| 4832 Sipre Deut. 45.1.2; " Abot R. Nat. 16A; b. B. Bat. 16a; Ber. 5a; Qidd. 30b, bar.; Sukkah 52b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Pesiq. Rab. 41:4; cf. 2Macc 2:23; T. Ash. 3:2; Aristotle Po1. 3.11.4, 1287a. 4836 Often noted, e.g., Sylvia Mary, Mysticism, 64; White, Initiation, 70 (though White, p. 252, sees Hellenistic background in John 3:3 ); Watkins, John, 74; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 82 (citing b. Yebam. 22a; 48b; 62a; 97b; Bek. 47a). Lightfoot, Talmud, 3:265, noted this in regard to John 3in the seventeenth century. 4840 In practice, freed slaves converted to Judaism were forbidden lest they view Judaism as less than holy (Cohen, Law, 148–49). Moreover, the emphasis on embracing proselytes fully (Kern-Ulmer, «Bewertung»; Bamberger, Proselytism, 145–61; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 840–41) may not have always translated into practice (cf., e.g., m. Hor. 3:8; Sipre Deut. 253.2.2; Bamberger, Proselytism, 161–69; McKnight, «Proselytism,» 841–42; Keener, Spirit, 146–47; 4Q279 frg. 1, line 6). 4841 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Jerusalem, 324. Further on legal status, see Hoenig, «Conversion,» 54–55. 4842 Gaius Inst. 1.59; this remained true even after the adoptive tie was broken. Cf. also blood siblings in Mbiti, Religions, 276. 4843 Gaius Inst. 1.127–128. Cf. the loss of agnatic ties by change of status in 1.161; the invalidation of a will through status change in 2.147. 4846 Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 3; cf. Cicero Att. 6.6.4. Accepting citizenship in one place terminated it elsewhere (Cornelius Nepos 25 [Atticus], 3.1). 4849 L.A.B. 20:2; 27:10. For Philo, ascending to the pure realm of spirit as Moses did could produce a «second birth» (QE 2.46). 4850 Jos. Asen. 8:9/8:10–11. Some also think the prayer for the regeneration of catechumens in Apos. Con. 8.6.6 reflects an earlier Jewish prayer, but this is unclear. 4854 n Abraham: Gen. Rab. 44:12; 48:6; Exod. Rab. 38:6; cf. Apoc. Ab. 20:2–5. Abraham " s exaltation appears in earlier sources without reference to this motif (e.g., T. Ab. 9:6–15A; 8:2–12:15B; cf. T. Mos. 10:8–9), which may reflect broader Hellenistic currents about exalted deities (cf. also Eph 1:21–22 ). |
| 6548 Hoskyns, Gospel, 321; Jeremias, Theology, 159. The structure may link thirsting with drinking, and coming with believing, but also chiastically arrange the subjunctive and participle around the imperatives (cf. Anderson, Glossary, 106, for a different example of chiastic syntax). 6549 Cf. Kilpatrick, «Punctuation»; Brown, John, 1:321; Strachan, Gospel, 132; Bienaimé, «L " annonce,» 281–310. 6550 Note Blenkinsopp, «Quenching,» 40, for the structure; it is an invitation formula (p. 41). Cf. Glasson, Moses, 50–51. 6551 Cf. Allen, «John vii.37, 38»; Sanders, John, 213–14; Robinson, Studies, 164. If believers are the source, perhaps one could argue from Prov 4:23 ; but neither the MT nor the LXX clearly refers to waters (though the LXX term could function thus–cf. Prov 25:13, 26 ; esp. Sir 50:8 –it is not the most common nuance), and nothing else suggests it here. 6552 Perkins, «John,» 964. 6553 Schnackenburg, John, 2:154; Allen, «John vii.37, 38,» 330. 6554 That is, the era of the Spirit " s outpouring had not yet come; cf. Lightfoot, Gospel, 184; Holwerda, Spirit, 1. Hooke, «Spirit,» 379, argues for the significance of the newness of this event. For the connection of the Spirit, Jesus, and glory in the Fourth Gospel, see Floor, «Spirit.» 6555 Most scholars agree that the hour of Jesus» glorification includes (though not all hold that it is limited to) his death (12:23–28); e.g., Taylor, Atonement, 139; Käsemann, Testament, 19; Lindars, Apologetic, 58; Holwerda, Spirit, 7–8; Appold, Motif, 28. 6556 Euripides Medea 667–668 (μφαλν γης); Orest. 591 (μεσομφλους); Pindar Pyth. 4.74; 8.59–60; 11.10; Paean 6.17; 21, frg. 54 (in Strabo 9.3.6); Varro 7.2.17 (umbilicus); Livy 38.48.2; Ovid Metam. 10.168; 15.630–631; Lucan C.W. 5.71; Menander Rhetor 1.3, 366.29. Scott, «Horizon,» 485, cites Herodotus Hist. 4.36 and Aristotle Mete. 2.5.362b. 13; cf. Geroussis, Delphi, 6. Scott, «Horizon,» 486, cites later Greek writers who made Rhodes the center (Agathemerus Geographiae informatio 1.5). Although Philostratus Hrk. 29.9 applies the phrase «belly of earth» literally to an oracular chasm, he probably intends a parallel to the Delphic use. Harrelson, Cult, 36, may also be correct in citing Mesopotamian parallels, though even unrelated cultures could see their own land as the world " s center (e.g., China; Kantowicz, Rage, 45). |
| 9006 Diodorus Siculus 17.31.6; 17.39.2; 17.100.1. For friends of Cassander, see Diodorus Siculus 18.55.1. 9008 Epictetus Diatr. 4.1.45–50; Martial Epigr. 5.19.15–16; Herodian 4.3.5; inscriptions in Deissmann, Light, 378; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:70–82, 4:58–74. Of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, only King Agrippa I adopted this title in his coins; see Meyshan, «Coins.» The probably late and fabricated evidence of CPJ2:71–72, § 156a, and 2:76, §156b, nevertheless reflect earlier custom. 9009 1Macc 10:20; 15:28, 32; 2Macc 7:24; Let. Aris. 40–41, 44, 190,208, 225, 228, 318; Josephus Ant. 12.366 (though cf. 12.391); 13.146, 225; Life 131; Cornelius Nepos 9 (Conon), 2.2; 18 (Eumenes), 1.6; Chariton 8.8.10; cf. Sipre Deut. 53.1.3; Gen. Rab. 34:9. Cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.756 (probably second-century B.C.E. Alexandria); Deissmann, Studies, 167–68. The Roman title «Friends of the People» reflects an office advocating for the people but of less rank than being a leader in the Senate (Cicero Sest. 49.105; Prov. cons. 16.38). 9011 See Sherwin-White, Society, 47; also many commentators (Brown, John, 2:879; Barrett, John, 543; Michaels, John, 309; Stauffer, Jesus, 133). By contrast, Westcott, John, 271, thinks that in 19the phrase is «used in a general and not in a technical sense.» 9012 Cf. Strachan, Fourth Gospel, 179. That a contrast between closeness to Caesar and closeness to God " s agent could be intended is not impossible; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.7. 9015 E.g., Lysias Or. 2.2, §192; Aeschines False Embassy 30, 39; Demosthenes On the Navy-Boards 5; On the Embassy 62; Ep. 3.27; Strabo Geog. 8.5.5; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.109 (but cf. similar interests in 1.111); 2.83; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4 (societates atque amicitias); Maximus of Tyre Or. 35.7–8; Philostratus Hrk. 35.4 (for individuals). 9016 E.g., Xenophon Cyr. 3.2.23; Arrian Alex. 1.28.1; 4.15.2, 5; 4.21.8; 7.15.4; Plutarch Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa 4.6; Plutarch Pelopidas 5.1, 29.4; Epameinondas 17 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 193DE; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.7; 5.3; 7.5; 14 (Datames), 8.5; 23 (Hannibal), 10.2; Josephus Life 30, 124. |
| Presumably Philip knows Nathanael from his home town (1:45). 2. Philip Seeks Nathanael (1:45–46) Philip «finds» Nathanael (1:45) as Jesus had «found» him (1:43). 4279 «Nathanael» (1:45) was «a real if uncommon Semitic name.» 4280 Some have identified this character with Bartholomew of the Synoptic tradition, 4281 but because Jewish people did not usually have two Semitic names, other scholars prefer to follow «early patristic suggestions that he was not one of the Twelve.» 4282 Arguments for both sides of the debate are inconclusive: «Bartholomew» may represent the Greek form of Aramaic «Bar Tholmai,» son of Tholmai, a patronymic rather than a proper name; 4283 but the apparent association of Philip with Nathanael in Synoptic lists ( Mark 3:18 ; Matt 10:3; Luke 6:14) may be the only genuine evidence for the identification, and it is inadequate. Nathanael may figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel not because he is one of the Twelve but because he is a primary source of the Gospel " s Galilean tradition, being from Cana (21:2; cf. 2:1; 4:46), or perhaps a close friend of the author or his source (cf. 21:2). His role in the Gospel makes it likely that he was one of the Twelve (a group John knows, 6:70), and if he was one of the Twelve, he was likelier Bartholomew than anyone else; 4284 but the identification remains uncertain. By announcing to Nathanael that Jesus is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (1:45; cf. 5:46), 4285 Philip utters a confession identical in sense to that of Andrew: «We have found the Messiah» (1:41). For John, all the Scriptures point to Jesus (e.g., 2:17, 22; 7:37–39; 12:15–16; 20:9). Philip " s confession, however, is more explicit in its appeal to the authority of Scripture–witness to Christ is the most common function of Moses in the Fourth Gospel 4286 –and climaxes in Nathanael " s own confession of Jesus» messiahship(l:49). Jesus» status as Joseph " s son (1:45; 6:42) is also attested in Synoptic tradition (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23; 4:22; cf. Mark 6:3 ), where it can be linked with his Davidic heritage (Matt 1:6; Luke 3:31), so this confession need not imply the Johannine community " s ignorance of or opposition to the virgin birth tradition (which would probably be known throughout early Christianity by the Johannine period since it is clearly pre-Lukan and pre-Matthean). Similarly, it may but need not imply the imperfection of Philip " s christological understanding, though readers would not have reason to suppose that he understands the virgin birth nor does John anywhere make use of the virgin birth tradition (cf. 7:42). It is possible, though not likely, that John intends an additional theological allusion here; Jesus is the spiritual descendant of Joseph (cf. 4:5), the noblest son of Jacob. But the allusions to Jacob in 1:47–51 suggest Jesus» infinite superiority to Jacob, as his God or mediator, not a mere identification with him or his descendants. |
| 10609 Hesiod Op. 375; Avianus Fables 15–16; Babrius 16.10; Justinian Inst. 2.10.6 (though contrast the earlier Gaius Inst. 2.105); Plutarch Publicola 8.4; Phaedrus 4.15; Gardner, Women, 165; Kee, Origins, 89. Many men regarded women as gullible (cf. Philo Good Person 117; Juvenal Sat. 1.38–39), and classical Athenians rejected adoptions or changes of will made under women " s influence (e.g., Isaeus Estate of Menecles 1,19; Estate of Philoctemon 29–30). 10610 Cf. also Maccini, Testimony, 63–97, who argues that their witness was usually proscribed in legal contexts but sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected in nonlegal contexts. 10611 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 40–41. Cf. L.A.B. 9:10: Miriam " s parents wrongly disbelieved Miriam " s prophetic dream (Miriam was a biblical prophetess). 10612 Cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 151; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 126. 10613 Thompson, Debate, 233. 10614 E.g., Euripides E1. 569–581 (after the expectation of 274–281). 10615 Sophocles E1. 1226; Apol1. Κ. Tyre 45. Given the difference in status relationship (e.g., Orestes was Electrás brother), Mary may have grasped Jesus by the feet, as the women did in Matt 28:9; but this is unclear. Cf. Philostratus Hrk. 11.2 (a deceased hero not fleeing like a phantom); 51.13 (embracing the deceased " s tomb; the same term clearly applies to an «embrace» in 54.8). 10616 Antoniotti, «L " apparition,» intriguingly even if not fully persuasively. 10617 E.g., Smith, John (1999), 378. Haenchen, John, 2even suggests a demythologized tradition in which Jesus had returned as a spirit but still awaited an earthly body. 10618 See D " Angelo, «Note.» 10619 As frequently noted, e.g., Barrett, John, 565–66; Holwerda, Spirit, 22; Michaels, John, 328; Whitacre, John, 476; see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 172–73; Carson, John, 644. 10620 Fowler, «Meaning,» prefers «touch,» arguing that Jesus warns Mary that the nature of their relationship must be different now. Derrett, Law, 440, suggests a Nazirite vow in Mark 14:25 , so that Jesus» resurrection body must not be defiled by one who recently touched his corpse ( Num 6:6–7; 19:16 ). |
| 4320 Especially in traditional Jewish idiom, e.g., 1 Kgs 4(cf. 2LXX); 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16; Mic 4:4 ; Zech 3:10; 1Macc 14:12; cf. Bernard, John, 1:63; Hoskyns, Gospel, 182; Barrett, John, 185; Scott, Parable, 332. Koester, «Exegesis,» ingeniously connects this image with the messianic branch of Zech 3:8–10, but given the breadth of OT allusions possible, this connection is improbable. 4321 Sus 54, 58. That the expression in Susanna became proverbial (Moule, followed by Fenton, John, 45), is, however, improbable (Barrett, John, 185). Others (e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 31) transform the fig tree into a symbol for Judaism; Michaels, «Nathanael,» suggests a midrashic-style allusion to Hos 9:10 , but this would require that text to read, «I saw Israel under the fig tree» rather than as a fig tree. 4322 See also Barrett, John, 185. 4323 In one later story, someone supernaturally (and convincingly) reveals what happened to her inquirer on his journey when he seeks to test her (Eunapius Lives 468); pagans might think such a revealer divine (470). But see esp. comments on 2:24–25. 4324 This Johannine pattern was noticed at least as early as Chrystostom Hom. Jo. 19 (on 1:41–42). 4325 Cf. also Hoskyns, Gospel ρ 182. 4326 Whitacre, Polemic, 81. 4327 See Herzfeld, «Hospitality,» 80. 4328 Theissen, Stories, 161 (citing among early Christian references Matt 12:23; 14:33; Luke 5:8; 7:16; John 6:14 ; Acts 8:10; 14:11–12; 16:30; 28:6). 4329 Howton, «Son,» 237, suggests that John infuses the term with more meaning than it had previously carried. 4330 Tilborg, Ephesus, 33–38, notes «king» titles in Ephesian inscriptions; an audience in Asia might have contrasted Jesus with the emperor, as in the East the title would connote the king of Persia or Parthia (Aristophanes Ach. 65). 4331 For God as king, see Zech 14:9,16; Jdt 9:12; Tob 13:6; 2Macc 12:15; 1 En. 25:3,5; 91:13; Sib. Or. 1.73; 3.11,56,499,560,704; T.Ab. 15:15A; Philo Good Person 20; 1Tim 1 (pace Oke, «Doxology»); Aristophanes Plutus 1095; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.40; Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stobaeus Ecl 1.1.12, in Grant, Religion, 153); references to «King of kings» below. The royal image for the supreme deity was natural; in unrelated societies, see Mbiti, Religions, 58–59. For Roman imperial propaganda concerning the cosmic implications of imperial rule and its applicability to early Christian proclamation of Jesus, cf., e.g., Fears, «Rome.» |
| 7954 In the Targumim (Westcott, John, 185; Dahl, «History,» 131; Schnackenburg, John, 2:416; McNamara, Targum, 100; Boring et a1., Commentary, 294; Kirchhevel, «Children»). On early Jewish premises concerning God " s glory, this would be a natural inference from Isa 6:3–4. 7957 Isaiah had predicted a new revelation of glory at the new exodus (Isa 40:5; cf. 40:3, cited in John 1:23 ; Isa 24:23; 35:2; 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 58:8; 59:19; 60:1–2; 66:18–19; 4Q176 frg. 1–2, co1. 1, lines 4–9). 7963 So Bauckham, God Crucified, 49–51, citing the interpretive principle gezerâ shevâ. He also suggests (p. 51) that exaltation to divine glory may have recalled Ps 110 (cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31; combined with Isa 57in Heb 1:3). 7964 See esp. Acts 4:1–2; 5:34–35; 15:5; 21:20; 23:6–8; 26:5. «Rulers» work together with «Pharisees» in 7:26,48; the world «ruler» who may stand behind earthly rulers is evil in 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; but 12:42, like 3:1, allows for more nuancing. For such nuancing with the Pharisees as well, see 9:16. 7965 Cf. Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Demosthenes 12.1; Eunapius Lives 465. Alexander reportedly craved praise (Arrian Alex. 7.28.1). Some appreciated reputation but warned that it invited trouble (Babrius 4.7). 7966 Dio Chrysostom Or. 66, On Reputation (LCL 5:86–115); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 123.16; cf. also Porphyry Marc. 15.253 (where, however, the term bears the common nuance of «opinion,» as in, e.g., 17.284). Human mortality also relativized the value of glory (Diogenes Laertius 5.40, citing Theophrastus), and reputation invited trouble (Babrius 4.6–8). 7967 E.g., Xenophon Hiero 7.3 (φιλοτιμα); Philostratus Hrk. 23.23; 45.8; see comment on 5for the appropriate seeking of glory in antiquity. 7968 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.8 (Socrates); Diogenes Ep. 4; Socrates Ep. 6; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.9; Marcus Aurelius 7.34; Philo Spec. Laws 1.281. Diogenes the Cynic reportedly attacked all those who were bound by reputation (νδοξολογοντας, Diogenes Laertius 6.2.47). Cf. condemnations (albeit sometimes qualified) of «self-love» in Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.11; Plutarch Flatterer 1, Mor. 49A; Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 1.90; Philo Confusion 128; Worse 32; 2Tim 3:2 ; Sent. Sext. 138; more favorable in Aristotle N.E. 9.8.1–5, 1168ab; cf. also discussion in Grant, Paul, 41. |
| 4605 Passover «of the Jews» need not mean that the church no longer celebrated it (as Beasley-Murray, John, 39, suggests), but they certainly interpreted it differently in light of Jesus» death (19:31–37; 1Cor 5:7 ); «of the Jews» is a description not necessarily implying supersession (cf. Bruce, John, 73). 4606 Hanson, Gospel, 45, also connects Jesus» first «sign» (2:11) with his ultimate sign (2:18–19). 4608 E.g., Let. Arts. 100–101; 4 Macc 4:9–12; Sib. Or. 3.575–579; Philo Spec. Laws 1.76; m. Kelim 1:6–9; Mek. Pisha 1.48ff.; Schniedewind, «Criticism.» 4609 E.g., lQpHab 9.6–7; T. Mos. 5:4; 6:8–9; if early, cf. T. Levi 15:1. See Keener, Matthew, 561. 4611 So M. Goguel, critiqued in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 364 n. 4, who employs the criterion of coherence in a positive manner. 4614 Pace Vermes, Religion, 185 n. 1. Witherington, Christology, 109, suggests an expectation that the messiah would claim special authority regarding the temple, but his texts (Josephus War 6.285–286; Ant. 18.85–87) may merely link eschatological prophecy with the restoration of a temple. 4618 Philo Spec. Laws 1.166–167 claims that priests inspected all the animals, but his apologetic testimony may not be firsthand. 4621 That Jesus was leading out his sheep (cf. 10:1) might be plausible on a symbolic level (2:19–21 may invite a larger symbolic reading), but relating the doves to the Spirit (1:32) would strain ones sense of plausibility; most likely, John intends 2on a literal level, not as a symbolic double entendre. «Pouring out» (2:15) can be related to the Spirit, water from handbasins (cf. 2:6), or judgment (Rev 16:1) only with difficulty. 4625 Ibid., citing Philo Spec. Laws 1.74–75. Elsewhere Sanders (p. 94), proves skeptical that Philo is entirely reliable in his description of the temple. 4626 Schnackenburg, John, 1:346. Brown suggests that Jesus fashioned the whip from rushes used as bedding (Brown, John, 1:115). 4627 Michaels, John, 35. In one tradition the Messiah would come with a scourge to punish evildoers (b. Sanh. 98b; Westcott, John, 41), but the value of this observation is diminished by the large rabbinic pool of diverse proposals concerning the Messiah " s coming. |
| 4166 See Keener, Matthew, 45–51. 4167 Some purist stylists objected to including foreign words in their works; see, e.g., [Virgil] Cata1. 7. 4168 E.g., Gen 37:15 ; Virgil Aen. 7.197; 8.112–114. 4169 Cf. Latinus " s question of the Trojans and subsequent hospitality in Virgil Aen. 7.197,202. 4170 Jewish texts especially speak of «following after» God (rather than onés own desires); see Helfmeyer, «Gott.» 4171 See, e.g., Wis 1:1; Jub. 1:15; 21:2; Matt 6:33; in the DSS, e.g., 1QS 1.1–2; 5:9,11; CD 1.10; 6.6; 4Q185 frg. 1–2, co1. 1, lines 8–12; 4Q416 frg. 2 (with 4Q417 in Wise, Scrolls, 384–85), co1. 3, lines 12–14; cf. Garcia de la Fuente, «Bûsqueda»; «seekers of smooth things,» negatively, 4QpNah. 2.2, 4; 3.3. For Wisdom, e.g., Sir 51:13–14,21 ; Wis 8:2; the law, Sir 35:15 ; for seeking out a prophet, cf. Sipre Deut. 62.1.1; on the application to study of Torah, see CD 6.7, and esp. Culpepper, School, 291–99, with John 5:39; 7 (pp. 298–99). On seeking and «finding» (cf. John 1:41,45 ) God, cf. Wis 1:2; Jub. 1:15; Matt 7:7; a prophet, cf. Sipre Deut. 62.1.1. 4172 Stibbe, Gospel, 1, finds an inclusio between 1and 20:15. For this as Johannine discipleship language, see Collins, Written, 52, 94–127. 4173 For reticence in responding, as in Luke 24:28–29, see, e.g., Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 108. One might protest that another of higher status has no time (Ovid Metam. 5.333–334) and await their assurance to the contrary before proceeding (5.335–336). A teacher might converse in a low-key manner to arouse the hearers» interest to learn more (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 1.1–5.6). 4174 See Liefeld, «Preacher,» 223, noting Dio Chrysostom as an exception due to his exile. Most of Socrates» students wished to be with him as much as possible (Xenophon Mem. 4.1.1; 4.2.40). Musonius Rufus advocated this approach (11, p. 84.9–14; cf. 6, p. 52.7). 4175 Gerhardsson, Origins, 16–17. 4176 See abundant evidence in Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, «Home,» 762; among Romans, though usually inside, see Jeffers, World, 255. Vermes, Religion, 46, notes some meager evidence for « " wandering Galilean» Bible interpreters.» |
| Through the Baptist " s witness, Andrew became a follower of Jesus (1:36–37, 40); through Andrew " s witness, Simon became a follower of Jesus ( l:40–42a); but in both cases, the inquirers became true disciples only through a personal encounter with Jesus for themselves (1:29, 38–39,42; cf. 8:31). In both cases, Jesus knows the character of the person who approaches him; he knows his sheep (10:14, 27) whom the Father gave him (10:29; 17:9), and indeed knows the hearts of all (2:23–25). Andrew here becomes the second witness, demonstrating that the Baptist " s literary role as witness is paradigmatic and not merely limited to the Baptist himself (note «first» in 1:41, implying both the priority of witness to onés family–cf. 7:5–and that he continued to testify to others after Peter). Andrew «finds» Simon in 1much as Jesus later finds Philip (1:43); this is characteristic Johannine vocabulary (e.g., 5:14) but also functions paradigmatically for witness; Andrew continues to appear in this Gospel as one who introduces the resources or interest of others to Jesus (6:8–9; 12:22.) That Andrew announces Jesus» messiahship (1:41) may reflect his interpretation of John " s testimony about the lamb (1:29) interpreted through the grid of his own experience of Jesus. In the same way, Philip " s testimony about Jesus» messiahship provides the categories for Nathanael to interpret Jesus» supernatural knowledge (1:45,49). In John " s theology, both the christological witness of disciples and the personal experience of Christ become necessary for adequate faith. In the language of the First Epistle, one needs the right Christology ( 1 John 2:22–24) through the apostolic witness ( 1 John 4:6) as well as the testimony of the Spirit (1 John 2:20, 27; 3:24; 4:13; 5:7–8); the latter is supposed to be inseparable from the former (1 John 4:1–6; cf. John 15:26–27 ). When some other prospective disciples encounter Jesus for themselves, they discover that he already knows them, which convinces them of his identity as well (1:48–49; 4:17–19, 29). We may envision such a response to 1here; but why is it not narrated in this case? 4221 Perhaps John wishes to save Peter " s confession for 6:69. |
|
|
