John 1 Commentary: Unveiling the Word, the Light, and the Lamb of God

1. John: The Distinct Gospel Within the Fourfold Narrative

The Gospel of John stands as the fourth voice in what is often called the fourfold gospel, a collection of perspectives on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Early Christian thinkers like Origen (A.D. 185-254) recognized that these weren’t four separate gospels, but rather one unified gospel presented through four distinct lenses.

a. It’s widely believed that the Gospel of John was the last to be written, composed with an awareness of the narratives already presented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This chronological position explains many of the unique aspects of John’s account, setting it apart from the synoptic Gospels.

b. Significantly, John omits events central to the synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus’ ministry, including:

The Nativity of Jesus
Jesus’ Baptism by John
The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness
Encounters with Demonic Forces
Parables as Teaching Tools
The Last Supper with Disciples
The Agony in Gethsemane
The Ascension of Jesus

c. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke primarily focus on Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, John centers his Gospel around Jesus’ activities and teachings in Jerusalem, offering a different geographical and thematic emphasis.

d. Each Gospel uniquely highlights Jesus’ origins:

Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham through David, establishing Him as the promised Messiah of the Old Testament (Matthew 1:1-17).
Mark begins with Jesus in Nazareth, portraying Him as the Servant of God (Mark 1:9).
Luke extends Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, presenting Him as the Perfect Man, embodying humanity as God intended (Luke 3:23-38).
John, in contrast, declares Jesus’ origin to be from heaven itself, unequivocally stating His divine nature as God incarnate.

e. However, it’s crucial to understand that John’s Gospel isn’t intended to be a complete or exhaustive biography of Jesus. John himself suggests that the entirety of Jesus’ life and works is too vast to be fully captured in any written account (John 21:25), emphasizing the inexhaustible nature of the story of Jesus.

2. Beyond Synoptic Gospels: John’s Unique Focus on Jesus’ Identity

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collectively known as the synoptic Gospels, derived from the Greek word synoptikos, meaning “seeing together.” This designation reflects their shared structure and presentation of Jesus’ life. These Gospels largely emphasize what Jesus taught and did, while John’s Gospel shifts the focus to who Jesus is, delving into His divine identity and purpose.

John reveals Jesus’ identity through seven significant signs (miracles), six of which are not found in the synoptic Gospels. These miracles are carefully selected to demonstrate Jesus’ power and divinity.
John further unveils Jesus’ self-understanding through seven powerful “I AM” statements, direct pronouncements from Jesus about His nature and mission. These statements are unique to John and are absent from the synoptic accounts.
John reinforces Jesus’ identity by presenting testimonies from various witnesses throughout the Gospel. Remarkably, four distinct witnesses are introduced in the very first chapter, each affirming a different aspect of Jesus’ identity.

3. The Purpose of John’s Gospel: Belief and Life in His Name

John’s Gospel is explicitly written with a specific purpose: to inspire belief in Jesus. A foundational verse for understanding John’s intention is found near the book’s conclusion: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31). This verse encapsulates the Gospel’s central aim – to lead readers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, resulting in eternal life.

a. The profound impact of John’s Gospel extends even to skeptical scholars, with evidence suggesting its early and wide circulation. The oldest extant fragment of the New Testament is a portion of John 18, discovered in Egypt and dated well before A.D. 150, indicating its significant presence and influence in the early Church.

b. While John maintains a humble profile in his Gospel, we can glean certain biographical details from the text and related scriptures:

His father was Zebedee.
His mother, Salome, is identified as one of the women who went to Jesus’ tomb on resurrection morning.
His brother was James, another of the twelve apostles.
John was a business partner with Peter in the fishing industry, suggesting a pre-existing relationship before their discipleship.
Jesus nicknamed John and his brother James “Sons of Thunder,” possibly reflecting their passionate and fiery personalities.

4. John: A Gospel of Simplicity and Depth

The Gospel of John is cherished for its unique blend of accessibility and profound theological depth. It has been famously described as “a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant may swim,” capturing its appeal to both the novice and the seasoned theologian.

a. As Erdman noted, “Its stories are so simple that even a child will love them, but its statements are so profound that no philosopher can fathom them.” This paradoxical nature makes John both universally relatable and intellectually stimulating.

b. Drawing on the wisdom of John Chrysostom, we are reminded that if we dedicate considerable attention to fleeting forms of entertainment, news, and culture, how much more should we attentively listen “when a man is speaking from heaven, and utters a voice plainer than thunder?” The Gospel of John offers a message of eternal significance, deserving our utmost focus and reflection.

B. Prologue to the Gospel of John: A Summary of Divine Revelation

This extraordinary and insightful prologue is far more than a mere introduction; it serves as a condensed overview of the entire Gospel. The themes introduced here – the identity of the Word, life, light, regeneration, grace, truth, and the revelation of God the Father in Jesus the Son – are explored and unfolded throughout the rest of John’s narrative.

1. (1-2) The Eternal Pre-existence of the Word (Logos)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

a. In the beginning: This phrase echoes the timeless opening of Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth), anchoring John’s prologue in the very act of creation. John essentially states, “When the beginning itself commenced, the Word was already in existence.” This emphasizes the Word’s existence prior to creation and even the concept of time itself.

i. John underscores that the Word is not simply present at the beginning, but predates the very inception of beginnings. He existed in the beginning, before anything else came into being.

ii. Trench aptly comments on the phrase was the Word: “Had the Word a beginning? John says, ‘No: for if we reach back to any beginning, there already was in existence the Word.’ At once it is evident to John’s vision ‘The Word’ is no other than God the self-existent.” This highlights the eternal and self-sufficient nature of the Word.

iii. Dods adds, “This description is given in order that we may at once grasp a continuous history which runs out of an unmeasured past, and the identity of the person who is subject of that history.” John sets the stage for understanding the Word as an eternal being with a continuous history stretching from eternity past into time.

b. In the beginning was the Word: Word translates the Greek term Logos. The concept of the logos carried profound significance in both Jewish and Greek thought, providing a rich context for John’s introduction.

i. Jewish rabbis frequently used “the word of God” as a way to refer to God Himself, particularly in His more personal and active manifestations. They spoke of God’s word as being synonymous with God’s presence and power. For example, ancient Hebrew versions of the Old Testament modify Exodus 19:17 (Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God) to “Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the word of God.” This illustrates the Jewish understanding of “the word of God” as more than just spoken words, but as a representation of God Himself.

ii. Greek philosophers viewed the logos as the principle of order and reason that imbued the cosmos with meaning and coherence. They saw it as the force that transformed chaos into order, maintaining the world in perfect balance. The logos was considered the “Ultimate Reason” governing all aspects of existence (Dods, Morris, Barclay, Bruce, and others).

iii. Therefore, in this opening, John addressed both Jews and Greeks in terms they would readily understand: “For centuries you’ve been discussing, contemplating, and writing about the Word (the logos). Now, I will reveal to you who He truly is.” John skillfully bridged the gap between Jewish and Greek thought, presenting Jesus in a way that resonated with both cultural backgrounds.

iv. Morris notes, “John was using a term which, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could reckon on all men catching his essential meaning.” The universality of the term logos allowed John to communicate effectively with a broad audience.

v. Dods further explains, “The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses us to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God.” John leveraged the existing understanding of logos to introduce Jesus as the ultimate revelation of the unknowable God.

c. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God: With this concise yet profound statement, John 1:1 lays the cornerstone of Trinitarian theology. John’s logic unfolds as follows:

There exists a Being identified as the Word.
This Being is inherently God, evidenced by His eternal existence (In the beginning).
This Being is explicitly declared to be God (the Word was God).
Simultaneously, this Being is not exhaustive of all that God is. God the Father is a distinct Person from the Word (the Word was with God).

i. Thus, the Father and the Son (identified here as the Word) are co-equally God, yet distinct in their individual Persons. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Together with God the Holy Spirit, they constitute one God in three Persons, the Holy Trinity.

ii. The Word was with God: Dods elucidates, “This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: ‘Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally.’” The preposition “with” (pros in Greek) denotes a dynamic relationship and distinct personhood.

iii. And the Word was God: Alford clarifies, “This is the true form of the sentence; not ‘God was the Word.’ This is absolutely required by the usage of the Greek language.” The grammatical structure emphasizes the Word’s divine nature, not merely an attribute of God.

iv. Dods quotes Luther’s insightful summary: “Luther says ‘the Word was God’ is against Arius: ‘the Word was with God’ against Sabellius.” This highlights how John 1:1 refutes both Arianism (which denies Jesus’ full divinity) and Sabellianism (which denies the distinct persons within the Trinity).

v. Boice powerfully states, “And the Word was God: Everything that can be said about God the Father can be said about God the Son. In Jesus dwells all the wisdom, glory, power, love, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth of the Father. In Him, God the Father is known.” This emphasizes the complete and perfect revelation of God the Father in God the Son, Jesus Christ.

d. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the publishers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, renders this verse in a significantly altered way: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This translation is deliberately crafted to support their denial of Jesus’ full divinity, and is considered by mainstream biblical scholarship to be inaccurate and misleading.

i. The Watchtower’s justification for translating “the Word was God” as “the Word was a god” hinges on the absence of the definite article (“the”) before the second instance of “God” in the Greek text (written as theos rather than ho theos). However, this argument is flawed when examined in the context of New Testament Greek grammar. Numerous instances exist where theos appears without the article and is unequivocally translated as “God.” To maintain consistency, the Watchtower would need to translate theos as “a god” in every instance where the article is absent, which they demonstrably fail to do when it contradicts their doctrinal positions. Examples of inconsistent translation in the New World Translation include Matthew 5:9, 6:24, Luke 1:35 and 1:75, John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18, Romans 1:7 and 1:17, where the same grammatical structure is translated as “God,” not “a god.”

ii. The Watchtower misleadingly cites Greek scholars to lend credibility to their translation. In their primary resource for defending their rendering, The Kingdom Interlinear, they quote well-respected Greek authorities in a way that misrepresents their actual views. Dr. Julius R. Mantey, one such scholar, has publicly refuted the Watchtower’s use of his work and demanded his name be removed from their publications. Another source cited by the Watchtower in their book The Word – Who Is He? According to John is Johannes Greber, who was not a recognized biblical Greek scholar but rather an occultist and spiritist practitioner.

iii. Reputable Greek scholars universally reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1-2 as grammatically unsound and theologically motivated.

Dr. Julius R. Mantey: “A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘the Word was a god.’ But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
Dr. F.F. Bruce: “Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. ‘A god’ would be totally indefensible.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg: “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman: “The Jehovah’s Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. William Barclay: “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

e. He was in the beginning with God: This reiterates the distinct personhood of the Father and the Son while affirming their co-eternal existence and shared divine nature. They are equally God, yet distinct Persons within the Godhead.

2. (3-5) The Work and Nature of the Word: Creation, Life, and Light

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

a. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made: The Word is not merely present at creation but is the active agent through whom all creation came into being. This emphasizes His role as the divine architect and agent of creation. Since He created all things, He Himself must be uncreated, as Paul affirms in Colossians 1:16.

i. Clarke eloquently states, “In Genesis 1:1, GOD is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are ONE.” This verse highlights the unity of action and purpose between the Father and the Son in creation, affirming their shared divinity.

b. In Him was life: The Word is not simply a living being, but the very source of all life. This encompasses not only biological life but also the fundamental principle of life itself. The Greek word used here for life is zoe, which signifies “life in its fullness,” spiritual life, and the very essence of vitality, distinct from bios, which refers to mere biological existence.

i. Dods explains, “That power which creates life and maintains all else in existence was in the Logos.” The Word possesses the inherent power to both create and sustain all forms of life.

c. The life was the light of men: This life emanating from the Word is also the light of men, referring to spiritual illumination and understanding, as well as the natural light of creation. The Word doesn’t just possess life and light as attributes; He is life and light in His very being.

i. Consequently, apart from Jesus, humanity exists in a state of spiritual death and darkness, lost and without direction. Significantly, humanity possesses an innate fear of both death and darkness, reflecting a deep-seated spiritual reality.

d. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it: The phrase “did not comprehend it” can also be translated as did not overcome it or did not extinguish it. This emphasizes the unyielding and invincible nature of the light in the face of darkness. Light inherently dispels darkness and cannot be overcome by it.

i. Comprehend: Morris clarifies the nuanced meaning of the Greek verb: “The Greek verb is not easy to translate. It contains the idea of laying hold on something so as to make it one’s own. This can lead to meanings like ‘lay hold with the mind’, and thus ‘comprehend’…[Yet] The verb we are discussing has a rarer, but sufficiently attested meaning, ‘overcome’. It is that that is required here.” In this context, “comprehend” is better understood as “overcome” or “extinguish,” highlighting the darkness’s inability to defeat the light.

ii. Bruce draws a parallel to the creation narrative: “In the first creation, ‘darkness was upon the face of the deep’ (Genesis 1:2) until God called light into being, so the new creation involves the banishing of spiritual darkness by the light which shines in the Word.” Just as physical light dispelled primordial darkness, the Word’s light overcomes spiritual darkness, ushering in a new creation in Christ.

3. (6-8) The Forerunner of the Word: John the Baptist

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

a. There was a man sent from God: John the Baptist was divinely commissioned to be a witness to the light, that all through him might believe. His ministry was intentionally focused on leading people to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

i. Dods emphasizes the purpose of introducing John the Baptist: “The testimony of John is introduced not only as a historical note but in order to bring out the aggravated blindness of those who rejected Christ.” John’s witness serves as a stark contrast to the rejection Jesus would face.

b. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light: John the Baptist’s ministry was remarkably impactful and widely recognized. It is crucial for John, the Gospel writer, to explicitly clarify that John the Baptist was not that Light itself, but rather a messenger sent to point towards and testify about that Light.

i. He was not that Light: Tenney suggests a possible reason for this clarification: “Possibly this was directed toward the sect that survived John and perpetuated his teaching but had not knowledge of the completion of the work of Christ (Acts 18:24-25; 19:1-7).” Some followers of John the Baptist may have elevated him to Messianic status, necessitating this clear distinction.

ii. Morris highlights the emphasis on witness: “We know him as ‘John the Baptist’ but in this Gospel the references to his baptism are incidental… But there is repeated reference to his witness.” John’s Gospel prioritizes John the Baptist’s role as a witness to Jesus over his baptismal ministry.

iii. Morris further elaborates on the significance of witness: “The matter of witness is a serious thing, establishing truth and giving ground for faith. Yet, witness “does more. It commits a man. If I take my stand in the witness box and testify that such-and-such is the truth of the mater I am no longer neutral. I have committed myself. John lets us know that there are those like John the Baptist who have committed themselves by their witness to Christ.” Witness is not passive observation but active commitment to the truth being declared.

4. (9-11) The Rejection of the Word by the World

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.

a. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world: John doesn’t imply that the Word grants saving light to every individual universally. Rather, he means that the very existence of love, care, and goodness in the world is attributable to the true Light and the light He imparts to the world generally. Even in a fallen world, remnants of God’s light and goodness persist due to the Word’s influence.

b. The world did not know Him: This is a profound paradox: God, in the person of the Word, entered the very world He created, among creatures made in His image, yet the world did not know Him. This illustrates the depth of human fallenness and the inherent rejection of God within human nature. Many rejected (did not receive) God’s word and Light.

i. He came to His own: Morris offers a poignant interpretation: “We might translate the opening words, ‘he came home’. It is the exact expression used of the beloved disciple when, in response to Jesus’ word from the cross, he took Mary ‘unto his own home’ (John 19:27; cf. John 16:32). When the Word came to this world He did not come as an alien. He came home.” Jesus’ arrival in the world was not as a stranger but as one returning to His own possession, His creation.

ii. Dods emphasizes the active rejection: “It is said of ‘His own’ not that they did not ‘know’ Him, but that they did not receive Him. And in the parable of the Wicked Husbandman our Lord represents them as killing the heir not in ignorance but because they knew him.” The rejection was not due to ignorance but willful defiance and rejection of His identity.

iii. Trapp poignantly observes, “This little world knew not Christ, for God had hid him under the carpenter’s son; his glory was inward, his kingdom came not by observation.” Jesus’ humble appearance and lack of outward pomp obscured His divine glory from worldly eyes.

5. (12-13) Receiving the Word: Becoming Children of God

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

a. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: Despite the widespread rejection, some did receive Him and were granted the transformative privilege of becoming children of God. This new status is attained through belief in His name and a new birth, being born… of God.

i. Morris highlights the grace amidst rejection: “The end of the story is not the tragedy of rejection, but the grace of acceptance.” Even in the face of rejection, God’s grace extends to those who receive Him.

ii. As many as received Him: “Receiving Jesus” is a biblically valid expression of faith. As many as received Him is synonymous with those who believe in His name. Spurgeon eloquently describes faith as: “Faith is described as ‘receiving’ Jesus. It is the empty cup placed under the flowing stream; the penniless hand held out for heavenly alms.” Faith is an act of humble receptivity, accepting God’s gift of salvation.

iii. The right to become children of God: Tenney clarifies the term “children”: “The word children (tekna) is parallel to the Scottish bairns – ‘born ones.’ It emphasizes vital origin and is used as a term of endearment (cf. Luke 15:31). Believers are God’s ‘little ones,’ related to him by birth.” Tekna emphasizes the familial relationship and the new birth from God.

b. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God: John clarifies that this new birth is not the result of human lineage, effort, or desire, but is entirely of God. Salvation is a divine work, not a human achievement.

i. Not of bloods: Morris notes the curious plural form: “They are ‘not of bloods’. The plural is curious…The plural here may point to the action of both parents, or it may refer to blood as made up of many drops.” The plural may emphasize the multiple human factors that are insufficient for spiritual birth.

ii. Spurgeon uses the analogy of a watch to illustrate the transformative nature of this new birth: “The man is like a watch which has a new mainspring, not a mere face and hands repaired, but new inward machinery, with freshly adjusted works, which act to a different time and tune; and whereas he went wrong before, now he goes right, because he is right within.” The new birth is a radical inner transformation, not mere outward adjustments.

6. (14) The Incarnation: The Word Became Flesh

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

a. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us: This is the most astonishing declaration in John’s prologue. The concept of the Word became flesh would have been revolutionary and challenging for both Jewish and Greek worldviews.

i. Alford emphasizes the directness of the statement: “The most general expression of the great truth He became man. He became that, of which man is in the body compounded…The simplicity of this expression is no doubt directed against the Docetae of the Apostle’s time, who maintained that the Word only apparently took human nature.” John’s simple statement directly refutes Docetism, an early heresy that denied the reality of Jesus’ physical body.

ii. To the Greeks, who often held a low view of the material world and divine involvement in it, John proclaimed: the Word became flesh. Greek gods like Zeus and Hermes were often seen as glorified humans, not beings comparable to the cosmic Logos. John’s message was that the very Logos that ordered the universe became flesh, bridging the gap between the divine and the human in an unprecedented way.

iii. To the Jews, who held a high view of God’s transcendence and separation from humanity, John declared: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Many Jews struggled to conceive of the transcendent God of the Old Testament taking on human form. John’s message was that the Word of God, the very essence of divine revelation, became flesh, entering into human existence in a tangible way.

iv. This profound truth means that God has drawn near to humanity in Jesus Christ. “You don’t have to struggle to find Him; He came to you.” God’s initiative in the Incarnation removes the burden of humanity having to reach up to a distant God; He has come down to us.

v. Tenney describes the Incarnation as a new dimension of existence for Christ: “Christ entered into a new dimension of existence through the gateway of human birth and took up his residence among men.” The Incarnation was not a mere change of form but an entrance into a fully human existence.

vi. Barclay highlights Augustine’s profound realization: “Augustine afterwards said that in his pre-Christian days he had read and studied the great pagan philosophers and had read many things, but he had never read that the word became flesh.” The Incarnation is a unique and unprecedented event in the history of divine-human interaction, absent from pagan philosophy.

b. And dwelt among us: The phrase “dwelt among us” literally means tabernacled among us or pitched his tent among us. John deliberately evokes the imagery of God’s presence with Israel in the tabernacle in the wilderness, connecting Jesus’ coming to humanity with God’s dwelling among His people in the Old Testament. It could be stated, and tabernacled among us.

i. Clarke connects the tabernacling with Jesus’ humanity as the dwelling place of divinity: “And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple.” Jesus’ human body became the temple, the dwelling place of the divine Shechinah glory.

ii. Morris notes the literal meaning: “Properly the verb signifies ‘to pitch one’s tent’.” Dods adds, “The association in John’s mind was…with the Divine tabernacle in the wilderness, when Jehovah pitched His tent among the shifting tents of His people.” John intentionally links Jesus’ presence to the tabernacle, a symbol of God’s dwelling among Israel.

iii. The tabernacle serves as a rich analogy for understanding Jesus’ role:

The tabernacle was the center of Israel’s camp, just as Jesus is to be the center of our lives.
It was the place where the Law of Moses was preserved, and Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law.
It was the dwelling place of God, and in Jesus, the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.
It was the place of revelation, and Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.
It was the place where sacrifices were made, and Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin.
It was the center of Israel’s worship, and Jesus is the one we worship.

iv. Spurgeon encourages drawing near to this “central tabernacle”: “If God has come to dwell among men by the Word made flesh let us pitch our tents around: this central tabernacle; do not let us live as if God were a long way off.” The Incarnation calls for a closer relationship with God, drawing near to Him who has drawn near to us.

v. Barclay defines Shechinah: “The Shechinah means that which dwells; and it is the word used for the visible presence of God among men.” The tabernacle and later the temple were understood as places where God’s visible presence, the Shechinah, dwelt among His people.

c. We beheld His glory: John testifies as an eyewitness, echoing the witness of John the Baptist. He affirms, “I saw His glory, the glory belonging to the only begotten of the Father.”

i. The word beheld (etheasametha in Greek) is stronger than a simple “saw” or “looked.” It implies careful and prolonged observation, suggesting that John and the other disciples carefully studied the glory of the Word made flesh.

ii. Morris emphasizes the literal nature of the beholding: “’The verb ‘beheld’ is invariably used in John (as, for that matter, in the whole New Testament) of seeing with the bodily eye. It is not used of visions. John is speaking of that glory that was seen in the literal, physical Jesus of Nazareth.” John’s witness is grounded in his direct, physical experience of Jesus’ glory.

d. Full of grace and truth: The glory of Jesus was not mere spectacle or fleeting sensation, but was intrinsically full of grace and truth. These two qualities define the essence of God’s revelation in Christ.

i. Spurgeon marvels at the fullness of these qualities: “Beloved, notice here that both these qualities in our Lord are at the full. He is ‘full of grace.’ Who could be more so? In the person of Jesus Christ the immeasurable grace of God is treasured up.” Jesus embodies the boundless and inexhaustible grace of God.

ii. Morgan underscores the inseparable nature of grace and truth in God: “These two ideas should hold our minds and direct our lives. God is grace, and truth. Not one without the other. Not the other apart from the one. In His government there can be no lowering of the simple and severe standard of Truth; and there is no departure from the purpose and passion of Grace.” God’s character and dealings are characterized by both unwavering truth and boundless grace, perfectly manifested in Jesus.

7. (15-18) Bearing Witness to God’s New Order: Grace and Truth through Jesus

John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

a. He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me: John the Baptist’s testimony was rooted in his understanding of Jesus’ pre-existence. He recognized Jesus’ priority and superiority in every sense, even though John began his ministry earlier in time.

i. Morris explains the cultural context: “In antiquity it was widely held that chronological priority meant superiority. Men were humble about their own generation, and really thought that their fathers were wiser than they – incredible as this may sound to our generation!” John’s statement directly challenged this ancient cultural assumption by asserting Jesus’ pre-temporal existence and inherent superiority.

b. Of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace: The new order established by Jesus is characterized by an inexhaustible abundance of grace (grace for grace, a figure of speech similar to sorrows upon sorrows) and truth, contrasting with the previous order of rigid laws and regulations given through Moses.

i. Grace for grace: Morris explains the literal meaning: “Literally it means ‘grace instead of grace’. Clearly John intends to put some emphasis on the thought of grace. Probably also he means that as one piece of divine grace (so to speak) recedes it is replaced by another. God’s grace to His people is continuous and is never exhausted. Grace knows no interruption and no limit.” God’s grace is not a finite resource but a continuous and ever-flowing stream, constantly replenishing and exceeding our needs.

c. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ: This verse highlights the distinct nature of the two covenants. The law, mediated by Moses, provided a framework of righteousness but also revealed humanity’s inability to perfectly fulfill it. Jesus Christ, however, brings a new order characterized by grace and truth, offering both forgiveness and a pathway to genuine righteousness.

i. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ: Bruce emphasizes the shift in focus from the Law to Christ: “Here, then, as in Paul’s writings, Christ displaces the law of Moses as the focus of divine revelation and the way to life.” Jesus, not the Law, is now the central point of divine revelation and the means to life.

d. No one has seen God at any time: Jesus, as the Word incarnate, is the perfect and complete declaration of the unseen God. The Father and the Son share an intimate and eternal relationship, and Jesus has declared the very nature of the unseen God to humanity. We are no longer left to speculate or guess about God’s character; Jesus has unveiled it through His life and teachings.

i. Tenney clarifies the meaning of “God” in this verse: “The noun God (theon) has not article in the Greek text, which indicates that the author is presenting God in his nature of being rather than as a person. ‘Deity’ might be a more accurate rendering. The meaning is that no human has ever seen the essence of Deity.” It is God’s essential being, His ultimate nature, that remains unseen by human eyes.

ii. Alford explains the nature of “sight of God” in this context: “The sight of God here meant, is not only bodily sight (though of that it is true, see Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16), but intuitive and infallible knowledge, which enables him who has it to declare the nature and will of God.” “Seeing God” here signifies a deep, intuitive understanding and knowledge of His nature, which Jesus uniquely possesses and reveals.

iii. Who is in the bosom of the Father: Alford explains the intimacy of this relationship: “The expression signifies, as Chrysostom observes, Kindred and oneness of essence: – and is derived from the fond and intimate union of children and parents.” The phrase “bosom of the Father” conveys the deepest intimacy, love, and unity between the Father and the Son, reflecting their shared divine essence.

C. The Testimony of John the Baptist: Witness to the Lamb and Son of God

1. (19-22) Religious Leaders from Jerusalem Question John the Baptist’s Authority

Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”

a. Now this is the testimony of John: Having established John the Baptist’s role as a witness (John 1:7 and 1:15), the Gospel now presents the content of his testimony concerning Jesus.

i. The Jews: Bruce clarifies the specific usage of “the Jews” in John’s Gospel: “Here for the first time we come upon the use of the term ‘the Jews’ in this Gospel to denote not the people as a whole but one particular group – here, the religious establishment in Jerusalem.” In John, “the Jews” often refers to the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem, rather than the entire Jewish population.

ii. Morris provides an example: “Thus the parents of the man born blind were certainly members of the Jewish nation, but they are said to fear ‘the Jews’ (John 9:22).” This further illustrates that “the Jews” in John often refers to the religious leaders and their power structure.

b. I am not the Christ: John emphatically denied being the Messiah. His focus was not on himself but on pointing others to the true Messiah.

i. Barclay highlights the implied contrast: “John completely rejected that claim; but he rejected it with a certain hint. In the Greek the word I is stressed by its position. It is as if John said: ‘I am not the Messiah, but, if you only knew, the Messiah is here.’” John’s denial implicitly points to the presence of the true Messiah among them.

ii. He confessed, and did not deny: Trapp emphasizes John’s sincerity and humility: “Sincerely and studiously; he put away that honour with both hands earnestly, as knowing the danger of wronging the jealous God.” John’s earnest and repeated confession underscores his humility and dedication to truth.

iii. The Gospel writer John emphasizes the importance of clarifying that John the Baptist did not claim to be the Messiah, addressing potential misconceptions: “As late as A.D. 250 the Clementine Recognitions tell us that ‘there were some of John’s disciples who preached about him as if their master was the Messiah.’” Even decades later, some of John the Baptist’s followers may have mistakenly attributed Messianic status to him.

c. Are you Elijah? The priests and Levites may have associated John with Elijah due to his distinctive appearance and prophetic ministry, coupled with the Old Testament prophecy of Elijah’s return before the Day of the LORD (Malachi 4:5-6).

i. While John himself never claimed to be Elijah, Jesus indicated that John fulfilled the spirit and purpose of Elijah’s ministry (Matthew 11:13-14 and Mark 9:11-13), without being the literal reincarnation of Elijah.

d. Are you the Prophet? Deuteronomy 18:15-19 prophesied the coming of another great prophet. The religious leaders inquired if John might be this promised Prophet.

2. (23-28) John Explains His Identity: The Voice Preparing the Way

He said: “I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Make straight the way of the LORD,”’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.” These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

a. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Quoting Isaiah 40:3, John clarified his role as the forerunner, preparing the way of the LORD. His baptism was a symbolic act of purification, preparing people for the coming of the Messiah, the King.

i. Morris emphasizes the purpose of John’s ministry: “John’s real function was not to teach ethics, but to point men to Jesus. ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’ is a call to be ready, for the coming of the Messiah is near.” John’s primary mission was not moral reform but Messianic preparation.

ii. John prioritized his mission over personal identity: “The religious leaders wanted to know who John was, and he wasn’t really interested in answering that question. He wanted to talk about his mission: to prepare the way for the Messiah.” John’s focus was solely on his divinely appointed task of preparing the way for Jesus.

b. Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ: The Pharisees questioned John’s authority to baptize if he wasn’t one of the expected prophetic figures. However, John’s baptism was intrinsically linked to his role as the forerunner, preparing people for the Messiah’s arrival.

i. Bruce notes the distinctiveness of John’s baptism: “His baptism was apparently distinctive in that he administered it personally; it was not self-administered as proselyte baptism was.” Unlike proselyte baptism, which was self-administered, John’s baptism was administered personally, adding to its significance.

c. I baptize with water: John’s baptism symbolized repentance, cleansing, and preparation for the Messiah. However, it was limited to outward cleansing with water. The baptism of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit, offers a deeper, inward transformation and empowerment.

i. Jewish people in John’s time practiced baptism, adapted from ceremonial washings, primarily for Gentiles converting to Judaism. For Jews to submit to John’s baptism, they were symbolically identifying with Gentile converts, a radical act of repentance and humility.

ii. Tenney suggests the influence of proselyte baptism: “It is not unlikely that John’s baptism followed the pattern of proselyte baptism, which required a renunciation of all evil, complete immersion in water, and then reclothing as a member of the holy communion of law-keepers.” John’s baptism likely drew upon the ritualistic elements of proselyte baptism.

iii. Morris highlights the provocative nature of John’s baptism for Jews: “The novelty in John’s case and the sting behind the practice was that he applied to Jews the ceremony which was held to be appropriate in the case of Gentiles coming newly into the faith…to put Jews in the same class was horrifying.” John’s baptism was particularly challenging for Jews because it symbolically placed them on the same level as Gentile converts, requiring them to acknowledge their need for repentance and cleansing.

d. There stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me: John shifted the focus away from himself and towards the One who was already present among them, though unrecognized. John’s ministry was subservient to the Messiah’s, preparing the way for His revelation.

e. Whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose: Untying sandal straps, a menial task preceding foot washing, was traditionally assigned to the lowest slave in a household. John’s declaration of unworthiness to perform even this task for Jesus underscores his profound humility and recognition of Jesus’ supreme status.

i. Bruce provides rabbinical context: “‘Every service which a slave performs for his master’, said one rabbi, ‘a disciple will perform for his teacher, except to untie his sandal-strap.’” Even among rabbis and disciples, untying sandal straps was considered too lowly a task for a disciple to perform for his teacher, further highlighting John’s extreme humility.

ii. These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan: Trench provides geographical and historical context: “The interview took place at Bethany (House of the ferry-boat) on the east bank of the Jordan at the spot called in Origen’s time Bethabara (House of the ford) — the traditional place of the passage of the Ark and the nation under Joshua (Joshua 3:14-17).” Bethabara, meaning “house of the ford,” may have been symbolically significant as the place where Israel crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land under Joshua, foreshadowing the new exodus and entry into God’s kingdom through Jesus.

3. (29) John the Baptist’s Testimony: Jesus as the Lamb of God

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

a. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him: This likely occurred after Jesus’ baptism by John and His 40 days of temptation in the wilderness. Jesus returned to John’s ministry to be publicly identified as the Messiah.

i. Bruce suggests a time lapse: “Some weeks probably had elapsed since Jesus received baptism at John’s hands; he had been away since then, but now he is back, and John draws the crowd’s attention to him.” Jesus’ return after a period of absence underscores the significance of this public declaration.

ii. Alford confirms the chronological sequence: “Since then verse 29 must be understood as happening after the baptism, it must have happened after the Temptation also. And in this supposition there is not the slightest difficulty.” The timing after both baptism and temptation emphasizes the readiness of Jesus to begin His public ministry.

b. Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! At the outset of Jesus’ public ministry, John the Baptist proclaimed His ultimate destiny: sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of humanity. The shadow of the cross permeates Jesus’ entire ministry from this point onward.

i. John’s proclamation was not about Jesus as a moral exemplar or teacher, but as the atoning sacrifice for sin: “John didn’t present Jesus as a great moral example or a great teacher of holiness and love. He proclaimed Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. It wasn’t “Behold the great example” or “Behold the great teacher” – it was Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” This highlights the centrality of Jesus’ sacrificial role in John’s Gospel.

ii. Dods explains the symbolism of “the Lamb”: “He used ‘the lamb’ as the symbol of sacrifice in general. Here, he says, is the reality of which all animal sacrifice was the symbol.” John presents Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of all Old Testament sacrificial lambs.

c. Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This single sentence encapsulates Jesus’ most profound work: addressing the fundamental problem of sin afflicting humanity. Every word is pregnant with meaning.

i. Behold! John’s exclamation Behold! accompanied his visual encounter with Jesus: “John said this as he saw Jesus coming toward him. As a preacher, John first saw Jesus himself and then told all his listeners to look upon Jesus, to behold Him.” John’s personal encounter precedes his public proclamation, urging others to also “behold” Jesus.

ii. The Lamb of God: John employed the powerful image of the sacrificial lamb, deeply ingrained in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Jesus is presented as the ultimate and perfect fulfillment of every symbolic lamb:

He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).
He is the animal sacrificed in the Garden of Eden to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21).
He is the lamb God Himself provided for Abraham as a substitute for Isaac (Genesis 22:8, 13).
He is the Passover lamb, whose blood protected Israel from judgment (Exodus 12).
He is the lamb for the guilt offering in the Levitical sacrifices (Leviticus 5:15-19).
He is Isaiah’s lamb led to the slaughter, willingly bearing suffering (Isaiah 53:7).

Each of these Old Testament lambs foreshadowed Jesus’ sacrificial death. John’s declaration announces Jesus as the reality to which all these types pointed, a sacrifice for the sin of the world.

iii. Who takes away: The Greek verb airo combines the meanings of to bear and to take away. Jesus bears sin, not merely as a burden, but in the sense of carrying it upon Himself to take it away completely. Morris clarifies: “The verb ‘taketh away’ conveys the notion of bearing off.” Jesus doesn’t just carry sin; He removes it, eliminates it, and resolves the sin problem.

Maclaren emphasizes the singular “sin”: “John does not say ‘the sins,’ as the Litany, following an imperfect translation, makes him say. But he says, ‘the sin of the world,’ as if the whole mass of human transgression was bound together, in one black and awful bundle, and laid upon the unshrinking shoulders of this better Atlas who can bear it all, and bear it all away.” John uses the singular “sin” to emphasize the root problem of sin, the underlying condition of human rebellion against God, which Jesus addresses.

iv. The sin: The singular form sin, rather than plural sins, suggests the totality of human sinfulness, the underlying condition of rebellion and alienation from God, being placed upon Jesus. Trench notes the Evangelist’s retrospective understanding: “Only afterwards could the Evangelist, as he looked back, have caught the Baptist’s full meaning.” The full depth of John the Baptist’s declaration may have only become fully apparent to John the Apostle in retrospect, after witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

v. Of the world: The sacrificial offering of this Lamb of God possesses the infinite capacity to atone for every sin and cleanse every sinner. Its scope is universal, encompassing the entire world. “He will give Himself as the expiatory Sacrifice not only of the sins of His people, but of the germ of all sin in Adam’s descendants, the sin of the world, the apostasy in Eden: thus wide and deep is the Baptist’s vision.” (Trench) John the Baptist’s vision extended to the universal scope of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, encompassing the sin of the entire world, from its origin in Eden to its present manifestations.

4. (30-34) John the Baptist’s Testimony: Jesus as the Son of God

“This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

a. For He was before me: John the Baptist, though born earlier in earthly life than Jesus (Luke 1), understood and testified to Jesus’ eternal pre-existence. He was before me refers to Jesus’ eternal existence, predating John and all creation.

i. After me comes a Man: Tenney highlights the Greek term used here: “The Greek term aner is introduced here; it means ‘man’ with emphasis on maleness – an emphasis that is lost in the more generic anthropos. The use of aner intimates the headship of Christ over his followers in the sense of the man-woman relationship.” The use of aner (man as male) may subtly foreshadow Jesus’ role as head of the Church and the Bridegroom of believers.

b. Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit: God provided John the Baptist with a definitive sign to recognize the Messiah: the visible descent and abiding of the Holy Spirit. This divine confirmation validated John’s witness and Jesus’ Messianic identity.

i. Trench clarifies the significance of the Spirit’s descent: “Jesus received nothing at His Baptism that He had not before: the Baptist merely saw that day in a visible symbol that which had actually and invisibly taken place [at the conception of Jesus].” The descent of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism was not to empower Jesus, who was already fully divine, but to reveal His divine identity to John and publicly validate His Messianic office.

ii. Bruce contrasts John’s baptism with Jesus’ baptism: “If the cleansing with water was associated with John’s ministry, the bestowal of the Spirit was reserved for the one greater than John.” John’s baptism was preparatory and symbolic, while Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit is transformative and empowers believers.

c. I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God: John the Baptist’s solemn and conclusive testimony is that Jesus is the Son of God. This designation, as understood in John 1:18, signifies Jesus as the unique and perfect revealer of God the Father’s nature and character.

i. John’s Gospel emphasizes his role as a witness, not merely a baptizer. Witnesses are crucial for establishing truth and providing evidence. They testify to what they have personally seen and experienced, providing direct evidence rather than hearsay.

ii. Trench emphasizes the full theological weight of “Son of God”: “In naming Him ‘The Son of God,’ the Baptist speaks with unclouded vision: he means nothing less than the full Christian doctrine that the Man Jesus is also the eternal Son of the eternal Father, co-equal, co-eternal.” John the Baptist’s declaration of Jesus as “Son of God” is not a lesser designation but a full affirmation of His deity, co-equality, and co-eternality with the Father.

iii. Reliable witnesses are committed to the truth of their testimony. John the Baptist was a faithful and reliable witness, knowing Jesus’ identity through divine revelation and personal experience.

D. The Testimony of the First Disciples: Following the Lamb

1. (35-39) Two of John’s Disciples Begin to Follow Jesus

Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?” He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him that day (now it was about the tenth hour).

a. John stood with two of his disciples: The Gospel identifies one of these disciples as Andrew (John 1:40). Strong circumstantial evidence suggests the unnamed disciple is John, the Gospel writer himself, who consistently refers to himself indirectly throughout his Gospel.

i. Alford provides compelling reasons for identifying the unnamed disciple as John: “Who the other disciple was, is not certain: but considering (1) that the Evangelist never names himself in his Gospel, and (2) that this account is so minutely accurate as to specify even the hours of the day, and in all respects bears marks of an eye-witness, and again (3) that this other disciple, from this last circumstance, certainly would have been named, had not the name been suppressed for some special reasons, we are justified in inferring that it was the Evangelist himself.” John’s consistent self-effacement, the eyewitness detail, and the otherwise inexplicable omission of the second disciple’s name strongly suggest it is John himself.

ii. And looking at Jesus: Clarke unpacks the meaning of the Greek word: “Attentively beholding, embleqav, from en, into, and blepw, to look-to view with steadfastness and attention.” John the Baptist’s gaze was intently fixed on Jesus, indicating deep recognition and intentional direction to his disciples. Morris adds, “A characteristically searching look turned upon an individual.”

b. Behold, the Lamb of God! John reiterated his Messianic proclamation, likely making this declaration every time he saw Jesus after His return from the wilderness temptations. For John, Jesus’ identity as the sacrificial Lamb of God was the paramount truth about Him.

c. And they followed Jesus: The text implies that these two disciples followed Jesus with John the Baptist’s encouragement and direction. John’s purpose was to point people to Jesus, not to retain disciples for himself.

d. What do you seek… Come and see: Jesus’ initial question to these first followers, What do you seek?, is a profound and universally relevant inquiry. He directs them to find the answer not in John the Baptist or elsewhere, but in direct personal encounter with Himself (Come and see).

i. What do you seek? Maclaren emphasizes the significance of Jesus’ first recorded words in John’s Gospel: “It was not an accident that the first words which the Master spoke in His Messianic office were this profoundly significant question, ‘What seek ye?’ He asks it of us all, He asks it of us to-day.” This question probes the deepest motivations and desires of the human heart, inviting self-reflection and honest seeking.

ii. Tenney suggests Jesus’ purpose in asking: “He probed them to find out whether they were motivated by idle curiosity or by a real desire to know him.” Jesus sought to discern the sincerity and depth of their interest in following Him.

iii. Jesus didn’t redirect them back to John, even though John had testified about Him. True discipleship requires direct engagement with Jesus Himself. Jesus invited John and Andrew into His life, demonstrating that discipleship involves intimate fellowship and learning through shared experience. Jesus’ ministry was not secluded but intentionally involved training and mentoring His disciples through daily life together.

e. Now it was about the tenth hour: The writer’s specific recollection of the tenth hour (approximately 4 p.m.) suggests the profound impact and memorability of this encounter. This detail further supports the identification of the unnamed disciple as John himself, for whom this moment was a life-altering event.

2. (40-42) Andrew Brings His Brother, Simon Peter, to Jesus

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone).

a. He first found his own brother: Andrew’s immediate response to meeting Jesus was to share the good news with his brother Simon Peter. Throughout John’s Gospel, Andrew is consistently portrayed as bringing others to Jesus (also John 6:8 and 12:22).

i. This pattern of personal evangelism is a hallmark of Christian faith: “Through the centuries, this is how most people come to faith in Jesus Christ. A Peter has an Andrew who introduces him to Jesus. This is natural, because it is the nature of Christian experience that those who enjoy the experience desire to share their experience with others.” Personal witness and relational evangelism are primary means of spreading the Gospel.

ii. Trench suggests Andrew’s actions imply a wider circle of evangelism: “’Andrew finds first of all his own brother Simon’: which implies that afterwards the brother of the other of the two was also found and brought to the same place and on the same day.” Andrew’s example may have inspired the other disciple (likely John) to also bring someone to Jesus, extending the circle of discipleship.

b. We have found the Messiah: Andrew’s simple yet powerful testimony, We have found the Messiah, reflects his immediate recognition of Jesus as the long-awaited Savior of Israel and the world.

c. You shall be called Cephas: Jesus gave Simon a new name, Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), both meaning A Stone. This prophetic name signifies the transformative role Peter would play in the future, becoming a foundational “stone” in the early church. Jesus’ act of renaming Simon reveals His divine insight into Peter’s potential and destiny.

3. (43-44) Jesus Calls Philip to Follow Him

The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

a. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me”: While John’s Gospel might suggest this was the first encounter, the synoptic Gospels indicate Jesus had likely met these Galilean men previously. However, this was the formal call to discipleship for Philip.

b. Follow Me: The call of Philip is recorded with remarkable simplicity. Jesus’ direct command, Follow Me, was met with immediate obedience.

i. Morris emphasizes the ongoing nature of discipleship: “The verb ‘Follow’ will be used here in its full sense of ‘follow as a disciple’. The present tense has continuous force, ‘keep on following’.” “Follow Me” is not a one-time invitation but a continuous call to ongoing discipleship.

ii. Bruce provides geographical context: “Bethsaida means ‘house of the fisherman’ or ‘Fishertown’. It lay a short distance east of the point where the Jordan enters the Lake of Galilee.” Bethsaida, the hometown of Philip, Andrew, and Peter, was a fishing village on the Sea of Galilee, indicating their common background and occupation before following Jesus.

4. (45-51) Nathanael Overcomes Prejudice to Follow Jesus

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!” Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

a. Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets wrote: Philip’s witness to Nathanael highlights Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the Messiah anticipated in the Law and the Prophets.

i. Trench identifies Nathanael with Bartholomew: “Nathanael is today generally understood to be the same person as Bartholomew, one of the Twelve; Nathanael being the personal name, Bartholomew (son of Tolmai) the patronymie.” Nathanael and Bartholomew are likely the same person, with Nathanael being his given name and Bartholomew his patronymic (son of Tolmai).

b. Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Nathanael’s initial response reveals prejudice against Nazareth, a small and seemingly insignificant town. His question reflects a common bias against humble origins.

c. Come and see: Philip wisely avoids arguing with Nathanael’s prejudice and simply invites him to a personal encounter with Jesus: Come and see. Direct experience with Jesus is the most effective antidote to preconceived notions and biases.

d. Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit! Jesus’ immediate assessment of Nathanael is a profound compliment, recognizing his integrity and genuineness. Nathanael is characterized as an authentic Israelite, free from hypocrisy or guile.

i. Deceit: Morris elaborates on the meaning of “deceit” (dolos in Greek): “This last word is used in early Greek writers as a ‘bait’ (for catching fish). Hence it comes to signify ‘any cunning contrivance for deceiving or catching…It thus has the notion of ‘deceit’ or ‘craft’. It is used in the Bible of Jacob before his change of heart (Genesis 27:35, which is the point of Temple’s translation, ‘an Israelite in whom there is no Jacob!’” Dolos signifies cunning, trickery, and deceit. Jesus’ statement contrasts Nathanael with Jacob (whose name means “deceiver”) before his transformation, highlighting Nathanael’s honesty and integrity.

ii. Tasker connects Nathanael to Psalm 32:2: “He is a proper Israelite, a type of the man pronounced ‘blessed’ by the Psalmist, the man ‘in whose spirit is no guile’ (Psalm 32:2).” Nathanael embodies the ideal of a true Israelite, as described in Psalm 32:2, possessing spiritual integrity and honesty.

e. Under the fig tree, I saw you: “Under the fig tree” may refer to a literal place of prayer and meditation for Nathanael. Rabbis also used “under the fig tree” metaphorically to describe studying and meditating on Scripture. Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of Nathanael’s private devotion astonished him.

i. Trench mentions rabbinical tradition: “It is said of Rabbi Hasa in the tract Bereshith that he and his disciples were in the habit of studying under a fig tree.” Studying Torah under a fig tree was a known rabbinical practice, suggesting Nathanael’s devotion to Scripture.

ii. Bruce suggests the fig tree as a place of quiet contemplation: “Perhaps it was a place where Nathanael had recently sat in meditation and received some spiritual impression. It is impossible to be sure. Certainly the shady foliage of the fig tree made it a suitable tree to sit under in the heat of the day.” The fig tree provided shade and seclusion, ideal for prayer and meditation.

f. You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel! Nathanael’s confession is a powerful affirmation of Jesus’ dual identity: Son of God, highlighting His divine nature, and King of Israel, acknowledging His Messianic kingship.

i. The Son of God: Morris emphasizes the definite article: “Here, as there, the article is important. It indicates that the expression is to be understood as bearing a full, not a minimal content…Here was someone who could not be described in ordinary human terms.” The definite article (“the Son of God”) signifies a unique and full understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship, not merely a generic title.

g. You will see greater things than these: Nathanael was amazed by Jesus’ supernatural knowledge, but Jesus promised even greater things to come, foreshadowing the unfolding revelation of His glory and power.

i. Meyer interprets this promise as ongoing spiritual growth: “Have you known Christ as the Word? He is more; both Spirit and Life. Has He become flesh? You shall behold Him glorified with the glory He had before the worlds. Have you known Him as Alpha, before all? He is also Omega. Have you met John? You shall meet One so much greater. Do you know the baptism by water? You shall be baptized by fire. Have you beheld the Lamb on the Cross? You shall behold Him in the midst of the throne.” The promise of “greater things” points to the progressive revelation of Christ and the deepening experience of faith for believers.

h. You shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man: Jesus promised Nathanael an even more profound vision: heaven open, echoing Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12. Jesus identifies Himself as the ladder, the mediator between heaven and earth, the Son of Man.

i. Jesus’ allusion to Jacob’s ladder highlights His role as the bridge between God and humanity: “He now learns that Jesus is the real ladder by which the gulf between earth and heaven is bridged.” (Tasker) Jesus is the mediator, the one through whom communication and reconciliation between heaven and earth are made possible.

ii. Trench suggests a personal connection for Nathanael: “This seems like a rather obscure reference, but it was extremely meaningful to Nathanael. Possibly it was the very portion of Scripture Nathaniel meditated on under the fig tree.” The reference to Jacob’s ladder may have been particularly meaningful to Nathanael, perhaps being the very Scripture he was meditating on under the fig tree.

i. Son of Man: This title is not about Jesus’ humanity in a generic sense but is a Messianic title drawn from Daniel 7:13-14, referring to the glorious, heavenly King who will come to judge the world.

i. Jesus frequently used Son of Man because it was a Messianic title less burdened by political and nationalistic connotations than “Messiah” or “King” in that era. “Jesus used this title often because in His day, it was a Messianic title free from political and nationalistic sentiment. When a Jewish person of that time heard “King” or “Christ” they often thought of a political or military savior. Jesus emphasized another term, often calling Himself the Son of Man.”

ii. Morris summarizes the significance of “Son of Man”: “The term, ‘The Son of man’, then points us to Christ’s conception of Himself as of heavenly origin and as the possessor of heavenly glory. At one and the same time and points us to His lowliness and His sufferings for men. The two are the same.” The title “Son of Man” encompasses both Jesus’ heavenly glory and His earthly humility and suffering, reflecting the paradoxical nature of His Messianic identity.

iii. This section of John 1 illustrates four distinct paths to following Jesus:

Andrew followed Jesus through the preaching of John the Baptist.
Peter followed through the personal witness of his brother Andrew.
Philip followed through Jesus’ direct call.
Nathanael followed by overcoming prejudice through a personal encounter with Jesus.

iv. John 1 presents four distinct witnesses to Jesus’ identity, each offering a unique perspective:

John the Baptist testified to Jesus’ eternal pre-existence, unique anointing by the Holy Spirit, His role as the Lamb of God, and His divine Sonship.
Andrew testified that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ.
Philip testified that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Nathanael testified that Jesus is the Son of God and the King of Israel.

This abundance of testimony underscores the compelling evidence for Jesus’ true identity presented in John 1.