεω). These two disciples of the Baptist (Andrew and John) took him at his word and acted on it. John the Baptist had predicted and portrayed the Messiah, had baptized him, had interpreted him, and now for the second time had identified him.
Verse 38
Turned (στραφεις). Second aorist passive participle of στρεφω, vividly picturing the sudden act of Jesus on hearing their steps behind him.
Beheld (θεασαμενος). First aorist middle participle of θεαομα (verse 32). Both participles here express antecedent action to λεγε (saith).
Following (ακολοθουντας). Present active participle of ακολουθεω (verse 37). It was Christ's first experience of this kind and the two came from the Baptist to Jesus.
What seek ye? (Τ ζητειτε;). Not "whom" (τινα 18:4; 20:15), but "what purpose have you." The first words of Jesus preserved in this Gospel. See Lu 2:49; Mt 3:15 for words spoken before this and Mr 1:15 for Mark's first report in the Galilean ministry.
Rabbi (Ραββε). Aramaic title for "Teacher" which John here translates by Διδασκαλε as he is writing late and for general readers. Luke, a Greek Christian, does not use it, but John recalls his first use of this term to Jesus and explains it. Matthew has it only in the greeting of Judas to the Master (Mt 26:25, 49) and Mark once by Judas (Mr 14:45) and twice by Peter (Mr 9:5; 11:21). John's Gospel has the disciples at first addressing Jesus by Rabbi while others address him by Κυριε (Lord or Sir) as in 4:11, 49; 5:7. Peter uses Κυριε in 6:68. In the end the disciples usually say Κυριε (13:6, 25, etc.), but Mary Magdalene says Ραββουνε (20:16).
Being interpreted (μεθερμημευομενον). Present passive participle of μεθερμηνευω, late compound of μετα and ερμηνευω, to explain (Joh 1:42), old word from Hερμες, the god of speech (hermeneutics). John often explains Aramaic words (1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 9:7, etc.).
Where abidest thou? (Που μενεισ;). They wished a place for quiet converse with Jesus.
Verse 39
Come and ye shall see (ερχεσθε κα οψεσθε). Polite invitation and definite promise (future middle indicative οψεσθε from οραω, correct text, not imperative ιδετε).
Where he abode (που μενε). Indirect question preserving the present active indicative after secondary tense (ειδαν, saw) according to regular Greek idiom. Same verb μενω as in 38.
With him (παρ' αυτω). "By his side," "beside him."
That day (την ημεραν εκεινην). Accusative of extent of time, all during that day.
About the tenth hour (ωρα ως δεκατη). Roman time and so ten o'clock in the morning. John in Ephesus at the close of the century naturally uses Roman time. See 20:19 "evening on that day," clearly Roman time. Thus also Joh 19:14 (sixth hour, morning) and Mr 15:25 (third hour, nine A.M.) suit. To his latest day John never forgot the hour when first he met Jesus.
Verse 40
Andrew (Ανδρεας). Explained by John as one of the two disciples of the Baptist and identified as the brother of the famous Simon Peter (cf. also 6:8; 12:22). The more formal call of Andrew and Simon, James and John, comes later (Mr 1:16ff.; Mt 4:18ff.; Lu 3:1-11).
That heard John speak (των ακουσαντων παρα Ιωανου). "That heard from John," a classical idiom (παρα with ablative after ακουω) seen also in 6:45; 7:51; 8:26, 40; 15:15.
Verse 41
He findeth first (ευρισκε ουτος πρωτον). "This one finds (vivid dramatic present) first" (προτων). Προτων (adverb supported by Aleph A B fam. 13) means that Andrew sought "his own brother Simon" (τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμωνα) before he did anything else. But Aleph L W read πρωτος (nominative adjective) which means that Andrew was the first who went after his brother implying that John also went after his brother James. Some old Latin manuscripts (b, e, r apparently), have μανε for Greek πρω (early in the morning). Bernard thinks that this is the true reading as it allows more time for Andrew to bring Simon to Jesus. Probably πρωτον is correct, but even so John likely brought also his brother James after Andrew's example.
We have found the Messiah (Hευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν). First aorist active indicative of ευρισκω. Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines. The Baptist had told about him. "We have seen him."
Which is (ο εστιν). Same explanatory neuter relative as in verse 38, "which word is." This Aramaic title Messiah is preserved in the N.T. only here and 4:25, elsewhere translated into Χριστος, Anointed One, from χριω, to anoint. See on Mt 1:1 for discussion.
Verse 42
Looked upon him (εμβλεψας αυτω). See verse 36 for same word and form of John's eager gaze at Jesus. Luke uses this word of Jesus when Peter denied him (Lu 22:61).
He brought him (ηγαγεν αυτον). Effective second aorist active indicative of αγο as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon's part.
Thou shalt be called Cephas (συ κληθηση Κηφας). Apparently before Simon spoke. We do not know whether Jesus had seen Simon before or not, but he at once gives him a nickname that will characterize him some day, though not yet, when he makes the noble confession (Mt 16:17f.), and Jesus will say, "Thou art Peter." Here the future passive indicative of καλεω is only prophecy. The Aramaic Χηφας (rock) is only applied to Simon in John except by Paul (1Co 1:12; Ga 1:18, etc.). But the Greek Πετρος is used by all. In the ancient Greek πετρα was used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while πετρος was a detached fragment of the ledge, though itself large. This distinction may exist in Mt 16:17f., except that Jesus probably used Aramaic which would not have such a distinction.
Verse 43
On the morrow (τη επαυριον). The fourth of the days from verse 19.
He findeth Philip (ευρισκε Φιλιππον). Vivid dramatic present as in 41, though ηθελησεν (was minded, wished) is aorist active indicative. Apparently not an accidental finding, possibly due to the efforts of Andrew and Peter. Both Andrew and Philip have Greek names.
Follow me (ακολουθε μο). Present active imperative, a direct challenge to Philip. Often Jesus uses this verb to win disciples (Mr 2:14; Mt 8:22; 9:21; 19:21 ; Lu 9:59; Joh 21:19). Already Jesus had four personal followers (Andrew and Simon, John and James). He has begun his work.
Verse 44
From Bethsaida (απο Βηθσαιδα). Same expression in 12:21 with the added words "of Galilee," which locates it in Galilee, not in Iturea. There were two Bethsaidas, one called Bethsaida Julias in Iturea (that in Lu 9:10) or the Eastern Bethsaida, the other the Western Bethsaida in Galilee (Mr 6:45), perhaps somewhere near Capernaum. This is the town of Andrew and Peter and Philip. Hence Philip would be inclined to follow the example of his townsmen.
Verse 45
Philip findeth (ευρισκε Φιλιππος). Dramatic present again. Philip carries on the work. One wins one. If that glorious beginning had only kept on! Now it takes a hundred to win one.
Nathaniel (τον Ναθαναηλ). It is a Hebrew name meaning "God has given" like the Greek Θεοδορε (Gift of God). He was from Cana of Galilee (Joh 21:2), not far from Bethsaida and so known to Philip. His name does not occur in the Synoptics while Bartholomew (a patronymic, Bar Tholmai) does not appear in John. They are almost certainly two names of the same man. Philip uses ευρηκαμεν (verse 41) also to Nathanael and so unites himself with the circle of believers, but instead of Μεσσιαν describes him "of whom (ον accusative with εγραψεν) Moses in the law (De 18:15) and the prophets (so the whole O.T. as in Lu 24:27, 44) did write."
Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph (Ιησουν υιον του Ιωσηφ τον απο Ναζαρετ). More exactly, "Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth." Jesus passed as son (no article in the Greek) of Joseph, though John has just described him as "God-only Begotten" in verse 18, but certainly Philip could not know this. Bernard terms this part "the irony of St. John" for he is sure that his readers will agree with him as to the real deity of Jesus Christ. These details were probably meant to interest Nathanael.
Verse 46
Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? (Εκ Ναζαρετ δυνατα τ αγαθον ειναι;). Literally, "Out of Nazareth can anything good be." There is a tinge of scorn in the question as if Nazareth (note position at beginning of sentence) had a bad name. Town rivalry may account to some extent for it since Cana (home of Nathanael) was near Nazareth. Clearly he had never heard of Jesus. The best thing in all the world came out of Nazareth, but Philip does not argue the point. A saying had arisen that no prophet comes out of Galilee (Joh 7:52), untrue like many such sayings.
Come and see (ερχου κα ιδε). Present middle imperative (come on) and second active imperative (and see at once). Philip followed the method of Jesus with Andrew and John (verse 39), probably without knowing it. Wise is the one who knows how to deal with the sceptic.
Verse 47
Behold (ιδε). Here an exclamation (see 1:29) as often like ιδου.
An Israelite indeed (αληθως Ισραηλειτης). "Truly an Israelite," one living up to the covenant name, Israel at its best (Ro 2:29), without the guile (δολος, deceit, bait for fish, from δελεαζω, to catch with bait) that Jacob once had of which Isaac complained (Ge 27:35, δολος, here in LXX). The servant of Jehovah was to be without guile (Isa 53:9).
Verse 48
Whence knowest thou me? (Ποθεν με γινωσκεισ;). Nathanael is astonished at this tribute, at any knowledge about himself by Jesus. He had overheard Christ's comment and longed to know its source.
Before Philip called thee (Προ του σε Φιλιππον φωνησα). Idiomatic Greek, προ and the ablative case of the articular aorist active infinitive (του φωνησα, from φωνεω, to call) with σε as the object and Φιλιππον, the accusative of general reference, "before the calling thee as to Philip."
When thou wast under the fig tree (οντα υπο την συκην). "Being under the fig tree," accusative present participle agreeing with σε. The fig tree was a familiar object in Palestine, probably in leaf at this time, the accusative with υπο may suggest that Nathanael had withdrawn there for prayer. Note genitive with υποκατω in verse 50. Jesus saw Nathanael's heart as well as his mere presence there. He saw him in his worship and so knew him.
Verse 49
Thou art the Son of God (συ ε ο υιος του θεου). Whether Nathanael had heard the Baptist say this of Jesus (1:34) we do not know, apparently not, but Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament as Philip implied (1:45) and was quick to put together his knowledge, the statement of Philip, and the manifest supernatural knowledge of Jesus as just shown. There is no reason for toning down the noble confession of Nathanael in the light of Christ's claim in verse 51. Cf. the confession of Peter in 6:69; Mt 16:16 and Martha's in Joh 11:27. Nathanael goes further.
Thou art King of Israel (Βασιλευς ε του Ισραηλ). To us this seems an anti-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are Messianic titles in Ps 2 and Jesus is greeted in the Triumphal Entry as the King of Israel (Joh 12:13).
Verse 50
Answered and said (απεκριθη κα ειπεν). This redundant use of both verbs (cf. 1:26) occurs in the Synoptics also and in the LXX also. It is Aramaic also and vernacular. It is not proof of an Aramaic original as Burney argues (Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 53).
Because (οτ). Causal use of οτ at beginning of the sentence as in 14:19; 15:19; 16:6. The second οτ before ειδον (I saw) is either declarative (that) or merely recitative (either makes sense here).
Thou shalt see greater things than these (μειζω τουτων οψη). Perhaps volitive future middle indicative of οραω (though merely futuristic is possible as with οψεσθε in 51) ablative case of τουτων after the comparative adjective μειζω. The wonder of Nathanael no doubt grew as Jesus went on.
Verse 51
Verily, Verily (Αμην, αμην). Hebrew word transliterated into Greek and then into English, our "amen." John always repeats it, not singly as in the Synoptics, and only in the words of Jesus, an illustration of Christ's authoritative manner of speaking as shown also by λεγω υμιν (I say unto you). Note plural υμιν though αυτω just before is singular (to him). Jesus addresses thus others besides Nathanael.
The heaven opened (τον ουρανον ανεωιγοτα). Second perfect active participle of ανοιγω with double reduplication, standing open. The words remind one of what took place at the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:16; Lu 3:21), but the immediate reference is to the opened heaven as the symbol of free intercourse between God and man (Isa 64:1) and as it was later illustrated in the death of Stephen (Ac 7:56). There is a quotation from Ge 28:12f., Jacob's vision at Bethel. That was a dream to Jacob, but Christ is himself the bond of fellowship between heaven and earth, between God and man, for Jesus is both "the Son of God" as Nathanael said and "the Son of Man" (επ τον υιον του ανθρωπου) as Jesus here calls himself. God and man meet in Christ. He is the true Jacob's Ladder. "I am the Way," Jesus will say. He is more than King of Israel, he is the Son of Man (the race). So quickly has this Gospel brought out in the witness of the Baptist, the faith of the first disciples, the claims of Jesus Christ, the fully developed picture of the Logos who is both God and man, moving among men and winning them to his service. At the close of the ministry Christ will tell Caiaphas that he will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mr 14:62). Here at the start Jesus is conscious of the final culmination and in apocalyptic eschatological language that we do not fully understand he sets forth the dignity and majesty of his Person.