The Relationship of John 1:19-51 to the Book of Signs in John 2-12

By Stephen S. Kim

[Stephen S. Kim is Associate Professor of Bible, Multnomah Biblical Seminary, Portland, Oregon.]

The first chapter of the Fourth Gospel has significant literary and theological roles within the book. It prepares the reader for the rest of the book by introducing key concepts and themes that are developed later in the book. The first chapter provides a foretaste of the kind of revelations to come in the Gospel narrative concerning its main character, Jesus Christ. Since they are sandwiched between the Prologue (1:1–18) and the rest of the Gospel narrative, the significance of the remaining verses in the chapter (vv. 19–51), commonly known as the “Testimonium,” is often overlooked.

However, these verses are an important “piece of the puzzle” to the understanding of this Gospel. This passage includes proclamations by John the Baptist and the disciples about Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah and as the divine Son of God, the main subject in the remainder of the book (cf. 20:30–31).[1]

Although the Johannine Testimonium is often placed within the Book of Signs as part of the first major literary unit,[2] it seems more fitting both literarily and theologically to place the Testimonium with the Prologue as an introduction to the Book of Signs, or to the whole Gospel.[3] Smalley is correct in seeing the entire first chapter as an introduction to the Gospel.[4] As Beasley-Murray says, “The prologue of the Gospel ends not with v 18 but with the Christological utterance of v 51. . . . Certainly 1:19–51 is closely linked with the prologue through its expansion of the theme of John’s witness to Jesus (cf. 6–8, 15) and its Christological declarations.”[5] Culpepper even characterizes the Testimonium as “a second, narrative introduction” to the Fourth Gospel.[6] “Just as the Gospel seems to have two conclusions (at the end of John 20 and at the end of John 21), so it has two beginnings.”[7] In short, the Prologue (1:1–18) and the Testimonium (vv. 19–51) seem to form a literary unit, in that they prepare the reader for the sign miracles and their attendant contexts. This opening chapter lays the groundwork for their revelations concerning Jesus Christ.

The Structure of the Testimonium

The Testimonium begins the prose narrative of the Fourth Gospel by means of a “poetic narrative,”[8] which includes the testimonies by John the Baptist and Jesus’ first disciples. However, this invaluable section of the Gospel has been analyzed variously depending on different thematic outlooks. Culpepper outlines this section in two parts: the trial motif of John the Baptist (vv. 19–28), and the fulfillment of messianic expectations (vv. 29–51).[9] Borchert’s outline, similar to Culpepper’s, includes the Baptizer’s model (vv. 19–28), and the three cameos of witness (vv. 29–51). According to Borchert, three subsections in the second section (vv. 29–34, 35–42, 43–51) are like “three beautiful cameos that reveal a series of fascinating confessional identifications of Jesus.”[10] Beasley-Murray’s outline, on the other hand, takes a slightly different approach. His outline is determined by the “witness” theme of John the Baptist already announced in verses 6–8 and 15.[11] Beasley-Murray divides the section this way: (a) the witness of John to Jewish leaders (vv. 19–28), first negatively (vv. 19–24) and then positively (vv. 25–28); (b) the witness of John to people who came to hear him (vv. 29–34); and (c) the witness of John to certain disciples, resulting in their following Jesus and the call of others through their witness, thereby providing a series of testimonies about Jesus (vv. 35–50); and (d) a concluding statement, addressed in the plural to the disciples (v. 51).[12]

Although the various ways of outlining this section of the Gospel are helpful, the simplest and most effective means of structuring these verses may be to follow the temporal indicators. The passage is marked by a series of days, each introduced by the phrase “the next day” (vv. 29, 35, 43). Thus, as Moloney concludes, “John 1:19–51 tells a story about a succession of events that took place over a period of four days.”[13] Moloney outlines the passage by days: day one (vv. 19–28), day two (vv. 29–34), day three (vv. 35–42), day four (vv. 43–51).[14]

Significant Titles in the Testimonium

Seven Christological/messianic titles are highlighted in the Testimonium, all of which contribute, as noted earlier, to portraying Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.

Day One (vv. 19-28)

Literarily these verses connect the Testimonium with the Prologue by authenticating the claims made in the Prologue about the role of John the Baptist.[15] What the Evangelist said in the Prologue about John the Baptist (vv. 6–8, 15), the Baptist himself reiterated in these verses, namely, that he was merely a witness to the eternal Logos. Theologically John’s threefold negative witness to the Jewish religious leaders (“I am not,” vv. 20–21, 27) contrasts with the following verses that highlight Christological titles (vv. 29–51). John the Baptist clearly denied any messianic claims for himself (οὐκ εἰμι). His words stand in contrast to the One who alone claimed, “I am he” (ἐγὼ εἰμι, 18:5)[16] Furthermore the Baptist’s denial of any messianic titles builds an anticipation for the One whom the sign miracles and the discourses reveal as the promised Messiah.

Day Two (vv. 29-34)

Whereas the preceding passage consists of John the Baptist’s negative witness concerning himself, this passage includes affirmative testimonies about Jesus’ messianic identity. Two significant titles are heralded by the Baptist in these verses: the Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36), and the chosen One of God (v. 34).

The Lamb of God (1:29, 36). Although numerous proposals have been made about the Old Testament background or antecedent of this messianic term,[17] three suggestions are commonly discussed by Johannine scholars: the Lamb as the apocalyptic lamb, the Lamb as the Suffering Servant, and the Lamb as the pascal lamb.[18]

The first of these suggestions views Jesus as an eschatological figure, like the Lamb in many passages of the Book of Revelation, who, as the victorious Leader of His people, will put away sin from among them and overcome the powers of evil.[19] Dodd explains this view in this way: “That the evangelist understood ‘The Lamb of God’ to be a synonym for ‘The Messiah’ appears from the context. The Baptist says, ‘Behold the Lamb of God.’ Andrew hears him, and says to his brother Simon Peter, ‘We have found the Messiah.’ Moreover the idea of the Messiah as ‘King of Israel,’ which is suggested by the horned lamb or young wether as leader of the flock, is, as we have seen, one that John accepts, and interprets in his own way. . . . To make an end of sin is a function of the Jewish Messiah, quite apart from any thought of a redemptive death.”[20]

However, some objections may be raised against this view. The first objection, raised by Dodd himself, is that the word used to describe the Lamb of God in the Fourth Gospel (ἀμνός) differs from the word used of Him in the Apocalypse (ἀρνίον). A second objection to this view is based on John’s words that Jesus takes away the world’s sin (v. 29).[21] This indicates that His mission is primarily redemptive and does not refer to the conquering and victorious Lamb of the eschaton. As Harris points out, the redemptive mission of the Lamb accords well with other statements in the Fourth Gospel, namely, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (3:17); and “We have heard for ourselves and know that this One indeed is the Savior of the world” (4:42).[22]

The second suggestion for the possible antecedent of the lamb imagery is derived from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah, where the Messiah is likened to a lamb “who was led to the slaughter” on behalf of His people.[23] Two factors seem to support this view.24 First, based on the Evangelist’s ample references to the Book of Isaiah throughout his Gospel, it seems reasonable to assume that his reference to the Lamb of God pointed to Isaiah’s prophecies about the Suffering Servant. For instance John the Baptist quoted from Isaiah 40:3 in the immediately preceding passage on his mission (John 1:23). And by quoting Isaiah 53:1 in John 12:38 the Evangelist pointed to Jesus as the Suffering Servant. Second, other verses in the New Testament (Acts 8:32; cf. Matt. 8:17) refer to Jesus as the Isaianic Suffering Servant.

The third suggestion for the possible antecedent of the lamb imagery is the Passover lamb.[25] This view was favored by many of the Western Fathers while the Eastern Fathers favored the Suffering Servant imagery in referring to the Lamb of God.[26] Two factors seem to commend this view.[27] First, the symbolism of the Passover lamb is highlighted throughout the Fourth Gospel, climaxing in the death of Christ.[28] John 19:14 clearly indicates that Jesus was condemned to die at noon on the day before the Passover, at the very time the priests began to slay the paschal lambs in the temple.[29]

Second, the imagery of Christ as the Passover lamb is also used elsewhere in the New Testament. For instance Paul referred to Jesus as “Christ, our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7), and Peter alluded to the Passover when he spoke of Christ as a lamb (1 Pet. 1:18–19).

Another frequently mentioned passage that may serve as an antecedent to the Lamb of God imagery in referring to Jesus is Genesis 22. When Isaac asked his father where the lamb was for the burnt offering, Abraham answered, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (v. 8). Köstenberger notes, “This is especially suggestive since John 3:16 probably alludes to this scene, highlighting one important difference: what Abraham was spared from doing at the last minute, God actually did—he gave his unique son.”[30] Paul also wrote in a similar way of God the Father’s sacrifice of His Son. “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32).

Each of these views has strengths and weaknesses, though some seem more probable than others. The most likely view is that the Baptist’s reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God may be a combination of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, the Passover lamb in Exodus 12, and the substitutionary lamb in Genesis 22. Or as Moloney suggests, perhaps the lamb imagery points “to the whole of the ritual practice of Israel, where the lamb was used both for the sacrificial rites of communion and reconciliation after sin.”[31] Morris concludes, “The fact is that a lamb taking away sin, even if it is distinguished as God’s Lamb, is too indefinite a description for us to pinpoint the reference. . . . The lamb figure may well be intended to be composite, evoking memories of several, perhaps all, of the suggestions we have canvassed. All that the ancient sacrifices foreshadowed was perfectly fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ.”[32]

The Chosen One of God (1:34).[33] This verse brings the reader to the climax of John the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus as the promised Messiah. The context of the Baptist’s testimony (vv. 19–28, 29–34) reflects the Evangelist’s stated purpose (20:30–31), namely, to present Jesus as the promised Christ, the Son of God. The immediately preceding verses of the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus’ possession of the Spirit (1:32) and His baptizing of others with the Spirit (v. 33) signal the coming of the Messiah (cf. Isa. 11:1–2; 42:1; 61:1–2; Ezek. 36:25–27; Joel 2:28–32).[34] If the variant reading “the Chosen One of God” is correct, then the theme of the Suffering Servant songs of Isaiah (42:1–9; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12)—particularly the first song, where the Servant is designated as the “elect” or “chosen” One who delights in God and in whom God has placed His Spirit—was foremost in the Baptist’s mind.[35] “Jesus is ‘the Chosen One par excellence.’ ”[36]

Thus this title along with the title “the Lamb of God” are John the Baptist’s messianic proclamations about Jesus. Brown states how the Baptist’s testimony in these verses ties the two passages (John 1:19–28 and 29–34) together. “Verse 34 ends this two-part scene of the testimony of John the Baptist in vss. 19–28 and 29–34. As often, John signifies this by an inclusio: vs. 19 began, ‘This is the testimony John gave . . . ,’ and vs. 34 ends when John the Baptist says, ‘I have testified. . . .’ When we look back on the wealth and depth of the material contained in the intervening verses, we appreciate John’s genius at incorporating a whole christology into one brief scene.”[37]

Day Three (vv. 35-42)

The third day of testimony is also indicated by the phrase “the next day” (v. 35). These verses describe the calling of Jesus’ first disciples, as John the Baptist pointed their way to the One whom he had proclaimed as “the Lamb of God” (v. 29) and “the Chosen One of God” (v. 34). On this day the Baptist again pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (v. 36), as if to say, “Look, there is the One about whom I’ve been testifying. Follow Him!” This testimony is followed by the testimony of Andrew, who referred to Jesus as the Messiah (v. 41).

The third title attributed to Jesus in the Testimonium is “the Messiah” (τόν Μεσσίαν). The transliterated form of the Hebrew or Aramaic term for Messiah is used in the four Gospels only by the Fourth Evangelist, once here by Andrew (v. 41) and later by the Samaritan woman (4:25). Interestingly John used the Greek translation Χρίστος of Jesus seventeen times in his Gospel. As the Evangelist’s own “purpose statement” of the Gospel indicates (20:30–31), the messianic identity of Jesus is a central focus in the book.

The question of Jesus’ messiahship occurs repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel. Some examples are John the Baptist’s denial that he was the Christ (1:20; 3:28), the disciples’ confession that Jesus is the Messiah (1:41), the Jewish leaders’ discussion of Jesus’ messiahship (7:52), the people’s confusion about His messianic identity (7:25–31, 40–43; 12:34), and the Samaritans’ perplexity about His messiahship (4:29–30). “It was easy to call Jesus ‘Messiah.’ It was quite another thing to understand what this should mean as He interpreted His vocation. Part of John’s purpose appears to be to refute erroneous ideas about messiahship. It would be quite in accordance with this that he should record the disciples’ first inadequate recognition of Jesus as Messiah, preparatory to unfolding in his Gospel the true meaning of the messianic office. Messiahship means a good deal to John. He writes his whole Gospel to make us see that Jesus is the Messiah.”[38]

The Evangelist also corrected false messianic expectations on the part of the Jews.[39] And, as Harris points out, “John evidently included these (mistaken) insights to show that Jesus was not the Messiah the common people were expecting, and thus it is not surprising that they rejected Him (cf. 1:11–12).”[40] While the people expected a political Messiah who would deliver them and provide messianic blessings for them in His kingdom, Jesus showed that He must first be a suffering Messiah, whose kingdom and blessings must come through the cross. The sign miracles and their attendant contexts, in the form of discourses and narratives, clearly revealed the true nature of Jesus’ messiahship.

Day Four (vv. 43-51)

The fourth day of testimony is once again indicated by the phrase “the next day” (v. 43). This section, along with the previous passage (vv. 35–42), describes the calling of Jesus’ first disciples as well as the disciples’ testimonies about Him. These closing verses of the Testimonium include four significant messianic titles of Jesus: the One about whom the Scriptures spoke (v. 45), the Son of God (v. 49), the King of Israel (v. 49), and the Son of Man (v. 51).

The One about whom the Scriptures spoke (1:45). This fourth messianic title of Jesus in the Johannine Testimonium was uttered by Philip to Nathanael. “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote.” As Brown observes, “The identification of Jesus as the very ‘one described in the Mosaic Law and the prophets’ is probably a general statement that Jesus is the fulfillment of the whole OT.”[41] That the Scriptures bear witness to Jesus is repeated throughout this Gospel (e.g., 5:39–40; 19:36).[42]

“Philip’s witness is of a piece with Andrew’s (v. 41), except that he does not call Jesus the Messiah but the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote. That is the stance of this entire Gospel: Jesus fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. 5:39).”[43] In fact this is precisely the point Jesus made to His disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection. “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). By describing Jesus as the object of Old Testament prophecy, Philip was in essence pointing to Jesus as the promised Messiah.[44]

The Son of God (1:49). This and the next two titles involve Nathanael and Jesus, and they are also associated with the previous confession made by Philip. Since these remaining three titles are included in the exchange between Nathanael and Jesus, the understanding of their enigmatic dialogue about the fig tree sheds some light on these significant titles.

When Philip urged Nathanael to see Jesus for himself, Jesus said of Nathanael, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” (v. 47). Nathanael responded by asking incredulously, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (v. 48). Nathanael then declared the significant titles, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel” (v. 49). What was the significance of Jesus’ statement about the fig tree that prompted Nathanael to ascribe such grand titles to Him? Some say Jesus’ statement simply revealed His supernatural knowledge.[45] The difficulty with this interpretation is that it does not explain the connection between Jesus’ comment and the royal titles Nathanael immediately bestowed on Him.[46]

The key to understanding the import of this passage and the royal titles Nathanael attributed to Jesus may lie in grasping the symbolic significance of the fig tree and Nathanael’s activity under it. In the Scriptures the fig tree is often a symbol for the dawning of the messianic age (Mark 13:28–32; cf. Luke 21:29–33).[47] The Old Testament refers to the fig tree as a symbol for messianic peace and plenty in the promised kingdom (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10), and it is associated with the coming of the messianic figure who is called the “Branch” in Zechariah 3:8–10.[48]

Possibly Nathanael, a devout Jew, had been thinking about the coming of the Messiah and His promised kingdom. “Nathanael, we suggest, is contemplating the fulfillment of Israel’s history and thinking in particular about the patriarch Jacob who was privileged to be brought to the very gate of heaven. We have suggested further that Nathanael is reflecting upon the fact that when Messiah does come he will lead Israel into the kingdom of heaven, but that Israel would need to be cleansed of every trace of deceit (Jacob) before Messiah could appear. Israel would ‘see God’ when she is ‘pure in heart’, without guile. Nathanael could only think of Messiah in glorious, grand terms.”[49]

Based on both the symbolic significance of the fig tree and Nathanael’s possible meditation on Old Testament messianic texts, it is reasonable to assume that the two titles Nathanael bestowed on Jesus are messianic. The title “the Son of God” has strong allusions to messianic passages such as 2 Samuel 7:14; and Psalms 2:6–7; 89:26–27, which link sonship with Davidic royalty.[50] This is also supported by its link with the following title of Jesus as “the King of Israel” (cf. Ps. 2:1–6).[51]

The King of Israel (1:49). This royal title and the title “the Son of God” portray Jesus as the promised Messiah.[52] This term “the king of Israel” is used only three other times in the New Testament (Matt 27:42; Mark 15:32; John 12:13).[53] Whereas the Synoptic Gospels record the expression as a mockery by the crowd at Jesus’ crucifixion, John the Evangelist recorded Nathanael’s expression as a genuine messianic title. This expression is also hailed by the crowd at Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem preceding His death. “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel” (John 12:13). The citation of this messianic psalm (Ps. 118:26) by the crowd is followed immediately by a quotation of another messianic passage in the Old Testament (Zech. 9:9), the same prophetic passage quoted by Matthew in connection with Jesus’ Davidic kingship (Matt. 21:4–9). Thus, as Harris perceptively points out, “It seems clear that the title ‘King of Israel’ for John carries connotations of Davidic kingship and that Jesus is understood to be the heir and successor to the Davidic throne.”[54] Furthermore in John 18–19 the similar expression “King of the Jews” occurs several times, where, although it was used by Pilate and others in mockery of Jesus, the Evangelist used it to portray Him as the promised Messiah.[55]

As Laney concludes, “Nathanael was recognizing Jesus as the divine Messiah who had a right to the royal throne of David (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16). He realized that the promised ruler had come. He could be expected to assume His rightful, royal office.”[56]

The Son of Man (1:51). The seventh title attributed to Jesus in the Testimonium is “the Son of Man,” Jesus’ favorite self-designation in the Gospels. Although this title is more prominent in the Synoptic Gospels than in the Fourth Gospel, the title is used thirteen times in John’s Gospel (1:51; 3:13–14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34 [twice]; 13:31).[57] Interpreters debate whether Jesus drew on Ezekiel’s use of the term (Ezek. 2:1–3) to emphasize His humanity or on Daniel’s use of the term (Dan. 7:13) to emphasize His divine messiahship.[58] The context of John 1:51 and of the Fourth Gospel as a whole suggests that the Evangelist was emphasizing Jesus’ messiahship.

The “Son of Man” theme in the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ descent and ascent, which, according to Harris, implies both His preexistence and exaltation.[59] In 1:51 Jesus spoke of angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, which most interpreters recognize as an allusion to Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28.[60] When Jacob awoke from his dream, he exclaimed, “ ‘Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.’ He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven’ ” (Gen. 28:16–17). By alluding to this event Jesus disclosed to Nathanael that He Himself will be the source of much greater divine revelation.[61] As Laney puts it, “The divine Messiah is the ladder, the bridge, the mediator between heaven and earth (1 Tim 2:5). He is the one through whom man can have access to and fellowship with God.”[62] Moloney says, “In Jesus, the Son of Man, God will be revealed.”[63] In other words Jesus’ reference to Jacob’s dream and his encounter with heaven (Gen. 28) reveals that Jesus, as the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13), is the essence and embodiment of the coming messianic revelations.

As the divine “Son of Man” Jesus will open the “gates of heaven” and reveal heavenly or spiritual truths not only to Nathanael but also to all the disciples.[64] More specifically, however, the “greater revelations” can be referring to the sign miracles of Jesus that are recorded in the following chapters, commonly known as the Book of Signs (John 2–12). Literarily the last verse of the Testimonium (1:51) is a link to the Book of Signs and the entire Gospel.

Conclusion

The Johannine Testimonium (John 1:19–51) prepares the reader for the messianic revelations about Jesus in the Gospel narrative, particularly the sign miracles in the Book of Signs (chaps. 2–12) and their attendant contexts. Seven messianic titles of Jesus are highlighted in the Testimonium: the Lamb of God (1:19, 36), the Chosen One of God (v. 34), the Messiah (v. 41), the One about whom the Scriptures spoke (v. 45), the Son of God (v. 49), the King of Israel (v. 49), and the Son of Man (v. 51). These seven titles portray Jesus as the divine Messiah promised in the Old Testament. Literarily the Testimonium and the Prologue (vv. 1–18), prepare the reader for the kind of revelations to come about Jesus Christ as He is introduced in clear messianic terms. The first chapter of John’s Gospel serves, then, as a sneak preview, so to speak, for the coming main attraction, namely, Jesus Christ, Himself.

Notes

1. In his purpose statement (20:30–31) John noted that the aim of his Gospel is to present Jesus as the promised Messiah and the unique Son of God. And his primary means of revealing Jesus as the Messiah are the sign miracles (σημεία) and attendant contexts with discourses and narratives, all of which are recorded in the first twelve chapters of the Gospel, commonly referred to as the Book of Signs (chaps. 2–12). The term Book of Signs, now widely accepted by most Johannine scholars, is usually associated with C. H. Dodd (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], x) and Raymond E. Brown (The Gospel according to John (I–XII), Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966], cxxxviii). John 1–12 records the public ministry of Jesus, the second section (chaps. 13–17) records Jesus’ Farewell Discourse with His disciples, and the third section (chaps. 18–20) is the Passion narrative. Dodd calls this third section (chaps. 18–20) the Book of Passion, and Brown calls it the Book of Glory.
2. Brown, for example, includes the Testimonium with the Book of Signs (The Gospel according to John(I–XII), xi–xii. Andreas J. Köstenberger does the same (John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 51–88).
3. Dodd, for instance, places the Prologue (1:1–18) and the Testimonium (vv. 19–51) together as a unit, calling the entire first chapter of the Fourth Gospel a Proem (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 289–96).
4. “The two halves of the chapter belong together, so that they stand in a relationship not only with each other but also with John 2–21” (Stephen S. Smalley, “Johannes 1, 51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium,” in Jesus und der Menschensohn, ed. Rudolf Pesch and Rudolf Schnackenburg [Freiburg: Herder, 1975], 300–313, esp. 300).
5. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 18.
6. R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 120.
7. Ibid.
8. Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 53.
9. Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, 120–28. He divides the second section (vv. 29–51) into three subdivisions: John’s witness to Jesus (vv. 29–34), the first disciples of Jesus (vv. 35–42), and Jesus’ calling of Nathanael (vv. 43–51).
10. Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 125–50. Borchert’s three “cameos of witness” (vv. 29–51) are John’s witness in proclamation (vv. 29–34), John’s witness and the coming of the first disciples (vv. 35–42), and Philip’s witness to Nathanael (vv. 43–51).
11. Beasley-Murray, John, 22.
12. Ibid. Beasley-Murray then compares the division of the Testimonium to the references to John the Baptist in the Prologue. He says, “The relation of the section to references to John in the prologue is clear: ‘He came for witness’ (7a) governs the whole passage; ‘he was not that light’ (8a) is elaborated in 19–28, ‘he came to bear witness about the light’ (8b) in 29–34, ’that all might believe through him’ (7c) in 35–50.”
13. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 53. Some scholars have proposed theological significance to the “days” in these verses (e.g., T. Barrosse, “The Seven Days of the New Creation in St. John’s Gospel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21 [1959]: 507-16; and L. Paul Trudinger, “The Seven Days of the New Creation in St. John’s Gospel: Some Further Reflections,” Evangelical Quarterly 44 [July–September 1972]: 154-58).
14. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 53–54. Köstenberger includes an extra day for Andrew’s introduction of his brother Peter to Jesus in verses 40–41, although a fifth day is not noted specifically (John, 56).
15. Beasley-Murray, John, 18.
16. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 61. For a thorough discussion of this view see E. D. Freed “ ᾿Εγὼ εἰμι in John 1:20 and 4:25, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (April 1979): 288-91.
17. Leon Morris lists nine antecedents that have been proposed: the Passover Lamb, the lamb that is led to the slaughter (Isa. 53:7), the Servant of the Lord (v. 11), the lamb of the daily sacrifice, the “gentle lamb” (Jer. 11:19), the scapegoat, the triumphant Lamb of the Apocalypse, the God-provided lamb (Gen. 22:8), and a guilt-offering (The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 145–47).
18. For a survey of these three views see Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 58–63.
19. Dodd is a strong proponent of this view (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 230–38).
20. Ibid., 236-37.
21. Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 59–60.
22. W. Hall Harris, “A Theology of John’s Writings,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 192.
23. The prophecies of the Suffering Servant appear in Isaiah 40–55 generally and 53:7 specifically. The Greek word for “lamb” (ἀμνός) used in Isaiah 53:7 in the Septuagint is the same word used in John 1:29, 36.
24. See Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 60–61.
25. A proponent of this view is C. K. Barrett, “The Lamb of God,” New Testament Studies 1 (1954–1955): 210-18.
26. Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 61.
27. Many scholars see both the Suffering Servant background of Isaiah 53 and the Passover lamb imagery from Exodus 12 as the background of John the Baptist’s designation of Jesus as “the Lamb of God.” Feliks Gryglewicz writes, “The two words ‘Lamb’ and ‘who takes away’ speak of Christ as both the Servant of the Lord and the Paschal Lamb, and likewise as the One who bears and the One who takes away the sins of men” (“Das Lamm Gottes,” New Testament Studies 13 [1967]: 133-46; author’s translation).
28. Borchert, John 1–11, 134; see also idem, “The Passover and the Narrative Cycles in John,” in Perspectives in John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, ed. R. Sloan and M. Parsons (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993), 303–16.
29. Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 62. He also sees parallels between Christ’s death and the Passover in Exodus 12. For instance he notes that the hyssop that was used to give Jesus a sponge of wine when He was on the cross (John 19:29) may be redolent of the hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the Passover lambs on the doorposts (Exod. 12:22). Also the fact that not one of Jesus’ bones was broken (John 19:36) parallels the fact that bones of the Passover lambs were not to be broken (Exod. 12:46).
30. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John, Encountering Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 70.
31. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 65.
32. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 147–48.
33. This verse involves a significant textual critical issue. Did the Baptist say, “This is the Son of God” or “This is the Chosen One of God”? The external evidence favors the wording “This is the Son of God” because of the age and the diversity of witnesses (Bruce M. Metzer, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London: United Bible Societies, 1971], 200). However, although the evidence for the word “chosen” is not nearly as impressive as that for “Son,” the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses (see NET Bible, note on John 1:34). The internal evidence, however, seems to favor the reading “This is the Chosen One of God.” Since the expression “Son of God” is a common expression in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31), it is not difficult to imagine scribes changing ἐκλεκτός to υἱός. “It is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s Chosen One,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible” (Brown, The Gospel according to John[I–XII], 57). Rudolf Schnackenburg also echoes this view. “The title (God’s Chosen One) occurs only here in John and elsewhere only in Lk 23:35 (cf. also Lk. 9:35, ὁ ἐκλελεγμένοß). It is easy to understand the alteration from this unusual and peculiar title to the ordinary ‘Son of God’ ” (The Gospel according to John, 305–6). Therefore the internal evidence seems to support “This is the Chosen One of God” as the preferred reading. Rudolf Bultmann, Gerald L. Borchert, Hermann Ridderbos, and George R. Beasley-Murray favor the reading “This is the Son of God,” while Leon Morris, D. A. Carson, G. Burge, C. K. Barrett, Robert Brown, and Rudolf Schnackenburg favor the reading “This is the Chosen One of God.”
34. J. Carl Laney, John, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 53.
35. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 152–53. Carson points to Isaiah 42:1, which states that God promised to pour out His Spirit on His servant, His “chosen one.”
36. Köstenberger, John, 71.
37. Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 67.
38. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 147–48.
39. Harris, “A Theology of John’s Writings,” 187–88. Apparently some believed the Messiah would appear suddenly from an unknown origin (7:27), and apparently some believed that the Messiah would perform miraculous signs (v. 31). Others thought that when the Messiah came, He would remain forever (12:34).
40. Ibid., 188. Harris explains the people’s common messianic misconceptions this way: “The belief that the Messiah would appear from a secret place excluded Jesus because His (supposed) origin was known (Nazareth). The belief that the Messiah would remain forever excluded Jesus because He predicted His departure (i.e., His approaching death on the cross). In both of these dialogues John showed that Jesus really is the Messiah and that the expectations of the people were mistaken. In 7:29 Jesus answered the question of origin by appealing to His heavenly origin, which really was unknown. In 12:35–36 Jesus pointed out that spiritual enlightenment (which He Himself provides) is needed to understand a suffering and dying Messiah” (ibid.).
41. Brown, The Gospel according to John(I–XII), 86.
42. Borchert, John 1–11, 146.
43. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 159 (italics his).
44. Moses prophesied of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15; 22:8; 28:12; 49:10; Num. 21:9; 24:17), as did the prophets (Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 52:13–53:12; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9) (Laney, John, 57).
45. Beasley-Murray sees no symbolic significance of the fig tree. “There is no hidden subtlety here, just a statement of place where the two met” (John, 27). Carson also misses the significance of the fig tree and its Old Testament context by concluding, “But John’s chief point here is Jesus’ supernatural knowledge, not Nathanael’s activity” (The Gospel according to John, 161). See also J. Ramsay Michaels, “Nathanael under the Fig Tree,” Expository Times 78 (March 1967): 182-83. Michaels also misses the messianic significance of the setting.
46. For the messianic significance of this passage see Craig R. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (June 1990): 23-34.
47. See J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Fig Trees in the New Testament,” Heythrop Journal 14 (July 1973): 249-65.
48. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” 24.
49. L. Paul Trudinger, “An Israelite in Whom There Is No Guile: An Interpretative Note on John 1:45–51, ” Evangelical Quarterly 54 (April–June 1982): 117-20.
50. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 162. However, because of the Evangelist’s affinity with double meanings throughout his Gospel, John could also have been emphasizing Jesus’ divine sonship.
51. Borchert, John 1–11, 148.
52. According to Beasley-Murray these two titles are virtually synonymous (John, 27).
53. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 168. In Matthew 27:42 Jesus is mockingly saluted as “King of Israel” and invited to come down from the cross. In Mark 15:32 the title “the King of Israel” is used synonymously with “the Christ,” and it is also used mockingly by the crowd that witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion.
54. Harris, “A Theology of John’s Writings,” 189.
55. See Klaus Berger, “Die Königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments,” New Testament Studies 20 (October 1973): 1-44, esp. 41–43.
56. Laney, John, 58.
57. Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Der Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium,” New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 123-37.
58. For a detailed study on the background of the title “Son of Man” see Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man in the Gospel of John, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991). He surveys diverse backgrounds such as the Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., Dan. 7:13) and the nonapocalyptic uses like the “Son of Man” in Ezekiel. See also Francis J. Moloney’s detailed work on the background of the term “Son of Man,” in The Johannine Son of Man, Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14 (Rome: LAS, 1976), 23–41.
59. Harris, “A Theology of John’s Writings,” 186. For a good discussion on the divine emphasis of the Son of Man see Seyoon Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983), 5, 82–86. For a similar idea see also Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 241–49.
60. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 162–64.
61. Köstenberger, Encountering John, 71.
62. Laney, John, 59.
63. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 74.
64. Moloney correctly points out that by shifting from His use of a singular “you” in verse 50 and “him” in verse 51 to a plural “you” later in verse 51, Jesus was now addressing a wider group of disciples, including the readers of the Gospel (Belief in the Word, 74).