The Disciples Of John And The First Disciples Of Jesus. Jesus Ackonwledged As The Messiah, The King Of Israel, Who Knows His Israelites, And Also Knows “the Jews;” Signalized By Miraculous Discernment Of Spirits, Personal Characters Becoming Manifest In His Personal Light.
Joh_1:35-51
35Again the next day after [omit after] John stood, and two of his disciples; 36and looking [fastening his eye] upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 (39)Then [And] Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say [which means], being interpreted, 39 (40)Master), where dwellest [abidest] thou? He saith unto them, Come and [ye shall] see! [Then] They came and saw where he dwelt [abode] and abode [for their part] with him that day: [.] for [omit for] it was about the tenth hour. 40 (41)One of the two which [who] heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, 41 (42)Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias [Messiah], which is, being interpreted, the 42 (43)[om. the] Christ [Anointed]. And he brought him to Jesus. And [om. And] when Jesus beheld him, he [Jesus looking on him] said, Thou art Simon the Son of Jona [John] thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, 43 (44)A stone [Peter]. The day following [the next day] Jesus [he] would go [
ῆèÝëçóåí
, intended, was minded, to go] forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, 44 (45)and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of [from] Bethsaida, the 45 (46)city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus 46 (47)of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there 47 (48)any good thing [have] come [
åἶíáé
] out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold 48 (49)an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him [answered him], Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that [om. that] Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw 49 (50)thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of 50 (51)God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see 51 (52)greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter [om. hereafter or henceforth], ye shall see heaven open [opened], and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[The gathering of the first disciples of jesus, 35–52. The humble beginning of mighty results. The cradle of the Christian Church. This call is Judea on the banks of Jordan was merely a preliminary acquaintance, which John supplies from his personal experience, while the final call to the permanent discipleship, as related by the Synoptists (Mat_4:18 ff.; Mar_1:16 ff.; Luk_5:1 ff.), took place at a later date in Galilee. We must assume that these disciples (two of them at least, viz., Andrew and John, were formerly disciples of the Baptist), after becoming acquainted with Jesus on the banks of Jordan, and accompanying Him to Galilee to witness the miracle at Cana, returned for a while to their occupation as fishermen (as they did after the resurrection, Joh_12:1 ff.), until, before His journey to the passover in Jerusalem, He called them to the Apostolate. The readiness with which they followed, and the confidence of Peter in the miraculous powers of Jesus (Luk_5:5), are more readily explained from the previous intercourse related by John. The section has two divisions: 1) The calling of Andrew and John, and, through Andrew, of Simon Peter, 35–43; 2) The calling of Philip, and, through him, of Nathanael, 44–52. Christ finds disciples, they find their friends, and report how they have been found by Christ and have found Him (Joh_1:41; Joh_1:45). Bengel observes on
åὐñßóêåé
(Joh_1:41): “With the festive freshness of those days beautifully corresponds the word findeth, which is used here more frequently than elsewhere.” Trench appropriately calls this “the chapter of the Eurekas.” Christ used no outward compulsion, held out no worldly inducements of any kind; it was simply the force of spiritual attraction which draws “the brave to the braver, the noble to the noblest of all.”—P. S.]
Joh_1:35. Again the next day.—[
Ôῇ ἐðáýñéïí ðÜëéí åἱóôÞêåé ἸùÜííçò
.]—The day after the first testimony of John [Joh_1:29] or after the day of Christ’s return from the wilderness, which followed the day of John’s testimony concerning the Messiah before the Jewish rulers; to the Evangelist ever memorable. He counts these never to be forgotten days one by one. Upon the testimony of the first day the two disciples of John did not follow Jesus. They doubtless felt that this must involve departure from their old master. The next day was the day of their calling and decision.
And two of his disciples.—One was Andrew, we know from Joh_1:40 (see Com. on MatthewJoh_10:1-4); the other was certainly John. We judge thus from (1) John’s manner of mentioning himself, either not at all, or indirectly (chs. Joh_13:23; Joh_18:15; Joh_19:26; Joh_20:3; Joh_21:20); a manner which he seems to have extended also to his mother (Joh_19:25; comp. Introduction, p. 5), and to which we might cite analogies in Mark (Mar_14:51) and Luke (Luk_24:18). 2) The giving of one name, suggesting a personal reserve in regard to the other. 3) The very lifelike character of the subsequent account. 4) The more distinct calling of the sons of Zebedee immediately after, with the sons of Jonas, on the sea of Galilee, Matthew 4. As the calling of the latter is introduced here, so is doubtless the calling of the former.
Joh_1:36. And looking upon Jesus.—His eye rests upon him, is steadily and continuously directed towards him,
ἐìâëÝøáò
, see Joh_1:42, et al. [Joh_1:43; Mar_10:21; Luk_20:17].
As he walked.—The day before, Jesus had returned to John out of the wilderness. Probably He then took leave of him, after coming to an understanding with him respecting their conduct towards each other. We may suppose that Jesus expects the transfer of the disciples of John. To-day He comes no more to John, but after an excursion returns to His abode. That He comes within sight of the Baptist, is wholly natural, yet at the same time designed.
Behold the Lamb of God.—As the disciples of John had yesterday heard the same word, and no doubt some explanation of it, no more than this repetition of the exclamation was now necessary, to cause these two disciples to go personally after the Lord; no more extended discourse (so Meyer, rightly, against Lücko and Tholuck. And of a multitude standing by, to whom he spoke in presence of the two, there is not a word).
Joh_1:37. And they followed Jesus [with profound reverence and in expectation of great things].—The
ἀêïëïõèåῖí
being immediately repeated, must mean more than: went towards Him to see Him (Nonnus, Euthymius [Alt.]). They went towards him, in any case, with the thought of discipleship, though their decision to be disciples must have been afterwards wrought by Christ. Bengel: “Primæ origines ecclesiæ Christianæ.”
Joh_1:38 (39). What seek ye?—Anticipating, yet meeting their seeking. That they are seeking, He acknowledges. But in the impersonal
ôß
He couches a sort of testing. That they were now quite timid, as Euthymius Zigabenus proposes, is evident from their embarrassed answer. They do not express themselves directly respecting their seeking; yet they plainly say that they seek not something from Him, but Himself.
Rabbi, where abidest thou?—An acknowledgment that He was a master [a travelling Rabbi]; an intimation that they wish to speak with Him in quiet; an implication that He has a hospitable house [with a friend] near by; an inquiry, when they may meet Him there. John writes for Greeks, and therefore explains the term Rabbi.
Joh_1:39 (40). Come and ye shall see.—An unmistakable allusion to the rabbinical formula of requiring one to convince himself: Come and see! (
áà åøàä
, according to Buxtorf and Light-foot), which Meyer groundlessly rejects. [Come and see, afterwards used by Philip, Joh_1:47 (48), in reply to the objection of Nathanael, occurs Psa_66:5 (6).with reference to the great works of God (
ìְëåּ åּøְàåּ
, LXX.:
äåῦôå êáὶ ἴäåôå ôὰ ἐñãá ôïῦ èåïῦ
); comp. Joh_1:16 (
äåῦôå
,
ἀêïýóáôå
Come and hear… and I will declare what He has done for my soul). It is often the wisest answer we can give to honest skeptics on matters of Christian faith. Bengel calls it optimum remedium contra opiniones præconceptas. 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. It was Pascal, I believe, who said, that human things must be known to be loved, but divine things must be loved first before they can be known.—P. S.]
And abode with him.—
Ἔìåéíáí
receives its significant sense from the preceding
ðïῦ ìÝíåéò
.
It was about the tenth hour.—[The first hour of his Christian life was indelibly fixed upon the memory of John, as a great and glorious turning point, as a transition from darkness to light. Such days will be remembered in eternity, when their fruits will fully appear.—P. S.] According to the Jewish computation, four o’clock in the afternoon; according to the Roman (from midnight to midnight), ten o’clock in the morning. The expression: abode with Him that day [
ôὴí ἡìÝñáí ἐêåßíçí
), seems to favor the latter computation. For this are Rettig [Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 106 f.], Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald. For tho Jewish, Lücke, Meyer, [Alford, Hengstenberg]. Decisive arguments for the Jewish are: 1) The Greeks of Asia Minor, for whom John wrote, had with the Jews the Babylonian reckoning, from sun-rise to sun-set. 2) The Romans also used the natural day besides the other computation. 3) In Joh_4:6 the sixth hour is far more probably noon, than six o’clock in the morning or evening (see Leben Jesu, II. p. 474); in Joh_4:52 the seventh hour is most probably the first hour after noon; Joh_11:9 implies the Babylonian reckoning; and in Joh_19:14 the sixth hour cannot be six o’clock in the morning, though to place it at noon causes difficulty (see Comm. on Mar_15:25, and Mat_27:45). 4) Even of a late part of the afternoon it may be said in popular speech, that they abode with Him that day, especially if the conversation extended into the night. Reference of the hour to what follows further on (Hilgenfeld, Lichtenstein; sea Meyer), is unwarranted.
Joh_1:40 (41). One was Andrew, etc.—The form of the statement leads us to inquire after the other. Andrew is more particularly described as the brother of Simon Peter, on account of the subsequent distinction of Peter. He no doubt influenced the decision of John, as well as of Peter, and afterwards of Philip (who “was of the city of Andrew and Peter”). He appears again as mediator and pioneer in Joh_12:22 (comp. Mar_13:3). On Andrew see Matth. on Joh_10:1-4, and the word in Winer [Smith, and other Bible Dictionaries].
Joh_1:41 (42). He first findeth.—For this finding Luthardt supposes a separate day, without support from the text. The text in fact leads us to suppose that this finding occurred on the same day that the disciples were with Jesus (Meyer, against De Wette, etc.) We may easily imagine, too, that Andrew found his brother on returning in a common lodging-place. The supposition that the disciples then brought Peter to Jesus still on the same evening, is more difficult. But even this has a parallel in the nocturnal visit of Nicodemus, and it makes the whole procedure uncommonly animated, showing the intense excitement of the disciples. Meyer thinks the emphatic statement that Andrew is the first to find his own brother, an intimation even that John next found his brother James, and brought him to Jesus. John is silent about it, indeed, after the manner of his peculiar, delicate reserve respecting himself and his kindred (even the name of James does not occur in his Gospel); but the
ðñῶôïò
betrays it, and the Synoptical account confirms it, Mar_1:19. This opinion is certainly more strengthened by the
ἴäéïí
(which is not merely possessive), than the opinion of De Wette and others, that the two together sought out Simon.
We have found the Messiah [
ÅὑñÞêáìå íôὸí Ìåóóßáí
.—Bengel: “A great and joyful
åὔñçêá
, and expected by the world for about forty centuries.”—P. S.]—“With the stress on the first word, implying a longing search”: Meyer. And the name Messiah, used by the Aramaic-speaking disciple, the Evangelist interprets to his readers. [X
ñéóôüò
, from
÷ñßù
to anoint. The article is omitted because the author wishes simply to identify the two words
îָùִׁéçַ
and
÷ñéóôüò
, not the two titles. See Meyer and Alford. Anointing with oil in the O. T. is a symbolical act that signifies the communication of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the solemn consecration to the service of God. It was performed on the three officers of the theocracy, the kings, priests and prophets, especially the kings (comp. 1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_16:13-14); hence kings were called emphatically the anointed, or the anointed of the Lord (1Sa_2:10; 1Sa_2:35; 1Sa_12:3; 1Sa_12:5; 1Sa_16:6; 1Sa_16:10; 2Sa_1:14; 2Sa_1:16; 2Sa_19:21; Lam_4:20; Zec_4:14). The term in its fullest sense was applied to Him who should be endowed with the Holy Spirit without measure (Isaiah 11; comp. Joh_1:32-33; Joh_3:34), realize the typical significance of the kingdom of Israel (Psa_2:2; Dan_9:25) and combine the offices of prophet, priest and king in His own person for ever. P. S.]
Joh_1:42 (43). Beheld him.—
ἘìâëÝøáò
. The penetrating look of the Lord, introducing one of those mental miracles of immediate discernment of characters which here follow in rapid succession, and of which the knowledge of Nathanael is especially signalized. Jesus is the knower of hearts, Joh_2:25. It is characteristic that John first brings out this power of the Lord: in keeping with his Gospel of the ideal personality.
Thou art Simon.—This calling him by name is not necessarily through miraculous knowledge (Chrysost., Luthardt), for Andrew had introduced him to Jesus; but is doubtless intended to put Simon as the son of Jonas in contrast with Peter.
ùִׁîְòåֹê
, heard,
éåֹðָä
, dove,
ëֵּéôָà
, rock. The sense is: What thou art not, and canst not be, as Simon, son of Jonas, but what thou art adapted to be, that shalt thou become. [Christ says not: “Thou art Cephas,” as He says to Nathanael: “Thou art truly an Israelite,” but “thou shalt be called Peter.” It was therefore a prophecy of the future work and position of Peter in history, as the Apostle who, above all others, laid the foundations of the church, among the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and among the Gentiles by the conversion of Cornelius. Cephas (
áּéôà
), Peter, Rock, is a symbol of firmness; comp. the contrast of rocky and sandy foundation, Mat_7:24-26, and the promise of indestructibility given to the church as founded upon the rock, Joh_16:18.—P. S.] On the more particular sense of the antithesis see Comm. on Matth., Mat_16:17 [and the notes in the Am. ed., pp. 292, 293, 295]; on the different calls, Matth. on Joh_4:19, p. 93. In Mat_16:18 this previous naming is evidently pre-supposed. It is characteristic of Judaism as the religion of personal life, that persons were commonly designated by names significant of their peculiarities. See the citation in Tholuck. According to Tholuck the rock, the emblem of firmness, would refer to the choleric temperament of Peter. But none of all the temperaments suffices to describe a concrete direction of character. A recent assurance, that the name Peter refers not at all to his stamp of character, but entirely to the work of grace in him, can be accounted for only by want of insight into the nature of a charism.
[The calling of Philip and Nathanael, Joh_1:43-51. Comp. on this passage Archbishop Trench, Studies in the Gospels, N. Y. ed., 1867, pp. 66 f.—P. S.]
Joh_1:43 (44). The next day Jesus.…to go forth.—Had therefore not yet gone forth. Was intending to set out.—And findeth Philip.—He was by this circumstance again detained. The acquaintance may be accounted for by two facts. Philip had been also at the Jordan; probably, like others, a disciple of John. He was a townsman of Andrew and Peter, of Bethsaida (Joh_4:5; Joh_12:21), and perhaps just then on his way home. Philip, one of the earliest apostles of the Lord. His characteristic, according to Joh_6:5; Joh_12:21 sqq.; Joh_14:8, seems to have been a striving after ocular evidence in the nobler sense, a buoyant and resolute advance to the object in view (see Comm. on Matth., p. 183). Tradition, contrary to the fact of his earlier calling, has made him the disciple to whom Christ spoke the words in Mat_8:22 (Clement of Alex., Strom. III. 187). More probable is the tradition that he preached in Phrygia (Theodoret, Nicphorus), and died at Hierapolis (Euseb. III. 31, etc.) The accounts of his marriage and his daughters have confounded him with Philip the deacon, with whom he is in general frequently interchanged (see the art. in Winer and in Herzog’s Real Encycl.)
Follow me.—This cannot mean merely: Join the journeying company [Alford]; yet neither is it the call to the Apostolic office. It is the invitation to discipleship, in the form of a travelling companionship. The rest of the interview (how Jesus knew Philip, and Philip knew the Lord) is not mentioned; only the decisive word of the call. Probably the Evangelist would tell us that the quick, active character of Philip did not need many circumstances. [Trench: “This ‘Follow Me’ might seem at first sight no more than an invitation to accompany Him on that journey from the banks of Jordan to Galilee, on which He was just setting forward. It meant this (thus compare Mat_9:9; Luk_5:27); but at the same time how much more. It was an invitation to follow the blessed steps of His most holy life (Mat_16:24; Joh_8:12; Joh_12:26; Joh_21:19; Rev_14:4), to be a partaker at once of His cross and His crown. How much of this Philip may have understood at the moment it is impossible to say; but whether much or little, he is not disobedient to the heavenly calling.”—P. S.]
Joh_1:44 (45). [Bethsaida of Galilee was on the western shore of the lake of Galilee, not far from Capernaum and Chorazin, but like these two towns, it is entirely obliterated from the face of the earth, so that even the memory of its site has perished. Robinson (III. 359) places it a short distance north of KhûnMinyeh, which he identifies with Capernaum; while other travellers, perhaps more correctly, find the ruins of Capernaum in TellHûm. Comp. Mat_11:20 and the notes in Matthew, pp. 210, 211.—It is remarkable that none of the Apostles was from Jerusalem, the capital of the nation. Christ Himself proceeded from an insignificant town and an humble carpenter-shop, and selected His Apostles from among the illiterate fishermen of Galilee. This is the way of God who made the world out of nothing. Comp. 1Co_1:27.—P. S.]
Joh_1:45 (46). Philip findeth Nathanael (Theodore, gift of God).—The same with Bartholomew (see the Comm. on Matth. p. 182), and, according to Joh_21:2, of Cana in Galilee. He was probably, therefore, going in the same direction. The calling of Nathanael also is represented as occurring at the outset of the journey, not (as Ewald makes it) on nearing Cana. Nathanael seems also to be one of the devout (Luk_2:38), who had been with John the Baptist; and Philip’s having to find his friend (we find him afterwards paired with Nathanael, Mat_10:3, etc., except in Act_1:13), may be explained by Nathanael’s having forgotten himself in devout meditation apart under a fig-tree.
Of whom Moses in the law.—The promises in Genesis and Deu_18:15, recognized as verbal and typical prophecies. Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.—[Literally: Jesus the son of Joseph, of Nazareth.] The distinguishing of the person first by his father, then by his residence, was usual among the Jews. Utterly groundless is the inference from these words, that John knew nothing of the miraculous birth of Jesus (De Wette, Strauss); this would not follow, even though the words were those of John himself, instead of Philip. [John, as a faithful historian, reports not what Philip ought to have said and would have said from his subsequent higher knowledge, but what he actually did say in the twilight of his first acquaintance, and in accordance with the prevailing belief. The mystery of the supernatural conception was a pearl not to be thrown before the multitude who would have misunderstood and abused it. That John believed in it as well as the Synoptists, is evident from his exalted view of Christ as the sinless Saviour from sin, and may be inferred also (as Neander suggests) from Joh_1:14 (the eternal Word became flesh, i.e., man), as compared with Joh_3:6 (what is born of flesh, i.e., of corrupt human nature, is flesh).—P. S.]
Joh_1:46 (47). Can there any good thing coma out of Nazareth?—[Not so much an objection, as an expression of astonishment and a question frankly but modestly put.—P. S.] Grounds of the prejudice: 1) Nazareth lay in Galilee (Ebrard); yet Nathanael himself was a Galilean. 2) Nazareth too small and insignificant to be the birth-place of the Messiah (Lücke and others). 3) The village was considered, as is evident from the
ôὶ ἀãáèüí
, immoral (Meyer, with the remark that Luk_4:16 sqq. also may agree with Nathanael’s opinion). Yet, literally taken, the expression would be absurd: out of the worst town some morally good thing may come. Any good thing, therefore, must here mean: any thing excellent, any eminent person; and Nathanael’s doubt of this must have arisen from the smallness and insignificance of the place in proportion to the greatness of the Messiah. [So also Alford.] Tholuck: The place has no celebrity [is not even named] either in the Old Testament or in Josephus, and seems to have always been but an insignificant market-town, as the etymology of
ðֵöֶø
implies (Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 127; Clark’s Engl. ed. II. p. 109). The pagan Julian contemptuously called Christ the Galilean [and the Christians Galilæans]; the Jews call Him
äַðָöְøִé
to this day. On Nazareth and its situation see the Comm. on Matth. on Joh_2:23, p. 64.
Come and see.—The second time. [An echo of Christ’s Come and ye shall see, Joh_1:39.] A watchword of the Christian faith.
Joh_1:47 (48). Behold truly an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.—[̓́
Éäå
,
ἀëçèῶò Ἰóñáçëßôçò
(Tischendorf reads—
åßôçò
)
ἐíᾤ äüëïò ïὐê ἔóôéí
.—Comp. Psa_32:2, LXX.
ìáêÜñéïò ἀíὴñ
,
ῷ
̓
ïὐ ìὴ ëïãßóçôáé êýñéïò ἁìáñôßáí
,
ïὐäÝ ἐóôéí ἐí ôῷ óôüìáôé á
̣
ὐôïῦ äüëïò
•]—The word of the Lord addressed not directly to Nathanael, but to others on his approach. An Israelite indeed: that is, not merely a Jew, but a Jew of the higher theocratic turn. [Israelite is the theocratic and the most honorable title of the descendants of Abraham, in commemoration of Jacob’s glorious victory of prayer (Gen_32:28; Act_2:22; Act_3:12; Act_5:34; Act_13:16; Rom_9:4, etc.). The Ishmaelite and the Edomite were Abraham’s seed as well as the Jews, but not Israelites. That was the exclusive title of the people of the covenant. With many this title was indeed a mere name, or even a contradiction and reproach, as the title Christian (i.e., follower of Christ) is with a multitude of Christians so-called. But Nathanael was not merely a carnal descendant of Jacob, an Israelite after the flesh, but an Israelite in spirit, a genuine son of that new Jacob or Israel who had in faith and prayer wrestled with God and prevailed. Probably he was engaged in meditation and prayer under the fig-tree, and thus truly a wrestler with God, like Israel of old. A reference to that event in the history of Jacob which gave rise to his new name (Gen_32:28; Hos_12:4), is as likely, as the reference to Jacob’s ladder in Joh_1:51 (see below) is certain. Perhaps the scene took place on the very spot which tradition assigned for the wrestling of Jacob. This would give additional force to the passage. Comp. my History of the Apostolic Church, p. 388.—P. S.]
The reason why Nathanael is called a genuine Israelite, is his freedom from falsehood. In the Jewish nature there was much guile [as it was the characteristic fault of Jacob, the supplanter.—P. S.]; in the Israelite temper and the lively character it unfolded, there was no guile. [There is an allusion in the name to
éָùָׁø
, straight, upright, righteous, the very reverse of the meaning and natural characteristic of Jacob, comp. Num_23:10.—P. S.] Meyer’s reference of the expression to the description of Jacob in Gen_25:27 [
àִéùׁ úָּí
, LXX.
ἄðëáóôïò
, Aquila:
ἁðëïῦò
Symmachus:
ἅìùìïò
] is not of decisive importance. Christ perceived the man without guile by spiritual distant sight, as Discerner of the heart; an advance, therefore, on the miraculous knowledge of Peter. The frankness with which Nathanael expressed his prejudice against Nazareth, quite agrees with the judgment of the Lord. [The guilelessness of Nathanael must not be pressed too far and identified with sinlessness; on the contrary, it implies a readiness to confess sin instead of hiding it (comp. Psa_32:1-2). It furnished, as Trench remarks, a kindly soil in which all excellent graces will flourish, but did not supersede the necessity of the divine seed, out of which alone they can spring. Augustine: “Si dolus in illo non erat, sanabilem illum judicavit medicus, non sanum.”—P. S.]
Joh_1:48 (49). The question of Nathanael: Whence knowest thou me? [
Ðüèåí ìå ãéíþóêåéò
] is a new feature of the straightforward, clear character. He does not hypocritically decline the commendation; he does not proudly accept it; but he wishes to know whereon it is founded. He expresses himself evidently as surprised, but not as overcome; hence as yet without the title Rabbi. According to Jewish etiquette, no doubt, uncivil.
When thou wast under the fig-tree.—According to Meyer, Philip cannot have found him under the fig-tree (as the Greek fathers and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose), but in another place; neither the
ðñὸ ôïῦ öùíῆóáé
, nor the
ὄíôá ὑðü
, etc., would have force. But if the mood of Nathanael under the fig-tree was the characteristic thing, Philip might have oven found him still there, without the significant element of the Lord’s expression being invalidated thereby. Again, according to De Wette and Meyer, the word of Jesus is intended to indicate only a miraculous vision of the person of Nathanael (beyond the range of natural sight), not a look into the depth of his soul. But in this case Jesus would not have answered the question of Nathanael at all. Jesus must have seen something in the spiritual posture of Nathanael under the fig-tree, which marked the person as the Israelite without guile. “As the Talmud often speaks of Rabbins who pursued the study of the law in the shade of fig-trees, most persons think of a similar occupation here.” Tholuck. According to Chrysostom and Luther, Nathanael was probably occupied with the very hope of the Messiah.
[Trench also remarks that our Lord must refer here to earnest prayer, some great mental struggle, or strong temptation which took place in Nathanael’s soul while sitting under the fig-tree; for this of itself was a common occurrence among Israelites (1Ki_4:25; Mic_4:4; Zec_3:10). Wordsworth and Alford find in
ὑðü
with the accusative (
ὅíôá ὑðὸ ôῆí óõêὴí
instead of
ὑðὸ ôῇ óõêῇ
) an indication of retirement to the fig-tree as well as concealment there,—probably for purposes of meditation and prayer. It implies: when thou wentest under the fig-tree and while thou wert there.—P. S.]
Joh_1:49 (50). Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.—In joyful certainty Nathanael now gives threefold expression to his hitherto reserved acknowledgment. First, Rabbi, the title, for even this most just due he had not before paid; then, Son of God, because he showed the divine power of the Heart-Searcher to look upon the soul; then, King of Israel, that is Messiah. There is at the same time an extremely fine return of the commendation: An Israelite without guile; Thou art the King of the Israel without guile, that is, my King. Though the ideas Christ and Son of God have become more or less interchangeable, yet it makes a difference whether the confession of the Messiahship precedes that of the divinity, or the reverse. Nathanael reasons from the Son of God, who demonstrated Himself to him, to the Messiahship.
[The title the Son of God, was a rare designation of the Messiah, derived from Psa_2:5; Psa_2:12 (comp. Isa_9:6), and is so used by Peter, Mat_16:16, the disciples in the ship, Mat_14:33, Martha, Joh_11:27, and the high priest, Mat_26:63. It signifies the divine nature, as the titles the Son of Man, and the Son of David, signify the human nature of the Messiah. (See Excursus after Joh_1:51). This is evident from the hostile indignation of the Pharisees and Scribes at our Lord when He claimed to be the Son of God (Joh_5:18; Joh_10:30-39). It is, of course, not to be supposed that Nathanael or any of the disciples had, during the earthly life of Christ, a clear insight into the full meaning and metaphysical depths of the expression, but their faith, based upon the glimpses of the O. T. and the personal knowledge of our Lord, contained more than they were conscious of, and anticipated the dogma.—P. S.]
Joh_1:50 (51). Because I said unto thee—believest thou?—Not properly a question; still less an intimation of censure for a defective ground of faith (De Wette); but an expression of surprise that he so joyfully believes, upon a single token. Hence, too, a greater is then promised him.
Joh_1:51 (52). Verily, verily.—The Hebrew Amen.
àָîֵê
, from
àָîַê
, an adjective: sure, true, faithful; also used as a substantive and adverb. When a final word of devout acclamation, Deu_27:15-26; Psa_41:13; Psa_89:52, or of religious confirmation of one’s own word, Rom_9:5; Rom_11:36, it is a sentence: Ratum sit, ita sit. When an initial word, it is an adverbial protestation: verissime, certissime; put singly in Matth., Joh_5:18; Joh_16:28 (Luk_9:27
ἀëçèῶò
), and Luke. In John double: Joh_3:3; Joh_5:19; Joh_8:51; Joh_12:24; Joh_14:12; Joh_21:18. Substantively: Amen, 2Co_1:20; the Amen, Rev_3:14.—That the Hebrew word was early familiar in Christian worship, is evident from the fact that John does not explain it. In modern times even a small sect has gathered upon the consecrated word, called the Amen church. For the first time here, the word of the most solemn asseveration. “Only in John, and only in the mouth of Jesus, hence the more certainly authentic.”
[The Synoptists use the single Amen more than 50, John the double—25 times, even in parallel passages, as Mat_26:21; Mat_26:34; Joh_13:21; Joh_13:38. Bengel explains the repetition in John from the fact that Christ spoke both in His and in the Father’s name. Probably it is a more emphatic assertion of the superiority of Christ above all preceding prophets. The double Amen could with full propriety only be used by Him who is the personal truth (Joh_14:6), the Amen (Rev_3:14), the God of Truth (in Hebr. Amen, Isa_65:16), and in whom all the promises of God are Yea and Amen (2Co_1:19).—P. S.]
I say unto you: to the little company of disciples now already collected. [This formula “I say unto you” differs from the “Thus saith the Lord,” as Christ differs from all the prophets: He is the truth itself and speaks with divine authority His own word; they are only witnesses of the truth and speak the Word of God in the name of God.—P. S.]
(Henceforth) ye shall see heaven opened.—[This prospect to the public life of Christ, and uninterrupted communion between heaven and earth in and through Him, is an eminently fit conclusion of this chapter. Whether we retain
ἀð Üñôé
(
ἀð
’
ἄñôé
) or not, the beginning of His public ministry and the first recognition of His Messianic dignity is meant, as the starting-point of an unbroken communion between God and man, and an exchange of divine grace and human prayers. The open heaven is here, as in the baptism of Christ, a symbolical expression for the ever present, help and grace of God (comp. Gen_28:10-17; Eze_1:1; Mat_3:16; Acts vii. 17; Joh_10:11); while the closed heavens signify the absence of divine help or the impending judgment of God (comp. Isa_64:1). The participle
ἀíåùãüôá
implies the act of opening, and the fact that before Christ the heaven was closed. Bengel: “aperlum, præteritum, proprie, Mat_3:16, et cum continuatione in posterum,” Joh_3:13; Act_7:56; Rev_11:12.—P. S.] The expression is evidently suggested by the word concerning the Israelite without guile, and the description of Christ as the King of Israel; and stands related to that dream of Jacob, in which his higher Israel-nature decisively came forth (Gen_28:12), though he did not receive the honorable title of Israel until a later time. The first Israel saw heaven open; but only in dream, only for a while; the ascending and descending of the angels were assisted by a ladder; the Lord stood above the latter in the heavens; and the vision vanished away. Yet the living intercourse between heaven and earth, between God and man, had announced itself and opened in the old theocracy, and was now gloriously to complete itself. The expression can by no means be limited to actual appearances of angels in the life of Jesus [at His birth, in the garden of Gethsemane, at the resurrection and ascension] (Chrysostom and others), nor to His working of miracles (Storr); yet these points are not (according to Meyer) to be set aside, since they are phenomena peculiar to the New Testament intercourse between heaven and earth. On the other hand, the angels are no more to be reduced to personified divine powers (as by De Wette), than the divine powers to angels (as by Hofmann). Meyer rightly emphasizes the terms henceforth (
ἀð Üñôé
) and ye shall see (
ὄøåóèå
); they show that it is the total Messianic revelation in its actual operation, which is spoken of, and that this is represented in figurative language. The expression, however, is not exactly symbolical, inasmuch as, in a spiritual sense, heaven is really opened, and the living personal intercourse between the Father and the Son also becomes manifest in manifold angelophanies, voices, and spiritual revelations. “The
ἀíáâáßíïíôåò
stand first in the Old Testament also [Gen_28:12]; we might, as in fact Philo does (De Somniis, p. 642), think of the reciprocal actings of human wants and prayers and divine powers; but the former are never called messengers of God. More correctly: They return to heaven to receive new commissions.” Tholuck. If we consider that Christ is the incarnate Angel of the Lord, we may refer the ascending unquestionably to His high-priestly intercessions, works, and sacrifice, the descending to the gradual unfolding of the riches of His kingly glory. Luther: “Now are heaven and earth become one thing, and it is just as if ye sat above, and the gentle angels ministered to you.” Calvin: “Quum prius nobis clausum esset regnum dei, vere in Christo apertum fuit,….ut simus cives sanctorum et angelorum socii.” For other explanations see Tholuck, p. 102.
[We must here dismiss the notions of space. The incarnate Son of God is the bond of union, the golden clasp between earth and heaven, the mediating centre of all intercourse with God. Where He is, there is heaven and there are the angels, who ascend from Him as the starting-point, and descend upon Him, as the termination point. He spoke while He was on earth, others wise we would expect the reverse order. From the incarnate Saviour as the Alpha and Omega, this spiritual communion with heaven proceeds upon all believers. Ryle weakens the force of the prediction by confining it to the time of the future advent; this is sufficiently refuted by henceforth,—P. S.]
Upon the Son of Man.—In John as well as in the Synoptists Christ designates Himself by this term. See Comm. on Matth, Joh_8:20. “Undoubtedly the precedent in Daniel has suggested the language in the Revelation, Joh_14:14; Joh_1:13, in which latter is also
ìåôὰ ô
.
íåöåëῶí
; and those like passages, in which the Redeemer is mentioned as appearing
ἔðὶ ô
.
íåöåëῶí
,
ἐí äüîῃ
, in His Messianic and judicial glory, Luk_21:27; Mat_26:64; Mat_16:28; so, therefore, Chemnitz, with the joint conception of the humilitas taken from the passages in Ezekiel; Beza, Scholten, Lücke.” Tholuck. Yet the fact that the Lord applied this name to Himself, and that the people did not recognize it as a designation of the Messiah, Joh_12:34, itself very plainly shows that the phrase was not current as a Messianic phrase of the Jewish theology, though after the example of Daniel the term itself appears in the book of Enoch and in 4 Esdras, as well as, among the Rabbins, the expression: “He that cometh in the clouds.” The fact that the Apostles abstain from the phrase, Tholuck explains from Heb_2:6; that is, because the term referred to the humiliation of the Son of God. As to Hofmann’s hypothesis (Schriftbeweis, II. p. 51) see Tholuck, p. 104. Hofmann lays stress on the point that the phrase in Daniel is not: The Son of man, but: One like a son of man. This manner of interpretation would require that the Old Testament prophecy everywhere have the New Testament idea and phraseology pure and simple, in order to have them at all. Strangely Tholuck thinks the tracing of the expression to Daniel excludes the interpretation proposed by Herder: Man
êáô
’
ἐîï÷Þí
, the pattern man; that according to this by a son of man must strictly be understood a man who shares the lot of actual mankind, as in Num_23:19; Job_25:6. And why not? Christ, as the second man, the Son of mankind, 1Co_15:47, is as well in His suffering the heir of its judgment, as in His work the heir of its righteousness of faith, and assuredly for this very reason the Son of Man, the supernatural bloom of the race, because He is the Son of God. Luthardt too thinks this latter idea, which he likewise gives, must be vindicated against the derivation of the name from the book of Daniel. But the vision in Daniel must after all have an idea. And it is sufficiently clear why Jesus chose this particular term from Daniel to designate Himself.
[Excursus on the Meaning of the Title “The Son of Man.”—The designation of Christ as the Son of Man (
ὁ õἱὸò ôïῦ ἀíèñþðïõ
), occurs in this chapter, Joh_1:51 (John 1:52) for the first time, and in the mouth of Christ; while the corresponding title, the Son of God (
ὁ õἱὸò ôïῦ èåïῦ
), occurs first Joh_1:49 (Joh_1:50), in the mouth of a disciple (Nathanael), but had been previously applied to Christ by God in His baptism (Mat_3:16), and by Satan, hypothetically, in the temptation (Mat_4:3; Mat_4:6). The former is found about eighty, or, deducting the parallels, fifty-five times in the Gospels, and is only used by our Lord Himself, except in three cases, viz., once by Stephen when he saw “the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God,” Act_7:56 (in allusion probably to Mat_26:64), and twice by the apocalyptic seer, Rev_1:13; Rev_14:14, with obvious reference to Dan_7:13-14. Bengel (on Mat_16:13) urges the circumstance as very significant that Christ, during His earthly life, was never called the Son of Man by anybody but Himself. His followers called Him the Son of David (the Messiah), or the Son of God. The title the Son of God is used sometimes by Christ Himself, but mostly by the Apostles and Evangelists. Christ could use both designations with equal propriety, but He preferred the title of humility and condescension which identifies Him with the human race, while the Apostles chose the title of honor and dignity which exalts Him far above men. The one signifies in general the true humanity, the other the true divinity of Christ, both together give us the full idea of the God-Man (
èåÜíèñùðïò
). Both titles are generic. In both titles, when applied to Christ, the definite article is nearly always employed. He is not simply a son of man among other men, nor a son of God on a par with the children of God, but He is emphatically and in a unique sense the Son of Man, and the Son of God. The definite article is as significant in one case as in the other, and suggests a distinction as well as a resemblance.
The appellation the Son of Man, when used by Christ of Himself, cannot, like the corresponding Hebrew
áֶּïÎäַàָãָí
, or
áֶּïÎäַàָãָí
be simply a poetic designation of man in general, in which sense
íἱὸò ἀíèñþðïõ
(without the article) is used Heb_2:6 (in a quotation, however, from the Messianic Psalms 8.), and
õἱïὶ ôῶí ἀíèñþñþðùí
, Eph_3:5. It cannot be supposed for a moment that Christ should have used this term so often of Himself as a mere circumlocution for the personal pronoun. Nobody speaks of himself in this way. In the Saviour’s native dialect, the Syriac, Barnosho, the son of man, is man generically; the filial part of the compound denotes the identity and purity of the generic idea. This leads to the correct interpretation, as above indicated.
Nor does the title, as many suppose (e.g., Justin Martyr, Tertullian, De Wette, Tholuck), express exclusively the humiliation and condescension of Christ, but it denotes at the same time, and chiefly His elevation above the ordinary level, and the actualization, in Him and through Him, of the ideal standard of human nature under its moral and religious aspect, or in its relation to God, (Bengel, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, Hengstenberg, Trench, Liddon, Godet, and others).
Christ Jesus is the centre of the unity of mankind, the recapitulation of humanity, as Paul profoundly indicates (Eph_1:10), and as Irenæus taught. He is the true seed of the woman, the second Adam (Romans 5. and 1 Corinthians 15.), who more than restored what the first Adam lost. He fulfils and closes the preceding, and controls the succeeding, history of our race. All men, even the best and the greatest, have their weaknesses and defects, and reflect only a fragment of the idea of humanity. Once in history, and once only, there was born a man who represents humanity in its purity without the demoniac adulteration of sin, and its universality without the limitations of race and nationality. Christ felt more humanly, spake more humanly, acted, suffered and died more humanly than any man before or since His coming. Every word and act of His appeals to universal human sympathies and calls out the moral affections of all without distinction of race, condition, and degree of culture. He is the only
ἀëçèéíὸò ἄíèñùðïò
(as Philo called the Logos), the Urbild, the archetypal or model Man, the King of men, and “draws all men” to Him. He could not have been so perfect a man without being also divine.
This interpretation of the title Son of Man, suggested grammatically by the use of the definite article, is confirmed historically by the origin of the term, according to the usual acceptation, in Dan_7:13 f., where it signifies the Messiah in His heavenly glory, as the head of a universal and eternal kingdom, and perhaps also in Psalms 8. where man is represented in his ideal destination with reference to the Messiah as the true and perfect head of humanity (comp. Rom_5:12; 1Co_15:27; Heb_1:2-8). The Son of David was likewise a designation of the Messiah (Mat_9:27; Mat_15:22; Mat_12:23; Mat_21:9; Mat_22:41 ff.), but is not so significant, as it represents Christ, only as the flower and crown of the house of David, not of the whole human family. Our view commends itself, moreover, at one as the most natural and significant, in such passages as, “Ye shall see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (Joh_1:51); “He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven” (Joh_6:53); “The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father;” “The Son of Man is come to save” (Mat_18:11; comp. Luk_19:10); “The Father hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man” (Joh_5:27). Even those passages which are quoted for the opposite view, receive, in our interpretation, a greater force and beauty from the sublime contrast which places the voluntary condescension and humiliation of Christ in the most striking light, as when He says: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head” (Luk_9:58): or, “Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mat_20:27-28). Thus the manhood of Christ, rising far above all ordinary manhood, though freely coming down to its lowest ranks, with the view to their elevation and redemption, is already the portal of His Godhood. Comp. my treatise on the Person of Christ, Boston, 1865, pp. 113 ff., from which I have transferred a few sentences.—P. S.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The greatness of the Baptist and the majesty of Christ appear in John’s pointing his disciples to Christ, and Christ’s attaching the best of them immediately to Himself. In these disciples of John the spiritual perfection of the work of the Baptist is seen.
2. It is remarkable, that the first disciples of John who followed Christ, followed Him upon the repeated testimony of the Baptist: Behold the Lamb of God. The testimony to the præ-existence and glory of Christ does not convince the rulers of the Jews; this testimony which shows a future full of suffering for Christ convinces the disciples of John who here come to view. This of itself shows that they can never have shared the entirely crude, sensuous hope of the Messiah, in its hard, unspiritual form; much as they were still involved in sensuous expectations of a nobler sort.
3. Coming to Christ is here illustrated in every way. Prophetic testimony, office, word, points to him. Then brother brings brother, friend brings friend, towhsman brings townsman. One comes with another, and one after another.
4. These first disciples stand the decisive test-question, whether they seek something from Him, or seek Himself and all in Him. They seek Him, and when they exclaim: We have found the Messiah, they mean: We have found—absolutely.
5. In keeping with this prominence of the personality of Christ, He manifests His glory first in miracles of pure knowledge with the most varied insight into the dark depths of personal life. Thus in our text He sees through, in particular, Peter and Nathanael, and at the close of the chapter the Evangelist celebrates Him as the knower of hearts. So afterwards He reads Nicodemus, the woman of Samaria, Judas, the people, etc.
6. The manner in which the Evangelist John, with delicate modesty, has here interwoven the story of his own calling with the gospel history, reminds us of the similar manner of Matthew (Joh_9:9); and these two analogies might lead us to presume that Mark (Mar_14:51-52) and Luke (Luk_24:13-35) have done likewise. See the exegesis, Joh_1:35. Christianity, in the light of the person of the Lord, brings to view and into play the worth and warrant of all the personages purified by Him. But evidently these great, sanctified delineators of the life of Jesus and the facts of redemption have wrought in with the utmost modesty their own names, for the most part only by hints in any part of their picture.
7. In this place Israel meets us in its purity, and doubtless is made prominent in its higher import, because the Evangelist sees himself further on compelled to exhibit Judaism so strongly in its hatred of the truth.
8. Christianity, an open heaven over open eyes, and a revelation of ever new and ever greater glories of the Lord, first in His life, then in His church, because divinity is become one with humanity in Christ, and this life communicates itself through the Holy Ghost to believer.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
On both histories together (Joh_1:35-51). The exuberant beginning of the Church of Christ: a. Its going forth out of the Old Testament; b. Its rising into the New.—The Israel of the Old Covenant, and the Israel of the New.—The effect of the testimony of John: residing (1) in the perseverance (repetition) and emphasis of it; (2) in the matter of it (the Lamb of God).—Three unique days in the kingdom of God (the next day, etc.).—Christ the Lamb of God.—The coming of the disciples to Jesus, a type of our coming to Him.—How quickly Christ and His elect recognize and meet each other.—The spring seasons of the kingdom of heaven.—The unity and the diversity of the Lord’s ways of calling His disciples.—“We have found!”—Working for the Lord.—Christ the heart-searcher.—The three great proofs of the Messiah: (1) From the Old Testament (Moses and the prophets, closed up by John the Baptist); (2) from Christ’s representation of Himself; (3) from the experience of the disciples.
On the first history (Joh_1:35-43). The first two disciples of Jesus: John and Andrew.—The two decisive questions: What seek ye? and, Rabbi, where dwellest thou?—The invitation of Christ: “Come and see,” in its permanent import.—The first word of the Lord and His last respecting Peter, according to the Gospel of John.—How the natural brotherhood becomes transfigured in the spiritual.
On the second history (44–51). Philip and Nathanael, or friendship in its relation to the kingdom of God: (1) Its destination for it; (2) its glorification in it.—Honorable prejudice, and how it is overcome by the facts of experience.—The word of the disciple: “Come and see;” an echo of the word of Jesus: “Come and see.”—The preaching of Philip: (1) Infinitely difficult: the connection of the name of Messiah, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, with Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph; (2) perfectly decided: We have found Him! (3) Irresistibly confirmed: Come and see!—One of the rare commendatory words of Christ, on a most rare occasion: (1) Bestowed upon a man who spoke contemptuously of His birth-place; was prepossessed against Himself; had, immediately after an hour of earnest devotion, fallen again under a prejudice; (2) and bestowed for the very reason, that he was without guile.—“An Israelite without guile:”
