2 Epiphany A: John 1:29-42 -- Exegetical Notes

To me it almost feels like an intrusion to have the lesson from John
thrust into the year of Matthew. Next week we will hear Matthew's
account of Jesus calling the first disciples. This week we hear John's
version. There are some important differences.

THE IMPORTANCE OF WITNESSES AS SIGNS TO JESUS

The Gospel of John is a book of "signs" -- namely things, events, 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, who is a "sign" who points us to God. As O'Day (_John_,
NIB) states about this gospel: "... the story *of* Jesus is not
ultimately a story *about* Jesus; it is, in fact, the story of God."
[p. 524]

An indication of the intermediary-ness of the fourth Gospel is the use
of _martyreo_ ("bear witness"). The verb occurs once in Matthew, once
in Luke, none in Mark, and 31 times in John (five times in chapter 1;
verses 7, 8, 15, 32, 34). Similar statistics exist for the noun
_martyria_ ("witness"): three times in Mark, once in Luke, none in
Matthew, and 14 times in John (twice in chapter 1: 7, 19).

We are told that "John came as a *witness* to *bear witness* to the
light, so that all might believe though him" [1:7].

However, John's first *witness* is not about the Light, but about
himself when the Jews sent priests and Levites to question him (v.
19). First of all, he talks about who he is not: He is not the Christ;
he is not Elijah; he is not one of the prophets (vv. 20-21). Secondly,
he talks about who he is: "The voice crying in the wilderness. . . ."
(v. 23). Sometimes we need to be reminded that we can't just be
against something (e.g., "Just say 'No'"), but we also need to be for
something (e.g., "What are we saying 'yes' to?")

The first half of our text is centered on John "witnessing" to the
reader about Jesus with five images.
* Here is the Lamb of God
* who is taking away the sin of the world." (1:29)
* The one who existed before John (1:30-31)
* The one on whom the Spirit descends and rests (1:32-33)
* "This is the Son of God." (1:34)

Without this "witness" others would not know the one who is coming and
who stands among us (1:26-27). Even John needed the divine "witness"
in order to "know" who Jesus was. Twice he says that he did not know
him (1:31, 33), but God "points out" Jesus by the Spirit who descends
and remains on him, so that John can say in v. 34: "I [emphasized]
have seen and have witnessed that this one is the Son of God."
(Variant readings have "Chosen one of God".) In the synoptics, it is
God who declares Jesus' sonship at his baptism. Here it is John.

The sign was the Spirit coming down and *remaining* on Jesus. _meno_
("remain") is an important word in John, occurring in 33 verses, while
it appears in 11 verses in the rest of the gospels. While it is most
frequent in John 15 (7 verses), it is found in our text five times.
Twice in reference to the Spirit remaining on Jesus (vv. 32-33) and
twice in reference to where Jesus is "staying" and the first two
disciples who "stay" with Jesus that day (vv. 38, 39).

Perhaps we might refer to this word as "staying power". Jesus is not
like the ecstatic, charismatic prophets upon whom the spirit comes and
goes. The Spirit remains with him. The first disciples have "staying
power". They don't come and go (at least on that first day). They
remain with Jesus. Although, ironically, later in the gospel Jesus
will state that it necessary for him to go away. He will not remain,
but he will not leave them/us as orphans, but he will send the Spirit
of Truth to stay with the disciples (14:17).

"COME AND SEE"

In the second half of our text, John witnesses to his two disciples
who then follow Jesus. One of them, Andrew, witnesses to his brother
Peter. In the following story, Jesus finds Philip without a witness,
but then Philip finds Nathanael and witnesses to him about Jesus.
Generally, a witness is needed to help others "see" Jesus. In fact,
these two events may indicate that one cannot adequately follow Jesus
without also extending the invitation to others.

The invitation, "Come and see," is given twice (1:39, 46). The essence
of our witness is to state what we have seen and believe and then to
invite others to "come and see." For John, faith begins by responding
to the invitation to "come and see." The same words (in English, but
slightly different in Greek) are uttered by the Samaritan woman to the
people, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done!
He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" (4:29)

The same combination of words is used at the end of the gospel: Mary
*comes* and *sees* that the stone has been removed from the tomb
(20:1). Peter and the other disciple *come* to the tomb and look in
and *see*. The one *sees* and believes (20:3-8).

At some church event, I picked up a refrigerator magnet with two
pictures on it -- actually it's the same drawing of two people, but
presented twice. The first picture is called "Reality Evangelism Part
1". One person says to the other, "Yeah, I go to church." Reality
Evangelism Part 2 shows the same person saying, "Wanna come?"  What
could be more simple than that?

During my high school years, I was involved in Young Life, an
ecumenical Christian youth group. We had over 200 kids coming to a
meeting every week. The day of the meeting we had ribbons we wore that
said, "Young Life Tonight." when people asked, "What's Young Life?" We
answered, "Come and see." (Remember hearing those words before?)

What will people "come and see" in our congregations? Will they see
that we are Jesus' disciples by the way we love one another (13:35)?
Will they see that we have heard Jesus' word so that his joy is in us
and our joy is complete (15:11)? Will they see us pointing to
ourselves, our own achievements and hard work or will they see us
being proper symbols and witnesses, pointing to Christ? Will they see
us as sinners who confess our imperfections and unholiness, and
receive new life from Christ?

It was Jesus who turned and first spoke to the two disciples of John
who were following him (1:38). It is Jesus who speaks first to Simon
(1:42). It is Jesus who finds Philip and speaks to him (1:43) -- not
like the national "I found it" campaign of a few years ago. Nathanael
didn't find Jesus. Jesus found him! It is Jesus whose words draw out
Nathanael's good confession (1:47-49). We can never loose sight of the
primacy of God's gracious acts that evoke our response. However,
Andrew's witness to Simon is, "We have found the Messiah" (more about
"finding" later).

I have two fears for the future of the Christian church. One is that
we will fail to be witnesses -- people willing to invite others to
"come and see". I am becoming more and more convinced that
invitational-ness needs to be part of faith. One of the differences
that faith should make in our lives is the desire that others -- 
especially those without a religious faith -- might also share in and
benefit from the relationship God offers through Christ. If we are not
willing to invite others into this experience, what does that say
about our experiences with Christ? If we are not willing to invite
others to our congregations -- to worship services and other
activities, what does that say about our experiences in our
congregations?

I've had people tell me about good restaurants, barbers, optometrists,
etc. A member had encouraged me often to go to his Kiwanis Club
breakfast meetings. I went a couple times. He then started asking if I
would like to join. (I understand that there is a prize for the member
who recruits the most new members during the year.) Why isn't there
the same fervor over inviting and encouraging people to come and
participate in our church activities? Let me suggest that there are
three broad areas that are likely to influence our non-inviting-ness.

(1) Our culture which suggests talking about religion is taboo. (Why
shouldn't we un-taboo it? We certainly won't be thrown in prison or
executed like the earliest believers were.

(2) Our selves -- there may be things about our selves that dampen our
enthusiasm for inviting others into the faith. We aren't perfect
Christians, but no one is -- that's why we need Christ.

(a) Some may argue that we are shy and don't talk to people, but I bet
that if any person, shy or otherwise, would count the number of people
they speak to each week, they would be surprised how many
opportunities they have to say something about their faith.

(b) Some may feel that religion is a private matter and shouldn't be
shared with others. That, to me, is a false understanding of
Christianity. It has always been personal, but never private.
Salvation is a gift from God that is meant for the whole world. John
3:16 says that God so loved the world. If we don't tell the world
that, how will they know?

(c) Some may not feel that they have much of a personal faith to
share. Their experiences with God (and the church) are mostly habit,
part of their culture, something their families have always done for
generations. They just don't ask themselves or try to answer such
questions as: "What do I believe?" "Why do I believe?" "Why do I
attend worship?" "Why should I invites others to come and see what's
happening at our church?" Without having answers to such questions,
they don't have much of a personal faith to share.

(3) Our church -- I'm afraid that there are many congregations that
offer little or nothing worth inviting others to: worship services
that are comfortable for the long-time members, but confusing or
boring to guests, I think that planners, when appropriate, need to
give more thought to questions like, "How can we organize this
program/meeting/activity so that our members will want to and be
encouraged to invite other people to attend?" When planning a potluck,
is the time set that is most convenient for the members, or a time
that would encourage members to invite others to participate in the
feast? Do we even think of a potluck as an activity to which we should
invite friends, relatives, neighbors, etc.? A neighboring church in
town has had free community dinners. The members bring food, but
anyone who wants to come and eat is invited -- and it is located where
there are a lot of homeless people.

How different would our annual meetings be if we wanted members to
invite friends to the event? Certainly the reports about past
activities would not be long and boring reports, but perhaps a Power
Point presentation showing the faces of people the church had helped
over the past year, pictures of happy children in Sunday school
classes, a grieving widow surrounded by supporting people, etc. The
presentation would proclaim loudly and clearly that God, through our
ministries, is making positive differences in people's lives. In
addition, annual meetings, however they are conducted, should also
spend as much time on future plans as they do on the past. (A
congregation that is always looking backwards will have a hard time
moving forward.) New people can't be part of a congregation's past.
They can jump on the bandwagon that's heading into future plans and
ministries.

How often have we received invitations from someone we don't know over
the phone, to come and watch a presentation about the wonderful things
a new company or venture is planning to do -- and we are given the
opportunity to participate, to get in on the "ground floor," to buy
into the program -- or into a new time-share condo? While I don't
expect many annual meetings to change because of this note, I use that
as an example of re-thinking church programs, considering them to be
vehicles that motivate members to invite others to "come and see".

My second concern about the future of the church that we will fail to
provide the proper "stuff" for the invitees to see. All the gimmicks
to get members to invite others are meaningless if there is nothing
substantial for them to receive. Whether it is a loveless and joyless
gathering of people; or a worship service that is full of life and
energy that might attract hundreds each week, but fails to center on
and point to Jesus; neither will give the people (whether members or
visitors) "what they are seeking" -- namely, the One who is seeking
them.

ANDREW

Three times Andrew is doing something in John -- and each time he is
bringing someone to Jesus! First, his brother, Simon (1:40). Then, a
boy with five barley loaves and two fish (6:8); and finally, "some
Greeks" (12:20-22), which signals the hour for the Son of Man to be
glorified.

Andrew is never mentioned just by himself. Twice he is called Simon
Peter's brother (1:40; 6:8). We are told that Philip came from the
city of Andrew and Simon (1:44). Andrew and Philip go and tell Jesus
about the Greeks (12:22). It may be that being named as the first
follower of Jesus (in John) was the first time that he had ever been
first in anything. It seems likely to me that he was always living
under the shadow of his more flamboyant brother. It also seems to me
that our congregations are full of more behind-the-scenes "Andrews"
than flamboyant "Peters" who seem to get all the credit. ("Peter"
occurs in 32 verses in John -- 8 times as many as Andrew.) One doesn't
have to be a "Peter" to be an effective follower and witness to Jesus.

A DIFFERENT "CONVERSION"

Next week, we will hear Jesus calling the four fishermen (from
Matthew). With that call, they give up their work as fishermen to
follow Jesus, but in the Fourth Gospel the first disciples give up a
previous religious commitment as disciples of John [O'Day, p. 530].
There is a sense in John's gospel the battle is more between two
religious commitments -- "the Jews" and "the Christians" -- than a
movement from irreligious Jewish (or Gentile) sinners (e.g., fishermen
and tax collectors) to Christian forgiven sinners.

I think that in our day, we need to take seriously the other
(religious) commitments calling our members. There is religious
legalism. There is the cheap grace antinomianism. There are followers
of astrology and horoscopes in our congregations. Statistics that I've
read indicate that there is a strong religious or spiritual commitment
among Americans. In my mind, the great revival that is needed in
America is not a conversion to Jesus Christ -- (although there are
many who need that) -- but a conversion to the church, the communion
of saints, active participation in the "body of Christ". The
self-centered, "I can be a Christian by myself," or the "me-and-God"
religion needs to be replaced with "I need the body of Christ and the
body of Christ needs me for us to live faithfully."

"FINDING" OR "BEING FOUND"?

I don't like "finding" language, e.g., "We have found the Messiah,"
or, as a local pastor wrote in a newspaper article about a certain
event in his life, "That's where I found God." Yet, that language is
present in our text and in the following events.

The word _heurisko_ (from where we get "eureka") is used 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."

Francis Moloney (_The Gospel of John_, Sacra Pagina) takes issue with
some of these comments:

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 their 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. [pp. 54-55]

While I wouldn't go as far as Moloney in calling Andrew a liar, I
think that part of the problem is that "to find" misses some of the
meaning of the word _heurisko_. This word is used five times in these
three verses. 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 7:24-26).

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."

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]! 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 <g>) and submerged them in
water. The silver would make the water rise higher than the gold,
because it is less dense 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 -- perhaps a _metanoia_ -- a "mind changing" event.

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? They all had had their
"eureka" moment with Jesus.

THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY SIN

Throughout our text, numerous titles for Jesus are given. First, the
Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29)

The three principal suggestions for the background of this image are:

(1) It could be the apocalyptic lamb. In the context of final judgment
there appears in Jewish apocalyptic the figure of a conquering lamb
who will destroy evil in the world. This image fits well with John's
eschatological preaching. However, this image doesn't fit as well with
the "taking away sin of the world" description of the lamb.

(2) It could be the suffering servant who is "like a lamb that is led
to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent"
and who "bore the sin of many" (Isaiah 53:7, 12).

(3) It could be the paschal lamb, whose blood saved the Israelites
from death by the destroyer (Exodus 12:21-23).

Raymond Brown in his commentary on John presents arguments concerning
these background images (1) whether or not John the Baptist actually
had them in mind; and (2) whether or not the gospel writer actually
had them in mind. I think in terms of preaching, we can present these
(as well as some others) as our Christian understanding of Jesus as
the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Note that "sin" is singular. As Brown suggests, the plural "sins"
refers to sinful acts, while the singular refers to a sinful
condition. The other instance of _airo_ (take away) being used with
sin(s) is 1 John 3:5 where both the plural and singular are used: "You
know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no
sin."

Mohoney also notes that this Lamb is "of God." He is not *our* lamb.
He is not our offering. Mohoney concludes: "Jesus is not a cultic
victim but the one through whom God enters the human story, offering
it reconciliation with him. As so often in the fourth Gospel, an old
symbol is being used in a new way" [p. 59].

THE PRE-EXISTING ONE

Although not specifically a title, John presents Jesus as the
pre-existing one (1:30-31). Perhaps as an apologetic against John the
Baptist sectarians -- people who continued to follow John rather than
Jesus. It was a problem then and can be today when the "witness" or
"sign" is viewed as more important than the one they are pointing to.
If ministers or churches or denominations or the Bible or even the
Holy Spirit become more important than Jesus, then they have failed to
be proper witnesses to the greater One.

THE SPIRIT-FILLED ONE

John also presents Jesus as the one on whom the Spirit remains
(1:32-33). He doesn't give an account of the baptism -- again, perhaps
as an apologetic against people who continued to follow John the
Baptist after John had tried to point them to Christ. The evangelist
does report the same events at the baptism as we read in the other
gospels: the coming of the Holy Spirit on Jesus and a voice declaring
him to be the Son of God (1:34). However, in this gospel, it is the
voice of the "witness" John the Baptist, rather than a voice from
heaven.

OTHER TITLES

The two disciples call Jesus "Rabbi," which John tells us means
"teacher" (1:38). Literally, though, "rabbi" means "my great one" or
"my lord/master". There is no evidence that this was used as a title
prior to 70 AD, thus an indication that the Gospel was written after
that date.

Andrew tells Peter, "We have found the Messiah," which is also
interpreted in the Gospel as "Christ". Both words mean "Anointed One"
(1:41).

In the following paragraph (1:43-51), these titles are given.
* the one written about by Moses and the prophets
* Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth
* Rabbi
* Son of God
* King of Israel
* Son of Man

A very lengthy sermon or doctorate thesis could be written just on the
titles in John 1. A wide range of Christologies is included in these
few verses. Yet, do these first disciples fully understand who Jesus
is? Do these titles reflect more of their own expectations of Jesus
than of the mission to which God is sending his son?

Perhaps in most congregations, it might be more effective to ignore
all the different possible christological implications of these
titles, and simple tell a story about little Andrew who responded to
the invitation to come and see and then did his own small part to
spread the knowledge of the Messiah to his brother and throughout his
town.

Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com

from GOSPEL_NOTES_FOR_NEXT_SUNDAY.topic@ecunet.org