Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/rwp-joh/joh1.rwp

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 62KB | 1,036 lines

1:1 {In the beginning} (\en archêi\). \Archê\ 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} (\ên\). Three times in this sentence John uses
this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin
for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a
different verb (\egeneto\, 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 (\genesthai\) I am"
(\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is
from \legô\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put
words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ 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 (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used
\spermatikos logos\ 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 \Logos\, but
not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\
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 \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics
who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic
Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus
(Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh"
(\sarx egeneto\, verse #14|) and by this phrase John answered
both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though
existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship
with God. \Pros\ 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 \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father"
(\paraklêton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prosôpon pros
prosôpon\ (face to face, #1Co 13:12|), a triple use of \pros\.
There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnôston
tês pros allêlous sunêtheias\, "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
\pros\ here and in #Mr 6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a
classic idiom, but this is _Koiné_, not old Attic. In #Joh 17:5|
John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God}
(\kai theos ên ho logos\). By exact and careful language John
denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ên ho logos\. That
would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the
terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The
subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the
predicate without it (\theos\) just as in #Joh 4:24| \pneuma ho
theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in
#1Jo 4:16| \ho theos agapê estin\ 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| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\,
"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.

1:2 {The same} (\houtos\). "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.

1:3 {All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta
panta\ (the all things) as we have it in #1Co 8:6; Ro 11:36; Col
1:16|. In verse #10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe)
for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle
indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the
creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the
continuous existence of \ên\ in verses #1,2|. All things "came
into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\)
in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). 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 (\ex hou\)
of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here
(\di' hou\). {Without him} (\chôris autou\). 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} (\oude hen\). "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"
(\ho gegonen\) 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 \ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient
scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho
gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.

1:4 {In him was life} (\en autôi zôê ên\). 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 \ektistai\ (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 \zôê\ means spiritual life, but here the
term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\
(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 \estin\ here instead of \ên\ to bring
out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the
\Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai hê zôê ên to
phôs tôn anthrôpôn\). Here the article with both \zôê\ and \phôs\
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 (\tôn anthrôpon\, 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.

1:5 {Shineth} (\phainei\). Linear present active indicative of
\phainô\, old verb from \phaô\, to shine (\phaos, phôs\). "The
light keeps on giving light." {In the darkness} (\en têi
skotiâi\). Late word for the common \skotos\ (kin to \skia\,
shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin.
In #2Pe 2:17| we have \ho zophos tou skotou\ (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 \skotia\ (\skotos\) for moral darkness from sin and
\phôs\ (\phôtizô, phainô\) 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} (\auto ou katelaben\). Second aorist
active indicative of \katalambanô\, old verb to lay hold of, to
seize. This very phrase occurs in #Joh 12:35| (\hina mê skotia
humas katalabêi\) "that darkness overtake you not," the metaphor
of night following day and in #1Th 5:4| the same idiom (\hina
katalabêi\) 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| \katelabe de autous hê skotia\
("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.

1:6 {There came a man} (\egeneto anthrôpos\). Definite event in
the long darkness, same verb in verse #3|. {Sent}
(\apestalmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \apostellô\, to
send. {From God} (\para theou\). From the side of (\para\) God
(ablative case \theou\). {Whose name} (\onoma autôi\). "Name to
him," nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.
460). {John} (\Iôanês\). One \n\ 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|).

1:7 {For witness} (\eis marturian\). Old word from \martureô\
(from \martus\), 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} (\hina marturêsêi\). Final clause
with \hina\ and aorist active subjunctive of \martureô\ to make
clearer \eis marturian\. {Of the light} (\peri tou phôtos\).
"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} (\hina pisteusôsin\). Final
clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of
\pisteuô\, 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 \pistis\, so common in Paul, John uses only in #1Jo 5:4| and
four times in the Apocalypse where \pisteuô\ does not occur at
all. Here it is used absolutely as in #Joh 1:50|, etc. {Through
him} (\di' autou\). 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.

1:8 {He} (\ekeinos\). "That one," i.e. John. He was a light (#Joh
5:35|) as all believers are (#Mt 5:14|), but not "the light" (\to
phôs\). {But came} (\all'\). No verb in the Greek, to be supplied
by repeating \êlthen\ of verse #7|. See similar ellipses in #9:3;
13:18; 15:25|. In Johannine fashion we have the final \hina\
clause of verse #7| repeated.

1:9 {There was} (\ên\). Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position
at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic
conjugation with \erchomenon\ (coming) near the end, though that
is possible. {The true light} (\to phôs to alêthinon\). "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 (\ên\
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} (\phôtizei panta
anthrôpon\). Old verb (from \phôs\) 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} (\erchomenon\). This present middle participle of
\erchomai\ can be taken with \anthrôpon\ just before (accusative
masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world." It
can also be construed with \phôs\ (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 \kosmos\ rather than \panta\ occurs in the sense of the
orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See #Eph 1:4|.

1:10 {He was in the world} (\en tôi kosmôi ên\). Imperfect tense
of continuous existence in the universe before the Incarnation as
in verses #1,2|. {Was made by him} (\di' autou egeneto\).
"Through him." Same statement here of "the world" (\ho kosmos\)
as that made in verse #3| of \panta\. {Knew him not} (\auton ouk
egnô\). Second aorist active indicative of common verb \ginoskô\,
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 \kai\ as in verses #1,4,5,14|, the paratactic
rather than the hypotactic construction, like the common Hebrew
use of _wav_.

1:11 {Unto his own} (\eis ta idia\). 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} (\hoi idioi\). 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 \hoi idioi\ 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 \hoi idioi\. 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} (\auton ou parelabon\). Second aorist active indicative of
\paralambanô\, 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. \katelaben\ in verse #5|. Israel slew the
Heir (#Heb 1:2|) when he came, like the wicked husbandmen (#Lu
20:14|).

1:12 {As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective
aorist active indicative of \lambanô\ "as many as did receive
him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional
action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To
them} (\autois\). 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} (\exousian\).
In #5:27| \edôken\ (first aorist active indicative of \didômi\)
\exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here
it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become}
(\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what
they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the
full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all
men (#Ac 17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (#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 \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual
children of God whether Jew or Gentile (#Joh 11:52|) because of
the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget).
But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as
Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi
theou\ in #Mt 5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved
here as in #Joh 3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois
pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory
apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present
active participle of \pisteuô\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\).
Bernard notes \pisteuô eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or
on. See also #2:23; 3:38| for \pisteuô eis to onoma autou\. This
common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it
occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is
particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and
Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See #Ac 1:15| for \onomata\ for
persons.

1:13 {Which were born} (\hoi egennêthêsan\). First aorist passive
indicative of \gennaô\, to beget, "who were begotten." By
spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex
haimatôn\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it
is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek
thelêmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelêmatos andros\,
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_ (\hoi
egennêthêsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass
(_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but
all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennêthêsan\ and it must be
accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse #14|,
but it is not stated in verse #13|.

1:14 {And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\).
See verse #3| for this verb and note its use for the historic
event of the Incarnation rather than \ên\ of verse #1|. Note also
the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\,
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
\egeneto\ 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} (\eskênôsen en hêmin\). First aorist ingressive
aorist active indicative of \skênoô\, old verb, to pitch one's
tent or tabernacle (\skênos\ or \skênê\), 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} (\etheasametha tên doxan autou\). First aorist middle
indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal
experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the
Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so
describes him (#Jas 2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ 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} (\hôs monogenous para
patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since
there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In #Joh
3:16; 1Jo 4:9| we have \ton monogenê\ referring to Christ. This
is the first use in the Gospel of \patêr\ of God in relation to
the Logos. \Monogenês\ (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 (\tekna\) 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 \para patros\ (from the Father)
are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. #6:46; 7:29|, etc.) or
with \doxan\ (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} (\plêrês\). Probably indeclinable accusative
adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\)
of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275).
As nominative \plêrês\ can agree with the subject of \eskênôsen\.
{Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alêtheias\). Curiously this
great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur
in John's Gospel save in #1:14,16,17|, though \alêtheia\ (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.

1:15 {Beareth witness} (\marturei\). 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} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active
indicative of \krazô\, 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} (\houtos ên\). 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" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96)
calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real
state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a
corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipôn\ "the one
who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the
words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opisô mou\). See
also #1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming
One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John
here is precisely that in #Mt 3:11| \ho opisô mou erchomenos\
(cf. #Mr 1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say
these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is
become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of
\ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is
speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity,
the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than
I" (#Mr 1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (#Mt
3:11|). In #Joh 3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (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} (\hoti prôtos mou ên\).
Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ên imperfect\) 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. \Prôtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here
when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular
_Koiné_. So the Beloved Disciple came first (\prôtos\) to the
tomb, ahead of Peter (#20:4|). So also \prôton humôn\ in #15:18|
means "before you" as if it were \proteron humôn\. Verse #30|
repeats these words almost exactly.

1:16 {For} (\hoti\). Correct text (Aleph B C D L) and not \kai\
(and) of the Textus Receptus. Explanatory reason for verse #14|.
{Of his fulness} (\ek tou plêrômatos\). The only instance of
\plêrôma\ 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}
(\hêmeis pantes\). 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} (\elabomen\). Second aorist
active indicative of \lambanô\, a wider experience than beholding
(\etheasametha\, verse #14|) and one that all believers may have.
{Grace for grace} (\charin anti charitos\). The point is in
\anti\, a preposition disappearing in the _Koiné_ and here only
in John. It is in the locative case of \anta\ (end), "at the
end," and was used of exchange in sale. See #Lu 11:11|, \anti
ichthuos ophin\, "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.

1:17 {Was given} (\edothê\). First aorist passive indicative of
\didômi\. {By Moses} (\dia Môuseôs\). "Through Moses" as the
intermediate agent of God. {Came} (\egeneto\). The historical
event, the beginning of Christianity. {By Jesus Christ} (\dia
Iêsou Christou\). "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"
(\hê charis kai hê alêtheia\), 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 \Logos\ and
\charis\, but clings to \alêtheia\ (see #8:32| for the freedom
brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all
through his Gospel.

1:18 {No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heôraken
pôpote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative
of \horaô\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is
invisible (#Ex 33:20; De 4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (#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} (\ho monogenês huios\).
This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible
after \hôs monogenous para patros\ in verse #14|. But the best
old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogenês theos\ (God
only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some
scribe changed it to \ho monogenês huios\ 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 \theos\ in verse #1|. The Incarnation is
stated in verse #14|, where he is also termed \monogenês\. 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} (\ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The
eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\
in verse #1|. In #3:13| there is some evidence for \ho ôn en tôi
ouranôi\ 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}
(\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared
him} (\exêgêsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of
\exêgeomai\, 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.

1:19 {And this is the witness of John} (\kai hautê estin hê
marturia tou Iôanou\). 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} (\hote
apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). 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 (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative
of \apostellô\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\).
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} (\hina erôtêsôsin auton\). Final \hina\ and the
first aorist active subjunctive of \erôtaô\, old verb to ask a
question as here and often in the _Koiné_ to ask for something
(#Joh 14:16|) like \aiteô\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\).
Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\,
"Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the
question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the
Messiah.

1:20 {And he confessed} (\kai hômologêsen\). The continued
paratactic use of \kai\ (and) and the first aorist active
indicative of \homologeô\, old verb from \homologos\ (\homon,
legô\, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (#Mt
10:32|) as here. {And denied not} (\kai ouk êrnêsato\). Negative
statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle
indicative of \arneomai\, 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} (\kai hômologêsen\). Thoroughly Johannine
again in the paratactic repetition. {I am not the Christ} (\Egô
ouk eimi ho Christos\). Direct quotation again with recitative
\hoti\ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the
Messiah," he means by \ho Christos\ (the Anointed One). Evidently
it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (#Lu 3:15|).

1:21 {And they asked him} (\kai êrôtêsan auton\). Here the
paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What
then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in
#Ro 6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). 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}
(\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short
and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophêtês ei
su;\). "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}
(\kai apekrithê\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense
of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision
from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

1:22 {They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active
indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual
\o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse #21| though often
merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same
question as at first (verse #19|), but briefer. {That we give
answer} (\hina apokrisin dômen\). Final use of \hina\ with second
aorist active subjunctive of \didômi\ with \apokrisin\ from
\apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in #Lu 2:47|. {To those
that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the
articular participle first aorist active of \pempô\. {What sayest
thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they
opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.

1:23 {He said} (\ephê\). Common imperfect active (or second
aorist active) of \phêmi\, to say, old defective verb. {I am the
voice of one crying in the wilderness} (\Egô phônê boôntos en têi
erêmôi\). 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}" (\Euthunate tên
hodon tou kuriou\). By this language (\euthunô\ 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 \Logos\ (Word) for the Messiah and \phônê\ (Voice) for John.

1:24 {They had been sent} (\apestalmenoi êsan\). Periphrastic
past perfect passive of \apostellô\. {From the Pharisees} (\ek
tôn Pharisaiôn\). As the source (\ek\) of the committee of
Sadducees (verse #19|).

1:25 {Why then baptizest thou?} (\Ti oun baptizeis;\). In view of
his repeated denials (three here mentioned). {If thou art not}
(\ei su ouk ei\). 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.

1:26 {In the midst of you standeth} (\mesos humôn stêkei\).
Adjective as in #19:18|, not \en mesôi humôn\. Present active
indicative of late verb \stêkô\ from perfect stem \hestêka\. John
had already baptized Jesus and recognized him as the Messiah.
{Whom ye know not} (\hon humeis ouk oidate\). This was the
tragedy of the situation (#1:11|). Apparently this startling
declaration excited no further inquiry from the committee.

1:27 {Coming after me} (\opisô mou erchomenos\). No article
(\ho\) 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} (\hou ouk eimi
axios hina lusô autou ton himanta tou hupodêmatos\). Literally,
"of whom I am not worthy that I unloose the latchet (see #Mr 1:7|
for \himas\) of his sandal (see #Mt 3:11| for \hupodêma\, bound
under the foot)." Only use of \axios\ with \hina\ in John, though
used by Paul in this saying of the Baptist (#Ac 13:25|), \hikanos
hina\ in #Mt 3:8|, but \hikanos lusai\ (aorist active infinitive
instead of \lusô\, aorist active subjunctive) in #Mr 1:7| (#Lu
3:16|) and \bastasai\ in #Mt 3:11|.

1:28 {In Bethany beyond Jordan} (\en Bêthaniâi peran tou
Iordanou\). 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} (\ên baptizôn\).
Periphrastic imperfect, common idiom in John.

1:29 {On the morrow} (\têi epaurion\). Locative case with
\hêmêrâi\ (day) understood after the adverb \epaurion\. "Second
day of this spiritual diary" (Bernard) from verse #19|. {Seeth
Jesus coming} (\blepei ton Iêsoun erchomenon\). Dramatic
historical present indicative (\blepei\) with vivid present
middle participle (\erchomenon\). Graphic picture. {Behold the
Lamb of God} (\ide ho amnos tou theou\). Exclamation \ide\ like
\idou\, not verb, and so nominative \amnos\. 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}
(\ho airôn tên hamartian tou kosmou\). Note singular \hamartian\
not plural \hamartias\ (#1Jo 3:5|) where same verb \airô\, 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.

1:30 {Of whom} (\huper hou\). Not \peri\, but \huper\. "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.

1:31 {And I knew him not} (\kagô ouk êidein auton\). Repeated in
verse #33|. Second past perfect of \oida\ 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} (\all' hina phanerôthêi tôi
Israêl\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive
subjunctive of \phaneroô\. 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.

1:32 {Bare witness} (\emarturêsen\). First aorist active
indicative of \martureô\. Another specimen of John's witness to
the Messiah (#1:7,15,19,29,35,36|). {I have beheld}
(\tetheamai\). Perfect middle indicative of \theaomai\, 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.

1:33 {He said} (\ekeinos eipen\). Explicit and emphatic pronoun
as in verse #8|, referring to God as the one who sent John (verse
#6|). {With the Holy Spirit} (\en pneumati hagiôi\). "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|).

1:34 {I have seen} (\heôraka\). Present perfect active of
\horaô\. John repeats the statement of verse #32| (\tetheamai\).
{Have borne witness} (\memarturêka\). Perfect active indicative
of \martureô\ for which verb see #32|. {This is the Son of God}
(\ho huios tou theou\). 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|.

1:35 {Again on the morrow} (\têi epaurion palin\). Third day
since verse #19|. {Was standing} (\histêkei\). Past perfect of
\histêmi\, intransitive, and used as imperfect in sense. See same
form in #7:37|. {Two} (\duo\). One was Andrew (verse #40|), the
other the Beloved Disciple (the Apostle John), who records this
incident with happy memories.

1:36 {He looked} (\emblepsas\). First aorist active participle of
\emblepô\, antecedent action before \legei\ (says). {As he
walked} (\peripatounti\). Present active participle in dative
case after \emblepsas\ and like \erchomenon\ 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} (\legei\). Historical
present, change from \histêkei\ before. He repeats part of the
tribute in verse #29|.

1:37 {Heard him speak} (\êkousan autou lalountos\). First active
indicative of \akouô\ and present active participle of \laleô\ in
genitive case agreeing with \autou\, object of \akouô\. "Heard
him speaking" (kind of indirect discourse). John had disciples
(\mathêtai\, learners, from \manthanô\, to learn). {They followed
Jesus} (\êkolouthêsan tôi Iêsou\). Associative instrumental case
after verb (first aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist, of
\akoloutheô\). 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.

1:38 {Turned} (\strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle of
\strephô\, vividly picturing the sudden act of Jesus on hearing
their steps behind him. {Beheld} (\theasamenos\). First aorist
middle participle of \theaomai\ (verse #32|). Both participles
here express antecedent action to \legei\ (saith). {Following}
(\akolothountas\). Present active participle of \akoloutheô\
(verse #37|). It was Christ's first experience of this kind and
the two came from the Baptist to Jesus. {What seek ye?} (\Ti
zêteite;\). Not "whom" (\tina\ #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} (\Rabbei\).
Aramaic title for "Teacher" which John here translates by
\Didaskale\ 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 \Kurie\ (Lord or Sir) as in
#4:11,49; 5:7|. Peter uses \Kurie\ in #6:68|. In the end the
disciples usually say \Kurie\ (#13:6,25|, etc.), but Mary
Magdalene says \Rabbounei\ (#20:16|). {Being interpreted}
(\methermêmeuomenon\). Present passive participle of
\methermêneuô\, late compound of \meta\ and \hermêneuô\, to
explain (#Joh 1:42|), old word from \Hermes\, the god of speech
(hermeneutics). John often explains Aramaic words (#1:38,41,42;
4:25; 9:7|, etc.). {Where abidest thou?} (\Pou meneis;\). They
wished a place for quiet converse with Jesus.

1:39 {Come and ye shall see} (\erchesthe kai opsesthe\). Polite
invitation and definite promise (future middle indicative
\opsesthe\ from \horaô\, correct text, not imperative \idete\).
{Where he abode} (\pou menei\). Indirect question preserving the
present active indicative after secondary tense (\eidan\, saw)
according to regular Greek idiom. Same verb \menô\ as in #38|.
{With him} (\par' autôi\). "By his side," "beside him." {That
day} (\tên hêmeran ekeinên\). Accusative of extent of time, all
during that day. {About the tenth hour} (\hôra hôs dekatê\).
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.

1:40 {Andrew} (\Andreas\). 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} (\tôn akousantôn
para Iôanou\). "That heard from John," a classical idiom (\para\
with ablative after \akouô\) seen also in #6:45; 7:51; 8:26,40;
15:15|.

1:41 {He findeth first} (\heuriskei houtos prôton\). "This one
finds (vivid dramatic present) first" (\protôn\). \Protôn\
(adverb supported by Aleph A B fam. 13) means that Andrew sought
"his own brother Simon" (\ton adelphon ton idion Simôna\) before
he did anything else. But Aleph L W read \prôtos\ (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 \mane\ for
Greek \prôi\ (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 \prôton\ is correct, but even so John likely
brought also his brother James after Andrew's example. {We have
found the Messiah} (\Heurêkamen ton Messian\). First aorist
active indicative of \heuriskô\. 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}
(\ho estin\). 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 \Christos\,
Anointed One, from \chriô\, to anoint. See on »Mt 1:1| for
discussion.

1:42 {Looked upon him} (\emblepsas autôi\). 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} (\êgagen auton\). Effective second aorist active indicative
of \ago\ as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon's
part. {Thou shalt be called Cephas} (\su klêthêsêi Kêphâs\).
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 \kaleô\
is only prophecy. The Aramaic \Cêphâs\ (rock) is only applied to
Simon in John except by Paul (#1Co 1:12; Ga 1:18|, etc.). But the
Greek \Petros\ is used by all. In the ancient Greek \petra\ was
used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while
\petros\ 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.

1:43 {On the morrow} (\têi epaurion\). The fourth of the days
from verse #19|. {He findeth Philip} (\heuriskei Philippon\).
Vivid dramatic present as in #41|, though \êthelêsen\ (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}
(\akolouthei moi\). 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.

1:44 {From Bethsaida} (\apo Bêthsaida\). 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.

1:45 {Philip findeth} (\heuriskei Philippos\). 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} (\ton Nathanaêl\). It is a Hebrew name meaning "God
has given" like the Greek \Theodore\ (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 \heurêkamen\ (verse #41|) also to Nathanael and so unites
himself with the circle of believers, but instead of \Messian\
describes him "of whom (\hon\ accusative with \egrapsen\) 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}
(\Iêsoun huion tou Iôsêph ton apo Nazaret\). 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.

1:46 {Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?} (\Ek Nazaret
dunatai ti agathon einai;\). 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} (\erchou kai ide\). 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.

1:47 {Behold} (\ide\). Here an exclamation (see #1:29|) as often
like \idou\. {An Israelite indeed} (\alêthôs Israêleitês\).
"Truly an Israelite," one living up to the covenant name, Israel
at its best (#Ro 2:29|), without the guile (\dolos\, deceit, bait
for fish, from \deleazô\, to catch with bait) that Jacob once had
of which Isaac complained (#Ge 27:35|, \dolos\, here in LXX). The
servant of Jehovah was to be without guile (#Isa 53:9|).

1:48 {Whence knowest thou me?} (\Pothen me ginôskeis;\).
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} (\Pro tou se
Philippon phônêsai\). Idiomatic Greek, \pro\ and the ablative
case of the articular aorist active infinitive (\tou phônêsai\,
from \phôneô\, to call) with \se\ as the object and \Philippon\,
the accusative of general reference, "before the calling thee as
to Philip." {When thou wast under the fig tree} (\onta hupo tên
sukên\). "Being under the fig tree," accusative present
participle agreeing with \se\. The fig tree was a familiar object
in Palestine, probably in leaf at this time, the accusative with
\hupo\ may suggest that Nathanael had withdrawn there for prayer.
Note genitive with \hupokatô\ 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.

1:49 {Thou art the Son of God} (\su ei ho huios tou theou\).
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} (\Basileus ei tou
Israêl\). 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|).

1:50 {Answered and said} (\apekrithê kai eipen\). 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} (\hoti\). Causal use of \hoti\ at
beginning of the sentence as in #14:19; 15:19; 16:6|. The second
\hoti\ before \eidon\ (I saw) is either declarative (that) or
merely recitative (either makes sense here). {Thou shalt see
greater things than these} (\meizô toutôn opsêi\). Perhaps
volitive future middle indicative of \horaô\ (though merely
futuristic is possible as with \opsesthe\ in #51|) ablative case
of \toutôn\ after the comparative adjective \meizô\. The wonder
of Nathanael no doubt grew as Jesus went on.

1:51 {Verily, Verily} (\Amên, amên\). 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 \legô humin\ (I say unto you). Note
plural \humin\ though \autôi\ just before is singular (to him).
Jesus addresses thus others besides Nathanael. {The heaven
opened} (\ton ouranon aneôigota\). Second perfect active
participle of \anoigô\ 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" (\epi ton huion tou
anthrôpou\) 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.