OVERVIEW
John the Baptist was a witness par excellence. This section of ch. 1 portrays him as a person with a clear understanding of his mission, genuine strength of character, and an unwavering commitment to the preeminence of the one about to appear on the scene of history. Verses 23, 26–27 give John’s specific testimony, although the larger context (i.e., his denial that he himself is either the Christ or one of the prophets) should probably be included.
19Now this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.”
21They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
He answered, “No.”
22Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”
24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. 27He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
28This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
32Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”
COMMENTARY
19 John, the author of the gospel, is fond of the word martyria (“testimony,” “witness,” “report,” GK 3456). The term occurs thirty-seven times in the NT, and on thirty of those occasions the author is John. While in six of the seven occasions outside the fourth gospel martyria is used in a religiously neutral sense, in all but three of the thirty occurrences in John it is used in reference to Jesus and his redemptive work. For John, “testimony” is an evangelical witness to the person and work of Christ. Later we will be reminded that John selected his material and wrote his gospel specifically so that others might come to have eternal life by believing “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:30–31). The fourth gospel is the only gospel that intentionally identifies its purpose as evangelistic. John is concerned with witness. His later years on the island of Patmos resulted from his fidelity to “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:9).
The remarkable witness of John the Baptist caused uncertainty, if not consternation, in the minds of some of the “Jews of Jerusalem.” Who was this uninhibited prophet whose message was attracting so much attention? Could he be the Messiah or perhaps one of the prophets? It was time to find out. So they “sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.” When John the evangelist speaks of the “Jews,” his concern is not to stress their national identity but to identify the nation—particularly its religious leaders—as hostile to Jesus. Their understanding of the OT had led them to reject Jesus as Messiah so their attitude toward Christian believers was less than cordial.
The delegation consisted of subordinate clerics who were responsible to take back an answer to their superiors (v.22). While the Levites carried out important ritual functions in both temple and synagogue (Brown, 43, calls them “specialists in ritual purification”), they were not part of the ruling elite. Apparently the threat of a major defection on the part of the common people was not considered a likely possibility at that particular time.
20 When faced by his inquisitors, John the Baptist “did not fail to confess” that he was “not the Christ.” Although the text does not supply us with the actual question, John’s answer assumes that they expected a negative response. Perhaps they asked, “Surely you are not the Christ, are you?” And John confessed freely that he was not. The Greek text says that “he confessed and did not deny” (hōmologēsen [GK 3933] kai ouk ērnēsato [GK 766]). The two verbs stand as antonyms, and since the second is negated they help define each other. To “confess” is to “admit or concede something to be true.” John “admitted” that he was not the Messiah. The parallel verb (“did not deny”) stresses that he did not contradict the truthfulness of their assumption, namely, that he was not the Messiah. The statement is further strengthened by the repetition of hōmologēsen, translated here as “confessed freely.” Brown, 42, has, “He declared without qualification.”
John’s confession is egō ouk eimi ho Christos, “I am not the Christ.” One cannot help but see an implied contrast with the egō eimi (“I am”) of Jesus that so often falls from his lips (6:35, 41; 8:12; 10:7; 11:25 et al.). Jesus is the Messiah; John is not.
21 Then who is John? The delegation from the Sanhedrin needs to take an answer back. So they ask, in effect, “What then shall we conclude?” (The NIV’s “then who are you?” translates the Greek neuter interrogative as though it were masculine; the NASB has “what then?”) “If you are not the Christ, then you must be Elijah.” The nation of Israel would remember that Elijah did not die but was taken up alive in a whirlwind into heaven (2Ki 2:11) and that Malachi, the last of the OT prophets, had predicted that God would send “the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (Mal 4:5). Is it possible that John the Baptist could be Elijah returning to announce the coming of Messiah? The return of the prophet is reflected in NT writings (Mk 8:28) and was a popular theme in rabbinic legends.
John answers the query with a firm “I am not.” In another setting, Matthew records Jesus’ assertion that, for those willing to accept it, John was “the Elijah who was to come” (Mt 11:14). Commentators agree that Jesus’ reference is to “the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk 1:17).
The delegation wonders of John, “If you are neither the Messiah nor his forerunner Elijah, ‘Are you the Prophet?’” (The NEB has “the prophet we await.”) In Deuteronomy 18:15, God promised that he would raise up a prophet like Moses to speak for him. Could Jesus be that long-awaited prophet? (For other references, see Jn 6:14; 7:20; Ac 3:22; 7:37.) Now the answer comes even more abruptly: “No.” John does not conform to popular Jewish messianic expectations, though he does come as the forerunner of their Messiah.
22 Then “who are you?” they ask. “Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us.” John’s declaration of impending eschatological judgment would identify him in the minds of the Jewish nation as one of the figures of popular messianic expectation. But since he claimed not to be “Elijah” or “the Prophet,” who can he be? “What do you say about yourself?” is a wide-open question. “Tell us about how you understand your own ministry,” they are asking, in effect.
23 John answers with a quotation from the OT prophet Isaiah: “I am the voice of one calling in the desert.” The Synoptics quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply the prophecy to John the Baptist (Mk 1:3 par.), but in the fourth gospel John uses it to identify himself and his mission. He is not a prominent figure but only a “voice in the wilderness.” His role is simply to speak a word in behalf of the Eternal Word. This understanding of mission in terms of the quotation from Isaiah may account for the fact that John begins his career in the thinly populated area (“the desert”) of Israel rather than in the city. Boaō (“to call, shout, cry out,” GK 1066) is a strong word. It is used of Jesus’ cry of desolation on the cross (Mk 15:34).
John’s message is, “Make straight the way for the Lord” (cf. Isa 40:3). When an ancient dignitary was about to visit a province of his realm, the message would go out to prepare the way by removing all obstacles from the road and making it as smooth as possible. The road that the Messiah would travel was the road into the hearts and lives of his people. Only national repentance could prepare the way for that spiritual journey, and John had come to prepare the nation for the advent of the Messiah.
24–25 The delegation from Jerusalem included “some Pharisees” who questioned John’s practice of baptizing, since he had acknowledged that he was not the Christ, Elijah, or one of the prophets. They viewed baptism as an eschatological rite to be performed by a leader in the last days. The Pharisees (the name means “separated ones”) were an important group among the Jews who insisted on fastidious obedience to the Mosaic law and to the oral tradition that had grown up around the law to adapt it to changing times. Their major concern was ethical rather than theological; thus their interest in John the Baptist and his summons to national repentance. Essentially, their question is, “Why do you baptize if you are not one of those leaders whose presence heralds the end of the age?” For John to have baptized would have violated the law if he had received no public office from God (cf. Calvin, 1:29).
26 John’s response to the Pharisees was to minimize his own role (“I am only baptizing in water,” AT) and to extol the one who stands among them yet whom they do not know. Later John will contrast the two baptisms (v.33, “with water … with the Holy Spirit”), but here he wants to focus attention on the radical distinction between his own role and that of the Christ. It is tragic that the promised Messiah could be right there with them and not be recognized (cf. v.12). Metzger, 170–71, notes that the Greek perfect (hestēken, GK 2705) “conveys a special force here (something like, ‘there is One who has taken his stand in your midst’).” The self-inflicted blindness that accompanies religious pride makes all opposing alternatives unacceptable. They did not know him because they were expecting someone quite different. Hendriksen, 1:97, writes, “In their eagerness to expose false Messiahs, they are ignoring the true Messiah.”
27 John readily admits that he is “not worthy” to perform even the menial task of untying the sandal strap of the Coming One. According to rabbinic teaching, a disciple could perform for his teacher any service that a slave would do for his master except untie his sandal (cf. b. Ketub. 96a). We admire John’s humility but are fully aware that the privileged role he played is unparalleled in history (cf. Mt 11:11). Humility, someone said, is a trait so rare that when you think you’ve found it you’ve lost it. Monica Baldwin writes, “What makes humility so desirable is the marvelous thing it does to us; it creates in us a capacity for the closest possible intimacy with God” (see www.worldofquotes.com/author/Monica-Baldwin/1/index.html).
28 The encounter between John and the delegation from Jerusalem took place “at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan.” This was not the Bethany near Jerusalem where Mary and Martha lived (11:1) but a village of uncertain location east of the Jordan River. Since Origen could not find a village by that name near the Jordan, he accepted a variant that translates “Bethabara.” John notes that this location beyond the Jordan was “where John was baptizing.” The periphrastic construction (ēn … baptizōn, GK 966) pictures John as carrying out his ministry on a continuing basis.
29 The next day (i.e., the day after John’s encounter with the delegation from Jerusalem) John saw Jesus approaching and proclaimed him to be the Lamb provided by God to take away the sin of the world. Commentators have offered a number of suggestions concerning the background of the title “Lamb of God.” The three most prominent are (1) the apocalyptic lamb (Jewish apocalyptic literature contains the image of a conquering lamb that defeats the forces of evil; this messianic warrior appears in Revelation as the Lamb who triumphs over the beast and his armies [Rev 17:14]); (2) the suffering servant (some say that the Aramaic talya, which lies behind the Greek amnos (GK 303), can be understood as “servant” as well as “lamb” (Isa 52:7); and (3) the paschal lamb (Ex 12–13). See Brown, 58–61, for a helpful discussion of these three.
Lindars, 109, concludes that “the title is based on Isaiah 53, interpreted in the light of the Passover sacrifice.” J. Jeremias (TDNT 1:340) notes that the description of Jesus as amnos expresses his patience in suffering, his sinlessness, and the efficacy of his vicarious death. He is the one who “takes away the sin of the world.” Temple, 1:24, writes that John uses the singular (“sin”) because there is only one sin and it is characteristic of the entire world, “the self-will which prefers ‘my’ way to God’s—which puts ‘me’ in the centre where only God is in place.” The Greek airō (GK 149; NIV, “takes away”) in this context combines the two meanings “to take up” and “to carry away” (cf. BDAG, 28–29). Whether one interprets “the sin of the world” to mean all the sin of the world (as in 1Jn 2:2) or only the sin of certain people from every nation depends on one’s view of the extent of the atonement: Was it for all humanity or only the elect?
30 John now refers back to his declaration in v.15. The Coming One was greater than John because he was “before him.” Although he came after John in point of time, he has far surpassed him in significance because he was before John as the preincarnate Son of God. It is Jesus’ preexistence that sets him apart from all earthly mortals. No other person belongs in that category.
31 When John said that he “did not know [Jesus],” he meant that he did not know him as the Coming One. It is highly probable that they knew one another, for they were related. (In Lk 1:36 Elizabeth, John’s mother, is said to be a syngenis, GK 5151, “kinswoman” or perhaps “cousin” of Mary the mother of Jesus.) What John did not know about Jesus prior to the Spirit’s descent at the scene of the baptism was that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
32 The event described here is mentioned in all four gospels, but only in Luke (3:22) do we learn that the Spirit descended “in bodily form like a dove” (italics added). There could be no mistake on John’s part—it was not a subjective experience—because the Spirit assumed the visible form of a dove. The dove was considered an appropriate offering for the poor (cf. Lev 12:8) and symbolized such qualities as purity, gentleness, and innocence. Temple, 1:26, notes that only the dove is said to offer its own neck to the sacrificial knife. That the Spirit remained on Jesus symbolizes the permanent nature of the divine appointment.
33 John had been told that the one on whom the Spirit descended would be the one to “baptize with the Holy Spirit.” Both Matthew and Luke record John the Baptist as saying that the Coming One will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16, italics added). In both cases the verses that follow indicate that the baptism of fire is connected with judgment. The fourth gospel is content to mention only the endowment of the Spirit as a symbol of the new covenant (cf. Eze 3:22).
34 The testimony of John the Baptist began with v.19 and now closes with v.34. “I have seen” is the indisputable basis for “and I testify” (Phillips has, “I declare publicly before you all”). His testimony is that Jesus of Nazareth “is the Son of God.” In all three synoptic accounts, the descent of the Spirit is followed by a voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be God’s beloved Son in whom he is well pleased (Lk 3:22 par.). John’s testimony rested on God’s own declaration. Coupled with the visible descent of the Spirit, there could be no question but that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah.
NOTES
34 While NA27 adopts the reading ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou, “the Son of God”), which certainly has stronger external support (P66.75 אc A B C Θ copbo, etc.), there exists early evidence for the variant ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho eklektos tou theou, “the Chosen One of God”; P5 א* b e ff2* sys.c). Internal considerations would favor the latter because, while there would be considerable motivation for a scribe to change ἐκλεκτός, eklektos, to υἱός, huios, there would be no obvious reason to replace a favorite Johannine expression (“Son of God”; cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25 et al.) with a title that appears nowhere else in John. For reasons supporting ἐκλεκτός, eklektos (GK 1723), see Gordon Fee, “The Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Biblical Criticism, ed. R.K. Harrison et al (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 152–53. That ἐκλεκτός, eklektos, was probably original is supported by a third variant that joins the two (electus filius, “elect Son”). Rieu translates, “that this is the Elect of God.”
35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
39“Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”
So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.
40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
COMMENTARY
35–36 On “the next day” (the third day in the sequence), John the Baptist was with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus pass by, he repeated the declaration of the previous day, “Look, the Lamb of God!” (cf. v.29). From v.40 we will learn that Andrew was one of the two disciples who were with John the Baptist. (That he had a group of followers who would be considered his disciples is clear from Mk 2:18.) Most writers are of the opinion that the other disciple was John the son of Zebedee. The verb used of John’s “seeing” the Lamb of God as he passed by is emblepō (GK 1838), which means “to fix one’s gaze on.” It portrays the intensity with which he looked at Jesus, whom he now knows to be the promised Messiah.
37 The two disciples heard their teacher’s words and “followed Jesus.” Their personal attachment to John was less than their allegiance to the truth he taught. He had told them of one coming whose sandals he was unworthy to loosen. Now that this Coming One had appeared, it was appropriate for the disciples to break their ties with John and follow the Christ. Eighteenth-century German theologian Johann Bengel refers to this event as “the origin of the Christian Church.” From the very beginning faithful ministers have pointed others to Jesus and encouraged them to follow him. To follow Jesus means to follow him as a disciple.
38 Jesus’ question should be taken in the deeper sense of, “What is it that you are searching for?” The two disciples responded by addressing him with the title “Rabbi,” a translation of a Hebrew word meaning “my master,” and by asking, “Where are you staying?” They were not merely curious about where he would spend the night but were hoping for an invitation to go home with him so they could have a lengthy conversation about a number of questions that had been on their hearts since hearing the Baptist proclaim that the Coming One was here.
Some writers note that the term “rabbi” was not used as a title until late in the first century. It designated one who after a fairly lengthy period of rabbinic training was ordained to the teaching ministry. In the Gospels it is applied to Jesus as an honorary designation. John regularly translates Hebrew and Aramaic words for the benefit of his non-Jewish readership (cf. 1:41, 42; 4:25; 9:7 et al.). Here he indicates that “Rabbi” means “Teacher.” The Greek methermēneuomenon (“means,” GK 3493) is a compound participle derived from “Hermes,” the messenger of the gods. Compare Acts 14:12, where Paul was called “Hermes” by the crowds in Lystra “because he was the chief speaker.”
39 Jesus’ straightforward answer was, “Come … and you will see.” His invitation to those in need is always, “Come!” (e.g., Mt 11:28; Jn 4:16). It remains operative today for all who would like to know him better. Later John records Jesus’ promise that whoever comes to him will never be turned away (6:37). The two disciples go with Jesus and spend the day with him. It was undoubtedly the most rewarding day of their lives. For some time they had heard the Baptist extol the virtues of the Coming One; now they were sitting in his presence and listening to what he himself had to say.
By this time it was “about the tenth hour.” Assuming that the time reference is to the beginning of their stay with Jesus, it would appear that the evangelist is following the Roman custom of reckoning the hours of the day as we do from midnight and noon. The tenth hour would be 10:00 a.m. If, however, the author was following the Jewish method of reckoning time (from sunrise), it would be about 4:00 p.m. Brown, 75, records the possibility that it was four o’clock Friday afternoon (the eve of the Sabbath) and the disciples would therefore be prevented by Jewish law from any extensive travel for the next twenty-four hours.
40 The events described in vv.40–42 apparently take place on the fourth day of John’s sequence, although no specific mention of the day is made. (The calling of Peter could hardly have taken place while Andrew and another disciple [John?] were in conference with Jesus on day three. The next recording of the day appears in v.43.) Verse 40 identifies Andrew as one of the two disciples who had listened to the teaching of the Baptist and then followed Jesus when he was pointed out.
41 Manuscripts reflect three variants for “first thing”: (1) prōton (GK 4754), Andrew’s first act was to find Simon; (2) prōtos (GK 4755), Andrew was the first person to make a convert; (3) prōi (GK 4745), “early” in the morning. The NIV is correct in following the first alternative. To encounter Jesus and discover his true identity is to become a missionary. There is no other option for the honest believer. Missionary work begins at home.
Although we most often refer to Andrew’s brother as Peter, his original name was Simon. Since Simon is a standard Greek name (e.g., Simon Magus, Ac 8:11), it would have been better to transliterate the Hebrew name as “Symeon.” He was the first to hear that Jesus was the Messiah, a truth that later became a confession (cf. Mt 16:16, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”). John once again translates the Hebrew term “Messiah” for his Gentile readers—“that is, the Christ.” Barrett, 182, points out the remarkable sequence of names ascribed to Jesus in this section of the gospel: “Lamb of God (v.36); Rabbi (v.38); the one who was foretold by Moses and the prophets (v.45); Rabbi, Son of God, King of Israel (v.49); the Son of Man (v.51).”
42 When Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, Jesus “looked” at him (emblepō, “to gaze intently” [GK 1838]; cf. v.36) and addressed him prophetically by giving him a nickname that would come to characterize him at a later point in his life, following Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus always sees us in terms of what we can become, not what we are at the moment. Simon’s family connection is indicated by the designation “son of John.” John is probably a variant form of “Jonah,” which is the correct form of his name on the basis of the transliteration of the Aramaic in Matthew 16:17 (Simon Bariōna, “Simon son of Jonah”). While Andrew’s brother is now named Simon, he will be called “Cephas” (Kēpha, an Aramaic nickname meaning “rock,” the equivalent nickname in Greek being Petros, “Peter,” GK 4377). At this point in Simon’s life and throughout his three years as a disciple of Jesus, he was anything but “rocklike.” Following Jesus’ resurrection and continuing until Peter’s martyrdom some thirty-plus years later, Peter demonstrated his true character as a steadfast apostle of the Christian faith.
43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.”
44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
46“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.
“Come and see,” said Philip.
47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.”
48“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”
49Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
50Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that.” 51He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
COMMENTARY
43 The “next day” is probably day five in John’s reckoning. Day four is not specifically designated but must be the day following John and Andrew’s visit with Jesus when Andrew brings his brother Simon to Jesus (vv.40–42). The Greek text does not say it was Jesus who decided to leave for Galilee, but the NIV is probably correct in making “Jesus” the subject of the sentence. Some, however, find the antecedent of the unexpressed subject of the verb (“he decided”) in the previous verse and make Simon the one who found Philip. In that case we would have the interesting sequence of Andrew finding Simon (v.41), Simon finding Philip (v.43), and Philip finding Nathanael (v.45). Whether it was Jesus or Simon (or Andrew; cf. Carson, 157–58) who found Philip, it was Jesus who called him to discipleship with the words, “Follow me.” Jesus always calls people to himself, not to a religious point of view or even (primarily) to an exemplary way of living. Discipleship depends on a close personal relationship with Jesus as Master and Lord.
44 Galilee was the land to the west of the lake bearing the same name. In the time of Jesus it was governed by the crafty tetrarch Herod Antipas, the cunning “fox” (Lk 13:32) who married his brother’s wife Herodias and had John the Baptist beheaded (Mt 14:1–11). Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was “from the town of Bethsaida.” The designation is Aramaic and means “house of fishing.” Since Bethsaida Julias (built by Philip the tetrarch and named in honor of the emperor’s daughter) was east of the Jordan, it is suggested that there may have been two towns by that name, one in Iturea (cf. Lk 9:10) and the other in Galilee (cf. Mk 6:45). Perhaps the home of Philip and the others was a suburb of Julias on the west bank of the Jordan. In any case, the designation “Galilee” was used in a popular sense to include the territory all around the lake.
45 On arriving in Galilee Philip “found Nathanael.” Temple, 1:30, writes, “As soon as [Philip] becomes a disciple he also becomes a missionary.” Philip’s good news was that they had found the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. Actually it was Jesus who found them, but the excitement of the new and crucial insight was more than adequate to account for Philip’s manner of expression. Philip used the complete title for Jesus in the customary form of the day: his personal name, “Jesus”; his hometown, “of Nazareth”; and his family line, “the son of Joseph” (his legal father). The name “Nathanael” is not found in any of the lists of the disciples as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He is usually identified with Bartholomew, a patronymic (Bar Talmai) meaning “son of Talmai.”
46 There is no reason to take Nathanael’s surprised reaction to Philip’s announcement as a “scornful question” (as Barrett, 184, does). It was commonly understood that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem (Jn 7:42) and that no prophet was to appear from Galilee (Jn 7:52). It follows that a man brought up in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, could hardly be the promised Messiah. Nazareth is not even mentioned in the OT or in the current literature of the day, Jewish or pagan. It is probably worth noting that the judgment on Galilee made by the chief priests and Pharisees was wrong—the prophet Jonah was born in Gath Hepher near Nazareth (2Ki 14:25). J. Ramsey Michaels (John [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984], 22) comments that “Nathanael’s answer reflects a kind of provincialism in reverse that refuses to see glory or greatness in anything familiar or close to home.” Nathanael came from the nearby town of Cana (cf. 21:2); but it is doubtful that Nathanael’s response was conditioned by intertown rivalry. Far more important was the widespread understanding that the Messiah would come from Judea.
Philip’s answer was a simple “come and see” (cf. v.39). While it is true that “honest inquiry is a sovereign cure for prejudice” (Bruce, 60), the verbs denote action, not discussion. Theological debate is superfluous in the presence of actual experience. How wise it is to point honest inquirers to a personal acquaintance with Jesus rather than to burden them with a detailed explanation of nonessentials.
47 Jesus referred to Nathanael as a “true Israelite” and one in whom there was no deceit. The OT patriarch Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel, was a deceitful man (Ge 27:36). The name Jacob means “he grasps the heel” (Ge 25:26), i.e., the one who supplanted or gained the advantage over his brother Esau, first by obtaining his birthright (Ge 25:39–34) and then by deceiving his father into giving him Esau’s blessing (Ge 27). By contrast, Nathanael is a “true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.” Bruce, 60, characterizes him as one who is “all Israel and no Jacob.”
48 There is considerable speculation regarding what may be intended by “I saw you under the fig tree.” At times rabbis studied and taught under a fig tree. In Micah 4:4 and Zechariah 3:10, sitting under a fig tree appears to symbolize messianic peace. Moffatt translates, “under that fig tree” (italics added), which would strengthen the possibility that Nathanael may have undergone some profound religious experience while sitting under a specific fig tree. For Jesus to know about such an experience and where it happened would require supernatural insight and would account for what Temple, 1:32, calls an “outburst of exalted hope” from Nathanael (v.49).
49 “Son of God” and “King of Israel” are different ways of saying that Jesus is the promised Messiah. They are both messianic titles found in Psalm 2 (vv.6, 7). The first points to the deity of Jesus as well.
50–51 Nathanael’s belief resulted from his awareness that Jesus had supernatural insight into his past. In the future he is to see “greater things than that.” The following verse (v.51) explains what the term “greater things” includes. Along with others (“you shall [all] see”—the verb is plural), Nathanael is to see heaven standing open (aneōgota [GK 487]—perfect tense) and the angels of God “ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” The background is the account of Jacob’s dream in Genesis (28:10–17) where a ladder (or stairway) reaches from earth to heaven with angels ascending and descending on it. What it means is that Jesus is the one who connects heaven and earth. He is the mediator between God and humanity (cf. 1Ti 2:5), “the locus of ‘traffic’ that brings heaven’s blessings to mankind” (Beasley-Murray, 28). The reference is not to some future point in time but to the entire period of Jesus’ ministry now beginning in Judea.
The declaration is prefaced with the double “amen,” a characteristic of Jesus’ way of presenting an important truth. (The construction appears twenty-five times in John but not elsewhere.) The NIV translates with the rather bland “I tell you the truth.” The title “Son of Man” is Jesus’ self-designation. It has its roots in Daniel 7:13. Because it was somewhat obscure, it could serve as a messianic title without encouraging a popular surge of messianic fervor that would hinder Jesus’ real purpose.
OVERVIEW
John 2 opens with the narrative of a wedding in Cana of Galilee at which Jesus turns water into wine. Its inclusion in the gospel is not to record an interesting day in the life of Jesus but to set forth the miracle as a sign, that is, a wondrous deed that points beyond itself to reveal some aspect of the person of Jesus as Messiah and to evoke faith on the part of those to whom it is given. The distinctiveness of the term sēmeion (“sign,” GK 4956) as used by John is that it constitutes Jesus’ “self-manifestation” in his works (TDNT 7:255). Beginning with ch. 2 and extending to the passion narrative, John’s gospel is built around a sequence of seven signs (e.g., 4:46–54; 5:1–9). These are selected out of a larger number and recorded for the purpose of leading the reader to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and by believing so to “have life in his name” (20:30–31).
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
4“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”
5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
7Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
8Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
COMMENTARY
1 The wedding took place at Cana of Galilee. This Cana (one of several) was probably the ancient but unexcavated village of Khirbet Qana, about eight miles northeast of Nazareth, not the more traditionally posited site of Kefr Kenna, some four miles outside Nazareth on the road leading north-northeast toward Tiberias. At one time Josephus was apparently quartered in Cana, as he writes, “My abode was in a village of Galilee, which is named Cana” (Life, 16). The wedding is mentioned only here in the NT (cf. 4:46–54; 21:2). Weddings in first-century Israel included a marriage feast that could last as long as a week (cf. Samson’s seven-day marriage feast, Jdg 14:12). This banquet took place in the home of the bridegroom (cf. v.9) and, as later custom would indicate, was preceded by a procession in which the friends of the bridegroom would bring the bride to his house.
John notes that the wedding took place “on the third day.” This would not be the third day of the week, because virgins were married on Wednesdays (the fourth day) and widows on Thursdays (the fifth day; cf. Keener, 268). If we consider the call of Philip and Nathanael (1:43–51) as day five, then according to John’s reckoning the wedding would fall on the eighth day. Some have seen in this an indication that Jesus’ public ministry represents a new beginning, the number eight being one more than the perfect seven.
In any case, the two-day interval would allow sufficient time for Jesus and his followers to travel to Galilee. It is here that Jesus performs the first “sign,” intended to lead people to faith. Interestingly, John does not refer to Jesus’ mother by name. Mary appears only here and at the crucifixion scene (19:25–27). Since Jesus’ disciples—presumably the five mentioned in ch. 1 who answered the call of Jesus (John, Andrew, Simon, Philip, and Nathanael)—were present at the wedding party (v.2), it would appear that the celebration was a family affair. Either bride or groom could have been a close relative. This would explain Mary’s involvement in the festivities.
2 Any suggestion that the presence of the disciples caused the subsequent lack of wine is pure conjecture. After all, they were invited guests. That Jesus and his disciples would take part in wedding festivities demonstrates how different their lifestyle was from that of the monastic community of Qumran.
3 Wine was a basic commodity in the fare of the ancient world (Ge 14:18; Dt 14:26; Mt 11:19). For the supply of wine to run short at a wedding would cause severe embarrassment for the host. If Mary had some part in catering the banquet, this would help explain her reporting to Jesus that the wine had run out. Some scholars think it unlikely that she expected him to perform a miracle. Only in the apocryphal (and unreliable) gospels do we have stories of various miracles that Jesus is said to have performed during the years he was growing up in Nazareth. Mary undoubtedly went to Jesus with the problem because she knew how resourceful he had been on other occasions. It was the natural thing for the mother of such an unusual son to do. Bruce, 70, notes that “she did not know what he would do, but she knew that he would do the right thing.”
On the other hand, Mary knew that her son was supernaturally conceived. He was not like others. That he had by now gathered the beginnings of a band of disciples perhaps indicated that he was about to take up his messianic work. Had not John the Baptist declared him to be the “Lamb of God” who had come to “take away the sin of the world” (1:29)? Was it not possible that now would be an appropriate time for him to perform a miracle?
4 The way in which Jesus answers his mother seems rude. A literal translation of the Greek would be, “What to me and to you, woman?” The NLT softens the response by omitting the word “woman” and the NIV by adding the word “dear” before “woman” (a solution that Carson, 170, deems “too sentimental”). The NEB paraphrases, “Your concern, mother, is not mine.” That the term by which Jesus addressed his mother (gynai, “woman,” GK 1222) did not sound overly severe or unsympathetic in the ears of the original readers is clear from the fact that Jesus used the same expression when from the cross in reference to the beloved disciple he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son” (19:26).
The exact nuance of Jesus’ words “why do you involve me?” is not completely clear. It appears to be a Hebrew idiom, the meaning of which depends on the context. Tasker, 59–60, says that often in the OT the statement means, “Don’t bother me; leave me alone,” but in the present passage it should be translated, “Your concern and mine are not the same.” The Jerusalem Bible has, “Woman, why turn to me?” In any case, there is no antagonism in the response. The reason that Jesus hesitated to do what his mother had asked is clear from the statement that follows: “My time has not yet come.” His “hour” (hōra, GK 6052) is the hour of his messianic manifestation. In the fourth gospel the full revelation of Jesus as the promised Messiah takes place in connection with his death and glorification (13:1; cf. 7:30; 8:20).
5 Mary apparently does not grasp the full intent of what her son has just said, so she instructs the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. Jesus proceeds to perform his first miracle in spite of his assertion that his time had not yet come. We are probably to understand that this miracle, though intimating to a select few the beginning of a messianic ministry, would not be broadly recognized as such. Otherwise there would be an inconsistency between what Jesus said and what he did.
6–8 Standing nearby were six stone water jars that were used by the Jews for ceremonial cleansing (cf. the parenthetical remark in Mk 7:3–4). Brown, 100, notes that the jars were of stone rather than earthenware because the latter could become ritually contaminated. Each jar held from twenty to thirty gallons (a metrētēs, “measure,” GK 3583, was a liquid measure of about nine gallons). Since weddings lasted for a week and were social events to which as many guests as possible were invited, a considerable amount of wine would be required. Jesus instructed the servants to fill the jars with water up to the brim. After they had done this they were told to “draw some out” and take it to the “master of the banquet” (either a servant who had been appointed to manage the feast or one of the guests acting as master of ceremonies). Noting that the verb antleō (“to draw,” GK 533) is used in 4:7, 15 of drawing water from a well, some understand that the water turned to wine was a second drawing from the well. This relieves the problem of turning such a large amount of water (perhaps as much as 120 to 180 gallons!) into wine. It could also be that only the water drawn from the jars (not all the water poured into the jars) was turned into wine. But scaling down a miracle to match our expectations is hardly ever good exegesis!
9–10 When the master of the banquet tasted the wine, he called the bridegroom over and commented that while most hosts bring out the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink, in this case the best had been saved till last. There is no question but that the wine that was served would cause drunkenness if taken in excess. The Greek methyskō (GK 3499) in the passive voice means “to become intoxicated” (“had too much to drink”). Speculation that Jesus was acting out a charade, pretending the water to be wine, and the steward was going along with it, is ingenious but unconvincing. Wine was a basic part of the first-century diet. Even Jesus came “eating and drinking” (obviously wine, because he was falsely charged with being a “drunkard,” Mt 11:19). While drunkenness is never condoned in Scripture (cf. Eph 3:18), the use of wine (often mixed with water; the Talmud recommends three parts water to one part wine; cf. Robert Stein, “Wine-Drinking in the New Testament,” Christianity Today 19 [June 1975]: 10) is everywhere assumed. The question of intoxicating beverages in today’s society should be discussed against the background of their devastating effects on personal health and social well-being, not on whether or not the wine that Paul recommended to Timothy (1Ti 5:23) could make a person drunk.
Commenting on this miracle, C. S. Lewis (Miracles [New York: Macmillan, 1948], 163) writes that God does what he has always been doing—making wine. At Cana, “God, now incarnate, short circuits the process: makes wine in a moment …. The miracle consists in the short cut; but the event to which it leads is the usual one.” William Temple, 1:37, sees in the best wine coming last an illustration of how our relationship to God becomes more and more satisfying with the passage of time: “When people meet us they find us friendly and considerate. When they come to know us they may have to put up with the less good. Our communion with God is not so. As we deepen our fellowship we may at every stage say, ‘thou has kept the good wine until now.’”
11 The miracle Jesus performed here was “the first of his miraculous signs” (sēmeia, GK 4956). In the NT several different words are used to depict the mighty works of Jesus. Dynamis (GK 1539) is regularly used to describe an act of power or might, i.e., a miracle. A teras (GK 5469) is a portent, or wonder, and in the NT is always found in conjunction with sēmeion, a sign. For John, miracles are sēmeia, which point beyond themselves. The turning of water into wine is a sēmeion that reveals the glory of Jesus and leads his disciples to “put their faith in him.” The seven signs selected and recorded by John have as their purpose bringing people to faith in Jesus (20:30–30). The faith that John speaks of in the present context is an ever-deepening trust on the part of the disciples rather than their initial step of faith in following Jesus. The “glory” of Jesus revealed by the miracle was a momentary manifestation of his divine nature as the Son of God. The full revelation of the “Lord of glory” (1Co 2:8) is an eschatological event that awaits the day of fulfillment yet future.
1 According to the inclusive reckoning of the NT, the “third day” would be what we would normally call “the day after tomorrow” (cf. Lk 9:22; Ac 27:19; 1Co 15:4).
3 Two Old Latin witnesses (ite,l) explain the depletion of wine on the basis of the size of the crowd: “It happened that, because of the great crowd of those who had been invited, the wine was finished” (Metzger, 172–73).
6 In the OT ceremonial uncleanness resulted from a number of things, such as giving birth (Lev 12), skin diseases (Lev 13–14), etc. All forms of uncleanness prevented an Israelite from participating in the ritual worship of Yahweh. In the NT these Mosaic regulations were extended by tradition to include such things as ceremonial washing of the hands before eating. For a large wedding feast there would have to be a considerable quantity of water available for hand washing since the practice was to pour the water over the hands.
8 A rough translation of the Greek ἀρχιτρίκλινος (architriklinos, GK 804) would be, “chief of the banquet hall of three couches” (cf. the three components: ἀρχή, archē, “ruler,” GK 794; τρεῖς, treis, “three,” GK 5552; and κλίνη, klinē, “bed,” “couch,” GK 3109). One of the primary duties of the “master of the banquet” (the NASB’s “headwaiter” is too contemporary) was to regulate the distribution of wine in order to prevent overindulgence.
REFLECTIONS
Since the miracle in Cana was a “sign” (sēmeion, v.11), writers have been led to discover in the specifics of the narrative a number of metaphorical references. For example, the lack of wine at the wedding feast (v.3) is said to symbolize the failure of Jewish law to meet the deeper needs of humanity. The inadequacy of the law is seen as well in the number of stone jars—six being one less than the perfect number seven (v.6). That the jars each held “twenty to thirty gallons” (v.6) is said to picture the inexhaustible supply of grace that Jesus brings. In the filling of the jars “to the brim” (v.7) we are encouraged to understand that the ceremonial observances of Judaism had run their course. That the “choice wine” (v.10) was provided by Jesus is said to indicate his superiority over the law. While these allegorical reflections are homiletically permissible, they do not lie at the heart of what was intended by identifying the miracle as a sign. What the miracle pointed to was the divine nature of Jesus, not a series of comparisons between Jewish law and the gospel.
12After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
COMMENTARY
12 Following the miracle at Cana in Galilee, Jesus and his family went down to Capernaum. They “went down” in the sense that Capernaum, which lies on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, is lower in elevation than Cana. Capernaum (undoubtedly the ruins at Tell Hum west of the Jordan) was to become Jesus’ headquarters in his Galilean ministry (Mt 4:13). The brothers of Jesus are listed by Matthew as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas” (Mt 13:55). They are normally understood to be sons born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Those who hold to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary are forced to find another explanation. Epiphanius, a fourth-century polemicist, understood the “brothers” to be sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, that is, half brothers of Jesus, while Jerome held them to be cousins (cf. Brown, 120).
13 After a few days in Capernaum, Jesus went up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish Passover. The Passover was one of the three annual feasts that required the presence in Jerusalem of every Jewish male twelve years of age and older (Dt 16:16). Strictly speaking, Passover was the night of 14–15 Nisan. In time it became associated with the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed immediately. Later Judaism designated the entire period as Passover. The festival celebrated the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. The fourth gospel mentions three Passovers during the public ministry of Jesus (2:13; 6:4; 11:55; some would include 5:1 as a fourth), while the Synoptics have but one (at the time of his death). John’s reference to three Passovers is the major factor in determining the length of Jesus’ public ministry. If, however, the fourth gospel as we have it is an arrangement of the various homilies of John on the life and ministry of Jesus, precise chronology is less than likely.
14 Arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the “temple courts.” The NASB retains the Greek singular hieron, “temple,” GK 2639—a term that included the entire temple area with its buildings and courts. There he found men selling animals for sacrifice and exchanging foreign money so visitors could pay the temple tax. Normally booths were set up on the Mount of Olives for such necessary exchange, but for rather obvious commercial reasons the trade had been moved to the court of the Gentiles. Morris (Reflections on the Gospel of John [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000], 80) writes that “for any Gentile who came up to the temple to worship it meant that prayer had to be offered in the middle of a cattle yard and money market.” The selling of animals for sacrifice was a convenience for those who came to Jerusalem from a distance. It is often said that heathen coins such as the Roman denarii and Attic drachmas were not permitted in paying the half-shekel temple tax because they bore the image of the emperor. But this overlooks the fact that the required Tyrian coins similarly bore human impressions. Tyrian coins were the acceptable currency because of their accurate weight and exceptional purity.
15 Appalled by all the commotion connected with the economic transactions going on in the temple court, Jesus took some rope and made a whip. With it he drove out the mercenaries with all their provisions. It is best to understand “all” as referring to all the merchants rather than all the animals. Barrett, 198, translates the latter phrase as an explanatory addition: “the sheep and the oxen as well.” Whether the “whip” was made of rushes (from the bedding for animals) or a piece of rope (cf. Ac 27:32, the only other NT occurrence of schoinion, GK 5389) it was hardly a weapon that would have frightened those who were profiting from the business. Morris (Reflections, 81) correctly notes that Jesus had “an ally in the consciences of the traders.” They were not unaware of the impropriety of using the temple court as a place of commerce. The righteous indignation of Jesus armed with a whip was all that was necessary to put them to flight. It is noteworthy that, while Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers, scattering their coins on the ground, he did not set the doves free but told their owners to remove them from the court. (Lev 5:7 indicates that doves and pigeons were the sacrifice of the poor.) Jesus did not destroy the merchant’s property but instead took appropriate action to remove both seller and merchandise from the temple court.
16 Jesus’ accusation, “How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” reveals his profound displeasure with the human propensity to desecrate what is holy. Unaware or forgetful of the biblical revelation of God as holy (cf. Isa 6:3), many believers even today attempt to worship him in ways far more appropriate in the marketplace than in the sanctuary. “How dare you turn” translates the Greek mē poieite (GK 3590, 4472), which means “stop making.” “My Father’s house” is a clear-cut messianic claim. Jesus does not bracket himself with others in his references to God the Father. When Jesus’ parents found him in the temple, the boy responded with, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49).
John’s placement of the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry brings up the question of why the Synoptics have it at the close of his ministry. Most critical scholars tend to prefer the synoptic placement because (1) two cleansings are unlikely, and (2) John is more apt to rearrange material for theological reasons. Even notable conservative scholar F. F. Bruce, 77, writes, “It seems probable that John takes it out of its chronological sequence and places it, with programmatic intent, in the forefront of his record of Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry.”
Tasker, 61, on the other hand, rejects the idea that John is correcting a supposed chronological blunder on the part of the earlier writers or is deliberately altering their history for theological reasons. Along with other writers (e.g., Carson, 178) he holds that there were two cleansings, one at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (recorded by John) and another during Holy Week (included in the Synoptic Gospels). This solution seems the most likely since in the fourth gospel it is the turning of his Father’s house into a “house of merchandise” (oikon emporiou, GK 3875, 1866; NIV, “market”) to which Jesus objects, while in the Synoptics his major objection is the dishonesty of the sellers (“you are making it a ‘den of robbers,’” Mt 21:13; Mk 11:17; Lk 19:46). Since in both cases the cleansing turned out to be temporary, there is no persuasive reason to merge the two events into one.
17–18 The dramatic removal of the traders and their merchandise from the temple precincts brought to the disciples’ mind a messianic passage from the Psalms, “Zeal for your house consumes me” (Ps 69:9). Symbolic actions, such as the cleansing of the temple, found their prophetic base in OT Scripture. The reaction of the temple authorities was to question by what “authority” Jesus had purged the temple area. They requested a “miraculous sign” as proof of his authority. How strange, in that the cleansing itself was a powerful sign of Jesus’ intrinsic authority. Temple, 1:40, writes, “Vain enquiry! When God speaks to either the heart or the conscience He does not first prove His right to do so.”
19–20 Jesus’ answer to his detractors was typically paradoxical: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” Such a statement would be tantamount to blasphemy to those who were responsible for the temple and its activities. It is worth observing that the word used for temple is naos (GK 3724), the holy place (cf. hieron, GK 2639, the entire temple complex). It should have served as a clue that Jesus was not speaking literally of material buildings. But the authorities missed the point and asked how he could rebuild in three days a set of buildings that had taken forty-six years to erect. Herod the Great began his reign in 37 BC, and Josephus (Ant. 15.380) indicated that Herod had started the building of the temple in his eighteenth year. Thus forty-six years later would date this encounter to the spring of AD 27 (1 BC to AD 1 is only one year). If Jesus were born shortly before 4 BC (the date of the death of Herod the Great), he would have been about thirty years of age at the beginning of his public ministry (cf. Lk 3:23).
21–22 Jesus’ statement about rebuilding the temple was remembered in a somewhat garbled fashion by the false witnesses who testified to the Sanhedrin, who were looking for evidence against Jesus by which they could put him to death (Mk 14:58). John adds the obvious interpretation that the temple of which Jesus spoke was “his body.” After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered his prediction about raising the “temple” in three days, and they “believed the Scripture [Ps 69:9 and other prophetic teaching reflecting this event] and the words that Jesus had spoken” (specifically v.19). Note that the evangelist does not hesitate to bracket the words of Jesus with the authoritative word of the OT. This is in keeping with his view of Jesus as the promised Messiah, the one sent by the Father, who spoke only what the Father gave him to say (8:28; 12:29).
23 Many of the worshipers who had come to Jerusalem for Passover saw the miraculous signs done by Jesus and “believed in his name.” That their belief was not a personal commitment is clear from Jesus’ refusal to entrust himself to them (v.24). Although John uses his standard phrase for saving faith (pisteuō eis, “to put one’s faith [GK 4409] in or on”), Bruce, 77, labels this section “Superficial Faith.” There are levels of belief in Jesus, and faith inspired by miracles is less than substantial (cf. 14:11). It is certainly not the kind of faith spoken of in 1:12 as that which grants the right to become “children of God.” To believe in a person’s “name” is to believe in who he is, in his person and character. Obviously the Jewish crowd would be impressed with anyone who could perform what appeared to be a miracle.
24–25 Jesus did not trust himself to those attracted by his signs because “he knew all men.” He had no need of being told about anyone because “he [himself; autos] knew what was in a man.”
In Jewish literature it is God’s prerogative to know what is going on in the minds of people. Psalm 94:11 reminds us that “the Lord knows the thoughts of man.” Jesus, the Son of God, had immediate and supernatural insight into the inner musings of people’s minds. He understood human nature, with all its intrigue and complexity. This is reflected in conversations soon to follow—with Nicodemus (3:1–21), with the woman at Sychar (4:4–26), with the invalid at the pool of Bethesda (5:1–15). His knowledge was not simply a general understanding of human nature but a precise knowledge of the inner nature of specific persons. For example, Jesus saw Nathanael approaching and declared him to be “a true Israelite in whom there [was] nothing false,” to which Nathanael replied, “How do you know me?” (1:47–48). People’s hearts are open before God, and nothing can be hidden from his sight (Lk 8:17).
NOTES
19 The NET translator’s note at 2:19 observes that the imperative in the clause “destroy this temple” is not a simple conditional imperative (“if you destroy”) but is more like the ironical imperative found in the prophets (e.g., Am 4:4; Isa 8:9)—an imperative that carries the sense, “Go ahead and do this and see what happens.”
23–24 The two occurrences of the verb πιστεύω (pisteuō, “to believe”; GK 4409) in these verses are of special interest. The many people who saw Jesus’ miraculous signs ἐπίτευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (episteusan eis to onoma, “believed in his name”), but he did not ἐπίστευεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς (episteuen auton autois, “entrust himself to them”). He did not put his trust in them because the trust they put in him was less than adequate. Their “belief” fell short of the complete commitment required by Jesus. Saving faith is considerably more than intellectual acknowledgment that Jesus was an unusual person whose ability to work the miraculous was truly outstanding.
REFLECTIONS
Some writers think that the final short paragraph of this section (vv.23–25) was intended to serve as an introduction to the account of Nicodemus in ch. 3. It is difficult, however, to see exactly how it leads into the narrative that follows. Others note that the miracles to which it refers are apparently overlooked in 4:54, which counts the healing of the son of the Capernaum official as “the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed.” The answer may lie in the fact that for literary convenience John has chosen to number specific signs rather than miraculous signs in general.
OVERVIEW
If the closing verses of ch. 2 (vv.23–25) are taken as an introduction to Jesus’ interview in ch. 3, then Nicodemus is probably intended to serve as an example of those attracted by Jesus’ miracles but not openly committed to following him. However, if the de (“now”) of 3:1 introduces a contrast, then Nicodemus would be an exception to the “many” of 2:23—an honest seeker who wanted to know more about what Jesus was teaching. Although Nicodemus did not openly profess faith in Jesus at this time, his later conduct indicates that the initial interview made a profound impression on him. In ch. 7 he opposed the attempts of the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus without a fair trial (vv.50–52). And following the crucifixion he joined Joseph of Arimathea in providing a decent burial for Jesus (19:39). Subsequent nonbiblical accounts profess to tell of his baptism, his suffering as a believer, and his final expulsion from Jerusalem.
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
COMMENTARY
1 Nicodemus is a Greek name that means “conqueror of the people.” In rabbinic literature the name appears as Naqdimon. Some have identified Nicodemus of the fourth gospel with a wealthy man by the name of Naqdimon ben-Gorion who lived in Jerusalem, but this is uncertain. What we do know about Nicodemus is that he was a Pharisee who served as a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. This “ruling council” of seventy was composed of priests, scribes, and lay elders from influential families. It served as a court of justice in all matters, civil and religious. That Nicodemus is referred to as “a man [anthrōpos] of the Pharisees” (a somewhat unusual phrase) tends to join the episode with the preceding verse (2:25), in which anthrōpos (GK 476) occurs twice.
2 Why Nicodemus came “at night” is not known. Perhaps he wanted Jesus’ undivided attention. If it is true that the rabbis studied and debated late into the evening, that could account for the time of Nicodemus’s visit. Or possibly he was concerned about a negative reaction on the part of his fellow religionists. They would undoubtedly misunderstand his concern to hear from a nonprofessional such as Jesus regarding spiritual matters. We do know that Joseph of Arimathea concealed his allegiance to Jesus “because he feared the Jews” (19:38). In any case, it is best to avoid allegorical interpretations of why his visit was at night—interpretations such as the coming out of the darkness of religion into the light of God’s immediate presence in Jesus.
Nicodemus addressed Jesus with the honorable title of “Rabbi.” There is no reason to detect in this greeting a “note of conscious superiority” (Morris, Reflections, 88). Everything we do know about Nicodemus leads us to believe that, while his understanding may have been deficient, his attitude toward Jesus was respectful. He stands apart from the fanatics whose bigotry led them to the absurd conclusion that Jesus was demon-possessed (8:48). Nicodemus was absolutely correct in his appraisal that Jesus was a “teacher … come from God.” His reasoning was sound: unless God was with Jesus, he would not be able to do the miraculous signs he was doing.
3 It is reasonable to assume that Nicodemus had come prepared to ask Jesus much the same question as did the rich young man—“What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk 10:17 par.). But even before the question can be asked Jesus provides the answer. It is prefaced with the double amēn (“I tell you the truth,” GK 297), which stresses the validity of what is about to be said. Unless a person is “born again” he cannot see the kingdom of God. Anōthen (GK 540) is an adverb either of place (“from above,” as in Mt 27:51) or of time (“again,” “anew,” as in Gal 4:9). In this context the former meaning is primary. To be born “from above” means to be born of God (cf. the use of anōthen, 3:31). However, since spiritual birth is in fact a second birth, the temporal idea of “again” is included. Unless a person is reborn from above he or she is unable to “see the kingdom of God.” To see God’s kingdom means to enter into and have a part in the final establishment of God’s sovereign rule. As a Jew, Nicodemus would understand the kingdom of God as the long-awaited age to come. To “see” this kingdom would mean to experience resurrection life at the end of the age. What he did not understand was that to have a part in that kingdom required a second birth.
4 Taking the expression in its literal form, Nicodemus raised the question of how it would be possible for an old man to reenter his mother’s womb and be born a second time. It is highly unlikely that Nicodemus recognized the figurative nature of Jesus’ statement and was replying in the same vein—“How can we expect an elderly man who is set in all his ways to start all over again.” Throughout the fourth gospel Jesus tends to speak on two levels, but a recognition of this ambiguity is missing in the responses by others. They are everywhere pictured as thinking on a single and mundane level.
5 In vv.5–8 Jesus restates and expands his earlier statement that to see the kingdom of God one must undergo a second birth (v.3). The parallel nature of these two passages indicates that to be “born again” means to be “born of water and the Spirit.” Some interpret “water” as a reference to physical birth (either the embryonic fluid or the male sperm); but the verse is dealing with how one is born from above, not with natural birth. After reviewing a number of proposals, Carson, 195, opts for dropping the definite article and the capital S and understanding the expression as a reference to “the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets.” However that may be, it is clear that John intended his readers to understand the expression as a reference to Christian baptism and the resulting gift of the Holy Spirit. The immediate background is the testimony of John the Baptist regarding baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit (see 1:33). Water baptism by itself is inadequate; it must be accompanied by what it signifies—the cleansing work of the Spirit. Far from teaching a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, this verse informs us that the initiatory rite of baptism is intended to lead to a life infused by the cleansing power of the Spirit.
6–7 Jesus continues his differentiation between natural birth and spiritual birth by calling attention to the obvious fact that “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” People live in two realms. Flesh speaks of natural birth with its physical weakness and mortality; Spirit speaks of a supernatural birth into an entirely different realm. The realm of the spiritual is radically different from the realm of the natural, and nothing short of a new birth does justice to that distinction. Although Nicodemus lived in a religious culture that taught salvation by deeds, he should not have been surprised to learn that entrance into the realm of the spirit would require a spiritual birth. That this foundational truth applies universally, and not simply to Nicodemus, is indicated by Jesus’ use of the plural “you” in v.7. Not only Nicodemus, but all people everywhere must be born again if they would enter the kingdom of God.
8 Verse 8 plays on the two meanings of the Greek pneuma (GK 4460). Like the Hebrew rûaḥ (GK 8120), it means both “wind” and “spirit.” There exists an analogous relationship between the wind and the Spirit of God. The wind “blows wherever it pleases”; you can hear it, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it is going. As the wind is “invisible and mysterious, yet known in experience” (Beasley-Murray, 49), so also are those born of the Spirit—their identity, source, and destination are mysterious and beyond the ken of earthly knowledge.
9–10 Nicodemus still does not understand, wondering how all this is possible. Jesus responds, in effect, “Can it be that you, the teacher of Israel [note the Greek definite article ho] are unable to understand these things?” Nicodemus was a man of stature among the Jewish rabbis and could be expected to know that entrance into God’s kingdom was more than simply keeping the law. The Hebrew Scriptures held a number of clues that natural descent alone does not guarantee participation in the age to come.
Bruce, 86, notes that at this point the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus passes into a monologue on the lips of Jesus and then almost imperceptibly into a meditation by the evangelist on the subject of the new birth. The ten plurals in vv.11–12 (“we … you”) indicate to many a transition from a private conversation to general teaching addressed to the readers. Others see in the change the indication of a dialogue between the church and the synagogue. That the singular also occurs in both verses (“I tell you … I have spoken … I speak”) calls for a different interpretation of the plurals. In v.2 Nicodemus spoke for himself and others when he said, “We know you are a teacher who has come from God.” Jesus now engages in a rebuttal of Nicodemus by picking up his use of “teacher” and his assertion that he “know[s].” Brown, 132, says that the use of “we” (in v.11) is “a parody of Nicodemus’s hint of arrogance.” The question of where or whether the words of Jesus are taken up and become the words of the evangelist is difficult to determine.
11–12 The lack of understanding on the part of Nicodemus is contrasted with the knowledge of Jesus and those who have entered into fellowship with him via the new birth. These speak of what they “know” and “have seen.” But still their testimony is not accepted (cf. 1:11). The Jewish leaders were impressed with the signs Jesus had performed, but they stopped short of accepting him. So Jesus asks the obvious question: you do not believe me when I speak of “earthly things”; why then would you believe me if I speak of “heavenly things”? “Earthly things” represent truths such as the new birth for which there is a human analogy. “Heavenly things” are truths such as the heavenly descent of the Son of Man to secure eternal salvation for all who believe (cf. vv.13–21; 31–36)—Carson, 199, calls them, “the splendors of the consummated kingdom, and what it means to live under such glorious, ineffable rule.” The contrast is more a matter of degree than of kind. In both cases we are dealing with divine action, but the latter is more incomprehensible than the former.
13 The more profound teachings of Jesus, i.e., those truths for which there are no analogies, have their origin in heaven, and with the one exception of the Son of Man, no one has ever gone into heaven to bring back that knowledge. Direct knowledge of heavenly things requires immediate and personal contact with the heavenly realm. And no one (note the emphasis) from earth has ever accomplished the necessary ascent. The only exception to this, of course, is the Son of Man, the one who came from heaven.
Verse 13 is a bit awkward because it seems to suggest that the ascension has already taken place. If this section is the reflection of the evangelist, the timing would cause no problem; but if the argument is that heavenly knowledge is the result of ascending to heaven, then how could Jesus have heavenly knowledge during his earthly ministry if he had not yet ascended? The problem is avoided by E. M. Sidebottom (The Christ of the Fourth Gospel [London: SPCK, 1961], 120), who suggests the reading, “No one has ascended into heaven, but one has descended” (taking ei mē, “except,” in the way it is used in Mt 12:4 and Gal 1:7). In this case John would be saying that, while no one has entered heaven to secure knowledge of heavenly things, there is one who has descended to make such knowledge available.
Jesus, who alone is qualified to reveal the mind of God, bears the title “Son of Man.” This designation occurs eighty-two times in the gospels, and with one exception (Jn 12:34) it is always used by Jesus of himself. Most scholars trace the title to Daniel 7:13–14 and understand Jesus’ choice of a self-designation as a way of claiming messiahship while simultaneously concealing it. By referring to himself as the Son of Man, Jesus acknowledges his humanity (cf. the Semitic use of the phrase in the Psalms) but at the same time claims a heavenly origin (cf. the Daniel passage as well as noncanonical apocalyptic literature of the day).
14 Verses 14–15 draw on the account in Numbers 21 in which Moses at God’s command places a bronze snake on a pole so that the Israelites who were dying from a plague of venomous snakes might look at the bronze snake and live (Nu 21:4–9). “Just as Moses lifted up the snake,” so also must the Son of Man “be lifted up.” The Greek verb hypsoō (GK 5738) is regularly used throughout the NT in the figurative sense “to exalt” (e.g., Mt 23:12), but in all five occurrences in John’s gospel it refers to the lifting up of Jesus on the cross (cf. 8:28; 12:32, 34). Paradoxically, the crucifixion of Jesus is portrayed by John as a vital part of his exaltation. Speaking of his coming death, Jesus on a later occasion said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him” (13:31). What the secular mind would judge a humiliating defeat was from God’s viewpoint a display of divine glory. In God’s redemptive plan it was necessary (“the Son of Man must be lifted up”) that Jesus die as a sacrificial offering for the sins of humanity. On the basis of this one act, believers are privileged to enter into the eternal glory of their heavenly Father. In the account in Numbers, a bronze snake provided physical healing; in the lifting up of the Son of Man, spiritual healing replaces eternal death. As Hendriksen, 1:138, notes, “The Antitype far transcends the type.”
15 Verse 15 states the purpose for which the Son of Man was lifted up—so that all who believe “may have eternal life.” Eternal life is more than endless existence; it is sharing in the life of the Eternal One. In his high priestly prayer, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent (17:3). The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament ([Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 185) observes that “eternal life is the life of the age to come which is gained by faith, cannot be destroyed, and is a present possession of the one who believes.” John uses the verb pisteuō (“to believe,” GK 4409) ninety-eight times in his gospel, but only here is it followed by the preposition en (“in”) rather than eis (“into”). This suggests that “in him” should follow “eternal life” rather than the verb “believes.” The frequency of the verb corresponds with John’s stated intention in writing his gospel—“that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). That eternal life is a present possession of the believer (clearly taught elsewhere in the gospel; cf. 3:36; 5:24) is strengthened by the use of the present active subjunctive echē (“may have,” GK 2400).
NOTES
2 Like the people of Jerusalem who saw Jesus’ miraculous signs and believed, yet to whom Jesus would not entrust himself (2:23–25), Nicodemus also “believed” in the sense that he correctly reasoned that a person who could perform such signs must have come from God. What he failed to grasp were the profound messianic implications of the miraculous deeds.
5 The Greek phrase ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (ex hydatos kai pneumatos, “of water and the Spirit”) could be translated epexegetically to mean “water, that is, the Spirit.” In Ezekiel 36:25–27 cleansing with water is connected with the gift of the Spirit, so possibly the phrase could mean “converted by the Spirit” (so Keener, 270).
Several Greek MSS (א*, the minuscules 245 291 472 1009, and the lectionary l26) plus a number of early patristic writers read τῶν οὐρανῶν (tōn ouranōn, “of heaven,” GK 4041) rather than τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou, “of God,” GK 2536). Although it could be argued that an original τῶν οὐρανῶν, tōn ouranōn, was replaced with τοῦ θεοῦ, tou theou, in order to harmonize with the same phrase in v.3, the UBS committee was persuaded by a number of factors that the latter was more likely to be original (cf. Metzger, 174). The designation “kingdom of heaven” occurs thirty-two times in the gospel of Matthew but nowhere else in the NT. Since Matthew is the gospel of Jewish Christianity, it is understandable that a reverential circumlocution for the name of God would be used (though “kingdom of God” does occur four times in Matthew).
15 The word πιστεύω (pisteuō, “to believe,” GK 4409) occurs thirty-four times in the fourth gospel and except in v.15 is always followed by the preposition εἰς (eis, “into”). Here πιστεύω is followed by ἐν (en, “in”). This argues for the NASB’s “so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life” (italics added) rather than the NIV’s “everyone who believes in him.” It is strengthened by the fact that when John wishes to emphasize an adverbial phrase with ἐν, en, he tends to place the phrase before its verb.
OVERVIEW
In v.10 we noted the change from singular to plural pronouns, a change suggesting that Jesus at that point began speaking in more general terms. Now we find another change. The use of present tense verbs (appropriate to direct discourse) gives way to the past tense. Consequently, most commentators think that from this point forward we have the reflections of the evangelist rather than the words of Jesus. John is seen as developing the theological import of Jesus’ conversation and applying it to his readers for their understanding. In any case, we come in v.16 to the very heart of the gospel. No verse in Scripture has been more widely quoted. In briefest compass it tells us of the character of God, his redemptive act in behalf of the human race, and the role of faith that leads to the gift of eternal life. Beasley-Murray, 51, calls this passage “a confessional summary of the Gospel.”
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
16 The heart of the gospel is not a philosophical observation about the character of God as love but a declaration of that redemptive love in action. “For God so loved … that he gave.” The Greek verb is agapaō (GK 26). It is common to discuss three Greek words for love: eros, philia (GK 5802), and agapē (GK 27). The first is used of passionate desire (not found in the NT) and the second of a fondness expressed in close relationships. The third word (agapē) was rather weak and colorless in secular Greek, but in the NT it is infused with fresh significance and becomes the one term able to denote the highest form of love. Bible scholar A. M. Hunter highlights the significance of agapē by noting that while eros is all take and philia is give-and-take, agapē is all give.
Love must of necessity give. It has no choice if it is to remain true to its essential character. A love that centers on self is not love at all but a fraudulent caricature of real love. It is instructive to note that only here in the fourth gospel is a result clause placed in the indicative rather than the subjunctive. Brown, 134, notes that this construction stresses the reality of the result: “that he actually gave the only Son.” The Greek monogenēs (GK 3666) means “of sole descent,” i.e., without brothers or sisters; hence the KJV’s “only-begotten” (from the Latin unigenitus). It is also used in the more general sense of “unique,” “the only one of its kind.” Jesus is the sole Son of God the Father. John refers to believers as “children of God” (tekna, GK 5451; 1:12; 11:52), but Jesus is the only Son (huios, GK 5626).
The object of God’s love is “the world” (kosmos, GK 3180). The giving of his Son was for the salvation of the entire human race. H. Sasse concludes that the cosmos epitomizes unredeemed creation, the universe of which Jesus is the light (Jn 8:12) and to which he comes (cf. TDNT 3:893–94). Any attempt to restrict the word kosmos (GK 3180) to the elect ignores the clear use of the term throughout the NT. God gave his Son for the deliverance of all humanity (cf. 2Co 5:19). This giving extends beyond the incarnation. God gave his Son in the sense of giving unto death as an offering for sin. The universal scope of God’s love would have appeared novel and quite unlikely to the Jewish reader of the first century. After all, was not Israel the recipient of God’s special favor (cf. Ro 3:1–2; 9:3–5)? True; but in Christ all boundaries had been broken down (Eph 2:11–22). God’s love extends to every member of the human race. He died for all (cf. Ro 5:8; 1Jn 2:2).
God’s role in redemption was the giving of his Son; the role of human beings is to believe. To believe in Christ is to accept and love him (Jn 1:12; 8:42). The Greek expression pisteuō eis (“to believe into”) carries the sense of placing one’s trust into or completely on someone. Paul’s teaching of believers as being “in Christ” is a theological reflection on the same expression. Those who believe in Christ escape destruction and are given “eternal life.” Barrett, 216, writes that “destruction is the inevitable fate of all things and persons separated from God and concentrated upon themselves.” The love of God has made it possible for people to turn from their self-destructive paths and receive from God the gift of everlasting life. This gospel comes as “good news” to all who, recognizing their plight, receive the priceless gift of God, even Jesus Christ, his Son.
17 God’s purpose in sending his Son into the world was to “save the world,” not to “condemn” it. Jesus came “as a light, so that no one who believes in [him] should stay in darkness” (12:46). While the purpose of light is not to cast shadows, nevertheless wherever light encounters a solid object a shadow is unavoidable. Jesus did not come to “condemn” (taking krinō, “to judge” [GK 3212], in the sense of unfavorable judgment), but the very nature of his redemptive mission mandated a negative result for those who refused his offer. Those who do not believe bring judgment on themselves. Barrett, 217, writes that “the process of judgment is an inseparable concomitant of salvation.” Some have noted an apparent contradiction between Jesus’ statement here and his later remark in 9:39, “For judgment I have come into this world.” Context demonstrates, however, that this latter statement points to the result rather than the purpose of his coming (note the construction with eis krima rather than hina krinē; cf. 12:47).
18 John now draws a clear distinction between the fate of those who believe and those who do not believe: “Whoever believes [the present participle suggests a continuing relationship of trust] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” Morris, 232 n. 84, notes that the use of the perfect tense here and in the following clause (kekritai, “has been judged” [GK 3212], and [mē] pepisteuken, “has [not] believed” [GK 4409]) indicates that the unbeliever “has passed into a continuing state of condemnation because he refused to enter a continuing state of belief.” There will be a final judgment (5:28–29), but it will merely ratify the judgment that the nonbeliever has already brought on himself. The reason the non-believer “has already received his sentence” (Williams) is that he has steadfastly refused (note the perfect tense) to place his trust in the “name” of God’s one and only Son. To trust the name of someone is to place one’s complete reliance on everything that name stands for. The name “Jesus” in Greek transliterates the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means “Yahweh is salvation.” Joseph is told to name Mary’s newborn son Jesus “because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). To believe in the name of Jesus is to trust him fully for the forgiveness of sins.
19 Verses 19–21 develop the concept of judgment in terms of the contrast between light and darkness. Krisis (GK 3213) denotes the process rather than the sentence of judgment. The NIV’s “verdict” would have been more likely if the noun had been krima (“decision, condemnation,” GK 3210), since nouns ending in -ma tend to denote content while those ending in -sis reflect action. “Light” came into the world with Jesus (1:5, 9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), but people “loved darkness instead of light.” Natural men do not rejoice at the entrance of light, “because their deeds [are] evil.” Elsewhere Jesus says that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Mt 15:19).
20 Those whose deeds are evil hate the light and will not come to it, lest the depraved nature of their lifestyle be exposed. Evil thrives in a world of moral darkness. Like the fish in underground caverns whose eyes have gradually disappeared, leaving only sockets, so those who live in moral darkness have lost their ability to perceive the difference between good and evil.
21 By contrast, those who live “by the truth” gladly come to the light so that it may be seen that their deeds have been done “through [i.e., in fellowship with] God.” Paul writes that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2Co 4:4). That blindness is removed only by a willingness to accept and live by the truth. Jesus did not come to judge, but judgment is the inevitable result of his coming. Light illuminates, but wherever it is opposed it casts shadows.
16 While most translations understand the adverb οὕτως (houtōs, “so”) as referring to the degree of God’s love, it is more likely that it refers to the manner in which God loved the world. Thus the NET has, “For this is the way God loved the world,” with the following clause explaining that it was by giving his one and only Son (cf. CSB: “For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son …”).
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”
27To this John replied, “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.’ 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.
31“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
COMMENTARY
22 After his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he remained for some time baptizing. The NIV interprets the Greek eis tēn Ioudaian gēn (“into the Judean land”) as referring to the territory around Jerusalem rather than to Judea itself (including Jerusalem). The latter alternative (followed by the NASB, “the land of Judea”) would imply that Jesus came to Judea from Galilee, but this would call for a period of time between vv.21 and 22 in which Jesus had gone to Galilee and was now returning to Judea. It is preferable to follow the NIV.
John is the only one of the four gospels that speaks of Jesus’ baptismal activity. Even here, as we learn from 4:2, Jesus himself did not baptize but relegated that assignment to his disciples. The baptizing by the disciples at this particular stage should not be understood as equivalent to the later observance as carried out by the infant church. Hendriksen, 1:146, regards it as “a transition between Johannine and Christian baptism.”
23 Meanwhile John the Baptist was carrying on his ministry at Aenon near Salim. The exact location of Aenon is not known. It is clear, however, that it was on the western side of the Jordan River (earlier John baptized on the eastern side; 1:28; 3:26; 10:40). The importance of the site lies in the fact that it indicates that John had moved his ministry to the north, while leaving the area around Jerusalem to Jesus and his disciples. W. F. Albright (The Archaeology of Palestine [Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1960], 247) located Salim to the southeast of Nablus near a village called Ainun. Nearby were the sources of the Wadi Farah, which would provide “plenty of water” for baptism. Since people were “constantly coming to be baptized,” an abundance of water would be required. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1933], 54) observes that it was “not for drinking, but for baptizing” and quotes Marcus Dods as saying, “Therefore even in summer, baptism by immersion could be continued.”
24 At this point the evangelist adds a parenthetical remark, indicating that the baptismal activity of Jesus and his disciples took place “before John was put in prison.” Readers of the synoptic accounts would assume that immediately following the baptism and temptation of Jesus, John was put in prison and Jesus began preaching in Galilee (cf. Mt 3:13–4:17 par.). The fourth gospel reveals that Jesus carried on an earlier ministry, primarily in the south, prior to the events recorded by the synoptic writers (Jn 1:36–4:54). This ministry of Jesus (not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke) was contemporary with that of John the Baptist and provided the occasion for comparison and discomfort on the part of John’s disciples.
25 A dispute arose regarding the comparative value of baptism by John the Baptist and that by Jesus. It originated with the disciples of the Baptist (the preposition ek, “from,” “out of,” suggests source) and involved a “certain Jew.” One variant reads meta Ioudaiōn (“with Jews”), thus easing the problem of a dispute with a specific person. Without textual support, a few commentators suggest an original reading of “Jesus” or perhaps “the disciples of Jesus.” This would sharpen the controversy and help build a case for a lasting schism between the two factions. In view of the following verse, which describes the ministry of Jesus on the other side of the Jordan, it seems quite probable that the report was brought to John’s disciples by a specific person. The NIV’s “argument” is, in this context, too strong a translation of the Greek zētēsis (GK 2428; prob-ably no more than “an exchange of words,” TDNT 2:894). The subject of the encounter was “ceremonial washing.” It is unlikely that John’s disciples were involved in a lengthy religio-philosophical dialogue on the various merits of Jewish purification rites. The context indicates that their concern was the growing popularity of Jesus’ ministry. Baptizing, both his and theirs, would fall under the general category of katharismos (“ritual purification” or “cleansing,” GK 2752; cf. 2:6).
26 John’s disciples come to their leader with the querulous complaint that Jesus is baptizing on the other side of the Jordan and threatens to surpass him in popularity. Their dissatisfaction with the way things are going is reflected in the generous title they assigned to their leader (“Rabbi,” only here), their unwillingness to use the name of Jesus (he is “that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan”), and their exaggerated statement that “everyone is going to him.” Their pique is also seen in the veiled rebuke that John had testified about him. From the standpoint of the Baptist’s loyal disciples, this new turn of events did not augur well for them or for their leader.
27–28 Characteristically, John did not share the rather myopic view of his followers. God had assigned to each person a specific role in the eternal plan. John’s disciples should recall that he had freely confessed to the priests sent from Jerusalem, “I am not the Christ” (1:20). He was simply “the voice of one calling in the desert”—the forerunner of the one of such immeasurable worth that even the task of untying the thongs of his sandals was beyond him (1:23, 27). If John’s disciples would only bear in mind who Jesus was, their pettiness in regard to the shifting attention of the population would vanish. Like their master, they should embrace the descent into anonymity.
29 John the Baptist now restates the relationship using the metaphor of a Jewish wedding ceremony. Jesus had spoken of himself as a bridegroom (Mk 2:19), and Paul employs the same metaphor (2Co 11:2; Eph 5:23–32). The “bride” (in this case, a collective reference to those who were coming to Jesus for baptism) belongs to the “bridegroom” (Jesus). John’s role (assigned “from heaven,” v.27) was to be “the friend who attends the bridegroom.” According to Jewish custom, the groom’s closest friend was chosen as the shoshben (roughly equivalent to “best man”) and would make all the necessary wedding arrangements. (Some differences exist between Galilean and Judean nuptial customs, but here the metaphor is used in a general sense.) The friend waits and listens for the coming of the groom, and when he hears his voice he is filled with joy. Here the shoshben is pictured either as standing guard at the bride’s house waiting for the arrival of those who will escort her to the groom’s house, or as waiting at the groom’s house for the arrival of the bride. Once bride and bridegroom are together, the friend will hear them talking with each other and will rejoice. A more specific interpretation of the “bridegroom’s voice” is that it is “the triumphant shout by which the bridegroom announced to his friends outside that he had been united to a virginal bride” (Schnackenburg, 1:416).
30 With the arrival of Jesus on the scene of history, John’s joy “is now complete” (v.29). All that he had waited for has come to pass. Messiah has come. As friend of the bridegroom, he shares the joy of the marriage he has arranged. His role has not been insignificant, nor does it matter in the least that with the arrival of the groom the role of the shoshben comes to a close. In words that reveal the magnanimity of a truly remarkable servant of God, the Baptist states with all simplicity, “He must become greater; I must become less.” Were this example followed by all contemporary ministers of the gospel, what a dramatic impact it would make on today’s world!
31 Earlier I suggested that Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus probably ended with v.15 and that the following paragraph (vv.16–21) consisted of a meditation or homily by the evangelist. Here at v.31 we meet a similar construction. John the Baptist’s words of commendation regarding Jesus are followed with a paragraph in which the evangelist describes the relationship between “the one who comes from above” (Jesus) and “the one who is from the earth” (John the Baptist). Although vv.31–34 may be construed in a general fashion, the contrast John has in mind is primarily between the two historical ministries.
“The one who comes from above” is described in the same verse as “the one who comes from heaven,” i.e., from the very presence of God. He is “above all.” The Greek pantōn (“all”) is either masculine (in which case Jesus is portrayed as above all earthly counterparts: “the supreme ruler of the human race,” Barrett, 224) or neuter (above all things). The context suggests that he is “above all” in his role as the revealer of divine truth. He is not subject to the limitations of an earthly existence but testifies to that which he “has seen and heard.” John, on the other hand, “speaks as one from the earth.” What he says is true, but his earthly existence limits him to the role of a prophet. In contrast, Jesus comes from the presence of the Father and provides a firsthand report of what he has seen and heard (cf. Heb 1:1–2). The Greek word for “earth” (gē, GK 1178), as contrasted with kosmos (“world,” GK 3180), does not imply evil. Although the gē is “the theatre of sin” (TDNT 1:680), it is not sinful in itself. The point being stressed is the limiting nature of earthly existence.
32 A few writers hold that the first verb, heōraken (“has seen,” GK 3972, perfect tense), has to do with the existence of the Son and the second, ēkousen (“heard,” GK 201, aorist), to his mission. It is questionable that such a distinction can be maintained in the common Greek of the first century. Even though Jesus comes from heaven and speaks out of personal experience, “no one accepts his testimony.” The same sad truth is set forth in the prologue (1:11). By nature, people believe what suits them rather than what bears the marks of authenticity. The fall of the human race resulted in darkened minds that hear selectively. It is the Holy Spirit rather than logic that opens people’s minds to the truth.
33 The categorical “no one” of v.32 is modified here, which indicates that some have accepted the message. The one who receives the testimony of Jesus “has certified that God is truthful.” It is reasonable to ask how a human being can certify or confirm the truthfulness of God. The Greek sphra-gizō (GK 5381) means “to provide with a seal.” Used figuratively, as it normally is, its range of meanings includes “to seal up or keep secret” (Rev 10:4), “to mark with a seal so as to identify” (Eph. 1:13), and “to certify or acknowledge” (Jn 6:27). In v.33 the evangelist is saying that those who accept the testimony of the one from above (the Son) set their seal of approval on the truthfulness of what God has said. Their certification does not make the message true; it acknowledges that it is true.
34 The testimony of the messenger (“the one whom God has sent”) is absolutely reliable because “he speaks the words of God.” Only one who comes from above is free of the restrictions that limit both knowledge and veracity. It is “to him [the Son]” that God “gives the Spirit without limit.” In a fourth-century commentary on Leviticus 13:2, Rabbi Acha says that “the Holy Spirit rested on the prophets by measure” (Lev. Rab. 15.2). In contrast, the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism and remained (1:32–33). The fullness of the Spirit sets Jesus apart from prophets through whom God had spoken from time to time (cf. Heb 1:1). Brown’s suggestion, 161–62, that here the one giving the Spirit may be the Son is grammatically defensible but unlikely in that it unnecessarily breaks the natural flow of thought.
35 The Father gives the Spirit without limit to the Son because he “loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.” The Father’s love for the Son and the delegation of authority to him is the theme of Jesus’ discourse in 5:19–29. The love that exists between the members of the Trinity is the love that was displayed on Calvary and becomes the prime requisite for Christian life and fellowship (1Jn 2:8–11). The delegation of authority to the Son is clearly stated in the Synoptics, where Jesus reports that all things had been committed to him by his Father (Mt 11:27).
36 Verse 36 underscores a major truth that runs throughout the entire chapter. The destiny of every person is determined by his or her personal response to the Son. Those who put their faith in the Son receive eternal life; those who reject the Son will not see life but will endure the wrath of God (cf. 1Jn 5:12, “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life”). The issue is clearly drawn. Worth noting is the fact that it is disobedience, not disbelief, that John sets in contrast with faith. The Greek apeitheō (GK 578) means “to disobey.” The verb is used regularly in the LXX of disobedience to God. Not to believe is to willfully reject. In Acts 14:2 the NIV translates the same term with “refused to believe.” Saving faith involves obedience as well as believing, a point often overlooked by those for whom correct doctrine tends to eclipse the necessity of a changed life.
Whoever “rejects the Son” (refuses to believe the words he speaks and consequently rejects the obvious implications regarding who he is) “will not see life” (i.e., the eternal life given to those who believe). Instead, God’s wrath remains on him. The wrath of God is not an emotional and vindictive reaction toward individuals. The rejection of divine love carries serious and necessary consequences. As G. Stählin observes, “Where mercy meets with the ungodly will of man rather than faith and gratitude …. love becomes wrath” (TDNT 5:425). That God’s wrath remains on the disobedient indicates that those who have not accepted the Son are already under condemnation (cf. 3:18).
NOTES
26 The term ῥαββί, (rhabbi, “my Master,” GK 4806) is used eight times in the fourth gospel and always of Jesus, with this one exception where it is used by the disciples of John the Baptist in reference to their leader. It is an honorary title derived from the Hebrew. After the NT era it developed from its popular usage as a term of honor into a more formal title to designate those who were recognized as authoritative teachers of Jewish law.
31–32 It may be worth mentioning that the last three words of v.31 (“is above all”) are omitted in several MSS (cf. Metzger, 205). In that case the preceding nominative clause would provide the subject for the following verse: “The one who comes from heaven testifies to what he has seen and heard.”
36 It becomes increasingly clear from John’s gospel that in one sense the great eschatological events are present even now. To believe in the Son is to have (ἔχει [echei, GK 2400] is present tense) eternal life, while rejection of the Son has already resulted in the wrath of God remaining (μένει [menei, GK 3531] is also present tense) on the unbeliever. That both judgment and eternal life are present realities has led to what is called “realized eschatology,” a term often associated with the work of British scholar C. H. Dodd. The NET study note at 3:21 points out that vv.16–21 of ch. 3 provide an introduction to the “realized” eschatology of the fourth gospel.
OVERVIEW
In ch. 3 John recorded Jesus’ encounter with a respected member of the Jewish religious elite. Now in ch. 4 he reports another encounter, this time with a Samaritan woman of questionable morals. A contrast is certainly intended between Nicodemus, a learned and highly respected member of Jewish society, and the Samaritan woman, an unschooled common person “capable only of folk religion” (Carson, 216). Yet both needed Jesus. The personal ministry of Jesus reached out to the forgotten as well as to the favored of society.
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11“Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
19“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”
28Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29“Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” 30They came out of the town and made their way toward him.
31Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.”
32But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
33Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”
34“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”
39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.
42They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”
43After the two days he left for Galilee. 44(Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) 45When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, for they also had been there.
COMMENTARY
1 After the incident with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples had gone into the Judean countryside and spent some time baptizing those who came to Jesus (3:22). The disciples of John became increasingly jealous of the growing popularity of Jesus, who they felt was in competition with their leader (3:26). Soon the Pharisees caught wind of Jesus’ growing reputation and were no doubt disturbed. When Jesus learned of this new development, he left Judea and returned to Galilee (v.3) to prevent an unnecessary schism in the larger movement of national repentance.
2–3 Verse 2 makes it clear that it was not Jesus himself who was administering the rite of baptism. We are not told how Jesus learned of the Pharisees’ knowledge of his ministry in Judea (v.3), but Jesus’ insight into human nature (cf. 2:24) would alert him to the response of the religious leaders. His decision to go once more to Galilee (cf. 2:1–12) was intended to forestall any early opposition that might bring his ministry to a premature close.
4 It was a three-day trip from Jerusalem to Galilee, but only if one took the shorter route that led directly through Samaria. In order to avoid the hostility of the Samaritans, many Jews would cross over into Perea for that part of the journey (cf. Mk 10:1). The text says that Jesus “had to go through Samaria.” The necessity could have been of a practical nature (i.e., he needed to take the shorter route to save time and energy) or it could have been theological (he had a divine appointment to meet a certain woman residing there). Probably it was both.
The animosity that existed between Jew and Samaritan had a long and disagreeable history. When the northern kingdom fell in 722 BC, the Assyrian conquerors carried out a mass deportation of the inhabitants (especially those of substance) and replaced them with a number of colonists from five other nations (cf. 2Ki 17:24). These colonists intermarried with the Israelites who had been allowed to remain. Some years later the exiled Jews returned to their land and were included in the larger Persian province of Samaria. Bitterness developed rapidly between the two peoples, and in time the Jews gained their independence and became a separate province. The Israelites’ unwillingness to accept the Samaritans’ offer of help in rebuilding the temple (Ezr 4:2–3) reflects the antagonism that existed between the two groups. Subsequently, the Samaritans set up their own center of worship on Mount Gerizim (ca. 400 BC)—a center that in 128 BC was torched by the Jewish high priest, John Hyrcanus.
5 En route through Samaria Jesus came to a town called Sychar. The exact location of Sychar has long been disputed. The two most likely spots are the ancient Shechem or the modern village of Askar. The former is about a mile and a half southeast of Nablus at the foot of Mount Gerizim and the latter a short distance to the northeast on the eastern slope of Mount Ebal. Both were near Jacob’s well, though Shechem lay only a few hundred feet away and Askar about half a mile off. Some writers favoring Shechem have suggested that Sychar (read in almost all manuscripts) was a cynical corruption meaning “drunken town” or “lying town.” John further identifies the location as “near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph” (Ge 33:19; Jos 24:32), which as Lindars, 179, notes was “the oldest part of the Holy Land to belong to the Israelites by right of purchase.”
6 At Sychar was a well associated with the patriarch Jacob. Though Genesis tells of the digging of many wells, it does not mention this one. Tradition locates Jacob’s well about half a mile to the east of Tell Balatah at the foot of Mount Gerizim. It is interesting that the well is called a pēgē (“spring” or “fountain,” GK 4380; NIV, “well”) rather than a phrear (“dug-out well or cistern,” GK 5853) as it is in vv.11 and 12 (NIV, also “well”). Both terms are appropriate because, while it had been dug out (the shaft of the well was over 100 feet deep), it was fed by underground springs.
Jesus, tired from his journey, “sat down by the well.” The fourth gospel nowhere attempts to emphasize the deity of Jesus by minimizing his humanity. Elsewhere we are reminded of his human emotions and physical needs: he loved Lazarus (11:3), he wept at Mary’s sorrow (11:33–35), his heart was troubled in the upper room (12:27), and he acknowledged his thirst on the cross (19:28). Truly we have a high priest who is able to “sympathize with our weaknesses” (Heb 4:15)!
John notes that “it was about the sixth hour.” In view of the identical statement in 19:24, when Jesus stood before Pilate, it seems best to follow the Jewish method of reckoning time from sunup, which would place the encounter about noon. (According to the Roman method of reckoning time from midnight and noon, the hour would be either 6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m.). The argument that evening was the normal time to draw water (cf. Ge 24:11) is countered by the observation that this particular woman would probably come for water at a time when other women were not at the well.
7–8 The Samaritan woman arrived at the well to draw water. She was not from the city of Samaria (which was a several-hour journey to the northwest) but was a native of the district of Samaria. It was probably after she had drawn the water that Jesus asked her for a drink. Similar scenes in the patriarchal narratives (Ge 24:11; 29:2; Ex 2:15) have encouraged some to question whether John might be drawing on his imagination at this point and creating the incident as an allegory to bring out a spiritual lesson. However, there is no compelling reason to question the historicity of the encounter. Verse 8 is a parenthesis, probably added to explain why it was necessary for Jesus to ask for help from the woman. Normally his disciples would have drawn the water. The town to which they went to buy food would have been Sychar.
9 The Samaritan woman is surprised that Jesus has asked her for a drink. This would involve his drinking from her water pot and, as John adds by way of explanation, “Jews do not associate with Samaritans.” That the disciples had gone into town to purchase food indicates that ordinary commercial dealings between Jews and Samaritans were not out of line. The KJV’s “have no dealings with” implies a degree of segregation that goes beyond what actually existed. It was at a later period that a rabbinic regulation was laid down restricting the common use of vessels by Jews and Samaritans based on the fact that Samaritan women were assumed to be ceremonially unclean from the cradle (m. Nid. 4:1). This uncleanness would be transferred to anything they handled, so to drink from a pitcher belonging to a Samaritan woman would automatically defile. While this specific regulation did not lie behind John’s explanatory note, the general separation of Jew and Gentile in matters of ceremonial importance is everywhere acknowledged. The NEB offers the felicitous translation, “Jews and Samaritans, it should be noted, do not use vessels in common.”
10 Jesus does not give the Samaritan woman a direct answer to her question but points out that if she had realized who he was, she would have asked, not for water from Jacob’s well, but for living water. Like the encounter with Nicodemus, which turned on a misunderstanding of what it meant to be “born again,” Jesus now speaks of a water described as “living” in contrast to water from a well. On one level, “living water” would be fresh or flowing water. But Jesus uses the term in a higher and metaphorical sense. In the OT, God identified himself as “the spring of living water” (Jer 2:13; cf. 17:13). Zechariah spoke of the day when “living water will flow out from Jerusalem” (Zec 14:8). This living water is the “gift of God,” which the Samaritan woman would have received had she asked for it.
What then is this gift of God that Jesus refers to as “living water”? Many understand it as Jesus himself, but in the context of the historical encounter it would seem strange for Jesus to be offering himself to the woman. Later in John (7:38–39) Jesus speaks of “streams of living water” that will flow from within the believer and distinguishes this as “the Spirit” they are to receive. Against this background it is best to understand “living water” as the new life in the Spirit that Jesus came to give, in contrast to the old forms of Judaism represented by the water of Jacob’s well.
11 The Samaritan woman continues to think of Jesus’ reference to living water in the literal sense of water flowing from a spring. So she raises two objections. First, Jesus has nothing to draw with. The implement normally used for drawing water was a skin bucket held open at the mouth with several crossed sticks. Apparently nothing was provided at the well, and the woman, unlike Jesus, had brought her own. Second, the well is deep. To lower the bucket some one hundred feet to the water would take a long rope made of goat’s hair. Jesus had no rope.
Three times in the encounter the Samaritan woman addresses Jesus with the title “Sir” (vv.11, 15, 19). Although kyrios (GK 3261) can carry the heightened meaning of “Lord,” here it is simply a polite method of addressing a stranger.
12 In the woman’s mind it is highly unlikely that Jesus could possibly provide a source of water superior to that of the well associated with the patriarch Jacob. The Samaritans traced their lineage back to Jacob via Joseph (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.341). So she asks somewhat disparagingly whether Jesus held himself to be greater than their ancestor Jacob, who gave them the well. In fact, he “drank from it himself,” thus lending his personal distinction to the well. What is more, the water in Jacob’s well was bountiful. It provided water not only for Jacob and his sons but also for their flocks and herds. It should be noted that from the Jewish standpoint any claim by a Samaritan to “our father Jacob” would be unacceptable. The woman’s question (in Greek) calls for a negative response: “Surely you are not greater than Jacob?” Bishop Ryle, 3:365, observes a bit satirically, “Dead teachers have always more authority than living ones.” Though the woman regarded as highly unlikely any superiority to Jacob on the part of Jesus, her question as it turned out revealed what was in fact the truth.
13 Jesus’ response to the woman’s less-than-flattering question contains two great truths. First, the “water” that Jesus gives will forever quench people’s spiritual thirst. Those who make it a practice of drinking (pinōn, GK 4403, a present participle) the water from Jacob’s well will thirst again, but those who take a single draft (piē, aorist subjunctive) of the “water” Jesus gives will never thirst again. There was nothing wrong with the water from Jacob’s well. For a time it would quench natural thirst. The superiority of the water Jesus provides is that it satisfies once and for all a much deeper and more profound thirst—the thirst for God. “The soul’s deepest thirst,” writes Bruce, 105, “is for God himself, who has made us so that we can never be satisfied without him.”
Jesus’ initial approach to the woman was to arouse her conscience, not by condemning her lifestyle, but by offering her free of charge the only thing that could satisfy her deepest longings. Here is an important lesson in evangelism. The love of God is a magnet that draws the sinner toward life eternal. Those who flee to God out of terror of the alternative are moved by a less worthy motive. God is a gentleman whose methods are consistent with his nature.
14 The second great truth in Jesus’ response is that the water he gives will become in those who receive it “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Hallomai (“to well up,” GK 256) occurs only here in the fourth gospel. Elsewhere in the NT it is found only in Acts, where in both 3:8 and 14:10 it describes a lame man leaping to his feet. The water that Jesus gives is no stagnant pool! It is a gushing spring that refreshes all who partake of it. It produces the abundant life that Jesus promises in John 10:10.
15–16 The Samaritan woman is apparently unable to catch the spiritual significance of what Jesus is saying. Her thinking remains on a mundane level. She responds to Jesus’ offer of living water with a rather selfish request for the water that will permanently quench her thirst and keep her from making the daily trek to the well to draw a fresh supply. Her concern is for her own benefit and personal convenience. Because the woman continues to misunderstand what Jesus is saying, he changes his approach. There will be no more discussion about living water. Instead he abruptly tells the woman to go and bring her husband back to the well. The conscience must be awakened in order to create a desire for spiritual renewal.
17–18 The atmosphere changes. To this point the woman has been quite talkative. Now she simply says, “I have no husband.” Her answer was true as far as it went. Unfortunately there was more to be said. It must have come as a shock to the woman to hear Jesus, a complete stranger, give voice to what only those in her town knew. She had spoken correctly when she said she had no husband; what she had not said was that she had already had five husbands and the man she was currently living with was not her husband. Where did Jesus get such knowledge? The NT reveals that although Jesus lived out his earthly life without drawing on supernatural powers in circumstances such as the performance of miracles, as the God-man he had divine insight and knowledge into the affairs of the human heart. He knew that Nathanael was a true Israelite without guile (1:47). And he knew “all that was going to happen to him” when Judas and the soldiers arrived in the garden of Gethsemane (18:4).
It is worth noting that when the woman denied having a husband, she placed the crucial word anēr (“husband,” GK 467) at the end of the clause. Jesus in his response placed it first, thus adding considerable emphasis. She had no real husband because she was not married to the man with whom she was living. We do not know whether all of her “husbands” were legitimate; if they were, we know nothing about the divorces. Though according to Jewish custom a woman could not divorce a man, there were many ways in which she could goad her husband into taking the necessary legal steps. The Mosaic law set no limit on the number of divorces, but rabbis limited the number to two or in some cases three (cf. Str-B, 2:437).
Some commentators interpret the story allegorically. The most common example is that the woman represents Samaria with its five gods brought in from the five nations (mentioned in 2Ki 17:24). The husband she was living with illegitimately at that time was the God of Israel. Another allegorical interpretation has the five husbands representing the five books of the Torah, which the Samaritan religion regarded as the extent of canonical Scripture. Beasley-Murray’s remark, 61, that this approach is “not to be countenanced” is on target. The encounter was historical and should be understood as such.
19 Jesus’ knowledge of the woman’s marital background causes her to regard him as a prophet. Once again she addresses him as “Sir” (cf. vv.11, 15), but this time kyrios (GK 3261) is beginning to move from its conventional use as a polite greeting toward the special meaning of “Lord.” Although the word “prophet” lacks a definite article, some writers think that the woman may be wondering whether Jesus could possibly be the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15–18. Since the Samaritans did not accept as canonical the Jewish prophetic books, there would be no prophet between Moses and the one they called Taheb (the great prophet of the coming age).
20 In any case, the Samaritan woman considers Jesus to be a person who may be able to shed some light on a pivotal question that separated Jews and Samaritans: “Where is the correct place to worship?” The common assumption that she wanted to change the subject in order to evade the implications of Jesus’ remark about her immoral lifestyle may be true, but all such psychological analyses lie beyond what we may know for sure. In Deuteronomy 12:1–5 Moses stressed the importance of centralizing the place of worship but did not indicate where this was to be. The Samaritans opted for Mount Gerizim because in the Samaritan Pentateuch (Dt 27:4) Joshua is instructed to erect a shrine on that mountain. (The MT’s “Mount Ebal” is usually considered original, but it can be argued that this was simply anti-Samaritan.) Sanballat, a contemporary of Nehemiah who led the opposition to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, erected the temple on Mount Gerizim in the fifth century BC. It was destroyed by John Hyrcanus toward the end of the second century BC, but the Samaritans continued to worship at the site.
On the other hand, the Jews held that the proper and only place to worship was “in Jerusalem.” In 2 Chronicles 6:6 God says, “I have chosen Jerusalem for my Name to be there.” The psalmist writes that God chose “Mount Zion, which he loved” (Ps 78:68). In a midrash on Psalm 91 Jerusalem is said to be the “gate of heaven” and “the open door to the hearing of prayer” (Str-B, 2:437).
21 Jesus resists being drawn into a dead-end discussion on the proper place to worship. In fact, he is about to teach that the how of worship is infinitely more important than the where. His words “believe me, woman” are not to be taken in any sense as curt or disrespectful. At the wedding in Cana of Galilee (2:4), he addressed his mother with the same term, gynai (GK 222). The expression “believe me” (pisteue moi) is unique in the NT and serves as a stylistic alternative to the usual amēn amēn, legō hymin (“I tell you the truth”; NASB, twenty-five times in John’s gospel [1:51; 3:3, 5, 11 et al.]). The truth he wants the woman to learn is that a time is coming when the Father will be worshiped neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem. The worship of God is to be set free from any specific locale.
22 The Samaritans worshiped “what [they did] not know” in the sense that their religion was limited. A sacred Scripture that excluded a great deal of the rich history and instruction of the OT would of necessity be inadequate. By contrast (the “you” and the “we” of the verse are emphatic), Jewish worship is informed by the full revelation of God in the entire OT. As even the Samaritan scriptures taught, the promised Messiah of both Jew and Samaritan would come from the tribe of Judah (Ge 49:10). It is “in Judah,” the psalmist declares, that “God is known” (Ps 76:1).
23 Verse 21 spoke of a time yet future when worship would be unrelated to a place. Verse 23 repeats the clause “a time is coming” but goes on to add the all-important “and has now come.” Jesus brings the future into the present by declaring that at the present time those who truly worship the Father worship him “in spirit and in truth.” Some understand “spirit” as the human spirit in contrast to external ritual. Others perceive the reference to be connected with the outpouring of God’s Spirit in the new age. In either case, it relates to the wholehearted commitment of the worshiper to God as Father. Nothing short of a genuine personal relationship will meet the requirements of worship in the kingdom of God. Furthermore, this kind of worship must be in full accord with the truth as revealed in and through Jesus Christ. True worship is intimate and informed. To this significant proposition Jesus adds the uniquely Christian insight that the Father is actively seeking this kind of worshiper. In other religions people are portrayed as seeking God. In the Christian faith it is God who initiates the search for us (cf. Lk 15:1–7; Jn 3:6; 15:16).
24 It is because “God is spirit” that those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. That God is spirit should not be taken as a metaphysical definition of God. Although God is a spiritual being, this statement is best understood in connection with two similar ones in John’s epistles. God is “spirit” in the same sense that he is “light” (1Jn 1:5) and “love” (1Jn 4:16). He relates himself to the world not only as one who brings illumination and gives himself for the benefit of the human race but also as one who carries out his purposes in the realm and through the power of the Spirit. It is precisely because God is spirit that those who would worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.
25 Not fully grasping what Jesus is saying, the woman retreats to a standard theme of Samaritan theology, namely, that when Messiah comes, he will “explain everything.” The Messiah of Jewish tradition was not primarily a teacher, but this was not so for the Samaritans. Building on Deuteronomy 18:18 they viewed “Messiah” as one who would explain the mysteries of the kingdom. The woman’s statement here is the fifth article of the Samaritan creed. When he comes, the Taheb will impart divine truth. The explanatory note “(called Christ)” was added by John for the benefit of his Gentile readers in Asia Minor.
26 Jesus’ forthright acknowledgment here is the first of several “I am” statements in the fourth gospel where egō eimi is used without a predicate (cf. 6:20; 8:28, 58). Scholars hold varying positions concerning to what extent this may be an allusion to God’s self-designation in Exodus 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM.” The Greek does not have the word “he” but says literally, “I am, the one speaking to you.” The comma separating the two parts of the expression suggests a rendering such as “the one speaking to you is the ‘I am.’” Others think that Jesus is saying no more than “I am the Christ you speak of” (Barrett, 239). Jesus could not at this time have made such a claim in Judea, lest it encourage a political response. In Samaria it was less problematic to acknowledge openly that he was the Messiah.
27 As the disciples returned from buying food (v.8), they were shocked to find their master talking with a woman. The rabbis taught against speaking with women in public. The Mishnah (m. ʾAbot 1:5) warns against prolonging conversation with a woman and adds, “even with one’s own wife; how much more with a neighbor’s wife.” It was of less concern to the disciples that Jesus was talking with a Samaritan woman than that he was talking with any woman (note the absence of any definite article before “woman”—it was a woman, not the woman!). Although the disciples were astounded to find Jesus conversing with a woman, no one dared to ask what she wanted or why he was talking with her. Grammatically, the first question (“What do you want?”) could be addressed to Jesus, but it is more likely that the disciples would think that it was the woman who had made an initial request.
28–30 The arrival of the disciples brought the conversation to a close. The woman apparently left in haste, since she went away without her water jar. One writer supposes that she left her water jar so Jesus could drink from it and thus know that she had taken his words to heart (Hendriksen, 1:171). Others imagine her to be so embarrassed that in her anxiety to get away she forgot the water jar. More plausible is the suggestion that since she intended to return there was no need to take it just then.
The woman now returns to her village to tell of the remarkable man she has just met. Previously she may have avoided the people of her town, but now she speaks to them directly (v.29) and tells them to come and meet a man who “told me everything I ever did” (an understandable hyperbole in view of the dramatic effect of Jesus’ words on her conscience). Then, hesitatingly, she asks the question, “Could this be the Christ?” It is difficult to know the extent to which she had understood the words of Jesus, but it is clear that their effect was sufficiently profound to turn her into a missionary to her own people. So the people left the village and were making their way (ērchonto, GK 2252, is imperfect) toward Jesus at the well (v.30). S. D. Gordon (The Sychar Revival [Chicago: Cook, 1904], 25) observes that the disciples returned from the village with loaves but the woman brought people.
31–32 “Meanwhile” (i.e., after the woman had gone and before the villagers returned) the disciples “kept urging” (ērōtōn, GK 2263, is imperfect) Jesus to eat. They were genuinely concerned for his physical well-being. But Jesus answered, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about” (v.32). The contrast between egō (“I”) and hymeis (“you”) is pronounced.
33 The disciples discussed among themselves what Jesus meant by his response. Expecting a negative answer (the question is introduced with the Greek particle mē), they ask, “No one could have brought food to him, could they?” The possibility that Jesus could have by some miraculous act produced bread for himself never seems to have crossed the disciples’ mind. This attests to what we find elsewhere in the Gospels about Jesus’ judicious use of miracles. As Nicodemus misunderstood what Jesus was saying about new birth (3:4) and the Samaritan woman misunderstood what he meant by living water (4:15), the disciples misunderstand his reference to food. While the thinking process in each case was limited to a rather literal and mundane level, Jesus was using words and ideas in a figurative sense to impart spiritual knowledge. In each case, Jesus was using the semantic impasse to lift their minds to a higher level and to teach spiritual truth.
34 Jesus goes on to explain that his “food” consisted of (1) doing the Father’s will and (2) completing the work he was sent to do. His life was controlled and directed by a well-defined purpose. It was the achievement of that purpose that brought satisfaction to his soul. He calls it “my food.” We are reminded of Deuteronomy 8:3, “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” (quoted by Jesus during his temptation, Mt 4:4). Throughout the fourth gospel Jesus speaks of his obedience to the will of the one who sent him and of completing the work of the Father (e.g., 5:36; 6:38; 14:31; 17:4). The author of Hebrews says that Jesus “learned obedience” from what he suffered (Heb 5:8). Peter reminds believers that we have been chosen “for obedience to Jesus Christ” (1Pe 1:2). The so-called “deeper Christian life” is simply a life of unquestioning obedience to the revealed will of God. Jesus’ driving passion was to “finish” (teleioō, GK 5457) God’s work. Just before giving up his life on the cross he cried out, “It is finished” (note the related tetelestai, 19:30). Happy are those who have determined to know the will of God for their lives and to complete the specific tasks that the Father desires to carry out through them.
35 In vv.35–38 Jesus employs several well-known proverbs to communicate vital information regarding a spiritual harvest of believers. “Four months more and then the harvest” is usually taken as a rural proverb indicating the length of time from sowing until reaping. Although that particular period of time is actually closer to six months, it could be taken as the four months between the end of sowing and the beginning of harvest. (Sowing took place after the fall rains [November–December], and barley was harvested in April.) Others take the saying as a chronological reference placing Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in late fall. It is better to take it as a bit of conventional wisdom that Jesus used to stress the immediacy of the spiritual harvest. It is as though Jesus had said, “Normally it takes about four months to reap a harvest, but the ‘harvest’ that I speak of is ready right now. Look, even now the villagers are coming our way. Open your eyes [lit., lift them up] and look at the fields [theaomai, GK 2517; EDNT, 2:136, notes that the classical significance is perceived in the NT, “where the verb regularly connotes intensive, thorough, lingering, astonished, reflective, comprehending observation”]!” The disciples are intended to see and grasp the significance of the crowds returning to learn about the living water. Jesus’ remark that the fields are “white for harvest” (NASB) undoubtedly reflects the fact that the approaching crowds were dressed in light-colored clothing.
36 Jesus continues to speak in metaphors. The point is that a spiritual harvest need not require a “four month” period of waiting. It is by nature urgent and immediate. The old ways of thinking must be abandoned so the harvest can begin. So close in time are sowing and harvest that the sower and the reaper rejoice together. Deuteronomy pictures the agricultural Feast of Tabernacles that followed harvest to be a time of joy and celebration (Dt 16:13–15).
37–38 Jesus employs another proverbial saying, “One sows and another reaps.” If the opening word of the verse (“thus”) refers to the previous verse, then Jesus is using it to illustrate the truth just cited regarding the joy experienced by both sower and reaper. If it refers to the following verse (the Greek reads en gar toutō, “in this,” and can be interpreted in either direction), it illustrates the fact that the disciples were sent to reap the benefits of the work of “others.” Just who the “others” are is not clear. If Jesus is speaking of the immediate situation, then he himself would be “those” who did the hard work and the disciples “those” who would reap the benefits of all who came out from the village. The “I sent you” (apesteila, GK 690, is aorist) is also difficult to explain. Better to take the saying in a rather general sense and understand the “others” as all who preceded Jesus with the message of God (Moses, the OT prophets, John the Baptist), into whose benefits the disciples are now entering.
39 When the woman reached her village, she shared what she had learned from Jesus. The text records her testimony as “he told me everything I ever did,” but it is reasonable to assume that she also explained as best she could about the promise of living water. Otherwise the many Samaritans who “believed in him because of the woman’s testimony” would have had no basis for their faith other than the report of Jesus’ unusual knowledge of the woman’s past.
40–41 When the villagers arrived at the well, they urged Jesus to stay with them for a time—a most unusual request in view of the enmity that existed between Jews and Samaritans. Jesus acquiesced and remained there for two days. As a result, “many more” Samaritans became believers, i.e., a number of others in addition to those who went out to meet him at the well. Their belief was no longer based on what the woman had told them; they had now heard him themselves.
42 On the basis that the corresponding verbal form originally means “to babble or stammer,” some have translated lalian (“what you said,” GK 3282) rather disparagingly as “chatter.” Since “chatter” is an inadequate basis for belief, we need not consider the suggestion seriously. Personal acquaintance with Jesus had led many of the Samaritans in that village to confess that Jesus “really is the Savior of the world.” In the OT, God is often portrayed as the one bringing salvation to his people. In Isaiah 43:3 God says, “For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.” Although Jesus is often referred to as Savior (Lk 2:11; Php 3:20; 2Ti 1:10), the title “Savior of the world” is applied to him only here and in 1 John 4:14. Some have suggested that this reluctance stems from the fact that in the secular world it was used as a technical term for a number of pagan gods. Adolf Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910], 364–65) notes that it was often applied to the Roman emperor as well. That Jesus came as Savior of the world is precisely the point of John 3:17, which says that God sent his Son not to condemn the world “but to save the world through him.” The redemptive work of God has no geographic, cultural, or ethnic boundaries. Jesus is the Savior of the world.
43–45 Jesus’ journey from Judea to Galilee, which was temporarily suspended after 4:3, is now resumed. After the two-day stay with the Samaritans Jesus continued on to Galilee. The proverb “a prophet has no honor in his own country” (v.44), which Jesus used in Mark 6:4 and parallels in reference to Nazareth, doesn’t seem to fit here in John. Why would Jesus be going to Galilee if there where he grew up he would be without honor? In fact, the following verse says that “the Galileans welcomed him.” Apparently in this context the phrase “his own country” is not to be thought of as Galilee but instead as Judea or Jerusalem. Lindars, 201, notes that from the point of view of salvation history Jerusalem was “his own home.” On his final journey to that sacred city Jesus lamented, “I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Lk 13:33). Although the Galileans welcomed him, it would appear that their reception was based on what he could do for them. Those who had been in Jerusalem for the Passover Feast “had seen all that he had done” (v.45). The reference would be to the cleansing of the temple and the signs he did on that occasion (2:13–25, esp. v.23).
NOTES
6 In 1866 Major Anderson descended into this well and described it as very narrow at the top (about wide enough for a man to pass through with his arms extended straight up) but widening to about seven or eight feet. In 1935 when debris was cleaned out of the well, its depth was measured at more than 130 feet. Through time, several churches have been built over the well. Currently the walled enclosure with an unfinished church is the property of the Greek Orthodox. The Greek text says that Jesus sat ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ (epi tē pēgē, “on [or near] the well”). The well may have been encircled with a low stone wall on which Jesus would have sat, or perhaps, as P66 says, Jesus sat “on the ground.”
9 The explanatory clause “for Jews do not associate with Samaritans” is omitted in several MSS (א* D ita,b,d,e,j), perhaps on the basis of scribal opinion that it was not literally exact and therefore should be deleted (Metzger, 177).
10 The Greek noun δωρεά, dōrea (“gift,” GK 1561), carries the idea of that which is freely given (cf. the adverb δωρεάν, dōrean, “without payment, undeserved,” GK 1562). In the NT it is not used in connection with the giving of gifts between people; rather, it is reserved for divine largesse.
12 Questions beginning with μή (mē) in Greek expect a negative response. For this reason the NASB’s rendering (“You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You …?”) is preferable to the NIV’s (“Are you greater than our father Jacob …?”). Compare especially 7:15, 31, 35, 41, 47, 48, 51, and elsewhere throughout the gospel.
19 In the Greek and Roman world, for Jesus to possess such knowledge of the woman’s marital history would certify him as a miracle worker, but in the religious world of Israel it would be recognized as the distinguishing mark of a prophet (cf. 1:47–48).
44 The view that Judea was to be considered Jesus’ “own country” was proposed by the third-century theologian Origen. One contemporary approach is to consider v.44 as an addition by a later scribe who felt it necessary to explain why Jesus was so poorly received in Galilee following his initial arrival. (Lk 4:16–31 tells us that following his dramatic claim in the synagogue in Nazareth, “the people were furious” and drove him out of town with the intention of throwing him down the cliff.) Such textual relocations are an argument of the last resort. Either Judea was considered his “own country,” or the saying is to be taken in reference to Galilee with the understanding that, while his immediate reception was favorable, the attitude of the people changed quickly when his claim to fulfill OT prophecy rankled their religious sensitivities.
OVERVIEW
Jesus’ arrival at Cana marks the beginning of what is called the greater Galilean ministry. This period in Jesus’ life occupies approximately 35 percent of both Matthew and Mark. By the time the gospels were written, Cana was widely recognized as the place where Jesus had turned water into wine (2:1–11). It was there that Jesus had performed the first of his miraculous signs in Galilee, with the result that the disciples had placed their faith in him (2:11). Galilee is about to become the place where Jesus will perform his second miraculous sign.
46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.
48“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”
49The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”
50Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live.”
The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour.”
53Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and all his household believed.
54This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.
COMMENTARY
46 At Capernaum, some twenty miles to the northeast of Cana on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, there lived “a certain royal official” whose son was sick. Basilikos (GK 997) is an adjective meaning “royal” and could designate either a person of royal descent or a person who served the king in some official capacity. We can probably assume that he was a courtier of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee from 4 BC until AD 39. Though, strictly speaking, Antipas was not a king, he was regularly referred to by that title (cf. Mk 6:14, 22).
47 We do not know the ethnic background of the official, but it is very possible that he was Jewish. The following verse (v.48) includes him with the Jewish population of Galilee. Neither do we know what specifically he had heard about Jesus that caused him to ask for a miracle of healing. Perhaps he had learned of Jesus’ supernatural act of turning water to wine at Cana. Some suggest that he may have been in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast and personally witnessed some of the miraculous signs Jesus did there (cf. 2:23). In any case, he believed that Jesus could heal his son and wanted him to come to Capernaum for that purpose.
A number of writers believe that this narrative in John is an independent account of the story in Matthew and Luke (i.e., in “Q”) about the centurion’s son, who was also healed from a distance (Mt 8:5–13; Lk 7:1–10). Schnackenburg, 1:475, reviews the problem and concludes that “once the peculiarities of the literary genre which is involved have been noted, it will be difficult to admit that these two different events are in question.” On the other hand, Morris, 288, rightly concludes that “despite the parallels, the two stories are distinct.” Note that in John’s account Jesus is in Cana (not in Capernaum, Lk 7:1), the person ill is a son (not a servant, Lk 7:2), he is sick with a fever (not paralysis, Mt 8:6), and the father begs Jesus to come to his home (does not object to his coming as unnecessary, Lk 7:6).
48 Jesus’ response to the plea indicates the immature nature of the official’s faith. Like the other Galileans, he “will never believe” (an emphatic double negative) unless he sees “miraculous signs and wonders.” It is commonly noted that terata (“wonders,” GK 5469) occurs only here in John and that elsewhere in the NT, as here, it is always plural and is always used in conjunction with sēmeia (“signs,” GK 4956). A miraculous act when viewed in terms of its effect on the bystanders is a “wonder,” but when seen as calling attention to the supernatural authority of the person performing the act, it is a “sign.” What Jesus is saying is that “a faith based on miracles (though not negligible—14:11) is inadequate” (Barrett, 247).
49 Not grasping for the moment Jesus’ teaching, the official continues to beg (ērōta, GK 2263, in v.47 is imperfect, indicating a repeated petition) Jesus to come “before my child dies.” In addressing Jesus as kyrios (GK 3261), he undoubtedly means more than “Sir” but certainly not “Lord” in the fuller sense of the word. Previously he spoke of his “son” (huios, GK 5626), but now he speaks of his “child” (paidion, GK 4086, a more affectionate term). It reflects the poignant grief of the father about to lose a dear son.
50 Jesus responds with a straightforward, “Go; your son lives” (NASB; TCNT, “is living”). The official’s faith is put to the test. He is to return to Capernaum on the simple word of Jesus. Jesus will not go with him and perform some miraculous healing. He simply tells the official to take him at his word. Distance causes no problem. The trust that Jesus would elicit is not dependent on anything other than the word of the Master. Translations that take the present tense zē (“lives,” GK 2409) as a futuristic present, such as “your son will live” (NIV) or “your boy is going to live” (Williams), promise a return to health but do not adequately stress the unusual fact, as we will learn from vv.52–53, that at that very moment the fever had already gone and the boy was alive and well. The man believed what Jesus said and left. (Note the construction pisteuō plus the dative, which reflects a less firm religious commitment than pisteuō eis; Brown, 191, translates as “put his trust in.”)
51–52 While he was returning home (katabainontos, “going down,” GK 2849; Capernaum lies 695 feet below sea level), the official’s servants met him with the good news that his boy was alive. Inquiring as to the specific time his son began to get better (taking eschen, GK 2400, as an ingressive aorist), he was told by the servants that the “fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour.” A question arises as to why a father so distraught about his son would wait a day before returning the twenty miles to learn of his condition. A few writers adopt the Roman method of computing time, which would place the healing at 7:00 a.m. In that case, the official would be able to return home the same day, since the trip took no more than six or seven hours. But it is better to follow the Jewish method of reckoning time and place the healing at 1:00 p.m. Although the “next day” would begin at sunset, it is unlikely that had he returned immediately his servants would have spoken of the moment of healing as taking place “yesterday.” Perhaps the man had other business to take care of in Cana, or since he had taken Jesus at his word he did not feel compelled to rush back to verify the promise that his son was no longer in danger of dying.
53 When the official learned from his servants that the fever left his son at the seventh hour and realized that it was “the exact time” when Jesus said his son would live, “he and all his household believed.” In v.50 the man believed in the sense of taking Jesus at his word. But here in v.53 belief represents full confidence in the person of Jesus. Belief about has become commitment to. Along with his entire household, the official joined the growing number of believers who were convinced that Jesus was God’s answer to life with all its difficulties.
54 John adds that this was “the second miraculous sign” Jesus had performed since he had come from Judea to Galilee. It was not the second of all the signs he would perform—in Jerusalem many people had seen “the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name” (2:23)—but the second sign he performed in Galilee. His first sign showed his power over the physical realm, and his disciples believed (2:1–11). By his second sign he displayed his power to heal from a distance, and the official and all his household believed (cf. Hendriksen, 1:184).
OVERVIEW
John 4 began with Jesus leaving Judea for Galilee. The bulk of the chapter was devoted to his encounter with the Samaritan woman en route. Near the end of the chapter, Jesus resumed his journey to Galilee and on arriving cured the son of a royal official from Capernaum. John 5 takes place in Jerusalem, but in ch. 6 Jesus is back in Galilee once again. For this reason some scholars put ch. 6 before ch. 5 in order to join segments of the Galilean ministry without an intervening trip to Jerusalem. Since there is neither manuscript evidence for such a transposition nor any discernible reason for the traditional sequence, if ch. 6 had originally preceded ch. 5, it is better to leave the chapters as they now stand. The attempt to create chronological and geographic congruence may be well intentioned but is not necessary.
1Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?”
7“Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”
8Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” 9At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.
The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, 10and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”
11But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’”
12So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?”
13The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.
14Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” 15The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
COMMENTARY
1 After spending some time in Galilee, John went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. There is a question as to which feast this refers to. The difficulty stems from the lack of a direct article before “feast” (heortē, GK 2038, which occurs eighteen times in John but only here without an article). Manuscripts that do read hē heortē (“the feast”) undoubtedly understood the feast to be the Passover. The three great national festivals of the Jewish people were Passover (March–April), Pentecost (fifty days later), and Tabernacles (September–October). Most scholars are of the opinion that the feast referred to in the present passage is the Feast of Tabernacles, though others suggest Pentecost, Trumpets (New Year), or Purim. To know which feast John refers to would add nothing to the healing miracle Jesus is about to perform, so it is best left as an interesting item for scholarly conjecture. That it was a feast “of the Jews” is an explanatory comment added by John for the benefit of Gentile readers. Jesus “went up” to Jerusalem in that every journey to the Holy City (except from Hebron) involved an ascent.
2 We know from archaeological excavations that in the northeastern quarter of Jerusalem near the church of St. Anne there were adjacent pools, which in earlier days had a covered colonnade at each corner of the area and another on the rock ridge separating the pools—hence the “five covered colonnades” referred to in the narrative.
3 In these covered areas a number of disabled people “used to lie” (taking katekeito, GK 2879, as a customary imperfect). John describes them as “the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.” The last term (xēros, GK 3831) means “withered” or “dried up” and described people whose bodies were withered by disease (e.g., the man with the “shriveled hand” in Mk 3:3). At the end of v.3 some MSS add the clause “and they waited for the moving of the waters.” This would be to throw light on the statement in v.7 regarding the troubling of the water. The same MSS also add a v.4 (missing in the better MSS; see Notes) that expresses a popular belief about angels stirring the water and the magical healing powers of that water for the first person to enter the pool when a disturbance took place. The probable explanation for a disturbance in the twin pools is that in addition to the water that came from large reservoirs, there were probably intermittent springs that augmented the flow from time to time.
5 Beside the pool lay a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years—longer than many people in ancient times lived. That this same number occurs elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 2:14 (Israel wasted thirty-eight years in the desert) has encouraged allegorizers to find in the paralytic a symbol of the Jewish people of Jesus’ day disabled by the lack of faith. Carson, 242–43, notes that if John intended any symbolism, it would have been the impotency of superstitious religion to transform the truly needy.
6 Jesus’ question may strike the reader as rather superfluous. Why else would this man be there but to be healed by the troubled waters? Perhaps by means of the question Jesus wanted to revive the man’s expectation that, in spite of so many years of disappointment, healing was still possible. Jesus “learned” of the man’s condition either by observation or report. The two participles (idōn, GK 3972; gnous, GK 1182) are coordinate and picture Jesus as seeing the man and then coming to know of his physical condition. It is less likely that we are to understand this as an example of Jesus’ supernatural insight (as in 1:47–48; 4:17). The man’s pitiful condition was a clear indication that for many years he had suffered from a debilitating disease.
7 Instead of answering Jesus’ question, the man explains why as yet he hasn’t been healed: because there is no one there to help him when the water is stirred, someone else manages to get into the pool before he can. In view of what takes place subsequently—i.e., his shifting of the blame to Jesus for his own “violation” of Sabbath rules (v.11), his not bothering to find out who healed him (v.13), and his reporting of Jesus to the authorities (v.15)—it appears that his response to Jesus’ inquiry was the reaction of a grouchy old man to a question that seemed pointless to him.
8–9 Jesus’ reply is direct and powerful: “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” The same command was given in the gospel of Mark to the paralytic who was lowered through the roof by his friends (Mk 2:9). The situations, however, are quite distinct. In the Markan incident, faith was present (Mk 2:5), but here the healing seems to be apart from any faith on the part of the disabled man. Verse 9 simply says that “at once the man was cured.” He was healed by virtue of the fact that accompanying the command was the power to effect it. Bruce, 124, writes, “He received power to do what a moment earlier had been quite beyond his capacity.” The man’s personal involvement was minimal at best. The mat on which the paralytic had lain would have been a straw pallet easy to roll up and carry on one’s shoulder. It had served its purpose and now was to be taken away. The cure was permanent. The two verbs in v.9b are worth noting. The verb ēren (“picked up,” GK 149) is aorist and could be paraphrased, “he took it up at once”; periepatei (“walked,” GK 4344) is present tense and suggests something like, “[and] was walking around.”
The healing at the pool of Bethesda took place on a Sabbath. In the Synoptics we find a number of Sabbath healings and other activities considered by the rabbis to be unlawful on that day. All three Synoptics record Jesus’ disciples picking grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1–8; Mk 2:23–28; Lk 6:1–5) and the Sabbath healing of the man’s shriveled hand (Mt 12:9–14; Mk 3:1–6; Lk 6:6–11). Luke adds the Sabbath healing of the woman crippled by a spirit for eighteen years (Lk 13:10–17) and the Sabbath healing of a man with dropsy (Lk 14:1–6).
10 When “the Jews” (the religious authorities, not the Jewish people in general) saw the man who had been healed (tetherapeumenō, GK 2543, is perfect tense, stressing the permanence of the cure), they rebuked him for carrying his mat. According to rabbinic law this activity was considered work. The Mosaic prohibition against work on the Sabbath (Ex 31:14; Jer 17:21–27) had been detailed into thirty-nine classes of work, the final one being the carrying of a load from one place to another (m. Šabb. 7.2). Although the original intention was to protect the holiness of the Sabbath, the final result was a legalistic parody of the original prohibition.
11 Knowing that the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was death by stoning (Nu 15:32–36), the man who had been healed shifted the blame to the one who had healed him. It is difficult to know just how culpable the man was for what appears to have been an evasive tactic. It may be that he was implying that anyone who could perform such a remarkable feat possessed an authority that superseded rabbinic law.
12 The Jewish authorities responded rather disdainfully by asking, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?” It is remarkable that those in charge of the spiritual welfare of the nation were interested only in what they considered a breach of the law and were not moved by the extraordinary healing of a man who had been a cripple for thirty-eight years. How unlike Jesus, who was moved with compassion when confronted with physical suffering!
13 The man who was healed had no idea who it was who healed him because Jesus had slipped away in the large crowd of people. We do not know whether or not he tried to identify his benefactor. The general impression we gather of the man is that he was far more interested in his newly acquired health than in the one who made it possible. The verb exeneusen (“slipped away,” GK 2002) comes from a root that means “to turn the head aside,” “to dodge,” and the word pictures Jesus as taking advantage of the large crowd to move away unnoticed by others.
14 Some time later, Jesus found the healed man in the temple and remarked on his recovery. To this he added, “Stop sinning.” The prohibition in Greek is present tense (mēketi hamartane, GK 3600, 279) and may well indicate that Jesus was referring to some sin existing in the man’s life at that time. The NEB translates, “Leave your sinful ways.” If you don’t, then “something worse may happen to you.” This “something worse” to which Jesus referred could have been the normal consequences of continuing in sin. Or it could have been the end result of a sinful life—eternal separation from God. We do know that Scripture teaches that specific sins may result in a human tragedy. Ananias and Sapphira lied about the land they sold and both were struck dead (Ac 5:1–10). Paul tells us that many in Corinth were sick (and some had died) because they had taken Communion in an unworthy manner (1Co 11:27–32). Yet we are cautioned in John 9:1–4 against assuming that every disease is the result of a specific sin. It would appear, however, that in the case of the man in question his condition was closely related to some personal sinful act or attitude.
15 The man now goes to the Jewish authorities and tells them that Jesus was the one who had made him well. Once again it is difficult to ascribe motives to the man with any degree of certainty. Some scholars see him as betraying Jesus. Others have him going to the authorities to clear up the matter, which if left unresolved could eventuate in severe punishment. Carson, 246, is probably closest when he remarks that the man was “guilty of dullness rather than treachery.”
16 It was because Jesus “was doing these things [imperfect tense] on the Sabbath” that the Jewish leaders “were persecuting” (also imperfect) him. Since the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda (vv.1–9a) was the only Sabbath violation mentioned thus far in John, the imperfect “was doing these things” was occasioned by John’s later reflections, which incorporated other such instances. The NEB has, “It was works of this kind done on the Sabbath that stirred the Jews to persecute Jesus.” Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 21.6) noted that “they sought darkness from the Sabbath more than light from the miracle.”
17 Jesus justified his activity on the Sabbath by explaining that since God the Father was continuing to work even to that very day, so also is the Son free to work. Exodus 20:11 teaches that after God had completed the creation in six days, “he rested on the seventh day.” The rabbis understood, however, that God’s Sabbath rest did not mean that he became idle, for without the activity of divine providence on the Sabbath all life would cease; furthermore, since only God can give life and human beings are born on the Sabbath, it follows that God must be active on the Sabbath. The third-century rabbi Hoshaiah is quoted as saying that God’s resting on this day from all his works “means that he rested from work on his world; but he did not rest from work on the unrighteous and on the righteous” (Gen. Rab. 11.10). That God remains active in this world was perfectly acceptable to Jesus’ detractors. What was not acceptable was Jesus’ (implied) claim that he was God’s Son and therefore shared the same privilege. While the Jews sometimes referred in worship to God as their father, they would never use the term in an individual sense as Jesus had just done.
18 For Jesus to challenge the fundamental distinction between God and human beings (God being infinite and holy, human beings being finite and sinful) was tantamount to blasphemy. While Jesus’ statement would not have been taken as actual blasphemy (m. Sanh. 7.5 says that “the blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself”), the implication was perfectly clear. He was laying claim to a special and unique relationship to God as Father that gave him the right to do whatever was appropriate for God to do. The charge that he broke the Sabbath (and in so doing was relaxing or invalidating the law; cf. TDNT 4:336) was serious, but not nearly as damaging as the charge that by calling God his own Father he was making himself equal with God. While in Greek thought certain outstanding individuals were considered to be godlike, such a comparison was blasphemous to the Jew. Hendriksen, 1:196, comments that for Jesus to claim for himself deity “was either the most wicked blasphemy, to be punished with death; or else, it was the most glorious truth, to be accepted by faith.”
Obviously Jesus’ antagonists were not about to accept such a claim, so “they tried all the harder to kill him.” Opposition to truth inevitably takes the course of violence. Conviction stirs up hatred in those who hold just as strongly to an opposing belief. Historically the only recourse has been to do away with those whose convictions undermine and repudiate the conventional wisdom of the day. Yet truth has a way of vindicating itself, and in the end every knee will bow and every tongue confess the lordship of Jesus Christ (Php 2:10–11).
NOTES
1 To be able to identify the feast (whether or not it is the Jewish Passover) would help in determining the length of Jesus’ ministry. John specifically mentions three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55). If the feast of 5:1 was not a Passover, then Jesus’ ministry would have lasted for two to three years. If, however, 5:1 was a fourth Passover, then his ministry would have continued for an additional year.
2 Verse 2 presents two textual problems related to the name and location of the incident that follows. The first has to do with the “Sheep Gate.” The Greek text does not include the word “gate.” If κολυμβήθρα, kolymbēthra (“pool,” GK 3148), is taken in the nominative, then the sentence reads, “There is in Jerusalem near the sheep [ ] a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda.” In this case a word must be supplied after “sheep”; NIV has chosen “gate,” but “pool” and “market” have also been suggested. However, if κολυμβήθρα, kolymbēthra, is taken as dative, it would qualify πρφβατικῇ, probatikē (“sheep,” GK 4583), and the sentence would read, “In Jerusalem, near the sheep pool, there is a [ ], which in Aramaic is called Bethesda.” In both cases a word must be supplied (probably “place” in the latter rendering). Because a sheep gate is mentioned in Nehemiah (3:1; 12:39), it seems preferable to follow the NIV (and NASB) rendering and supply πύλη, pylē (“gate,” GK 4783).
The second problem is the preferred reading for the Aramaic designation of the location. Both the NIV and NASB have chosen “Bethesda,” which has in its favor the serendipitous etymology “House of Mercy.” The strongest variant is “Bethsaida,” but textual critics think this is the result of assimilation to the town of Bethsaida mentioned in 1:44. Metzger, 178, notes that the UBS committee concurred that Bethzatha was the “least unsatisfactory” and gave it the classification of “D” (“a very high degree of doubt”). The reading “Bethesda” receives support from the Copper Scroll from Qumran, which refers to a pool called bêtʾ ešdātayin—the dual ending suggesting the translation “the place of twin outpourings.” Bruce, 122, holds that this settles fairly conclusively that “Bethesda … is the true form.”
3b–4 The standard reasons for considering vv.3b–4 as a gloss are (1) they are not included in the earliest and best witnesses (P66 P75 א A* B C* L pc syc co); (2) more than twenty Greek witnesses mark them as spurious; (3) they include a number of words or expressions not found elsewhere in John; and (4) there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. However, after reviewing the evidence, the NET text critical note at 5:3 concludes that “at this point we must acknowledge that some portion of vv.3b–4 may be authentic.” The NASB rather curiously has a marginal note that reads, “Early mss do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4,” but nevertheless includes them in the text, albeit in square brackets.
14 The NET translator’s note sees the translation “stop sinning” as unlikely in this case because the present tense is normally used in prohibitions involving a general condition, while the aorist is normally used in specific cases; and only when they are used opposite the normal usage would the present tense after the Greek μή (mē) yield the idea of stopping what is being done.