John 1:17-51

1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but ¹  grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, ²  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with ³  the Father, has made God ⁴  known. ⁵ 

The Testimony of John the Baptist

1:19 Now ⁶  this was ⁷  John’s ⁸  testimony ⁹  when the Jewish leaders ¹⁰  sent ¹¹  priests and Levites from Jerusalem ¹²  to ask him, “Who are you?” ¹³  1:20 He confessed – he did not deny but confessed – “I am not the Christ!” ¹⁴  1:21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? ¹⁵  Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” ¹⁶  “Are you the Prophet?” ¹⁷  He answered, “No!” 1:22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us ¹⁸  so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

1:23 John ¹⁹  said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight ²⁰  the way for the Lord,’ ²¹  as Isaiah the prophet said.” 1:24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. ²² ) ²³  1:25 So they asked John, ²⁴  “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, ²⁵  nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

1:26 John answered them, ²⁶  “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, ²⁷  1:27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy ²⁸  to untie the strap ²⁹  of his sandal!” 1:28 These things happened in Bethany ³⁰  across the Jordan River ³¹  where John was baptizing.

1:29 On the next day John ³²  saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God ³³  who takes away the sin of the world! 1:30 This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, ³⁴  because he existed before me.’ 1:31 I did not recognize ³⁵  him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.” ³⁶ 

1:32 Then ³⁷  John testified, ³⁸  “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove ³⁹  from heaven, ⁴⁰  and it remained on him. ⁴¹  1:33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 1:34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” ⁴² 

1:35 Again the next day John ⁴³  was standing there ⁴⁴  with two of his disciples. 1:36 Gazing at Jesus as he walked by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” ⁴⁵  1:37 When John’s ⁴⁶  two disciples heard him say this, ⁴⁷  they followed Jesus. ⁴⁸  1:38 Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, “What do you want?” ⁴⁹  So they said to him, “Rabbi” (which is translated Teacher), ⁵⁰  “where are you staying?” 1:39 Jesus ⁵¹  answered, ⁵²  “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon. ⁵³ 

Andrew’s Declaration

1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said ⁵⁴  and followed Jesus. ⁵⁵  1:41 He first ⁵⁶  found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah!” ⁵⁷  (which is translated Christ). ⁵⁸  1:42 Andrew brought Simon ⁵⁹  to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. ⁶⁰  You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). ⁶¹ 

The Calling of More Disciples

1:43 On the next day Jesus ⁶²  wanted to set out for Galilee. ⁶³  He ⁶⁴  found Philip and said ⁶⁵  to him, “Follow me.” 1:44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, ⁶⁶  the town of ⁶⁷  Andrew and Peter.) 1:45 Philip found Nathanael ⁶⁸  and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also ⁶⁹  wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 1:46 Nathanael ⁷⁰  replied, ⁷¹  “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” ⁷²  Philip replied, ⁷³  “Come and see.”

1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, ⁷⁴  “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” ⁷⁵  1:48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied, ⁷⁶  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, ⁷⁷  I saw you.” 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king ⁷⁸  of Israel!” ⁷⁹  1:50 Jesus said to him, ⁸⁰  “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ⁸¹  1:51 He continued, ⁸²  “I tell all of you the solemn truth ⁸³  – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” ⁸⁴ 

[1:17]  ¹ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

[1:18]  ² tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

[1:18]  ³ tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

[1:18]  ⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ⁵ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

[1:19]  ⁶ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:19]  ⁷ tn Grk “is.”

[1:19]  ⁸ sn John’s refers to John the Baptist.

[1:19]  ⁹ tn Or “witness.”

[1:19]  ¹⁰ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Iουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

[1:19]  ¹¹ tc ‡ Several important witnesses have πρὸς αὐτόν (pro" auton, “to him”) either here (B C* 33 892^c al it) or after “Levites” (Ì^{66c vid} A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 579 al lat), while the earliest mss as well as the majority of mss (Ì^66*,75 א C³ L W^s ˹ Ï) lack the phrase. On the one hand, πρὸς αὐτόν could be perceived as redundant since αὐτόν is used again later in the verse, thus prompting scribes to omit the phrase. On the other hand, both the variation in placement of πρὸς αὐτόν and the fact that this phrase rather than the latter αὐτόν is lacking in certain witnesses (cf. John 11:44; 14:7; 18:31), suggests that scribes felt that the sentence needed the phrase to make the sense clearer. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁷ has πρὸς αὐτόν in brackets, indicating doubt as to the phrase’s authenticity.

[1:19]  ¹² map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:19]  ¹³ sn “Who are you?” No uniform Jewish expectation of a single eschatological figure existed in the 1st century. A majority expected the Messiah. But some pseudepigraphic books describe God’s intervention without mentioning the anointed Davidic king; in parts of 1 Enoch, for example, the figure of the Son of Man, not the Messiah, embodies the expectations of the author. Essenes at Qumran seem to have expected three figures: a prophet, a priestly messiah, and a royal messiah. In baptizing, John the Baptist was performing an eschatological action. It also seems to have been part of his proclamation (John 1:23, 26-27). Crowds were beginning to follow him. He was operating in an area not too far from the Essene center on the Dead Sea. No wonder the authorities were curious about who he was.

[1:20]  ¹⁴ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:21]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “What then?” (an idiom).

[1:21]  ¹⁶ sn According to the 1st century rabbinic interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:11, Elijah was still alive. In Mal 4:5 it is said that Elijah would be the precursor of Messiah. How does one reconcile John the Baptist’s denial here (“I am not”) with Jesus’ statements in Matt 11:14 (see also Mark 9:13 and Matt 17:12) that John the Baptist was Elijah? Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a reconstruction of the text in the Gospel of John which makes the Baptist say that he was Elijah. However, external support for such emendations is lacking. According to Gregory the Great, John was not Elijah, but exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way. But this avoids the real difficulty, since in John’s Gospel the question of the Jewish authorities to the Baptist concerns precisely his function. It has also been suggested that the author of the Gospel here preserves a historically correct reminiscence – that John the Baptist did not think of himself as Elijah, although Jesus said otherwise. Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:28 indicate the people and Herod both distinguished between John and Elijah – probably because he did not see himself as Elijah. But Jesus’ remarks in Matt 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Matt 17:12 indicate that John did perform the function of Elijah – John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord. C. F. D. Moule pointed out that it is too simple to see a straight contradiction between John’s account and that of the synoptic gospels: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?” (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [SBT], 70).

[1:21]  ¹⁷ sn The Prophet is a reference to the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. Acts 3:22 identifies Jesus as this prophet.

[1:22]  ¹⁸ tn The words “Tell us” are not in the Greek but are implied.

[1:23]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (John the Baptist) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:23]  ²⁰ sn This call to “make straight” is probably an allusion to preparation through repentance.

[1:23]  ²¹ sn A quotation from Isa 40:3.

[1:24]  ²² sn Pharisees were members of one of the most important and influential religious and political parties of Judaism in the time of Jesus. There were more Pharisees than Sadducees (according to Josephus, Ant. 17.2.4 [17.42] there were more than 6,000 Pharisees at about this time). Pharisees differed with Sadducees on certain doctrines and patterns of behavior. The Pharisees were strict and zealous adherents to the laws of the OT and to numerous additional traditions such as angels and bodily resurrection.

[1:24]  ²³ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:25]  ²⁴ tn Grk “And they asked him, and said to him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the phrase has been simplified in the translation to “So they asked John.”

[1:25]  ²⁵ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:26]  ²⁶ tn Grk “answered them, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:26]  ²⁷ tn Or “know.”

[1:27]  ²⁸ tn Grk “of whom I am not worthy.”

[1:27]  ²⁹ tn The term refers to the leather strap or thong used to bind a sandal. This is often viewed as a collective singular and translated as a plural, “the straps of his sandals,” but it may be more emphatic to retain the singular here.

[1:28]  ³⁰ tc Many witnesses ([א²] C² K T Ψ^c 083 Ë^1,13 33 pm sa Or) read Βηθαβαρᾷ (Bhqabara, “Bethabara”) instead of Βηθανίᾳ (Bhqania, “Bethany”). But the reading Βηθανίᾳ is strongly supported by {Ì^66,75 A B C* L W^s Δ Θ Ψ* 565 579 700 1241 1424 pm latt bo as well as several fathers}. Since there is no known Bethany “beyond the Jordan,” it is likely that the name would have been changed to a more etymologically edifying one (Origen mistakenly thought the name Bethabara meant “house of preparation” and for this reason was appropriate in this context; see TCGNT 171 for discussion). On the other hand, both since Origen’s understanding of the Semitic etymology of Bethabara was incorrect, and because Bethany was at least a well-known location in Palestine, mentioned in the Gospels about a dozen times, one has to wonder whether scribes replaced Βηθαβαρᾷ with Βηθανίᾳ. However, if Origen’s understanding of the etymology of the name was representative, scribes may have altered the text in the direction of Bethabara. And even if most scribes were unfamiliar with what the name might signify, that a reading which did not contradict the Gospels’ statements of a Bethany near Jerusalem was already at hand may have been sufficient reason for them to adopt Bethabara. Further, in light of the very strong testimony for Βηθανίᾳ, this reading should be regarded as authentic.

[1:28]  ³¹ tn “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity.

[1:29]  ³² tn Grk “he”; the referent (John) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[1:29]  ³³ sn Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [StPB], 225).

[1:30]  ³⁴ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:31]  ³⁵ tn Or “know.”

[1:31]  ³⁶ sn John the Baptist, who has been so reluctant to elaborate his own role, now more than willingly gives his testimony about Jesus. For the author, the emphasis is totally on John the Baptist as a witness to Jesus. No attention is given to the Baptist’s call to national repentance and very little to his baptizing. Everything is focused on what he has to say about Jesus: so that he could be revealed to Israel.

[1:32]  ³⁷ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events in the narrative. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:32]  ³⁸ tn Grk “testified, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:32]  ³⁹ sn The phrase like a dove is a descriptive comparison. The Spirit is not a dove, but descended like one in some sort of bodily representation.

[1:32]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “from the sky.” The Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) may be translated “sky” or “heaven,” depending on the context.

[1:32]  ⁴¹ sn John says the Spirit remained on Jesus. The Greek verb μένω (menw) is a favorite Johannine word, used 40 times in the Gospel and 27 times in the Epistles (67 together) against 118 times total in the NT. The general significance of the verb μένω for John is to express the permanency of relationship between Father and Son and Son and believer. Here the use of the word implies that Jesus permanently possesses the Holy Spirit, and because he does, he will dispense the Holy Spirit to others in baptism. Other notes on the dispensation of the Spirit occur at John 3:5 and following (at least implied by the wordplay), John 3:34, 7:38-39, numerous passages in John 14-16 (the Paraclete passages) and John 20:22. Note also the allusion to Isa 42:1 – “Behold my servant…my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit on him.”

[1:34]  ⁴² tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, |outo" estin Jo Juio" tou qeou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, outo" estin Jo eklekto" tou qeou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God” (so {Ì^66,75 A B C L Θ Ψ 0233^vid Ë^1,13 33 1241 aur c f l g bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others}). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for this verse, {Ì⁵} (3rd century), evidently read οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a nomen sacrum [uMs]. The term ἐκλεκτός was not a nomen sacrum and would have therefore taken up much more space [eklektos]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what Ì⁵ read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony Ì^106vid b e ff^2* sy^s,c also support this reading. ̹⁰⁶ is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff^2c sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegw) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός clearly best explains the rise of υἱός. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved Son’) would also explain the introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best – with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others – to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

[1:35]  ⁴³ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:35]  ⁴⁴ tn “There” is not in the Greek text but is implied by current English idiom.

[1:36]  ⁴⁵ sn This section (1:35-51) is joined to the preceding by the literary expedient of repeating the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus being the Lamb of God (1:36, cf. 1:29). This repeated testimony (1:36) no longer has revelatory value in itself, since it has been given before; its purpose, instead, is to institute a chain reaction which will bring John the Baptist’s disciples to Jesus and make them Jesus’ own disciples.

[1:37]  ⁴⁶ tn Grk “his”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:37]  ⁴⁷ tn Grk “And the two disciples heard him speaking.”

[1:37]  ⁴⁸ sn The expression followed Jesus pictures discipleship, which means that to learn from Jesus is to follow him as the guiding priority of one’s life.

[1:38]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “What are you seeking?”

[1:38]  ⁵⁰ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:39]  ⁵¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:39]  ⁵² tn Grk “said to them.”

[1:39]  ⁵³ tn Grk “about the tenth hour.”

[1:40]  ⁵⁴ tn Grk “who heard from John.”

[1:40]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:41]  ⁵⁶ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

[1:41]  ⁵⁷ sn Naturally part of Andrew’s concept of the Messiah would have been learned from John the Baptist (v. 40). However, there were a number of different messianic expectations in 1st century Palestine (see the note on “Who are you?” in v. 19), and it would be wrong to assume that what Andrew meant here is the same thing the author means in the purpose statement at the end of the Fourth Gospel, 20:31. The issue here is not whether the disciples’ initial faith in Jesus as Messiah was genuine or not, but whether their concept of who Jesus was grew and developed progressively as they spent time following him, until finally after his resurrection it is affirmed in the climactic statement of John’s Gospel, the affirmation of Thomas in 20:28.

[1:41]  ⁵⁸ tn Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “the one who has been anointed.”

[1:42]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “He brought him”; both referents (Andrew, Simon) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:42]  ⁶⁰ tc The reading “Simon, son of John” is well attested in Ì^66,75,106 א B* L 33 pc it co. The majority of mss (A B² Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here instead, but that is perhaps an assimilation to Matt 16:17.

[1:42]  ⁶¹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The change of name from Simon to Cephas is indicative of the future role he will play. Only John among the gospel writers gives the Greek transliteration (Κηφᾶς, Khfas) of Simon’s new name, Qéphâ (which is Galilean Aramaic). Neither Πέτρος (Petros) in Greek nor Qéphâ in Aramaic is a normal proper name; it is more like a nickname.

[1:43]  ⁶² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Jesus is best taken as the subject of εὑρίσκει (Jeuriskei), since Peter would scarcely have wanted to go to Galilee.

[1:43]  ⁶³ sn No explanation is given for why Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee, but probably he wanted to go to the wedding at Cana (about a two day trip).

[1:43]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “and he.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[1:43]  ⁶⁵ tn Grk “and Jesus said.”

[1:44]  ⁶⁶ sn Although the author thought of the town as in Galilee (12:21), Bethsaida technically was in Gaulanitis (Philip the Tetrarch’s territory) across from Herod’s Galilee. There may have been two places called Bethsaida, or this may merely reflect popular imprecision – locally it was considered part of Galilee, even though it was just east of the Jordan river. This territory was heavily Gentile (which may explain why Andrew and Philip both have Gentile names).

[1:44]  ⁶⁷ tn Probably ἀπό (apo) indicates “originally from” in the sense of birthplace rather than current residence; Mark 1:21, 29 seems to locate the home of Andrew and Peter at Capernaum. The entire remark (v. 44) amounts to a parenthetical comment by the author.

[1:45]  ⁶⁸ sn Nathanael is traditionally identified with Bartholomew (although John never describes him as such). He appears here after Philip, while in all lists of the twelve except in Acts 1:13, Bartholomew follows Philip. Also, the Aramaic Bar-tolmai means “son of Tolmai,” the surname; the man almost certainly had another name.

[1:45]  ⁶⁹ tn “Also” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[1:46]  ⁷⁰ tn Grk “And Nathanael.”

[1:46]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “said to him.”

[1:46]  ⁷² sn Can anything good come out of Nazareth? may be a local proverb expressing jealousy among the towns.

[1:46]  ⁷³ tn Grk “And Philip said to him.”

[1:47]  ⁷⁴ tn Grk “said about him.”

[1:47]  ⁷⁵ tn Or “treachery.”

[1:48]  ⁷⁶ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This is somewhat redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation to “replied.”

[1:48]  ⁷⁷ sn Many have speculated about what Nathanael was doing under the fig tree. Meditating on the Messiah who was to come? A good possibility, since the fig tree was used as shade for teaching or studying by the later rabbis (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:11). Also, the fig tree was symbolic for messianic peace and plenty (Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10.)

[1:49]  ⁷⁸ tn Although βασιλεύς (basileus) lacks the article it is definite due to contextual and syntactical considerations. See ExSyn 263.

[1:49]  ⁷⁹ sn Nathanael’s confession – You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel – is best understood as a confession of Jesus’ messiahship. It has strong allusions to Ps 2:6-7, a well-known messianic psalm. What Nathanael’s exact understanding was at this point is hard to determine, but “son of God” was a designation for the Davidic king in the OT, and Nathanael parallels it with King of Israel here.

[1:50]  ⁸⁰ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “said to him.”

[1:50]  ⁸¹ sn What are the greater things Jesus had in mind? In the narrative this forms an excellent foreshadowing of the miraculous signs which began at Cana of Galilee.

[1:51]  ⁸² tn Grk “and he said to him.”

[1:51]  ⁸³ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[1:51]  ⁸⁴ sn The title Son of Man appears 13 times in John’s Gospel. It is associated especially with the themes of crucifixion (3:14; 8:28), revelation (6:27; 6:53), and eschatological authority (5:27; 9:35). The title as used in John’s Gospel has for its background the son of man figure who appears in Dan 7:13-14 and is granted universal regal authority. Thus for the author, the emphasis in this title is not on Jesus’ humanity, but on his heavenly origin and divine authority.