Bible Groups

Gospel of John - Chapter 1

The Prologue

In this overture John's whole Gospel and Christology is summed - we need to know the Gospel well to fully take in the themes presented so concisely here. We are told who Jesus is and what he has done, but the rest of the Gospel is needed to describe how. A Gospel produced within and for a community with somewhat different traditions and memories of Jesus, parallel to but not dependant the communities that produced the synoptic Gospels. Possibly included people who became Christians via routes other than the Apostles, perhaps from Jesus or the Baptist, perhaps in Samaria, perhaps Hellenists. But with both Jewish and Greek backgrounds, both of which were familiar with the ideas of Wisdom (Sophia) and logos. NB: Greek verb tenses often not reflected in English, especially distinction between past action completed and past action ongoing then and even now.
Now usually seen as the work of 3 phases: (i) an authority figure, possibly an Apostle (Zebedee of 'beloved'); (ii) the evangelist(s) who selected ideas in the community's tradition and formed them into a Gospel; (iii) Redactor(s) who finalised the edition we now have, combining several writings within attempting to ensure continuity - because the texts were too highly respected to allow changes.
Language of this Gospel helpes in Councils: Nicea 325 (vs Arius, creed); Ephesus 431; Chalcedon 451 (Jesus is God). But John presented God and Jesus and creation in relationship. Councils asked metaphysical questions (?what?), leading to Tinitarian formula, which is not same as John's ideas. Many similar concepts in Gnosticism, which developed in C2: material world is evil, only a few humans have been given the knowledge to gain life after death. This - and its radical content - delayed acceptance of John's Gospel into Christian canon for several centuries. But John says no, it is God's nature to reveal himself through (i) creation; (ii) free will given to humanity (and hence ability to abuse it); (iii) God's Word, ie Jesus.
John's Gospel very different from the 3 synoptics: Jesus more majestic, always totally in control, climax is Jesus raised up on Calvary, so no Ascension; no exorcisms; only 7 miracles, called signs because help understand who Jesus is, not showing Kingdom of God breaking into creation; much irony with Jesus using common words but meaning something very different (truth, light/dark, life, water, birth, spirit/flesh) and so often misunderstood; reader can see misunderstandings by story characters, but then our understanding is challenged;
So - fasten your seatbelts, prepare for a dizzying flight (hence John's symbol is the eagle).
1 Perhaps a deliberate allusion to the first words of Genesis - this is a new beginning, a new creation. The Word preexists the human and creation stories, before time and place existed - the Word continually was - not created (as Jews might expect). Or: "the Word was turned towards God, and what God was the Word also was". The relationship is important: the Word is facing, attentive to and tends towards God. The Word and God are distinct, but of the same nature (not 2 gods!).
John has gone to a lot of trouble to indicate that the Word and God are not to be identified. "God" has no article. Logos, the Word, already indicates communication - leading us to expect revelation. The role of the Word is to be uttered. Our words are part of us, we are responsible for them and for doing what we say we will do. The use of "the Word" indicates that it is the very nature of God to reveal himself. "The Word of God is God's thought uttered so that men can understand it" (C H Dodd). The Word that was turned toward God naturally makes God known (continually). This revelation has consequences for the human situation. It is now possible to become children of God.
John introduces the term "logos" without any indication of what it means for him. It was in common Greek use, meaning thought or speech, and Heraclitus (C6 BC) used it for a stabilising principle in the universe to account for the order he saw in the universe. The Stoics saw logos as the eternal reason, pervading the universe, a principle or force, not personal. Jews saw logos as the creative energy of God - his word brings about his intentions (Gen 1, Isa 55). But John is using this common term in a new and quite different way: not a detached force or abstract principle but a personal God who is passionately involved in his creation, eg in the Temple and Law.
For the Jews, John's opening words immediately bring to mind "and God said" - God's creative word. And the Jewish scriptures have frequent references to Wisdom (eg Sir 24:9, Wis 8:3-4, Wis 18:14-16), as a personification of God, and "the Word" even came to be used as a reverent alternative to speaking God's name. For both Jew and Gentile "logos" brings to mind the ruling fact of the universe, and represents this fact as the self-expression of God. Jews will remember that "by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made"; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will see it as the starting point for all things.
Early Christians also had some concept of the Word as God, eg Luke speaks of "servants of the word" (Lk 1:2), and frequently in Acts and Paul there seems little distinction between "preaching Christ" and "preaching the word". So John's use was not entirely new to Christians, but a further development of ideas already circulating.
After the Prologue John does not apply "logos" to Jesus, but he makes it clear that Jesus' words are God's words, which must be believed, and which bring life, and refusal to heed Jesus' words brings judgement. Not merely that Jesus is divine, but that he is God - a shock to Jews who believed completely that there is only one God.
2 Essentially a repetition, but now the Word is "He" (this man) - a personal pronoun. John intends the whole of his Gospel to be read in the light of these 2 verses: the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God. And the Word is in the closest possible relationship with God, while being distinct from God. Not identical, but one! The Word was God, but not "God was the Word" - John allows for God being greater than the Word.
3 Complex changes of tense: "came" is instantaneous - there was a moment in the past when the revealing act of creation took place through the Word, but the significance of that event continues now. The Word broke into the human story and made life an ongoing possibility. Could mean both our natural life, and eternal life. The self-communication of God occurs first in creation. Hence creation and salvation are closely connected in the NT: both are to do with God's self-communication. Note that all things were not created "by" the Word, but "through" him - the Father is the source of all. But creation was not a solitary act by the Father or the Son: both were at work (and still are). "Come into being" is continuos tense.
4 Or: "What took place in him was life". The life was the light of "humankind". The only things in creation that have life have it in the Word. The appearance of life in the Word brought light. The Word speaks from his intimacy with God and so makes God known, both in creation and the presence of the Word itself in the human story. This knowledge gives humanity a sense of direction - light. Life does not exist in its own right, nor does John describe it as made "by" or "through" the Word, but as existing "in" the Word - both natural and eternal life.
5 The light of the Word continues (present tense) to be present in the world, despite the hostile reception given by some. Darkness = satan is the natural opposite of light, and this will be a frequent theme in this Gospel. It is of the essence of light that it shines. But the darkness "does not" (aorist - once only, completed action ) overcome the light. Is this triumph at creation, or on Calvary (or both)?
6 Essential components of the Prologue, the verses about the Baptist continue the story: a historical figure, John, enters. "There came a man" - created, not like Jesus. The only man in John's story to be sent by God, apart from Jesus, therefore part of the divine plan. John came as a witness to the light, ie Word. Carefully distinguished from the Word: John is not the light/Word. But the Word is now firmly in history. Some see mention of the Baptist as needed to rebut claims by the Baptist's followers (Acts 19:17). The verb translated here as "came" is more usually (eg v 3) translated as "made" - perhaps to emphasise that John was made - he "came into existence", whereas Jesus "was" in the beginning. But though subordinate, John's role was important - he was "sent by God" - his mission was of divine origin.
7 The Baptist's role is now spelt out: he came (aorist, completed) "for witness" - an important concept in this Gospel, which many have seen as one long trial - men, not of Jesus. In this Gospel John's only role is to witness - cf synoptics where he preaches and baptises. Witness is more than establish the truth, it commits. If I testify, I am committed. John witnessed (once, completed action) to the light - clearly from previous verses this means Jesus. He testified "that people might believe in the light" - ie decide for or against the light.
8 "came" is not in the Greek: the author rushes to insist that John (came) only as a witness.
9 Now the incarnation, hinted at in vv 3-4, is bluntly announced; the light is coming into the world. The nature of the Son is to reveal the Father, Son is the Word. John announces 2 astonishing facts: God became man - good news - and the tragedy that he was not recognised!
10 The Word was (continuously) in the world in that it had its very existence through him, but the world did not know (single action) him - the world, ie people, missed their opportunity. People are indifferent to the Word incarnate. Philosophical problem: God is perfect, unchanging; did God change when he created? The Word/Wisdom did the creating (Philo).
11 He even came "to his own place" or "home", but the people would not receive him. Now not just did "not know him", but "would not receive him" - an act of will. The expected intimate act of receiving (as Joseph received Mary, and as of Christ taking believers to himself in heaven, 14:3) by the Jews did not happen. A single action of rejection.
12 But there is also a positive response by some. To receive the Word is to believe in his name - this is the right way to receive the Word, and this gave (completed tense, not future) all - everyone, not just Jews - right (not power) to become children of God - a community of nature, participating in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), rather than legal privilege of sonship. Divine initiative, not by nature or from parents, but born "from above", status attainable -experienced - in this life (Rom 7 - 8).
The Word as yet has no name, but the results of believing in the name are already given - and not as a promise but as an achieved fact - "realised eschatology". But "to become" is aorist, it demands continual commitment. For John these gifts of life and eternal life are anticipated - we do not have wait for individual resurrection and the end of time. They are available now - ie realised. Believing in the name means to trust the person absolutely, to rely on him, to be possessed by him.
13 One becomes a child of God through a process of growth: it is a divine initiative, not the result of human processes or will or initiative. "Bloods" refers to ancient belief that conception occurred by mingling of the parents' bloods (Cf Wis 7:1-2). For John "flesh" simply means nature in its weakness, without Paul's evil connotations. These negatives contradict the Jews expectation that God would favour them because of their ancestors - pride of race is irrelevant. To be born (actually "begotten", as by male parent) of God is miraculous - cannot be by any human initiative.
14 Central verse of prologue chiasm. John is at his bluntest: the Word became (at a single point in time) "flesh" (sarx)- not man or took a body: he denies certain docetic heresies eg God only appeared to be a man, or God inhabited a human body for a time but left it before he died. John is crystal clear: the Word was enfleshed. Jesus was both God and man.
This is first time John has stated that the Word and Jesus are the same. So far the Word still be thought of as a cosmic principle, but now John shatteringly unveils the idea at the heart of Christianity: the Word of God took flesh. Or "and dwelt among us, the fullness of a gift that is truth. We have gazed - seen with bodily eyes, not as in a vision - upon his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father". Now the incarnation is revealed fully: the one in whose name we must believe is the only Son of the Father - this is new. The Word became flesh - God's Son enters history. The preexistent Word, so intimately associated with God, now enfleshed, can be the communication and revelation in the human situation where he now dwells. "Dwelling" - pitched his tent with (Exod 25:8, 29:46, Zech 23:10-11, Sir 24:2) - reminds us of God dwelling in the tabernacle tent in the desert.
The relationship described earlier as between the Word and God is now expressed as between the Son and the Father. But they are still distinct. The believer does not see the glory of the Father in the Son, nor the glory of the Son with the Father, which is unknowable to humans, but the glory as of the Son with the Father. What can be seen by humans of the divine can be seen in the incarnation of the Word, the only Son. Who sees Jesus sees God: the full human personality of Jesus allows God to shine through and be seen. "The Father God is near to us in history in his Word, and with us in his Spirit" (Rahner).
The community that produced this Gospel has gazed upon the visible manifestation of God in the enfleshed Word, the only Son, the fullness of a gift that is truth. Truth and the reliability of God are bound together: truth cannot be known apart from God. The only reality is in heaven: creation is only a copy. So Jesus revealing the truth is revealing eternal reality. Ditto light, life, bread of life, etc. As well as the God of grace or gift, God is the God of truth: believers must "do" the truth (3:21). Truth unmasks the world and its pretensions.
For Greeks spirit/mind were superior to the flesh, which is limited by space and time, mortal. Hence divine becoming flesh was a scandal to Greeks.
God's "glory" is divine power perceptible to humans (Exod 33:22, 40:34-35). God's power is now visible in and through Jesus.
15 Brackets unnecessary - not proved to be an addition or insertion. John's role is essential: the one who is coming follows John in time, he existed before him. He "was" (continuous) before me. In antiquity those who came before - the fathers - were superior.
16 Or "a gift in place of a gift" or "a gift (charis) perfecting the (previous) gift (charis)" - ie the gift of the law through Moses perfected by the gift that is the truth through Jesus Christ. All mankind have received these two gifts. But, surprisingly, these gifts from his fullness have both been received during our existence, without waiting for the next life.
17 The first gift of the law through Moses is not assessed negatively - it points towards but cannot achieve salvation: Christians respect the Law, but it has been perfected by the second gift of the truth that took place in and through the event of Jesus Christ. Thus the object of Christian belief has now been described as the only Son of the Father (v 14) and now as the perfection of God's gifts, and he has a name, Jesus Christ.
18 Or "who is turned toward the Father" (Cf v. 1). However much Christians may claim to have seen the revelation of the glory of God in the Son, no one has ever seen God, who is unknown and unknowable without revelation. Jesus reveals the previously unknown God, and the true destiny of humanity.
Only Jesus Christ, God's only Son, has told the story of God's way with the world, and throughout the coming story Jesus' attention will continue to be focused at all times on his Father - as they have been from the beginning (v 1). The following story is linked firmly to the prologue - each is needed to make sense of the other. Jesus has now given a full account of the Father: the revelation made in Christ is adequate, we may be confident that God is as Christ revealed him, (this is not to say nothing more can be learned of God).

Rest of Chapter 1

John structures his Gospel in 'story time'. The first few days in Jn 1:19 - 2:12 has frequently been seen as paralleling the creation story in Gen, but a better understanding may be to compare the Jewish preparation for the feast of Pentecost: 3 days of preparation for God to reveal his glory (in Jn 2:11, cf Exod 19:7-15), with 4 days previous as additional preparation, the 4^th = 1^st of the final 3 (see separate note). The 6^th day is thus when the Torah (Law) was given (Ex 19:16ff). So Jn 1:19 - 2:12 should be seen as a unit, but 2:12 - 4:54 is also a unit, starting and finishing with miracles (signs) at Cana.
The disciples responses in 1:19-51 show increasing - although some think a stumbling, still inadequate - knowledge about Jesus so that at the end of the first week we readers have special knowledge of who Jesus is - like a cast list for a play. But v 51 is a puzzling response by Jesus, raising more questions, to be partly answered in the next Cana to Cana section.
19 The question raised by 'the Jews', "Who are you?" will hang over the rest of this Gospel. From the first line of the narrative there is tension between 'the Jews', and God and his agents. John Baptist testifies to Jesus as the Paschal Lamb at the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry; John the beloved disciple testifies to Jesus' death at its end (Jn 19:35-36).
In the synoptics there is no open clash between 'the Jews' and the Baptist; in John 'the Jews' (ie those who oppose Jesus) attack from the beginning. The whole of John is a trial of Jesus by the Jewish leaders: the Baptist is the first trial witness.
20 Introduced by a triple positive/negative/positive, which may be intended to recall the exclusions from synagogues of those who confess Jesus as the messiah, John's responses about himself are negative and increasingly brief: he only becomes informative about Jesus.
21 Nor Elijah (Mal 4:5, Sir 48:10-11), nor 'the Prophet' who were expected to usher in the messianic era (Deut 18:15-19, not much used by the Jews, and some Qumran documents). Even some in the early Church called Jesus "that prophet" (Acts 3:22-23). There is a Christ, says the Baptist, but it is not me. He states emphatically that he is not the Messiah: "Not I am" (ouk eimi), almost "It is not I that am the Christ", and anticipating Jesus frequently saying in this Gospel "I Am" (ego eimi).
The Baptist's denial of being Elijah may be puzzling, since Jesus says he is (Matt 11:14). But while in a sense he was "the Elijah who was to come" to precede the Messiah, and could be so described by others, yet he was not the Elijah who was expected to return in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11). And he need not have known this role himself. We do not see ourselves as others see us.
'Messiah' means 'Anointed': a number of people in the OT were anointed, showing they were set apart for special tasks for God. But Jesus was 'The Anointed', not 'an anointed'.
22 Persistent questioning leads him to prophesy. The evangelist selects only one of the several texts used by the synoptics, to concentrate on the Baptist's role as witness.
23 His only role in all 4 Gospels is the voice crying in the wilderness to prepare the way "for the Lord" (Is 40:3). Although he is preaching repentance and baptising, that is not what he is here for.
24 Now we hear who is behind or also present at this antagonistic questioning: the Pharisees. They are expressing their own understanding of how the Messiah will come, but this does not fit what they see nor what the Baptist is saying or doing.
25 Baptising was seen as an eschatological action, a message of divine intervention, looking toward a promised future free from strife. There was an association between baptising and Elijah, the Prophet to come and the Messiah (Ezek 36:25-27, Zech 13:1), but how does the Baptist have authority to baptise if he is not the Messiah? Widely believed that baptism was a regular rite for admission of Jewish converts: males were circumcised, both sexes were baptised. But what may have been new was being baptised by someone else - the Baptist - rather than doing it oneself before witnesses. John was the first to bring together preaching repentance, using washing a ritual religious act, and talking about the Messiah. He also expected Jews, not just Gentiles who needed cleansing, to be baptised - they would be horrified to be told they needed cleansing! They were God's people already.
26 John distinguishes the Baptist's baptism with water from baptism with the Spirit through Jesus. In Hebrew thought cleansing with water and a holy spirit come together (Cf Ezek 36:25-26, Zech 13:1-2). Christians separated these two aspects, and said both are needed (Acts 19:1-6). The one who is coming they do not recognise - their expectations don't fit.
27 The figure he is pointing to is coming in the future. But the Baptist emphasises that even though he will come after himself, he is inferior to Jesus. Even though disciples were expected to do many tasks for their teachers, who were not paid, not even servants undid visitors' sandals, only the lowest slave. Yet so great a figure as the Baptist is more unworthy than this! The Baptist is not the Messiah (in case his followers at the time of the Gospel had not got the message!)
28 Jesus' ministry thus begins publicly "on the other side of the Jordan", ie outside the promised land. The first day ends formally with the dismissal of 'the Jews'. Jesus will then enter the Promised Land, leaving only after his people have rejected him, again retreating beyond the Jordan (Jn 10:39-40).
29 "The next day": The Baptist continues to bear witness, although no hearers are mentioned. Different from the synoptics where the disciples gradually come to some knowledge of who Jesus is. In John the whole message is shown in each episode.
The Baptist recognises Jesus as the Messiah and points him out. Whether or not he knew Jesus before this day, his cousin according to the synoptics, he now recognises him by the signs God has given him. Noone else recognises Jesus in this way - almost everyone else come to Jesus through other people.
"The Lamb of God who takes away the sin (singular) of the world", not found elsewhere in NT, has many implications, perhaps none very clear. Most important is that only God can take away or forgive sins. Jesus comes from God, and he is therefore the one through whom God will take away the sin of the world.
But why "Lamb"?
Many possible allusions:-
(i) Passover Lamb: but not necessarily a lamb was used; and the term for the Passover sacrificed animal was "Passover", not "lamb".
(ii) "Lamb led to the slaughter" (Isa 53:7): no contemporary context, so unlikely that the Baptist's hearers would understand this meaning. Has to be taken with Isa 42:1 to bring in the chosen one on whom God's spirit has been placed.
(iii) The Servant of the Lord: Another way of reading Isa 53? Some think an Aramaic can be translated as "son" or as "servant", but this does not lead to "lamb".
(iv) The lamb of the daily sacrifices: possible, but nothing to indicate it, and no knowledge of these ever being called "the lamb of God".
(v) The "gentle lamb" of Jer 11:19: not thought of as taking away sins.
(vi) The scapegoat: Accords with taking away sin, but as the word says, not a lamb.
(vii) The triumphant Lamb of the apocalypses, as in Rev. But John is not using it to refer to triumph over enemies: how can defeat of foes relate to sin-bearing?
(viii) The God-provided Lamb of Gen 22:8: This was a divine initiative, as is Christ's sacrifice. But no indication in Gen of effecting or foreshadowing atonement.
(ix) A guilt-offering, for leprosy (Lev 12:6, 14:1-32)
(x) A sin offering (Lev 4:32, 16): could be any animal, not normally a lamb.
Note that the sin is taken away - completely. And that it is singular: the totality of the world's sin. Again a phrase not used before. And it is completely adequate for the atonement of all people. Right at the beginning of this Gospel we are pointed to the significance of the Cross.
Jews were expecting a triumphant Lamb who would destroy evil in the world in the last times. Christians might see Jesus as the Paschal Lamb of the Christian Passover, who by his death (at the precise time when lambs are about to be sacrificed at the Temple) delivered the world from sin, as did the lambs' blood smeared - with hyssop (Ex 12:22), and without breaking any of the lamb's bones - on the doorways before the original Exodus (Ex 12:1-13). Or the "ransoming blood of the Lamb (Rev 5:6-10). Or as the triumphant Lamb of Revelation (Rev 7:17, 17:14).
Yet even this seems somewhat confused: is Jesus being sacrificed (Cf 1 Cor 5:7) to pacify a rigidly just God in exchange for our freedom, or is he the 'suffering servant' being driven into the desert bearing our sins away (Is 53:7-12)? 1 Pet (1:18-19) tells we have been "ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish". The traditional use of a lamb for sacrificial rites of reconciliation has been transcended. Jesus, the lamb, is not a cultic, sacrificial offering: he is "of God". He is one through whom God enters the human story, offering man reconciliation with God.
'Lamb of God' seems to be a wholly new concept introduced by John using an old symbol in a new way to encompass all these meanings, but especially the suffering servant and the paschal lamb.
30 John insists on Jesus' pre-existence - he existed before the Baptist. Also emphasises that Jesus is a man.
31 The Baptist's role is to make Jesus known to Israel. He did not know him - at least as the Messiah, but his only purpose in baptising is to make him know. His baptising with water also indicates a lesser role than Jesus', and may lead us to expect a different sort of baptism, as in v 33.
32 He witnesses that he saw - with bodily eye, not a vision - the Spirit come down and remain on Jesus: the coming down is in the synoptics, but not the remaining - probably implies that the Spirit stays with Jesus throughout the rest of his life on earth. Although the Baptist describes 'the Spirit' coming down on Jesus, there is no heavenly voice confirming that Jesus is God's Son: this is testified by the Baptist (v 34), perhaps to emphasise the Baptist's important role in God's plan? Although Christians might be put in mind of the Holy Spirit, Jews might think of the cleansing spirit of God who would purify people's hearts in the last days (eg Ez 36:25-26).
33 John says he did not know him (the Messiah), and would not have known him but for the sign given him by God. Does not necessarily mean he did not know Jesus, but he did not know him to be the Messiah. Recognition came from supernatural revelation, not from prior knowledge. John does not describe Jesus' baptism, thus avoiding the problem of what it would mean for Jesus to be baptised, but the Baptist has been given information by God - presumably at Jesus' baptism - to recognise the Messiah when he sees him. Describes Jesus as the one who "will baptise with the holy Spirit": probably not a formal Trinitarian idea yet, but the need for the Spirit's baptism seemed widely known in the early Church (cf Acts 18:25-26). All 4 Gospels make the point that Jesus came that people might be brought into contact with the divine Spirit. For John this means that the Spirit will lead people into infinite divine resources - a quality of life made available only by Christ and which had not been available previously. This is a positive gift from the Spirit of God. Baptism with water is negative, a cleansing from, but Baptism in the Spirit is positive, the gift of new life in God.
34 Here when the Baptist points out the Messiah is an instance where the occasional translation "Chosen one of God" might be better than "Son of God". This term was used of Solomon (2 Sam 7:14), and in plural of all Israel (Hos 1:10). People who believe and call God "Father" are sons of God. But "The Son of God" has a more specific meaning indicating the extremely close relationship between Jesus and God.
So we - the readers - already have a whole Christology in the Baptist's witness: Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God who is to die as the Paschal Lamb for our sins and who pours forth the Spirit on a new Israel.
But story characters are not so well informed. Nor has it been explained how all this is to be done. Watch this space!
35 Day 3: the start of the calling of disciples. The Baptist points out the Messiah to 2 of his disciples (means "learners", who attach themselves to a particular teacher), who immediately move toward and follow - in a commitment sense - Jesus. It takes a great man to encourage followers to follow someone else.
36 Initially it is some of the Baptist's disciples who move to Jesus when the Baptist points Jesus out to them - repeating the title 'Lamb of God'. Presumably the Baptist had instructed them well, so they knew the significance of John's description of Jesus. Acts (1:21-22) supports the idea that several of Jesus' followers were with Jesus from the Baptism.
37 Andrew and - we assume - the 'beloved' disciple, who is never named in this Gospel: is he John, son of Zebedee, or a representative 'ideal' disciple? They "followed" Jesus in both senses, committing themselves to him.
38 A timeless true portrait of vocation: Question 1: "What do you seek?". Hints at part of the answer to who Jesus is. Q 2: "Come and see (=believe, in John)". Those who come and believe become the new Israel: people seeing God. The disciples' response of "Rabbi" seems rather weak, in view of the Baptist's description of Jesus as "The Lamb of God". But their question "Where are you staying?" is valid in these terms: all Rabbis would have a place where their pupils gather for instruction.
39 More than an invitation to see his lodging, an invitation to visit him. Staying with Jesus from 4 pm probably takes us to Day 4.
40 Andrew is noted as one of the first disciples (never apostles in John). He is already described as 'Simon Peter's brother', even though Simon has not yet entered the story nor been renamed by Jesus: presumably he is well known to the evangelist's community, reminding us that this Gospel is addressed primarily to believers. The less well know Andrew is described in terms of his better known brother.
41 Simon is invited by Andrew, although Andrew seems to suggest that he, Andrew, has been the one who found the Messiah, rather than the other way round - an error we often make? John explains the meaning of 'Messiah' for the benefit of non-Jews in his community. Andrew's statement seems rather flat in comparison to the enormity of what a Messiah is expected to be and do. Yet it is a rather early recognition, compared to the synoptics. But calling Jesus Messiah is a long way from understanding what that term really means. John's aim is to help us understand what is really meant by "Messiah", and indicating early simplistic understandings is a good way of doing this. Each time we meet Andrew in this Gospel, he is bringing someone to Jesus (6:8, 12:22).
42 Jesus takes the initiative: says where Simon comes from, and who he will be in the future in the traditional way (Cf Abram, Isaac) by renaming him Simon - much earlier than in the synoptics. Renaming someone asserts authority over that person (eg 2 Kings 23:34, 24:17). Simon is not only a new man, but a different man. There is more to a fuller understanding about Jesus than these disciples' current messianic expectations. Again 'Cephas' is explained by the author.
43 Day 4 or 5: Jesus only now decides to go to Galilee, and Philip is found by Jesus (not clear whether this is in Galilee or elsewhere). Philip is the only disciple in this Gospel to be called directly by Jesus. In the synoptics all the Apostles are called in Galilee. John does not call them "Apostles", he is not indicating office or even their role to build the Church. John's focus is on Christ as Messiah, and what true discipleship means. And there were many disciples who were not Apostles.
44 Andrew, Simon and Philip all come from Bethsaida, believed to be north-east of the Lake of Galilee, although Andrew and Simon also lived in Capernaum during Jesus' ministry (Mk 21:29). From the synoptics Jesus appears to have spent much of his ministry in Bethsaida (Matt 11:20-24, Lk 10:13-14). Location now unknown, but some indication it was to the east of the Jordan, which may then have been part of Galilee.
45 Philip finds Nathanael, who appears only in this Gospel. Philip describes in similar terms to the 'Jews' earlier, "him about whom Moses and the prophets wrote" - true, but far short of the Baptist's description. And saying Jesus is son of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), and from Nazareth points out that, in the story, the disciples do not understand who Jesus is at this time. John frequently allows his characters to state ideas that his readers know to be false (the "irony of St John").
Nothing more is known of Nathanael, who is not in the other Gospels. But he may be Bartholomew, which is really a family name, "son of Tolmai".
46 The denigration of Nazareth could just be saying could someone as important as the Messiah come from an unknown place like Nazareth. May also indicate rivalry by someone who comes from nearby Cana. Philip now gives the missionary invitation: "Come and see".
47 Jesus calls Nathanael " a true Israelite" - a play on words, meaning "a man who sees God", as Jacob/Israel (renamed: Gen 32:28-30) saw a ladder to heaven (Gen 28:12-17), and this true Israelite (Cf Rom 2:29) - not full of guile like Jacob (Gen 27) - will see the glory of the Son of Man at Cana.
48 Not unreasonably, and without showing guile by denying his integrity, Nathanael asks how Jesus got his knowledge of him - both where he has been, and that he is a person of integrity. Jesus' answer convinces Nathanael, although it mystifies us.
The beginnings of a different questioning about "Who Jesus is" - how does he sometimes seems to have supernatural knowledge? Is he God or man?
This calling of the disciples in a single 'week' is designed to show the gradually increasing knowledge of Jesus by the disciples and the fulfillment of all the OT hopes: from Teacher to Messiah to Son of God and King of Israel, which took the whole of Jesus public ministry in the synoptics. As usual, John presents the whole truth about Jesus in one episode. Not contradicting the picture of gradual, hesitant coming to know Jesus in the synoptics, but impressing these christological statements on his readers at the very start of his Gospel, and perhaps also indicating how the evangelist's own community came to knowledge of Jesus, starting with discipleship of the Baptist. We also have in this first week all the basic elements of a Christian community: The Baptist witness; Saviour; disciples who hear, follow and stay; Peter, the rock; missionaries (Andrew, Philip); a true Israelite (Nathanael). The personae are assembled - let the drama begin.
49 In view of Jesus' unexplained knowledge about him, Nathanael's response of "Son of God" (Cf 2 Sam 7:14, Ps 2:7) seems reasonable: only God could have such knowledge. And he adds the title used rarely in the NT "King of Israel" to the titles Jesus has been given in this section. As a true Israelite, Nathanael acknowledges Jesus to be his King, submitting to him.
50 Jesus challenges Nathanael's basis for his belief, the first man in this Gospel said to believe. He has put his trust in Jesus. Is this belief based only on wonder-working by Jesus? Not enough - more is to come, eg as in v 51, but how this deeper type of belief comes is the subject of the next section to 4:54.
51 Only John uses the double "Amen, amen" to emphasise the importance of what follows. A promise to all the disciples, not just Nathanael: like Jacob's ladder, Jesus unifies and joins through himself the above and below, heaven and earth, as God's shekinah - his localised presence in the world. Unlike in the OT story, heaven will also be opened - and stay open the tense says - as Stephen testified (Acts 7:56), promising communication between God and man. The Son of Man becomes "this place", "the gate of heaven" where the revelation of God can be found. This verse may be seen as the key to the evangelist's whole conception of Jesus: "The wide open heaven and the angels ascending and descending symbolise the whole power and love of God, now available for men, in the Son of Man.
Jesus vigorous words indicate that much more than the existing messianic expectations is to come, but also a faith greater than one based on miracles is needed to receive it. Setting this story so far in the days of preparation for Pentecost indicate that the coming of Jesus' glory is imminent.
17 titles for Jesus used in this chapter: Logos, God, light of men, true light, only begotten from the Father, a greater than John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, the Lord, the Lamb of God, he who baptises with the Holy Spirit, God's Chosen One, the Son of God, Rabbi, the Messiah, he of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, the King of Israel.
Jesus, and noone else, calls himself only the Son of man. A term not in common use (Cf 12:34) - what does it mean? Strictly, in Aramaic, it simply means "the man". Jesus seems to use it in 3 ways:-
(i) instead of "I"; (ii) the heavenly Son of man who will come in glory; (iii) the Son of man who suffers to bring people to salvation. (Cf Dan 7:13-14). Being rare and non-nationalistic, people could read into to it what they will. Messiah has political overtones. "Son of man" has overtones of both divinity and humanity, and suitably veils his messiahship, which differs in concept from what was expected. It points us to his heavenly origin with heavenly glory, and also to his lowliness and sufferings for our salvation. Note: Jesus is "Son of man" only as the incarnate Logos, as man. He is Son of God throughout his existence from before time began.

Gospel and Letters of John

Gospel of John - Chapter 1

The Prologue

Rest of Chapter 1