2 Samuel 6:12-23

            The Ark is Brought to Jerusalem

12 It was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing; 13 and when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 14 David danced before the LORD with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

16 As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

17 They brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the LORD. 18 When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts, 19 and distributed food among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their homes.

20 David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!" 21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD, that I have danced before the LORD. 22 I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." 23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:12-23, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from August 5, 2007 (Tenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the Sunday closest to August 3, Year One):

In yesterday’s reading David and a large group accompanying him went to retrieve the Ark of the God from Baale-judah, which, according to Steven L. McKenzie, is “another name for Kiriath-jearim, according to Josh. 15:9, where the ark was left in 1 Sam. 7:1” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Sam. 6:2). That retrieval was aborted, however, when “Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it” (2 Sam. 6:6), and, apparently because he was not ritually pure, “God struck him . . . and he died there” (v. 7). So David, “unwilling to take the ark of the LORD into his care in the city of David; instead . . . took it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite,” that is, a person from Gath (v. 10). The reading closed yesterday with the report of blessing for Obed-edom, because, “The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months; and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household” (v. 11).

As today’s reading begins, David receives news of this blessing, which encourages him to bring the ark to Jerusalem as originally planned. “It was told King David, ‘The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.’ So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing” (v. 12). This time, though it is not reported, he may have been accompanied with the people who danced and sang in procession with him earlier (cf. “rejoicing,” and v. 5). But the bringing of the ark was a solemn ceremonial ritual. P. Kyle McCarter compares this procession to those of other nations by calling it “A ceremony typical of ancient Near Eastern rituals in which the statue of the national god (to which the ark corresponds in Israel’s aniconic [i.e., no imagery] religion) is introduced to a newly built or newly captured royal city. In a ceremonial march the god is borne into the city with generous sacrifices along the way (v. 13), and installed in the sanctuary (v. 17), followed by the distribution of food and drink to the populace (v. 19)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Sam. 6:12-19). The narrator says that, “when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces (Myd9fAc4, ts ^e‘ādîm), he sacrificed an ox and a fatling” (v. 13). If that means repeated sacrifices for each advance of six paces, it would provide sufficient food for a large crowd of people. McCarter suggests as much but apparently thinks of the repeated sacrifices only performed every six paces within the city (Jerusalem), not all the way from Obed-edom’s home. “For every six paces the ark bearers advance, David sacrifices an ox and a fatling (i.e., ‘a fatted ox’), progressively sanctifying the city of David so that it will be ritually suitable to house the ark” (ibid., on v. 13). Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg interprets this differently “After the first six steps have been taken–the passage does not, of course, mean ‘after each sixth step’–a solemn sacrifice is offered and the procession goes forward” (I & II Samuel, trans. J. S. Bowden, The Old Testament Library, 1964, p. 279, on 2 Sam. 6:12-15). Shimon Bar-Efrat has another view of the significance of the sacrifices. By referring to “sacrifices” (plural), he apparently agrees with Hertzberg. “This time no cart is mentioned. The bearers were probably priests or Levites (see Num. 7:9; 1 Chron. 15:2). The sacrifices are meant to appease God in case another inadvertent mistake is made (cf. Job 1:5)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 630, on 2 Sam. 6:13).

“The king,” says Hertzberg, “plays a particularly active part,” noting that it is David who performs the sacrifice (op. cit., pp. 279-280 on vv. 12-15). “David danced before the LORD with all his might” (v. 14a). This time, it would appear that he dances alone (cf. v. 5), though in the end we are told that “David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet” (v. 15). David is “girded with a linen ephod” (v. 14b), which McKenzie describes as “an apron typically worn by priests (1 Sam. 2:18). Apparently,” he adds, “David is wearing little else (see v. 20)” (op. cit., on 2 Sam. 6:14). McCarter notes that “David’s ritual dance has a sacerdotal aspect, as indicated by his garment” (on v. 14). As before, and perhaps especially as the journey neared its destination, there was exuberant rejoicing. “So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet” (v. 15, cf. v. 5).

As the death of Uzzah cast a sobering shadow on the earlier procession, so this procession is beclouded by Michal’s displeasure. “As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart” (v. 16). Their “falling out” over this is soon reported (vv. 20-23). But first we are told that “They brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it” (v. 17a). Bar-Efrat reminds us that “The Ark had been in a tent since olden times (Exod. ch. 40; Josh. 18:1)” (op. cit., on v. 17). With the ark now placed in the tent, “David offer[s] burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the LORD” (v. 17b), and after these offerings, he blesses the people, another priestly function (v. 18). The food is “distributed . . . among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins,” after which “the people went back to their homes” (v. 19).

We have been told that Michal, when she “saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD . . . she despised him in her heart” (v. 16, as noted above). But David, still unaware of this, returns home “to bless his household” (v. 20a), and is met by Michal’s scathing criticism. “How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!” (v. 20b). According to Hertzberg,

Michal makes her criticism of David’s conduct clear with her taunting words. She, the king’s daughter, evidently has a feeling for what is seemly, and expresses it, not to shame David, but because she is concerned for the royal dignity. Her attitude should certainly not be described as ‘Michal’s pride (‘Schulz, etc.). Still less does she inveigh against David’s participation in the cult of Yahweh at all. It is at this point, however, that David begins to refute her. (Hertzberg, op. cit., pp. 280-281, on 2 Sam. 6:20-23)

The narrator presents David’s response to Michal at some length. “It was before the LORD, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD, that I have danced before the LORD. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor (vv. 21-22). According to McCarter, “David’s retort to Michal’s accusation is that what seems vulgar behavior to her is actually pious self-humiliation in the presence of the Lord” (op. cit., on v. 22). Hertzberg elaborates:

Two things will claim the reader’s assent; that David describes himself as having been chosen ‘above Saul’, a remark which must hit Saul’s daughter very hard, and that he says–taking up her own words–that the maids who are thought to be mocking him on the contrary have more feeling of true reverence than Michal herself; they know that reverence is to become lowly before God. (Hertzberg, op. cit., p. 281, on 2 Sam. 6;20-23)

The statement that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death” (v. 23) is “probably,” says McKenzie, “because David had no relations with her; her children would have been Saul’s heirs and a threat to David’s rule” (on v. 23; cf. McCarter on v. 23). But Hertzberg has a different view. The statement that she remained childless “is hardly meant to imply that David avoided her from then on as punishment. Her childlessness means rather that the Lord himself takes up the gauntlet that she has thrown down. To alter the saying in I [Sam.] 8:7 slightly, Michal has rejected not David, but Yahweh. So there is none of the blood of the house of Saul on the throne of Israel. That is meant to be demonstrated here” (loc. cit.). At the least, we might say of Michal that she is not simply discounted as a “mere woman”; rather she comes across as an independent person whose opinion matters, even if, from the narrator’s perspective, it’s the wrong perspective. From a certain point of view, it is a pity that the only one of many of David’s wives, of whom we are told she “loved David” (1 Sam. 18:20), should fall into his displeasure.

Romans 4:7-12

7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,

and whose sins are covered;

8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin."

9 Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, "Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness." 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Romans 4:7-12, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of June 24, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), those of March 16, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), and earlier comments as noted there:

Because the reading begins in the middle of an argument, so to speak, a little background is in order. After providing a definitive description of his theme, “that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” (Romans 3:28), Paul turns to scriptural arguments for support. He offers biblical proofs for his doctrine of justification by faith. Abraham is exhibit A. “What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?” (4:1). Neil Elliott offers an alternative translation. “Abraham . . . the flesh [NRSV], this translation implies Paul refers only to Jews. The Gk. may also be translated ‘What shall we say: Have we found Abraham to be our ancestor according to the flesh?’ which leads to the negative answer in 4:11-12, 16 (cf. 9:6-9)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rom. 4:1). Ben Witherington III, on the other hand, accepts the former understanding. He says, “The Jewish discussion out of which the material in 4:1-12 was germinated needs to be kept in view, and there is reason to see this as perhaps a continuation of the dialogue with the Jewish teacher which began in ch. 3” (Paul’s Letter to the Romans; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, p. 118, on Rom. 4:1-25; compare his reconstruction of the continuing dialogue, p. 119, with ref. to Stowers and Hays).

In any event the question is raised as to whether Abraham was justified by works. “For if Abraham was justified by works ( e[rga, erga),” says Paul, “he has something to boast about, but not before God” (v. 2). For the answer, Paul turns to scripture. “For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed [-B Nm9x$h@, he’emin b-; LXX kai; ejpivsteusen Abram tw:/ qew:/, kai episteusen Abram tō(i) theō(i) (dative)] God and it was reckoned (h!b@w4Hy01v1, wayyachš ^evehā [‘he reckoned it], LXX ejlogivsqh, elogisthē,‘it was reckoned’ = Rom. 4:3d) to him as righteousness [hq!d!c4, ts^edāqah / dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne]’ ” (v. 3, citing Gen. 15:6). Paul then draws a contrast between “works” and “trust” or “faith”: “Now to one who works (tw:/ . . . ejrazomevnw/, tō(i) . . . ergazomenō(i), participle of the verb ejrgavzomai, related to the noun ‘works,’  e[rga, erga, v. 2), wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due” (Rom. 4:4). On the other hand, he says, “But to one who without works (tw:/ . . . mh; ejrazomevnw/, tō(i) . . . mē ergazomenō(i) ) trusts (pisteuvonti, pisteuonti, participle of pisteuvw, pisteuō, the LXX verb in Gen. 15:6) him who justifies the ungodly, such faith (hJ pivstiV, hē pistis, noun related to pisteuvw, pisteuō) is reckoned as righteousness” (v. 5).

Paul’s next argument turns to the Psalms. “So also David,” he says, “speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness (logivzetai dikaiosuvnhn, logizetai dikaiosynēn) apart from works” (v. 6). After this introduction, beginning with the quoted Psalm text, today’s reading begins. The quotation focuses on forgiveness of sins: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, / and whose sins are covered; / blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon (bwoHy1, yachšōv, LXX logivzhtai = Rom. 4:8), / and whose sins are covered; / blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin” (vv. 7-8, citing Ps. 32:1-2 [LXX 31:1-2]). The catchword “reckon” (bw1H!, chāšav, logivzomai, logizomai) may have drawn Paul’s attention to these two texts. He may have been applying a variation of Hillel’s second rule of interpretation “Gezerah shawah (‘Similar laws, similar verdicts’)” which

was originally restricted to a di;V lerovmeuon [sic! di;V legovmenon? dis legomenon, ‘said twice,’ rather than dis leromeuon?], i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages. The gezerah shawah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. (Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, “Talmud Hermeneutics,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, online at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=34&letter=T#163, accessed again July 31, 2009; you may need to copy and paste the URL in your browser.)

Paul, of course refers to a verb that occurs frequently in Biblical texts. According to John Knox and John Reumann, “The commercial term reckoned [bwaHA, chāšav; cf. logivzomai, logizomai in both texts in the LXX] reminds Paul of Ps. 32:2” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Rom. 4:3). Paul illustrates the “sequence of ideas” in both texts, Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2, by reference to the blessedness of reckoning righteousness, or not reckoning sin. “Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised,” he asks, “or also on the uncircumcised?” (Rom. 4:9a). We would agree that there is indeed a blessedness for those who have made their peace with God. Paul then returns to the example of Abraham: “We say, ‘Faith (hJ pivstiV, hē pistis) was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (eijV dikaiosuvnhn, eis dikaiosynēn).’ How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.” (vv. 9b, 10). The proof that Abraham had such faith before being circumcised is seen, according to Paul, in that the circumcision only came later. “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (v. 11a). From this he infers the principle that Abraham is the “father” (pathvr, patēr, NRSV ‘ancestor’) of uncircumcised persons of faith [i.e., Gentiles such as Paul’s many Gentile converts]. “The purpose was to make him the ancestor (pathvr, patēr) of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them” (v. 11b). For Paul, the same principle applies to Jews, the “circumcised,” for he adds, “and likewise the ancestor (pathvr, patēr) of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor (pathvr, patēr) Abraham had before he was circumcised” (v. 12). For the Jews of Paul’s day, their circumcision could be assumed; the emphasis here is on a faith like Abraham’s. Paul thus includes among the people of God, that is, among the descendants of Abraham his Gentile Christian converts who have believed in his gospel of justification by faith through the grace of God based on Christ’s sacrifice of atonement (3:21-26). In principle he includes the Jews as well (v. 12; cf. chaps. 9-11).

John 1:43-51

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael

43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me." 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth." 46 Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." 47 When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, "Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!" 48 Nathanael asked him, "Where did you get to know me?" Jesus answered, "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you." 49 Nathanael replied, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" 50 Jesus answered, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these." 51 And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (John 1:43-51, NRSV)

On February 28, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments were repeated with some editing from August 7, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 3, Year Two), when comments were repeated with some editing from January 17, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 5, 2007 (the Sunday closest to August 3, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from February 24, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 12, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), on January 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two) and on August 10, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 3, Year Two). The revised comments are repeated again here:

Earlier in John chapter 1, three persons, perhaps four, become disciples of Jesus, or meet him (if the formal inclusion among the disciples came later; cf. Mk. 1:16-20; but note the verb “follow” (ajkolouqevw, akoloutheō, Jn. 1:37, 38, 40; Mk. 1:17 [Deu:te ojpivsw mou, Deute opisō mou], 18 [ajkolouqevw, akoloutheō] ). Soon others are added to the group. Andrew and the unnamed disciple were introduced to Jesus by John the Baptist (vv. 35-36) , and Andrew brought Simon to Jesus (vv. 41-42). But Jesus himself “found Philip and said to him ‘Follow me’ (  jAkolouvqei moi, akolouthei moi)” (v. 43). Philip, we are told, “was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter” (v. 44). Philip, in turn, “found Nathanael” (v. 45, who proves to be a bit skeptical. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” he asks, but Philip’s reply is, “Come and see” (v. 46). And when Jesus sees Nathanael coming, he says, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” (v. 47).

According to Philip L. Shuler, Nathanael is “one of the chosen disciples of Jesus mentioned only in John’s Gospel; brought to Jesus by Philip (Jn. 1:43-51; cf. 21:2). . . . Because his name is absent from the apostolic lists in the other Gospels and Acts, many scholars have identified him with one or another of those listed, most commonly Bartholomew” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Nathanael). Perhaps for this reason, Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., suggests, “Nathanael (Heb. ‘God has given’) may be a collective character (see note a [NRSV] in v. 51) representing those in Israel who have no deceit, i.e., none of the qualities of Jacob before he became Israel (Gen. 27:35; 32:28)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jn. 1:47-51). The note to which Hendricks refers says, “Both instances of the Greek word for you in this verse are plural” (Jn. 1:51 text note a). But we may suggest that verse 50 is addressed to “you,” singular: “Jesus answered, ‘Do you believe (pisteuveiV, pisteueis, sing. verb ending) because I told you (soi, soi, sing.) that I saw you (se, se) under the fig tree? You will see (o[yh/, opsē + iota subscript) greater things than these” (v. 50). And John the evangelist takes what Jesus said to Nathaniel and applies it to his readers: “Very truly, I tell you (uJmi:n, hymin, plural), you will see (o[yesqe, opsesthe, plural verb ending) heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (v. 51).

Since there were clearly others than the Twelve who were Jesus close disciples, even apostles, we may assume the same for Nathanael. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, for example, says, “The New Testament does not list the names of all the apostles outside the Twelve, but they include Paul, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, Andronicus, and Junia” (Good News for Women, 1996, p. 196). Junia, of course, was a woman Apostle–despite many and various attempts to discredit her by “correcting” the text of Romans 16:7 to “Junias,” which they interpret as a man’s name. But the fact is that “Junias” as a man’s name is attested nowhere in ancient literature. According to Helmut Koester,

And this letter [i.e. Romans] has one other very interesting information about women, namely it contains greetings to Junia and Andronicus, who both have been "well-respected apostles before me.” Now Junia is a woman. I showed you the inscription for Junia for the woman. And there’s an old debate that this should read, ‘Junias,’ which is a male name, with an "s" at the end, and that's because it was unthinkable that a woman was an apostle.

Now early in this century a very famous German scholar, Hans Lietzmann, who was a superb philologian, made an investigation into all surviving names of antiquity and came to the conclusion that the name Junias did not exist -- that the name Junianus existed and that the name Junias is possible as a short form for the name Junianus, but there was no evidence that it was ever used. So he says philologically you cannot bring evidence that this was a man Junias rather than a woman Junia, but he says that since it's not thinkable that a woman was an apostle, we have to read the male name Junias. And later commentaries say we have to read the male name Junias, because Hans Lietzmann has brought the philological evidence. Well, . . . he has done the evidence. He has done the opposite! So, no question – scholars agree today that indeed Romans 16 contains reference to a female apostle named Junia, whom Paul recognized as an apostle before him. (“The role of women in the Christian churches of Paul's day,” transcribed by Robert Nguyen Cramer from an audio recording and used by permission of Dr. Koester and by permission of The Foundation for Biblical Research, by whom all rights and copyrights are reserved. This has been on their Internet web site at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/women01.htm, accessed again February 27, 2009, but I could not access it on July 31, 2009). See now “Female leadership in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament),” copyright © 1999 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, on the Internet at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl0.htm (accessed July 31, 2009). Compare Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, 2005, as reviewed by Tobias Nicklas, Review of Biblical Literature, 2008 (see reference on the Internet at http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4958, accessed July 31, 2009; you may need to enter “review Epp Nicklas” in a search engine such as Google).

In any case, there seems little reason to dissolve Nathanael into “a collective character representing those in Israel who have no deceit” (with Hendricks as cited above). Nathanael responds to Jesus with a question, “Where did you get to know me?” to which Jesus responds, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you” (v. 48). Nathanael is duly impressed, and replies, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel” (v. 49). Harold W. Attridge understands Nathanael’s response as recognition of Jesus’ messiahship. “In ancient Israel, the king might be thought of metaphorically as God’s son (2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:7; 89:26), but in John Jesus’ sonship means his divinity. John also associates Jesus’ messianic kingship with prophetic powers [cf. 6:14-15], here seen in Jesus’ supernatural knowledge about Nathanael” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jn. 1:49).

Jesus accepts Nathanael’s affirmation, answering with a promise of further revelation. “Do you (singular, cf. above) believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these” (v. 50). Jesus’ promise to Nathanael, and others, is, “You (plural, cf. above) will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (v. 51), which alludes to Jacob’s dream of a ladder to heaven with “angels of God . . . ascending and descending on it” (Gen. 28:12). Nathanael is meeting the Son of Man who “descended from heaven” (3:13) and can “tell you about heavenly things” (3:12), to quote from Jesus’ later conversation with Nicodemus.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net