Study of John's Gospel

D. Moody Smith writes: "The prologue falls into three parts, divided by the
statements about John (the Baptist) in 1:6-8 and 15. The first part (vv.
1-5) deals with the cosmic, creative work of the Word and the relationship
of the Word to God and creation. the second part (vv. 9-14) narrates the
advent of the Word and the response evoked by it; v. 14 summarizes this
advent and begins to set forth the incarnate Word's nature. For the first
time the author speaks confessionally, in the first-person plural. In the
third and final part (vv. 15-18) the community of disciples confesses
briefly and succinctly who the Word is and what his advent means." (Harper's
Bible Commentary, p. 1046)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "At the beginning of Mark and the Logia source Q
Jesus immediately comes into view as a grown man. Matthew and Luke were
dissatisfied with this and therefore prefaced their accounts of the activity
of Jesus with stories about his birth and infancy, and with genalogies of
Jesus (cf. Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2; 3.23-38). The Fourth Evangelist has drawn
this line even wider, to infinity: his story of Jesus, the 'Logos' (i.e. the
'Word'), goes back to the creation of the world. For the 'in the beginning'
with which the prologue begins alludes to 'In the beginning God created
heaven and earth', the first sentence of the Bible." (Jesus after 2000
Years, p. 423)

D. Moody Smith writes: "In contemporary writers such as Philo of Alexandria
(ca. 25 B.C. - A.D. 50), the great Jewish philosopher of religion, the Word
had also become a semi-independent entity, mediating between God and the
world. John's insistence upon the Word's role in all aspects of creation
(v. 3) also parallels the creative role of Wisdom in OT and later Jewish
writings (Prov. 8, Wisd. of Sol. 7). Such usage stands behind this text.
By assigning the Word an indispensable role in creation, John makes clear
not only that creation is good but also that in this Word creation and
redemption are linked together. Salvation fulfills, rather than negates,
creation." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1047)

Bruce Vawter writes: "In Hellenistic thining _logos_ meant divine utterance,
emanation, mediation. In the OT the word of God is God's manifestation, the
revelation of himself, whether in creation, in deeds of power and grace, or
in prophecy. All these strains of thought are taken up by Jn, who shows
that Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the ultimate and complete revelation of
God (cf. Heb 1:1-4; Col 1:15-20). Two strands of Jewish speculation have
especially assisted in the development of this concept. One is the late OT
personification of the wisdom of God (with 1a cf. Prv 3:19; 8:22; Sir 1:4;
24:9; with 1b, Prv 8:27, 30; Sir 1:1; Wis 9:4, 9; with 2, Prv 8:27; with 3,
Prv 3:19; 8:30; Wis 9:1-2, 9; with 4a, Prv 3:18; 8:35; Bar 4:1; with 4b, Wis
6:12; 7:10, 26; Sir 24:30; Bar 4:2; with 5, Wis 7:24-30; with 10a, Wis 8:1;
Sir 24:3-6 [a paraphrase of the Gn creation story]; with 10c, Bar 3:31; with
11, Bar 3:12; 4 Ezra 5:10; with 12, Wis 6:12; 7:27; Bar 3:37; with 14b, Sir
24:8; Bar 3:38; with 14c, Wis 9:11; with 14d, Wis 7:25). The other strand
is the glorification of the Torah (the Law) in rabbinical Judaism: The
identification of Torah with the divine wisdom is already found in Sir
24:22-27 (in which Gn 2 is paraphrased) and in Bar 3:38-4:4." (The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 422)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "In the original, there is no definite article before
God. The significance of this is that the Word does not by Himself make up
the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of
the Godhead belongs also to Him." (John, p. 45)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Syntactically kai theos en ho logos, placing the
complement, without an article, before the verb 'to be' and following it
with the subject with an article maintains a distinction between ho logos
and ho theos in v. 1b but indicates that their intimacy makes one what the
other is. As God is divine so the Word is divine, but the Word is not
equated with God." (The Gospel of John, p. 42)

Raymond Brown writes: "Vs. 1c has been the subject of a prolonged
discussion, for it is a crucial text pertaining to Jesus' divinity. There
is no article before theos as there was in 1b. Some explain this with the
simple grammatical rule that predicate nouns are generally anarthrous (BDF,
S 273). However, while theos is most probably the predicate, such a rule
does not necessarily hold for a statement of identity as, for instance, in
the 'I am ...' formulae (John xi 25, xiv 6) - with the article). To
preserve in English the different nuance of theos with and without the
article, some (Moffatt) would translate, "The Word was divine." But this
seems too weak; and, after all, there is in Greek an adjective for 'divine'
(theios) which the author did not choose to use. Haenchen, p. 313, objects
to this latter point because he thinks that such an adjective smacks of
literary Greek not in the Johannine vocabulary. The NEB paraphrases the
line: 'What God was, the Word was'; and this is certainly better than
'divine.' Yet for a modern Christian reader whose trinitarian background
has accustomed him to thinking of 'God' as a larger concept than 'God the
Father,' the translation 'The Word was God' is quite correct. This reading
is reinforced when one remembers that in the Gospel as ti now stands, the
affirmation of i 1 is almost certainly meant to form an inclusion with xx
28, where at the end of the Gospel thomas confesses Jesus as 'my God' (ho
theos mou). These statements represent the Johannine affirmative answer to
the charge made against Jesus in the Gospel that he was wrongly making
himself God (x 33, v 18). Nevertheless, we should recognize taht between
the Prologue's 'The Word was God' and the later Church's confession that
Jesus Christ was 'true God of true God' (Nicaea), there was marked
development in terms of philosophical thought and a different problematic."
(The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 5)

With reference to verse 3, Bruce Vawter quotes 1QS 11:11: "Through his
[God's] knowledge all things have come to be, and everything that is, is
ordained by his thought; and without him nothing is made." (The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 422)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "The Greek word _katalambano_, like the Latin
_comprehendo_, and the English _comprehend_ (RV 'apprehend'), can denote
either grasping with the mind, or grasping by force and overwhelming. It is
possible that the evangelist intended the word to have this double nuance
here, but more probably he is stating that the light has been shining and is
still shining, and never has the darkness been able to obliterate it. So
RSV 'the darkness has not overcome it'. The aorist tense of the verb
implies that there has never been a single instance of such a defeat. It is
best translated by an English perfect." (John, pp. 45-46)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The elevated poetry of vv. 1-5 disappears
momentarily as vv. 6-8 give a more narrative description of the figure and
role of John the Baptist. Regarded by many as a secondary addition to the
Prologue, these verses are essential to its present structure and message.
The hints of the Word's involvement in the events of history found in vv.
3c-5 continue as a historical figure with the proper name 'John' enters the
story (_egeneto_). John was not just any man, for he had been sent by God
(v. 6). This is an important claim, as no one else in the Johannine story
apart from Jesus is described as having been sent by God. John was part of
a divine plan: he came to give witness to the light, so that others might
come to believe by means of the life-giving presence of the light. The
theme of the Word as the light continues from vv. 4b-5. John was not the
light; his role was to give witness to the light. There must be no
confusion. John the Baptist was a great figure but he was not the light.
Nevertheless his appearance in vv. 6-8 opens the second section of the
Prologue (vv. 6-14) with a description of the Word as the light, the one
through whom people can come to life-giving belief. The Prologue is now
firmly anchored in history and, like vv. 1-5, its second section (vv. 6-14)
opens with a _description of the Word_ and a careful separation of the role
of the Baptist from the role of the Word." (The Gospel of John, p. 37)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "The closer definition 'to those who believe in his
name' [in 12d] is lame and contains a formulation which is typical of the
evangelist (cf. 2.23; 3.18; 20.31). The evangelist makes it clear that
'receive' in v. 12a means 'believe'. Now v. 13 does not fit well
syntactically with v. 12d, and is distinguished by language untypical of the
evangelist. Therefore it seems likely that we sould see this verse as the
first expansion of which the later revisers have made in the work of the
evangelist (see above)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 424)

Bruce Vawter writes of v. 14: "The utter newness of this revelation in
respect to Judaism, despite the OT language in which it is phrased, can only
be appreciated by comparing the assertion with such a passage as Is 40:6-8,
where the Word of God is contrasted with flesh. 'Flesh,' it is true, is not
evil, the antithesis of God; but it is all that is transitory, mortal, and
imperfect, and at first glance incompatible with God (cf. J. A. T. Robinson,
_The Body_ [SBT 5; London, 1952] 17-26). This is the tremendous mystery of
the incarnation, by which the eternal Word took on our exact human nature,
becoming one with us in everything except sin (Heb 4:15); in everything,
that is, except what was incompossible with divinity. This is one of the
most serious and sobering statements in the Gospel, the magnitude of which
it would be difficult to exaggerate. To express this mystery, John has
deliberately chosen a word connoting man in his concrete, fallen state.
That the Word became man in the fullest possible sense is the very essence
of the incarnation and of the redemption that is its result. In doing this,
John was striking at the incipient Docetism and Monophysitism that even then
were appearing in the Christian world." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p.
423)

D. Moody Smith writes: "Verse 16 continues the thought of v. 14 as if it had
not been interrupted by the Baptist. The meaning of 'fullness' is not
obvious. Probably it signifies the saving gift of God (cf. Col. 1:19);
'grace upon grace' would then expand upon this fullness . . . Verse 17
makes an important differentiation in that for the first time Jesus Christ
is explicitly named. Conceivably, the giving of the law through Moses (v.
17a) is to be construed as grace (v. 16b) to which the grace (and truth) of
Christ is now added (v. 17b). In the light of the treatment of Moses in the
entire Gospel, however, v. 17 is best understood antithetically, putting
Moses over against Jesus. Still the law of Moses is regarded as valid
(7:51) if rightly understood (5:39), but the Jews neither understand it
(5:46-47) nor obey it (7:19)." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1047)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "From this general statement the author moves to
a more specific identification of the place and people who would not
receieve him: he came to his own place (_eis ta idia_) and his own people
(_hoi idioi_). Gnostic documents speak of the place for which the soul
longs, its true home, as _ta idia_ (cf. _Odes Sol._ 7:12; 26:1; _Mandean
Liturgy_ 114:4-5). This language may have been familiar to many of the first
readers of the Fourth Gospel, but its meaning has been radically
transformed. For the Fourth Gospel _ta idia_ is not some hevaenly place of
ideal existence as among the Gnostics. The Word came into the human story
only to be rejected by his own people." (The Gospel of John, p. 37)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Again using language that may have rung a bell
for many of the Gospel's original readers and listeners, the author explains
that from his fullness (_ek tou pleromatos autou_) we have all received (v.
16). Again, however, this well-known language is being usd in a startlingly
new way. For the Gnostics the _pleroma_ existed in the heavenly spheres; for
the Fourth Gospel the believers receive from this fullness within their
human existence." (The Gospel of John, p. 40)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "The original form of the hymn (vv. 1, 3-5, 11-12c)
is a pre-Christian wisdom hymn which is rooted in Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom
speculation (cf. Prov. 8.22ff.; Sir. 24; Wisdom 7-11; SyrBar 3.14-38;
EthEnoch 42.1ff.; see also the Nag Hammadi writing 'The Trimorphic
Protennoia' [NHC XIII, 1]). It can be divided into two strophes. The first
strophe (vv. 1, 3-4) tells of the unique personal communion of wisdom or the
Logos with God which has existed from eternity (v. 1). The Logos played an
active part in creation (v. 3; cf. Job 28.27; Prov. 3.19; 8.30; Wisdom 7.12;
8.6; 9.9) and continuously grants life to all that is created (v. 4). The
second strophe (vv. 5, 11-12c) reports the general repudiation of the Logos
by 'his own', i.e. by human beings as a part of the world which he created
(vv. 5, 11). The Logos makes only the few who receive him children of God
(v. 12a-c; cf. Wisdom 2.13)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 425)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Just as the Gospel begins with an evident allusion to
Gn 1:1 (see comment on 1:1), the seven-day structure of the original
creation story is imitated in the following verses, culminating in the frest
manifestation of Jesus' 'glory,' that is, the new life of salvation, which
the Word had become flesh in order to bring. The sequence of days can be
seen in 1:29 (the day following the initial witness of the Baptist); 1:35;
1:39-42; 1:43 [= 4 days - BV]; and finally in 2:1 [totaling seven - BV].
That 2:1 introduces an event that occurs 'on the third day' doubtless
contains a further symbolism." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p.
424)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Fundamental background to these days, which
close in 2:11 with the revelation of the _doxa_ [glory - PK] of Jesus to the
disciples, is the description of the gift of the Law in Exodus 19. After
the people's confession of their preparedness to do all that YHWH commanded
(cf. Exod 19:7-9), YHWH tells Moses, 'Go to the people and consecrate them
today and tomorrow . . . and prepare for the third day, because on the third
day (LXX: _te trite hemera_) YHWH will come down upon Mount Sinai in the
sight of all the people' (19:10-11). Moses obediently tells the people,
'Prepare for the third day' (v. 15). The description of the gift of the Law
then begins: 'On the morning of the third day (LXX: _te trite hemera_) there
was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud (MT: _kabed_) on the
mountain' The glory of God is revealed 'on the third day.' This biblical
account was the basis for the Jewish liturgical celebration of Pentecost,
described in the targums, rabbinic literature, and especially in the
_Mekilta on Exodus_ (see Note). In the ancient celebration of Pentecost,
commemorating the gift of the Law on Sinai, the three days of Exodus 19
remain but they are prefaced by four days of more remote preparation. These
four extra days of preparation for the revelation of God and the gift of the
Law culminate in the fourth day, which is both the final day of remote
preparation and the first of the three days that come to the celebration
from the biblical account of Exodus 19. On the third day the _doxa_ of God
is revealed." (The Gospel of John, p. 50)

Bruce Vawter writes: "It was a Jewish belief that the prophet Elijah would
return to earth to take a part in the establishment of God's kingdom (Mal
3:23; Sir 48:4-12; Str-B 4, 764-98). In the Syn Jesus states that the
Baptist has fulfilled this mission of Elijah (cf. Mt 11:14; 17:12; etc.).
The Baptist was, of course, not Elijah literally come back to life, and
therefore could reply as he does here. But probably more is signified than
this: The Baptist himself, as we know from Mt 11:1-6 par., was not aware of
the full magnitude of Christ's messianic character; correspondingly he was
less competent than was Jesus to evaluate his own relation to Christ (cf. J.
A. T. Robinson, _NTS_ 4 [1958] 263-81). By a transfer of verses, H. Sahlin
(_ZNW_ 51 [1960] 64-69) allows the Baptist (v. 20a) to confess that he _is_
Elijah." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, pp. 424-425)

D. Moody Smith writes: "Having failed to elicit any useful information from
John about his person, the questioners take another line (John 1:25). Using
language familiar to us from the Synoptics, John exploits the question about
baptism to bear witness to his role as subordinate and forerunner of Jesus
(vv. 26-27). Probably to establish Jesus' superiority, the actual baptism
of Jesus by John is suppressed. The scene ends abruptly with a statement
locating these events as well as John's activity (v. 28). The whereabouts
of Bethany beyond the Jordan, however, remains a mystery." (Harper's Bible
Commentary, p. 1048)

Bruce Vawter writes of verse 28: "Some mss. read 'Betabara' (cf. Jgs 7:24).
This was probably an early 'correction' of the text in these mss. to avoid
the difficulty that the usual reading (Bethany) becomes a Transjordanian
place which is attested only here in Jn. It is distinct from the Bethany
near Jerusalem of 11:1, 18 which is also named in the Syn." (The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p 425)

D. Moody Smith writes: "In all probability John's use of lamb imagery is to
be seen against the background of the Temple sacrifice. In the Fourth
Gospel, Jesus is crucified on the afternoon before Passover, as the pascal
lambs are being slain (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7). The Lamb title appears only here
and in 1:36 in John. The sacrificial understanding of Jeus' death is not,
however, typical of the Gospel (but cf. 1 John 1:7 and Rev. 5:6-14)."
(Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1047)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "In all probability v. 29b is an addition by the
later revisers formulated on the basis of 1.36. It introduces into the text
a theology of atoning sacrifice which is not put forward by the evangelist,
and moreover does not fit v. 30." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 426)

Frank Schlerrit removes the parts of the text that presume the Synoptic
descriptions of the Baptist and reconstructs this underlying narrative: "19
When [they] sent to John priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who
are you?', 20 he confessed, 'I am not the Christ.' 21 And they asked him,
'What then? Are you Elijah?' And he says, 'I am not.' 'Are you the
prophet?' And he answered, 'No.' 25 And they asked him and said to him,
'Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elija, nor the
prophet?' 26a John answered them and said, c 'In your midst stands one whom
you do not know. 31 Even I did not know him; but so that he may be revealed
to Israel, that is why I have come, baptizing with water.'" (Jesus after
2000 Years, p. 428)

Bruce Vawter writes: "_the lamb of God_: in view of its situation in Jn, it
is possible that in this figure the Evangelist sees a reference to the
Passover lamb (see commentary on 19:14, 36). This was the usual
interpretation of the Lat Fathers. More probably, however, he has in mind
the Servant of the Lord of Is 53:7-12, where the Servant is compared to a
lamb (_amnos_ in the LXX, the same word used in Jn) and is said to bear the
iniquity of many. _who takes away the world's sin_: This phrase would seem
to favor the latter rather tahn the former figure; the Passover lamb, though
it protected the people of Israel from destruction, had no connection with
sin. Note also that in 12:38 Jn sums up Jesus' public life in the words of
Is 53:1, which introduce this Servant theme. The Gk Fathers tended to
interpret the text thus. However, the Evangelist may have in mind more than
one OT figure, as he often does." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p.
425)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "However wonderful the claim to have found the
Messiah might appear to be, it falls short of a correct recognition of Jesus
as he has been described in the Prologue (vv. 1-18) and in the witness of
the Baptist during the second day of preparation for the gift of the _doxa_
(vv. 29-34). Such a claim has its own truth, but does Andrew understand
Jesus' messianic status in a satisfactory fashion? There are hints that all
is not well. Andrew has told Simon, 'We have found' (_herekamen_), and this
is not true (v. 41). The Baptist pointed his disciples toward Jesus, and
they followed (vv. 36-37). They were invited by Jesus to come and see, and
they did what they were told (v. 39). The initiative for their presnce with
Jesus and their understanding of him does not belong to them. A lie has
been told, and this is further reinforced by Jesus' words to Simon. Once
Andrew led Simon to Jesus he looked at him and spoke to him (_emblepsas auto
ho Iesous eipen_). The initiative is entirely with Jesus. He tells Simon
who he is, where he comes from (son of John) and who he will be in the
future (Cephas). Again the narratior adds a note, indicated a future that
the reader of the Gospel may know came true: the man once called Simon son
of John will become Cephas, Peter. The words to Simon are an indication to
the disciples that there is more to a proper understanding of Jesus than
finding in this rabbi the fulfillment of _their_ messianic expectations."
(The Gospel of John, pp. 54-55)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "The section displays some strange features. (a)
Verses 37-39 report about two disciples of the Baptist who follow Jesus.
The name of the first is given later in v. 40; it is Andrew, the brother of
Peter. The other remains anonymous. This is strange, seeing that this is
one of Jesus' first two disciples. (b) The little word 'first' in v. 41 is
left hanging in the air. (c) Verse 43 mentions Jesus' intention to go to
Galilee, but we hear nothing about his doing so. Rather, according to 2.2
Jesus is in Cana in Galilee, without any previous mention of his journey
there. (d) Verses 36f., 41f. and 45ff. seem to want to emphasize that one
can get to Jesus only through an intermediary - a principle which is
expressed in a very similar way in 12.20-22. Verse 43 does away with this
principle; instead, it contains a 'Synoptic' type call of a disciple (cf.
Mark 2.14 parr.; 10.21 parr.; Luke 9.59; see also 21.19). (e) It is
striking that there is n mention of a direct reaction on the part of Philip
to Jesus' call to discipleship. Rather, althogh Jesus is in the process of
departing (v. 43), he immediately seems to go away again, and then finds
Nathanael elsewhere (v. 45). (f) Verse 45 is enigmatic in yet another
respect. First, the question arises why Philip speaks in the plural, for
according to v. 43 he alone has met Jesus. Secondly, his remark contradicts
what has in fact happened according to v. 43; he has not found Jesus, but
Jesus has found him." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 429)

Frank Schlerrit continues: "All these difficulties are resolved if we assume
that v. 43 is an addition by the later revisers and that the beginning of v.
44 originally did not run, 'Now Philip was from Bethsaida . . .', but, say,
'Now Philip, the other of the two disciples, was from Bethsaida' (cf.
the square brackets in the translation). The structure of the section would
then prove to be substantially clearer and more coherent: first one of the
two disciples who has gone over to Jesus, Andrew, finds his brother Peter;
then the second disciple, Philip, finds Nathanael. It is in keeping with
this that the evangelist also makes Andrew and Philip appear as a pair
elsewhere (cf. 6.5-8; 12.20-22)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 430)

Frank Schlerrit explains: "But what would have caused the revisers to make
this aggravating intervention? An answer can be given only by looking ahead
to the appendix, ch. 21. There the Gospel is put under the authority of the
disciple whom Jesus loved; he is said to be the witness to all that is
written in the Gospel and at the same time the author of the book (21.24;
cf. the introduction, point 7). This conception now confronted the revisers
with the problem that the beloved disciple must have been present as a
witnesss from the beginning. But the Gospel did not mention him. So he had
to be introduced in some way. This is what v. 43 achieves: the bright idea
of the revisers was to make one of the two disciples from vv. 37-39 an
anonymous figure by the insertion of this verse and thus make room for the
beloved disciple. Now he comes to Jesus even before Peter." (Jesus after
2000 Years, p. 430)

D. Moody Smith writes: "That Andrew 'first' found his brother Simon (Peter,
v. 41) has been taken to imply that the other, unnamed disciple also found
his brother. Since in the Marcan account (Mark 1:16-20) the brothers Andrew
and Peter figure together with the brothers James and John, the sons of
Zebedee, it has been inferred that the unnamed disciple was one of the sons
of Zebedee and that he too found his brother. But such harmonization with
the synoptic account hangs by the slenderest of threads. Peter, who first
confesses Jesus to be the Christ in Mark (8:29; cf. Matt. 16:16) is now
introduced to Jesus the Messiah (only John gives the Heb. form 'Messiah').
John here stands in contrast to the Synoptics, where Jesus' identity is
withheld throughout most of his public ministry." (Harper's Bible
Commentary, p. 1049)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "It is hardly by chance that 'What do you seek?' are
the first words that Jesus says according to the Fourth Evangelist: the
reader should take account of this question at the beginning; it is probably
because of it that the evangelist does not indicate any answer from the
disciples." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 431)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "The first recorded word of Jesus in this Gospel is of
great interest and signficance. It is a question put by Him to the two
disciples who have been directed to Him as the Lamb of God; and the form of
the question should be noted. Jesus does not ask _who_ they are looking
for, but _what_ they are looking for (38). It is almost as if He assumes
that, like the rest of mankind, they are in pursuit of the _thing_ which
will satisfy their needs, give reality to their dreams and substance to
their hopes. They are soon to discover that the _thing_ is in fact a
person, the very Person who now confronts them. At a moment, to be sure,
Jesus is little more to them than a Rabbi from whom they have much to learn;
and instead of answering His question they reply with a counter-question,
_where dwellest thou?_ (38). On the surface this is a request for
information about His lodging that they may visit Him for further
instruction. But like so many words in this Gospel, the word _dwell_ (RV
'abide') has a double significance. Jesus may have one or more temporary
shelters during His earthly pilgrimage, though none of them He can call His
own; but He has one home which is most surely His. Even while on earth He
dwells continually in heaven in unbroken union with His Father. So when He
answers the question, _where dwellest thou?_, by saying _Come and see_, He
is in fact bidding these men to do something more than discover where he is
staying for the night; He is inviting them to come and gain from him an
insight into the mind and purpose of God Himself." (John, pp. 51-52)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The giving of a new name signified the taking on of a
new way of life (cf. Ap 3:12). Mk 3:16 also states that Christ changed
Simon's name to Peter, but does not say when this occurred. Mt 16:18
associates the change of name with the promise of primacy to Peter, but it
does not indicate that the change was made at that time. Interestingly
enough, however, the change of name in Jn occurs in a context of testimony
to Jesus' messianic character, even though it is not Peter's testimony. The
Johannine equivalent of the primacy text in Mt occurs in 21:15-19." (The
Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 426)

Funk and Hoover write: "The nickname 'Rock' works better in Aramaic than it
does in Greek: the name in Greek is _Petros_, the noun _petra_ (the first is
masculine in Greek, the second feminine). _Kephas_ in Aramaic is both a
proper name and a noun meaning 'rock.' As in Native American cultures,
naming in the ancient Near East usually was connected with some feature of
the one named. Rock of course makes a suitable foundation and is often
associated with an impregnable fortress, as in the Rock of Gibraltar and the
name of the fortress city of the Nabateans in Transjordan, Petra." (The Five
Gospels, p. 403)

Bruce Vawter writes of v. 44: "_Bethsaida_: In 12:21 this city is considered
Galilean because of its proximity to Galilee, although technically it was in
the territory of Gaulinitis. It is not clear why Jn calls Bethsaida the
town of Andrew and Philip, because the Syn tradition (cf. Mk 1:29) clearly
makes them residents of Capernaum. Possibly Jn is indicating Bethsaida as
the place of their birth." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 426)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "As with Andrew's confession (cf. v. 41) there is
a sense in which these words are true, but Philip, like Andrew, does not
fully understand their Johannine meaning. He describes Jesus as 'Jesus _of
Nazareth_, the son _of Joseph_' (v. 45c), but a proper understanding of
Jesus as the fulfillment of OT expectation would eclipse the promises of the
OT; Jesus is the Son _of God_, the Lamb _of God_. He cannot be understood
as 'of Nazareth,' or 'of Joseph.' Indeed, perhaps citing from a proverbial
statement of the time (cf. K. Dewey, '_Paroimiai_ in the Gospel of John,'
_Sem_ 17 [1980] 90-91), Nathanael's question points to exactly that weakness
in Philip's understanding of Jesus: 'Can anything good come _out of
Nazareth?_' (v. 46a). There is profound irony here. The earliest church
recognized Jesus as being 'of Nazareth,' but the Johannine story insists
that the believer look beyond his historical origins. In this Nathanael
poses a good question. However, the supreme good is the one known to the
Christian tradition as 'Jesus of Nazareth' (see Duke, _Irony_ 24-25). Yet
Philip's mistake, which attempts to understand Jesus in terms of his
physical and geographical origins (cf. v. 45: 'of Joseph,' 'from Nazareth'),
persists." (The Gospel of John, p. 55)

Frank Schlerrit writes: "The starting point of the analysis of 1.35-42,
44-51 is the recognition that this passage was composed by the evangelist
himself. Three observations above all support this assumption.
First, the section can be understood only as part of a wider context;
it creates the presuppositions for the appearance of Jesus in the company of
the disciples in what follows. Secondly, here all the christological
titles and several important basic christological statements which are
significant for what follows are listed: Jesus is the Lamb of God (v. 36)
and the Messiah, i.e. the Christ (v. 41); the scriptures bear witness to him
(v. 45); he has a supernatural omniscience (vv. 42, 47); he is the Son of
God, the King of Israel (v. 49), and the Son of man (v. 51). Thirdly
the passage is very carefully structured and (with the exception of v. 51)
shows no narrative breaks. It is divided into three scenes (vv. 35-39,
40-42, 44-51); here the second and third scenes grow out of the first."
(Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 430)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Nathanael is mentioned only by Jn; it has generally
been assumed that he is the Bartholomew (_bar tolmai_, 'son of Tholmai') of
the Syn. In the Sn tradition Bartholomew (a name that does not occur in Jn)
is frequently mentioned together with Philip, and in Jn 21 Nathanael appears
to have been, as Bartholomew certainly was, one of the Twelve; however the
identification is not certain." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p.
426)

D. Moody Smith writes: "The exchange between Philip and Nathanael mirrors a
characteristic theme of the Gospel: Jesus' origins are thought to explain
him. But Jesus has another origin the world cannot know. Only being with
Jesus provides sufficient basis to understand who he is. Nathanael's
experience is immediate and decisive (vv. 47-51), as again a characteristic
motif of John's appears, namely, Jesus' omniscience or foreknowledge (vv.
47-48), which leaves Nathanael astounded (v. 48) and hardly prepared for
Jesus' answer. Nathanael's confession (v. 49) is entirely appropriate, but
that he stands only at the beginning of an experience of divine revelation
is made clear by Jesus' rejoineder (v. 50)." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p.
1049)

Funk and Hoover write: "Jesus' question to Nathanael, 'Do you believe . . .'
in v. 50, is reminiscent of Matt 9:28 ('Do you trust that I can do this?').
The solemn statement in 1:51 combines a quotation from Gen 28:12 (referring
to Jacob's ladder) with the image of the sky 'split open,' familiar from the
synoptic gospels' accounts of Jesus' baptism (Mark 1:10 // Matt 3:16 // Luke
3:21)." (The Five Gospels, p. 404)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The reference is to Jacob's vision in Gn 28:10-17;
Nathanael, however - an all genuine Israelites like him - will see angels
mounting and descending not on a ladder, but on the Son of Man. As in Gn,
the reference to the angels is to signify the meeting and communication of
God with man. In the public ministry of Christ, and specifically in the
'signs' that accompany that life, this meeting of God with man will be made
manifest. This is the 'far greater thing' than merely to recognize the
messianic character of Jesus. The disciples, like the Baptist, have
witnessed to Jesus' messiahship; but the Baptist is of the OT, not of the
new revelation (Mt 11:11, 13 par.); the disciples of Chrst will be able to
witness to the very glory of God itself revealed in Jesus (1:14; 2:11)."
(The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, pp. 426-427)

Study of John's Gospel

ISP

A Paduan

Double Edge

Navigator

Share this