2 Sunday after Ephipany
I Samuel 3:1-10, John 1:43-51
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
2 Epiphany B
John 1:43-51
2 Epiphany B: John 1:43-51 -- Exegetical Notes
SYNOPTIC DIFFERENCES
NOTE: This text is also assigned for the Festival of St. Bartholomew on
August 24, although the name “Batholomew” doesn’t appear in the text—or
anywhere in John! In the synoptics and Acts, Bartholomew follows Philip
in their lists of the Twelve. In the fourth gospel, Philip is connected
with Nathaniel. One hypothesis is that “bar-Tholomew” may have been
Nathaniel’s last name, (e.g., “Simon bar-Jonah” in Matthew 16:17).
Note also that next week’s gospel is Mark’s version of Jesus calling
the first four disciples. Neither the process of the calling nor the
order of the first disciples in Mark are the same as in John. While
some may attempt to harmonize the differences, I prefer to intensify
the differences and what special emphases each writer may be promoting.
One difference is that the first disciples in the synoptics give up
their work as fishermen to follow Jesus, but in the fourth gospel they
give up a previous religious commitment as disciples of John. There is
a greater sense in John that the battle is between two religious
convictions, i.e., “the Jews” and “the Christians”—than a movement from
irreligious Jewish (or Gentile) sinners (e.g., fishermen and tax
collectors) to Christian forgiven sinners.
A BOOK OF “SIGNS”
Another difference is that the Gospel of John is a book of
“signs”—namely things and people who point to something else. Such
“intermediaries” are generally necessary in this gospel in order to
come to faith. Even Jesus is a type of intermediary as the “Logos”—the
“Word” or “Revealer” of God. I think that this is the theme and purpose
of the entire gospel: “These are written so that you may come to
believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through
believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). This gospel itself is
a “sign” to point us to the Messiah and new life in his name.
In this Gospel, Jesus’ baptism is a “sign” that reveals him to John as
the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and the one who is the
Son of God (1:33-34). The Baptist serves as a “sign” that points his
disciples to “the Lamb of God” (1:36-37). One of those disciples,
Andrew, points his brother Peter to the Messiah (1:41). In our text,
Philip points (a reluctant) Nathanael to Jesus son of Joseph from
Nazareth (1:45).
Philip is an exception to this pattern. We aren’t told of any “signs”
given to Philip before Jesus finds him and says, “Follow me.” We might
hypothesize that since we are told that he was from the city of Andrew
and Peter, they might have said something to him about Jesus, but
that’s suggesting more than John actually tells us.
Related to this theme, I’ve been reading Bound and Free: A Theologian’s
Journey, by Douglas John Hall. He comments about different discoveries
he made when he began to write an autobiography:
If the first lesson in my autobiographical attempt was to convince me
that I’d enjoyed an undeservedly meaningful existence, the second was
even more illuminating: it was that I owe such happiness as I have had
to one Source—namely, the sheer grace of God as it is mediated through
the lives of other people. [pp. 29-30, italics in original]
Assuming that his journey of faith is typical, we all can look back and
see God’s grace being revealed to us and calling us through the lives
of other people—people, as Hall describes them, who
are not public figures but ordinary folk—old ladies and gentlemen of my
youth, people in the various workplaces of my life, members of my one
and only congregation, and, of course, my students and colleagues of
more then four decades in academic life. Most of these people did not
know they were giving me gifts of insight and support, affirmation and
critical acumen, but were simply being who they were and doing what
they do. [p. 30]
In the next paragraph, he turns the roles around:
Every one of us plays the role of giver, wittingly or unwittingly, in
relation to all whom we meet. And if we know this about ourselves, we
may be inspired to pay a good deal more attention than otherwise to the
way that we are with one another, the things we say to one another, the
deeds we do and leave undone. [p. 30]
The Gospel of John, and especially these opening verses are about being
such people—mediators who invite others to Jesus.
Because of our somewhat unique situation with winter visitors, we are
conducting our stewardship drive in January. We have used an ELCA
program called Stores to Tell & Gifts to Share. Part of the program
is to invite members to tell their stories – to point to ways that God
has been involved in their lives and to point to ways that God has used
the congregation in their journey of faith.
I believe that every believer is a sign or a witness. However, they may
be a clear and good sign that points clearly to Christ or not. We can
become more intentional about being good and faithful signs. We can
become more orthodox and precise in the language that we use in our
witnessing.
“FINDING” OR “BEING FOUND”?
We are told that Jesus “finds” Philip. The historical present is
used—present tense forms of the verb are used for the aorist
indicative. This is used when narrators imagine themselves (and perhaps
their hearers) to be present at the events being narrated. We can do
the same by translating it in the present tense: This pair of
verbs—“finds” and “says” are used together in vv. 41, 43, & 45
v. 41 Andrew finds Simon and says to him:
We have found the Messiah,” (which is translated “Christ”).
v. 43 Jesus finds Philip and says to him: “Follow me.”
v. 45 Philip finds Nathanael and says to him:
The one whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote,
we have found, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
The word εὑρίσκω (heuriskō) is used five times in these three verses.
I’m not sure that “to find” is the best way to translate it.
Theologically, I’m not sure we can talk about “finding” God. If God
were to hide from us, I don’t think that we could find God (see John
7:25-27).
The first two (and most common definitions) given by Lowe and Nida for
this word are: (1) “to learn the location of something, either by
intentional searching or by unexpected discovery;” and (2) “to learn
something previously not known, frequently involving an element of
surprise”
It is the aspect of “unexpected discovery” or “surprise” that isn’t
translated well by our word “to find,” which, I think, conveys more of
the sense of “intentional searching” that I find theologically
questionable when used of “finding God”.
I shared the following a couple weeks ago, but it applies here, too.
According to the legend, the ruler Hiero II asked Archimedes to find a
method for determining whether a crown was pure gold or mixed with
silver. One day when Archimedes stepped into his bath and noticed that
the water rose as he sat down, he ran out of the house naked shouting,
“Eureka! Eureka!” (= “I have found [it]”—forms of the same verb).
If you want a sort of scientific explanation of what he “found,” you
can read the next paragraph. If you’re only interested in the
significance of this “bathroom” illustration, you can skip the next
paragraph.
The way to determine whether or not a crown was pure gold was to
compare its weight to its volume. If one had 1 pound of gold and 1
pound of silver (one would be very rich ☺) and submerged them in water.
The silver would make the water rise higher than the gold, because it
is less dense and thus has more volume per pound than gold. Or, if one
had two crowns, of the same volume—that is, each made the water rise
the same amount. A pure gold one would weigh more than one mixed with
silver.
Archimedes did not “find” this truth by searching after it—although he
may have spent days thinking about a solution to the problem. His
“find” came as an unexpected surprise. It’s almost as if the truth
found him more than he finding the truth. It was something that was
there all the time. He may have noticed the rising bathtub water
hundreds of times before, but its significance didn’t “click” in his
brain until that “eureka” moment.
I’m not sure that Andrew “finding” Simon or Philip “finding” Nathanael
should be understood exactly the same way as them “finding” the
Messiah. The latter would be more like Archimedes’ discovery; it was an
unexpected, non-anticipated surprise of Jesus breaking into their minds
– and their lives.
Note also that in both instances where Jesus is the object, the subject
is “we”—“We have found . . . “ Who are the “we”? Does John intend just
a historical understanding of “we” or is this also his own (and his
community’s) confession about Jesus?
We might wonder about Jesus “finding” Philip. Was it the result of
Jesus searching for this particular person or a surprise meeting?
Francis J. Moloney, SDB, (The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina), goes a bit
further with “find” (from v. 41) than I think necessary:
However wonderful the claim to have found the Messiah might appear to
be, it falls short of a correct recognition of Jesus as he has been
described in the Prologue (vv. 1-18) and in the witness of the Baptist
during the second day of preparation for the gift of the doxo (vv.
28-34). Such a claim has its own truth, but does Andrew understand
Jesus’ messianic status in a satisfactory fashion? There are hints that
all is not well. Andrew has told Simon, “We have found” (heurekamen),
and this is not true (v. 41). The Baptist pointed his disciples toward
Jesus, and they followed (vv. 36-37). They were invited by Jesus to
come and see, and they did what they were told (v. 39). The initiative
for the presence with Jesus and their understanding of him does not
belong to them. A lie has been told, and this is further reinforced by
Jesus’ words to Simon. Once Andrew led Simon to Jesus he looked at him
and spoke to him. The initiative is entirely with Jesus. He tells Simon
who he is, where he comes from (son of John) and who he will be in the
future (Cephas). Again the narrator adds a note, indicating a future
that the reader of the Gospel may know came true: the man once called
Simon son of John will become Cephas, Peter. The words to Simon are an
indication to the disciples that there is more to a proper
understanding of Jesus than finding in this rabbi the fulfillment of
their messianic expectations. [pp. 54-55, emphasis in original]
I’m not willing to suggest that either the characters in the story lied
nor the narrator intends to put on a lie on their lips; but I think it
is possible, as I tried to show above, that the Greek word εὑρίσκω
(heuriskō) can keep the initiative with the person who is “found”. Even
for those who talk about “finding” Jesus, the initiative remains with
Jesus, who was never lost. He was/is always present. When he breaks
into our minds and life, it can be an “ah ha!” moment of discovering
something that right before our eyes that we were unable to see.
Christianity is described as “a way of seeing” in the following quote.
Learning to see is the key, for you see what you are. The Talmud says:
“We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.”…
As Rabbi Harold Kushner writes in his book, Who Needs God: “Religion is
not primarily a set of beliefs, a collection of prayers or a series of
rituals. Religion is first and foremost a way of seeing. It can’t
change the facts about the world we live in, but it can change the way
we see those facts, and that in itself can often make a differences.”
[William J. Bausch, The Yellow Brick Road, p.19 & 280-1]
The facts of the world are always there. When God gives us new sight,
we “find” (or “discover”) things that were always present, like God.
FOLLOWING
There are three meanings to the Greek ἀκολουθέω (akoloutheō, “acolyte”
comes from this word):
(1) literal meanings:
(a) to walk behind
(b) to let another lead (one may be walking
behind or by the side of the leader)
(2) more figurative meaning: to be a disciple of
If a more literal meaning was intended (as in 1:37, 38, & 40),
Philip fails. He does not follow. He goes and finds Nathanael!
If a more figurative meaning was intended, we might translate the
command: “Be my disciple.” Then Philip’s actions of “being a sign
pointing to Jesus” could be an illustration of what “following” Jesus
might mean.
PHILIP’S WITNESS
There are two parts to Philip’s witness:
(1) Jesus is the fulfillment of scriptures
(2) Jesus is the son of Joseph from Nazareth
“Son of Joseph” would be the typical way to name Jesus. The same was
done with Simon “son of John” in 1:42. However, we, the readers, have
already been told in the prologue about Jesus’ true origins: He is God
and He comes from God. Where Jesus comes from is a tension that runs
throughout this gospel (see 6:42; 7:27-28; 8:14; 9:29-30; 19:9). By
“sight” he is the son of Joseph from Nazareth. By “faith” he is the Son
who has come from God.
We see this transition in v. 49 where Nathanael confesses: “You are the
Son of God.” (However, in v. 51 -- possibly a later addition—we have
the phrase “Son of Man.”)
I also find Philip’s response to Nathanael’s negative comments to be
instructive. He is an example of good evangelism. Even though
Philip is convinced that Jesus fulfills the promises of scripture, he
doesn’t argue with Nathanael. He simply invites him to “come and see.”
Three times in John, the invitation, “Come and see,” is given (1:39,
46; 4:29). The essence of our witness is to state what we have seen and
believe and then to invite others to come and see. We can’t argue
people into the kingdom.
I have two fears for the future of the Christian church. (1) We will
fail to be witnesses—people willing to invite others to “come and see”.
(2) We will fail to provide the proper “stuff” for the invitees to see.
Whether it is a loveless and joyless gathering of people; or a worship
service that is full of life and energy, but fails to center on and
point to Jesus; neither will give the people “what they are seeking”
(1:38). How many of our members regularly invite others to worship? Why
not?
During my high school days I was involved in Young Life. We had over
200 high school youth meeting in someone’s (large) home to sing and
hear a message from scriptures. On the day of the meeting, many of us
wore a ribbon to school that said, “Young Life.” When asked, “What’s
that?” We’d answer, “Come and see.” We (and the ribbons) were signs
pointing others to Young Life. Why doesn’t this happen more in our
congregations?
NATHANAEL’S PREJUDICE—JESUS’ POSITIVE PERCEPTION
The second title of Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth also leads to
Nathanael’s prejudicial attitude about people from Nazareth (v. 46),
which might be contrasted with Jesus’ positive statement about
Nathanael (v. 47): “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no
deceit!”
When Jesus speaks about Nathanael, who is he talking to? He is talking
about Nathanael, but probably not to him. Although Nathanael responds
as if he has heard this complement.
I’m presently reading Gordon Lathrop’s The Four Gospels on Sunday: The
New Testament and the Reform of Christian Worship. He argues that the
Gospels were written to address the churches of the evangelists. When
John has Jesus speak about Nathaniel, he wants the church (including
us) to hear that. If Jesus offers that as a compliment, it’s probably
something we should seek in our lives.
Why is there no “deceit” in Nathanael? One answer might be that he is
“true” in contrast to being false which is often part of deception.
Other answers might relate to the brief picture we have of his
character. He speaks his mind. He says what he thinks. It may be wrong,
but it is honest for him.
Douglas John Hall (Bound and Free) writes about his introduction to
Luther:
Without any previous knowledge of Luther (in my church, Wesley was
quoted and sometimes Calvin, but never Luther), the young Luther seemed
to me to have anticipated all my doubts, shared them, and found a way
of living with them—and beyond them. He didn’t ask me to be a “nice
boy.” He asked me to be truthful, to be myself, to accept myself
despite all that was truly unacceptable about me. To trust! [pp. 33-34]
This seems to me to be an illustration of a person without deceit:
being honest (especially about one’s self).
THE FIG TREE
His lack of deceit may be related to his time under a fig tree. Micah
4:3-4 and Zechariah 3:10 suggests that “under a fig tree” may be a
place of contemplation. It may be that Nathanael was a “thinker”. He
wouldn’t accept anything at face value, but he would question and
contemplate everything until he was sure of its truthfulness.
On the other hand, sitting in the shade, eating the free figs, might
indicate that he was just a lazy bum. He wasn’t fishing or mending nets
like Andrew, Peter, James and John. He wasn’t working in his office
like Matthew.
I think that we need more fig trees—at least in a figurative sense.
They can be quite messy when the unpicked, over-ripe fruit falls to the
ground and attracts all kinds of birds and bugs. What I mean is that we
need more places and time to be contemplative—time to be quiet and
think. (Of course, as a person with a preference for Introversion on
the MBTI, I would think that.)
A friend of mine grew up on a farm in eastern Iowa. There was a grove
of trees where she often went to be alone, to get away, and to think.
For a while she was living in eastern North Dakota. One of the things
that helped her through some difficult times there was that she had
been shown a place that had a small grove of trees. She had a thinking
spot in the plains of North Dakota.
Another friend, abused as a child, found solace in the middle of a
cornfield. She was hidden and felt protected from the rest of the
world. When I met her, there were no cornfields around where she could
hide. She missed them.
The book Discerning Your Congregation’s Future: A Strategic and
Spiritual Approach, (by Roy Oswald and Robert Friedrich, Jr.) strongly
suggests that each of the sessions in the book include “centering
prayer”—a time of quiet, contemplative reflection about self and about
God. At a couple of different continuing education events by the Alban
Institute, each day began with five minutes of silence. (The Extraverts
were told that they could manage to be silent and still for that period
of time.)
We need more “fig trees” in church—places and times to stop working, to
stop doing the business, and to sit and reflect. Perhaps we might
become more truly Christians with less deceit in our own lives. One
place to start is to make better use of silence in our liturgies.
NATHANAEL’S QUESTION
There are at least two ways we might understand Nathanael’s question to
Jesus: “Where did you know me?”—“Where did you get your information
about me?” It may be a question because Nathanael agrees with Jesus’
assessment about him. “Yes, I try to be a good and honest Israelite.
How did you find out about me?” Or, if we consider Nathanael’s life
under the fig tree as being a lazy bum rather than a reflective
thinker, then Nathanael may not agree with Jesus: “You call me a true
Israelite without any deceit. Ha! You couldn’t be more wrong. Who gave
that nonsense about me?”
I find that there are many people with such a negative self-image that
they have great difficult in accepting God’s positive regard toward
them. While this theme might be a little bit of a stretch from these
verses, I think that is a legitimate, preachable message.
In contrast to this, O’Day (John, The New Interpreters Bible) says:
“The focus of the story is on the fact of Jesus’ superhuman knowledge
and its effect on Nathanael” [p. 532]. While I can agree that that
seems to be John’s point, which leads Nathanael to make his good
confession; I’m not sure how well that translate into Christian life
today.
NATHANAEL’S CONFESSION
Nathanael makes a good, orthodox confession: “You are the son of God.
You are the King of Israel.” However, Jesus questions why he believes.
It is not enough just to say the right words or experience something
miraculous -- (Jesus’ supernatural knowledge). These things are just
the beginning of following Jesus. Nathanael (and us?) will see even
greater things.
Part of Discerning Your Congregation’s Future involves recalling God’s
faithfulness in the past. Not just to reminisce or wallow in past
glories; but as a step in trusting God for even greater things in the
future. While I was serving a 100-year-old congregation [ALC], a
mission congregation [LCMS] began less than two miles away. Within five
years, they had grown larger than us and completed a building program,
which they expanded just a few years later. A major difference between
the two congregations was that the “mission church” was looking ahead
to the greater things God was going to do with their congregation. The
“established church” tended to look to the past at the good things God
had done for the congregation. Even though when members of century-old
congregation were asked “Are the best years of the congregation ahead
of them or behind them?” they answered “ahead,” that wasn’t the way
they talked or acted about their future. It was hard to move into the
future when they were always looking backwards.
Related to the invitational theme I mentioned earlier, you can’t invite
someone to be part of the past. You can invite them to be part of the
future.
A NEW PLACE TO CONTACT THE DIVINE
Verse 51 has an allusion to the ladder of Genesis 28:12 upon which “the
angels of God were ascending and descending.” Jesus, himself, has now
become the bridge between heaven and earth, between divine and human,
temporal and eternal. The place to meet God is not the ladder of
Jacob’s dream at Bethel, but Jesus.
Note also that the “you” in this verse is plural, indicating that Jesus
is speaking to a wider audience than Nathanael—i.e., John is speaking
to his church, and thus also to us.
A SUMMARY
O’Day (John, New Interpreters Bible) offers this summary of this
section:
The christological focus of John 1:19-51 reveals much about the Fourth
Evangelist’s understanding of discipleship. The decision to be a
disciple is inseparable from the decision one makes about Jesus’
identity. ... Unlike the synoptic call narratives, where Jesus promises
the disciples a change in their own lives (Mt 4:19; Mk 1:17; Lk 5:10),
the focus of the call narratives in John is unwaveringly
christological. The call narratives begin with the identity of Jesus,
and any change for the disciples begins with recognizing and claiming
Jesus. [p. 534]
AN ILLUSTRATION
An extended sermon illustration I’ve used with this text is “The
Problem with Square Dancing.” Just as Nathanael states: “Can anything
good come from Nazareth?” I, and probably many others, think that
nothing good can come from square dancing. I didn’t want to get
involved in that dumb activity. However, on internship our couple’s
club had a hay ride/square dance event. There was exactly enough people
for four squares, which meant all of us had to dance every dance that
the caller called. Once I “came and saw” and got out on the floor with
a bunch of friends and actually did some square dancing—and going the
wrong way a number of times; I found that it is really fun. Often I
have seen people’s negative attitude about square dancing change once
they actually get involved.
My parents happened to be visiting at that time. They had never square
danced. They enjoyed it so much, they joined a square dance club, got
the outfits, and hoped to square dance in every state in the union.
(They didn’t quite make it.) Even though, after that first time, dad
was so sore, the smell of Ben Gay reeked in our apartment for days.
The same transformation seems to have happened to Nathanael in our
text. His involved conversation with Jesus transformed him from
skepticism to confession and the possibility of even greater
experiences.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffrege@gmail.com
Copyright © 2012 Brian Stoffregen, All rights reserved.