Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All four Gospels have an opening preamble. The purpose of John's preamble is to relate the divinity of Jesus, and His role in the creation of the world.
The Word, logos in Greek, is Jesus the Christ. The theology is clear as the Word is specifically identified later in the chapter. Jesus was present in the beginning. He was with God and was God. This clearly describes the trinity. But God is more than just the Word. Also, it is absolutely clear that God and the Word are not interchangeable. Logos does not always refer to Jesus. Sometimes it's just the word as in scripture. This is like how all German Shepards are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds.
While Genesis ascribes the creation to God without the theology regarding the preexistence of God, it was not necessary in Genesis as God's eternal nature was not questioned by the Jews. However, in the 1st century world this was necessary as the majority of religions relate the beginning or creation story of their gods.
2 He was in the beginning with God. "He" is outos in Greek, which is literally "this one". John was identifying that Jesus existed before creation, and was a separate person from the Father. Therefore, Jesus, like all three persons in the Trinity, always existed and was not a created being.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Only God is uncreated. This verse makes it clear that everything else was created through Jesus. On a side note, the Holy Spirit was not created by Jesus as the Spirit is God and was also pre-existent.
There is a minor disagreement between some translators on how to properly translate this verse with verse 4. But it does not change the meaning of the text.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. While one could make the case that the Light here refers to the salvation brought by Jesus, at this point in the text the Light has no beginning. John has not even addressed the incarnation yet, although he puts great emphasis on the beginning of the incarnation later. Thus it is unlikely that this refers to the incarnation or anything after it. In isolation this verse could refer to the creation of humanity and the Light to the birth of each human, that we are created in the image of God. And thus, we have the capacity to love and have a relationship with God.
However, verses 5 and 7 add to the meaning of the Light. Thus, the clearest rendering of this verse is that Jesus is the life in the sense that all creation was through Him. And He was the Light that dawned on humanity through the incarnation to restore us to right relationship with God.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The verbs change from imperfect in the previous verses to present tense here. Thus the bulk of the Old Testament is skipped over to the time just before Jesus' incarnation. This may strike some readers as odd. But writers have always skipped over periods of time they deemed irrelevant, even today. The television show "24" was unusual in that it did not skip over time during a season.
The Light is shining because the restoration of the breach between humanity and God was happening. Comprehend is literally "overcome", katelaben in Greek. Translating this as comprehend is to read into this verse what is in verse 10. However, this is not necessary or warranted. The story of the Gospel is that Jesus' crucifixion did not overcome Him, but was actually the means by which He made our salvation possible.
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. The person being referred to here is the man commonly called John the Baptist. But all we are told so far is his name is John and he was sent by God. Like a lawyer building his case, the apostle John was laying out the arguments step by step for Jesus being the Christ, Yeshua haMashiach in Hebrew. (Christ is the Greek word for Messiah.)
7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. This verse makes it clear that people of the time and today calling him "John the Baptist" was actually a misnomer. Baptizing was just one of the things he did in support of his real mission. Thus the people of the time should have called him "John the Witness", "John the Messenger", or "the Prophet John". But they didn't understand and only saw what was important to their incorrect worldview. God sent John the Baptist to prepare the way so that all would believe in Christ through John. A very important aspect of this is that John's coming was the fulfillment of the prophecies about the messenger who would come before the Messiah in the spirit of Elijah.
8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. This was to make it clear that John was not the Messiah, but was here to testify about Him. There were some weird cultish groups at the time that tried to say John was the Messiah, which is very strange as that contradicted the messianic prophecies about the life and death of the Messiah. But people would get an idea in their head without evidence and then try to justify it just like people do today.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. This verse makes it clear that, while John was not the Messiah, there actually was a Messiah. While the NASB properly translates this verse into English sticking to the Greek as closely as possible, this is very awkward English. Which is why most copies have a footnote with an alternate translation for the end of this verse that is in clearer English. "Which enlightens every person coming into the world." The original text was a Greek rendering of a rabbinic Hebrew expression meaning "everyone".
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. Here "the Light" is identified as a man. His characteristics are that the world was made through him, which identifies the Light as the Word in verses 1-3. He was in the world, which refers to the incarnation. And the world didn't know Him, which isn't a criticism. Rather, it was a statement of fact.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. Criticism is implied in this verse, unlike verse 10. Many take this verse to mean that Jesus came to the Jews, God's chosen people, and was rejected by most of them. And that is certainly true. However, the context here is much broader. As all creation came through Jesus, all belong to him. Thus in context this refers to all humanity. And most of humanity has rejected Jesus and the Father throughout time, including today.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, This appears to be a contradiction to verse 11. His own didn't receive Him in verse 11, but in verse 12 it talks about those who did receive him. The same word is used for receive in both instances. The apparent contradiction is actually deliberate. All reject God. But some are restored to relationship through the Son. Those who receive the Son are given the right to be adopted into God's family, be children of God, and co-heirs with Jesus. (This does not make us God like Jesus is. We are step-children rather than blood children like the Son.)
The word "even" is not in the Greek text and is an editorial translation choice. This does not mean that mere belief is enough. John 20:31 states that believing may bring us life. It does not say that it is guaranteed. James 2:19 states that even the demons believe. But unless that belief leads to receiving Him and being in right relationship with Him it does nothing. Thus belief may lead to receiving God, but may not.
To be clear, fallen angels/demons cannot become right with God. Their rebellion is permanent. That is clear in scripture. Scripture seems to indicate that this is because they are immortal beings, making their choices permanent in nature.
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. What makes us children of God is being born of God rather than the earthly birth. Here is the first place where we get the concept of being born again. (This is without the baggage and insulting use of this phrase in modern society.) While there is still a lot to tell, John is definitely telling us two things about this second birth. One is that it is different from the earthly birth. And two, there is no way we can accomplish this by our own effort. God made the way. What is not addressed in either this verse or verse 12 is the order belief and receiving occur, or any causation between them.
Calvinists try to claim that verse says or at least implies that being born again is by God's will to support their doctrine of total depravity, meaning we cannot even receive God until He regenerates us first. However, that is vastly reading into the text what isn't there and does not fit. the verse doesn't mention God's will. What is in the verse are three negative statements. Not being born of blood refers to being born as a flesh and blood human being. Implied is that bloodlines are irrelevant, meaning being born a Jew does not make one a child of God. The next two negative statements are the only ones that involve a will. Will of the flesh refers to works which cannot make us a child of God. Will of man refers to our inability to reconcile with God no matter how much we want it. The only qualifier to the positive statement regarding God is being begotten, egennethesan in Greek. There is no mention of God's will in the verse in English or Greek. Both state we must be born of God. We can become children of God by His action in verse 12 and later in this gospel. He gave us the ability to become His children. We have to receive Jesus. But it is because of the gift of God that we have the opportunity. If anything these verses support a view of God's complete sovereignty and our free will. And that we have free will itself is because of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. The preexistent, uncreated Word became human and lived as a human among humans. But while He was human He was still God. Thus humanity could see His glory. He is identified as the only Son of the Father. That he was full of grace and truth is less a remark about His characteristics than a support of His divinity. Some get sidetracked on the word begotten, and think this must mean that Jesus came into existence rather than being eternal. However, this is due to a translation choice rather than the real meaning. The Greek word monogenous can accurately be translated as "only begotten". But there is no implication of a birth in the Greek like there is in English. It could also be accurately translated as unique son or only son. It means to be the only one in a specific relationship. It says nothing about actual birth, and could be applied to an only son that was adopted. In this case it is a son who was not created, but always existed.
15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" Here is what John the Baptist said as a witness in verse 6. The quotes here tell us that John had been testifying about Jesus before. And now that Jesus had come to him in person, he told everyone that this was the one that he had been telling them about. This confirms John fulfilled his primary purpose of being a witness preparing people for Jesus as specified in verse 7.
John also stated that Jesus has a higher rank than him. John appeared to be the most holy prophet of the time. He lived an ascetic, that is a severely self-disciplined life. For example, he lived in the wilderness, eating insects and honey, and wearing clothing made of camel's hair with a leather belt. This was the same clothing of the prophet Elijah in 2 Kings 1:8. This was more than just symbolism. Malachi 4:5 prophesied that the prophet Elijah would come before the Lord. And Jesus said in Matthew 11 that the prophecy meant a prophet would come in the spirit of Elijah, and that prophet was John the Baptist. While the people coming to John weren't making these connections, John was clearly a very holy prophet while Jesus appeared to just be a common Jew from rural Nazareth.
Finally, John the Baptist is quoted affirming Jesus' preexistence.
16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. It appears that verses 16-18 are not direct quotes of the prophet called John the Baptist, but are summaries of him. Or it is the gospel author and disciple John himself making these connections. This is an unimportant distinction. The point is that this further lays out the case for Jesus being the Christ.
We receive the fullness of Christ, not in its entirety but as a well that perpetually runs over. Grace upon grace is explained in the next verse.
17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. Reading this verse in isolation has led to a majority of western Christians misunderstanding it. This is not a contrast or opposition between the Mosaic law and the grace of Jesus. It is grace upon grace. While the law was from God through Moses, the law did not save people. It was not a salvation by works system as is so often wrongly taught. The law was nomistic, not legalistic. It was the way of identifying with Yahweh as His people. Salvation was by the grace of God even then. (Nomism is a concept we have no experience with in the West, and thus little real understanding. So we easily mistake it for salvation by works.) Now Jesus brings us grace upon that grace, and with it the truth of our intended relationship with God. To be clear, Jesus is not the new Moses. He is the restoration of the direct relationship between man and God because He is God incarnate.
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. This verse is not contradicting itself. The first "God" in this verse, theos in Greek, is God the Father. No human has seen the Father because as Exodus 33:20 explains, they would die. That's how far God is above us that our earthly bodies would die just seeing Him. The second "God" in this verse is also theos. He is the "begotten God" which makes it clear this is Jesus, the only Son of God. We can see Him as He became human, that is God incarnate. Because the Son has always had a direct relationship with God the Father and the closest of companionship, He explained the Father to us.
19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" The Jews here does not refer to the Jewish people in general, but the Jewish leaders. It would be like someone saying the French sent their ambassador to America. It wasn't the whole French people but the leaders of France. Of course, the Jewish leaders would be the religious leaders of the day who held both religious and political authority.
That envoys were sent to investigate John means his ministry had become big and/or talked about enough it was necessary to see if he was teaching heresy, or was a threat to their leadership. The main issue they were concerned with they finally bring up in verse 25.
20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." They asked who John was. He interpreted this to mean they were asking if he was the Messiah, probably because of the nature of his ministry and the challenging tone of those asking. He answered clearly he was not. (Christ is the Greek form of the word Messiah.) This is a parallel to verse 8. The emphatic wording of his reply indicates John was asked the question in a hostile manner.
21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." Even though envoys did not ask if John was the Christ, they continued their questioning as if they had. John denied that he was Elijah, which was true. He was not Elijah brought back to earth. John was the one fulfilling the role from prophecy and in the spirit of Elijah, crying out in the wilderness. But he was not literally Elijah.
John denied he was "the Prophet." While John was a prophet and there were many throughout the history of Israel, this question is to whether John was the Prophet as promised by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Although it was not widely accepted in Judaism, there was a belief that this promise of Moses referred to a major prophet being brought up by Yahweh at various times of need, like Elijah, Samuel, Isaiah, and so on. And some would look for such a prophet to arise. However, the more common Judaic understanding of Deuteronomy 18 was that this referred to all prophets, major and minor.
22 Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" The challenging tone seems to shift here to a pleading tone, as if the envoys feared to return empty handed. They worded this to give John the maximum leeway. In other words, they were saying to tell us who you are in your own terms.
23 He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." While all the gospels quote Isaiah 40:3 ascribing its fulfillment in the prophet John, the Gospel of John is the only one to state it as a quote from the prophet John. And just to make sure they got the reference, he pointed out he was quoting Isaiah.
24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. Who sent these envoys is identified as the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a dominant sect among the Jews. But they were not Levites and therefore could not be priests. Under true Judaism they shouldn't have been able to directly send priests and Levites to investigate the prophet John. Thus this verse is an early indication of how messed up things had become. The chief priests and the Pharisees were already in opposition to God's plan.
25 They asked him, and said to him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" This is the key verse of this confrontation. The envoys revealed the reason they had been sent. It was because of John's activity of baptizing people. In Judaism, baptism was for proselytes, (new converts,) and not for those born Jews. To baptize Jews was to treat them like proselytes. Ezekiel 36:22-32 is a prophecy about a time when God will cleanse Israel by sprinkling them with water and a big transformation will occur within them, including God's Spirit within them. This was and is understood to be a messianic and eschatological, (end times,) prophecy. Thus, John's presumption in baptizing Jews was considered to be making a messianic claim heralding the end times. They did not understand that there were two comings of the Messiah in prophecy, not just the one they wanted.
26 John answered them saying, "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. The prophet John strongly corrected the envoys, and by proxy those who sent them. Their focus on water baptism was wrong. They should have been focused on the One, who is Jesus. And John presented them with a seeming contradiction, that there is One that is both among them and that they don't know. Of course, the among you didn't mean present right then, or even among those they personally know. Among them meant among the Jews living at the time.
27 It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." He who comes after me was both deliberately messianic and deliberately vague. The Coming One or the One who comes were not just phrases but functioned as names referring to the Prophet or the Christ in Judaic tradition. By altering the verbiage with "after me" John made it unclear if he was talking about the Messiah or something else.
The illustration for being unworthy is very strong. At this time people wore sandals, and the primary mode of traveling was on foot. People shared the roads with animals. Although animals were more often used for pulling loads than for riding. Because of this their feet would become very dirty and smelly. Tables were low, only a little taller than the cushions to lie on while at the table. Thus their legs and feet would be close to other people making it vital to clean the feet of guests. This was the dirtiest and worst job in the house. The lowest ranking slave or servant would have this job, which was why it was so significant for Jesus to do this job later. In order to wash the feet, the slave would have to untie the thong of the sandals to remove them, which meant handling leather that was coated with dirt, sweat and feces.
28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. This tells us where the previous verses of this chapter occurred, and reinforces that the issue behind the inquiry was the baptizing. We aren't told what the envoys thought or reported back about this.
This Bethany cannot be the Bethany that was the home of Lazarus, Mary and Martha because that was on the Jerusalem (west) side of the Jordan. Just like today, different cities and towns can have the same name.
29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "The Lamb of God" is a description and title of the suffering Messiah in the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7. Both in Isaiah and here this is symbolic language of the sacrifice of Jesus, but this sacrifice will be for the sins of the whole world. A lamb is also symbolic of purity, and Jesus is the only human who was without sin. This is also saying that this was an active thing Jesus did voluntarily in laying down His life for us. He was not a passive victim but a victorious savior.
The delegation from the Pharisees and chief priests left the day before. Who was present at this time is not specified. However, scripture does say that people would come to hear John speak and to be baptized by him on a regular basis.
30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' It would seem at least some of the people present were there the day before for John to be referring to what he said then. And he foot-stomped what he said by repeating all of it here, although some is in greater detail than verse 15. Implied is that John was proclaiming these things regularly if not daily long before the envoy from Jerusalem came.
31 I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." This is literally, "I did not know Him" which may be a clearer translation. Either way, what is implied is that John did not know Jesus was the Messiah, and not necessarily that he did not know Him as a man. John and Jesus were cousins after all. But Jesus kept his divine identity secret. John didn't know who was the Messiah. But he knew the Messiah was already walking on the earth because John was told by the Holy Spirit. (John was the only human who was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb as told in Luke 1:15.) John baptized in preparation for the Messiah as prophesied in Ezekiel 36:22-32.
32 John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. The author John does not recount the full baptism of Jesus here as the synoptic gospels do. He skipped to the Holy Spirit descending from heaven as a dove and landing on Jesus. In this account the dove remained. Natural doves do not fly at great altitudes above the ground. And a wild dove does not stay on a human. Thus this narrative reinforces that this was the Holy Spirit and not a natural dove.
Some use this verse to say that Jesus did not have the Spirit prior to this. The argument is that the dove remained on him until 19:30 when the Spirit left. However, the spirit in 19:30 is Jesus' spirit leaving his body rather that the Holy Spirit. And an absence of the dove leaving in the text does not mean it did not occur. (An argument from silence is beyond feeble.) Heretics will even go so far as to deny that Jesus was God prior to this, or was never God and required the Spirit to do any miracles. However, Jesus' mother's actions and words at the wedding in chapter 2 make it clear that Jesus had performed miracles before His baptism. And He did them frequently enough that Mary was comfortable and confident in Jesus' power.
33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' The wording is the same as in verse 31, and the implication is the same as well, that he did not know Him as the Messiah. The "in", en in Greek, of "in water" and "in the Holy Spirit" can be translated as In, with or by. (It could also be translated as "to" in a different context.)
He who sent John to baptize is God the Holy Spirit. We are given a direct quotation from God identifying that Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Since the Spirit is the one who gives gifts of the Spirit, this implies that being baptized in the Holy Spirit is separate from the gifts of the Spirit.
This was not how John was to identify Jesus as the Messiah, as he was told that before Jesus' baptism. One could read this to mean this was a confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah. If so, it seems this confirmation was for others rather than for John.
That Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit is notable, but should not be the only basis for a doctrine. However, it seems perfectly clear that baptism with the Holy Spirit can only come after someone has accepted Jesus. Since it is clear that Judas did perform miracles like the other disciples, he must have accepted Jesus as his Lord and savior. This challenges the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. But that doctrine is based on reading into scripture what isn't there. John 10:28-29 talks of no one being able to snatch us away from God. But that does not say that a person cannot of their own free will reject God and turn away. No one "snatches" themself. And Hebrews 6:4-6 makes it clear that someone who was saved and exhibited the gifts of the Spirit can then fall away. No one can do that to us. But we can choose it.
34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." Here is John the Baptist's formal testimony that Jesus is the Son of God.
35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, Two days after the envoys questioned John the Baptist, and the day after Jesus was baptized, Jesus returns. The text states two of John's disciples were with John. This does not mean they were the only disciples of John present. They are the only ones identified because of what happens in verse 37.
36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" John again identified Jesus as the Lamb of God, emphasizing Jesus' primary role and mission to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. The two disciples of John in verse 35 followed Jesus after hearing who he was.
38 And Jesus turned and saw them following, and *said to them, "What do you seek?" They said to Him, "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?" Here is the first quote of Jesus in this Gospel. In their answer, they were telling Jesus that they were now his disciples. First, they called Him teacher. And second, they asked where He was staying. That means their intention was to go where He goes.
39 He *said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. Jesus invited them to come with Him to where He was staying. In essence, He was accepting them as disciples. Jesus did not call them to be his disciples. They chose Jesus and He accepted them. This is not necessarily as one of the 12 disciples. Jesus had hundreds of disciples. But 12 were an inner circle with Him. Thus they were often referred to as "The Twelve" to differentiate them from the others. And within those 12 was an inner-inner circle of 3.
Under Roman law, the day began at midnight. However, if the author John was using that standard, 10:00 a.m. is hardly a time that would be significant for staying over. Thus the author John was using the Jewish standard where the day began at 6 a.m., making this 4 p.m. in the afternoon which fits the context. (Jewish tradition split day and night for time keeping. But the night belonged to the following day. Thus, sundown was the beginning of a new day.)
40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Here we find out that one of the two disciples of John was Andrew, who became one of the 12. The other disciple of John isn't named. They may or may not have been one of the 12. The author John doesn't tell the story of all of of the 12.
41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). And Andrew's brother was Simon who Jesus renamed Peter and was one of the 12 as well as one of the inner circle of 3. Christ is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah.
There is some debate as to the proper translation of "first", whether it refers to the order of Andrew's actions or refers to first thing the next morning, or is some reference to Peter being first among the disciples. This is unimportant to the meaning of the verse. But it seems referring to the order of Andrew's actions as translated by the NASB is most likely. And the other two options may be reading into the text.
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter). Jesus looks at Peter and shows He knows who he is, then gives him the name Cephas, which is an Aramaic word for rock. The Greek version of Cephas is Peter.
While it is not stated that Peter had been a disciple of John the Baptist like his brother, Andrew, it is likely that he was close by because he had been to seen John and hear him speak.
43 The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He *found Philip. And Jesus *said to him, "Follow Me." Purposed could also be translated as wanted. Found is meant as descriptive, not that Jesus didn't know Philip would be there. This time, Jesus specifically calls Phillip to be his disciple.
44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Bethsaida was in Galilee, but they could not have travelled there yet. Some commentators think that Philip may have been the unnamed disciple from verse 40. However, that is just conjecture. It was not unusual for people to travel from place to place, so finding someone away from their home town is not enough evidence. However, whether or not Philip was the unnamed disciple, it is certainly possible that Philip had come to see John the Baptist.
45 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." Nathanael was not one of the 12. But it is likely he became one of the outer circle of disciples. The author John includes this exchange to make a point. In declaring that they found the one written about in both the Torah and the Prophets Philip was saying that Jesus was the Messiah, and that all the Hebrew scriptures point to the Messiah.
Calling Jesus the son of Joseph was not a theological point, but merely identifying Him in the same manner as identifying a person by the city they are from. It was the convention and common method. Using last names was not done at this time in Israel. While not really relevant here, technically Joseph was Jesus' step-father.
46 Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip *said to him, "Come and see." Nathanael was skeptical. Whether he made the comment about Nazareth because he was skeptical or he was skeptical because Jesus was from Nazareth we don't know. It is a historical fact that Nazareth was looked down upon, and the people from there were treated with prejudice. This is in line with the suffering Messiah prophecy in Isaiah 53 which makes it clear that there would be nothing about Him that would be attractive in the natural. It would seem that this included where he grew up.
Regardless, Nathanael side-stepped the issue of whether the Messiah was there or not entirely. This is similar to skeptics today who reject the idea of God incarnate or even of the existence of God. Philip's response was a good one, inviting Nathanael to come see for himself.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and *said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" By His wording Jesus was speaking to those around Him. But it must have been clear from His body language that He was talking about Nathanael as Nathanael knew Jesus was referring to him in the next verse. The meaning of Jesus' words were that Nathanael was a Jew who was sincerely seeking Yahweh.
48 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." Jesus' strong declaration was something only one who knew another very well could make. Nathanael the skeptic challenged the words implying they were empty praise.
Jesus gave evidence of knowing Nathanael by describing where he was before Philip found him. This also implies that Jesus chose Nathanael and found him first. This would make Philip an agent of Jesus, whether he was aware of it or not. Embarrassingly, this also means Jesus knew about the crack Nathanael made about Nazareth.
49 Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." Because Jesus knew things he could not know in the natural, such as where Nathanael was and what he was doing when Philip found him, and what his character was like, Nathanael realized Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.
50 Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these." Jesus' response could seem like a rebuke, like when He addressed Thomas' doubts post-resurrection. However, it is doubtful that a rebuke is meant here. And Jesus promised there would be much greater miracles to see in the future.
51 And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." The word translated as truly is amen in Greek. And when we say amen today, we are affirming that what was said before it was true, whether it was said by us or another person. Jesus saying it before speaking was unique. This asserted that what He was about to say was the absolute truth. He was authentic as this came from His authority of being God. It was one of the reasons why people would remark that He spoke with authority.
Jesus told Nathanael and the others present at that time a small part of the greater things they would see.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

                    Gospel of John   -   John 2

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey