Chapter One

1–18. Prologue to the Gospel. – 19–28. Testimony of John the Baptist concerning Christ before the Jews. – 29–36. Testimony of John the Baptist before his disciples. – 37–51. The first followers of Christ.

The Gospel of John begins with a magnificent introduction, or prologue, in which it is spoken of how the only-begotten Son of God revealed Himself in the world. This introduction is conveniently divided into three strophes, the content of which is as follows.

First strophe (verses 1–5): The Word, which was in the beginning with God and was Himself God and through which the world was created, was life and light for men, and darkness could not extinguish this light.

Second strophe (verses 6–13): John was sent from God to testify of the Word as the true light, but when the Word came to His own, His own did not receive Him. There were found, however, a few such people who received the Word, and to them the Word gave power to become children of God.

Third strophe (verses 14–18): The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ and dwelt with men, whom He manifested His greatness as the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth, so that those who believe in Him received from Him grace in abundance. Through Him, who is greater than John the Baptist and Moses the lawgiver, grace and truth of the invisible God were proclaimed.

The fundamental thought of the prologue is expressed in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Everything preceding and following serves as a characterization of the divine person who in Jesus Christ became man and revealed to men the grace and truth of the invisible God. From the prologue we first learn that the Word existed with God before the creation of the world and that the world itself owes its origin to Him. We also learn that, in particular, for mankind the Word was light and life even before His incarnation. Then the evangelist, in order to prepare the attention of his readers for the following brief account of the incarnation of the Word, mentions the sending by God of John the Baptist as a witness to the coming of the Word to His people and the attitude of the Jewish people toward the Word that had appeared. Thus, the evangelist quite logically approaches the depiction of the incarnation of the Word itself and the greatness of the benefits it brought.

It is remarkable that all the content of the prologue consists of historical facts, not reasonings. We feel that the evangelist gives us not some philosophical construction, but a brief history of the incarnate Word. Therefore, the speech of the prologue reminds us of the speech of a historian.

According to the observation of Keil, the correct understanding of the entire prologue depends on the explanation of the term “Logos,” translated in our Bible by the expression “Word.” The Greek noun ho logos has various meanings in classical Greek. It can mean:

a) an utterance and what is said;

b) reasoning, reflection, and the faculty of reasoning, that is, reason or intellect.

There are many other meanings of this word as well, but they all have their foundation in the two principal meanings indicated above of the term ho logos. As for the second meaning of the term being considered (b), although there are interpreters insisting on the necessity of accepting the term Logos in the sense of “reason,” we cannot permit this. The main obstacle to this admission is that in New Testament Greek the term ho logos is nowhere used as meaning “reason” or “intellect,” but denotes only “action” or “the result of mental activity”: account, reckoning, and so on (See Preuschen E. Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrige nurchristlichen Literatur. Giessen 1910, col. 668, 669.) But no impartial reader of the prologue will say that there is even the slightest basis to interpret in the prologue the term Logos in the sense of “activity” or “the result of mental activity”: this is clearly contradicted by all that is said in verses 14 and following about the incarnation of the Logos 7.

Now regarding the first (a) principal meaning of the term Logos, it must be said that on the basis of the philological direct sense of this term, and on the basis of the entire teaching of the Gospel of John about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, this meaning – “the Word” – is the only admissible one in the present case. But understanding this designation in application to Christ, one must remember that the evangelist, of course, named Christ “the Word” not in the simple (grammatical) meaning of this term, did not understand “the Word” as a mere combination of sounds of the voice, but in a higher (logical) sense, as the expression of the deepest essence of the Deity. Just as in the word of Christ Himself His inner essence was revealed, so in the Eternal Word – the Logos – the inner essence of the Godhead was always revealed. God is Spirit, and where Spirit is, there is also the Word; consequently, “the Word” was always with God. The existence of the Logos in itself “is by no means conditioned by the fact that He is the Revelation of God the Father to the world, that is, by no means conditioned by the existence of the world; on the contrary, the existence of the world is dependent on the fact that the Logos becomes for the world a revelation of God the Father – but must necessarily be understood as given in the very being of God the Father” (Znamensky, p. 9).

The Fathers of the Church for the most part explained the meaning of the designation of Christ as “the Word” by means of comparing Christ – the Word with “the word” of man. They said that just as thought and word differ from each other, so “the Word” – Christ was always a separate Person from the Father. Then they indicated that the word is born from thought and is born not through severance or emanation, but in such a way that thought or mind remains in its own constitution, so Christ is the Son of God, from the birth of Whom no change occurred in the essence of the Father. Further, the Fathers of the Church, taking into account that the word, being distinct from thought in the manner of being, remains always united with thought in content or the essence of being, deduced from this that the Son is one in essence with God the Father and by virtue of this unity in essence is never separated from the Father for a single moment. Thus, regarding the term “the Word” as the designation of the Son of God, the Fathers of the Church found in this term an indication of the eternity of the Son of God, His personality, and His consubstantiality with the Father, as well as His impassible generation from the Father. But besides, having in mind that this term could also mean the word uttered, not just existing in thought (the internal), the Fathers of the Church understood this term in application to Christ also as a designation of the fact that the Son reveals the Father to the world, that He is the revelation of the Father to the world. The first understanding may be called metaphysical, and the second – historical.

Among modern theologians of the critical direction the view has been established that the term Logos in John has only the meaning of the so-called “historical predicate,” and does not at all define in substance the Person of Christ the Savior. The evangelist supposedly wanted to say by this term that Christ is the revelation of God to the world. So, according to Zahn, Logos is a name belonging to none other than the historical Christ; it is such the same predicate or definition of Christ as the following definitions in the prologue “light,” “truth,” and “life.” Christ before the incarnation was not the Logos, but became so only after the incarnation. To this view of Zahn, the opinion of Luthardt approaches, according to which Christ is named by John as the Logos only in the sense that in Him was accomplished the entirety of divine revelations. Finally, according to the view of Hoffmann, by the Logos in John should be understood the apostolic word or preaching about Christ. Among Russian scholars, Prince S. N. Trubetskoy took the side of these researchers in his dissertation on the Logos (Moscow, 1900).

But against such an understanding of the term in question in John speaks in the highest degree a clear indication of the evangelist himself, found in the 14th verse of the prologue: “And the Word became flesh.” That which at a certain time took on flesh must obviously have existed even before that time, without flesh. It is clear that the evangelist believed in the pre-existence of Christ as the Son of God, as the Eternal Word of God. Then against such a narrow understanding of the German exegetes the entire content of the Gospel of John loudly cries out. In the discourses of the Lord which John reports, there appears everywhere the confidence in the eternal existence of Christ, in His consubstantiality with the Father. But these are precisely the same ideas that enter into the content of the concept in question – “the Word,” or the Logos. And why would the evangelist have given such solemnity to his prologue if in it there was mention only of Christ as the Revelation of the invisible God? After all, such revelations took place in the history of the dispensation of our salvation also in the Old Testament (for example, the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah), while John by his prologue wants to open, so to speak, a completely new era in the history of salvation...

It should further be noted that when we insist that in John the term Logos means “the Word,” not “the mind,” we do not thereby deny that the Word is at the same time also the Supreme Mind. And the human word does not exist outside of relation to the thought whose expression it serves. In just the same way all the New Testament testimonies about the Son of God as the Truth and Source of all truth leave no doubt that the Word of God is at the same time also the absolute “Mind of God” (see Znamensky, p. 175).

Regarding where John took this definition – Logos – see below, in the explanation of the 18th verse of the prologue.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “In the beginning was the Word.” By these words the evangelist designates the eternity of the Word. Already the expression “in the beginning” clearly indicates that the being of the Logos is completely taken out of subjection to time, as a form of all created being, that the Logos existed “before all that is thinkable and before the ages” (St. John Chrysostom) 8. Even more strongly this thought of the eternity of the Word is expressed by the addition to the expression “in the beginning” of the verb “was.” The verb “to be,” first of all, is a designation of being that is personal and self-subsistent, in contrast to the verb “to become,” which designates the appearance of something at a certain time. Second, the verb “to be” is used here in the imperfect tense, which indicates that the Logos was already at the time when created being was only beginning to be given its start. “And the Word was with God.” Here the evangelist says that the Logos was an independent Person. This is clearly indicated by the expression he used “was toward God” – this is a better and more accurate translation of the Greek expression. John wants to say by this that the Logos stood in a certain mutual relationship with God the Father as a separate independent Person. He is not divided from God the Father (which would be the case if the preposition “near” stood with the word for God), nor does He merge with Him (which would be designated by the preposition “in”), but remains in a personal and internal relationship with the Father – inseparable and unmixed. And in such a relationship the Logos remained with the Father always, as is shown again by the verb “to be” taken here in the imperfect tense. As for the question why here John calls God the Father simply God, the answer to this question can be given thus: the word “God” is generally used to designate God the Father in the New Testament, and then John (as Loisy says) could not yet use the word “Father” here, since he had not yet spoken of the Word as the “Son.” “And the Word was God.” By these words John designates the divinity of the Word. The Word is not only divine, but is the true God. Since in the Greek text the word “God” is used of the Word without the article, while concerning God the Father it is used here with the article, some theologians (in ancient times, for example, Origen) saw in this an indication that the Word is lower in dignity than God the Father. But against the correctness of such a conclusion speaks the fact that in the New Testament the expression “God” without the article is sometimes used also of God the Father (Rom 1:7; Phil 2:13). And then in the present case the expression “God” together with the verb “was” constitutes the predicate to the expression “the Word” and according to the general rule should stand without the article.

John 1:2. It was in the beginning with God. “It was in the beginning with God.” In order that no one should think that the Divinity of the Logos is less than the Divinity of the Father, the evangelist says that He “in the beginning,” that is, before all time, or in other words, eternally stood in relationship to the Father as a completely independent Person, differing in no way by nature from God the Father. Thus the evangelist summarizes all that he said about the Word in the 1st verse. At the same time this verse serves as a transition to the following portrayal of the revelation of the Logos in the world.

John 1:3. All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being. “All things” came into being “through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that” has come into being. Here first positively, then negatively, is expressed the thought that the Logos revealed Himself in the world first of all as its Creator. He created all things, that is, every created being, without any limitation. But some, both ancient and modern theologians, saw in the expression “through Him” a diminishing of the dignity of the Logos, finding that this expression indicates in the Logos only an instrument which God used for the creation of the world, and not the First Cause. Such reasoning, however, cannot be recognized as sound, for in the New Testament the preposition “through” is sometimes used also of the activity of God the Father in relation to the world (Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 1:9). The evangelist, evidently, wanted by this expression to note the distinction existing between the Father and the Son, not wishing “that anyone should consider the Son unborn” (St. John Chrysostom), that is, and personally not differing from the Father. It should be noted that the evangelist concerning the origin of all created things uses the verb which means “to begin to exist” and, consequently, recognizes the Logos not only as the arranger of the world from ready-made matter, but in the direct sense as the Creator of the world from nothing 9.

John 1:4. “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” The life which was in the Logos – this is life in the broadest meaning of the word (which is why in the Greek text stands the word “life,” without the article). All domains of being drew from the Logos the forces necessary for every created being to unfold its abilities. The Logos, one might say, was Himself “life,” that is, a Divine Being, for life is found in God. In particular, in relation to men this quickening action of the Logos manifested itself in the enlightenment of men: this life (here the word “life” is placed with the article as a concept known from the first half of the verse) gave to mankind the light of true knowledge of God and directed men on the path of a life pleasing to God: the life was light for men. Just as without material light in the world no life would be possible, so without the enlightening action of the Logos it would not have been possible for men to take even a few steps forward on the path toward moral self-perfection. The Logos enlightened both the chosen people of God through direct revelations and manifestations of God, and the best men from the pagan world, bearing witness to the truth in their reason and conscience. In particular, regarding people this enlivening action of the Logos manifested itself in the enlightenment of people: this life (here the word ζωή is already used with the article as a concept known from the first part of the verse) gave humanity the light of true knowledge of God and directed people on the path of godly life: life was light for people. Just as without material light in the world no life would be possible, so also without the enlightening action of the Logos it would not be possible for people to take even a few steps forward on the path toward moral perfection. The Logos enlightened both the chosen people of God through direct revelations and theophanies, and the best people from the pagan world, bearing witness to the truth in their minds and consciences.

John 1:5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Since the last statement of the previous verse might have seemed to readers inconsistent with reality—the condition of both the pagan and Jewish world appeared to them as a state of extreme moral degradation and hardening in sin—the evangelist considers it necessary to assure them that the light, the Logos, truly has always shone and continues to shine (φαίνει, present tense to denote the permanence of action) even in the darkness of human ignorance and all corruption (“darkness”—σκοτία means the state of degradation and resistance to God’s will; see John 12:35; Eph 5:8). “The darkness did not overcome it.” The meaning of the Russian translation is: darkness failed to suppress, extinguish the action of the Logos in people. Many ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church interpreted the expression in this sense, as well as many modern exegetes. And such an interpretation appears entirely correct if we pay attention to the parallel passage in John’s Gospel: “Walk while you have the light, so that darkness may not overtake you” (John 12:35). Here the same verb (καταλαμβάνειν) is used to denote the concept of “overcome,” and there is absolutely no reason to interpret this verb differently than our Russian translation does. Some (for example, Znamensky, p. 46–47) fear that with such a translation we would have to admit that John allowed the thought “of some kind of struggle between the very principles of light and darkness and, consequently, conceived of them as real essences. Meanwhile, only the personal bearers of a given principle, not the principle itself, can possess reality in the metaphysical sense.” But such reasoning lacks substance. The idea of struggle between light and darkness is, so to speak, the fundamental idea of John’s worldview and runs decidedly through all his writings. Moreover, when John speaks of darkness’s effort to extinguish the light, he was certainly thinking of persons in whom light or darkness found their most powerful expression. Thus, accepting the old translation, we depict for ourselves a magnificent and terrible picture of the struggle of all dark forces against the divine enlightening action of the Logos—a struggle that lasted for thousands of years and ended for darkness in utter failure: the divine beacon continues to shine for all who sail on the dangerous sea of life and keeps their ship from dangerous rocks.

John 1:6. There was a man sent from God; his name was John. Until now John has spoken of the Logos in His condition before the incarnation. Now he needs to turn to depicting His activity in human flesh, or in other words, to his gospel narrative. He does this, beginning with the same thing with which Mark began his Gospel—namely, with a testimony about Christ from the prophet and forerunner John. “There was,” more precisely: “appeared” or “came forth” (ἐγένετο—see Mark 1:4), “a man sent from God.” The evangelist certainly has in mind here that God’s decision concerning the coming of John the Forerunner was already announced in the book of the prophet Malachi (Mal 3:1 according to the Hebrew Bible). The evangelist names this messenger of God, as if wishing to show that in John’s very name (from Hebrew—“God’s grace”) his great mission was foretold.

John 1:7. He came for testimony, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. The purpose of John’s appearing was to be a witness, namely to “testify about the Light,” that is, about the Logos or Christ (see verse 5), to persuade all to come to this Light as the true light of life. Through his testimony all—both Jews and Gentiles—were to believe in Christ as the Savior of the world (see John 20:31).

John 1:8. He was not the light, but came to testify about the Light. Since many regarded John as Christ (see verse 20), the evangelist with special emphasis says once more that John was not the “light,” that is, Christ or the Messiah, but came only to testify about the Light, or the Messiah.

John 1:9. There was the true Light, which enlightens every person coming into the world. “There was the true Light.” Most ancient commentators saw an indication of the Logos’s condition before the incarnation and translate the expression thus: “The true Light existed from eternity (ἦν).” Thus, they find here a contrast between the eternal being of the Logos and the temporal, transitory existence of the Forerunner. Many modern commentators, by contrast, see in the expression an indication that the Logos, the true Light, had already come to earth when the Forerunner began to testify about Him. They give this translation: “The true Light has already come” or, according to another rendering, “had already appeared from the state of hiddenness” (in which His life passed until age thirty). With this translation, the Greek verb ἦν is given the meaning not of an independent predicate but of a simple copula referring to the last expression of the verse ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Our commentators (including Znamensky) hold to the first opinion, finding the second combination of expressions “too artificial.” But it seems to us that with the second interpretation we avoid the break in thought that necessarily results from accepting the first translation. In fact, if we are to find here an indication of the Light’s existence before the incarnation, that would mean the evangelist unnecessarily returned to his discourse on the Logos, which he had already concluded when he began to speak of the Forerunner’s appearance (verse 6). With the second translation, the sequence of thought is entirely preserved: John came; he was sent to testify about the true Light; this true Light had already appeared in the world at that time, and therefore John desired to testify about Him. Furthermore, if in the expression ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον we see a modifier of the expression τὸν ἄνθρωπον, then this expression would be entirely superfluous, adding nothing to the concept of “person” (ὁ ἄνθρωπος). Finally, if some find it unnatural to separate the verb ἦν from the predicate ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, those who doubt can find other similar combinations in John’s Gospel (John 1:28). Among the Synoptics likewise, the expression ἐρχόμενος designates the Messiah, that is, the Logos in the state of incarnation (Matt 11:3; Luke 7:19). In what sense did the evangelist call Christ the “true Light”? The word ἀληθινός—“true”—can mean: real, authentic, sincere, faithful to itself, just; but here the most suitable meaning is a special sense of the adjective: fully realizing the idea underlying the being of a thing, fully corresponding to its name. We use this expression in the same way when we speak of true freedom, a true hero. When John speaks of God, saying He is Θεός ἀληθινός, he wishes to indicate that He is the only One to whom the name “God” is fitting (see John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). When, on the other hand, he uses the adjective ἀληθής of God, he indicates the truth of God’s promises, the faithfulness of God to His words (John 3:33). Thus, in calling Christ here the true Light (ἀληθινόν), John wishes to say that every other light—whether sensory light, light for our eyes, or spiritual light, which some of the best representatives of humanity, even those sent by God like John the Forerunner, sought to spread in the world—could in no way approach in dignity Christ, the only one who truly answered the idea we have of light.

John 1:10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. By identifying in his mind the Logos, who is here also called Light and life, with the man Jesus, John speaks here and henceforth of the light as of a person (“Him”—αὐτόν; “did not know”: αὐτόν—masculine). The Messiah was already in the world when John the Baptist began to testify about Him, and was there after when that divinely-sent witness had become silent forever, and it was natural to think that the world created by Him would recognize in Him its Creator. But this, to our surprise, did not happen: the world did not know Him and did not receive Him. The evangelist does not speak of the reason for this strange phenomenon.

John 1:11. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. Even more enigmatic was the attitude of the people—toward the Messiah, the incarnate Logos—of whom the Messiah could have said, “This is my people” (see Isa 51:4). The Jews, those very people nearest to the Messiah, did not receive Him (παρέλαβον indicates that they should have received Christ for permanent dwelling with themselves; see John 14:3).

John 1:12. And to those who did receive Him, those who believe in His name, He gave the power to become children of God, Yet there were found people from both Jews and Gentiles (the expression ὅσοι, in Russian “those who,” designates believers without regard to origin) who received Him for who He claimed to be. Those who received Christ, the evangelist calls believers in His “name,” that is, in His power as Son of God (see John 20:31). To those who received Him, Christ gave “power” (ἐξουσίαν), that is, not only the right but the ability, the strength to become children of God (the Russian translation here incorrectly uses the verb “to be”; the verb standing here γενέσθαι means precisely “to become”). Thus, Christians truly become children of God gradually, through intense struggle against the remnants of sinful inclinations. They can always be “called” children of God (1 John 3:1).

John 1:13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Here the evangelist defines more precisely what it means to be a child of God. To be a child of God means to be in incomparably closer communion with God than children are with their earthly parents. Spiritual birth from God gives people, of course, incomparably greater strength for life than ordinary parents pass on to their children, weak as they themselves are (this is indicated by the expressions “flesh” and “man”; see Isa 40:6; Job 4:17). We must here note the attempt to establish a new reading of this verse made by Zahn. Finding it incomprehensible that the evangelist here explains in such detail what it means to be born of God, Zahn supposes that in its original form the verse read thus: “Who (ὅς instead of οἵ) was not born of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God” (ἐγεννήθη instead of ἐγεννήθησαν). Thus, according to Zahn, we are speaking here of the seedless birth of Christ—a thought clearly expressed by Saints Matthew and Luke. Zahn also finds support for his reading in certain writings of the holy Fathers. He even claims that the reading he proposes was dominant in the West from the second to the fourth century. But however appealing such a text correction might seem, the consistent testimony of all ancient manuscripts of the New Testament deprives us of the ability to accept Zahn’s reading.

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. Here begins the third part of the prologue, in which the evangelist defines more precisely the coming of the Logos as incarnation and depicts the fullness of salvation brought by the incarnate Logos. “And the Word became flesh.” Continuing his discourse on the Logos and His appearance in the world, the evangelist says that the Logos became flesh, that is, a human being (the expression “flesh” usually in Holy Scripture denotes a person in the full sense of the word—with body and soul; see Gen 6:13; Isa 40:5 and others). However, the evangelist makes not the slightest allusion that with His incarnation the Word suffered any diminution in His divine nature. The diminution concerned only the “form” of existence, not the “essence.” The Logos remained God as He was, with all divine attributes, and the divine and human natures in Him remained unmingled and undivided. “And dwelt among us.” The Logos, who took on human flesh, “dwelt,” that is, lived and moved among the apostles, to whom the evangelist also counts himself. In saying that the Logos “dwelt” (ἐσκήνωσε) with the apostles, the evangelist means that in this way the promise of God to dwell with people was fulfilled (Ezek 37:27 and others). “And we beheld His glory.” More precisely: we contemplated, gazed with wonder and reverence (ἐθεασάμεθα) upon His glory, that is, the glory of the incarnate Logos. His glory was revealed, mainly in His miracles, for example in the Transfiguration, which only three apostles were allowed to see, among them John, and also in His teaching and even in His very humiliation. “Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,” that is, such glory as He must have had as the only Son of God, having an incomparably greater share than other children of God, who became such by grace. The expression “of the Father” (παρὰ πατρός) cannot refer to the word “only-begotten” (then the preposition παρ. would have been replaced by ἐκ). This expression defines “glory,” which the Logos possessed: this glory was received by Him from the Father. “Full of grace and truth.” These words should stand at the very end of the verse, as in the Greek and Slavic texts. In the Greek text, the word “full” (πλήρης) is not grammatically agreed with the nearest noun “glory,” nor yet with the pronoun “His.” Nevertheless, it is most natural to refer this expression to the pronoun “His,” and from a grammatical standpoint such agreement is not surprising, since among the Greeks (around the time of Christ) the word πλήρης was often used as indeclinable (Holtzmann, p. 45). Thus, the Logos is here called “full of grace,” that is, of divine love and mercy toward people, “and of truth,” which manifested itself in His teaching and life, in which there was nothing merely apparent, but everything was real, so that word always agreed with deed.

John 1:15. John testifies about Him and cries out, saying: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has become before me, because He was before me. “John testifies about Him...” The evangelist interrupts his memories of the manifestations of the glory of the incarnate Logos by introducing the testimony about Christ given by the Forerunner. It is very likely that among those for whom he intended his Gospel, there were many who greatly honored the Baptist, and for them his testimony about Christ had great significance. The evangelist seems even now to hear the loud voice of the Baptist (the verb κέκραγεν here has the meaning of present tense), because he, the evangelist wishes to say, was fully convinced of Christ’s divine greatness. “This was He...” With the word “This” the Baptist pointed out to his disciples the approaching Jesus Christ (see verse 29) and identified Him with the Person about whom he had previously spoken to them in the words which he now repeats here: “He who comes after me,” and so forth. “He who comes after me has become before me.” With these words the Baptist means that Christ was first walking behind him, and then, and even now, goes already ahead of him, having, so to speak, surpassed the Baptist. On what basis at this time the Baptist founded his representation of Jesus is not clear: it was not yet possible to speak of any success of Jesus (see John 3:26-36). But the Baptist considers such a surpassing of the Baptist by Jesus quite natural because He was before him. These last words clearly have the meaning of defining Christ’s eternity. The Baptist, without doubt, in a state of prophetic rapture announces to his disciples the great mystery of Christ’s pre-existence. Christ existed, that is, He existed earlier than the Baptist, although He was born after him. He existed, therefore, in another world (see John 8:58). This thought about Christ’s eternal being is expressed in the Greek text by the use of the positive degree πρῶτός μου instead of the comparative πρότερός μου, which would naturally be expected here.

John 1:16. And from His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace, “And from His fullness we have all received.” Here the evangelist again continues his discourse on Christ. Now, however, he refers not only to what the apostles alone beheld (see verse 14), but speaks of how all believers in Christ have received “from His fullness,” that is, from the extraordinary abundance of spiritual gifts which Christ, as One full of grace and truth, could bestow. What specifically the apostles and other believers received, the evangelist does not say, hurrying rather to point out the highest of the gifts—“grace” (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος). Some (for example, Professor Muretov) replace the expression “grace upon grace” with “grace for grace,” supposing that the evangelist means here that Christ answers our grace, that is, our love toward people, with grace or love on His side (Spiritual Reading, 1903, p. 670). But we cannot agree with such a translation, because the love of believers toward Christ can scarcely be placed on the same level with Christ’s love toward believers (see Rom 4:4). Besides, the word “grace” is not used in the New Testament to denote the relationship of believers to Christ. It is better to see here an indication of the replacement of one gift of grace with others, progressively higher (ἀντί here means “instead of”). Christ, when calling the disciples, promised them that they would see from Him greater things than what they had just seen (verse 50). Soon after this, this promise began to be fulfilled (John 2:11), and finally believers received from Christ the highest gift of grace—the Holy Spirit.

John 1:17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The thought about believers receiving grace from Christ is confirmed here by the evangelist with an indication that from Christ indeed grace and truth truly came forth and appeared. And how important these gifts are is evident from the fact that the greatest man of the Old Testament—Moses—gave people from God only the law. This law made demands on people but did not give them the strength to fulfill these demands, since it could not destroy in them the inherited inclination to sin. Moreover, Moses was only a servant, a passive instrument in the hands of Jehovah, as shown by the expression used of him: “the law was given through Moses,” whereas of the New Testament it is said that it came into being (ἐγένετο) through Christ as through His master (Blessed Theophylact).

John 1:18. No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known. Against such an exaltation of Christ above Moses, the Jews might have said, “But Moses was allowed to see God!” (see Num 12:8). To this supposed objection the evangelist remarks that no one of human beings, not even Moses, has actually seen God: people were sometimes allowed to see God’s glory under some veil, but no one beheld this glory in uncovered form (see Exod 33:20), and the evangelist considers this possible for believers only in the future life (1 John 3:2; see 1 Cor 13:12). Only the only-begotten Son, eternally—both before incarnation and after incarnation—dwelling in the bosom of the Father—He has seen and sees God in His majesty, and therefore at a certain time revealed Him to the world, that is, on the one hand, He revealed to people God as their loving Father and disclosed His relation to God, and on the other hand, He fulfilled in His activity the purposes of God concerning the salvation of people, and through this, of course, explained them further. It should be noted that in many very ancient manuscripts of the New Testament instead of the expression “the only-begotten Son,” there is the expression “the only-begotten God.” But the difference in readings does not change the essence of the matter: from one reading as from the other it is clearly evident that the evangelist wished to express the thought of Christ’s divinity. As for our reading, which is taken from the Alexandrian codex, it better answers the context of the discourse, and the word “Son” best harmonizes with the expression “only-begotten.” Where did John the Theologian derive his teaching about the Logos? It is most commonly accepted in the West to attribute the origin of John’s teaching about the Logos to the influence of Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy, in which there also existed the idea of the Logos as a mediator between the world and God. Modern scholars regard the Alexandrian Jew Philo (who died in 41 A.D.) as the chief exponent of such a conception. But we cannot agree with this supposition, because Philo’s Logos is entirely different from John’s Logos. According to Philo, the Logos is nothing other than the world-soul, the world-reason acting in matter, whereas in John the Logos is a person, the living historical figure of Christ. Philo calls the Logos a second God, the totality of divine powers, and the divine reason. One could even say that in Philo God Himself, in His ideal relation to the world, is the Logos, whereas in John the Logos is nowhere identified with God the Father and stands in an eternally personal relation to God the Father. Furthermore, according to Philo, the Logos is not the creator of the world from nothing, but only the world-former, God’s servant, while in John He is the Creator of the world, true God. According to Philo’s representation, the Logos is not eternal—he is a created being, whereas according to John’s teaching, He is eternal. The goal which the Logos has, according to Philo—the reconciliation of the world with God—cannot be achieved, for the world, because of its inevitable connection with matter, which is evil, cannot draw near to God. Therefore Philo could not even conceive that the Logos would take on human flesh, whereas the idea of the incarnation of God forms the very essence of John’s teaching about the Logos. Thus, one can speak only of external resemblance between John’s and Philo’s teaching about the Logos; the inner meaning of the apparently common theses is entirely different in the two. Even the form of the teaching differs in the two: in Philo it is scientific and dialectical, while in John it is concrete and simple. Other exegetes believe that in his teaching about the Logos John relies on the ancient Jewish teaching about “Memra”—a higher being in whom God reveals Himself and through whom He enters into communion with the Jewish people and with other people. This being is personal, almost the same as the Angel of Jehovah, but in any case, not God and not even the Messiah. From this it is clear that between John’s Logos and “Memra” there is not even external resemblance, which is why some exegetes turned directly to the Old Testament to find the source of John’s teaching about the Logos. Here they find what they consider a direct precedent for John’s teaching in passages where the person and activity of the Angel of Jehovah are depicted. This Angel indeed acts and speaks as God Himself (Gen 16:7; Gen 22:11-15) and is even called the Lord (Mal 3:1). But nonetheless the Angel of the Lord is nowhere called the creator of the world, and he remains only a mediator between God and the chosen people. Finally, some exegetes see a dependence of John’s teaching about the Logos on the teaching of certain Old Testament books about God’s creative Word (Ps 32:6) and about God’s Wisdom (Prov 3:19). But the fact militates against this supposition that in the passages cited by defenders of this view, the feature of the hypostatic character of God’s Word appears too little in view. This must be said even of the chief support of this opinion—the passage from the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 18:15-16). Given the unsatisfactoriness of any supposition about John borrowing his teaching about the Logos from any Jewish source, and even less from a pagan source, it is entirely proper to conclude that he acquired this teaching from direct revelation, which he received in his frequent conversations with Christ. He himself testifies that he received the truth from the fullness of the incarnate Logos. “Only the incarnate Logos Himself, through His life, deeds, and teaching, could give the apostles the key to understanding the mysteries of Old Testament Logoology. Only the idea of the Logos disclosed by Christ gave them the ability to correctly understand the Old Testament traces of the idea of the Logos” (Professor M. Muretov in “Orthodox Review,” 1882, vol. 2, p. 721). Moreover, the very name “Logos” could also have been received by John in direct revelation granted to him on the island of Patmos (Rev 19:11-13).

John 1:19. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you? “And this is the testimony of John.” In verses 6–8 and 15 the evangelist has already spoken of John’s testimony about Christ. Now he speaks of how he testified about Christ before the Jews (verses 19–28), before the people and disciples (verses 29–34), and finally only before two of his own disciples (verses 35–36). “The Jews.” This word here designates the Jewish people or properly the representation of the entire Jewish people—the great Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Indeed, only the president of the Sanhedrin—the high priest—could send priests and Levites to John as an official delegation that was to interrogate John. The Levites were attached to the priests as an accompanying guard; they performed police duties in the Sanhedrin (see John 7:32 and following; John 18:3 and others). Since the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and thus to the Jordan, where John baptized, was unsafe (Luke 10:30), it was not unnecessary for the priests to take guards with them. But besides this, the guard was taken in order to give the embassy a strictly official character. “Who are you?” This question presupposes that at that time there were rumors about John in which his importance was greatly exaggerated. As is evident from Luke’s Gospel, among the people a view was becoming established that John was the Messiah (Luke 3:15).

John 1:20. He confessed, and did not deny, and confessed, “I am not the Christ. John understood the question posed to him precisely in the sense that those asking would have nothing against it if he acknowledged himself as the Messiah. Therefore, with special force he denies the dignity of the Messiah: “He confessed, and did not deny,” reports the evangelist. But one can scarcely think that the priests would have recognized John as the true Messiah. It was certainly known to them that the Messiah must be born in the line of David, not of Aaron, from whom the Baptist descended. A more likely supposition is that of Chrysostom and other ancient commentators—that the priests, having elicited from John an admission that he was the Messiah, would have arrested him for claiming a dignity not belonging to him.

John 1:21. And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No. The Jews asked John this second question because they expected Elijah the prophet before the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:5). Since John, by his ardent zeal for God, resembled Elijah (see Matt 11:14), the Jews asked him if he was not Elijah who had come down from heaven. John was not this Elijah, although he was sent “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), which is why he gave a negative answer to the question of the priests and Levites. John likewise answered the third question of the Jewish delegation, whether he was a prophet. The Jews asked him this question because they expected that before the coming of the Messiah the prophet Jeremiah or some other of the great Old Testament prophets would appear (see Matt 16:14). It is clear that to such a question John could answer only in the negative.

John 1:22. Then they said to him, “Who are you? So that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself? John 1:23. He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said. When the delegation demanded a final answer from the Baptist about his identity, John answered them that he was that voice in the wilderness which, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 40:3), was to call people to prepare the way for the coming Lord. For an explanation of these words, see the comments on Matt 3:3.

John 1:24. And those who were sent were from the Pharisees; According to the usual interpretation, here the conversation continues between those sent from the Sanhedrin and the Baptist. But such an interpretation cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 1) It would be strange if the evangelist, having already given a description of the delegation, now only indicated that it consisted entirely of Pharisees; 2) It is incredible that the Sanhedrin, in which the high priests belonging to the Sadducean party (concerning the Jewish parties, see comments on Matt 3:7 and following) occupied a leading position (Acts 5:17), would entrust the investigation of John’s case to the Pharisees, who differed from the Sadducees in their views on the Messiah; 3) It is unlikely that among the priests and Levites there were many Pharisees, who almost always grouped themselves only around the rabbis; 4) Whereas the last question of the delegation from the Sanhedrin evidences complete indifference to John’s case (see verse 22), these Pharisees are greatly interested in the baptism which John was performing; 5) According to the best manuscripts, the word ἀπεσταλμένοι stands without the article ὁ, for which reason this passage cannot be translated as in Russian: “and those sent were from the Pharisees,” but should be translated thus: “and some Pharisees were sent,” or: “and some from the Pharisees were sent.” Thus here the evangelist is reporting a private inquiry made of the Baptist by Pharisees, who also came by commission of their party from Jerusalem. This inquiry came when the official delegation had just departed, but the evangelist did not think it necessary to mention this, just as he does not mention, for example, Nicodemus’s departure from Christ (John 3:21).

John 1:25. And they asked him, “Then why do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? The Pharisees wish to know the significance of John’s baptism. He is clearly inviting all through this baptism to something new—what then is this new thing? Is the Baptist’s activity related in some way to the Kingdom of the Messiah, whom all then expected? Such is the meaning of the Pharisees’ question.

John 1:26. John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water; but there stands among you One whom you do not know. John answers the Pharisees that his baptism does not have the significance that baptism was supposed to have—which, in the Pharisees’ understanding, would be administered by the Messiah or one of the prophets. He, John, baptizes only with water, clearly contrasting in his mind his baptism with that baptism with the Holy Spirit that the Messiah would administer (Matt 3:11). No, John is saying, as it were, you should not direct all your attention to me, but to Him who is already among you unknown to you—that is, of course, the Messiah, whom you await.

John 1:27. This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has become before me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal. (See verse 15). “To untie the strap”—see Matt 3:11.

John 1:28. This happened in Bethavara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Instead of the name “Bethavara” (the place of crossing) in the majority of ancient manuscripts stands the name “Bethany.” By this Bethany should be understood a place on the other, that is, the eastern side of the Jordan (in the Russian text, incorrectly “beside the Jordan”). Zahn identifies it with Vethanim, mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Josh 13:26). This place is about ten kilometers from the Jordan. It was probably here that the Baptist had his residence when a good number of disciples had gathered around him, who could not remain all the time in the desert without shelter in the heat and cold. From here the Baptist could go daily to the Jordan and preach there.

John 1:29. The next day John sees Jesus coming toward him, and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! The next morning after his conversation with the delegation from the Sanhedrin and with the Pharisees, John, probably at the same place by the river Jordan, seeing Jesus approaching him, testified openly before all those surrounding him of Him as the Lamb bearing away the sin of the world. Why Jesus came to John at this time is unknown. The Baptist called Christ the Lamb (ὁ ἀμνός) of God in the sense that God Himself had chosen Him and prepared Him to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of people, just as the Hebrews when leaving Egypt prepared lambs, whose blood was to save their houses from the terrible judgment of God (Exod 12:7). God had long before chosen This Lamb (Rev 13:8; 1 Pet 1:20), and now was giving Him to people—to all people without exception. One can scarcely see in the Baptist’s words a reference to the Sufferer depicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 53), as some ancient and modern exegetes suppose. In that same chapter of Isaiah the Messiah is not directly called a Lamb, but only compared with one, and is presented as bearing not our sins but our diseases and sorrows. “Who takes away the sin of the world”—more precisely: who bears away the sin of the world with Himself. The Baptist does not indicate a time when This Lamb will have borne away the sins of the world. The present tense of the verb αἴρω means, as it were, an action not limited to a particular time: Christ “each day takes upon Himself our sins, some through baptism, others through repentance” (Blessed Theophylact).

John 1:30. This is He of whom I said, ‘A man comes after me who has become before me, because He was before me. Repeating his testimony of Christ’s superiority over himself, the Baptist, John calls Christ a “man,” probably with the meaning that He is the true Bridegroom of the Church, whereas John is only the friend of the bridegroom (see John 3:29).

John 1:31. I did not know Him; but for this purpose I came baptizing with water—that He might be revealed to Israel. John 1:32. John testified, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it remained on Him. John 1:33. And I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ John 1:34. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. Those listening to the Baptist could have asked themselves: Why does he speak with such confidence about the Christ who has appeared? How does he know the task that lies upon Christ? John, understanding how natural such bewilderment would be, says that he too previously did not know Christ, that is, was not informed about His high destiny, but God sent him to perform baptism so that he would reveal, point out to the people the Messiah, first having himself come to know Him. And the Baptist came to know the Messiah by a special sign pointed out to him in a revelation from God. This sign is the descent and remaining of the Spirit above the head of the Messiah, which was to come down from heaven in the form of a dove. John saw such a sign above the head of Christ and understood that He is indeed the Messiah. Thus from the Baptist’s words it is evident with clarity that John at first did not know that Christ is the Messiah whom all then expected. It is very likely that he did not know Christ at all, since he spent his whole life in the Judean desert far from Nazareth, where Christ dwelt up to that time. Only after the revelation given to him, and especially after Christ’s baptism, did John begin to testify to Christ as the Son of God (according to some manuscripts, as God’s “elect,” but Tischendorf and other critics reject this reading). That the Baptist, speaking of Christ as the Son of God, here meant the unity of Christ as Son with God the Father in essence, not only in grace that rested upon Him, is evident from the fact that the Baptist repeatedly acknowledged Christ’s eternal being (see verses 15, 27, 30). For an explanation of the expressions “the Spirit as a dove” and “baptizes with the Holy Spirit,” see the comments on Matt 3:11.

John 1:35. Again the next day John stood with two of his disciples. John 1:36. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God! John 1:37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Here is contained the Baptist’s third testimony about Christ, which was given the next day after the Baptist had testified about Christ before the people and his own disciples. Before two of his own disciples, who were with John this time, the Baptist briefly repeats what he had said the day before about Christ when Christ was passing by the place where John was standing. John “fixed his gaze” on Jesus (ἐμβλέψας, inaccurately translated in Russian as “saw”), who was at some distance away, walking as if examining the area (περιπατοῦντι, inaccurately in Russian as “walking”). The two disciples who heard John’s testimony at this time were: Andrew (see verse 40) and, of course, John the Theologian, who usually does not mention himself by name out of humility (see John 13:23 and others). The repetition of the testimony about Christ made such an impression on them that they went after Christ.

John 1:38. Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is translated, Teacher), “where do You dwell? John 1:39. He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where He dwelt, and they stayed with Him that day. Now it was about the tenth hour. John 1:40. One of the two who heard John speak about Jesus, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Both disciples walked silently after Jesus, not daring to begin a conversation with Him themselves. Then He, turning to them, begins to speak with the question: “What do you seek?” The disciples, desiring to speak with Christ about everything that especially interested them, ask Him where He dwelt (μένειν means not “to live in one’s own house,” but “to stay as a guest in another’s house,” particularly “to stay overnight”; see Judg 19:9; Matt 10:11). It may be supposed that such a dwelling place for Christ at that time was some village on the western side of the Jordan, where there were generally more settlements than on the eastern shore. It was about the tenth hour when the two disciples came to the house where Jesus dwelt. Since John, doubtless, reckoned according to Hebrew time-keeping, which at that time was common for the entire East (see John 19:14), the tenth hour apparently equaled our fourth hour in the afternoon. The disciples, consequently, stayed with Christ through the rest of that day and all night. At any rate, the evangelist tells us nothing about them departing when night came (John Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Cyril, as well as Augustine). Since Andrew is the first disciple named by name, the Church has from ancient times given him the title “the First-Called.”

John 1:41. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ); John 1:42. and brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas” (which means: a stone, that is, Peter). Upon leaving the house where Jesus dwelt, Andrew first happened to meet his brother Simon, who was apparently going to the Jordan to listen to the Baptist. Andrew joyfully tells his brother that the Messiah, whom the Jews had long been expecting, has appeared. The fact that Andrew found his brother “first” leads us to suppose that the other disciple found his brother James somewhat later. When Andrew brought his brother to Jesus, Christ fixed a searching gaze on Peter (here the same verb again appears as in verse 36) and told him that He knew who he was (instead of “Jonah,” almost all Western manuscripts read “John”; see, for example, Tischendorf). At the same time, Christ predicts to Peter that he will, in the course of time—the exact time is not specified—“be called,” that is, according to Hebrew usage of the verb “to be called,” become a man of the utmost firmness and energy (see Gen 32:28). Such is, indeed, the meaning of the Greek word πέτρος, which renders the Aramaic name “Cephas” (more precisely, “Kepha,” corresponding to the Hebrew word “kef”—rock, stone) given by Christ to Peter, and such Peter indeed became among believers. Christ, therefore, did not change Simon’s name in this case and did not command him to change it later: He merely predicted great things for Simon’s future. Therefore, Simon, out of reverence for the Lord accepting the new name Peter, did not abandon the old one, being called Simon Peter to the end of his life (2 Pet 1:1).

John 1:43. The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me. From here to the end of the chapter the account concerns the calling of Philip and Nathanael. Christ calls Philip to follow Him with only two words ἀκολούθει μοι (Follow Me, that is, be My disciple; see Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14). However, it must be remembered that Philip’s calling, like that of the other disciples at this time, was not yet a calling to constant following of Christ, and certainly not a calling to apostolic service. After this first calling, the disciples went home and sometimes busied themselves with their own affairs (see Matt 4:18). It took some time for the disciples of Christ to become capable of becoming His constant companions and taking upon themselves the difficult burden of apostolic service.

John 1:44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. By mentioning that Philip came from Bethsaida, the same city from which Andrew and Peter came, the evangelist certainly means to say that Andrew and his brother had told their fellow-countryman Philip about Christ, which is why Philip showed no surprise when Christ called him to follow Him. Bethsaida, the birthplace of Andrew and Peter (though they lived not in Bethsaida but in Capernaum; see Mark 1:29 and following), was a city on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Gennesaret, built up by the tetrarch Philip and named by him in honor of the daughter of Augustus, Julia. Near this city, closer to the sea, was a village, also called Bethsaida (“house of fishing”; on Bethsaida see also the comment on Mark 6:45), and Philip came properly from the village, which the evangelist identifies with the city as its suburb.

John 1:45. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Nathanael (God-given) had another name—Bartholomew (see Matt 10:3). “Moses in the law and the prophets” (see Luke 24:27). “The son of Joseph.” This is how Philip calls Christ, because Philip had not yet learned the mystery of Christ’s origin.

John 1:46. And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see. Nazareth (see Matt 2:23) evidently enjoyed a bad reputation among Galileans, if Nathanael speaks so harshly of it. That is why it seems incredible to Nathanael that the Messiah should come from such a city with such an unfavorable reputation.

John 1:47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit! When Nathanael came to Christ at Philip’s invitation, Christ said to His disciples concerning him that Nathanael is a true Israelite, without any guile. There are Israelites who, unworthily, bear upon themselves the sacred name of Israel, who are full of all kinds of vices in their soul (see Matt 23:25), but Nathanael is not like that.

John 1:48. Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Nathanael, hearing the good testimony Christ made about him, asks in wonder: How does He know me, know my character? In response, Christ points to His supernatural knowledge, reminding Nathanael of some incident in his life that only Nathanael knew about. But this incident appears to have been such that in it the true Israeli dignity of Nathanael was expressed.

John 1:49. Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel! All of Nathanael’s doubts then disappeared, and he expressed his firm faith in Christ as the Son of God and King of Israel. Some exegetes, however, interpret the title “Son of God” as used by Nathanael to mean only the Messianic dignity of Christ—nothing more—considering it a synonym for the following title “King of Israel.” It is possible that something favors such an interpretation: the fact that Nathanael did not yet know about Christ’s origin from God, and later (see, for example, Christ’s farewell discourse with the disciples) did not display sufficient assurance of Christ’s divinity. But there can be no doubt that here Nathanael used the title “Son of God” in its proper sense. If he had meant the Messiah by Son of God, he would have placed first the more common title of the Messiah—“King of Israel.” Moreover, he calls Christ Son of God in a special, exclusive sense, as testified by the article ὁ placed before the word υἱός. It has now become fully clear to him what the Baptist had said before about Christ (verse 34). Finally, that Christ is a Being of a higher, divine nature, Nathanael could be convinced of by recalling the words of Psalm 2, where God is depicted as “this day” eternally begetting the Son, by which the Son differs from all people (Ps 2:7).

John 1:50. Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these. For such readiness to believe, Christ promises Nathanael, and of course with him the other disciples, to show even greater miracles. At the same time, Christ clearly admits Nathanael into the number of His followers.

John 1:51. And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. The picture of the future which Christ here draws undoubtedly has relation to the picture of Jacob’s dream (Gen 28:12). As there, so here the angels first appear “ascending” and then “descending.” There is no doubt that Christ and the evangelist himself, in bringing these words of Christ about the angels, believed that the angels are indeed the executors of God’s commands concerning people (see Ps 102:20 and following; Heb 1:7). But what time did Christ have in mind when He predicted that His disciples would see the open heaven and ascending and descending angels? We do not see from the rest of John’s narrative that Christ’s disciples ever saw angels. And Christ says that they will “hereafter” (ἀπ´ ἄρτι should, by the context, be considered the authentic expression, although many manuscripts lack it) see these angels. Clearly, this ascending and descending of angels must be understood in a figurative sense, and the very seeing of angels by the disciples was to occur in the spirit. The Lord was pleased with these wonderful words to express that henceforth He will be the center of free communion and continuous union between God and man, that in Him will be the place of meeting and reconciliation between heaven and earth. Between heaven and earth there will be established henceforth continuous links through these blessed spirits called angels (Trench). In Zahn’s view, “Son of Man” is how Christ refers to Himself in the same sense that He uses this term in the discourses contained in the Synoptic Gospels, and there, according to the same scholar, it denotes the true humanity of Christ, showing in Him the most ideal of men (see Matt 8:20 and especially Matt 16:13). But one cannot agree with such an interpretation. The Lord here, in verse 51, clearly identifies Himself (the Son of Man) with Jehovah, who appeared to Jacob in a dream, sitting at the top of the ladder by which Angels ascended to Him. That He had ground for this is evident from Genesis 31, where it is said that in Bethel there appeared to Jacob not God, but an Angel of God (Gen 31:11-13). The Angel of God and Jehovah ought to be understood as the Only-Begotten Son of God, who appeared to the patriarchs of the Old Testament. Thus, Christ predicts here that Angels, just as they served Him in the Old Testament (Jacob’s vision), so now in the New Testament will serve Him, as the Messiah or, what is the same, the Son of Man (cf. Dan 7:13-14), of course, in the work of establishing His messianic Kingdom among people. “Do you see,” says the holy John Chrysostom, “how Christ little by little lifts Nathanael from the earth and persuades him not to regard Him as a mere man?... By such words the Lord was persuading him to acknowledge Him as the Lord of Angels. As to the true Son of a King, Angels ascended to and descended from Christ, as: at the time of His sufferings, at the time of His resurrection and ascension, and even before that they came and served Him—when they proclaimed the tidings of His birth, when they cried out: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace,’ when they came to Mary, to Joseph.” Thus, the term “Son of Man” in John denotes not a mere man, but the Messiah, the incarnate Only-Begotten Son of God, reconciling heaven with earth. (The significance of this term in John will be discussed further in the explanation of the following chapters, see John 3:13 and others.) * * * Notes Count L. N. Tolstoy in his work “The Harmony, Translation and Study of the Four Gospels” (St. Petersburg, 1906) finds it most natural to convey the meaning of the expression “Logos” by the Russian expression “understanding,” to which, on the basis of 1 John 1:1, he adds further the phrase “of life” (vol. I, p. 15–20). But all that Tolstoy says in support of his translation presents all the content of the prologue in a completely distorted light, and one might say, here with Tolstoy there emerges a kind of orgy of allegorizing, reminiscent of those highly arbitrary interpretations of Holy Scripture that are encountered among the old Hebrew rabbis... Cf. 1 John 1:1. There the expression ἀπ´ ἀρχῆς is used, having the same sense as the expression ἐν ἀρχῇ. But the latter more emphasizes the difference of the Logos from created beings not only in time but also in the character of existence... To compare (as Godet does) the expression ἐν ἀρχῇ in John with the expression ἐν ἀρχῇ in Moses (Gen 1:1) is impossible, because in Moses there is an indication of the initial moment of created existence... In some codices the words of verse 3 “what came into being” (ὃ γέγονεν) are referred to verse 4. But we cannot agree with such a reading, since it does not produce a sufficiently clear thought from verse 4... Indeed, if we read verse 4 as: “what came into being, in Him was life,” that is, in Him had the source of its life, such a thought will prove incompatible with the following expression: and life was the light of men, for here the discourse is about created life, which could not be called “light for people” (Keil, p. 75 note). Godet translates: darkness did not receive the light that came from the Logos. Holtzmann (p. 37) finds it possible to compare the teaching about the Logos of John the Theologian with the teaching of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. One can also translate: “annihilates, suppresses,” as in 1 Sam 25:28 according to the Septuagint translation (Fcine Theologie d. N. Testam. 1910, p. 683).