John 1:35-51
Again the next day after, John stood and two of his disciples and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”
And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What seek you?”
They said to him, “Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwell you?”
He said to them, “Come and see.”
They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day for it was about the tenth hour. [4:00 PM]
One of the two, which heard John speak, and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah?” (which is, being interpreted, the Christ.)
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, “You are Simon the son of Jona [John], you shall be called Cephas,” which is by interpretation, a stone.
Whoa! That’s interesting? What do you think of that?
Jesus gave Simon the name Peter upon first meeting, well in advance of Peter’s famous declaration in Matthew 16:16.
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matthew 16:13-18 ESV]
So, this is not where Simon got the name Peter. He already had it. This makes perfect sense because Simon is referred to from this his first meeting with Jesus and there on as Peter or Simon Peter. I think at the moment of Peter’s declaration, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”, Jesus was not giving him the name “stone”, but emphasizing that it was his statement about Jesus, the Large Rock (petra), on which the church would be build, not on Peter, the lesser stone (petros). Simon, thou are a stone, and upon this Rock, meaning himself, the church will be built. See, he is not building the church upon Peter, but upon Peter’s recognition and declaration that Jesus is the Christ.
The other disciple of John the Baptist who followed Jesus that day along with Andrew was who?
He was John, brother of James, the sons of Zebedee and Salome.
Salome? Wasn’t Salome some kind of strip tease dancer?
Actually, Salome and the Dance of the Seven Veils are never even mentioned in the Bible. So, let’s not confuse John’s mother with the daughter of Herodias, who demanded the head of The Baptist.
The Dance of the Seven Veils was an invention of Oscar Wilde in his play, Salome (1902). Josephus does mention a Salome as the stepdaughter of Herod Antipas in his Jewish Antiquities.
This Salome, who was John’s mother, was one of the women who purchased spices and went to Jesus’ tomb on Resurrection Sunday. (See Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56). She has also been identified as the Virgin Mary’s cousin.
There is no mention at this point of James being there where John was baptizing. Actually, there is no mention of John either, but John was a humble and modest young man and nowhere in his Gospel does he call himself out by name. He doesn’t name his family members either, so maybe James was there and John was modestly keeping it secret, although I doubt James present was kept that secret. Personally, I just don’t think James was along on this trip. I think John would have said something like, “Andrew went to get his brother Simon and I got my brother as well.”
It is important to note the author (John the Apostle) begins this passage with, “the next day”. Yeah, we’re back to that next day. Do you recall what that next day referred to?
This is the day after John the Baptist was asked by the Pharisees why he baptized.
John the Baptist is now standing with two of his disciples. These two men are Andrew and John. They are Galileans, but this fact does not mean this is taking place in Galilee. The whole subtext tells us these men are seekers and they are seeking the Messiah. They have become followers of John the Baptist, whether they, like the Pharisees wondered if John the Baptist was the Christ or they thought he would help them find The Christ we don’t know.
Just to note, Andrew was from Bethsaida and later he and Peter shared a home in Capernaum. Both Bethsaida and Capernaum were located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. John and James also hailed from either Bethsaida or Capernaum as well. Philip was also from Bethsaida. Nathanial was from Cana. Cana was just over 5.5 miles from Bethsaida, also in Galilee.
At any rate, Jesus suddenly comes walking by the spot where Andrew and John stood with the Baptist. Perhaps Jesus recently returned from the temptations in the wilderness, perhaps it is some time after that event. We are not told. It is obvious it wasn’t before his days in the wilderness. Some period of time probably has passed since he had found a place to dwell. We know Jesus came and was baptized, then immediately went into the wilderness for 40 days thus we know more than a month has passed since Jesus was baptized when these first Apostles-to-be questioned Him. Since Jesus answers their question by taking them to where he is staying, we can probably assume he has been back from the wilderness at least a couple days, long enough to get some form of lodging. Whether his lodging is in a home or a cave or something else is not described.
The two men go with Him and spend the day. Now here is another place that can be confusing, because it says the first thing Andrew did was find his brother, Simon, and bring him to Jesus. I do not think it means Andrew ran to get Simon immediately after asking Jesus where he lived. It appeared Andrew and John had a discussion with Jesus and then Andrew, feeling strongly they had found the Messiah, went to find Simon. The phrase “He first found his own brother Simon”, could imply he did go pretty early on to get Peter or it could imply while Andrew went to get his brother, John also went to find his own. I leave that to other’s interpretation. It is also a bit unclear whether they went with Jesus to his dwelling or left him after the tenth hour, which would have been 4:00 in the afternoon.
Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael
The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. (NIV)
What day is this; that is, how many days have passed in our narrative?
Again a passage begins with “the next day.” Here is the count. Day one, John the Baptist answers the questions of the Pharisees. Day two, John see Jesus. Day three, Jesus comes by and is joined by Andrew and John, then Simon Peter. So this next day is the fourth and the day after he has met with the three men. This is when Jesus decides to go back to Galilee.
In the King James Version, the translation reads, “The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and found Philip…” Some critics argue Jesus could not have traveled the distance as it is reported in scripture in the time frame given, which they claim was two days. This is a misinterpretation of what it says. The word “thelo” translated “would” in the KJV means “intend, to be determined or resolved, to desire, to like to do a thing”. The NIV is closer to how this should be read, “The next day, Jesus decided to leave…” There is really no further timetable given. It doesn’t say they only took 2 days or 3 days. Could men in the prime of life used to walking everywhere walk 106 miles in three days? (Remember they would go via Perea on the East of Israel to Capernaum, then across Galilee to Cana. Jews were wont to take this route to avoid Samaria.) To do it at a normal clip for such men would take nine hours a day, but perhaps they actually took four or five days. It is more likely that Jesus then found Philip and Nathanael before setting out on the journey, than his finding them in Galilee. They then traveled the distance to Galilee over the next three days arriving in Cana in time for a wedding.
The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and found Philip, and said to him, “Follow me.”
Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
And Nathanael said to him, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”
Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and said of him, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”
Nathanael said to him, “Whence knows you me?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
Nathanael answered and said to him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, believe you? You shall see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Verily, verily, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
We are told, “finding Philip”, but little more. We do not know if Jesus had prior contact with Phillip, if one of the others had suggested Philip to Him, or if he had come across Philip on the way to Galilee. Philip is from the same town, Bethsaida, as James, John, Andrew and Simon Peter. It seems quite probable these men had come together to John the Baptist or at least knew each other. It is also possible, of course, that Jesus found Philip upon arriving in Galilee and that was where Philip went to Nathanael who lived in Cana where they were headed. I am still inclined to think Philip and Nathanael had been where John the Baptist was operating. At any rate, Jesus tells Philip to follow.
Philip follows, but also goes and finds Nathanael Bartholomew (Nathanael son of Tholmai). Philip says something similar to what Andrew said to Simon Peter when he said “we found the Messiah.” Philip says, “We found the one Moses wrote about in the law”. This refers us back to our discussion of The Prophet in the Pharisees’ questioning of John the Baptist.
The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die." Deuteronomy 18:14-16 (NIV)
[Keep in mind that the Jewish expectations of the Messiah were different from what we know as Christians today. I think it is important we remember the Apostles were not expecting a suffering Savior Messiah, who would die and be resurrected and then promise to return to fulfill God’s promises. They expected a Warrior-King Messiah who would defeat Rome.]
Nathanael was from Cana, but it is implied from Philip’s statement that he was part of this group and they were seeking the Messiah together.
Nathanael is a bit incredulous when he hears this Messiah is supposedly from Nazareth. Nazareth did not have a highly regarded reputation. We find throughout the Gospels that Nazareth was not accepting of Jesus and it is thought to have been a place of meanness. Another aspect of Nathanael’s question is the Jews expected the Messiah to come from Bethlehem, David’s city, not from Nazareth. Of course, Jesus did come originally from Bethlehem.
So Philip doesn’t just say take my word for it, he says come and see for yourself.
Jesus greets Nathanael, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” (John 1:47 KJV).
Nathanael was probably a little suspicious since he asked, “How do you know me?”
When Jesus says he saw him under the fig tree before Philip called him, Nathanael declares Jesus is the Messiah. Nathanael must have realized two things. One, Jesus knew his character, although they had never met, for he recognized Nathaniel had no guile; that is, was an honest man. Two, Jesus must not have been where he could have physically seen Philip approach Nathanael under a fig tree or overhear their conversation, otherwise there is nothing to make Nathanael jump to his conclusion. This reminds me of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well (reference John 4). Here was a person he had never met before, but he knew how many husbands she had had and what kind of person she was. It is also like in Luke 19, when the little tax collector climbed the tree and was called down by Jesus. Jesus knew the man was named Zacchaeus though they had never met before. It is the same here.
Next post: Jesus at the Wedding Feast in Cana
No comments:
Post a Comment