Chapter I (2)

=29. The next day.= Not merely, _some following day_, for the original Greek word (ἐπαύριον) never has this meaning in the N. T. It has been so rendered by some commentators here, in order to introduce the Temptation between the testimony of the Baptist to the delegation from Jerusalem and his testimony here uttered to his own disciples.--=He seeth Jesus.= The word _John_ has been inserted by some copyists to make the meaning clearer.--=Coming toward him.= Not, as in our English version, _unto him_. The preposition employed (πρός) signifies simply direction. Why he was coming toward him is not a matter for profitable conjecture. Not, as some suppose, for baptism, for the temptation followed the baptism, and the order of events in John’s narrative follow each other so closely up to and after the marriage at Cana (vers. 35, 43; ch. 2:1), that no time is afforded for the temptation, which was forty days in duration, and which must have occurred prior to the interview between the Baptist and the Jewish delegation.--=And said.= Publicly, probably to his own disciples, perhaps to the multitude. This first preaching of Christ produced no observable effect. It was not till John repeated it on the following day (ver. 37) that any of his auditors followed Jesus.--=Behold the Lamb of God.= Not _a_ lamb of God. The meaning cannot therefore be, Behold a pure and innocent man; an interpretation which would probably never have been conceived, but for the purpose of escaping the doctrine of atonement for sin, which can be escaped only by rejecting both the Old and the New Testaments in their entirety.--=Which taketh away.= This exactly represents the significance of the original verb (αἴρω), which means, not bears, or suffers, or releases from the penalty of, but _takes away_. For its non-metaphorical use, see Matt. 13:12, _shall be taken away_; 21:21, _be removed_; Luke 6:30, _that taketh away_ thy goods; John 11:39, _take away_ the stone; 11:48, the Romans shall _take away_ both our place, etc. It thus corresponds almost exactly with the word (ἁφίηγι) ordinarily translated forgive. See Matt. 6:12, note. Observe that the verb is in the present tense, _is taking away_. The sacrifice has been offered once for all; but its effect is a continuous one. Christ is ever engaged in lifting up and taking away the sin of the world.--=The sin of the world.= Not _sins from the world_, which would be a very different matter. The sin is represented as _one burden_, which Christ _as a whole_ lifts up and carries away. His redemption is not a limited redemption; it provides a finished salvation for the entire human race. See ch. 16:22, note.

Very unnecessary difficulty has been made respecting the interpretation of the Baptist’s simple metaphor here. The lamb was throughout the O. T. times commonly used for sacrifice as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32); in cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:10); at the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. 29:38); at all the great feasts (Numb. 28:11; 29:2, 13, 37; Lev. 23:19); and in large numbers on special occasions (1 Chron. 29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32; 35:7). The sacrifice of the paschal lamb at the Passover connected the lamb as a sacrifice with the greatest feast day of the nation, and with the national redemption from bondage and deliverance from death (Exod. 12:21-27). The ceremony with the scape-goat on the day of atonement, the only fast-day in the Jewish calendar, interpreted clearly, and by an annual symbol, the meaning of these sacrifices. On that day two kids of goats were chosen, closely resembling each other; one was slain as a sin-offering; over the other the high-priest confessed the sins of the people, “putting them on the head of the goat,” who was then led away into the wilderness, “to bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:5-10, 20-22). Isaiah, with unmistakable reference to these typical sacrifices, declared that the Messiah should bear the sins and sorrows of the world as a lamb slaughtered (Isaiah 53:1-7); and the Baptist, speaking to a people whose national education had led them to regard the lamb as the type of sacrifice, through the shedding of whose blood there was a redemption, a carrying away of sins, points to Jesus with the declaration, Behold _the_ Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that is, the true Sin-bearer, of whom all that went before were but types and prophecies. _How_ he was to take away this load of sin the Baptist does not say, and probably did not know. That he did not realize that Christ was to be a true sacrifice for sin is indicated by his subsequent perplexity and message to Jesus (Matt. 11:2-6, note). Observe the analogy and the contrast between the O. T. and the N. T. Under the O. T. there were provided by the sinner lambs, whose sacrifice took sin away from the individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice needed to be continually repeated; under the N. T. _one_ Lamb is provided, the Lamb of God, _i. e._, proceeding from and _provided by God_, as intimated by Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 22:8), whose sacrifice _once for all_ (Heb. 10:10-12) takes away the sin of the _whole world_ (1 John 2:2), and therefore never needs to be repeated. It is worthy of note that the word _lamb_ is never used in the N. T. except in reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.). The word _lambs_ in the plural form occurs twice, but both times refer to the disciples of Christ (Luke 10:3; John 21:15).

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which
is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest
to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

=30, 31. After me cometh=, etc. See on verse 15.--=But that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come=, etc. The object of the Baptist’s ministry was not then merely to preach repentance, but to preach repentance _as a preparation for the coming of the kingdom of God in the incarnation of the King_. And with this agrees his own definition of his mission (verse 23) and the other Evangelists’ epitome of his ministry (Matt. 3:2). The true office of the minister is always that Christ may be made manifest.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit
descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with
water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending, and remaining[55] on him, the same is he
which baptizeth[56] with the Holy Ghost.

[55] chap. 3:34.

[56] Acts 1:5; 2:4.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

=32-34. And John witnessed.= Evidently the Evangelist here speaks of his witness at some period subsequent to the baptism, and therefore subsequent to the temptation which immediately succeeded the baptism.--=I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove.= That is, in the form of a dove. The vision was seen only by Jesus and John. On it see Matt. 3:16, note.--=And it abode upon him.= The Spirit of God, not the dove, abode. That John in some way recognized the abiding as a part of the sign of Christ’s Messiahship, is evident from the next verse; how he recognized it is not indicated.--=I also knew him not.= He connects himself with the people who knew him not (verse 26). =I=, as well as you, knew him not, till this sign was vouchsafed me. Why then did he at first object to baptizing Jesus, if he did not recognize in him the Christ (Matt. 3:14). He was second cousin of Jesus; knew him, probably, as a pure and holy man; perhaps knew the facts respecting Jesus’ birth, which were certainly known to John’s mother; may even have _suspected_ that he was the promised Messiah; and at all events may have believed that he needed no baptism of repentance. He did not, however, know him to be the Messiah, and did not recognize him _as such_, till after the promised sign, and this followed the baptism of Jesus.--=Saw and bare witness.= That is, at that time. He refers the people to his witness-bearing at the time of the baptism, a testimony which was still fresh in their memory.

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his
disciples:

36 And looking upon Jesus as he walketh, he saith, Behold
the Lamb of God!

37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed
Jesus.

=35-37. Again the next day.= That is, the day following the apparent public discourse, so briefly reported in the preceding verses (29-34).--=And two of his disciples.= See on their names verse 40 and note. As they were disciples of the Baptist it is to be presumed that they had been baptized, but by John’s baptism which was unto repentance and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. See Acts 19:3-5.--=As he walked.= Or, as we should say, _As he was taking a walk_. One of the numerous indications in the Gospels that Christ was a lover of nature, and accustomed to meditate and study in communion with nature.--=Saith, Behold the Lamb of God.= See on verse 29. Observe the practical value of line upon line. John’s private message recalls and repeats his public testimony. See Phil. 3:1.--=And the two disciples heard him speak.= He spoke possibly in soliloquy, more probably to them. It is clear that it was not a public discourse which is here reported. There is no ground for the hypothesis that the two disciples had not heard the discourse of the previous day. Rather the implication is that they had heard it, and these words uttered to them in private by their teacher, enforced the public lesson, and led them to seek further knowledge concerning the one who was pointed out to them as the Messiah. Observe how this passage teaches the value of personal work and personal influence. The first disciples are led to seek Christ, not by the public discourse, but by the private words of the Baptist; by private influence they bring Peter (41); by private invitation Philip is added to the disciples (43); and by his personal solicitation Nathanael is brought to Christ (45).--=And they followed Jesus.= Not, in the religious sense of the words, became followers of Jesus; not till later did they leave all to follow him (Luke, ch. 5). The simplest is also the truest interpretation of these words. They literally followed him; drawn partly by curiosity, partly, perhaps, by a real spiritual desire for closer acquaintance with the one whom their teacher designated as the Lamb of God.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith
unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which
is to say being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw
where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was
about the tenth hour.

=38, 39. Jesus * * * saith unto them, What seek ye?= Not because he was ignorant of their purpose, for he knew what was in man (ch. 2:25; comp. Mark 2:8, etc.); but because he would draw them out. In a similar manner he opens conversation with the woman at the well (ch. 4:10, 16), with the disciples fishing at the sea of Galilee (ch. 21:5), and with the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17). Christ _as a conversationalist_ is a study for the Christian. Observe how he opens the way and leads on to familiar acquaintance, first by his question, then by his invitation, finally by his hospitality.--=Rabbi * * * Master.= Rather, _teacher_, or _doctor_. Rabbi is a Hebrew word; _teacher_ (διδάσκαλος) is its Greek equivalent. John, writing for the Gentile world, habitually translates the Hebrew phrases into their Greek equivalents.--=Where dwellest thou?= They are timid and dare not, or at least do not, express their whole desire. Often in the spiritual reticence, so common to the first experiences of the awakened soul, its real aspirations after truth are concealed beneath an assumed curiosity respecting some indifferent matter. Christ meets this non-pertinent if not impertinent curiosity with an invitation which attaches the two inquirers to him for life.--=Come and see.= Rather, _Come and ye shall see_. This is the best reading, and is given by Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc. (ὄψεσθε not ἴδετε).--=And abode with him that day.= For the rest of the day.--=For it was about the tenth hour.= Reckoning from 6 A. M., according to Jewish fashion, this would make it 4 P. M. Observe, as indicative of the Evangelist John’s character, and of the force of the impression made on him from the outset by Christ, that he remembered not only the day, _but the very hour_, of his first interview with his subsequent Lord. This, too, is one of those minute touches which would not be found in either a mythical tradition or an ecclesiastical forgery.

40 One of the two which heard John _speak_, and followed
him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith
unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being
interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him,
he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou[57] shalt be
called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[57] Matt. 16:18.

=40-42. One of the two * * * was Andrew.= It is the almost universal belief of scholars that the other was John the Evangelist, an opinion which rests on the following considerations: (1) John never mentions himself in his Gospel; if he refers to himself at all it is never by name (ch. 13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:3; 21:20). (2) The name of the other disciple would have been mentioned if there had not been some special reason for not mentioning it, and John’s habit of suppressing his own name constitutes a sufficient reason; no other plausible reason has been suggested. (3) The minute accuracy of detail in this narrative, extending to the specification of the day and of the hour, justifies the belief that it is the narrative of an eye and ear witness. On the life and character of Andrew see note at close of Matt. ch. 10, Vol. 1.--=He first findeth his own brother.= Our English version is ambiguous if not misleading. The meaning is not, Before going to Jesus’ residence he found his own brother, but of the two he was the first to find Simon. The implication is that both went in search of him; all three, John, Andrew, and Simon were probably at the baptism of John the Baptist, and were his disciples. There is no evidence to sustain the hypothesis that John brought his brother James to Jesus at this time, or even that James was with John at the Jordan.--=The Messiah * * * the Christ.= One is a Hebrew, the other a Greek word. The meaning is the Anointed One. On the spiritual meaning of the names of Jesus, see note at close of Matt. ch. 1, Vol. I. Andrew’s exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah, _eureka_ (εὐρήκαμεν, _we have found_), is the same attributed to Archimedes on his discovery of the adulteration of Hiero’s crown. He detected the mixture of silver in a crown which Hiero had ordered to be made of gold, and determined the proportions of the two metals by a method suggested to him by the overflow of the water when he stepped into a bath. When the thought struck him, he is said to have been so pleased that, forgetting to put on his clothes, he ran home shouting _Eureka, Eureka, I have found it, I have found it_. What is the grandest discovery compared with that which the soul makes when it finds its Messiah?--=Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter.= Cephas is Hebrew; Peter is Greek; both words mean a stone. On the significance of this change of name, see Matt. 16:18, note. At the interview there reported Christ refers to the name here given, and confirms and interprets it; at least this is the view of the best Evangelical scholars, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Schaff; and it is more reasonable, on the whole, than the supposition that the Evangelist John anticipates and reports the change of name out of its place. The careful student will observe that here Christ’s language is that of prophecy: Thou _shalt be_ called Peter; there it is the language of fulfillment. Thou _art_ Peter. The apostle did not become Peter till he made the inspired confession of Christ as the divine Messiah, which is recorded in Matthew.

43 The day following. Jesus would go forth into Galilee,
and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and
Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses[58] in the law, and the prophets,
did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

[58] Luke 24:27, 44.

=43-45. The day following.= That is, the day following the bringing of Peter to Jesus, which Meyer thinks occurred on the same day in which Andrew and John accompanied Jesus to his home, but which it appears to me, from verse 39, must have occurred on the following day; and this is the view of the ancient and of many of the modern expositors. In that case the order would be as follows: first day, John’s conference with the delegation from Jerusalem (19-28); second day, John’s public testimony to Jesus (29-34); third day, John’s private testimony to Jesus (35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40-42); fifth day, Nathanael brought to Jesus (43-51); seventh day, one day intervening, the marriage at Cana in Galilee (ch. 2:1, etc.).--=Findeth Philip and saith unto him, Follow me.= This is Christ’s first personal call of a disciple to follow him. There is no evidence that Philip ever withdrew from this personal following of Christ as did John and Peter and Andrew; they did not permanently attach themselves to Jesus till his subsequent call to them by the sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-11). On Philip’s life, see note at close of Matt. 10, Vol. I. He is not to be confounded with Philip the deacon, mentioned in Acts 6:5; 8:5-12, etc.--=Bethsaida.= There is no good ground for the hypothesis that there were two towns of this name on or near the sea of Galilee. The city was on the northern shore, near the entrance of the Jordan into the sea. See Mark 6:45, note; and for illustration of site, John ch. 6.--=Philip findeth Nathanael.= Observe that the young disciple does not wait, but as soon as he has found Christ begins to declare his discovery to others. So with Andrew above (41), with the woman of Samaria (ch. 4:28, 29), with Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:20). Nathanael’s name occurs in the N. T. only here and in John 21:2. It is not among the list of apostles furnished by Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; and Acts 1:13. But they all mention, in close connection with Philip, a Bartholomew, which is not properly a name but only a patronymic, its meaning being Son of Tholmai. These facts have led most scholars to adopt, as a reasonable hypothesis, the opinion that Nathanael and Bartholomew are different names for the same person. The name Nathanael, like our Theodore, means _gift of God_.--=We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write.= The reference is unmistakably to the Messiah. For references in the books of Moses to the promised Messiah, see Gen. 3:15 and 17:7, with Gal. 3:16, and Deut. 18:15-19.--=Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.= This is the language, not of the Evangelist, but of Philip. Unquestionably at that time Philip knew nothing of the supposed birth of Jesus; to him Jesus was, as to the Nazarenes subsequently (Matt. 13:54-56), simply the son of Joseph. The supposed inconsistency of this language and the account of Christ’s supernatural birth as given by Matthew, is therefore purely imaginary.

46 And Nathanael said unto him,[59] Can there any good
thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and
see.

[59] chap. 7:41.

=46. Out of Nazareth is it possible that anything good can come!= There is a scornful emphasis on the word Nazareth not preserved in our English version. That Nazareth was an unimportant and insignificant town is indicated by the fact that it is neither mentioned in the O. T. nor in Josephus; that the moral condition of its inhabitants was below that of the rest of Galilee is indicated by the declaration of Mark 6:5, 6, and by the mob which threatened the life of Christ at a time when he was just growing into popularity elsewhere in Galilee (Luke 4:28-30). No other definite reason is known for the evident odium which attached to Nazareth even in the minds of Galileans. Comp. Matt. 2:23, note. The question of Nathanael furnishes a striking illustration of the spirit of prejudice in even good men. To Nathanael it seems impossible that the promised Prophet can appear elsewhere than in or near the city of the Great King.--=Come and see.= This is the best answer to make to unbelief. Christ is his own best witness (ch. 5:34). It is not merely true that “personal experience is the best test of the truth of Christianity, which, like the sun in heaven, can only be seen in its own light” (_Schaff_), but it is also true that Christ is a greater miracle than any he ever wrought; and that the supreme character of Christ carries in itself a moral conviction to hearts which resist all arguments drawn from nature. Of this truth John Stuart Mill, in his Three Essays on Religion, affords a striking illustration. After considering all the arguments for the existence and perfection of the Divine Being derived from nature, and declaring that Natural Religion points to a Being “of great but limited power,” “who desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for,” he comes to the character of Christ, and not only pays a tribute to it, eloquent and reverent, but adds his conviction that it would not “even now be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.” Chrysostom notices the gentleness and candor of Philip’s reply; he furnishes a model to all disputants in dealing with religious prejudice. See 2 Tim. 2:24.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him,
Behold[60] an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

[60] Ps. 32:2; Rom. 2:28, 29.

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus
answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee,
when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw[61] thee.

[61] Ps. 139:1, 2.

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou[62]
art the Son of God; thou art the King[63] of Israel.

[62] chap. 20:28, 29; Matt. 14:33.

[63] Matt. 21:5; 27:11.

=47-49. An Israelite indeed.= Because in faith and love a true child of God. Comp. Luke 19:9; Romans 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:29; 6:15, 16. For O. T. description of such an Israelite, see Psalm 15.--=In whom is no guile.= Therefore, characteristically unlike the Pharisees, whose pride it was that they were children of Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:33), and who were full of hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:14-33).--=Whence knowest thou me?= As Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5, 6, notes), so Nathanael is surprised by the Lord’s reading of his character and inward experience.--=When thou wast under the fig-tree.= The whole course of the narrative indicates in this response a supernatural sight, as in the previous characterization of Nathanael a supernatural insight. If Christ had merely chanced to see Nathanael without being seen by him, this fact would afford, surely, no basis for Nathanael’s faith, or Christ’s commendation of it. It seems also clear that something more is implied than the mere fact that Christ saw Nathanael under a fig-tree, since that would neither explain Christ’s commendation of him as an Israelite without guile, nor Nathanael’s astonishment. Hence the surmise of the commentators that he had retired there for purposes of prayer, and that Christ had seen him there, like the Israel from whom he descended (Gen. 32:24-23) wrestling with God, for the bestowal of the long-promised blessing to his realm, in the gift of the Messiah. It was probably this revelation of the secret of his soul which caused Christ to characterize him as a true Israelite, and Nathanael to recognize in the One who read his inmost life so perfectly, the King of Israel.--=The Son of God * * * the King of Israel.= The Messiah. See Ps. 2:7; Matt. 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; 11:27. Observe that Christ recognizes and accepts this characterization of himself at the outset of his ministry, a quite sufficient refutation of the theory of Renan, that it was the outgrowth of his followers’ later admiration, and tacitly accepted by Christ at or near the close of his earthly life. That Nathanael fully comprehended the meaning of his own confession is not, however, probable.

50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto
thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou
shalt see greater things than these.

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you.
Hereafter ye shall see heaven[64] open, and the angels[65]
of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

[64] Ezek. 1:1.

[65] Gen. 28:12; Dan. 7:9, 10; Acts 1:10, 11.

=50, 51.= There is some difficulty respecting the proper interpretation of Christ’s promise here. The word _hereafter_ is rather _henceforth_; but it is omitted by the best critics, _e. g._, Alford, Tischendorf, Lachmann. The figure is undoubtedly drawn from the vision of Jacob (Israel) of the ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12). Some suppose the reference to the angelic appearances to Christ, and the divine signs given in attestation of his mission (ver. 32; Matt. 4:11; Luke 2:13; 9:29-31; 22:43), but the earlier of these had already taken place, and Nathanael was neither present at the temptation, at the transfiguration, nor at the garden of Gethsemane. Chrysostom refers in addition to the angelic appearances at the resurrection, but they by no means furnish a literal fulfillment of the promise. Some interpret it spiritually, of the manifest opening of the heavens and the intercommunication between earth and heaven, through Jesus Christ. So Maurice: “Faithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor who first bore that name, shall be substantiated for thee, and for those who trust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as thou hast done. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven--the ladder upon which the angels of God ascended and descended--is a ladder for thee and for all. For the Son of man, who joins earth to heaven, the seen to the unseen, God and man in one, He is with you; through Him your spirits may arise to God; through Him God’s Spirit shall come down upon you.” Similarly Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Alford, and others. But this interpretation is not wholly satisfactory, since it converts Christ’s words into an allegory, and deprives them of all literal meaning. According to this view the angels are but spiritual blessings, the open heavens are not seen, and the angelic appearances are not upon the Messiah, but through him to mankind. A third interpretation connects Christ’s words here with his analogous declarations in Matt. 25:31; 26:64, etc., and refers it to his Second Coming. So Ryle: “When He comes the second time to take his great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth--the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.” I believe that these three views are congruous and consistent, and are all embraced in the promise. Christ opened the communication between earth and heaven; manifested that fact by the angelic appearances which accompanied his coming, his presence, and his departure; still manifests it, by the spiritual blessings which he constantly confers in answer to the prayers of his people; and will finally manifest it yet more gloriously when he comes to take possession of his established kingdom, with his holy angels with him. The past and present fulfillments of this prophecy are but fragmentary and imperfect. The final and perfect fulfillment awaits us in the future.

“_And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee_”]