Text -- John 1:1-21 (NET)

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 1:5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it. 1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 1:7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, everyone, was coming into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. 1:12 But to all who have received him– those who believe in his name– he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 –children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God. 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory– the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

1:19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 1:20 He confessed– he did not deny but confessed– “I am not the Christ!” 1:21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Joh 1:1

In the beginning ( en archēi ).

Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.

Robertson: Joh 1:1

Was ( ēn ).

Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto , became) appears in Joh 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesthai ) I am"(eimi , timeless existence).

Robertson: Joh 1:1

The Word ( ho logos ).

Logos is from legō , old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi ) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue ( The Origin of the Prologue to St. John , p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’ s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos , but not John’ s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14; Rev 19:13; 1Jo 1:1 "concerning the Word of life"(an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God"in Heb 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co 8:9; Phi 2:6.; Col 1:17) and in Heb 1:2. and in Joh 17:5. This term suits John’ s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh"(sarx egeneto , Joh 1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.

Robertson: Joh 1:1

With God ( pros ton theon ).

Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo 2:1 we have a like use of pros : "We have a Paraclete with the Father"(paraklēton echomen pros ton patera ). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co 13:12), a triple use of pros . There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias , "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another"(M.&M., Vocabulary ) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue , p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

Robertson: Joh 1:1

And the Word was God ( kai theos ēn ho logos ).

By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos . That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos ) and the predicate without it (theos ) just as in Joh 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit,"not "spirit is God."So in 1Jo 4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean "God is love,"not "love is God"as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar , pp. 767f. So in Joh 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto , "the Word became flesh,"not "the flesh became Word."Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Robertson: Joh 1:2

The same ( houtos ).

"This one,"the Logos of Joh 1:1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John’ s style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God,""afterwards in time he came to be with man"(Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

Robertson: Joh 1:3

All things ( panta ).

The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1Co 8:6; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16. In Joh 1:10 John uses ho kosmos (the orderly universe) for the whole.

Robertson: Joh 1:3

Were made ( egeneto).

Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai , the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of ēn in Joh 1:1 and Joh 1:2. All things "came into being."Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai ) in contrast with being (eimi ).

Robertson: Joh 1:3

By him ( di' autou ).

By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’ s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb 1:2) names God’ s Son as the one "through whom he made the ages."Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him"(Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him"(Col 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou ) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou ).

Robertson: Joh 1:3

Without him ( chōris autou ).

Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in Phi 2:14, "apart from."John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in Joh 1:20; 1Jo 1:5. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation.

Robertson: Joh 1:3

Not anything ( oude hen ).

"Not even one thing."Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made"(ho gegonen ) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai . Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen . The early uncials had no punctuation.

Robertson: Joh 1:4

In him was life ( en autōi zōē ēn ).

That which has come into being (Joh 1:3) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb ektistai (stands created) in Col 1:16. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (Joh 11:25). This is the idea in Heb 1:3 "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power."Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John zōē means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not bios (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have estin here instead of ēn to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the Logos .

Robertson: Joh 1:4

And the life was the light of men ( kai hē zōē ēn to phōs tōn anthrōpōn ).

Here the article with both zōē and phōs makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men"is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (Joh 8:12). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (tōn anthrōpon , generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

Robertson: Joh 1:5

Shineth ( phainei ).

Linear present active indicative of phainō , old verb from phaō , to shine (phaos ,phōs ). "The light keeps on giving light."

Robertson: Joh 1:5

In the darkness ( en tēi skotiāi ).

Late word for the common skotos (kin to skia , shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin. In 2Pe 2:17 we have ho zophos tou skotou (the blackness of darkness). The Logos, the only real moral light, keeps on shining both in the Pre-incarnate state and after the Incarnation. John is fond of skotia (skotos ) for moral darkness from sin and phōs (phōtizō ,phainō ) for the light that is in Christ alone. In 1Jo 2:8 he proclaims that "the darkness is passing by and the true light is already shining."The Gnostics often employed these words and John takes them and puts them in the proper place.

Robertson: Joh 1:5

Apprehended it not ( auto ou katelaben ).

Second aorist active indicative of katalambanō , old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in Joh 12:35 (hina mē skotia humas katalabēi ) "that darkness overtake you not,"the metaphor of night following day and in 1Th 5:4 the same idiom (hina katalabēi ) is used of day overtaking one as a thief. This is the view of Origen and appears also in 2Macc 8:18. The same word appears in Aleph D in Joh 6:17 katelabe de autous hē skotia ("but darkness overtook them,"came down on them). Hence, in spite of the Vulgate comprehenderunt , "overtook"or "overcame"seems to be the idea here. The light kept on shining in spite of the darkness that was worse than a London fog as the Old Testament and archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Crete, Asia Minor show.||

Robertson: Joh 1:6

There came a man ( egeneto anthrōpos ).

Definite event in the long darkness, same verb in Joh 1:3.

Robertson: Joh 1:6

Sent ( apestalmenos ).

Perfect passive participle of apostellō , to send.

Robertson: Joh 1:6

From God ( para theou ).

From the side of (para ) God (ablative case theou ).

Robertson: Joh 1:6

Whose name ( onoma autōi ).

"Name to him,"nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, Grammar , p. 460).

Robertson: Joh 1:6

John ( Iōanēs ).

One n in Westcott and Hort. In the giving of the name see Luk 1:59-63, Hellenized form of Jonathan, Joanan (Gift of God), used always of the Baptist in this Gospel which never mentions the name of John son of Zebedee (the sons of Zebedee once, Joh 21:2).

Robertson: Joh 1:7

For witness ( eis marturian ).

Old word from martureō (from martus ), both more common in John’ s writings than the rest of the N.T. This the purpose of the Baptist’ s ministry.

Robertson: Joh 1:7

That he might bear witness ( hina marturēsēi ).

Final clause with hina and aorist active subjunctive of martureō to make clearer eis marturian .

Robertson: Joh 1:7

Of the light ( peri tou phōtos ).

"Concerning the light."The light was shining and men with blinded eyes were not seeing the light (Joh 1:26), blinded by the god of this world still (2Co 4:4). John had his own eyes opened so that he saw and told what he saw. That is the mission of every preacher of Christ. But he must first have his own eyes opened.

Robertson: Joh 1:7

That all might believe ( hina pisteusōsin ).

Final clause with hina and first aorist active subjunctive of pisteuō , ingressive aorist "come to believe."This is one of John’ s great words (about 100 times), "with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists"(Bernard). And yet pistis , so common in Paul, John uses only in 1Jo 5:4 and four times in the Apocalypse where pisteuō does not occur at all. Here it is used absolutely as in Joh 1:50, etc.

Robertson: Joh 1:7

Through him ( di' autou ).

As the intermediate agent in winning men to believe in Christ (the Logos) as the Light and the Life of men. This is likewise the purpose of the author of this book (Joh 1:31). The preacher is merely the herald to point men to Christ.

Robertson: Joh 1:8

He ( ekeinos ).

"That one,"i.e. John. He was a light (Joh 5:35) as all believers are (Mat 5:14), but not "the light"(to phōs ).

Robertson: Joh 1:8

But came ( all' ).

No verb in the Greek, to be supplied by repeating ēlthen of Joh 1:7. See similar ellipses in Joh 9:3; Joh 13:18; Joh 15:25. In Johannine fashion we have the final hina clause of Joh 1:7 repeated.

Robertson: Joh 1:9

There was ( ēn ).

Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic conjugation with erchomenon (coming) near the end, though that is possible.

Robertson: Joh 1:9

The true light ( to phōs to alēthinon ).

"The light the genuine,"not a false light of wreckers of ships, but the dependable light that guides to the harbor of safety. This true light had been on hand all the time in the darkness (ēn imperfect, linear action) before John came.

Robertson: Joh 1:9

Even the light ( not in the Greek).

Added in the English to make plain this interpretation.

Robertson: Joh 1:9

Lighteth every man ( phōtizei panta anthrōpon ).

Old verb (from phōs ) to give light as in Rev 22:5; Luk 11:35. The Quakers appeal to this phrase for their belief that to every man there is given an inner light that is a sufficient guide, the Quaker’ s text it is called. But it may only mean that all the real light that men receive comes from Christ, not necessarily that each one receives a special revelation.

Robertson: Joh 1:9

Coming ( erchomenon ).

This present middle participle of erchomai can be taken with anthrōpon just before (accusative masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world."It can also be construed with phōs (nominative neuter singular). This idea occurs in Joh 3:19; Joh 11:27; Joh 12:46. In the two last passages the phrase is used of the Messiah which makes it probable here. But even so the light presented in Joh 11:27; Joh 12:46 is that of the Incarnate Messiah, not the Pre-incarnate Logos. Here kosmos rather than panta occurs in the sense of the orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See Eph 1:4.

Robertson: Joh 1:10

He was in the world ( en tōi kosmōi ēn ).

Imperfect tense of continuous existence in the universe before the Incarnation as in Joh 1:1 and Joh 1:2.

Robertson: Joh 1:10

Was made by him ( di' autou egeneto ).

"Through him."Same statement here of "the world"(ho kosmos ) as that made in Joh 1:3 of panta .

Robertson: Joh 1:10

Knew him not ( auton ouk egnō ).

Second aorist active indicative of common verb ginoskō , what Gildersleeve called a negative aorist, refused or failed to recognize him, his world that he had created and that was held together by him (Col 1:16). Not only did the world fail to know the Pre-incarnate Logos, but it failed to recognize him when he became Incarnate (Joh 1:26). Two examples in this sentence of John’ s fondness for kai as in Joh 1:1, Joh 1:4, Joh 1:5, and Joh 1:14, the paratactic rather than the hypotactic construction, like the common Hebrew use of wav .

Robertson: Joh 1:11

Unto his own ( eis ta idia ).

Neuter plural, "unto his own things,"the very idiom used in Joh 19:27 when the Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home."The world was "the own home"of the Logos who had made it. See also Joh 16:32; Act 21:6.

Robertson: Joh 1:11

They that were his own ( hoi idioi ).

In the narrower sense, "his intimates,""his own family,""his own friends"as in Joh 13:1. Jesus later said that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country (Mar 6:4; Joh 4:44), and the town of Nazareth where he lived rejected him (Luk 4:28.; Mat 13:58). Probably here hoi idioi means the Jewish people, the chosen people to whom Christ was sent first (Mat 15:24), but in a wider sense the whole world is included in hoi idioi . Conder’ s The Hebrew Tragedy emphasizes the pathos of the situation that the house of Israel refused to welcome the Messiah when he did come, like a larger and sadder Enoch Arden experience.

Robertson: Joh 1:11

Received him not ( auton ou parelabon ).

Second aorist active indicative of paralambanō , old verb to take to one’ s side, common verb to welcome, the very verb used by Jesus in Joh 14:3 of the welcome to his Father’ s house. Cf. katelaben in Joh 1:5. Israel slew the Heir (Heb 1:2) when he came, like the wicked husbandmen (Luk 20:14).

Robertson: Joh 1:12

As many as received him ( hosoi elabon auton ).

Effective aorist active indicative of lambanō "as many as did receive him,"in contrast with hoi idioi just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers.

Robertson: Joh 1:12

To them ( autois ).

Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney ( Aramaic Origin , etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel.

Robertson: Joh 1:12

The right ( exousian ).

In Joh 5:27 edōken (first aorist active indicative of didōmi ) exousian means authority but includes power (dunamis ). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right.

Robertson: Joh 1:12

To become ( genesthai ).

Second aorist middle of ginomai , to become what they were not before.

Robertson: Joh 1:12

Children of God ( tekna theou ).

In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Act 17:28). Paul’ s phrase huioi theou (Gal 3:26) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Mat 5:9), does not occur in John’ s Gospel (but in Rev 21:7). It is possible that John prefers ta tekna tou theou for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (Joh 11:52) because of the community of nature (teknon from root tek -, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption"as Paul’ s reason for the use of huioi since Jesus uses huioi theou in Mat 5:9. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in Joh 3:3.

Robertson: Joh 1:12

Even to them that believe ( tois pisteuousin ).

No "even"in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with autois , dative case of the articular present active participle of pisteuō .

Robertson: Joh 1:12

On his name ( eis to onoma ).

Bernard notes pisteuō eis 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also Joh 2:23 and Joh 3:36 for pisteuō eis to onoma autou . This common use of onoma for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and eis to onoma is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan’ s Vocabulary ). See Act 1:15 for onomata for persons.

Robertson: Joh 1:13

Which were born ( hoi egennēthēsan ).

First aorist passive indicative of gennaō , to beget, "who were begotten."By spiritual generation (of God, ek theou ), not by physical (ex haimatōn , plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; ek thelēmatos sarkos , from sexual desire; ek thelēmatos andros , from the will of the male). But b of the old Latin reads qui natus est and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads qui natus est as does Tertullian who argues that qui nati sunt (hoi egennēthēsan ) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass ( Philology of the Gospels , p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read hoi egennēthēsan and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in Joh 1:14, but it is not stated in Joh 1:13.

Robertson: Joh 1:14

And the Word became flesh ( kai ho logos sarx egeneto ).

See Joh 1:3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than ēn of Joh 1:1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive sarx , so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word."The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in Mat 1:16-25; Luk 1:28-38, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John’ s language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also 2Co 8:9; Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; Rom 8:3; Phi 2:7.; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 2:14. "To explain the exact significance of egeneto in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter"(Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history"(Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity.

Robertson: Joh 1:14

Dwelt among us ( eskēnōsen en hēmin ).

First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of skēnoō , old verb, to pitch one’ s tent or tabernacle (skēnos or skēnē ), in N.T. only here and Rev 7-15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God’ s Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son.

Robertson: Joh 1:14

We beheld his glory ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ).

First aorist middle indicative of theaomai (from thea , spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (doxa ) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (Jam 2:1). John employs theaomai again in Joh 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and Joh 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also Joh 4:35; Joh 11:45; 1Jo 1:1.; 1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:14. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did.

Robertson: Joh 1:14

As of the only begotten from the Father ( hōs monogenous para patros ).

Strictly, "as of an only born from a father,"since there is no article with monogenous or with patros . In Joh 3:16; 1Jo 4:9 we have ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of patēr of God in relation to the Logos. Monogenēs (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in Joh 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (tekna ) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38. It occurs also in the lxx and Heb 11:17, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John’ s writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words para patros (from the Father) are to be connected with monogenous (cf. Joh 6:46; Joh 7:29, etc.) or with doxan (cf. Joh 5:41, Joh 5:44). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son"(Bernard). Cf. Joh 8:54; Joh 14:9; Joh 17:5.

Robertson: Joh 1:14

Full ( plērēs ).

Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with doxan (or genitive with monogenous ) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar , p. 275). As nominative plērēs can agree with the subject of eskēnōsen .

Robertson: Joh 1:14

Of grace and truth ( charitos kai alētheias ).

Curiously this great word charis (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John’ s Gospel save in Joh 1:14, Joh 1:16, Joh 1:17, though alētheia (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In Joh 1:17 these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

Beareth witness ( marturei ).

Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. Joh 1:17.). See Joh 1:32, Joh 1:34 for historical examples of John’ s witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort’ s text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of Joh 1:14. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

Crieth ( kekragen ).

Second perfect active indicative of krazō , old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

This was ( houtos ēn ).

Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in Act 3:10 where we should prefer "is"(estin ). Gildersleeve ( Syntax , p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things."

Robertson: Joh 1:15

Of whom I said ( hon eipon ).

But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have ho eipōn "the one who said,"a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

After me ( opisō mou ).

See also Joh 1:27. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One"(ho erchomenos ) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in Mat 3:11 ho opisō mou erchomenos (cf. Mar 1:7). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

Is become ( gegonen ).

Second perfect active indicative of ginomai . It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking.

Robertson: Joh 1:15

Before me ( emprosthen mou ).

In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, ho ischuroteros mou "the one mightier than I"(Mar 1:7) and ischuroteros mou "mightier than I"(Mat 3:11). In Joh 3:28 emprosthen ekeinou (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (Joh 3:25-30).

Robertson: Joh 1:15

For he was before me ( hoti prōtos mou ēn ).

Paradox, but clear. He had always been (ēn imperfect ) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after"John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. Prōtos mou (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular Koiné. So the Beloved Disciple came first (prōtos ) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (Joh 20:4). So also prōton humōn in Joh 15:18 means "before you"as if it were proteron humōn . Joh 1:30 repeats these words almost exactly.

Robertson: Joh 1:16

For ( hoti ).

Correct text (Aleph B C D L) and not kai (and) of the Textus Receptus. Explanatory reason for Joh 1:14.

Robertson: Joh 1:16

Of his fulness ( ek tou plērōmatos ).

The only instance of plērōma in John’ s writings, though five times of Christ in Paul’ s Epistles (Col 1:19; Col 2:9; Eph 1:23; Eph 3:19; Eph 4:13). See Col 1:19 for discussion of these terms of the Gnostics that Paul employs for all the attributes of God summed up in Christ (Col 2:9) and so used here by John of the Incarnate Logos.

Robertson: Joh 1:16

We all ( hēmeis pantes ).

John is facing the same Gnostic depreciation of Christ of which Paul writes in Colossians. So here John appeals to all his own contemporaries as participants with him in the fulness of the Logos.

Robertson: Joh 1:16

Received ( elabomen ).

Second aorist active indicative of lambanō , a wider experience than beholding (etheasametha , Joh 1:14) and one that all believers may have.

Robertson: Joh 1:16

Grace for grace ( charin anti charitos ).

The point is in anti , a preposition disappearing in the Koiné and here only in John. It is in the locative case of anta (end), "at the end,"and was used of exchange in sale. See Luk 11:11, anti ichthuos ophin , "a serpent for a fish,"Heb 12:2 where "joy"and "cross"are balanced against each other. Here the picture is "grace"taking the place of "grace"like the manna fresh each morning, new grace for the new day and the new service.

Robertson: Joh 1:17

Was given ( edothē ).

First aorist passive indicative of didōmi .

Robertson: Joh 1:17

By Moses ( dia Mōuseōs ).

"Through Moses"as the intermediate agent of God.

Robertson: Joh 1:17

Came ( egeneto ).

The historical event, the beginning of Christianity.

Robertson: Joh 1:17

By Jesus Christ ( dia Iēsou Christou ).

"Through Jesus Christ,"the intermediate agent of God the Father. Here in plain terms John identifies the Pre-incarnate Logos with Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The full historical name "Jesus Christ"is here for the first time in John. See also Joh 17:3 and four times in 1John and five times in Revelation. Without Christ there would have been no Christianity. John’ s theology is here pictured by the words "grace and truth"(hē charis kai hē alētheia ), each with the article and each supplementary to the other. It is grace in contrast with law as Paul sets forth in Galatians and Romans. Paul had made grace "a Christian commonplace"(Bernard) before John wrote. It is truth as opposed to Gnostic and all other heresy as Paul shows in Colossians and Ephesians. The two words aptly describe two aspects of the Logos and John drops the use of Logos and charis , but clings to alētheia (see Joh 8:32 for the freedom brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all through his Gospel.

Robertson: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time ( theon oudeis heōraken pōpote ).

"God no one has ever seen."Perfect active indicative of horaō . Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exo 33:20; Deu 4:12). Paul calls God aoratos (Col 1:15; 1Ti 1:17). John repeats the idea in Joh 5:37; Joh 6:46. And yet in Joh 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.

Robertson: Joh 1:18

The only begotten Son ( ho monogenēs huios ).

This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh 1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh 1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh 1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs . He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten,""the Eternal Generation of the Son"of Origen’ s phrase.

Robertson: Joh 1:18

Which is in the bosom of the Father ( ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ).

The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like pros ton theon in Joh 1:1. In Joh 3:13 there is some evidence for ho ōn en tōi ouranōi used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father.

Robertson: Joh 1:18

He ( ekinos ).

Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son.

Robertson: Joh 1:18

Hath declared him ( exēgēsato ).

First aorist (effective) middle indicative of exēgeomai , old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke’ s Gospel (Luk 24:35) and four times in Acts (Act 10:8; Act 15:12, Act 15:14; Act 21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

Robertson: Joh 1:19

And this is the witness of John ( kai hautē estin hē marturia tou Iōanou ).

He had twice already alluded to it (Joh 1:7. and Joh 1:15) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord’ s ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem.

Robertson: Joh 1:19

When the Jews sent unto him ( hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi ).

John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews"as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (apesteilan , first aorist active indicative of apostellō ).

Robertson: Joh 1:19

Priests and Levites ( hiereis kai Leueitas ).

Sadducees these were. Down below in Joh 1:24 the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in Mat 3:7 we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers"(Luk 3:7). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ"(Luk 3:15). So the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent.

Robertson: Joh 1:19

To ask him ( hina erōtēsōsin auton ).

Final hina and the first aorist active subjunctive of erōtaō , old verb to ask a question as here and often in the Koiné to ask for something (Joh 14:16) like aiteō .

Robertson: Joh 1:19

Who art thou? ( su tis ei ).

Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of su , "Thou, who art thou?"The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.

Robertson: Joh 1:20

And he confessed ( kai hōmologēsen ).

The continued paratactic use of kai (and) and the first aorist active indicative of homologeō , old verb from homologos (homon ,legō , to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Mat 10:32) as here.

Robertson: Joh 1:20

And denied not ( kai ouk ērnēsato ).

Negative statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle indicative of arneomai , another Synoptic and Pauline word (Mat 10:33; 2Ti 2:12). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was.

Robertson: Joh 1:20

And he confessed ( kai hōmologēsen ).

Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition.

Robertson: Joh 1:20

I am not the Christ ( Egō ouk eimi ho Christos ).

Direct quotation again with recitative hoti before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah,"he means by ho Christos (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Luk 3:15).

Robertson: Joh 1:21

And they asked him ( kai ērōtēsan auton ).

Here the paratactic kai is like the transitional oun (then).

Robertson: Joh 1:21

What then? ( Ti oun ).

Argumentative oun like Paul’ s ti oun in Rom 6:15. Quid ergo?

Robertson: Joh 1:21

Art thou Elijah? ( Su Elias ei ).

The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from Mal 4:5. In Mar 9:11. Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi’ s prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Robertson: Joh 1:21

He saith ( legei ).

Vivid dramatic present.

Robertson: Joh 1:21

I am not ( ouk eimi ).

Short and blunt denial.

Robertson: Joh 1:21

Art thou the prophet? ( ho prophētēs ei su ).

"The prophet art thou?"This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deu 18:15) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Act 3:22; Act 7:37), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (Joh 7:40). It is not clear in Joh 6:15 whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luk 7:19). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mar 8:28; Mat 16:14).

Robertson: Joh 1:21

And he answered ( kai apekrithē ).

First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of apokrinomai , to give a decision from myself, to reply.

Robertson: Joh 1:21

No ( Ou ).

Shortest possible denial.

Vincent: Joh 1:1

In the beginning was ( ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν )

With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh 1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare Joh 1:3; Joh 17:5; 1Jo 1:1; Eph 1:4; Pro 8:23; Psa 90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή , beginning , which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν , was , denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί , I am , Joh 8:58) instead of ἐγένετο , came into being , or began to be , which is used in Joh 1:3, Joh 1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή , in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ ' ἀρχῆς , from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (Joh 8:44; 1Jo 2:7, 1Jo 2:24; 1Jo 3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. " In Gen 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time" (Milligan and Moulton). See on Col 1:15. This notion of " beginning" is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was , then he belonged to the order of eternity. " The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle , the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή ( beginning ), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby" (Lange). " Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said . John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying , living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word " (Godet).

Vincent: Joh 1:1

The Word ( ὁ λόγος )

Logos. This expression is the keynote and theme of the entire gospel. Λόγος is from the root λεγ , appearing in λέγω , the primitive meaning of which is to lay: then, to pick out , gather , pick up: hence to gather or put words together, and so, to speak . Hence λόγος is, first of all, a collecting or collection both of things in the mind, and of words by which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself, the Latin oratio and ratio : compare the Italian ragionare , " to think" and " to speak."

As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical sense, as simply the name of a thing or act (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα ), but means a word as the thing referred to: the material , not the formal part: a word as embodying a conception or idea. See, for instance, Mat 22:46; 1Co 14:9, 1Co 14:19. Hence it signifies a saying , of God, or of man (Mat 19:21, Mat 19:22; Mar 5:35, Mar 5:36): a decree , a precept (Rom 9:28; Mar 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the Septuagint, οἱ δέκα λόγοι , " the ten words " (Exo 34:28), and hence the familiar term decalogue . It is further used of discourse: either of the act of speaking (Act 14:12), of skill and practice in speaking (Act 18:15; 2Ti 4:15), specifically the doctrine of salvation through Christ (Mat 13:20-23; Phi 1:14); of narrative , both the relation and the thing related (Act 1:1; Joh 21:23; Mar 1:45); of matter under discussion , an affair, a case in law (Act 15:6; Act 19:38).

As signifying the inward thought , it denotes the faculty of thinking and reasoning (Heb 4:12); regard or consideration (Act 20:24); reckoning , account (Phi 4:15, Phi 4:17; Heb 4:13); cause or reason (Act 10:29).

John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here, and in Joh 1:14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only. The nearest approach to it is in Rev 19:13, where the conqueror is called the Word of God; and it is recalled in the phrases Word of Life , and the Life was manifested (1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2). Compare Heb 4:12. It was a familiar and current theological term when John wrote, and therefore he uses it without explanation.

Old Testament Usage of the Term

The word here points directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking (compare Psa 33:6). The idea of God, who is in his own nature hidden, revealing himself in creation, is the root of the Logos-idea, in contrast with all materialistic or pantheistic conceptions of creation. This idea develops itself in the Old Testament on three lines. (1) The Word , as embodying the divine will , is personified in Hebrew poetry . Consequently divine attributes are predicated of it as being the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy (Psa 3:4; Isa 40:8; Psa 119:105). The Word is a healer in Psa 107:20; a messenger in Psa 147:15; the agent of the divine decrees in Isa 55:11.

(2) The personified wisdom (Job 28:12 sq.; Proverbs 8, 9). Here also is the idea of the revelation of that which is hidden. For wisdom is concealed from man: " he knoweth not the price thereof, neither is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me; and the sea saith, It is not with me. It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. It is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air" (Job 28). Even Death, which unlocks so many secrets, and the underworld, know it only as a rumor (Job 28:22). It is only God who knows its way and its place (Job 28:23). He made the world, made the winds and the waters, made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder (Job 28:25, Job 28:26). He who possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way, before His works of old, before the earth with its depths and springs and mountains, with whom was wisdom as one brought up with Him (Pro 8:26-31), declared it. " It became, as it were, objective, so that He beheld it" (Job 28:27) and embodied it in His creative work. This personification, therefore, is based on the thought that wisdom is not shut up at rest in God, but is active and manifest in the world. " She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors" (Pro 8:2, Pro 8:3). She builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding (Pro 9:1-6). It is viewed as the one guide to salvation, comprehending all revelations of God, and as an attribute embracing and combining all His other attributes.

(3) The Angel of Jehovah . The messenger of God who serves as His agent in the world of sense, and is sometimes distinguished from Jehovah and sometimes identical with him (Gen 16:7-13; Gen 32:24-28; Hos 12:4, Hos 12:5; Exo 23:20, Exo 23:21; Mal 3:1).

Apocryphal Usage

In the Apocryphal writings this mediative element is more distinctly apprehended, but with a tendency to pantheism. In the Wisdom of Solomon (at least 100 b.c.), where wisdom seems to be viewed as another name for the whole divine nature, while nowhere connected with the Messiah, it is described as a being of light, proceeding essentially from God; a true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne; a real and independent principle, revealing God in the world and mediating between it and Him, after having created it as his organ - in association with a spirit which is called μονογενές , only begotten (7:22). " She is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness" (see chapter 7, throughout). Again: " Wisdom reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly doth she order all things. In that she is conversant with God, she magnifieth her nobility: yea, the Lord of all things Himself loved her. For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of His works. Moreover, by the means of her I shall obtain immortality, and leave behind me an everlasting memorial to them that come after me" (chapter 9). In 16:12, it is said, " Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (compare Psa 107:20); and in 18:15, 16, " Thine almighty word leaped from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and, standing up, filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth." See also Wisdom of Sirach, chapters 1, 24, and Baruch 3, 4:1-4.

Later Jewish Usage

After the Babylonish captivity the Jewish doctors combined into one view the theophanies, prophetic revelations and manifestations of Jehovah generally, and united them in one single conception, that of a permanent agent of Jehovah in the sensible world, whom they designated by the name Memra ( word , λόγος ) of Jehovah . The learned Jews introduced the idea into the Targurns, or Aramaean paraphrases of the Old Testament, which were publicly read in the synagogues, substituting the name the word of Jehovah for that of Jehovah, each time that God manifested himself. Thus in Gen 39:21, they paraphrase, " The Memra was with Joseph in prison." In Psa 110:1-7 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra. The Memra is the angel that destroyed the first-born of Egypt, and it was the Memra that led the Israelites in the cloudy pillar.

Usage in the Judaeo-Alexandrine Philosophy

From the time of Ptolemy I: (323-285 b.c.), there were Jews in great numbers in Egypt. Philo (a.d. 50) estimates them at a million in his time. Alexandria was their headquarters. They had their own senate and magistrates, and possessed the same privileges as the Greeks. The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (b.c. 280-150) was the beginning of a literary movement among them, the key-note of which was the reconciliation of Western culture and Judaism, the establishment of a connection between the Old Testament faith and the Greek philosophy. Hence they interpreted the facts of sacred history allegorically, and made them symbols of certain speculative principles, alleging that the Greek philosophers had borrowed their wisdom from Moses. Aristobulus (about 150 b.c.) asserted the existence of a previous and much older translation of the law, and dedicated to Ptolemy VI an allegorical exposition of the Pentateuch, in which he tried to show that the doctrines of the Peripatetic or Aristotelian school were derived from the Old Testament. Most of the schools of Greek philosophy were represented among the Alexandrian Jews, but the favorite one was the Platonic. The effort at reconciliation culminated in Philo, a contemporary of Christ. Philo was intimately acquainted with the Platonic philosophy, and made it the fundamental feature of his own doctrines, while availing himself likewise of ideas belonging to the Peripatetic and Stoic schools. Unable to discern the difference in the points of view from which these different doctrines severally proceeded, he jumbled together not merely discordant doctrines of the Greek schools, but also those of the East, regarding the wisdom of the Greeks as having originated in the legislation and writings of Moses. He gathered together from East and West every element that could help to shape his conception of a vicegerent of God, " a mediator between the eternal and the ephemeral. His Logos reflects light from countless facets."

According to Philo, God is the absolute Being. He calls God " that which is:" " the One and the All." God alone exists for himself, without multiplicity and without mixture. No name can properly be ascribed to Him: He simply is . Hence, in His nature, He is unknowable.

Outside of God there exists eternal matter, without form and void, and essentially evil; but the perfect Being could not come into direct contact with the senseless and corruptible; so that the world could not have been created by His direct agency. Hence the doctrine of a mediating principle between God and matter - the divine Reason , the Logos , in whom are comprised all the ideas of finite things, and who created the sensible world by causing these ideas to penetrate into matter.

The absolute God is surrounded by his powers (δυνάμεις ) as a king by his servants. These powers are, in Platonic language, ideas; in Jewish, angels; but all are essentially one, and their unity, as they exist in God, as they emanate from him, as they are disseminated in the world, is expressed by Logos . Hence the Logos appears under a twofold aspect: (1) As the immanent reason of God, containing within itself the world-ideal, which, while not outwardly existing, is like the immanent reason in man. This is styled Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος , i.e., the Logos conceived and residing in the mind . This was the aspect emphasized by the Alexandrians, and which tended to the recognition of a twofold personality in the divine essence. (2) As the outspoken word , proceeding from God and manifest in the world. This, when it has issued from God in creating the world, is the Λόγος προφορικός , i.e., the Logos uttered , even as in man the spoken word is the manifestation of thought. This aspect prevailed in Palestine, where the Word appears like the angel of the Pentateuch, as the medium of the outward communication of God with men, and tends toward the recognition of a divine person subordinate to God. Under the former aspect, the Logos is, really, one with God's hidden being: the latter comprehends all the workings and revelations of God in the world; affords from itself the ideas and energies by which the world was framed and is upheld; and, filling all things with divine light and life, rules them in wisdom, love, and righteousness. It is the beginning of creation, not inaugurated, like God, nor made, like the world; but the eldest son of the eternal Father (the world being the younger); God's image; the mediator between God and the world; the highest angel; the second God.

Philo's conception of the Logos, therefore, is: the sum-total and free exercise of the divine energies; so that God, so far as he reveals himself, is called Logos; while the Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God.

John's doctrine and terms are colored by these preceding influences. During his residence at Ephesus he must have become familiar with the forms and terms of the Alexandrian theology. Nor is it improbable that he used the term Logos with an intent to facilitate the passage from the current theories of his time to the pure gospel which he proclaimed. " To those Hellenists and Hellenistic Jews, on the one hand, who were vainly philosophizing on the relations of the finite and infinite; to those investigators of the letter of the Scriptures, on the other, who speculated about the theocratic revelations, John said, by giving this name Logos to Jesus: 'The unknown Mediator between God and the world, the knowledge of whom you are striving after, we have seen, heard, and touched. Your philosophical speculations and your scriptural subtleties will never raise you to Him. Believe as we do in Jesus, and you will possess in Him that divine Revealer who engages your thoughts'" (Godet).

But John's doctrine is not Philo's, and does not depend upon it. The differences between the two are pronounced. Though both use the term Logos, they use it with utterly different meanings. In John it signifies word , as in Holy Scripture generally; in Philo, reason; and that so distinctly that when Philo wishes to give it the meaning of word , he adds to it by way of explanation, the term ῥῆμα , word .

The nature of the being described by Logos is conceived by each in an entirely different spirit. John's Logos is a person , with a consciousness of personal distinction; Philo's is impersonal. His notion is indeterminate and fluctuating, shaped by the influence which happens to be operating at the time. Under the influence of Jewish documents he styles the Logos an " archangel;" under the influence of Plato, " the Idea of Ideas;" of the Stoics, " the impersonal Reason." It is doubtful whether Philo ever meant to represent the Logos formally as a person. All the titles he gives it may be explained by supposing it to mean the ideal world on which the actual is modeled.

In Philo, moreover, the function of the Logos is confined to the creation and preservation of the universe. He does not identify or connect him with the Messiah. His doctrine was, to a great degree, a philosophical substitute for Messianic hopes. He may have conceived of the Word as acting through the Messiah, but not as one with him. He is a universal principle. In John the Messiah is the Logos himself, uniting himself with humanity, and clothing himself with a body in order to save the world.

The two notions differ as to origin. The impersonal God of Philo cannot pass to the finite creation without contamination of his divine essence. Hence an inferior agent must be interposed. John's God, on the other hand, is personal, and a loving personality. He is a Father (Joh 1:18); His essence is love (Joh 3:16; 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:16). He is in direct relation with the world which He desires to save, and the Logos is He Himself, manifest in the flesh. According to Philo, the Logos is not coexistent with the eternal God. Eternal matter is before him in time. According to John, the Logos is essentially with the Father from all eternity (Joh 1:2), and it is He who creates all things, matter included (Joh 1:3).

Philo misses the moral energy of the Hebrew religion as expressed in its emphasis upon the holiness of Jehovah, and therefore fails to perceive the necessity of a divine teacher and Savior. He forgets the wide distinction between God and the world, and declares that, were the universe to end, God would die of loneliness and inactivity.

The Meaning of Logos in John

As Logos has the double meaning of thought and s peech , so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression " I speak in my heart" for " I think" ).

The Logos of John is the real, personal God (Joh 1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God. and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (Joh 1:1, Joh 1:18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Heb 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (Heb 1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Phi 2:6.

The following is from William Austin, " Meditation for Christmas Day," cited by Ford on John:

" The name Word is most excellently given to our Savior; for it expresses His nature in one, more than in any others. Therefore St. John, when he names the Person in the Trinity (1Jo 5:7), chooses rather to call Him Word than Son; for word is a phrase more communicable than son . Son hath only reference to the Father that begot Him; but word may refer to him that conceives it; to him that speaks it; to that which is spoken by it; to the voice that it is clad in; and to the effects it raises in him that hears it. So Christ, as He is the Word , not only refers to His Father that begot Him, and from whom He comes forth, but to all the creatures that were made by Him; to the flesh that He took to clothe Him; and to the doctrine He brought and taught, and, which lives yet in the hearts of all them that obediently do hear it. He it is that is this Word; and any other, prophet or preacher, he is but a voice (Luk 3:4). Word is an inward conception of the mind; and voice is but a sign of intention . St. John was but a sign, a voice; not worthy to untie the shoe-latchet of this Word. Christ is the inner conception 'in the bosom of His Father;' and that is properly the Word . And yet the Word is the intention uttered forth, as well as conceived within; for Christ was no less the Word in the womb of the Virgin, or in the cradle of the manger, or on the altar of the cross, than he was in the beginning, 'in the bosom of his Father.' For as the intention departs not from the mind when the word is uttered, so Christ, proceeding from the Father by eternal generation, and after here by birth and incarnation, remains still in Him and with Him in essence; as the intention, which is conceived and born in the mind, remains still with it and in it, though the word be spoken. He is therefore rightly called the Word , both by His coming from, and yet remaining still in, the Father."

Vincent: Joh 1:1

And the Word

A repetition of the great subject, with solemn emphasis.

Vincent: Joh 1:1

Was with God ( ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν )

Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode . Wyc., at God . With (πρός ) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός , which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside , but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: " Are not his sisters here with us " (πρὸς ἡμᾶς ), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar 6:3; Mat 13:56). " How long shall I be with you " (πρὸς ὑμᾶς , Mar 9:16). " I sat daily with you " (Mat 26:55). " To be present with the Lord " (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον , 2Co 5:8). " Abide and winter with you " (1Co 16:6). " The eternal life which was with the Father " (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα , 1Jo 1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.

Vincent: Joh 1:2

The same ( οὗτος )

Literally, this one; the one first named; the Word.

Vincent: Joh 1:2

Was in the beginning with God

In Joh 1:1 the elements of this statement have been given separately: the Word, the eternal being of the Word, and his active communion with God. Here they are combined, and with new force. This same Word not only was coeternal with God in respect of being (ἦν , was ), but was eternally in active communion with Him ( in the beginning with God: προ,ς τὸν Θεὸν ): " not simply the Word with God, but God with God" (Moulton). Notice that here Θεὸν has the article, as in the second proposition, where God is spoken of absolutely. In the third proposition, the Word was God , the article was omitted because Θεὸς described the nature of the Word and did not identify his person. Here, as in the second proposition, the Word is placed in personal relation to God.

This verse forms the transition point from the discussion of the personal being of the Word to His manifestation in creation. If it was this same Word, and no other, who was Himself God, and who, from all eternity, was in active communion with God, then the statement follows naturally that all things were created through Him, thus bringing the essential nature of the Word and His manifestation in creation into connection. As the idea of the Word involves knowledge and will, wisdom and force, the creative function is properly His. Hence His close relation to created things, especially to man, prepares the way for His incarnation and redeeming work. The connection between creation and redemption is closer than is commonly apprehended. It is intimated in the words of Isaiah (Isa 46:4), " I have made, and I will bear." Redemption, in a certain sense, grows out of creation. Because God created man in His own image, He would restore him to that image. Because God made man, He loves him, educates him, bears with him carries on the race on the line of His infinite patience, is burdened with its perverseness and blindness, and expresses and effectuates all this in the incarnation and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. God is under the stress of the parental instinct (humanly speaking) to redeem man.

Vincent: Joh 1:3

All things ( πάντα )

Regarded severally . The reference is to the infinite detail of creation, rather than to creation as a whole, which is expressed by τὰ πάντα , the all (Col 1:16). For this reason John avoids the word κόσμος , the world , which denotes the world as a great system. Hence Bengel, quoted by Meyer, is wrong in referring to κόσμῳ ( the world ) of Joh 1:10 as a parallel.

Vincent: Joh 1:3

Were made ( ἐγένετο )

Literally, came into being , or became . Expressing the passage from nothingness into being, and the unfolding of a divine order. Compare Joh 1:14, Joh 1:17. Three words are used in the New Testament to express the act of creation: κτίζειν , to create (Rev 4:11; Rev 10:6; Col 1:16); ποιεῖν , to make (Rev 14:7; Mar 10:6), both of which refer to the Creator; and γίγνεσθαι , to become , which refers to that which is created. In Mar 10:6, both words occur. " From the beginning of the creation (κτίσεως ) God made " (ἐποίησεν ). So in Eph 2:10 : " We are His workmanship (ποίημα ), created (κτισθέντες ) in Christ Jesus." Here the distinction is between the absolute being expressed by ἦν (see on Joh 1:1), and the coming into being of creation (ἐγένετο ). The same contrast occurs in Joh 1:6, Joh 1:9. " A man sent from God came into being " (ἐγένετο ); " the true Light was " (ἦν ).

" The main conception of creation which is present in the writings of St. John is expressed by the first notice which he makes of it: All things came into being through the Word . This statement sets aside the notions of eternal matter and of inherent evil in matter. 'There was when' the world 'was not' (Joh 17:5, Joh 17:24); and, by implication, all things as made were good. The agency of the Word, 'who was God,' again excludes both the idea of a Creator essentially inferior to God, and the idea of an abstract Monotheism in which there is no living relation between the creature and the Creator; for as all things come into being 'through' the Word, so they are supported 'in' Him (Joh 1:3; compare Col 1:16 sq.; Heb 1:3). And yet more, the use of the term ἐγένετο , came into being , as distinguished from ἐκτίσθη , were created , suggests the thought that creation is to be regarded (according to our apprehension) as a manifestation of a divine law of love. Thus creation ( all things came into being through Him ) answers to the Incarnation ( the Word became flesh ). All the unfolding and infolding of finite being to the last issue lies in the fulfillment of His will who is love" (Westcott, on 1Jo 2:17).

Vincent: Joh 1:3

By Him ( δἰ αὐτοῦ )

Literally, through him. The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ τοῦ προφήτου , through the prophet (Mat 1:22, on which see note). It is the preposition by which the relation of Christ to creation is usually expressed (see 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), though it is occasionally used of the Father (Heb 2:10; Rom 11:36, and Gal 1:1, where it is used of both). Hence, as Godet remarks, it " does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son.

Vincent: Joh 1:3

Without ( χωρὶς )

Literally, apart from . Compare Joh 15:5.

Vincent: Joh 1:3

Was not anything made that was made ( ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὁ γέγονεν ).

Many authorities place the period after ἕν , and join ὁ γένονεν with what follows, rendering, " without Him was not anything made. That which hath been made was life in Him."

Vincent: Joh 1:3

Made ( ἐγένετο )

As before, came into being .

Vincent: Joh 1:3

Not anything ( οὐδὲ ἓν )

Literally, not even one thing . Compare on πάντα ( all things ) at the beginning of this verse.

Vincent: Joh 1:3

That was made ( ὁ γέγονεν )

Rev., more correctly, that hath been made , observing the force of the perfect tense as distinguished from the aorist (ἐγένετο ) The latter tense points back to the work of creation considered as a definite act or series of acts in the beginning of time. The perfect tense indicates the continuance of things created; so that the full idea is, that which hath been made and exists . The combination of a positive and negative clause (compare Joh 1:20) is characteristic of John's style, as also of James'. See note on " wanting nothing," Jam 1:4.

Vincent: Joh 1:4

In Him was life ( ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν )

He was the fountain of life - physical, moral, and eternal - its principle and source. Two words for life are employed in the New Testament: βίος and ζωὴ . The primary distinction is that ζωὴ means existence as contrasted with death, and βίος , the period, means, or manner of existence. Hence βίος is originally the higher word, being used of men, while ζωὴ is used of animals (ζῶα ). We speak therefore of the discussion of the life and habits of animals as zoo logy; and of accounts of men's lives as bio graphy. Animals have the vital principle in common with men, but men lead lives controlled by intellect and will, and directed to moral and intellectual ends. In the New Testament, βίος means either living , i.e., means of subsistence (Mar 12:44; Luk 8:43), or course of life , life regarded as an economy (Luk 8:14; 1Ti 2:2; 2Ti 2:4). Ζωὴ occurs in the lower sense of life, considered principally or wholly as existence (1Pe 3:10; Act 8:33; Act 17:25; Heb 7:3). There seems to be a significance in the use of the word in Luk 16:25 : " Thou in thy lifetime (ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου ) receivedst thy good things;" the intimation being that the rich man's life had been little better than mere existence, and not life at all in the true sense. But throughout the New Testament ζωὴ is the nobler word, seeming to have changed places with βίος . It expresses the sum of mortal and eternal blessedness (Mat 25:46; Luk 18:30; Joh 11:25; Act 2:28; Rom 5:17; Rom 6:4), and that not only in respect of men, but also of God and Christ. So here. Compare Joh 5:26; Joh 14:6; 1Jo 1:2. This change is due to the gospel revelation of the essential connection of sin with death, and consequently, of life with holiness. " Whatever truly lives, does so because sin has never found place in it, or, having found place for a time, has since been overcome and expelled" (Trench).

Ζωὴ is a favorite word with John. See Joh 11:25; Joh 14:6; Joh 8:12; 1Jo 1:2; 1Jo 5:20; Joh 6:35, Joh 6:48; Joh 6:63; Rev 21:6; Rev 22:1, Rev 22:17; Rev 7:17; Joh 4:14; Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2, Rev 22:14, Rev 22:19; Joh 12:50; Joh 17:3; Joh 20:31; Joh 5:26; Joh 6:53, Joh 6:54; Joh 5:40; Joh 3:15, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:36; Joh 10:10; Joh 5:24; Joh 12:25; Joh 6:27; Joh 4:36; 1Jo 5:12, 1Jo 5:16; Joh 6:51.

Vincent: Joh 1:4

Was the Light of men ( ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων )

Passing from the thought of creation in general to that of mankind, who, in the whole range of created things, had a special capacity for receiving the divine. The Light - the peculiar mode of the divine operation upon men, conformably to their rational and moral nature which alone was fitted to receive the light of divine truth. It is not said that the Word was light, but that the life was the light. The Word becomes light through the medium of life, of spiritual life, just as sight is a function of physical life. Compare Joh 14:6, where Christ becomes the life through being the truth; and Mat 5:8, where the pure heart is the medium through which God is beheld. In whatever mode of manifestation the Word is in the world, He is the light of the world; in His works, in the dawn of creation; in the happy conditions of Eden; in the Patriarchs, in the Law and the Prophets, in His incarnation, and in the subsequent history of the Church. Compare Joh 9:5. Of men , as a class, and not of individuals only.

Vincent: Joh 1:5

Shineth ( φαίσει )

Note the present tense, indicating not merely the present point of time, but that the light has gone forth continuously and without interruption from the beginning until now, and is still shining. Hence φαίνει , shineth , denoting the peculiar property of light under all circumstances, and not φωτίζει , lighteneth or illuminateth , as in Joh 1:9. The shining does not always illuminate. Compare 1Jo 2:8.

Vincent: Joh 1:5

In the darkness ( ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ )

Σκοτία , darkness , is a word peculiar to later Greek, and used in the New Testament almost exclusively by John. It occurs once in Mat 10:27, and once in Luk 12:3. The more common New Testament word is σκότος , from the same root, which appears in σκιά , shadow , and σκηνή , tent . Another word for darkness, ζόφος , occurs only in Peter and Jude (2Pe 2:4, 2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:6, Jud 1:13). See on 2Pe 2:4. The two words are combined in the phrase blackness of darkness (2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:13). In classical Greek σκότος , as distinguished from ζόφος , is the stronger term, denoting the condition of darkness as opposed to light in nature. Hence of death , of the condition before birth ; of night . Ζόφος , which is mainly a poetical term, signifies gloom , half-darkness , nebulousness . Here the stronger word is used. The darkness of sin is deep . The moral condition which opposes itself to divine light is utterly dark. The very light that is in it is darkness. Its condition is the opposite of that happy state of humanity indicated in Joh 1:4, when the life was the light of men; it is a condition in which mankind has become the prey of falsehood, folly and sin. Compare 1Jo 1:9-10. Rom 1:21, Rom 1:22.

Vincent: Joh 1:5

Comprehended ( κατέλαβεν )

Rev., apprehended . Wyc., took not it . See on Mar 9:18; see on Act 4:13. Comprehended , in the sense of the A.V., understood , is inadmissible. This meaning would require the middle voice of the verb (see Act 4:13; Act 10:34; Act 25:25). The Rev., apprehended , i.e., grasped or seized , gives the correct idea, which appears in Joh 12:35, " lest darkness come upon you," i.e., overtake and seize . The word is used in the sense of laying hold of so as to make one's own; hence, to take possession of . Used of obtaining the prize in the games (1Co 9:24); of attaining righteousness (Rom 9:30); of a demon taking possession of a man (Mar 9:18); of the day of the Lord overtaking one as a thief (1Th 5:4). Applied to darkness, this idea includes that of eclipsing or overwhelming . Hence some render overcame (Westcott, Moulton). John's thought is, that in the struggle between light and darkness, light was victorious. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it. " The whole phrase is indeed a startling paradox. The light does not banish the darkness; the darkness does not overpower the light. Light and darkness coexist in the world side by side" (Westcott).

Vincent: Joh 1:6

There was a man ( ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος )

Better, Rev., " there came a man," ἐγένετο denoting the historical manifestation, the emergence of the Baptist into the economy of the revelation of the light. Compare Joh 3:1, there was a man (ἦν ἄνθρωπος ), where the mere fact that there was such a man as Nicodemus is stated. See remarks on ἦν , Joh 1:1. A distinction is also intimated between the eternal being (ἦν ) of the Word and the coming into being of his messenger.

Vincent: Joh 1:6

Sent ( ἀπεσταλμένος )

See on Mat 10:2, Mat 10:16; see on Mar 4:29; see on Luk 4:18. The verb carries the sense of sending an envoy with a special commission. Hence it is used of the mission of the Son of God, and of His apostles; the word apostle being directly derived from it. It is thus distinguished from πέμπω , to send , which denotes simply the relation of the sender to the sent. See on Joh 20:21, and see on 1Jo 3:5. The statement is not merely equivalent to was sent . The finite verb and the participle are to be taken separately, as stating two distinct facts, the appearance and the mission of John. There came a man, and that man was sent from God.

Vincent: Joh 1:6

From God ( παρὰ Θεοῦ )

The preposition means from beside . It invests the messenger with more dignity and significance than if the writer had said, " sent by God." It is used of the Holy Spirit, sent from the Father (Joh 15:26).

Vincent: Joh 1:6

Whose name was John ( ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἱωάνης )

Literally, the name unto him John . The first mention of John the Baptist. The last occurs, Act 19:3. On the name, see on Mat 3:1; see on Luk 3:2. John never speaks of the Baptist as John the Baptist, like the other Evangelists, but simply as John. This is perfectly natural on the supposition that John himself is the author of the gospel, and is the other John of the narrative.

Vincent: Joh 1:7

The same ( οὗτος )

Compare Joh 1:2, and the pronoun ἐκεῖνος , he , in Joh 1:8.

Vincent: Joh 1:7

For a witness ( εἰς μαρτυρίαν )

Revised version of the New Testament, more correctly, for witness : a witness would be, μάρτυρα as Act 1:8. The sense is for witness-bearing or to bear witness . On the word, see Act 1:22; 1Pe 5:1. It is one of John's characteristic words, occurring nearly fifty times in various forms in his Gospel, and thirty or forty times in the Epistles and Revelation. The emphatic development of the idea of witness is peculiar to this Gospel. " It evidently belongs to a time when men had begun to reason about the faith, and to analyze the grounds on which it rested" (Westcott). He develops the idea under the following forms: The witness of the Father (Joh 5:31, Joh 5:34, Joh 5:37); the witness of Christ himself (Joh 8:14; Joh 18:37); the witness of works (Joh 5:17, Joh 5:36; Joh 10:25; Joh 14:11; Joh 15:24); the witness of Scripture (Joh 5:39, Joh 5:40, Joh 5:46; Joh 1:46); the witness of the forerunner (Joh 1:7; Joh 5:33, Joh 5:35); the witness of the disciples (Joh 15:27; Joh 19:35; Joh 21:24; 1Jo 1:2; 1Jo 4:14); the witness of the Spirit (Joh 15:26; Joh 16:13, Joh 16:14; 1Jo 5:6). Note the emphasis attached to the idea here, by the twofold form in which it is put: first, generally, for witness , and then by giving the subject of the testimony.

Vincent: Joh 1:7

All

The Baptist took up the work of the prophets, as respects their preparation for the universal extension of the divine call (Isa 49:6). His message was to men , without regard to nation, sect, descent, or other considerations.

Vincent: Joh 1:7

Through him

John the Baptist.

Vincent: Joh 1:8

He ( ἐκεῖνος )

Emphatic, " It was not he who was the light." Compare Joh 2:21, " He (ἐκεῖνος ) spake," bringing out the difference between Jesus' conception of destroying and rebuilding the temple, and that of his hearers.

Vincent: Joh 1:8

That light ( τὸ φῶς )

Rev., the light. The emphatic that of the A.V. is unnecessary.

Vincent: Joh 1:8

Was sent

Rev., came . Neither in the original text. Literally, " He was not the light, but in order that (ἵνα ) he might bear witness." So in Joh 9:3. " Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but (he was born blind) that the works," etc. Compare Joh 15:25.

Vincent: Joh 1:9

That was the true light, etc.

This passage is differently interpreted. Some join coming (ἐρχόμενον ) with man (ἄνθρωπον ), and render every man that cometh , as A.V. Others join coming with light , and render, as Rev., the true light - coming into the world . The latter is the preferable rendering, and is justified by John's frequent use of the phrase coming into the world , with reference to our Lord. See Joh 3:19; Joh 6:14; Joh 9:39; Joh 11:27; Joh 12:46; Joh 16:28; Joh 18:37. In Joh 3:19 and Joh 12:46, it is used as here, in connection with light . Note especially the latter, where Jesus himself says, " I am come a light into the world ." Was (ἦν ) is to be taken independently, there was , and not united in a single conception with coming (ἐρχόμενον ), so as to mean was coming. The light was , existed, when the Baptist appeared as a witness. Up to the time of his appearance it was all along coming: its permanent being conjoined with a slow, progressive coming , a revelation " at sundry times and in diverse manners" (Heb 1:1). " From the first He was on His way to the world, advancing toward the incarnation by preparatory revelations" (Westcott). Render therefore as Rev., " There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world."

Vincent: Joh 1:9

True ( ἀληθινὸν )

Wyc., very light (compare the Nicene creed, " very God of very God" ). This epithet is applied to light only here and 1Jo 2:8, and is almost confined to the writings of John. A different word, ἀληθής , also rendered true , occurs at Joh 3:33; Joh 5:31; Joh 8:13, and elsewhere. The difference is that ἀληθινόζ signifies true , as contrasted with false ; while ἀληθινός signifies what is real , perfect , and substantial , as contrasted with what is fanciful , shadowy , counterfeit , or merely symbolic . Thus God is ἀληθής (Joh 3:33) in that He cannot lie. He is ἀληθινός (1Th 1:9), as distinguished from idols. In Heb 8:2, the heavenly tabernacle is called ἀληθινή , as distinguished from the Mosaic tabernacle, which was a figure of the heavenly reality (Heb 9:24). Thus the expression true light denotes the realization of the original divine idea of the Light - the archetypal Light, as contrasted with all imperfect manifestations: " the Light which fulfilled all that had been promised by the preparatory, partial, even fictitious lights which had existed in the world before."

" Our little systems have their day;

They have their day and cease to be:

They are but broken lights of Thee,

And Thou, O Lord, art more than they."

Tennyson, In Memoriam .

Vincent: Joh 1:9

Lighteth ( φωτίζει )

See on shineth , Joh 1:5, and compare Luk 11:35, Luk 11:36.

Vincent: Joh 1:9

Every man ( πάντα ἄνθρωπον )

Not collectively , as in Joh 1:7, but individually and personally .

Vincent: Joh 1:9

The world ( τὸν κόσμον )

As in Joh 1:3, the creation was designated in its several details by πάντα , all things , so here, creation is regarded in its totality , as an ordered whole. See on Act 17:24; see on Jam 3:6. Four words are used in the New Testament for world :

(1) γῇ , land , ground , territory , the earth , as distinguished from the heavens. The sense is purely physical.

(2) οἰκουμένη , which is a participle, meaning inhabited , with γῆ , earth , understood, and signifies the earth as the abode of men; the whole inhabited world. See on Mat 24:14; see on Luk 2:1. Also in a physical sense, though used once of " the world to come" (Heb 2:5).

(3) αἰών , essentially time , as the condition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence: a period of existence; a lifetime; a generation; hence, a long space of time; an age , era , epoch , period of a dispensation . On this primary, physical sense there arises a secondary sense, viz., all that exists in the world under the conditions of time . From this again develops a more distinctly ethical sense, the course and current of this world's affairs (compare the expression, the times ), and this course as corrupted by sin; hence the evil world . So Gal 1:4; 2Co 4:4.

(4) κόσμος , which follows a similar line of development from the physical to the ethical sense; meaning (a) ornament , arrangement , order (1Pe 3:3); (b) the sum-total of the material universe considered as a system (Mat 13:35; Joh 17:5; Act 17:24; Phi 2:15). Compare Plato. " He who is incapable of communion is also incapable of friendship. And philosophers tell us, Callicles, that communion and friendship and orderliness and temperance and justice bind together heaven and earth and gods and men, and that this universe is therefore called Cosmos, or order, not disorder or misrule" (" Gorgias," 508). (c) That universe as the abode of man (Joh 16:21; 1Jo 3:17). (d) The sum-total of humanity in the world; the human race (Joh 1:29; Joh 4:42). (e) In the ethical sense, the sum-total of human life in the ordered world , considered apart from , alienated from , and hostile to God , and of the earthly things which seduce from God (Joh 7:7; Joh 15:18; Joh 17:9, Joh 17:14; 1Co 1:20, 1Co 1:21; 2Co 7:10; Jam 4:4).

This word is characteristic of John, and pre-eminently in this last, ethical sense, in which it is rarely used by the Synoptists; while John nowhere uses αἰών of the moral order. In this latter sense the word is wholly strange to heathen literature, since the heathen world had no perception of the opposition between God and sinful man; between the divine order and the moral disorder introduced and maintained by sin.

Vincent: Joh 1:10

He was in the world

Not merely at His advent, but before His incarnation no less than after it. See on Joh 1:4, Joh 1:5.

Vincent: Joh 1:10

Was made ( ἐγένετο )

Came into being. See on Joh 1:3.

Vincent: Joh 1:10

By Him. Or through Him (διά )

See on Joh 1:3.

Vincent: Joh 1:10

Knew ( ἔγνω )

Recognized. Though He was in the world and was its Creator, yet the world did not recognize him. This is the relation of ideas in these three clauses, but John expresses this relation after the Hebrew manner, by simply putting the three side by side, and connecting them by καὶ , and . This construction is characteristic of John. Compare Joh 8:20, where the point of the passage is, that though Jesus was teaching publicly, where He might easily have been seized, yet no man attempted his seizure. This is expressed by two parallel clauses with the simple copulative. " These words spake Jesus," etc., " and no man laid hands on Him."

Vincent: Joh 1:10

Him ( αὐτὸν )

The preceding him (αὐτοῦ ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light , " the Word regarded as a luminous principle ," as it , in Joh 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him , so that the Word now appears as a person . This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ .

On the enlightened and unenlightened nature, compare the allegory in Plato's " Republic," at the beginning of Book 7, where he pictures men confined from childhood in an underground den, chained so that they can only see before them, and with no light save from a fire behind them. They mistake shadows for substance, and echoes for voices. When they are liberated and compelled to look at the light, either of the fire or of the sun, their unaccustomed eyes are pained, and they imagine that the shadows which they formerly saw are truer than the real objects which are now shown them. Finally, they will be able to see the sun, and will recognize him as the giver of the seasons and years, and the guardian of all that is in the visible world. " When the eye of the soul is turned round, the whole soul must be turned round from the world of becoming into that of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or, in other words, of the good."

Notice also the appropriateness of the two verbs joined with the neuter and the masculine pronouns. In Joh 1:5, with it , the Word, as a principle of light , κατέλαβεν , apprehended . Here, with Him , the Word, as a person , ἔγνω , recognized .

Vincent: Joh 1:11

He came ( ἦλθεν )

The narrative now passes from the general to the special action of the Word as the Light. The verb came , in the aorist tense, denotes a definite act - the Incarnation. In Joh 1:10 the Word is described as in the world invisibly . Now He appears .

Vincent: Joh 1:11

Unto His own ( εἰς τὰ ἴδια )

Literally, his own things : see on Act 1:7. The Rev. follows the A.V. Wyc., into his own things . Render his own home , and compare Joh 16:32; Joh 19:27; Act 21:6. The reference is to the land of Israel, which is recognized as God's own in a peculiar sense. See Jer 2:7; Hos 9:3; Zec 2:12; Deu 7:6. Not a repetition of Joh 1:10. There is a progress in the narrative. He was in the world at large: then he came unto His own home.

Vincent: Joh 1:11

His own ( οἱ ἴδια )

The masculine gender, as the preceding was neuter. That signified His own home or possessions , this His own people . Rev., they that were His own .

Vincent: Joh 1:11

Received ( παρέλαβον )

Most commonly in the New Testament of taking one along with another. See on Mat 4:5; see on Mat 17:1; see on Act 16:33. But also of accepting or acknowledging one to be what he professes to be, and of receiving something transmitted, as 1Co 11:23; Gal 1:12, etc. Westcott thinks this latter sense is implied here; Christ having been offered by the teachers of Israel through John. Alford adopts the former sense; " expressing the personal assumption to one's self as a friend or companion." De Wette explains to receive into the house . Godet strains a point by explaining as welcomed . De Wette's explanation seems to agree best with his own home . Here again compare the nice choice of verbs: apprehended (κατέλαβεν ) the Light as a principle , and received (παρέλαβον ) the Light as a person and the Master of the house.

Vincent: Joh 1:12

As many as ( ὅσοι )

Denoting individuals , as οἱ ἴδιοι (Joh 1:11) signified the nation at large .

Vincent: Joh 1:12

Received ( ἔλαβον )

The simple verb of the compound παρέλαβον in Joh 1:11. The meaning of the two verbs is substantially the same (so Alford, De Wette, and apparently Meyer), though some recognize a difference, as Milligan and Moulton, who render παρέλαβον accepted , and ἔλαβον received , and say that " the former lays emphasis upon the will that consented (or refused) to receive, while the latter brings before us the possession gained : so that the full meaning is, As many as by accepting Him, received Him." For the use of the simple verb, see Joh 5:43; Joh 13:20; Joh 19:6.

Vincent: Joh 1:12

Power ( ἐξουσίαν )

Rev., the right . Six words are used for power in the:New Testament: βία , force , often oppressive, exhibiting itself in violence (Act 5:26; Act 27:41. Compare the kindred verb βιάζεται , Mat 11:12; " the kingdom of heaven is taken by violence ): δύναμις , natural ability (see on 2Pe 2:11): ἐνέργεια , energy , power in exercise ; only of superhuman power, good or evil. Used by Paul only, and chiefly in the Epistles of the Imprisonment (Eph 1:19; Eph 3:7; Col 2:12. Compare the kindred verb ἐνεργέω , to put forth power , and see on Mar 6:14; see on Jam 5:16): ἰσχύς , strength (see on 2Pe 2:11. Compare the kindred verb ἰσχύω , to be strong , and see on Luk 14:30; see on Luk 16:3): κράτος , might , only of God, relative and manifested power, dominion (Eph 1:19; Eph 6:10; 1Ti 6:16; 1Pe 4:11. Compare the kindred verb κρατέω , to have power , to be master of , and see on Mar 7:3; see on Act 3:11): ἐξουσία , liberty of action (ἔξεστι , it is lawful ), authority , delegated or arbitrary (Joh 5:27; Joh 10:18; Joh 17:2; Joh 19:10, Joh 19:11. See on Mar 2:10; see on Luk 20:20). Here, therefore, ἐξουσία is not merely possibility or ability , but legitimate right derived from a competent source - the Word.

Vincent: Joh 1:12

To become ( γενέσθαι )

As those who are born (Joh 1:13. Compare Joh 3:3, and Mat 5:45).

Vincent: Joh 1:12

Sons ( τέκνα )

Rev., more correctly, children . Son is υἱός . Τέκνον , child (τίκτω , to bring forth ), denotes a relation based on community of nature , while υἱός , Son , may indicate only adoption and heirship . See Gal 4:7. Except in Rev 21:7, which is a quotation, John never uses υἱός to describe the relation of Christians to God, since he regards their position not as a result of adoption , but of a new life . Paul, on the other hand, regards the relation from the legal standpoint, as adoption, imparting a new dignity and relation (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5, Gal 4:6). See also Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:3, 1Pe 1:23, where the point of view is John's rather than Paul's. Τέκνον , indicating the relationship of man to God, occurs in Joh 1:12; Joh 11:52; 1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2, 1Jo 3:10; 1Jo 5:2, and always in the plural.

Vincent: Joh 1:12

Believe on ( πιστευούσιν εἰς )

The present participle, believing , indicates the present and continuous activity of faith. The word is used by John, sometimes with the dative case simply meaning to believe a person or thing; i . e ., to believe that they are true or speak the truth. Thus, to believe the Scripture (Joh 2:22); believe me (Joh 4:21); believe Moses , his writings , my words (Joh 4:46). At other times with a preposition, εἰς , into , which is rendered believe in , or believe on . So here, Joh 6:29; Joh 8:30; 1Jo 5:10. See the two contrasted in Joh 6:29, Joh 6:30; Joh 8:30, Joh 8:31; 1Jo 5:10. To believe in , or on , is more than mere acceptance of a statement. It is so to accept a statement or a person as to rest upon them, to trust them practically; to draw upon and avail one's self of all that is offered to him in them. Hence to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is not merely to believe the facts of His historic life or of His saving energy as facts, but to accept Him as Savior, Teacher, Sympathizer, Judge; to rest the soul upon Him for present and future salvation, and to accept and adopt His precepts and example as binding upon the life.

Vincent: Joh 1:12

Name ( ὄνομα )

See on Mat 28:19. Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title. Compare Joh 20:31.

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Which ( ὃι )

Referring to children of God .

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Were born ( ἐγεννήθνσαν )

Literally, were begotten . The phrase γεννηθήναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ , to be born or begotten of God , occurs only here in the Gospel, and several times in the First Epistle. It is peculiar to John.

There is a progress of thought in the three following clauses, describing the proper origin of a believer's new life. Children of God are begotten, not of blood , nor of the will of the flesh , nor of the will of man . " The new birth is not brought about by descent , by desire , or by human power " (Westcott).

Vincent: Joh 1:13

Of blood ( ἐξ αἱμάτων )

Literally, of bloods . The plural is variously explained: by some as indicating the duality of the sexes, by others of the multiplicity of ancestors. The best explanation seems to be afforded by a similar use of the plural in Plato, ἔτι ἐν γάλαξι τρεφόμενοι , " while still nourished by milks " (" Laws," 887). The fluids, blood or milk being represented as the sum-total of all their parts. Compare τὰ ὕδατα , the waters .

Vincent: Joh 1:14

And the Word ( καὶ )

The simple copula as before; not yea , or namely , or therefore , but passing to a new statement concerning the Word.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Was made flesh ( σὰρξ ἐγένετο )

Rev., " became flesh ." The same verb as in Joh 1:3. All things became through Him; He in turn became flesh. " He became that which first became through Him." In becoming, He did not cease to be the Eternal Word. His divine nature was not laid aside. In becoming flesh He did not part with the rational soul of man. Retaining all the essential properties of the Word, He entered into a new mode of being, not a new being .

The word σὰρξ , flesh , describes this new mode of being. It signifies human nature in and according to its corporal manifestation . Here, as opposed to the purely divine, and to the purely immaterial nature of the Word. He did not first become a personality on becoming flesh. The prologue throughout conceives Him as a personality from the very beginning - from eternal ages. The phrase became flesh , means more than that He assumed a human body . He assumed human nature entire , identifying Himself with the race of man, having a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit. See Joh 12:27; Joh 11:33; Joh 13:21; Joh 19:30. He did not assume, for a time merely, humanity as something foreign to Himself The incarnation was not a mere accident of His substantial being. " He became flesh, and did not clothe Himself in flesh." Compare, on the whole passage, 1Jo 4:2; 2Jo 1:7.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Dwelt ( ἐσκήνωσεν )

Literally, tabernacled , fixed , or had His tabernacle : from σκηνή , a tent or tabernacle . The verb is used only by John: in the Gospel only here, and in Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3. It occurs in classical writings, as in Xenophon, ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ἐσκήνου , he pitched his tent in the plain (" Anabasis," vii., 4, 11). So Plato, arguing against the proposition that the unjust die by the inherent destructive power of evil, says that " injustice which murders others keeps the murderer alive - aye, and unsleeping too; οὕτω πόῤῥω του ὡς ἔοικεν ἐσκήνωται τοῦ θανάσιμος εἶναι , i.e., literally, so far has her tent been spread from being a house of death" (" Republic," 610). The figure here is from the Old Testament (Lev 27:11; 2Sa 7:6; Psa 78:67 sqq.; Eze 37:27). The tabernacle was the dwelling-place of Jehovah; the meeting-place of God and Israel. So the Word came to men in the person of Jesus. As Jehovah adopted for His habitation a dwelling like that of the people in the wilderness, so the Word assumed a community of nature with mankind, an embodiment like that of humanity at large, and became flesh. " That which was from the beginning, we heard, we saw, we beheld, we handled. Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1Jo 1:1-3. Compare Phi 2:7, Phi 2:8).

Some find in the word tabernacle , a temporary structure (see the contrast between σκῆνος , tabernacle , and οἰκοδομή , building , in 2Co 5:1), a suggestion of the transitoriness of our Lord's stay upon earth; which may well be, although the word does not necessarily imply this; for in Rev 21:3, it is said of the heavenly Jerusalem " the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will set up His tabernacle (σκηνώσει ) with them."

Dante alludes to the incarnation in the seventh canto of the " Paradiso:"

- " the human species down below

Lay sick for many centuries in great error,

Till to descend it pleased the Word of God

To where the nature, which from its own Maker

Estranged itself, He joined to Him in person

By the sole act of His eternal love."

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Among us ( ἐν ἡμῖν )

In the midst of us. Compare Gen 24:3, Sept., " the Canaanites, with whom I dwell (μεθ ' ὧν ἐγὼ οἰκῶ ἐν αὐτοῖς )." The reference is to the eyewitnesses of our Lord's life. " According as the spectacle presents itself to the mind of the Evangelist, and in the words among us takes the character of the most personal recollection, it becomes in him the object of a delightful contemplation" (Godet).

The following words, as far as and including Father , are parenthetical. The unbroken sentence is: " The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth."

Vincent: Joh 1:14

We beheld ( ἐθεασάμεθα )

Compare Luk 9:32; 2Pe 2:16; 1Jo 1:1; 1Jo 4:14. See on Mat 11:7; see on Mat 23:5. The word denotes calm, continuous contemplation of an object which remains before the spectator.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Glory ( δόξαν )

Not the absolute glory of the Eternal Word, which could belong only to His pre-existent state, and to the conditions subsequent to his exaltation; but His glory revealed under human limitations both in Himself and in those who beheld Him. The reference is again to the Old Testament manifestations of the divine glory, in the wilderness (Exo 16:10; Exo 24:16, etc.); in the temple (1Ki 8:11); to the prophets (Isa 6:3; Eze 1:28). The divine glory flashed out in Christ from time to time, in His transfiguration (Luk 9:31; compare 2Pe 1:16, 2Pe 1:17) and His miracles (Joh 2:11; Joh 11:4, Joh 11:40), but appeared also in His perfect life and character, in His fulfillment of the absolute idea of manhood.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Glory

Without the article. This repetition of the word is explanatory. The nature of the glory is defined by what follows.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

As ( ὡς )

A particle of comparison. Compare Rev 5:6, " a lamb as though it had been slain;" also Rev 13:3.

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Of the only begotten of the Father ( μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρὸς )

Rev., " from the Father." The glory was like , corresponds in nature to, the glory of an only Son sent from a Father. It was the glory of one who partook of His divine Father's essence; on whom the Father's love was visibly lavished, and who represented the Father as His ambassador. The word μονογενής , only begotten (De Wette and Westcott, " only born " ) is used in the New Testament of a human relationship (Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38). In the Septuagint it answers to darling , Hebrew, only one , in Psalms 21:20, A.V. Psa 22:20; and to desolate in Psalms 24:16, A.V. Psa 25:16. With the exception of the passages cited above, and Heb 11:17, it occurs in the New Testament only in the writings of John, and is used only of Christ. With this word should be compared Paul's πρωτότοκος , first born (Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, Col 1:18), which occurs but once in John (Rev 1:5), and in Heb 1:6; Heb 11:28; Heb 12:23. John's word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Paul's word places the eternal Son in relation to the universe. Paul's word emphasizes His existence before created things; John's His distinctness from created things. Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα ) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι ) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν ) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation.

Of the Father is properly rendered by Rev., " from the Father," thus giving the force of παρά (see on from God , Joh 1:6). The preposition does not express the idea of generation , which would be given by ἐκ or by the simple genitive, but of mission - sent from the Father, as John from God (see Joh 6:46; Joh 7:29; Joh 16:27; Joh 17:8). The correlative of this is Joh 1:18, " who is in the bosom (εἰς τὸν κόλπον ) of the Father;" literally, " into the bosom," the preposition εἰς signifying who has gone into and is there ; thus viewing the Son as having returned to the Father (but see on Joh 1:18).

Vincent: Joh 1:14

Full of grace and truth ( πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας )

This is connected with the main subject of the sentence: " The Word - full of grace and truth." A common combination in the Old Testament (see Gen 24:27, Gen 24:49; Gen 32:10; Exo 34:6; Psa 40:10, Psa 40:11; Psa 61:7). In these two words the character of the divine revelation is summed up. " Grace corresponds with the idea of the revelation of God as Love (1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:16) by Him who is Life; and Truth with that of the revelation of God as Light (1Jo 1:5) by Him who is Himself Light" (Westcott). Compare Joh 1:17. On Grace , see on Luk 1:30.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

As Joh 1:14 is parallel to Joh 1:1-5, so this verse is parallel to Joh 1:6-8, but with an advance of thought. Joh 1:6-8 set forth the Baptist's witness to the Word as the general light of men. This verse gives the Baptist's witness to the personal Word become flesh.

Bare witness ( μαρτυρεῖ )

Present tense. Rev., correctly, beareth witness . The present tense describes the witness of the Baptist as abiding. The fact of the Word's becoming flesh is permanently by his testimony.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

Cried ( κέκραγεν )

See on Mar 5:5; see on Mar 9:24; see on Luk 18:39. The verb denotes an inarticulate utterance as distinguished from words. When used is connection with articulate speech, it is joined with λέγειν or εἰπεῖν , to say , as Luk 7:28, cried , saying . Compare Luk 7:37; Luk 12:44. The crying corresponds with the Baptist's description of himself as a voice (φωνή , sound or tone ), Mar 1:3; Luk 3:4; Joh 1:23. The verb is in the perfect tense, but with the usual classical sense of the present.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

Was He ( ἦν )

The imperfect tense, pointing back to a testimony historically past.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

After me ( ὀπίσω μου )

Literally, behind me: in His human manifestation.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

Is preferred before me ( ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν )

Literally, " is become ," so Rev., " or is here (compare Joh 6:25) before me." Before is used of time , not of dignity or rank . The expression is enigmatical in form: " my successor is my predecessor." The idea of the superior dignity of Christ is not a necessary inference from His coming after John, as, on that interpretation, the words would imply. On the contrary, the herald who precedes is inferior in dignity to the Prince whom he announces.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

For ( ὅτι )

Or because . The reason for the preceding statement: the key to the enigma.

Vincent: Joh 1:15

He was before me ( πρῶτός μου ἦν )

Literally, first in regard of me (Rev., in margin). The reference to dignity would require ἐστίν , is (see Mat 3:11, " is mightier" ). A similar expression occurs in Joh 15:18 : the world hated me before (it hated) you (πρῶτον ὑμῶν ). The reference is to the pre-existence of Christ. When speaking of Christ's historic manifestation, is become before me , the Baptist says γέγονεν . When speaking of Christ's eternal being, He was before me , he uses ἦν . The meaning is, then, that Christ, in His human manifestation, appeared after John, but, as the Eternal Word, preceded him, because He existed before him. Compare Joh 8:58.

Vincent: Joh 1:16

And ( καὶ )

But the correct reading is ὅτι , because , thus connecting the following sentence with " full of grace and truth" in Joh 1:14. We know Him as full of grace and truth, because we have received of His fullness .

Vincent: Joh 1:16

Of His fulness ( ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ )

These and the succeeding words are the Evangelist's, not the Baptist's. The word fullness (πλήρωμα ) is found here only in John, but frequently occurs in the writings of Paul, whose use of it in Ephesians and Colossians illustrates the sense in John; these being Asiatic churches which fell, later, within the sphere of John's influence. The word is akin to πλήρης , full (Joh 1:14), and to πληροῦν , to fill or complete ; and means that which is complete in itself , plenitude , entire number or quantity . Thus the crew of a ship is called πλήρωμα , its complement . Aristophanes (" Wasps," 660), " τούτων πλήρωμα , the sum-total of these, is nearly two thousand talents." Herodotus (iii., 22) says that the full term of man's life among the Persians is eighty years; and Aristotle (" Polities," iv., 4) refers to Socrates as saying that the eight classes, representing different industries in the state, constitute the pleroma of the state (see Plato, " Republic," 371). In Eph 1:23, Paul says that the church is the pleroma of Christ: i . e ., the plenitude of the divine graces in Christ is communicated to the Church as His body, making all the body, supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, to increase with the increase of God (Col 2:19; compare Eph 4:16). Similarly he prays (Eph 3:19) that the brethren may be filled unto all the pleroma of God: i . e ., that they may be filled with the fullness which God imparts. More closely related to John's use of the term here are Col 1:19, " It pleased the Father that in Him (Christ) should all the fullness (τὸ πλήρωμα , note the article) dwell;" and Col 2:9, Col 2:10, " In Him dwelleth all the pleroma of the Godhead bodily (i.e., corporally , becoming incarnate ), and in Him ye are fulfilled (πεπληρωμένοι )." This declares that the whole aggregate of the divine powers and graces appeared in the incarnate Word, and corresponds with John's statement that " the Word became flesh and tabernacled among men, full of grace and truth;" while " ye are fulfilled " answers to John's " of His fullness we all received." Hence John's meaning here is that Christians receive from the divine completeness whatever each requires for the perfection of his character and for the accomplishment of his work (compare Joh 15:15; Joh 17:22).

Vincent: Joh 1:16

Have - received ( ἐλάβομεν )

Rev., we received : rendering the aorist tense more literally.

Vincent: Joh 1:16

Grace for grace ( χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος )

The preposition ἀντί originally means over against ; opposite; before (in a local sense). Through the idea of placing one thing over against another is developed that of exchange . Thus Herodotus (iii., 59), " They bought the island, ἀντὶ χρημάτων , for money." So Mat 5:38, " An eye for (ἀντὶ ) an eye," etc. This idea is at the root of the peculiar sense in which the preposition is used here. We received, not New Testament grace instead of Old Testament grace; nor simply, grace added to grace; but new grace imparted as the former measure of grace has been received and improved. " To have realized and used one measure of grace, was to have gained a larger measure (as it were) in exchange for it." Consequently, continuous , unintermitted grace. The idea of the development of one grace from another is elaborated by Peter (2Pe 1:5), on which see notes. Winer cites a most interesting parallel from Philo. " Wherefore, having provided and dispensed the first graces (χάριτας ), before their recipients have waxed wanton through satiety, he subsequently bestows different graces in exchange for (ἀντὶ ) those, and a third supply for the second, and ever new ones in exchange for the older."

Vincent: Joh 1:17

For ( ὅτι )

Because. Giving the ground of the statement that Christians received new and richer gifts of grace: the ground being that the law of Moses was a limited and narrow enactment, while Jesus Christ imparted the fullness of grace and truth which was in Him (Joh 1:14). Compare Rom 4:15; Rom 10:4; Gal 3:10.

Vincent: Joh 1:17

Was given ( ἐδόθη )

A special gift serving a special and preparatory purpose with reference to the Gospel: the word being appropriate to " an external and positive institution."

Vincent: Joh 1:17

By Moses ( διά )

Literally, through . See on by Him , Joh 1:3.

Vincent: Joh 1:17

Grace and truth came ( ἐγένετο )

Came into being as the development of the divine plan inaugurated in the law, and unfolding the significance of the gift of the law. They came into being not absolutely , but in relation to mankind. Compare 1Co 1:30, where it is said of Christ, He was made (properly, became , εγενήθη ) unto us wisdom and righteousness, etc. Note the article with grace and truth ; the grace and the truth; that which in the full sense is grace and truth. Grace occurs nowhere else in John, except in salutations (2Jo 1:3; Rev 1:4; Rev 22:21).

Vincent: Joh 1:17

Jesus Christ

The Being who has been present in the Evangelist's mind from the opening of the Gospel is now first named. The two clauses, " the law was given," " grace and truth came," without the copula or qualifying particles, illustrate the parallelism which is characteristic of John's style (see on Joh 1:10).

Vincent: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time ( Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε )

God is first in the Greek order, as emphatic: " God hath no man ever seen." As to the substance of the statement, compare Joh 3:11; Exo 33:20; 1Jo 4:12. Manifestations of God to Old Testament saints were only partial and approximate (Exo 33:23). The seeing intended here is seeing of the divine essence rather than of the divine person, which also is indicated by the absence of the article from Θεὸν , God . In this sense even Christ was not seen as God. The verb ὁράω , to see , denotes a physical act, but emphasizes the mental discernment accompanying it, and points to the result rather than to the act of vision. In 1Jo 1:1; 1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:14, θεάομαι is used, denoting calm and deliberate contemplation (see on Joh 1:14). In Joh 12:45, we have θεωρέω , to behold (see on Mar 5:15; see on Luk 10:18). Both θεάομαι and θεωρέω imply deliberate contemplation, but the former is gazing with a view to satisfy the eye, while the latter is beholding more critically, with an inward spiritual or mental interest in the thing beheld, and with a view to acquire knowledge about it. " Θεωρεῖν would be used of a general officially reviewing or inspecting an army; θεᾶσθαι of a lay spectator looking at the parade" (Thayer).

Vincent: Joh 1:18

The only begotten son ( ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς )

Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς , " God only begotten."

Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor Θεὸς . Whether we read the only begotten Son , or God only begotten , the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated - God (Joh 1:1), only begotten (Joh 1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten .

Vincent: Joh 1:18

Who is in the bosom ( ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον )

The expression ὁ ὢν , who is , or the one being , is explained in two ways: 1. As a timeless present, expressing the inherent and eternal relation of the Son to the Father. 2. As interpreted by the preposition. εἰς , in , literally, into , and expressing the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory after His incarnation: " The Son who has entered into the Father's bosom and is there." In the former case it is an absolute description of the nature of the Son: in the latter, the emphasis is on the historic fact of the ascension, though with a reference to his eternal abiding with the Father from thenceforth.

While the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory may have been present to the writer's mind, and have helped to determine the form of the statement, to emphasize that fact in this connection would seem less consistent with the course of thought in the Prologue than the other interpretation: since John is declaring in this sentence the competency of the incarnate Son to manifest God to mankind. The ascension of Christ is indeed bound up with that truth, but is not, in the light of the previous course of thought, its primary factor. That is rather the eternal oneness of the Word with God ; which, though passing through the phase of incarnation, nevertheless remains unbroken (Joh 3:13). Thus Godet, aptly: " The quality attributed to Jesus, of being the perfect revealer of the divine Being, is founded on His intimate and perfect relation to God Himself."

The phrase, in the bosom of the Father , depicts this eternal relation as essentially a relation of love ; the figure being used of the relation of husband and wife (Deu 13:6); of a father to an infant child (Num 11:12), and of the affectionate protection and rest afforded to Lazarus in Paradise (Luk 16:23). The force of the preposition εἰς , into , according to the first interpretation of who is , is akin to that of " with God" (see on Joh 1:1); denoting an ever active relation, an eternal going forth and returning to the Father's bosom by the Son in His eternal work of love. He ever goes forth from that element of grace and love and returns to it. That element is His life. He is there " because He plunges into it by His unceasing action" (Godet).

Vincent: Joh 1:18

He ( ἐκεῖνος )

Strongly emphatic, and pointing to the eternal Son. This pronoun is used by John more frequently than by any other writer. It occurs seventy-two times, and not only as denoting the more distant subject, but as denoting and laying special stress on the person or thing immediately at hand, or possessing pre-eminently the quality which is immediately in question. Thus Jesus applies it to Himself as the person for whom the healed blind man is inquiring: " It is He (ἐκεῖνος ) that talketh with thee" (Joh 9:37). So here, " the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father - He hath declared Him."

Vincent: Joh 1:18

Hath declared ( ἐξηγήσατο )

Or, rendering the aorist strictly, He declared . From ἐκ , forth , and ἡγέομαι , to lead the way . Originally, to lead or govern . Hence, like the Latin praeire verbis , to go before with words , to prescribe or dictate a form of words . To draw out in narrative , to recount or rehearse (see Act 15:14, and on Luk 24:35). To relate in full ; to interpret , or translate . Therefore ἐξήγησις , exegesis , is interpretation or explanation . The word ἐξηγητής was used by the Greeks of an expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacred rites. Thus Croesus, finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sent to the soothsayers (ἐξηγητὰς ) of Telmessus (Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes to mean a spiritual director . Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (πατρῷος ἐξηγητής ) of religion (" Republic," 427), and says, " Let the priests be interpreters for life" (" Laws," 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the magicians of Pharaoh's court (Gen 41:8, Gen 41:24), and the kindred verb of teaching or interpreting concerning leprosy (Lev 14:57). John's meaning is that the Word revealed or manifested and interpreted the Father to men. The word occurs only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath told out . These words conclude the Prologue.

The Historical Narrative now begins, and falls into two general divisions:

I. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the World (1:19-12:50)

II. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the Disciples (13:1-21:23)

Vincent: Joh 1:19

This ( αὕτη )

The following. This use of the pronoun, calling the reader's attention to what follows, and preparing him for it, is frequent in John. Sometimes the pronoun carries the sense of quality : of this character . See Joh 3:19; Joh 15:12; 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:9, 1Jo 5:11, 1Jo 5:14.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

Witness ( μαρτυρία )

Testimony. See on Joh 1:7, and 1Pe 5:1.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

John

See on Joh 1:6. Note the article: the John previously mentioned.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

The Jews ( οἱ Ἱοὐδαῖοι )

This is a characteristic word in John. It occurs more than fifty times in his Gospel as his own expression, while there are six instances of the formula King of the Jews used by Gentiles. In the Synoptic Gospels, on the other hand, to twelve instances of King of the Jews , there are but four passages in which the word Jews occurs. In Paul's writings it is comparatively rare, mostly in contrast with Greek , and both in contrast with Christianity. In Revelation it is found twice (Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9), of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are " of the synagogue of Satan" and " do lie."

John, in the Gospel, distinguishes between the multitude (ὁ ὄχλος ) and the Jews (Ἱουδαῖοι ). By the former he means the aggregate of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, the mass of the people, chiefly Galilaeans; by the latter, more particularly Judaeans, the leaders of Judaism in opposition to Jesus. The multitude are unsettled in conviction, inquisitive, despised by the Pharisees, inclined to listen to Jesus and to believe; moved by an impulse to make Him a king, escorting Him triumphantly into Jerusalem, and not appearing in the narrative of the trial and crucifixion. The Jews are tenacious of the expectation of a national Messiah. They represent the narrow, sectarian aspect of Judaism; they are the instigators and leaders of the opposition to Jesus, and to them His crucifixion is attributed. John uses the word where the other Evangelists speak of the opposers of Christ as Pharisees, Sadducees, elders, chief-priests, scribes, or lawyers. He recognizes the distinction between Pharisee and Sadducee, and though he does not mention the latter by name, he characterizes them by their position. Jesus is the key to the sense in which John employs the term Jews . He regards them in their relation to Him. The idea underlying the word is habitually that of separation from the character and privileges of a true Israelite through their rejection of Jesus.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

Sent ( ἀπέστειλαν )

As a deputation. See on Joh 1:6.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

Priests and Levites

Representing the ecclesiastical element of the nation; the two classes employed in the temple service. See Jos 3:3; 2Ch 30:27; Eze 44:15. The combination occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. These deputies probably came from the Sanhedrim.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

To ask ( ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν )

Literally, in order that they should ask . See on Mat 15:23.

Vincent: Joh 1:19

Who art thou ( σὺ τίς εἶ )

Literally, thou , who art thou?

Vincent: Joh 1:20

He confessed and denied not

John's characteristic combination of a positive and negative clause. See on Joh 1:3. Both verbs are used absolutely.

Vincent: Joh 1:20

I am not the Christ

According to the proper reading, ἐγὼ , I , stands first in the Baptist's statement, the ὅτι having the force merely of quotation marks. It is emphatic: " I am not the Christ, though the Christ is here." Some were questioning whether John was the Christ (Luk 3:15; Act 13:25). Note the frequent occurrence of the emphatic I : Joh 1:23, Joh 1:26, Joh 1:27, Joh 1:30, Joh 1:31, Joh 1:33, Joh 1:34. On the Christ , see on Mat 1:1.

Vincent: Joh 1:21

What then? Art thou Elias?

Better, as Rev., Elijah . Some authorities read, What then art thou? Elijah? Elijah, predicted in Mal 4:5, as the forerunner of the day of the Lord.

Vincent: Joh 1:21

Art thou that prophet?

Rev., " the prophet." According to the Greek order, the prophet art thou . See Deu 18:15, and compare Act 3:22; Act 7:37; Joh 1:46; Joh 6:14.

Vincent: Joh 1:21

No

Observe how the successive denials become shorter.

Wesley: Joh 1:1

(Referring to Gen 1:1, and Pro 8:23.) When all things began to be made by the Word: in the beginning of heaven and earth, and this whole frame of created beings, the Word existed, without any beginning. He was when all things began to be, whatsoever had a beginning.

Wesley: Joh 1:1

So termed Psa 33:6, and frequently by the seventy, and in the Chaldee paraphrase. So that St. John did not borrow this expression from Philo, or any heathen writer. He was not yet named Jesus, or Christ. He is the Word whom the Father begat or spoke from eternity; by whom the Father speaking, maketh all things; who speaketh the Father to us. We have, in Joh 1:18, both a real description of the Word, and the reason why he is so called. He is the only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and hath declared him.

Wesley: Joh 1:1

Therefore distinct from God the Father. The word rendered with, denotes a perpetual tendency as it were of the Son to the Father, in unity of essence. He was with God alone; because nothing beside God had then any being.

Wesley: Joh 1:1

Supreme, eternal, independent. There was no creature, in respect of which he could be styled God in a relative sense. Therefore he is styled so in the absolute sense. The Godhead of the Messiah being clearly revealed in the Old Testament, (Jer 23:7; Hos 1:6; Psa 23:1,) the other evangelists aim at this, to prove that Jesus, a true man, was the Messiah. But when, at length, some from hence began to doubt of his Godhead, then St. John expressly asserted it, and wrote in this book as it were a supplement to the Gospels, as in the Revelation to the prophets.

Wesley: Joh 1:2

This verse repeats and contracts into one the three points mentioned before. As if he had said, This Word, who was God, was in the beginning, and was with God.

Wesley: Joh 1:3

All things beside God were made, and all things which were made, were made by the Word. In Joh 1:1-2 is described the state of things before the creation: Joh 1:3, In the creation: Joh 1:4, In the time of man's innocency: Joh 1:5, In the time of man's corruption.

Wesley: Joh 1:4

He was the foundation of life to every living thing, as well as of being to all that is.

Wesley: Joh 1:4

He who is essential life, and the giver of life to all that liveth, was also the light of men; the fountain of wisdom, holiness, and happiness, to man in his original state.

Wesley: Joh 1:5

Shines even on fallen man; but the darkness - Dark, sinful man, perceiveth it not.

Wesley: Joh 1:6

The evangelist now proceeds to him who testified of the light, which he had spoken of in Joh 1:1-5.

Wesley: Joh 1:7

The evangelist, with the most strong and tender affection, interweaves his own testimony with that of John, by noble digressions, wherein he explains the office of the Baptist; partly premises and partly subjoins a farther explication to his short sentences. What St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke term the Gospel, in respect of the promise going before, St. John usually terms the testimony, intimating the certain knowledge of the relator; to testify of the light - Of Christ.

Wesley: Joh 1:9

By what is vulgarly termed natural conscience, pointing out at least the general lines of good and evil. And this light, if man did not hinder, would shine more and more to the perfect day.

Wesley: Joh 1:10

Even from the creation.

Wesley: Joh 1:11

In the fulness of time, to his own - Country, city, temple: And his own - People, received him not.

Wesley: Joh 1:12

Jews or Gentiles; that believe on his name - That is, on him. The moment they believe, they are sons; and because they are sons, God sendeth forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Wesley: Joh 1:13

Who became the sons of God, not of blood - Not by descent from Abraham, nor by the will of the flesh - By natural generation, nor by the will of man - Adopting them, but of God - By his Spirit.

Wesley: Joh 1:14

Flesh sometimes signifies corrupt nature; sometimes the body; sometimes, as here, the whole man.

Wesley: Joh 1:14

We his apostles, particularly Peter, James, and John, Luk 9:32.

Wesley: Joh 1:14

We are all by nature liars and children of wrath, to whom both grace and truth are unknown. But we are made partakers of them, when we are accepted through the Beloved. The whole verse might be paraphrased thus: And in order to raise us to this dignity and happiness, the eternal Word, by a most amazing condescension, was made flesh, united himself to our miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities. And he did not make us a transient visit, but tabernacled among us on earth, displaying his glory in a more eminent manner, than even of old in the tabernacle of Moses. And we who are now recording these things beheld his glory with so strict an attention, that we can testify, it was in every respect such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father. For it shone forth not only in his transfiguration, and in his continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct through the whole series of his life. In all he appeared full of grace and truth: he was himself most benevolent and upright; made those ample discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do: and really exhibited the most substantial blessings, whereas that was but a shadow of good things to come.

Wesley: Joh 1:15

With joy and confidence;

Wesley: Joh 1:15

John had said this before our Lord's baptism, although he then knew him not in person: he knew him first at his baptism, and afterward cried, This is he of whom I said. &c.

Wesley: Joh 1:15

in his office:

Wesley: Joh 1:15

in his nature.

Wesley: Joh 1:16

Here the apostle confirms the Baptist's words: as if he had said, He is indeed preferred before thee: so we have experienced:

Wesley: Joh 1:16

That believe:

Wesley: Joh 1:16

All that we enjoy out of his fulness:

Wesley: Joh 1:16

One blessing upon another, immeasurable grace and love.

Wesley: Joh 1:17

Working wrath and containing shadows:

Wesley: Joh 1:17

No philosopher, poet, or orator, ever chose his words so accurately as St. John. The law, saith he, was given by Moses: grace was by Jesus Christ. Observe the reason for placing each word thus: The law of Moses was not his own. The grace of Christ was. His grace was opposite to the wrath, his truth to the shadowy ceremonies of the law.

Wesley: Joh 1:17

St. John having once mentioned the incarnation (Joh 1:14,) no more uses that name, the Word, in all his book.

Wesley: Joh 1:18

With bodily eyes: yet believers see him with the eye of faith.

Wesley: Joh 1:18

The expression denotes the highest unity, and the most intimate knowledge.

Wesley: Joh 1:19

Probably the great council sent.

Wesley: Joh 1:20

For many supposed he was.

Wesley: Joh 1:21

He was not that Elijah (the Tishbite) of whom they spoke.

Wesley: Joh 1:21

Of whom Moses speaks, Deu 18:15.

JFB: Joh 1:1

Of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it being (Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10); therefore, "before the world was" (Joh 17:5, Joh 17:24); or, from all eternity.

JFB: Joh 1:1

He who is to God what man's word is to himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him. (See on Joh 1:18). On the origin of this most lofty and now for ever consecrated title of Christ, this is not the place to speak. It occurs only in the writings of this seraphic apostle.

JFB: Joh 1:1

Having a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is "with"), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Joh 1:18; Joh 17:5; 1Jo 1:2), where "THE FATHER" is used in the same sense as "GOD" here.

JFB: Joh 1:1

In substance and essence GOD; or was possessed of essential or proper divinity. Thus, each of these brief but pregnant statements is the complement of the other, correcting any misapprehensions which the others might occasion. Was the Word eternal? It was not the eternity of "the Father," but of a conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him. Was the Word thus "with God?" It was not the distinctness and the fellowship of another being, as if there were more Gods than one, but of One who was Himself God--in such sense that the absolute unity of the God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love. But why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fulness of time "was made flesh." After each verse, then, the reader must say, "It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh."

JFB: Joh 1:2

See what property of the Word the stress is laid upon--His eternal distinctness, in unity, from God--the Father (Joh 1:2).

JFB: Joh 1:3

All things absolutely (as is evident from Joh 1:10; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16-17; but put beyond question by what follows).

JFB: Joh 1:3

Not one thing.

JFB: Joh 1:3

Brought into being.

JFB: Joh 1:3

This is a denial of the eternity and non-creation of matter, which was held by the whole thinking world outside of Judaism and Christianity: or rather, its proper creation was never so much as dreamt of save by the children of revealed religion.

JFB: Joh 1:4

Essentially and originally, as the previous verses show to be the meaning. Thus He is the Living Word, or, as He is called in 1Jo 1:1-2, "the Word of Life."

JFB: Joh 1:4

All that in men which is true light--knowledge, integrity, intelligent, willing subjection to God, love to Him and to their fellow creatures, wisdom, purity, holy joy, rational happiness--all this "light of men" has its fountain in the essential original "life" of "the Word" (1Jo 1:5-7; Psa 36:9).

JFB: Joh 1:5

In this dark, fallen world, or in mankind "sitting in darkness and the shadow of death," with no ability to find the way either of truth or of holiness. In this thick darkness, and consequent intellectual and moral obliquity, "the light of the Word" shineth--by all the rays whether of natural or revealed teaching which men (apart from the Incarnation of the Word) are favored with.

JFB: Joh 1:5

Did not take it in, a brief summary of the effect of all the strivings of this unincarnate Word throughout this wide world from the beginning, and a hint of the necessity of His putting on flesh, if any recovery of men was to be effected (1Co 1:21).

JFB: Joh 1:6-9

The Evangelist here approaches his grand thesis, so paving his way for the full statement of it in Joh 1:14, that we may be able to bear the bright light of it, and take in its length and breadth and depth and height.

JFB: Joh 1:7

John.

JFB: Joh 1:8

(See on Joh 5:35). What a testimony to John to have to explain that "he was not that Light!" Yet was he but a foil to set it off, his night-taper dwindling before the Dayspring from on high (Joh 3:30).

JFB: Joh 1:9

Rather, "which, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man"; or, is "the Light of the world" (Joh 9:5). "Coming into the world" is a superfluous and quite unusual description of "every man"; but it is of all descriptions of Christ amongst the most familiar, especially in the writings of this Evangelist (Joh 12:46; Joh 16:28; Joh 18:37; 1Jo 4:9; 1Ti 1:15, &c.).

JFB: Joh 1:10-13

The language here is nearly as wonderful as the thought. Observe its compact simplicity, its sonorousness--"the world" resounding in each of its three members--and the enigmatic form in which it is couched, startling the reader and setting his ingenuity a-working to solve the stupendous enigma of Christ ignored in His own world. "The world," in the first two clauses, plainly means the created world, into which He came, says Joh 1:9; "in it He was," says this verse. By His Incarnation, He became an inhabitant of it, and bound up with it. Yet it "was made by Him" (Joh 1:3-5). Here, then, it is merely alluded to, in contrast partly with His being in it, but still more with the reception He met with from it. "The world that knew Him not" (1Jo 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind. (See on Joh 1:11-12). Taking the first two clauses as one statement, we try to apprehend it by thinking of the infant Christ conceived in the womb and born in the arms of His own creature, and of the Man Christ Jesus breathing His own air, treading His own ground, supported by substances to which He Himself gave being, and the Creator of the very men whom He came to save. But the most vivid commentary on this entire verse will be got by tracing (in His matchless history) Him of whom it speaks walking amidst all the elements of nature, the diseases of men and death itself, the secrets of the human heart, and "the rulers of the darkness of this world" in all their number, subtlety, and malignity, not only with absolute ease, as their conscious Lord, but, as we might say, with full consciousness on their part of the presence of their Maker, whose will to one and all of them was law. And this is He of whom it is added, "the world knew Him not!"

JFB: Joh 1:11

"His own" (property or possession), for the word is in the neuter gender. It means His own land, city, temple, Messianic rights and possessions.

JFB: Joh 1:11

"His own (people)"; for now the word is masculine. It means the Jews, as the "peculiar people." Both they and their land, with all that this included, were "HIS OWN," not so much as part of "the world which was made by Him," but as "THE HEIR" of the inheritance (Luk 20:14; see also on Mat 22:1).

JFB: Joh 1:11

Nationally, as God's chosen witnesses.

JFB: Joh 1:12

Individuals, of the "disobedient and gainsaying people."

JFB: Joh 1:12

The word signifies both authority and ability, and both are certainly meant here.

JFB: Joh 1:12

Mark these words: Jesus is the Son of God; He is never said to have become such.

JFB: Joh 1:12

Or more simply, "sons of God," in name and in nature.

JFB: Joh 1:12

A phrase never used in Scripture of any mere creature, to express the credit given to human testimony, even of prophets or apostles, inasmuch it carries with it the idea of trust proper only towards GOD. In this sense of supreme faith, as due to Him who "gives those that believe in Himself power to become sons of God," it is manifestly used here.

JFB: Joh 1:13

A sonship therefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, the soul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, and emotions of a child of God, before unknown.

JFB: Joh 1:13

Not of superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of man in any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the human source of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows,

JFB: Joh 1:13

Right royal gift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would not worship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within him the very life, of the sons of God?

JFB: Joh 1:14

To raise the reader to the altitude of this climax were the thirteen foregoing verses written.

JFB: Joh 1:14

BECAME MAN, in man's present frail, mortal condition, denoted by the word "flesh" (Isa 40:6; 1Pe 1:24). It is directed probably against the Docetæ, who held that Christ was not really but only apparently man; against whom this gentle spirit is vehement in his Epistles (1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7, 2Jo 1:10-11), [LUCKE, &c.]. Nor could He be too much so, for with the verity of the Incarnation all substantial Christianity vanishes. But now, married to our nature, henceforth He is as personally conscious of all that is strictly human as of all that is properly divine; and our nature is in His Person redeemed and quickened, ennobled and transfigured.

JFB: Joh 1:14

Tabernacled or pitched his tent; a word peculiar to John, who uses it four times, all in the sense of a permanent stay (Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3). For ever wedded to our "flesh," He has entered this tabernacle to "go no more out." The allusion is to that tabernacle where dwelt the Shekinah (see on Mat 23:38-39), or manifested "GLORY OF THE LORD," and with reference to God's permanent dwelling among His people (Lev 26:11; Psa 68:18; Psa 132:13-14; Eze 37:27). This is put almost beyond doubt by what immediately follows, "And we beheld his glory" [LUCKE, MEYER, DE WETTE which last critic, rising higher than usual, says that thus were perfected all former partial manifestations of God in an essentially Personal and historically Human manifestation].

JFB: Joh 1:14

So it should read: "He dwelt among us full of grace and truth"; or, in Old Testament phrase, "Mercy and truth," denoting the whole fruit of God's purposes of love towards sinners of mankind, which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilment at length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, "the SURE MERCIES of David" (Isa 55:3; Act 13:34; compare 2Sa 23:5). In His Person all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long in shadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy its broken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filled it full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching of thousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and the family of God sprang into Manhood.

JFB: Joh 1:14

Not by the eye of sense, which saw in Him only "the carpenter." His glory was "spiritually discerned" (1Co 2:7-15; 2Co 3:18; 2Co 4:4, 2Co 4:6; 2Co 5:16) --the glory of surpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality; majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness, meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at times ravishing the "babes" that followed and forsook all for Him.

JFB: Joh 1:14

(See on Luk 1:35); not like, but "such as (belongs to)," such as became or was befitting the only begotten of the Father [CHRYSOSTOM in LUCKE, CALVIN, &c.], according to a well-known use of the word "as."

JFB: Joh 1:15

In official manifestation.

JFB: Joh 1:15

In rank and dignity.

JFB: Joh 1:15

In existence; "His goings forth being from of old, from everlasting" (Mic 5:2). (Anything lower than this His words cannot mean); that is, "My Successor is my Superior, for He was my Predecessor." This enigmatic play upon the different senses of the words "before" and "after" was doubtless employed by the Baptist to arrest attention, and rivet the thought; and the Evangelist introduces it just to clinch his own statements.

JFB: Joh 1:16

Of "grace and truth," resuming the thread of Joh 1:14.

JFB: Joh 1:16

That is, grace upon grace (so all the best interpreters), in successive communications and larger measures, as each was able to take it in. Observe, the word "truth" is here dropped. "Grace" being the chosen New Testament word for the whole fulness of the new covenant, all that dwells in Christ for men.

JFB: Joh 1:17

The Law elicits the consciousness of sin and the need of redemption; it only typifies the reality. The Gospel, on the contrary, actually communicates reality and power from above (compare Rom 6:14). Hence Paul terms the Old Testament "shadow," while he calls the New Testament "substance" (Col 2:17) [OLSHAUSEN].

JFB: Joh 1:18

"No one," in the widest sense.

JFB: Joh 1:18

By immediate gaze, or direct intuition.

JFB: Joh 1:18

A remarkable expression, used only here, presupposing the Son's conscious existence distinct from the Father, and expressing His immediate and most endeared access to, and absolute acquaintance with, Him.

JFB: Joh 1:18

Emphatic; As if he should say, "He and He only hath declared Him," because He only can.

JFB: Joh 1:19

Testimony.

JFB: Joh 1:19

That is, the heads of the nation, the members of the Sanhedrim. In this peculiar sense our Evangelist seems always to use the term.

JFB: Joh 1:20

That is, While many were ready to hail him as the Christ, he neither gave the slightest ground for such views, nor the least entertainment to them.

JFB: Joh 1:21

In His own proper person.

JFB: Joh 1:21

Announced in Deu 18:15, &c., about whom they seem not to have been agreed whether he were the same with the Messiah or no.

Clarke: Joh 1:1

In the beginning - That is, before any thing was formed - ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Gen 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, Joh 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the Eternal God

Clarke: Joh 1:1

Was the Word - Or, existed the Logos. This term should be left untranslated, for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. The first I consider as proper an apellative of the Savior of the world as I do either of the two last. And as it would be highly improper to say, the Deliverer, the Anointed, instead of Jesus Christ, so I deem it improper to say, the Word, instead of the Logos. But as every appellative of the Savior of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work, so the epithet Λογος, Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him, who is the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world, Joh 1:9; who is the fountain of all wisdom; who giveth being, life, light, knowledge, and reason, to all men; who is the grand Source of revelation, who has declared God unto mankind; who spake by the prophets, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, Rev 19:10; who has illustrated life and immortality by his Gospel, 2Ti 1:10; and who has fully made manifest the deep mysteries which lay hidden in the bosom of the invisible God from all eternity, Joh 1:18

The apostle does not borrow this mode of speech from the writings of Plato, as some have imagined: he took it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and from the subsequent style of the ancient Jews. It is true the Platonists make mention of the Logos in this way: - καθ ’ ὁν, αει οντα, τα γενομενα εγενετο - by whom, eternally existing, all things were made. But as Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and others, traveled among the Jews, and conversed with them, it is reasonable to suppose that they borrowed this, with many others of their most important notions and doctrines, from them

Clarke: Joh 1:1

And the Word was God - Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.

Clarke: Joh 1:3

All things were made by him - That is, by this Logos. In Gen 1:1, God is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are One. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become God; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings

On these important passages I find that many eminently learned men differ from me: it seems they cannot be of my opinion, and I feel I cannot be of theirs. May He, who is the Light and the Truth, guide them and me into all truth!

Clarke: Joh 1:4

In him was life - Many MSS., versions, and fathers, connect this with the preceding verse, thus: All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made. What was made had life in it; but This Life was the light of men. That is, though every thing he made had a principle of life in it, whether vegetable, animal, or intellectual, yet this, that life or animal principle in the human being, was not the light of men; not that light which could guide them to heaven, for the world by wisdom knew not God, 1Co 1:21. Therefore, the expression, in him was life, is not to be understood of life natural, but of that life eternal which he revealed to the world, 2Ti 1:10, to which he taught the way, Joh 14:6, which he promised to believers, Joh 10:28, which he purchased for them, Joh 6:51, Joh 6:53, Joh 6:54, which he is appointed to give them, Joh 17:2, and to which he will raise them up, Joh 5:29, because he hath the life in himself, Joh 5:26. All this may be proved

1.    From the like expressions; 1Jo 5:11, This is the promise that God hath given unto us, eternal life, and this life is in his Son: whence he is styled the true God and eternal life, 1Jo 5:20; the resurrection and the life, Joh 11:25; the way, the truth, and the life, Joh 14:6

2.    From these words, Joh 1:7, John came to bear witness of this light, that all might believe through him, viz. to eternal life, 1Ti 1:16; for so John witnesseth, Joh 3:15, Joh 3:36

And hence it follows that this life must be the light of men, by giving them the knowledge of this life, and of the way leading to it. See Whitby on the place. Is there any reference here to Gen 3:20 : And Adam called his wife’ s name Eve, חוה chava , Ζωη, Life, because she was the mother of all living? And was not Jesus that seed of the woman that was to bruise the head of the serpent, and to give life to the world?

Clarke: Joh 1:5

And the light shineth in darkness - By darkness here may be understood

1.    The heathen world, Eph 5:8

2.    The Jewish people

3.    The fallen spirit of man

Clarke: Joh 1:5

Comprehended it not - Αυτο ου κατελαβεν, Prevented it not - hindered it not, says Mr. Wakefield, who adds the following judicious note: - "Even in the midst of that darkness of ignorance and idolatry which overspread the world, this light of Divine wisdom was not totally eclipsed: the Jewish nation was a lamp perpetually shining to the surrounding nations; and many bright luminaries, among the heathen, were never wanting in just and worthy notions of the attributes and providence of God’ s wisdom; which enabled them to shine in some degree, though but as lights in a dark place, 2Pe 1:19. Compare Act 14:17; Act 17:28, Act 17:29."

Clarke: Joh 1:6

Whose name was John - This was John the Baptist; see his name and the nature of his office explained, Mar 1:4 (note), and Mat 3:1-3 (note).

Clarke: Joh 1:7

That all men through him might believe - He testified that Jesus was the true light - the true teacher of the way to the kingdom of glory, and the lamb or sacrifice of God, which was to bear away the sin of the world, Joh 1:29, and invited men to believe in him for the remission of their sins, that they might receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Joh 1:32-34. This was bearing the most direct witness to the light which was now shining in the dark wilderness of Judea; and, from thence, shortly to be diffused over the whole world.

Clarke: Joh 1:9

Which lighteth every man - As Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all wisdom, so all the wisdom that is in man comes from him; the human intellect is a ray from his brightness; and reason itself springs from this Logos, the eternal reason. Some of the most eminent rabbins understand Isa 60:1, Rise and shine, for thy Light is come, of the Messiah who was to illuminate Israel, and who, they believe, was referred to in that word, Gen 1:3, And God said, Let there be Light; and there was light. Let a Messiah be provided; and a Messiah was accordingly provided. See Schoettgen

Clarke: Joh 1:9

That cometh into the world - Or, coming into the world - ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον : a common phrase among the rabbins, to express every human being. As the human creature sees the light of the world as soon as it is born, from which it had been excluded while in the womb of its parent; in like manner, this heavenly light shines into the soul of every man, to convince of sin, righteousness, and judgment; and it is through this light, which no man brings into the world with him, but which Christ mercifully gives to him on his coming into it, that what is termed conscience among men is produced. No man could discern good from evil, were it not for this light thus supernaturally and graciously restored. There was much light in the law, but this shone only upon the Jews; but the superior light of the Gospel is to be diffused over the face of the whole earth

The following not only proves what is asserted in this verse, but is also an excellent illustration of it

The Gayatri, or holiest verse of the Vedas, i.e. the ancient Hindoo Scriptures

"Let us adore the supremacy of that divine Sun, the Godhead who illuminates all, who re-creates all; from whom all proceed; to whom all must return; whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright, in our progress towards his holy seat.

The ancient comment

"What the sun and light are to this visible world, that are the supreme good and truth to the intellectual and invisible universe; and, as our corporeal eyes have a distinct perception of objects enlightened by the sun, thus our souls acquire certain knowledge by meditating on the light of truth, which emanates from the Being of beings; that is the light by which alone our minds can be directed in the path to blessedness."Sir Wm. Jones’ s works, vol. vi. p. 417

Sir William observes that the original word Bhargas, which he translates Godhead, consists of three consonants, and is derived from bha , to shine; ram , to delight; and gam , to move: - the Being who is the light, the source of happiness, and the all-pervading energy.

Clarke: Joh 1:10

He was in the world - From its very commencement - he governed the universe - regulated his Church - spake by his prophets - and often, as the angel or messenger of Jehovah, appeared to them, and to the patriarchs

Clarke: Joh 1:10

The world knew him not - Αυτον ουκ εγνω - Did not acknowledge him; for the Jewish rulers knew well enough that he was a teacher come from God; but they did not choose to acknowledge him as such. Men love the world, and this love hinders them from knowing him who made it, though he made it only to make himself known. Christ, by whom all things were made, Joh 1:3, and by whom all things are continually supported, Col 1:16, Col 1:17; Heb 1:3, has way every where, is continually manifesting himself by his providence and by his grace, and yet the foolish heart of man regardeth it not! See the reason, Joh 3:19 (note).

Clarke: Joh 1:11

He came unto his own - Τα ιδια - to those of his own family, city, country: - and his own people, οἱ ιδιοι - his own citizens, brethren, subjects

The Septuagint, Josephus, and Arrian, use these words, τα ιδιοι and οἱ ιδιοι, in the different senses given them above

Clarke: Joh 1:11

Received him not - Would not acknowledge him as the Messiah, nor believe in him for salvation

How very similar to this are the words of Creeshna, (an incarnation of the Supreme Being, according to the theology of the ancient Hindoos!) Addressing one of his disciples, he says: "The foolish, being unacquainted with my supreme and divine nature, as Lord of all things, despise me in this human form; trusting to the evil, diabolic, and deceitful principle within them. They are of vain hope, of vain endeavors, of vain wisdom, and void of reason; whilst men of great minds, trusting to their divine natures, discover that I am before all things, and incorruptible, and serve me with their hearts undiverted by other beings."See Bhagvat Geeta, p. 79

To receive Christ is to acknowledge him as the promised Messiah; to believe in him as the victim that bears away the sin of the world; to obey his Gospel, and to become a partaker of his holiness, without which no man, on the Gospel plan, can ever see God.

Clarke: Joh 1:12

Gave he power - Εξουσιαν, Privilege, honor, dignity, or right. He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest privilege which the Divine Being can confer on this side eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ, as he is offered to them in the Gospel, have, through his blood, a right to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased; and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe. And those who are engrafted in the heavenly family have the highest honor and dignity to which it is possible for a human soul to arrive. What an astonishing thought is this! The sinner, who was an heir to all God’ s curses, has, through the sacrifice of Jesus, a claim on the mercy of the Most High, and a right to be saved! Even justice itself, on the ground of its holy and eternal nature, gives salvation to the vilest who take refuge in this atonement; for justice has nothing to grant, or Heaven to give, which the blood of the Son of God has not merited.

Clarke: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood - Who were regenerated, ουκ εξ αἱματων, not of bloods - the union of father and mother, or of a distinguished or illustrious ancestry; for the Hebrew language makes use of the plural to point out the dignity or excellence of a thing: and probably by this the evangelist intended to show his countrymen, that having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant; as no man could lay claim to them, but in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh - any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man - any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God - through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone. It has been already observed that the Jews required circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, in order to make a proselyte. They allow that the Israelites had in Egypt cast off circumcision, and were consequently out of the covenant; but at length they were circumcised, and they mingled the blood of circumcision with the blood of the paschal lamb, and from this union of bloods they were again made the children of God. See Lightfoot. This was the only way by which the Jews could be made the sons of God; but the evangelist shows them that, under the Gospel dispensation, no person could become a child of God, but by being spiritually regenerated.

Clarke: Joh 1:14

And the Word was made flesh - That very person who was in the beginning - who was with God - and who was God, Joh 1:1, in the fullness of time became flesh - became incarnated by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin. Allowing this apostle to have written by Divine inspiration, is not this verse, taken in connection with Joh 1:1, an absolute and incontestable proof of the proper and eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus

Clarke: Joh 1:14

And dwelt among us - Και εσκηνωσεν εν ἡμιν, And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah

The original word, σκηνοω, from σκια, a shadow, signifies

1.    To build a booth, tent, or temporary hut, for present shelter or convenience; and does not properly signify a lasting habitation or dwelling place; and is therefore fitly applied to the human nature of Christ, which, like the tabernacle of old, was to be here only for a temporary residence for the eternal Divinity

2.    It signifies to erect such a building as was used on festival occasions, when a man invited and enjoyed the company of his friends. To this meaning of the word, which is a common one in the best Greek writers, the evangelist might allude, to point out Christ’ s associating his disciples with himself; living, conversing, eating, and drinking with them: so that, while they had the fullest proof of his Divinity by the miracles which he wrought, they had the clearest evidence of his humanity, by his tabernacling among, eating, drinking, and conversing with them. Concerning the various acceptations of the verb σκηνοω see Raphelius on this verse

The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the incarnation of the Deity have prevailed among the most ancient nations in the world, and even among those which were not favored with the letter of Divine revelation. The Hindoos believe that their god has already become incarnate, not less than nine times, to save the wretched race of man

On this subject, Creeshna, an incarnation of the supreme God, according to the Hindoo theology, is represented in the Bhagvat Geeta, as thus addressing one of his disciples: "Although I am not in my nature subject to birth or decay, and am the Lord of all created beings, yet, having command over my own nature, I am made evident by my own power; and, as often as there is a decline of virtue and an insurrection of vice and injustice in the world, I make myself evident; and thus I appear from age to age, for the preservation of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and the establishment of virtue."Geeta, pp. 51, 52

The following piece, already mentioned, Luk 1:68, translated from the Sanscreet, found on a stone, in a cave near the ancient city of Gya in the East Indies, is the most astonishing and important of any thing found out of the compass of the Sacred Writings, and a proper illustration of this text

"The Deity, who is the Lord, the possessor of all, Appeared in this ocean of natural beings, at the beginning of the Kalee Yoog (the age of contention and baseness.) He who is omnipresent, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme Being, the eternal One, the Divinity worthy to be adored - Appeared here, with a Portion of his Divine Nature. Reverence be unto thee in the form of (a) Bood-dha! Reverence be unto the Lord of the earth! Reverence be unto thee, an Incarnation of the Deity, and the Eternal One! Reverence be unto thee, O God! in the form of the God of mercy! the dispeller of Pain and Trouble, the Lord of All things, the Deity who overcometh the sins of the Kalee Yoog, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy towards those who serve thee! (b) O’ M! the possessor of all things, in Vital Form! Thou art © Brahma, (d) Veeshnoo, and (e) Mahesa! Thou art Lord of the universe! Thou art under the form of all things, movable and immovable, the possessor of the whole! And thus I adore thee! Reverence be unto the Bestower of Salvation, and the ruler of the faculties! Reverence be unto thee, the Destroyer of the Evil Spirit! O Damordara, (f) show me favor! I adore thee who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy! Be propitious, O most high God!"Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284, 285

(a)    Bood-dha. The name of the Deity, as author of happiness

(b)    O’ M. A mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters a, o o, which in composition coalesce, and make o, and the nasal consonant m. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer. It is the same among the Hindoos as יהוה Yehovah is among the Hebrews

©    Brahma, the Deity in his creative quality

(d)    Veeshnoo. He who filleth all space: the Deity in his preserving quality

©    Mahesa. The Deity in his destroying quality. This is properly the Hindoo Trinity: for these three names belong to the same God. See the notes to the Bhagvat Geeta

(f)    Damordara, or Darmadeve, the Indian god of virtue

Clarke: Joh 1:14

We beheld his glory - This refers to the transfiguration, at which John was present, in company with Peter and James

Clarke: Joh 1:14

The glory as of the only begotten - That is, such a glory as became, or was proper to, the Son of God; for thus the particle ὡς should be here understood. There is also here an allusion to the manifestations of God above the ark in the tabernacle: see Exo 25:22; Num 7:89; and this connects itself with the first clause, he tabernacled, or fixed his tent among us. While God dwelt in the tabernacle, among the Jews, the priests saw his glory; and while Jesus dwelt among men his glory was manifested in his gracious words and miraculous acts

Clarke: Joh 1:14

The only begotten of the Father - That is, the only person born of a woman, whose human nature never came by the ordinary way of generation; it being a mere creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Ghost

Clarke: Joh 1:14

Full of grace and truth - Full of favor, kindness, and mercy to men; teaching the way to the kingdom of God, with all the simplicity, plainness, dignity, and energy of truth.

Clarke: Joh 1:15

Of him - The glorious personage before mentioned: John the Baptist, whose history was well known to the persons to whom this Gospel came in the beginning, bare witness; and he cried, - being deeply convinced of the importance and truth of the subject, he delivered his testimony with the utmost zeal and earnestness, - saying, This is he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me - for I am no other than the voice of the crier in the wilderness, Isa 40:3, the forerunner of the Messiah

Clarke: Joh 1:15

Was before me - Speaking by the prophets, and warning your fathers to repent and return to God, as I now warn you; for he was before me - he was from eternity, and from him I have derived both my being and my ministry.

Clarke: Joh 1:16

And of his fullness - Of the plenitude of his grace and mercy, by which he made an atonement for sin; and of the plenitude of his wisdom and truth, by which the mysteries of heaven have been revealed, and the science of eternal truth taught, we have all received: all we apostles have received grace or mercy to pardon our sins, and truth to enable us so to write and speak, concerning these things, that those who attend to our testimony shall be unerringly directed in the way of salvation, and with us continue to receive grace upon grace, one blessing after another, till they are filled with all the fullness of God. I believe the above to be the meaning of the evangelist, and think it improper to distract the mind of the reader with the various translations and definitions which have been given of the phrase, grace for grace. It is only necessary to add, that John seems here to refer to the Gospel as succeeding the law: the law was certainly a dispensation both of grace and truth; for it pointed out the gracious design of God to save men by Christ Jesus; and it was at least a most expressive and well-defined shadow of good things to come: but the Gospel, which had now taken place, introduced that plenitude of grace and truth to the whole world, which the law had only shadowed forth to the Jewish people, and which they imagined should have been restrained to themselves alone. In the most gracious economy of God, one dispensation of mercy and truth is designed to make way for, and to be followed by, another and a greater: thus the law succeeded the patriarchal dispensation, and the Gospel the law; more and more of the plenitude of the grace of the Gospel becomes daily manifest to the genuine followers of Christ; and, to those who are faithful unto death, a heaven full of eternal glory will soon succeed to the grace of the Gospel. To illustrate this point more fully, the following passage in Philo the Jew has been adduced: "God is always sparing of his first blessings or graces, ( πρωτας χαριτας ), and afterwards gives other graces upon them, ( αντ ’ εκεινων ), and a third sort upon the second, and always new ones upon old ones, sometimes of a different kind, and at other times of the same sort."Vol. i. p. 254, ed. Mang. In the above passage the preposition αντι for, is used thrice in the sense of επι, upon. To confirm the above interpretation Bp. Pearce produces the following quotations. Ecclus 24:15: Χαρις επι χαριτι γυνη αισχυντηρα - A modest woman is a grace upon a grace, i.e. a double grace or blessing. Euripides uses the very same phrase with John, where he makes Theoclymenus say to Helena. Χαρις αντι χαριτος ελθετω, May grace upon grace come to you! Helen v. 1250. ed. Barn.

Clarke: Joh 1:17

The law was given by Moses - Moses received the law from God, and through him it was given to the Jews, Act 7:38

Clarke: Joh 1:17

But grace and truth - Which he had already mentioned, and which were to be the subject of the book which he was now writing, came to all mankind through Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, as Moses was of the old: Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Gal 3:19. See a fine discourse on this text by Mr. Claude, "Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,"vol. i. p. 119, etc. edit. Lond. 1788

The law of Moses, however excellent in itself, was little in comparison of the Gospel: as it proceeded from the justice and holiness of God, and was intended to convict men of sin, that the way of the Gospel might be the better prepared, it was a law of rigour, condemnation, and death: Rom 4:15; 2Co 3:7, 2Co 3:8. It was a law of shadows, types, and figures: Heb 10:1, and incapable of expiating sin by its sacrifices: Rom 8:3; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19; Heb 10:1, Heb 10:11. But Christ has brought that grace which is opposed to condemnation: Rom 5:15, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21; Rom 8:1; Gal 3:10; and he is himself the spirit and substance of all those shadows: Col 2:19; Heb 10:1

Clarke: Joh 1:17

Jesus Christ - Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, or anointed prophet, priest, and king, sent from heaven. To what has already been said on the important name Jesus, (See Mat 1:21 (note), and the places there referred to), I shall add the following explanation, chiefly taken from Professor Schultens, who has given a better view of the ideal meaning of the root ישע yasha , than any other divine or critic

He observes that this root, in its true force, meaning, and majesty, both in Hebrew and Arabic, includes the ideas of amplitude, expansion, and space, and should be translated, he was spacious-open-ample; and, particularly, he possessed a spacious or extensive degree or rank: and is applied

1.    To a person possessing abundance of riches

2.    To one possessing abundant power

3.    To one possessing abundant or extensive knowledge

4.    To one possessing abundance of happiness, beatitude, and glory

Hence we may learn the true meaning of Zec 9:9 : Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion - behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is Just, and having Salvation: - הושיע - he is possessed of all power to enrich, strengthen, teach, enlarge, and raise to glory and happiness, them who trust in him. Man by nature is in want and poverty: in abjectness and weakness: in darkness and ignorance: in straits and captivity: in wretchedness and infamy. His Redeemer is called ישועה Jesus - he who looses, enlarges, and endows with salvation

1.    He enriches man’ s poverty

2.    strengthens his weakness

3.    teaches his ignorance

4.    brings him out of straits and difficulties: an

5.    raises him to happiness, beatitude, and glory

And the aggregate of these is Salvation. Hence that saying, His name shall be called Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. See Schultens Origines Hebraeae, p. 15.

Clarke: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time - Moses and others heard his voice, and saw the cloud and the fire, which were the symbols of his presence; but such a manifestation of God as had now taken place, in the person of Jesus Christ, had never before been exhibited to the world. It is likely that the word seen, here, is put for known, as in Joh 3:32; 1Jo 3:2, 1Jo 3:6, and 3Jo 1:11; and this sense the latter clause of the verse seems to require: - No man, how highly soever favored, hath fully known God, at any time, in any nation or age; the only begotten Son, (see on Joh 1:14 (note)), who is in the bosom of the Father, who was intimately acquainted with all the counsels of the Most High, he hath declared him, εξηγησατο, hath announced the Divine oracles unto men; for in this sense the word is used by the best Greek writers. See Kypke in loco

Lying in the bosom, is spoken of in reference to the Asiatic custom of reclining while at meals; the person who was next the other was said to lie in his bosom; and he who had this place in reference to the master of the feast was supposed to share his peculiar regards, and so be in a state of the utmost favor and intimacy with him.

Clarke: Joh 1:19

And this is the record of John - He persisted in this assertion, testifying to the Jews that this Jesus was The Christ.

Clarke: Joh 1:20

He confessed, and denied not; but confessed - A common mode of Jewish phraseology. John renounces himself, that Jesus may be all in all. Though God had highly honored him, and favored him with peculiar influence in the discharge of his work, yet he considered he had nothing but what he had received, and therefore, giving all praise to his benefactor, takes care to direct the attention of the people to him alone from whom he had received his mercies. He who makes use of God’ s gifts to feed and strengthen his pride and vanity will be sure to be stripped of the goods wherein he trusts, and fall down into the condemnation of the devil. We have nothing but what we have received; we deserve nothing of what we possess; and it is only God’ s infinite mercy which keeps us in the possession of the blessings which we now enjoy.

Clarke: Joh 1:21

Art thou Elias? - The scribes themselves had taught that Elijah was to come before the Messiah. See Mat 17:10; and this belief of theirs they supported by a literal construction of Mal 4:5

Clarke: Joh 1:21

Art thou that prophet? - the prophet spoken of by Moses, Deu 18:15, Deu 18:18. This text they had also misunderstood: for the prophet or teacher promised by Moses was no other than the Messiah himself. See Act 3:22. But the Jews had a tradition that Jeremiah was to return to life, and restore the pot of manna, the ark of the covenant, etc., which he had hidden that the Babylonians might not get them. Besides this, they had a general expectation that all the prophets should come to life in the days of the Messiah

Clarke: Joh 1:21

I am not - I am not the prophet which you expect, nor Elijah: though he was the Elijah that was to come; for in the spirit and power of that eminent prophet he came, proclaiming the necessity of reformation in Israel. See Mat 11:14; Mat 17:10-13.

Calvin: Joh 1:1

1.In the beginning was the Speech. In this introduction he asserts the eternal Divinity of Christ, in order to inform us that he is the eternal God, who was manifested in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16.) The design is, to show it to have been necessary that the restoration of mankind should be accomplished by the Son of God, since by his power all things were created, since he alone breathes into all the creatures life and energy, so that they remain in their condition; and since in man himself he has given a remarkable display both of his power and of his grace, and even subsequently to the fall of man has not ceased to show liberality and kindness towards his posterity. And this doctrine is highly necessary to be known; for since apart from God we ought not at all to seek life and salvation, how could our faith rest on Christ, if we did not know with certainty what is here taught? By these words, therefore, the Evangelist assures us that we do not withdraw from the only and eternal God, when we believe in Christ, and likewise that life is now restored to the dead through the kindness of him who was the source and cause of life, when the nature of man was still uncorrupted.

As to the Evangelist calling the Son of God the Speech, the simple reason appears to me to be, first, because he is the eternal Wisdom and Will of God; and, secondly, because he is the lively image of His purpose; for, as Speech is said to be among men the image of the mind, so it is not inappropriate to apply this to God, and to say that He reveals himself to us by his Speech. The other significations of the Greek word λόγος (Logos) do not apply so well. It means, no doubt, definition, and reasoning, and calculation; but I am unwilling to carry the abstruseness of philosophy beyond the measure of my faith. And we perceive that the Spirit of God is so far from approving of such subtleties that, in prattling with us, by his very silence he cries aloud with what sobriety we ought to handle such lofty mysteries.

Now as God, in creating the world, revealed himself by that Speech, so he formerly had him concealed with himself, so that there is a twofold relation; the former to God, and the latter to men. Servetus, a haughty scoundrel belonging to the Spanish nation, invents the statement, that this eternal Speech began to exist at that time when he was displayed in the creation of the world, as if he did not exist before his power was made known by external operation. Very differently does the Evangelist teach in this passage; for he does not ascribe to the Speech a beginning of time, but says that he was from the beginning, and thus rises beyond all ages. I am fully aware how this dog barks against us, and what cavils were formerly raised by the Arians, namely, that

in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
(Gen 1:1)

which nevertheless are not eternal, because the word beginning refers to order, instead of denoting eternity. But the Evangelist meets this calumny when he says,

And the Speech was with God If the Speech began to be at some time, they must find out some succession of time in God; and undoubtedly by this clause John intended to distinguish him from all created things. For many questions might arise, Where was this Speech ? How did he exert his power? What was his nature? How might he be known? The Evangelist, therefore, declares that we must not confine our views to the world and to created things; for he was always united to God, before the world existed. Now when men date the beginning from the origin of heaven and earth, do they not reduce Christ to the common order of the world, from which he is excluded in express terms by this passage? By this proceeding they offer an egregious insult not only to the Son of God, but to his eternal Father, whom they deprive of his wisdom. If we are not at liberty to conceive of God without his wisdom, it must be acknowledged that we ought not to seek the origin of the Speech any where else than in the Eternal Wisdom of God.

Servetus objects that the Speech cannot be admitted to have existed any earlier than when Moses introduces God as speaking. As if he did not subsist in God, because he was not publicly made known: that is, as if he did not exist within, until he began to appear without. But every pretense for outrageously absurd fancies of this description is cut off by the Evangelist, when he affirms without reservation, that the Speech was with God; for he expressly withdraws us from every moment of time.

Those who infer from the imperfect tense of the verb ⁹ which is here used, that it denotes continued existence, have little strength of argument to support them. Was, they say, is a word more fitted to express the idea of uninterrupted succession, than if John had said, Has been. But on matters so weighty we ought to employ more solid arguments; and, indeed, the argument which I have brought forward ought to be reckoned by us sufficient; namely, that the Evangelist sends us to the eternal secrets of God, that we may there learn that the Speech was, as it were hidden, before he revealed himself in the external structure of the world. Justly, therefore, does Augustine remark, that this beginning, which is now mentioned, has no beginning; for though, in the order of nature, the Father came before his Wisdom, yet those who conceive of any point of time when he went before his Wisdom, deprive Him of his glory. And this is the eternal generation, which, during a period of infinite extent before the foundation of the world, lay hid in God, so to speak — which, for a long succession of years, was obscurely shadowed out to the Fathers under the Law, and at length was more fully manifested in flesh.

I wonder what induced the Latins to render ὁ λόγος by Verbum, (the Word;) for that would rather have been the translation of τὸ ῥη̑μα. But granting that they had some plausible reason, still it cannot be denied that Sermo ( the Speech) would have been far more appropriate. Hence it is evident, what barbarous tyranny was exercised by the theologians of the Sorbonne, ¹⁰ who teased and stormed at Erasmus in such a manner, because he had changed a single word for the better.

And the Speech was with God. We have already said that the Son of God is thus placed above the world and above all the creatures, and is declared to have existed before all ages. But at the same time this mode of expression attributes to him a distinct personality from the Father; for it would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that the Speech was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to himself in God. This passage serves, therefore, to refute the error of Sabellius; for it shows that the Son is distinct from the Father. I have already remarked that we ought to be sober in thinking, and modest in speaking, about such high mysteries. And yet the ancient writers of the Church were excusable, when, finding that they could not in any other way maintain sound and pure doctrine in opposition to the perplexed and ambiguous phraseology of the heretics, they were compelled to invent some words, which after all had no other meaning than what is taught in the Scriptures. They said that there are three Hypostases, or Subsistences, or Persons, in the one and simple essence of God. The word; ὑπόστασις (Hypostasis) occurs in this sense in Heb 1:3, to which corresponds the Latin word Substaatia, ( substance) as it is employed by Hilary. The Persons (τὰ πρόσωπα) were called by them distinct properties in God, which present themselves to the view of our minds; as Gregory Nazianzen says, “I cannot think of the One (God) without having the Three (Persons) shining around me. ¹¹

And the Speech was God. That there may be no remaining doubt as to Christ’s divine essence, the Evangelist distinctly asserts that he is God. Now since there is but one God, it follows that Christ is of the same essence with the Father, and yet that, in some respect, he is distinct from the Father. But of the second clause we have already spoken. As to the unity of the divine essence, Arius showed prodigious wickedness, when, to avoid being compelled to acknowledge the eternal Divinity of Christ, he prattled about I know not what imaginary Deity; ¹² but for our part, when we are informed that the Speech was God, what right have we any longer to call in question his eternal essence?

Calvin: Joh 1:2

2.He was in the beginning. In order to impress more deeply on our minds what had been already said, the Evangelist condenses the two preceding clauses into a brief summary, that the Speech always was, and that he was with God; so that it may be understood that the beginning was before all time.

Calvin: Joh 1:3

3.All things were made by him. Having affirmed that the Speech is God, and having asserted his eternal essence, he now proves his Divinity from his works. And this is the practical knowledge, to which we ought to be chiefly accustomed; for the mere name of God attributed to Christ will affect us little, if our faith do not feel it to be such by experience. In reference to the Son of God, he makes an assertion which strictly and properly applies to his person. Sometimes, indeed, Paul simply declares that all things are by God, (Rom 11:36) but whenever the Son is compared with the Father, he is usually distinguished by this mark. Accordingly, the ordinary mode of expression is here employed, that the Father made all things by the Son, and that all things are by God through the Son. Now the design of the Evangelist is, as I have already said, to show that no sooner was the world created than the Speech of God came forth into external operation; for having formerly been incomprehensible in his essence, he then became publicly known by the effect of his power. There are some, indeed, even among philosophers, who make God to be the Master-builder of the world in such a manner as to ascribe to him intelligence in framing this work. So far they are in the right, for they agree with Scripture; but as they immediately fly off into frivolous speculations, there is no reason why we should eagerly desire to have their testimonies; but, on the contrary, we ought to be satisfied with this inspired declaration, well knowing that it conveys far more than our mind is able to comprehend.

And without him was not any thing made that was made. Though there is a variety of readings in this passage, yet for my own part, I have no hesitation in taking it continuously thus: not any thing was made that was made; and in this almost all the Greek manuscripts, or at least those of them which are most approved, are found to agree; besides, the sense requires it. Those who separate the words, which was made, from the preceding clause, so as to connect them with the following one, bring out a forced sense: what was made was in him life; that is, lived, or was sustained in life. ¹³ But they will never show that this mode of expression is, in any instance, applied to creatures. Augustine, who is excessively addicted to the philosophy of Plato, is carried along, according to custom, to the doctrine of ideas; that before God made the world, he had the form of the whole building conceived in his mind; and so the life of those things which did not yet exist was in Christ, because the creation of the world was appointed in him. But how widely different this is From the intention of the Evangelist we shall immediately see.

I now return to the former clause. This is not a faulty redundancy, (περιττολογία) as it appears to be; for as Satan endeavors, by every possible method, to take any thing from Christ, the Evangelist intended to declare expressly, that of those things which have been made there is no exception whatever.

Calvin: Joh 1:4

4.In him was life. Hitherto he has taught us, that by the Speech of God all things were created. He now attributes to him, in the same manner, the preservation of those things which had been created, as if he had said, that in the creation of the world there was not merely displayed a sudden exercise of his power, which soon passed away, but that it is manifested in the steady and regular order of nature, as he is said to uphold all things by the word or will of his power, (Heb 1:3). This life may be extended either to inanimate creatures, (which live after their own manner, though they are devoid of feeling,) or may be explained in reference to living creatures alone. It is of little consequence which you choose; for the simple meaning is, that the Speech of God was not only the source of life to all the creatures, so that those which were not began to be, but that his life -giving power causes them to remain in their condition; for were it not that his continued inspiration gives vigor to the world, every thing that lives would immediately decay, or be reduced to nothing. In a word, what Paul ascribes to God, that in him we are, and move, and live, (Act 17:28,) John declares to be accomplished by the gracious agency of the Speech; so that it is God who gives us life, but it is by the eternal Speech

The life was the light of men. The other interpretations, which do not accord with the meaning of the Evangelist, I intentionally pass by. He speaks here, in my opinion, of that part of life in which men excel other animals; and informs us that the life which was bestowed on men was not of an ordinary description, but was united to the light of understanding. He separates man from the rank of other creatures; because we perceive more readily the power of God by feeling it in us than by beholding it at a distance. Thus Paul charges us not to seek God at a distance, because he makes himself to be felt within us, (Act 17:27.) After having presented a general exhibition of the kindness of Christ, in order to induce men to take a nearer view of it, he points out what has been bestowed peculiarly on themselves; namely, that they were not created like the beasts, but having been endued with reason, they had obtained a higher rank. As it is not in vain that God imparts his light to their minds, it follows that the purpose for which they were created was, that they might acknowledge Him who is the Author of so excellent a blessing. And since this light, of which the Speech was the source, has been conveyed from him to us, it ought to serve as a mirror, in which we may clearly behold the divine power of the Speech

Calvin: Joh 1:5

5.And the light shineth in darkness. It might be objected, that the passages of Scripture in which men are called blind are so numerous and that the blindness for which they are condemned is but too well known. For in all their reasoning faculties they miserably fail. How comes it that there are so many labyrinths of errors in the world, but because men, by their own guidance, are led only to vanity and lies? But if no light appears in men, that testimony of the divinity of Christ, which the Evangelist lately mentioned, is destroyed; for that is the third step, as I have said, that in the life of men there is something more excellent than motion and breathing. The Evangelist anticipates this question, and first of all lays down this caution, that the light which was originally bestowed on men must not be estimated by their present condition; because in this corrupted and degenerate nature light has been turned into darkness. And yet he affirms that the light of understanding is not wholly extinguished; for, amidst the thick darkness of the human mind, some remaining sparks of the brightness still shine.

My readers now understand that this sentence contains two clauses; for he says that men are now widely distant from that perfectly holy nature with which they were originally endued; because their understanding, which ought to have shed light in every direction, has been plunged in darkness, and is wretchedly blinded; and that thus the glory of Christ may be said to be darkened amidst this corruption of nature. But, on the other hand, the Evangelist maintains that, in the midst of the darkness: , there are still some remains of light, which show in some degree the divine power of Christ. The Evangelist admits, therefore, that the mind of man is blinded; so that it may justly be pronounced to be covered with darkness. For he might have used a milder term, and might have said that the light is dark or cloudy; but he chose to state more distinctly how wretched our condition has become since the fall of the first man. The statement that the light shineth in darkness is not at all intended for the commendation of depraved nature, but rather for taking away every excuse for ignorance.

And the darkness did not comprehend it. Although by that small measure of light which still remains in us, the Son of God has always invited men to himself, yet the Evangelist says that this was attended by no advantage, because seeing, they did not see, (Mat 13:13.) For since man lost the favor of God, his mind is so completely overwhelmed by the thralldom of ignorance, that any portion of light which remains in it is quenched and useless. This is daily proved by experience; for all who are not regenerated by the Spirit of God possess some reason, and this is an undeniable proof that man was made not only to breathe, but to have understanding. But by that guidance of their reason they do not come to God, and do not even approach to him; so that all their understanding is nothing else than mere vanity. Hence it follows that there is no hope of the salvation of men, unless God grant new aid; for though the Son of God sheds his light upon them, they are so dull that they do not comprehend whence that light proceeds, but are carried away by foolish and wicked imaginations to absolute madness.

The light which still dwells in corrupt nature consists chiefly of two parts; for, first, all men naturally possess some seed of religion; and, secondly, the distinction between good and evil is engraven on their consciences. But what are the fruits that ultimately spring from it, except that religion degenerates into a thousand monsters of superstition, and conscience perverts every decision, so as to confound vice with virtue? In short, natural reason never will direct men to Christ; and as to their being endued with prudence for regulating their lives, or born to cultivate the liberal arts and sciences, all this passes away without yielding any advantage.

It ought to be understood that the Evangelist speaks of natural gifts only, and does not as yet say any thing about the grace of regeneration. For there are two distinct powers which belong to the Son of God: the first, which is manifested in the structure of the world and the order of nature; and the second, by which he renews and restores fallen nature. As he is the eternal Speech of God, by him the world was made; by his power all things continue to possess the life which they once received; man especially was endued with an extraordinary gift of understanding; and though by his revolt he lost the light of understanding, yet he still sees and understands, so that what he naturally possesses from the grace of the Son of God is not entirely destroyed. But since by his stupidity and perverseness he darkens the light which still dwells in him, it remains that a new office be undertaken by the Son of God, the office of Mediator, to renew, by the Spirit of regeneration, man who had been ruined. Those persons, therefore, reason absurdly and inconclusively, who refer this light, which the Evangelist mentions, to the gospel and the doctrine of salvation.

Calvin: Joh 1:6

6.There was a man. The Evangelist now begins to discourse about the manner in which the Son of God was manifested in flesh; and that none may doubt that Christ is the eternal Son of God, he relates that Christ was announced by John the Baptist, as his herald. For not only did Christ exhibit himself to be seen by men, but he chose also to be made known by the testimony and doctrine of John; or rather, God the Father sent this witness before his Christ, that they might more willingly receive the salvation offered by him.

But it might at first sight appear ridiculous that Christ should receive testimony from another, as if he needed it; while, on the contrary, he declares that he does not seek testimony from man, (Joh 5:34.) The answer is easy and obvious, that this witness was appointed, not for the sake of Christ, but for our sake. If it be objected that the testimony of man is too weak to prove that Christ is the Son of God, it is likewise easy to reply, that the Baptist is not adduced as a private witness, but as one who, having received authority from God, sustained the character rather of an angel than of a man. Accordingly, he receives commendation not for his own virtues, but for this single circumstance, that he was the ambassador of God. Nor is this at variance with the fact, that the preaching of the gospel was committed to Christ, that he might be a witness to himself; for the design contemplated by the preaching of John was, that men might attend to the doctrine and miracles of Christ.

Sent by God. He does not say so for the purpose of confirming the baptism of John, but only mentions it in passing. This circumstance is not sufficient to produce certainty, since many run of their own accord, and boast that God has sent them; but the Evangelist, intending afterwards to speak more fully about this witness, reckoned it enough, for the present, to say in a single word, that John did not come but by the command of God. We shall afterwards see how he himself affirms that God is the Author of his ministry. We must now recollect — what I formerly noticed — that what is asserted about John is required in all the teachers of the Church, that they be called by God; so that the authority of teaching may not be founded on any other than on God alone.

Whose name was John. He states the name, not only for the purpose of pointing out the man, but because it was given to him in accordance with what he really was. There is no room to doubt that the Lord had reference to the office to which he appointed John, when he commanded by the angel that he should be so called, that by means of it all might acknowledge him to be the herald of divine grace. ¹⁶ For though the name יהוחנן ¹⁷ ( Jehohannan) may be taken in a passive signification, and may thus be referred to the person, as denoting that John was acceptable to God; yet for my own part, I willingly extend it to the benefit which others ought to derive from him. ¹⁸

7. He came for a testimony. The end of his calling is briefly noticed; which was, that he might prepare a Church for Christ, as, by inviting all to Christ, he shows plainly enough that he did not come on his own account.

8. He was not that light. So far was John from needing commendation, that the Evangelist gives this warning, lest his excessive brightness might obscure the glory of Christ. For there were some who gazed so eagerly upon him that they neglected Christ; just as if a person, enraptured with beholding the dawning of the day, would not deign to turn his eyes towards the sun. In what sense the Evangelist employs the word light we shall immediately see. All the godly, indeed, are light in the Lord, (Eph 5:8,) because, in consequence of their being enlightened by his Spirit, they not only see for themselves, but likewise direct others by their example to the way of salvation. The apostles likewise are peculiarly called light, (Mat 5:14,) because they go before, holding out the torch of the Gospel, to dispel the darkness of the world. But here the Evangelist speaks of him who is the only and eternal source of illumination, as he immediately shows more clearly.

Calvin: Joh 1:9

9.The true light was. The Evangelist did not intend to contrast the true light with the false, but to distinguish Christ from all others, that none might imagine that what is called light belongs to him in common with angels or men. The distinction is, that whatever is luminous in heaven and in earth borrows its splendor from some other object; but Christ is the light, shining from itself and by itself, and enlightening the whole world by its radiance; so that no other source or cause of splendor is anywhere to be found. He gave the name of the true light, therefore, to that which has by nature the power of giving light

Which enlighteneth every man. The Evangelist insists chiefly on this point, in order to show, from the effect which every one of us perceives in him, that Christ is the light. He might have reasoned more ingeniously, that Christ, as the eternal light, has a splendor which is natural, and not brought from any other quarter; but instead of doing so, he sends us back to the experience which we all possess. For as Christ makes us all partakers of his brightness, it must be acknowledged that to him alone belongs strictly this honor of being called light

This passage is commonly explained in two ways. Some restrict the phrase, every man, to those who, having been renewed by the Spirit of God, become partakers of the life-giving light. Augustine employs the comparison of a schoolmaster who, if he happen to be the only person who has a school in the town, will be called the teacher of all, though there be many persons that do not go to his school. They therefore understand the phrase in a comparative sense, that all are enlightened by Christ, because no man can boast of having obtained the light of life in any other way than by his grace. But since the Evangelist employs the general phrase, every man that cometh into the world, I am more inclined to adopt the other meaning, which is, that from this light the rays are diffused over all mankind, as I have already said. For we know that men have this peculiar excellence which raises them above other animals, that they are endued with reason and intelligence, and that they carry the distinction between right and wrong engraven on their conscience. There is no man, therefore, whom some perception of the eternal light does not reach.

But as there are fanatics who rashly strain and torture this passage, so as to infer from it that the grace of illumination is equally offered to all, let us remember that the only subject here treated is the common light of nature, which is far inferior to faith; for never will any man, by all the acuteness and sagacity of his own mind, penetrate into the kingdom of God. It is the Spirit of God alone who opens the gate of heaven to the elect. Next, let us remember that the light of reason which God implanted in men has been so obscured by sin, that amidst the thick darkness, and shocking ignorance, and gulf of errors, there are hardly a few shining sparks that are not utterly extinguished.

Calvin: Joh 1:10

10.He was in the world. He accuses men of ingratitude, because of their own accord, as it were, they were so blinded, that the cause of the light which they enjoyed was unknown to them. This extends to every age of the world; for before Christ was manifested in the flesh, his power was everywhere displayed; and therefore those daily effects ought to correct the stupidity of men. What can be more unreasonable than to draw water from a running stream, and never to think of the fountain from which that stream flows? It follows that no proper excuse can be found for the ignorance of the world in not knowing Christ, before he was manifested in the flesh; for it arose from the indolence and wicked stupidity of those who had opportunities of seeing Him always present by his power. The whole may be summed up by saying, that never was Christ in such a manner absent from the world, but that men, aroused by his rays, ought to have raised their eyes towards him. Hence it follows, that the blame must be imputed to themselves.

Calvin: Joh 1:11

11.He came into his own. Here is displayed the absolutely desperate wickedness and malice of men; here is displayed their execrable impiety, that when the Son of God was manifested in flesh to the Jews, whom God had separated to himself from the other nations to be His own heritage, he was not acknowledged or received. This passage also has received various explanations. For some think that the Evangelist speaks of the whole world indiscriminately; and certainly there is no part of the world which the Son of God may not lawfully claim as his own property. According to them, the meaning is: “When Christ came down into the world, he did not enter into another person’s territories, for the whole human race was his own inheritance.” But I approve more highly of the opinion of those who refer it to the Jews alone; for there is an implied comparison, by which the Evangelist represents the heinous ingratitude of men. The Son of God had solicited an abode for himself in one nation; when he appeared there, he was rejected; and this shows clearly the awfully wicked blindness of men. In making this statement, the sole object of the Evangelist must have been to remove the offense which many would be apt to take in consequence of the unbelief of the Jews. For when he was despised and rejected by that nation to which he had been especially promised, who would reckon him to be the Redeemer of the whole world? We see what extraordinary pains the Apostle Paul takes in handling this subject.

Here both the Verb and the Noun are highly emphatic. He came. The Evangelist says that the Son of God came to that place where he formerly was; and by this expression he must mean a new and extraordinary kind of presence, by which the Son of God was manifested, so that men might have a nearer view of him. Into his own. By this phrase the Evangelist compares the Jews with other nations; because by an extraordinary privilege they had been adopted into the family of God. Christ therefore was first offered to them as his own household, and as belonging to his empire by a peculiar right. To the same purpose is that complaint of God by Isaiah:

The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib, but Israel knoweth me not, (Isa 1:3;)

for though he has dominion over the whole world, yet he represents himself to be, in peculiar manner, the Lord of Israel, whom he had collected, as it were, into a sacred fold.

Calvin: Joh 1:12

12.But to as many as received him. That none may be retarded by this stumbling-block, that the Jews despised and rejected Christ, the Evangelist exalts above heaven the godly who believe in him; for he says that by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of God. The universal term, as many, contains an implied contrast; for the Jews were carried away by a blind vaunting, ¹⁹ as if they exclusively had God bound to themselves. The Evangelist declares that their condition is changed, because the Jews have been rejected, and their place, which had been left empty, is occupied by the Jews; for it is as if he transferred the right of adoption to strangers. This is what Paul says, that the destruction of one nation was the life of the whole world, (Rom 11:12;) for the Gospel, which might be said to have been banished from them, began to be spread far and wide throughout the whole world. They were thus deprived of the privilege which they enjoyed above others. But their impiety was no obstruction to Christ; for he erected elsewhere the throne of his kingdom, and called indiscriminately to the hope of salvation all nations which formerly appeared to have been rejected by God.

He gave them power. The word ἐξουσία here appears to me to mean a right, or claim; and it would be better to translate it so, in order to refute the false opinions of the Papists; for they wickedly pervert this passage by understanding it to mean, that nothing more than a choice is allowed to us, if we think fit to avail ourselves of this privilege. In this way they extract free-will from this phrase; but as well might they extract fire from water. There is some plausibility in this at first sight; for the Evangelist does not say that Christ makes them sons of God, but that he gives them power to become such. Hence they infer that it is this grace only that is offered to us, and that the liberty to enjoy or to reject it is placed at our disposal. But this frivolous attempt to catch at a single word is set aside by what immediately follows; for the Evangelist adds, that they become the sons of God, not by the will which belongs to the flesh, but when they are born of God. But if faith regenerates us, so that we are the sons of God, and if God breathes faith into us from heaven, it plainly appears that not by possibility only, but actually — as we say — is the grace of adoption offered to us by Christ. And, indeed, the Greek word, ἐξουσία is sometimes put for ἀξίωσις, (a claim,) a meaning which falls in admirably with this passage.

The circumlocution which the Evangelist has employed tends more to magnify the excellence of grace, than if he had said in a single word, that all who believe in Christ are made by him sons of God. For he speaks here of the unclean and profane, who, having been condemned to perpetual ignominy, lay in the darkness of death. Christ exhibited an astonishing instance of his grace in conferring this honor on such persons, so that they began, all at once, to be sons of God; and the greatness of this privilege is justly extolled by the Evangelist, as also by Paul, when he ascribes it to

God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love
with which he loved us, (Eph 2:4.)

But if any person shall prefer to take the word power in its ordinary acceptation, still the Evangelist does not mean by it any intermediate faculty, or one which does not include the full and complete effect; but, on the contrary, means that Christ gave to the unclean and the uncircumcised what appeared to be impossible; for an incredible change took place when out of stones Christ raised up children to God, (Mat 3:9.) The power, therefore, is that fitness (ἱκανότης) which Paul mentions, when he

gives thanks to God, who hath made us fit (or meet) to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints, (Col 1:12.)

Who believe in his name. He expresses briefly the manner of receiving Christ, that is, believing in him. Having been engrafted into Christ by faith, we obtain the right of adoption, so as to be the sons of God. And, indeed, as he is the only-begotten Son of God, it is only so far as we are members of him that this honor at all belongs to us. Here again the notion of the Papists about the word power is refuted. ²⁰ The Evangelist declares that this power is given to those who already believe. Now it is certain that such persons are in reality the sons of God. They detract too much from the value of faith who say that, by believing, a man obtains nothing more than that he may become a son of God, if he chooses; for instead of present effect they put a power which is held in uncertainty and suspense.

The contradiction appears still more glaring from what immediately follows. The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God It is not therefore, a mere liberty of choice that is offered, since they obtain the privilege itself that is in question. Although the Hebrew word, שם ( Name) is sometimes used to denote power, yet here it denotes a relation to the doctrine of the Gospel; for when Christ is preached to us, then it is that we believe in him. I speak of the ordinary method by which the Lord leads us to faith; and this ought to be carefully observed, for there are many who foolishly contrive for themselves a confused faith, without any understanding of doctrine, as nothing is more common among the Papists than the word believe, though there is not among them any knowledge of Christ from hearing the Gospel. Christ, therefore, offers himself to us by the Gospel, and we receive him by faith.

13.Who were born not of blood ²¹ Some think that an indirect reference is here made to the preposterous confidence of the Jews, and I willingly adopt that opinion. They had continually in their mouth the nobleness of their lineage, as if, because they were descended from a holy stock, they were naturally holy. And justly might they have gloried in their descent from Abraham, if they had been lawful sons, and not bastards; but the glowing of faith ascribes nothing whatever to carnal generation, but acknowledges its obligation to the grace of God alone for all that is good. John, therefore, says, that those among the formerly unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ are not born the sons of God from the womb, but are renewed by God, that they may begin to be his sons. The reason why he uses the word blood in the plural number appears to have been, that he might express more fully a long succession of lineage; for this was a part of the boasting among the Jews, that they could trace their descent, by an uninterrupted line, upwards to the patriarchs.

The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us willingly, (Jas 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1Pe 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.

Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them.

Calvin: Joh 1:14

14.And the Speech was made flesh. The Evangelist shows what was that coming of Christ which he had mentioned; namely, that having been clothed with our flesh, he showed himself openly to the world. Although the Evangelist touches briefly the unutterable mystery, that the Son of God was clothed with human nature, yet this brevity is wonderfully perspicuous. Here some madmen amuse themselves with foolish and trivial subtleties of this sort: that the Speech is said to have been made flesh, because God sent his Son into the world, according to the conception which he had formed in his mind; as if the Speech were I know not what shadowy image. But we have demonstrated that that word denotes a real hypostasis, or subsistence, in the essence of God.

The word Flesh expresses the meaning of the Evangelist more forcibly than if he had said that he was made man. He intended to show to what a mean and despicable condition the Son of God, on our account, descended from the height of his heavenly glory. When Scripture speaks of man contemptuously, it calls him flesh. Now, though there be so wide a distance between the spiritual glory of the Speech of God and the abominable filth of our flesh, yet the Son of God stooped so low as to take upon himself that flesh, subject to so many miseries. The word flesh is not taken here for corrupt nature, (as it is often used by Paul,) but for mortal man; though it marks disdainfully his frail and perishing nature, as in these and similar passages, for he remembered that they were flesh, (Psa 78:39;) all flesh is grass, (Isa 40:6.) We must at the same time observe, however, that this is a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole; for the lower part includes the whole man. ²² It was therefore highly foolish in Apollinaris to imagine that Christ was merely clothed with a human body without a soul; for it may easily be proved from innumerable passages, that he had a soul as well as a body; and when Scripture calls men flesh, it does not therefore deprive them of a soul.

The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it. And, therefore, as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons. Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs, one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed up by the Divinity.

The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies. When he tells us that the Speech was made flesh, we clearly infer from this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives to the man Christ the name of the Speech, it follows that Christ, when he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh. In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.

And dwelt. Those who explain that the flesh served, as it were, for an abode to Christ, do not perceive the meaning of the Evangelist; for he does not ascribe to Christ a permanent residence amongst us, but says that he remained in it as a guest, for a short time. For the word which he employs (ἐσκήνωσεν) is taken from tabernacles ²³ He means nothing else than that Christ discharged on the earth the office which had been appointed to him; or, that he did not merely appear for a single moment, but that he conversed among men until he completed the course of his office.

Among us. It is doubtful whether he speaks of men in general, or only of himself and the rest of the disciples who were eye-witnesses of what he says. For my own part, I approve more highly of the second view for the Evangelist immediately adds:

And we beheld his glory. for though all men might have beheld the glory of Christ, yet it was unknown to the greater part on account of their blindness. It was only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit opened, that saw this manifestation of glory. In a word, Christ was known to be man in such a manner that he exhibited in his Person something far more noble and excellent. Hence it follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated, though it was surrounded by flesh; it was indeed concealed under the low condition of the flesh, but so as to cause its splendor to be seen.

As of the only-begotten of the Father. The word as does not, in this passage, denote an inappropriate comparison, but rather expresses true and hearty approbation; as when Paul says, Walk as children of light, he bids us actually demonstrate by our works that we are the children of light. The Evangelist therefore means, that in Christ was beheld a glory which was worthy of the Son of God, and which was a sure proof of his Divinity. He calls him the Only-begotten, because he is the only Son of God by nature; as if he would place him above men and angels, and would claim for him alone what belongs to no creature.

Full of grace. There were, indeed, other things in which the majesty of Christ appeared, but the Evangelist selected this instance in preference to others, in order to train us to the speculative rather than the practical knowledge of it; and this ought to be carefully observed. Certainly when Christ walked with dry feet upon the waters, (Mat 14:26; Mar 6:48; Joh 6:19,) when he cast out devils, and when he displayed his power in other miracles, he might be known to be the only-begotten Son of God; but the Evangelist brings forward a part of the approbation, from which faith obtains delightful advantage, because Christ demonstrated that he actually is an inexhaustible fountain of grace and truth. Stephen, too, is said to have been full of grace, ²⁴ but in a different sense; for the fullness of grace in Christ is the fountain from which all of us must draw, as we shall have occasion shortly afterwards to explain more fully.

Grace and truth. This might be taken, by a figure of speech, for true grace, or the latter term might be explanatory, thus: that he was full of grace, which is truth or perfection; but as we shall find that he immediately afterwards repeats the same mode of expression, I think that the meaning is the same in both passages. This grace and truth he afterwards contrasts with the Law; and therefore I interpret it as simply meaning, that the apostles acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, because he had in himself the fulfillment of things which belong to the spiritual kingdom of God; and, in short, that in all things he showed himself to be the Redeemer and Messiah; which is the most striking mark by which he ought to be distinguished from all others.

Calvin: Joh 1:15

15.John testifieth. He now relates what was the preaching of John. By using the verb testifieth (μαρτυρεῖ) in the present tense, ²⁷ he denotes a continued act, and certainly this doctrine must be continually in force, as if the voice of John were continually resounding in the ears of men. In the same manner he afterwards uses the word cry, to intimate that the doctrine of John was in no degree obscure or ambiguous, and that he did not mutter among a few men, ²⁸ but openly, and with a loud voice, preached Christ. The first sentence is intended to convey the statement, that he was sent for the sake of Christ, and therefore that it would have been unreasonable that he should be exalted, while Christ was lying low.

This is he of whom I spoke. By these words he means that his intention was, from the beginning, to make Christ known, and that this was the design of his public discourses; as, indeed, there was no other way in which he could discharge his office as ambassador than by calling his disciples to Christ.

Who, coming after me. Though John the Baptist was older than Christ by a few months, yet he does not now speak of age; but as he had discharged the office of prophet for a short period before Christ appeared in public, so he makes himself the predecessor with respect to time. With respect, therefore, to public manifestation, Christ came after John the Baptist. The words which follow might be literally rendered, he was made before me, for he was before me; but the meaning is, that Christ was justly preferred to John, because he was more excellent. He therefore surrenders his office to Christ and — as the proverb runs — “delivers to him the torch,” or gives way to him as his successor. But as he arose later in the order of time, John reminds his hearers that this is no reason why he should not be preferred to himself, as his rank deserved. Thus, all who are superior to others, either in the gifts of God or in any degree of honor, must remain in their own rank, so as to be placed below Christ.

Calvin: Joh 1:16

16.And out of his fullness. He begins now to preach about the office of Christ, that it contains within itself an abundance of all blessings, so that no part of salvation must be sought anywhere else. True, indeed, the fountain of life, righteousness, virtue, and wisdom, is with God, but to us it is a hidden and inaccessible fountain. But an abundance of those things is exhibited to us in Christ, that we may be permitted to have recourse to him; for he is ready to flow to us, provided that we open up a channel by faith. He declares in general, that out of Christ we ought not to seek any thing good, though this sentence consists of several clauses. First, he shows that we are all utterly destitute and empty of spiritual blessings; for the abundance which exists in Christ is intended to supply our deficiency, to relieve our poverty, to satisfy our hunger and thirst. Secondly, he warns us that, as soon as we have departed from Christ, it is ill vain for us to seek a single drop of happiness, because God hath determined that whatever is good shall reside in him alone. Accordingly, we shall find angels and men to be dry, heaven to be empty, the earth to be unproductive, and, in short, all things to be of no value, if we wish to be partakers of the gifts of God in any other way than through Christ. Thirdly, he assures us that we shall have no reason to fear the want of any thing, provided that we draw from the fullness of Christ, which is in every respect; so complete, that we shall experience it to be a truly inexhaustible fountain; and John classes himself with the rest, not for the sake of modesty, but to make it more evident that no man whatever is excepted.

It is indeed uncertain whether he speaks generally of the whole human race, or means only those who, subsequently to the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, have been made more fully partakers of his blessings. All the godly, no doubt, who lived under the law, drew out of the same fullness; but as John immediately afterwards distinguishes between different periods, it is more probable that here he especially recommends that rich abundance of blessings which Christ displayed at his coming. For we know that under the Law the gifts of God were more sparingly tasted, but that when Christ was manifested in flesh, they were poured out, as it were, with a full hand, even to satiety. Not that any of us has obtained a greater abundance of the grace of the Spirit than Abraham did, but I speak of God’s ordinary dispensation, and of the way and manner of dispensing. John the Baptist, that he may the more freely invite his disciples to come to Christ, declares that in him is laid up for all an abundance of the blessings of which they are destitute. And yet if any one choose to extend the meaning farther, there will be no absurdity in doing so; or rather, it will agree well with the strain of the discourse, that all the fathers, from the beginning of the world, drew from Christ all the gifts which they possessed; for though the law was given by Moses, yet they did not obtain grace by it. But I have already stated what appears to me to be the preferable view; namely, that John here compares us with the fathers, so as to magnify, by means of that comparison, what has been given to us.

And, grace for grace. In what manner Augustine explains this passage is well known - that all the blessings which God bestows upon us from time to time, and at length life everlasting, are not granted as the reward due to our merits, but that it proceeds from pure liberality that God thus rewards former grace, and crowns his own gifts in us. This is piously and judiciously said, but has nothing to do with the present passage. The meaning would be more simple if you were to take the word for (ἀντὶ) comparatively, as meaning, that whatever graces God bestows on us, proceed equally from the same source. It might also be taken as pointing out the final cause, that we now receive grace, that God may one day fulfill the work of our salvation, which will be the fulfillment of grace. For my own part, I agree with the opinion of those who say that we are watered with the graces which were poured out on Christ; for what we receive from Christ he does not bestow upon us as being God, but the Father communicated to him what would flow to us as through a channel. This is the anointing with which he was anointed, that he might anoint us all along with him. Hence, too, he is called Christ, ( the Anointed,) and we are called Christians.

Calvin: Joh 1:17

17.For the Law was given by Moses. This is an anticipation, by which he meets an objection that was likely to arise; for so highly was Moses esteemed by the Jews that they could hardly receive anything that differed from him. The Evangelist therefore shows how far inferior the ministry of Moses was to the power of Christ. At the same time, this comparison sheds no small luster on the power of Christ; for while the utmost possible deference was rendered to Moses by the Jews, the Evangelist reminds them that what he brought was exceedingly small, when compared with the grace of Christ. It would otherwise have been a great hindrance, that they expected to receive from the Law what we can only obtain through Christ.

But we must attend to the antithesis, when he contrasts the law with grace and truth; for his meaning is, that the law wanted both of them. ²⁹ The word Truth denotes, in my opinion, a fixed and permanent state of things. By the word Grace I understand the spiritual fulfillment of those things, the bare letter of which was contained in the Law. And those two words may be supposed to refer to the same thing, by a well-known figure of speech, (hypallage;) as if he had said, that grace, in which the truth of the Law consists, was at length exhibited in Christ. But as the meaning will be in no degree affected, it is of no importance whether you view them as united or as distinguished. This at least is certain, that the Evangelist means, that in the Law there was nothing more than a shadowy image of spiritual blessings, but that they are actually found in Christ; whence it follows, that if you separate the Law from Christ, there remains nothing in it but empty figures. For this reason Paul says that

the shadows were in the law, but the body is in Christ,
(Col 2:17.)

And yet it must not be supposed that anything was exhibited by the Law in a manner fitted to deceive; for Christ is the soul which gives life to that which would otherwise have been dead under the law. But here a totally different question meets us, namely, what the law could do by itself and without Christ; and the Evangelist maintains that nothing permanently valuable is found in it until we come to Christ. This truth consists in our obtaining through Christ that grace which the law could not at all bestow; and therefore I take the word grace in a general sense, as denoting both the unconditional forgiveness of sins, and the renewal of the heart. For while the Evangelist points out briefly the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, ³⁰ (which is more fully described in Jer 31:31,) he includes in this word all that relates to spiritual righteousness. Now this righteousness consists of two parts; first, that God is reconciled to us by free grace, in not imputing to us our sins; and, secondly, that he has engraven his law in our hearts, and, by his Spirit, renews men within to obedience to it; from which it is evident that the Law is incorrectly and falsely expounded, if there are any whose attention it fixes on itself, or whom it hinders from coming to Christ

Calvin: Joh 1:18

18.No man hath ever seen God. Most appropriately is this added to confirm the preceding statement; for the knowledge of God is the door by which we enter into the enjoyment of all blessings; and as it is by Christ alone that God makes himself known to us, hence too it follows that we ought to seek all things from Christ. This order of doctrine ought to be carefully observed. No remark appears to be more common than this, that each of us receives, according to the measure of his faith, what God offers to us; but there are few who think that we must bring the vessel of faith and of the knowledge of God with which we draw.

When he says that no man hath seen God, we must not understand him to refer to the outward perception of the bodily eye; for he means generally, that as God dwells in inaccessible light, (1Ti 6:16,) he cannot be known but in Christ, who is his lively image. This passage is usually explained thus that as the naked majesty of God is concealed within himself, he never could be comprehended, except so far as he revealed himself in Christ; and therefore that it was only in Christ that God was formerly known to the fathers. But I rather think that the Evangelist here abides by the comparison already stated, namely, how much better our condition is than that of the fathers, because God, who was formerly concealed in his secret glory, may now be said to have rendered himself visible; for certainly when Christ is called the lively image of God, (Heb 1:3,) this refers to the peculiar privilege of the New Testament. In like manner, the Evangelist describes, in this passage, something new and uncommon, when he says that the only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, hath made known to us what was formerly concealed. He therefore magnifies the manifestation of God, which has been brought to us by the gospel, in which he distinguishes us from the fathers, and shows that we are superior to them; as also Paul explains more fully in the Third and Fourth chapters of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. For he maintains that there is now no longer any vail, such as existed under the Law, but that God is openly beheld in the face of Christ.

If it be thought unreasonable that the fathers are deprived of the knowledge of God, who have the prophets daily going before them and holding out the torch, I reply, that what is ascribed to us is not simply or absolutely denied to them, but that a comparison is made between the less and the greater, as we say; because they had nothing more than little sparks of the true light, the full brightness of which daily shines around us. If it be objected, that at that time also God was seen face to face, (Gen 32:30; Deu 34:10,) I maintain that that sight is not at all to be compared with ours; but as God was accustomed at that time to exhibit himself obscurely, and, as it were, from a distance, those to whom he was more clearly revealed say that they saw him face to face. They say so with reference to their own time; but they did not see God in any other way than wrapped up in many folds of figures and ceremonies. ³¹ That vision which Moses obtained on the mountain was remarkable and more excellent than almost all the rest; and yet God expressly declares,

thou shalt not be able to see my face, only thou shalt see my back, (Exo 33:23;)

by which metaphor he shows that the time for a full and clear revelation had not yet come. It must also be observed that, when the fathers wished to behold God, they always turned their eyes towards Christ. I do not only mean that they beheld God in his eternal Speech, but also that they attended, with their whole mind and with their whole heart, to the promised manifestation of Christ. For this reason we shall find that Christ afterwards said, Abraham saw my day, (Joh 8:56;) and that which is subordinate is not contradictory. It is therefore a fixed principle, that God, who was formerly invisible, hath now made himself visible in Christ.

When he says that the Son was in the bosom of the Father, the metaphor is borrowed from men, who are said to receive into their bosom those to whom they communicate all their secrets. The breast is the seat of counsel. He therefore shows that the Son was acquainted with the most hidden secrets of his Father, in order to inform us that we have the breast of God, as it were, laid open to us in the Gospel.

Calvin: Joh 1:19

19.And this is the testimony. Hitherto the Evangelist has related the preaching of John about Christ; he now comes down to a more illustrious testimony, which was delivered to the ambassadors of the Priests, that they might convey it to Jerusalem. He says, therefore, that John openly confessed for what purpose he was sent by God. The first inquiry here is, for what purpose the Priests put questions to him. It is generally believed that, out of hatred to Christ, they gave to John an honor which did not belong to him; but this could not be the reason, for Christ was not yet known to them. Others say that they were better pleased with John, because he was of the lineage and order of the priesthood; but neither do I think that this is probable; for since they expected from Christ all prosperity, why did they voluntarily contrive a false Christ ? I think, therefore, that there was another reason that induced them. It was now a long time since they had the Prophets; John came suddenly and contrary to expectation; and the minds of all were aroused to expect the Messiah. Besides, all entertained the belief that the coining of the Messiah was at hand.

That they may not appear to be careless about their duty, if they neglect or disguise a matter of so great importance, they ask John, Who art thou ? At first, therefore, they did not act from malice, but, on the contrary, actuated by the desire of redemption, they wish to know if John be the Christ, because he begins to change the order which had been customary in the Church. And yet I do not deny that ambition, and a wish to retain their authority, had some influence over them; but nothing certainly was farther from their intention than to transfer the honor of Christ to another. Nor is their conduct in this matter inconsistent with the office which they sustain; for since they held the government of the Church of God, it was their duty to take care that no one rashly obtruded himself, that no founder of a new sect should arise, that the unity of faith should not be broken in the Church, and that none should introduce new and foreign ceremonies. It is evident, therefore, that a report about John was widely spread and aroused the minds of all; and this was arranged by the wonderful Providence of God, that this testimony might be more strikingly complete.

Calvin: Joh 1:20

20.And he confessed, and denied not. That is, he confessed openly, and without any ambiguity or hypocrisy. The word confess, in the first instance, means generally, that he stated the fact as it really was. In the second instance, it is repeated in order to express the form of the confession. He replied expressly, that he was not the Christ

Calvin: Joh 1:21

21.Art thou Elijah ? Why do they name Elijah rather than Moses? It was because they learned from the prediction of Mal 4:2, that when the Messiah, the Sun of Righteousness, should arise, Elijah would be the morning star to announce his approach. But the question is founded on a false opinion which they had long held; for, holding the opinion that the soul of a man departs out of one body into another, when the Prophet Malachi announced that Elijah would be sent, they imagined that the same Elijah, who lived under the reign of king Ahab, (1Kg 17:1,) was to come. It is therefore a just and true reply which John makes, that he is not Elijah; for he speaks according to the opinion which they attached to the words; but Christ, giving the true interpretation of the Prophet, affirms that John is Elijah, (Mat 11:14; Mar 9:13.)

Art thou a Prophet ? Erasmus gives an inaccurate explanation of these words by limiting them to Christ; for the addition of the article (ὁ προφήτης, the prophet) carries no emphasis in this passage; and the messengers afterwards declare plainly enough, that they meant a different prophet from Christ; for they sum up the whole: by saying, (verse 25,) if thou art neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor a Prophet. Thus we see that they intended to point out different persons. Others think that they inquired if he was one of the ancient prophets; but neither do I approve of that exposition. Rather do they by this term point out the office of John, and ask if God had appointed him to be a prophet. When he replies, I am not, he does not for the sake of modesty tell a lie, but honestly and sincerely detaches himself from the company of the prophets. And yet this reply is not inconsistent with the honorable attestation which Christ gives him. Christ bestows on John the designation of prophet, and even adds that he is more than a prophet, (Mat 11:9;) but by these words he does nothing more than demand credit and authority for his doctrine, and at the same time describes, in lofty terms, the excellence of the office which had been conferred on him. But in this passage John has a different object in view, which is, to show that he has no special message, as was usually the case with the prophets, but that he was merely appointed to be the herald of Christ.

This will be made still more clear by a comparison. All ambassadors — even those who are not sent on matters of great importance — obtain the name and authority of ambassadors, because they hold special commissions. Such were all the Prophets who, having been enjoined to deliver certain predictions, discharged the prophetic office. But if some weighty matter come to be transacted, and if two ambassadors are sent, one of whom announces the speedy arrival of another who possesses full power to transact the whole matter, and if this latter has received injunctions to bring it to a conclusion, will not the former embassy be reckoned a part and appendage of the latter, which is the principal? Such was the case with John the Baptist, to whom God had given no other injunction than to prepare the Jews for listening to Christ, and becoming his disciples. ³⁵ That this is the meaning, will still more fully appear from the context; for we must investigate the opposite clause, which immediately follows. I am not a prophet, says he, but a voice crying in the wilderness. The distinction lies in this, that the voice crying, that a way may be prepared for the Lord, is not a prophet, but merely a subordinate minister, so to speak; and his doctrine is only a sort of preparation for listening to another Teacher. In this way John, though he is more excellent than all the prophets, still is not a prophet

Defender: Joh 1:1

It is significant that the Apostle John began his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning." He obviously intended that his record should start with the same words as Genesis, that is, with creation. Since his explicit purpose in writing was to win his readers to Christ as Son of God and Savior (Joh 20:30, Joh 20:31), he realized the foundational importance of prior belief in special creation of all things by God. People need to know Jesus Christ as offended Creator before they can believe with understanding in Him as sin-bearing Savior and Redeemer. A foundation of true creationism as the only meaningful context for true evangelism is thus revealed through John under divine inspiration.

Defender: Joh 1:1

The "Word" (Greek logos) is the first of at least a dozen titles given to Christ in this first chapter of John's Gospel. Note the others: "the Light" (Joh 1:7, Joh 1:8, Joh 1:9); "only begotten Son" (Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18); "Jesus Christ" (Joh 1:17); "the Lord" (Joh 1:23); "Lamb of God" (Joh 1:29, Joh 1:36); "Master" (Joh 1:38); "King of Israel" (Joh 1:49); "Son of God" (Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49); "Son of man" (Joh 1:51); "Jesus of Nazareth" (Joh 1:45); "Messiah" (Joh 1:41). Probably, "the Word of God" (a phrase used 1200 times in the Old Testament) is the most meaningful (Psa 33:6; Heb 11:3; 2Pe 3:5).

Defender: Joh 1:1

This is a very strong assertion that Jesus is God. The eternal Word, who was to be made man (Joh 1:14), is God (not merely "a god" as some have alleged) and is the same God who created heaven and earth in the beginning. In fact, He is the only "true God" (1Jo 5:20) who was there "in the beginning.""

Defender: Joh 1:2

The definite article has been supplied. The actual Greek is en arche - that is, "in beginning." The "Word of God" thus was there before the creation of the space/mass/time universe, so that John's "beginning" even antecedes the Genesis "beginning," extending without an initial beginning into eternity past, before even time was created. Note also Joh 17:24, where Jesus, in His humanity, acknowledged that He was with the Father and loved by the Father, "before the foundation of the world."

Defender: Joh 1:2

The "Word of God" (Jesus Christ) was God yet also "with God." Thus, God is both personal and plural (in a uni-plural sense only, a mysterious category that makes sense only in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity)."

Defender: Joh 1:3

This is an emphatic statement declaring that Jesus Christ, before His incarnation, had made everything in the universe. He is the God of Gen 1:1; the God of all creation. Furthermore, note that "all things were made." They are not now being made, as the concept of evolution requires. The Creator rested from all His work of creating after the six days of the creation week (Gen 2:1-3). Also, note the past tense in such passages as Col 1:16 and Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3."

Defender: Joh 1:4

The last part of Joh 1:3 and the first part of Joh 1:4 can also be read as follows: "That which was made was life in Him." As Paul said: "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Act 17:28)."

Defender: Joh 1:5

The darkened minds of sin-blinded men could not come to the light when it was offered to them because they would not. "Men loved darkness, rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (Joh 3:19; note 2Co 4:6; Gen 1:3)."

Defender: Joh 1:8

What a testimony to John the Baptist. He was so Christlike in his life and teachings that people kept mistaking him for the promised Messiah, requiring John in his Gospel (inspired by the Holy Spirit) to assure people that, despite all appearances, John the Baptist was not Christ."

Defender: Joh 1:9

Even though some people live and die without ever hearing of Jesus, the witness imprinted by Him on His creation is such conclusive evidence that there is a Creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, holy and loving, that those who reject or ignore it are "without excuse" (see Rom 1:20, note; Psa 19:1-6, note). He has also placed the light of conscience in each person (Rom 2:14, Rom 2:15), but that, too, is rejected in most instances."

Defender: Joh 1:10

Here is yet another assertion that "the world was made by him;" yet the men and women who were made by Him refused to recognize Him. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28). He was the true light physically as well as spiritually. He is the very energizer of the world ("upholding all things by the word of his power" - Heb 1:3), but the world preferred an evolutionary explanation."

Defender: Joh 1:11

"He came unto his own" things - the earth and its fulness (Psa 24:1) - which He had created. But then "his own people" - even His chosen people - rejected Him. The people He made knew Him not, and the people whom He chose rejected Him when He came as one of them."

Defender: Joh 1:12

"Power" here is the word for "authority" or "right."

Defender: Joh 1:12

"Sons of God" is "children of God." By regeneration they become new creatures "born of...God" (Joh 1:13). Note the connection between creation (Joh 1:10 - "made by him") and regeneration (Joh 1:13 - "born of God").

Defender: Joh 1:12

Note also that "received him" is here defined as "believing on His name" with all that the latter implies (see note on Joh 1:1)."

Defender: Joh 1:14

This is the great verse of the incarnation, when the eternal Word took on human flesh. Since this verse and the following verses unequivocally refer to "Jesus Christ" (Joh 1:17), there is no legitimate escape from the great truth that Jesus was the great God and Creator, as well as perfect Man and redeeming Savior. Furthermore, He has assumed human flesh forever, while still remaining fully God. He is not part man and part God, or sometimes man and sometimes God but is now and eternally the God-Man. He is always true God and perfect Man - man as God created and intended man to be. On the reality and importance of the incarnation see Phi 2:5-8, note; and 1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3, note.

Defender: Joh 1:14

This is not the usual word for "dwelt" but rather is the Greek word for "tabernacled." As in the tabernacle (or tent) in the wilderness where the glory of God was resident for a time, so God in Christ dwelled on the earth for a time in a body prepared by God (Heb 10:5). Eventually, when the Holy City descends out of heaven to the new earth, then "the tabernacle of God" will forever "be with men," and He "will dwell with them" and "be their God" (Rev 21:3).

Defender: Joh 1:14

The Greek word for "tabernacle" (skene) is a cognate word to shakan, the Hebrew word for "dwell," both being related to what has come to be known as the shekinah glory cloud that filled the ancient tabernacle (Exo 40:34). The latter term is not directly used in either testament but was used in Talmudic literature with this meaning. It is thus commonly associated with the glory of God dwelling in either the tabernacle (or the later temple) or in Christ's human body. In this sense, the disciples "beheld His glory" while He was on earth, and Christ prayed that we would also behold his glory in heaven (Joh 17:5, Joh 17:22, Joh 17:24). Even now, we can, in a spiritual sense, behold His glory as we see Him in the written Word, just as the disciples recognized Him as the living Word (2Co 3:18).

Defender: Joh 1:14

"Only begotten" is the Greek monogenes which precisely means "only begotten," not just "only," as some translators render it. God has many "sons" and "daughters" (Joh 1:12), but Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son; He eternally proceeds from the Father, manifesting and revealing Him.

Defender: Joh 1:14

"Grace and truth" came by Jesus Christ to mankind (Joh 1:17)."

Defender: Joh 1:15

In his five books, John uses the Greek word martureo (translated "witness," "testimony," "record," "report," "martyr") over sixty times.

Defender: Joh 1:15

Even though John the Baptist was born six months before Jesus, he knew that as the only begotten of the Father, Christ had existed eternally."

Defender: Joh 1:16

That is, from His fullness we receive "grace for grace," endless and inexhaustible grace."

Defender: Joh 1:18

This passage confirms that on any of the many occasions in ancient times when God showed Himself in one way or another to man (Gen 18:2; Job 42:5), we can be sure that each time it was a theophany in which the triune God manifested Himself through the Second Person of the Godhead, the Word of God.

Defender: Joh 1:18

The Son is eternally in the Father's "bosom" and eternally proceeding as the "only begotten Son" (Greek monogenes), uniquely different from the many other sons of God (angels are also called "sons of God" as are all those men and women who have been born again through faith in Christ). Those modern translators who delete the word "begotten" here are not only wrong in translation but also in allowing dangerous heresy in the understanding of the nature of Christ.

Defender: Joh 1:18

As the living Word, the Son reveals and speaks for the Father."

Defender: Joh 1:19

The officials were concerned because of John's great influence (Mar 1:5)."

Defender: Joh 1:20

Many people thought John was the promised Messiah (Luk 3:15)."

Defender: Joh 1:21

Many more people (even many modern Bible teachers) have said that John was Elijah returned (Mal 4:5), but John explicitly denied this.

Defender: Joh 1:21

The reference is to the promise of a prophet like Moses (Deu 18:18, Deu 18:19)."

TSK: Joh 1:1

the beginning : Joh 1:2; Gen 1:1; Pro 8:22-31; Eph 3:9; Col 1:17; Heb 1:10, Heb 7:3, Heb 13:8; Rev 1:2, Rev 1:8, Rev 1:11, Rev 2:8, Rev 21:6, Rev 22:13

the Word : Joh 1:14; 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2, 1Jo 5:7; Rev 19:13

with : Joh 1:18, Joh 16:28, Joh 17:5; Pro 8:22-30; 1Jo 1:2

the Word was : Joh 10:30-33, Joh 20:28; Psa 45:6; Isa 7:14, Isa 9:6, Isa 40:9-11; Mat 1:23; Rom 9:5; Phi 2:6; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8-13; 2Pe 1:1 *Gr: 1Jo 5:7, 1Jo 5:20

TSK: Joh 1:3

am 1, bc 4004, Joh 1:10, Joh 5:17-19; Gen 1:1, Gen 1:26; Psa 33:6, Psa 102:25; Isa 45:12, Isa 45:18; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16, Col 1:17; Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3, Heb 1:10-12, Heb 3:3, Heb 3:4; Rev 4:11

TSK: Joh 1:4

him : Joh 5:21, Joh 5:26, Joh 11:25, Joh 14:6; 1Co 15:45; Col 3:4; 1Jo 1:2, 1Jo 5:11; Rev 22:1

the life : Joh 1:8, Joh 1:9, Joh 8:12, Joh 9:5, Joh 12:35, Joh 12:46; Psa 84:11; Isa 35:4, Isa 35:5, Isa 42:6, Isa 42:7, Isa 42:16; Psa 49:6; Psa 60:1-3; Mal 4:2; Mat 4:16; Luk 1:78, Luk 1:79, Luk 2:32; Act 26:23; Eph 5:14; 1Jo 1:5-7; Rev 22:16

TSK: Joh 1:5

Joh 1:10, Joh 3:19, Joh 3:20, Joh 12:36-40; Job 24:13-17; Pro 1:22, Pro 1:29, Pro 1:30; Rom 1:28; 1Co 2:14

TSK: Joh 1:6

am 3999, bc 5

a man : Joh 1:33, Joh 3:28; Isa 40:3-5; Mal 3:1, Mal 4:5, Mal 4:6; Mat 3:1-11, Mat 11:10, Mat 21:25; Mar 1:1-8; Luk 1:15-17, Luk 1:76, 3:2-20; Act 13:24

John : Luk 1:13, Luk 1:61-63

TSK: Joh 1:7

a witness : Joh 1:19, Joh 1:26, Joh 1:27, Joh 1:32-34, Joh 1:36, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 5:33-35; Act 19:4

that : Joh 1:9, Joh 3:26; Eph 3:9; 1Ti 2:4; Tit 2:11; 2Pe 3:9

TSK: Joh 1:8

that light : Joh 1:20, Joh 3:28; Act 19:4

TSK: Joh 1:9

the true : Joh 1:4, Joh 6:32, Joh 14:6, Joh 15:1; Isa 49:6; Mat 6:23; 1Jo 1:8, 1Jo 2:8, 1Jo 5:20

every : Joh 1:7, Joh 7:12, Joh 12:46; Isa 8:20; 1Th 5:4-7

TSK: Joh 1:10

was in : Joh 1:18, Joh 5:17; Gen 11:6-9, Gen 16:13, Gen 17:1, Gen 18:33; Exo 3:4-6; Act 14:17, Act 17:24-27; Heb 1:3

and the world was : See note on Joh 1:3. Jer 10:11, Jer 10:12; Heb 1:2, Heb 11:3

knew : Joh 1:5, Joh 17:25; Mat 11:27; 1Co 1:21, 1Co 2:8; 1Jo 3:1

TSK: Joh 1:11

came : Mat 15:24; Act 3:25, Act 3:26, Act 13:26, Act 13:26, Act 13:46; Rom 9:1, Rom 9:5, Rom 15:8; Gal 4:4

and : Joh 3:32; Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3; Luk 19:14, Luk 20:13-15; Act 7:51, Act 7:52

TSK: Joh 1:12

received : Mat 10:40, Mat 18:5; Col 2:6

to them : Isa 56:5; Jer 3:19; Hos 1:10; Rom 8:14; 2Co 6:17, 2Co 6:18; Gal 3:26, Gal 4:6; 2Pe 1:4; 1Jo 3:1

power : or, the right, or privilege

even : Joh 2:23, Joh 3:18, Joh 20:31; Mat 12:21; Act 3:16; 1Jo 3:23, 1Jo 5:12

TSK: Joh 1:13

were : Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5; Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:3, 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 2:2; 1Jo 3:9, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:18

not : Joh 8:33-41; Mat 3:9; Rom 9:7-9

nor of the will of the : Gen 25:22, Gen 25:28, Gen 27:4, Gen 27:33; Rom 9:10-16

nor of the will of man : Psa 110:3; Rom 9:1-5, Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 3:6; Phi 2:13; Jam 1:18

of God : Joh 3:6-8; Tit 3:5; 1Jo 2:28, 1Jo 2:29

TSK: Joh 1:14

the Word : Joh 1:1; Isa 7:14; Mat 1:16, Mat 1:20-23; Luk 1:31-35, Luk 2:7, Luk 2:11; Rom 1:3, Rom 1:4, Rom 9:5; 1Co 15:47; Gal 4:4; Phi 2:6-8; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 2:11, Heb 2:14-17, Heb 10:5; 1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7

we : Joh 2:11, Joh 11:40, Joh 12:40,Joh 12:41, Joh 14:9; Isa 40:5, Isa 53:2, Isa 60:1, Isa 60:2; Mat 17:1-5; 2Co 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; 1Pe 2:4-7; 2Pe 1:17; 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2

the only : Joh 1:18, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; Psa 2:7; Act 13:33; Heb 1:5, Heb 5:5; 1Jo 4:9

full : Joh 1:16, Joh 1:17; Psa 45:2; 2Co 12:9; Eph 3:8, Eph 3:18, Eph 3:19; Col 1:19, Col 2:3, Col 2:9; 1Ti 1:14-16

TSK: Joh 1:15

bare : am 4030, ad 26, Joh 1:7, Joh 1:8, Joh 1:29-34, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 5:33-36; Mat 3:11, Mat 3:13-17; Mar 1:7; Luk 3:16

he was : Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2, Joh 1:30, Joh 8:58, Joh 17:5; Pro 8:22; Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2; Phi 2:6, Phi 2:7; Col 1:17; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18, Rev 2:8

TSK: Joh 1:16

of his : Joh 3:34, Joh 15:1-5; Mat 3:11, Mat 3:14; Luk 21:15; Act 3:12-16; Rom 8:9; 1Co 1:4, 1Co 1:5; Eph 4:7-12; Col 1:19, Col 2:3, Col 2:9, Col 2:10; 1Pe 1:11

and grace : Zec 4:7; Mat 13:12; Rom 5:2, Rom 5:17, Rom 5:20; Eph 1:6-8, Eph 2:5-10, Eph 4:7; 1Pe 1:2

TSK: Joh 1:17

the law : Joh 5:45, Joh 9:29; Exod. 20:1-17; Deu 4:44, Deu 5:1, Deu 33:4; Act 7:38, Act 28:23; Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 5:20,Rom 5:21; 2Co 3:7-10; Gal 3:10-13, Gal 3:17; Heb 3:5, Heb 3:6, Heb 8:8-12

grace : Joh 8:32, Joh 14:6; Gen 3:15, Gen 22:18; Psa 85:10, Psa 89:1, Psa 89:2, Psa 98:3; Mic 7:20; Luk 1:54, Luk 1:55, Luk 1:68-79; Act 13:34-39; Rom 3:21-26, Rom 5:21, Rom 6:14, Rom 15:8-12; 2Co 1:20; Heb 9:22, Heb 10:4-10, Heb 11:39, Heb 11:40; Rev 5:8-10, Rev 7:9-17

TSK: Joh 1:18

seen : Joh 6:46; Exo 33:20; Deu 4:12; Mat 11:27; Luk 10:22; Col 1:15; 1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:16; 1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:20

the only : Joh 1:14, Joh 3:16-18; 1Jo 4:9

in the : Joh 13:23; Pro 8:30; Isa 40:11; Lam 2:12; Luk 16:22, Luk 16:23

he hath : Joh 12:41, Joh 14:9, Joh 17:6, Joh 17:26; Gen 16:13, Gen 18:33, Gen 32:28-30, Gen 48:15, Gen 48:16; Exo 3:4-6; Exo 23:21, Exo 33:18-23, Exo 34:5-7; Num 12:8; Jos 5:13-15, Jos 6:1, Jos 6:2; Jdg 6:12-26; Jdg 13:20-23; Isa 6:1-3; Eze 1:26-28; Hos 12:3-5; Mat 11:27; Luk 10:22; 1Jo 5:20

TSK: Joh 1:19

when : Joh 5:33-36; Deu 17:9-11, Deu 24:8; Mat 21:23-32; Luk 3:15-18

Who : Joh 10:24; Act 13:25, Act 19:4

TSK: Joh 1:20

Joh 3:28-36; Mat 3:11, Mat 3:12; Mar 1:7, Mar 1:8; Luk 3:15-17

TSK: Joh 1:21

Art thou Elias : Mal 4:5; Mat 11:14, Mat 17:10-12; Luk 1:17

Art thou that : or, Art thou a, Joh 1:25, Joh 7:40; Deu 18:15-18; Mat 11:9-11, Mat 16:14

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Joh 1:1

In the beginning - This expression is used also in Gen 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to "the Word"an expression which is there applied "to God."In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the "Word"had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which "became"a man, or was incarnate, Joh 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus. the eternity of God is described Psa 90:2; "Before the mountains were brought forth, etc.;"and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world."Whatever is meant by the term "Word,"it is clear that it had an existence before "creation."It is not, then, a "creature"or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is only one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour’ s own declarations respecting himself in the following places: Joh 8:58; Joh 17:5; Joh 6:62; Joh 3:13; Joh 6:46; Joh 8:14; Joh 16:28.

Was the Word - Greek, "was the λόγος Logos ."This name is given to him who afterward became "flesh,"or was incarnate (Joh 1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

1. A "word"is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others.

2. The Son of God may be called "the Word,"because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Heb 1:1-3.

3. This term was in use before the time of John.

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)    It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, "e. g.,"Isa 45:12; "I have made the earth, and created man upon it."In the Aramaic it is, "I, ‘ by my word,’ have made,"etc. Isa 48:13; "mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth."In the Aramaic, "‘ By my word’ I have founded the earth."And so in many other places.

(b)    This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra"- that is, "Word;"and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God."Thus, in their Targum on Deu 26:17-18, it is said, "Ye have appointed the word of God a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

©    The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d)    The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term νοῦς nous or "mind,"was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was "the word"or "reason"of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos , or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the λόγος Logos or "Word"was one of the "Aeones"that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

Was with God - This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Compare Mar 9:19. John affirms that he was "with God"in the beginning - that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See Joh 17:5; "And now, O Father, glorify thou we with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."See also Joh 1:18; "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."See also Joh 3:13; "The Son of man, which is in heaven."Compare Phi 2:6-7.

Was God - In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was "with God."Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that "he was God."There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because:

1.    There is no doubt that by the λόγος Logos is meant Jesus Christ.

2.    This is not an "attribute"or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the λόγος Logos was made flesh σάρξ sarx - that is, became a human being.

3.    There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation - that the Word "was God."

4.    There is no evidence that John intended to use the word "God"in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god,"or "the Word was ‘ like God,’ "but the Word "was God."He had just used the word "God"as evidently applicable to Yahweh, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that he would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.

5.    The name "God"is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8, Heb 1:10, Heb 1:12; 1Jo 5:20; Joh 20:28.

The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:

1.    The name λόγος Logos , or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man.

2.    The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos .

3.    The "Word,"or λόγος Logos , existed "before creation"- of course was not a "creature,"and must have been, therefore, from eternity.

4.    He was "with God"- that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was "with himself,"it follows that the λόγος Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is "with another,"we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.

5.    Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a "different"and "inferior"being - a creature - he affirms that he was God - that is, was equal with the Father.

This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

1.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the second person is in some sense "distinct"from the first.

2.\caps1     t\caps0 hat he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.

3.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honors with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory,"with God.

Barnes: Joh 1:2

The same - The Word, or the λόγος Logos .

Was in the beginning with God - This seems to be a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to "guard the doctrine,"and to prevent the possibility of a mistake. John had said that he existed before the creation, and that he was "with God;"but he had not said in the first verse "that the union with God existed in the beginning."He now expresses that idea, and assures us that that union was not one which was commenced in time, and which might be, therefore, a mere union of feeling, or a compact, like that between any other beings, but was one which existed in eternity, and which was therefore a union of nature or essence.

Barnes: Joh 1:3

All things - The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses everything which exists - all the vast masses of material worlds, and all the animals and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Rev 4:11; Heb 1:2; Col 1:16.

Were made - The original word is from the verb "to be,"and signifies "were"by him; but it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense whether it is said "‘ were’ by him,"or "were ‘ created’ by him."The word is often used in the sense of "creating,"or forming from nothing. See Jam 3:9; and Gen 2:4; Isa 48:7; in the Septuagint.

By him - In this place it is affirmed that "creation"was effected by "the Word,"or the Son of God. In Gen 1:1, it is said that the Being who created the heavens and the earth was God. In Psa 102:25-28, this work is ascribed to Yahweh. The "Word,"or the Son of God, is therefore appropriately called "God."The work of "creation"is uniformly ascribed in the Scriptures to the Second Person of the Trinity. See Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10. By this is meant, evidently, that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made. There is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation; and, hence, God often appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God, in opposition to idols. See Isa 40:18-28; Jer 10:3-16; Psa 24:2; Psa 39:11; Pro 3:19. It is absurd to say that God can invest a creature with omnipotence. If He can make a creature omnipotent, He can make him omniscient, and can in the same way make him omnipresent, and infinitely wise and good; that is, He can invest a creature with all His own attributes, or make another being like Himself, or, which is the same thing, there could be two Gods, or as many Gods as He should choose to make. But this is absurd! The Being, therefore, that "created"all things must be divine; and, since this work is ascribed to Jesus Christ, and as it is uniformly in the Scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is therefore equal with the Father.

Without him - Without his agency; his notice; the exertion of his power. Compare Mat 10:29. This is a strong way of speaking, designed to confirm, beyond the possibility of doubt, what he had just said. He says, therefore, in general, that all things were made by Christ. In this part of the verse he shuts out all doubt, and affirms that there was "no exception;"that there was not a single thing, however minute or unimportant, which was not made by him. In this way, he confirms what he said in the first verse. Christ was not merely called God, but he did the works of God, and therefore the name is used in its proper sense as implying supreme divinity. To this same test Jesus himself appealed as proving that he was divine. Joh 10:37, "if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not."Joh 5:17, "my Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

Barnes: Joh 1:4

In him was life - The evangelist had just affirmed Joh 5:3 that by the λόγος Logos or "Word"the world was originally created. One part of that creation consisted "in breathing into man the breath of life,"Gen 2:7. God is declared to be "life,"or the "living"God, because he is the source or fountain of life. This attribute is here ascribed to Jesus Christ. He not merely made the material worlds, but he also gave "life."He was the agent by which the vegetable world became animated; by which brutes live; and by which man became a living soul, or was endowed with immortality. This was a "higher"proof that the "Word was God,"than the creation of the material worlds; but there is another sense in which he was "life."The "new creation,"or the renovation of man and his restoration from a state of sin, is often compared with the "first creation;"and as the λόγος Logos was the source of "life"then, so, in a similar but higher sense, he is the source of "life"to the soul dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1. And it is probably in reference to this that he is so often called "life"in the writings of John. "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in him self,"Joh 5:26; "He giveth life unto the world,"Joh 6:33; "I am the resurrection and the life,"Joh 11:25; "This is the true God and eternal life,"Joh 5:20. See also 1Jo 1:1-2; 1Jo 5:11; Act 3:15; Col 3:4. The meaning is: that he is the source or the fountain of both natural and spiritual life. Of course he has the attributes of God.

The life was the light of men - "Light"is that by which we see objects distinctly. The light of the sun enables us to discern the form, the distance, the magnitude, and the relation of objects, and prevents the perplexities and dangers which result from a state of darkness. Light is in all languages, therefore, put for "knowledge"- for whatever enables us to discern our duty, and that saves us from the evils of ignorance and error. "Whatsoever doth make manifest is light,"Eph 5:13. See Isa 8:20; Isa 9:2. The Messiah was predicted as the "light"of the world, Isa 9:2, compared with Mat 4:15-16; Isa 60:1. See Joh 8:12; "I am the light of the world;"Joh 12:35-36, Joh 12:46; "I am come a light into the world."The meaning is, that the λόγος Logos or Word of God is the "instructor or teacher"of mankind. This was done before his advent by his direct agency in giving man reason or understanding, and in giving his law, for the "law was ordained by angels ‘ in the hand of a mediator’ "Gal 3:19; after his advent by his personal ministry when on earth, by his Spirit Joh 14:16, Joh 14:26, and by his ministers since, Eph 4:11; 1Co 12:28.

Barnes: Joh 1:5

The light shineth in darkness - Darkness, in the Bible, commonly denotes ignorance, guilt, or misery. See Isa 9:1-2; Mat 4:16; Act 26:18; Eph 5:8, Eph 5:11; Rom 13:12. It refers here to a wicked and ignorant people. When it is said that "the light shineth in darkness,"it is meant that the Lord Jesus came to teach an ignorant, benighted, and wicked world. This has always been the case. It was so when he sent his prophets; so during his own ministry; and so in every age since. His efforts to enlighten and save men have been like light struggling to penetrate a thick, dense cloud; and though a few rays may pierce the gloom, yet the great mass is still an impenetrable shade.

Comprehended it not - This word means "admitted"it not, or "received"it not. The word "comprehend,"with us, means to "understand."This is not the meaning of the original. The darkness did not "receive"or "admit"the rays of light; the shades were so thick that the light could not penetrate them; or, to drop the figure, men were so ignorant, so guilty, so debased, that they did not appreciate the value of his instructions; they despised and rejected him. And so it is still. The great mass of men, sunk in sin, will not receive his teachings, and be enlightened and saved by him. Sin always blinds the mind to the beauty and excellency of the character of the Lord Jesus. It indisposes the mind to receive his instructions, just as "darkness"has no affinity for "light;"and if the one exists, the other must be displaced.

Barnes: Joh 1:6

A man sent from God - See Matt. 3. The evangelist proceeds now to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah and to state the true nature of his office. Many had supposed that he was the Christ, but this opinion he corrects; yet he admits that he was "sent from God"- that he was divinely commissioned. Though he denied that he was "the Messiah,"yet he did not deny that he was sent from or by heaven on an important errand to human beings. Some have supposed that the sole design of this gospel was to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah. Though there is no foundation for this opinion, yet there is no doubt that one object was to show this. The main design was to show that "Jesus was the Christ,"Joh 20:31. To do this, it was proper, in the beginning, to prove that "John"was not the Messiah; and this might have been at that time an important object. John made many disciples, Mat 3:5. Many persons supposed that he might be the Messiah, Luk 3:15; Joh 1:19. "Many of these disciples of John remained"at Ephesus, "the very place where John is supposed to have written this gospel, long after the ascension of Jesus,"Act 19:1-3. It is not improbable that there might have been many others who adhered to John, and perhaps many who supposed that he was the Messiah. On these accounts it was important for the evangelist to show that John "was not the Christ,"and to show, also, that he, who was extensively admitted to be a prophet, was an important "witness"to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. The evangelist in the first four verses stated that "the Word"was divine; he now proceeds to state the proof that he was a "man,"and was the Messiah. The first evidence adduced is the testimony of John the Baptist.

Barnes: Joh 1:7-8

For a witness - To give testimony. He came to prepare the minds of the people to receive him Matt. 3; Luke 3; to lead them by repentance to God; and to point out the Messiah to Israel when he came, Joh 1:31.

Of the Light - That is, of the Messiah. Compare Isa 60:1.

That all men ... - It was the object of John’ s testimony that all people might believe. He designed to prepare them for it; to announce that the Messiah was about to come, to direct the minds of men to him, and thus to prepare them to believe on him when he came. Thus, he baptized them, saying "That they should believe on him who should come after him"Act 19:4, and thus he produced a very general expectation that the Messiah was about to come. The testimony of John was especially valuable on the following accounts:

1.    It was made when he had no personal acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth, and of course there could have been no collusion or agreement to deceive them, Joh 1:31.

2.    It was sufficiently long before he came to excite general attention, and to fix the mind on it.

3.    It was that of a man acknowledged by all to be a prophet of God - "for all men held John to be a prophet,"Mat 21:26.

4.    It was "for the express purpose"of declaring beforehand that he was about to appear.

5.    It was "disinterested."

He was himself extremely popular. Many were disposed to receive him as the Messiah. It was evidently in his "power"to form a large party, and to be regarded extensively as the Christ. This was the highest honor to which a Jew could aspire; and it shows the value of John’ s testimony, that he was willing to lay all his honors at the feet of Jesus, and to acknowledge that he was unworthy to perform for him the office of the humblest servant, Mat 3:11.

Through him - Through John, or by means of his testimony.

Was not that Light - Was not "the Messiah."This is an explicit declaration designed to satisfy the disciples of John. The evidence that he was not the Messiah he states in the following verses.

From the conduct of John here we may learn,

1.    The duty of laying all our honors at the feet of Jesus.

2.    As John came that all might believe, so it is no less true of the ministry of Jesus himself. He came for a similar purpose, and we may all, therefore, trust in him for salvation.

3.    We should not rely too much on ministers of the gospel. They cannot save us any more than John could; and their office, as his was, is simply to direct people "to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

Barnes: Joh 1:9

That was the true Light - Not John, but the Messiah. He was not a false, uncertain, dangerous guide, but was one that was true, real, steady, and worthy of confidence. A false light is one that leads to danger or error, as a false beacon on the shores of the ocean may lead ships to quicksands or rocks; or an "ignis fatuus "to fens, and precipices, and death. A true light is one that does not deceive us, as the true beacon may guide us into port or warn us of danger. Christ does not lead astray. All false teachers do.

That lighteth - That enlightens. He removes darkness, error, ignorance, from the mind.

Every man - This is an expression denoting, in general, the whole human race - Jews and Gentiles. John preached to the Jews. Jesus came "to be a light to lighten the Gentiles,"as well as to be the "glory of the people of Israel,"Luk 2:32.

That cometh into the world - The phrase in the original is ambiguous. The word translated "that cometh"may either refer to the "light,"or to the word "man;"so that it may mean either "this ‘ true light that cometh’ into the world enlightens all,"or "it enlightens every ‘ man that cometh’ into the world."Many critics, and, among the fathers, Cyril and Augustine, have preferred the former, and translated it, "The true light was he who, coming into the world, enlightened every man."The principal reasons for this are:

1.    That the Messiah is often spoken of as he that cometh into the world. See Joh 6:14; Joh 18:37.

2.    He is often distinguished as "the light that cometh into the world."Joh 3:19; "this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world."Joh 12:46; "I am come a light into the world."

Christ may be said to do what is accomplished by his command or appointment. This passage means, therefore, that by his own personal ministry, and by his Spirit and apostles, light or teaching is afforded to all. It does not mean that every individual of the human family is enlightened with the knowledge "of the gospel,"for this never yet has been; but it means:

1.    That this light is not confined to the "Jews,"but is extended to all - Jews and Gentiles.

2.    That it is provided for all and offered to all.

3.    It is not affirmed that at the time that John wrote all "were actually enlightened,"but the word "lighteth"has the form of the "future.""This is that light so long expected and predicted, which as the result of its coming into the world, will ultimately enlighten all nations."

Barnes: Joh 1:10

He was in the world - This refers, probably, not to his pre-existence, but to the fact that he became incarnate; that he dwelt among human beings.

And the world was made by him - This is a repetition of what is said in Joh 1:3. Not only "men,"but all material things, were made by him. These facts are mentioned here to make what is said immediately after more striking, to wit, that men did not receive him. The proofs which he furnished that they ought to receive him were:

1.    Those given while he was "in the world"- the miracles that he performed and his instructions; and,

2.    The fact that the "world was made by him."It was remarkable that the world did not know or approve its own Maker.

The world knew him not - The word "knew"is sometimes used in the sense of "approving"or "loving,"Psa 1:6; Mat 7:23. In this sense it may be used here. The world did not love or approve him, but rejected him and put him to death. Or it may mean that they did not understand or know that he was the Messiah; for had the Jews known and believed that he was the Messiah, they would not have put him to death, 1Co 2:8; "Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."Yet they might have known it, and therefore they were not the less to blame.

Barnes: Joh 1:11

He came unto his own - His own "land"or "country."It was called his land because it was the place of his birth, and also because it was the chosen land where God delighted to dwell and to manifest his favor. See Isa 5:1-7. Over that land the laws of God had been extended, and that land had been regarded as especially his, Psa 147:19-20.

His own - His own "people."There is a distinction here in the original words which is not preserved in the translation. It may be thus expressed: "He came to his own land, and his own people received him not."They were his people, because God had chosen them to be his above all other nations; had given to them his laws; and had signally protected and favored them, Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2.

Received him not - Did not acknowledge him to be the Messiah. They rejected him and put him to death, agreeably to the prophecy, Isa 53:3-4. From this we learn,

1.    That it is reasonable to expect that those who have been especially favored should welcome the message of God. God had a right to expect, after all that had been done for the Jews, that they would receive the message of eternal life. So he has a right to expect that we should embrace him and be saved.

2.    Yet, it is not the abundance of mercies that incline men to seek God. The Jews had been signally favored, but they rejected him. So, many in Christian lands live and die rejecting the Lord Jesus.

3.    People are alike in every age. All would reject the Saviour if left to themselves. All people are by nature wicked. There is no more certain and universal proof of this than the universal rejection of the Lord Jesus.

Barnes: Joh 1:12

To as many as received him - The great mass; the people; the scribes and Pharisees rejected him. A few in his lifetime received him, and many more after his death. "To receive him,"here, means to "believe"on him. This is expressed at the end of the verse.

Gave he power - This is more appropriately rendered in the margin by the word "right"or "privilege."Compare Act 1:7; Act 5:4; Rom 9:21; 1Co 7:37; 1Co 8:9; 1Co 9:4-5.

Sons of God - Children of God by adoption. See the notes at Mat 1:1. Christians are called sons of God:

1.    Because they are "adopted"by Him, 1Jo 3:1.

2.    Because they are "like Him;"they resemble Him and have His spirit.

3.    They are united to the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, are regarded by Him as his brethren Mat 25:40, and are therefore regarded as the children of the Most High.

On his name - This is another way of saying believeth in "him."The "name"of a person is often put for the person himself, Joh 2:23; Joh 3:18; 1Jo 5:13. From this verse we learn:

1.    That to be a child of God is a privilege - far more so than to be the child of any human being, though in the highest degree rich, or learned, or honored. Christians are therefore more honored than any other persons.

2.    God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts; it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them, Eph 2:8; Joh 15:16.

3.    This favor is given only to those who believe on him. All others are the children of the wicked one, and no one who has not "confidence in God"can be regarded as his child. No parent would acknowledge one for his child, or approve of him, who had no confidence in him, who doubted or denied all he said, and who despised his character. Yet the sinner constantly does this toward God, and he cannot, therefore, be called his Son.

Barnes: Joh 1:13

Which were born - This doubtless refers to the "new birth,"or to the great change in the sinner’ s mind called regeneration or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their natural birth, or because they were the children of "Jews,"or because they were descended from pious parents. The term "to be born"is often used to denote this change. Compare Joh 3:3-8; 1Jo 2:29. It illustrates clearly and beautifully this great change. The natural birth introduces us to life. The new birth is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is "dead"in sins Eph 2:1; now he begins truly to live. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced to real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favor of God. The term expresses at once the "greatness"and the "nature"of the change.

Not of blood - The Greek word is plural; not of "bloods"- that is, not of "man."Compare Mat 27:4. The Jews prided themselves on being the descendants of Abraham, Mat 3:9. They supposed that it was proof of the favor of God to be descended from such an illustrious ancestry. In this passage this notion is corrected. It is not because men are descended from an illustrious or pious parentage that they are entitled to the favor of God; or perhaps the meaning may be, not because there is a union of illustrious lines of ancestry or "bloods"in them. The law of Christ’ s kingdom is different from what the Jews supposed. Compare 1Pe 1:23. It was necessary to be "born of God"by regeneration. Possibly, however, it may mean that they did not become children of God by the bloody rite of "circumcision,"as many of the Jews supposed they did. This is agreeable to the declaration of Paul in Rom 2:28-29. Nor of the will of the flesh - Not by natural generation.

Nor of the will of man - This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say that they became the children of God neither in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by their natural birth, nor by being "adopted"by a pious man. None of the ways by which we become entitled to the privileges of "children"among people can give us a title to be called the sons of God. It is not by human power or agency that men become children of the Most High.

But of God - That is, God produces the change, and confers the privilege of being cawed his children. The heart is changed by his power. No unaided effort of man, no works of ours, can produce this change. At the same time, it is true that no man is renewed who does not himself "desire"and "will"to be a believer; for the effect of the change is on his "will"Psa 110:3, and no one is changed who does not strive to enter in at the strait gate, Phi 2:12. This important verse, therefore, teaches us:

1.\caps1     t\caps0 hat if men are saved they must be born again.

2.\caps1     t\caps0 hat their salvation is not the result of their birth, or of any honorable or pious parentage.

3.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the children of the rich and the noble, as well as of the poor, must be born of God if they will be saved.

4.\caps1     t\caps0 hat the children of pious parents must be born again; or they cannot be saved. None will go to heaven simply because their "parents"are Christians.

5.\caps1     t\caps0 hat this work is the work of God, and "no man"can do it for us.

6.\caps1     t\caps0 hat we should forsake all human dependence, east off all confidence in the flesh, and go at once to the throne of grace, and beseech of God to adopt us into his family and save our souls from death.

Barnes: Joh 1:14

And the Word was made flesh - The word "flesh,"here, is evidently used to denote "human nature"or "man."See Mat 16:17; Mat 19:5; Mat 24:22; Luk 3:6; Rom 1:3; Rom 9:5. The "Word"was made "man."This is commonly expressed by saying that he became "incarnate."When we say that a being becomes "incarnate,"we mean that one of a higher order than man, and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man or becomes a man. Here it is meant that "the Word,"or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he "was made flesh."

Was made - This is the same word that is used in Joh 1:3; "All things were made by him."It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but that he was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence, agreeably to Joh 1:1. This is in accordance with the doctrine of the Scriptures elsewhere. Heb 10:5; "a ‘ body’ hast thou prepared me."Heb 2:14; "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."1Jo 4:2; "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."See also 1Ti 3:16; Phi 2:6; 2Co 8:9; Luk 1:35. The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was "changed"into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the λόγος Logos , or "Word,"became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or "Word""became"or "was"a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man.

And dwell among us - The word in the original denotes "dwelt as in a tabernacle or tent;"and some have supposed that John means to say that the human body was a tabernacle or tent for the λόγος Logos to abide in, in allusion to the tabernacle among the Jews, in which the Shechinah, or visible symbol of God, dwelt; but it is not necessary to suppose this. The object of John was to prove that "the Word"became "incarnate."To do this he appeals to various evidences. One was that he "dwelt"among them; sojourned with them; ate, drank, slept, and was with them for years, so that they "saw him with their eyes, they looked upon him, and their hands handled him,"1Jo 1:1. To "dwell in a tent with one"is the same as to be in his family; and when John says he "tabernacled"with them, he means that he was with them as a friend and as one of a family, so that they had full opportunity of becoming familiarly acquainted with him, and could not be mistaken in supposing that "he was really a man."

We beheld his glory - This is a new proof of what he was affirming - "that the word of God became man."The first was, that they had seen him as a man. He now adds that they had seen him in his proper glory "as God and man united in one person,"constituting him the unequalled Son of the Father. There is no doubt that there is reference here to the transfiguration on the holy mount. See Mat 17:1-9. To this same evidence Peter also appeals, 2Pe 1:16-18. John was one of the witnesses of that scene, and hence he says, "we beheld his glory,"Mar 9:2. The word "glory"here means majesty, dignity, splendor.

The glory as of the only-begotten of the Father - The dignity which was appropriate to the only-begotten Son of God; such glory or splendor as could belong to no other. and as properly expressed his rank and character. This glory was seen eminently on the mount of transfiguration. It was also seen in his miracles, his doctrine, his resurrection, his ascension; all of which were such as to illustrate the perfections, and manifest the glory that belongs only to the Son of God.

Only-begotten - This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9. It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is especially dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, Gen 22:16; Jer 6:26; Zec 12:10. On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour.

1.    As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a special relation to Him in His divine nature, exalted above all human beings and angels, and thus worthy to be called, by way of eminence, His only Son. Saints are called His "sons"or children, because they are born of His Spirit, or are like Him; but the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called His only-begotten Son.

2.    He was especially dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed upon him.

Full of grace and truth - The word "full"here refers to the "Word made flesh,"which is declared to be full of grace and truth. The word "grace"means "favors,"gifts, acts of beneficence. He was kind, merciful, gracious, doing good to all, and seeking man’ s welfare by great sacrifices and love; so much so, that it might be said to be characteristic of him, or he "abounded"in favors to mankind. He was also "full of truth."He declared the truth. In him was no falsehood. He was not like the false prophets and false Messiahs, who were wholly impostors; nor was he like the emblems and shadows of the old dispensation, which were only types of the true; but he was truth itself. He represented things as they are, and thus became the "truth"as well as "the way and the life."

Barnes: Joh 1:15

John bare witness of him - The evangelist now returns to the testimony of John the Baptist. He had stated that the Word became incarnate, and he now appeals to the testimony of John to show that, thus incarnate, he was the Messiah.

He that cometh after me - He of whom I am the forerunner, or whose way I am come to prepare. See the notes at Mat 3:3.

Is preferred before me - Is superior to me. Most critics have supposed that the words translated "is preferred"relate to "time,"and not to "dignity;"meaning that though he came after him publicly, being six months younger than John, as well as entering on his work after John, yet that he had existed long before him. Most, however, have understood it more correctly, as our translators seem to have done, as meaning, He was worthy of more honor than I am.

He was before me - This can refer to nothing but his pre-existence, and can be explained only on the supposition that he existed before John, or, as the evangelist had before shown, from the beginning. He came "after"John in his public ministry and in his human nature, but in his divine nature he had existed long before John had a being - from eternity. We may learn here that it is one mark of the true spirit of a minister of Christ to desire and feel that Christ is always to be preferred to ourselves. We should keep ourselves out of view. The great object is to hold up the Saviour; and however much ministers may be honored or blessed, yet they should lay all at the feet of Jesus, and direct all men to him as the undivided object of affection and honor. It is the business of every Christian, as well as of every Christian minister, to be a witness for Christ, and to endeavor to convince the world that he is worthy of confidence and love.

Barnes: Joh 1:16

Of his fulness - In Joh 1:14 the evangelist has said that Christ was "full of grace and truth."Of that "fullness"he now says that all the disciples had received; that is, they derived from his abundant truth and mercy grace to understand the plan of salvation, to preach the gospel, to live lives of holiness; they "partook"of the numerous blessings which he came to impart by his instructions and his death. These are undoubtedly not the words of John the Baptist, but of the evangelist John, the writer of this gospel. They are a continuation of what he was saying in Joh 1:14, Joh 1:15 being evidently thrown in as a parenthesis. The declaration had not exclusive reference, probably, to the apostles, but it is extended to all Christians, for all believers have received of the "fulness of grace and truth"that is in Christ. Compare Eph 1:23; Eph 3:19; Col 1:19; Col 2:9. In all these places our Saviour is represented as the fulness of God - as "abounding"in mercy, as exhibiting the divine attributes, and as possessing in himself all that is necessary to fill his people with truth, and grace, and love.

Grace for grace - Many interpretations of this phrase have been proposed. The chief are briefly the following:

1.    "We have received under the gospel, grace or favor, ‘ instead of’ those granted under the law; and God has added by the gospel important favors to those which he gave under the law."This was first proposed by Chrysostom.

2.    "We, Christians, have received grace ‘ answering to,’ or corresponding to that which is in Jesus Christ. We are ‘ like’ him in meekness, humility,"etc.

3.    "We have received grace ‘ as grace’ - that is, freely. We have not purchased it nor deserved it, but God has conferred it on us ‘ freely’ "(Grotius).

4.    The meaning is, probably, simply that we have received through him "abundance"of grace or favor. The Hebrews, in expressing the superlative degree of comparison, used simply to repeat the word - thus, "pits, pits,"meaning many pits (Hebrew in Gen 14:10). So here grace for grace may mean "much"grace; superlative favors bestowed on man; favors superior to all that had been under the law - superior to all other things that God can confer on men. These favors consist in pardon, redemption, protection, sanctification, peace here, and heaven hereafter.

Barnes: Joh 1:17

The law was given - The Old Testament economy. The institutions under which the Jews lived.

By Moses - By Moses, as the servant of God. He was the great legislator of the Jews, by whom, under God, their polity was formed. The law worketh wrath Rom 4:15; it was attended with many burdensome rites and ceremonies Act 15:10; it was preparatory to another state of things. The gospel succeeded that and took its place, and thus showed the greatness of the gospel economy, as well as its grace and truth.

Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ - A system of religion full of favors, and the "true"system, was revealed by him. The old system was one of "law,"and "shadows,"and "burdensome rites;""this"was full of mercy to mankind, and was true in all things. We may learn from these verses:

1.\caps1     t\caps0 hat all our mercies come from Jesus Christ.

2.    "All true believers receive from Christ’ s fulness; the best and greatest saints cannot live without him, the meanest and weakest may live by him. This excludes proud boasting that we have nothing but ‘ we have received it,’ and silenceth perplexing fears that we want nothing but ‘ we may receive it.’ "

Barnes: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time - This declaration is probably made to show the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus "had an intimate knowledge of God,"which neither Moses nor any of the ancient prophets had possessed. God is invisible: no human eyes have seen him; but Christ had a knowledge of God which might be expressed to our apprehension by saying that he saw him. He knew him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to make a fuller manifestation of him. See Joh 5:37; Joh 6:46; 1Jo 4:12; Exo 33:20; Joh 14:9. This passage is not meant to deny that men had witnessed "manifestations"of God, as when he appeared to Moses and the prophets (compare Num 12:8; Isa 6:1-13); but it is meant that no one has seen the essence of God, or has "fully known God."The prophets delivered what they "heard"God speak; Jesus what he knew of God as his equal, and as understanding fully nature.

The only-begotten Son - See the notes at Joh 1:14. This verse shows John’ s sense of the meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and full knowledge of God.

In the bosom of the Father - This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. See the notes at Mat 23:6. It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another - knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known.

Hath declared him - Hath fully revealed him or made him known. Compare Heb 1:1, Heb 1:4. This verse proves that Jesus had a knowledge of God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest revelations of his character are to be expected in the gospel. By his Word and Spirit he can enlighten and guide us, and lead us to the true knowledge of God; and there is no true and full knowledge of God which is not obtained through his Son. Compare Joh 14:6; 1Jo 2:22-23.

Barnes: Joh 1:19

This is the record - The word "record"here means "testimony,"in whatever way given. The word "record"now commonly refers to "written"evidence. This is not its meaning here. John’ s testimony was given without writing.

When the Jews sent - John’ s fame was great. See Mat 3:5. It spread from the region of Galilee to Jerusalem, and the nation seemed to suppose, from the character of his preaching, that he was the Messiah, Luk 3:15. The great council of the nation, or the Sanhedrin, had, among other things, the charge of religion. They felt it to be their duty, therefore, to inquire into the character and claims of John, and to learn whether he was the Messiah. It is not improbable that they wished that he might be the long-expected Christ, and were prepared to regard him as such.

When the Jews sent priests and Levites - See the notes at Luk 10:31-32. These were probably members of the Sanhedrin.

Barnes: Joh 1:20

I am not the Christ - This confession proves that John was not an impostor. He had a wide reputation. The nation was expecting that the Messiah was about to come, and multitudes were ready to believe that John was he, Luk 3:15. If John had been an impostor he would have taken advantage of this excited state of public feeling, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, and formed a large party in his favor. The fact that he did not do it is full proof that he did not intend to impose on people, but came only as the forerunner of Christ; and his example shows that all Christians, and especially all Christian ministers, however much they may be honored and blessed, should be willing to lay all their honors at the feet of Jesus; to keep themselves back and to hold up before the world only the Son of God. To do this is one eminent mark of the true spirit of a minister of the gospel.

Barnes: Joh 1:21

Art thou Elias? - This is the Greek way of writing Elijah. The Jews expected that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came. See the notes at Mat 11:14. They supposed that it would be the real Elijah returned from heaven. In this sense John denied that he was Elijah; but he did not deny that he was the Elias or Elijah which the prophet intended Mat 3:3, for he immediately proceeds to state Joh 1:23 that he was sent, as it was predicted that Elijah would be, to prepare the way of the Lord; so that, while he corrected their false notions about Elijah, he so clearly stated to them his true character that they might understand that he was really the one predicted as Elijah.

That prophet - It is possible that the Jews supposed that not only "Elijah"would reappear before the coming of the Messiah, but also "Jeremiah."See the notes at Mat 16:14. Some have supposed, however, that this question has reference to the prediction of Moses in Deu 18:15.

Poole: Joh 1:2

These words of the evangelist are a further confirmation and explication of what the evangelist had said before; asserting the eternity of the Son, and his relation to the Father, and oneness of essence with the Father. Whether the evangelist, forewarned by the Spirit of God, did add this repetition to forearm Christians against those errors which did afterward trouble the church, I cannot say; but certain it is, that these words do effectually confute the Eunomians, who distinguished between the Word which in the beginning was with God, and that Word by which all things were made; and the Arians, who make the Father to have existed before the Son; as also the Anomians, who would make the Father and the Son diverse both in nature and will. Some others make this verse a transition to Joh 1:4 , and the sense to be, This same was not manifest to the world from the beginning of the world, but was with God until he came to be manifested in the flesh: thus, 1Jo 1:2 , it is said, he was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. He was manifested in the flesh, 1Ti 3:16 .

Poole: Joh 1:3

All things were made by him: the Divine nature and eternal existence of the Lord Christ, is evident from his efficiency in the creation of the world: what the evangelist here calleth all things, the apostle to the Hebrews, Heb 1:2 , calleth the worlds; and St. Paul, Col 1:16 , calleth, all things that are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible; Moses calls, the heaven and the earth, Gen 1:1 . These were all made by the Word; not as an instrumental cause, but as a principal efficient cause; for though it be true, that the preposition dia is sometimes used to signify an instrumental cause; yet it is as true, that it is often used to signify the principal efficient cause; as Joh 6:57 Act 3:16 Rom 5:5 11:36 Eph 4:6 , and in many other texts: it here only denotes the order of the working of the holy Trinity.

Without him was not any thing made that was made nothing that was made, neither the heavens nor the earth, neither things visible nor invisible, were made without him. There is nothing more ordinary in holy writ, than after the laying down a universal proposition, (where no synecdoche is used), to add also a universal negative for the confirmation of it: so Rom 3:12 , There is none that doeth good; then is added, no, not one; Lam 2:2 , and in many other texts. The term without him, doth not exclude the efficiency either of the First, or Third Person in the Trinity, in the creation of all things; the Father created the world by the Son, his Word; and the creation of the world is attributed to the Spirit, Gen 1:1 Job 33:4 Psa 33:6 .

Poole: Joh 1:4

In him was life in this Word was life corporal, spiritual, eternal; it was in him as in the fountain. Some understand this of corporal life, both in the first being and preservation of it; it is certain that this is in Christ, for he upholdeth all things by the word of his power, Heb 1:3 Act 17:28 ; and thus it is another demonstration of the Deity of Christ. Others think that here is rather a transition from creation to redemption; you hath he quickened, Eph 2:1 . Others understand it of eternal life, because our evangelist most generally taketh the term life, as a benefit flowing from Christ, in this sense, as Eph 3:16 , and Eph 4:14 , and in a multitude of other texts. I know no reason why we should not understand it of all life; all life being in Christ, as God equal with the Father; and spiritual and eternal life flowing also from him in a more peculiar consideration, as Mediator.

And the life was the light of men: but though as God he distributes life according to their degree to all his creatures, yet he is the peculiar light of men, enlightening their minds with light of which vegetative and sensitive creatures are not capable; so as by light is not here to be understood the emanations of any lucid bodies, as that of the sun or stars, for other creatures as well as men are capable of that; nor is it to be understood of the light of reason, though that be the candle of the Lord in the soul; but that light by which we discern the things of God; in which sense the apostle saith, Eph 5:8 , Ye were darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord. And therefore he saith of men, exclusively to angels, who though lightsome, noble creatures, yet had not their nature assumed by Christ, Heb 2:16 . Besides that it is said in the next verse, that this light shineth in darkness, that is, amongst many men who yet had reasonable souls, but the darkness comprehended it not. That cannot be, that men did not comprehend reason, but even rational men comprehended not this light of supernatural revelation. So John is said to have come to testify of that light; who did not come to testify of Christ, as the author of reason. Nor is there any text of Scripture in which the term light signifieth reason.

Poole: Joh 1:5

The light shineth in darkness: he had said before, that life was in Christ, in him as in the fountain; and the life in him was the light of men, giving light to men. Now this light which was in him had its emanations (as light in the sun); and the darkness, that is, men of dark minds, (the abstract being put for the concrete),

comprehended (that is, received) it not This was true concerning the Jews in former times, upon whom Christ the true Light had shined in many types and prophecies; it was also true concerning the Jews of that present age, to whom, through the favour of him who had undertaken the redemption of man, the means of grace were continued; through the blindness of their minds and hardness of their hearts, they wilfully rejected those means of illumination which God granted to them.

Poole: Joh 1:6

There was a man sent from God not the Christ, not an angel, but a man; yet one, than whom (as our Saviour saith) there had not risen a greater amongst those that were born of women. He did not come of his own head, but was sent; for it was he of whom it was written, Mal 3:1 , Behold, I will send my messenger before thy face, & c., Luk 7:27 , he was not sent of men, but from God, foretold by the angel, as to his existence, name, work, and success, Luk 1:13-17 .

Whose name was John his name was John, named by the angel, Luk 1:13 , before he was born; by his father and mother, Luk 1:60,63 , when he was born. John signifieth grace; and doubtless the Baptist obtained that name, because he was to be the first and a famous preacher of the grace of the gospel which came to the world through Jesus Christ.

Poole: Joh 1:7

The same came for a witness: John was called a messenger to denote his authority; a witness, to denote his work, which is the work of every true minister of the gospel. John was the first witness, and witnessed a thing wholly unknown (before him) to the generality of the world; for though the shepherds, and Simeon, and Anna, had given some testimony to Christ, when he was born, and brought into the temple to be offered to the Lord, yet that was thirty years since, and generally forgot; neither could they bear a testimony to him as an actual minister of the gospel. The apostles were to be witnesses to Christ, Act 1:8 ; witnesses of his resurrection, Act 1:22 4:33 5:32 10:41 13:31 . All the prophets bare witness to him, that whosoever believeth in his name should be saved, Act 10:43 . So did John also; and John further pointed to him passing by, and witnessed that it was he of whom the prophets spake. So that the apostles, and so following ministers, were and are greater witnesses than John the Baptist. The prophets witnessed that he should come, John Baptist witnessed that he should come; the apostles witnessed that he was not only come, but had died, and was again risen from the dead.

To bear witness of the Light for John’ s office was to give a testimony to Christ the true Light, mentioned before; so called, because he maketh manifest, Eph 5:13 . He revealeth his Father, Mat 11:27 . He is the brightness of his Father’ s glory, Heb 1:3 , who is light, 1Jo 1:5 , and the world is by him enlightened. It was prophesied of his times, Isa 11:9 , that the earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord. That all men through him might believe; the end of John’ s testimony was, that multitudes of all sorts might believe by him, or by it, as an instrumental cause of their faith. If we read it by him, it is most proper to understand the pronoun of John the Baptist; for we are not said to believe by Christ, but in him, in his name, & c.

Poole: Joh 1:8

He was not that Light: John the Baptist was a light, as all saints are light in the Lord, Eph 5:8 ; nay, in a peculiar sense our Saviour beareth him witness, that he was a burning and shining light ; but he was not that Light before mentioned, Joh 1:5 , that shineth in darkness; and again Joh 1:9 which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John borrowed his light from that original Light; that Light was God, he was but a man sent from God. The men of the world are ordinarily in extremes, either wholly rejecting God’ s ministers and witnesses, or else adoring them; as the world is concerned to take heed of the former, so the ministers of Christ are also highly concerned not to admit the latter. See Luk 7:33 Act 14:13,14 ; but both John here, and Paul there, were very cautious not to rob their Master of the honour due unto him alone.

But was sent to bear witness of that Light: John, as was said before, came only to bear witness of that Light, that he was come, and shined forth, and was the true Light, as it followeth.

Poole: Joh 1:9

That was the true Light: true is sometimes opposed to what is false, Eph 4:25 ; sometimes to what is typical and figurative, Joh 1:17 ; sometimes to what is not original, and of itself: in opposition to all these Christ is the true Light; he who alone deserved the name of light, having light in himself, and from himself, 1Jo 2:8 , and shining more gloriously than the prophets or apostles.

Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world he lighteth not the Jews only, (as the prophets of old), but both the Jews and Gentiles. Some understand this of the light of reason; but besides that reason is no where in holy writ called light, neither did this illumination agree to Christ as Mediator. It is rather therefore to be understood of the light of gospel revelation, which Christ caused to be made to all the world, Mat 28:19 Mar 16:15 . Those who interpret it of the more internal illumination by the Holy Spirit of God, by which Christ is not revealed to us only, but in us, say, that Christ hath done what lay in him (as a Minister of the gospel) so to enlighten all that came into the world; and that Christ is said to enlighten every man, because none is enlightened but by him, and that some of all sorts are by him enlightened; in one of which two latter senses the terms all and every man must be interpreted in a multitude of texts in the Gospel. The words in the Greek are so, as they may either be translated as we read them, or thus, who coming into the world, enlightened every man: a more universal spiritual light, or means to come to the knowledge of God, overspreading the world after Christ’ s coming, than before. So Joh 7:46 , I am come a light into the world. And it is by some observed, that the phrase cometh into the world, doth not barely signify a being born, but being sent into the world by the Father, being sanctified, as in Joh 10:36 17:18 .

Poole: Joh 1:10

He was in the world he was in the place called the world, and amongst the men of the world; for so the term world is often taken, Joh 16:28 2Pe 3:6 . Christ, before he came in the flesh, was in it; filling both the heavens and the earth, and sustaining it by the word of his power, and manifesting his will to it, more immediately to Moses and to the prophets, and more mediately by Moses and by the prophets.

And the world was made by him and the heavens and the earth, all things visible and invisible, (as was said before), were made by him.

And the world knew him not and the men of the world took no notice of him, did not acknowledge him, believe in him, nor were subject to him; so the word knew often signifies, (according to the Hebrew idiom), Joh 10:14,15,27 ; not a bare comprehension of an object in the understanding, but suitable affections: so Mat 7:23 1Jo 3:1 . This is not to be understood of all individual persons in the world; for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David, and many particular persons, did in this sense know him; but the generality of the world did not. The heathens did not, (who are sometimes called the world, distinctively from the Jews, 1Jo 2:2 1Co 1:21 ), and most of the Jews did not, though some did.

Poole: Joh 1:11

He came unto his own Christ came into the world, which being made by him, was in the most proper sense his own; or, to the Israelites, which were as his own house, land, and possession, Psa 85:1 Joh 16:32 . The Greek word is in the plural number, and used in the places before mentioned, as also Act 21:6 ; sometimes signifying men’ s proper country, sometimes their proper house. But it is a further question, what coming is here spoken of: though it be generally (or by many at least) interpreted of Christ’ s coming by his incarnation, yet that seemeth not to be the sense; partly, because that coming is spoken of, Act 21:14 ; and partly, because in that sense the Jews did receive him; nor was it in their power to hinder his manifestation in the flesh. The coming therefore here mentioned seemeth to be intended of his coming by his prophets, John the Baptist, and his own personal preaching of the gospel.

And his own received him not whom in this way of coming they did not receive, believing neither the testimony given by his prophets, nor by the Baptist, nor by himself, Joh 5:43 .

Poole: Joh 1:12

But as many as received him though the generality of those amongst whom Christ came received him not in the manner before expressed, yet some did own him, believed in him and submitted to him; and to as many as thus received him, not into their houses only, but into their hearts,

to them gave he power to become the sons of God he gave a power, or a right, or privilege, not that they might if they would be, but to be actually, to become, or be, the sons of God by adoption; for believers are already the sons of God, Gal 3:26 , though it doth not yet appear what they shall be in the adoption, mentioned Rom 8:23 , which the apostle calls the redemption of our body, viz. in the resurrection; hence the children of God are called the children of the resurrection, Luk 20:36 .

To them that believe on his name this is the privilege of all that believe in the name of Christ; by which term he opens the former term of receiving: to receive Christ, and to believe in his name, are the same thing. To believe in his name, is either to believe in him, Act 3:16 or in the revelation of himself in the promises of the gospel. The proposition of God’ s word is the object of faith of assent: but the person of the Mediator is the object of that faith which receiveth Christ; and those alone have a right to be the sons of God, and to the privileges peculiar to sons, who believe in Christ as revealed in the promises of the word of God, and there exhibited to men.

Poole: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood not of the blood of men and women; or, not of the blood of Abraham (which was the boast of the Jews, We have Abraham to our Father ).

Nor of the will of the flesh nor from the lusts of the flesh.

Nor of the will of man nor from a power in man’ s will, or men’ s free act in adopting other men’ s children. To be born, signifieth to receive our principle of life: those who are the children of God hard not the principle of their life, as they are such, from the motions of nature, nor from the will of men.

But of God: whatever be the sense of the former words, these words plainly affirm God to be the principal efficient, and procreant cause, of all those who are the sons of God; for faith, by which we are the children of God, Gal 3:26 , is the work of God, Joh 6:29 , his gift, Phi 1:29 ; and men are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of that which is incorruptible, 1Pe 1:23 : they are sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:26 ; the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit 3:5 .

Poole: Joh 1:14

The Word was made flesh the Son of God, called the Word, for the reasons before specified, was made truly man, as flesh often signifieth in holy writ, Gen 6:12 Psa 65:2 Isa 40:5,6 ; not a vile, despicable, mortal man. The evangelist rather saith he was made flesh, than he was made man, more plainly to distinguish the two natures in Christ; to assert the truth of his human nature; to let us know that Christ assumed human nature in common, not the particular nature of any; to commend the love of God, and to let us see, that his plaster was proportioned to our sore, it reached all flesh.

The evangelist saith not he was changed into flesh; but, by assuming, he was made flesh. And dwelt amongst us: and he tabernacled amongst us; amongst us men, or amongst men that were his disciples: the word signifieth properly, he made no long stay.

And we beheld his glory; and we beheld the signs and effects of his glory; many of which were seen, both at the time of his transfiguration, and at his passion, resurrection, and ascension; the glory of his grace, holiness, truth, miraculous operations, &c.

The glory as of the only begotten of the Father; which glory was the glory of the only begotten of the Father; for the particle as here doth not signify likeness, but truth, Neh 7:2 Job 24:14 .

Full of grace and truth, as he was God manifested in the flesh. Grace signifieth love and good will, out of which it was that he delivered us from the curse and rigour of the law (to which grace is opposed). He was also full of truth, both as truth is opposed to falsehood, and to the shadows and figures of the law; and Christ was full of truth as he was the antitype to all the ceremonies, and all the promises had and have their completion and reality in him: see Joh 14:17 Rom 15:8 2Co 1:20 . Truth also may signify the sincerity and integrity of Christ’ s life, as he was without guile.

Poole: Joh 1:15

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying: John was not he, but only a witness to him; and he continueth to bear witness (the verb is in the present tense); nor did he give an obscure or cold testimony, but an open, and plain, and fervent testimony, according to the prophecies, his testimony was the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

This was he of whom I spake he first testified that Christ was he of whom he had before spoken; possibly when he was preaching in the wilderness, and Christ came to him to be baptized of him, Mat 3:11,14 .

He that cometh after me is preferred before me he that cometh after me, in order of time, or in the ministerial office and employment, or, as if he were my disciple, Joh 8:12 , is become, or is made, before me.

For he was before me both in the eternal destination, and in respect of his Divine nature; as also in dignity and eminency, considered as a prophet, i.e. one that revealeth my Father’ s will. This John said before, though not in terms, yet in effect, when he said, Mat 3:11 , He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, & c. So Mar 1:7 Luk 3:16 . This is the first thing which is here mentioned, as John’ s testimony concerning Christ, respecting the excellency of his person.

Poole: Joh 1:16

And of his fulness have all we received of that plenty of grace which Christ hath, (who hath not the Spirit given him by measure, Joh 3:34 , as other saints have, Act 2:4,6,8 ), we who by nature are void of grace, whether taken for the favour of God, or gracious habits, have received, as the skirts of Aaron’ s garment received the oil which was plentifully poured out on Aaron’ s head.

And grace for grace: nor have we received drops, but grace upon grace; not only knowledge and instruction, but the love and favour of God, and spiritual habits, in proportion to the favour and grace which Christ hath (allowing for our short capacities); we have received grace freely and plentifully, all from Christ, and for his sake; which lets us see how much the grace receiving soul is bound to acknowledge and adore Christ, and may be confirmed in the receiving of further grace, and the hopes of eternal life; and it may mind all (according to that of the apostle, 2Co 6:1 ), to take heed that they receive not the grace of God in vain.

Poole: Joh 1:17

For the law was given by Moses the law, moral and ceremonial, came not by Moses, but was given by Moses as God’ s minister and servant; that law by which no man can be justified, Rom 3:28 . In this was Moses’ s honour, of whom you glory, Joh 5:45 . God indeed made an eminent use of him, as his minister, by whom he revealed his will to you; both in matters of his worship, according to that dispensation; and in matters which concern you in your whole conversation; but yet there is an eminent difference between him and Jesus Christ. The law is no where called grace, neither doth it discover any thing but duty and wrath; it showeth no remission, in case that duty be not done, nor affordeth strength for the doing of it.

But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ all that is from Christ; all the favour of God for the remission and pardon of sin, and for strength and assistance to the performance of duty, is (not given from God by Christ, as the law by Moses, but) from Christ as the fountain of grace; and not grace only, but truth, whether taken for solid and real mercy, or with respect to the law; the fulfilling of all the types and prophecies in it was by and in Christ.

Poole: Joh 1:18

No man has seen God at any time no man hath at any time seen the essence of God with his eyes, Joh 4:24 ; nor with the eyes of his mind understood the whole counsel and will of God, Mat 11:27 Rom 11:34 . Moses indeed saw the image and representation of God, and had a more familiar converse with God than others; upon which account he is said to have talked with God face to face; Num 12:7,8 , God saith he would speak unto him mouth to mouth, even apparently; but he tells us how in the same verse, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold; and God, who had spoken to the same sense, Exo 33:11 , saith, Joh 1:20 , Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live. Now to whom he did not discover his face, he certainly did not discover all his secret counsels.

The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father but he who is the only begotten and beloved Son, hath such an intimate communion with him in his nature, and such a free communication of all his counsels, as it may be said, he is continually in his bosom.

He hath declared him hath declared him, not only as a prophet declareth the mind and will of God, but as the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work, Psa 19:1 ; being the brightness of his Father’ s glory, and the express image of his person, Heb 1:3 . So as the Father can only be seen in the Son; nor is so full a revelation of the Father’ s will to be expected from any, as from the Son.

Poole: Joh 1:19

John’ s former testimony was more private to the common people; this testimony was given to a public authority.

The Jews (most probably the rulers of the Jews, who made up their sanhedrim, or great court, answering a parliament with us, for the cognizance of false prophets belonged to them)

sent priests and Levites which were Pharisees, Joh 1:24 , of the strictest sect of the Jews as to rites and ceremonies; these came from Jerusalem, where the sanhedrim constantly sat, and the chief priests were, (if the message were not from the sanhedrim itself), to ask John Baptist who he was; that is, by what authority he preached and baptized? What kind of prophet he was? For they could not but know his name and family, he descending from a priest amongst them: and this appeareth to be their sense from what followeth.

Poole: Joh 1:20

And he confessed he being asked openly and plainly, professed,

and denied not and did not dissemble nor halt in his speech. These negatives are in Scripture often added to affirmatives, to exclude all exceptions, Job 5:17 Psa 40:10-12 . But confessed: he did not tell them once so, but again and again, because many were musing about it, Luk 3:15 .

I am not the Christ I am not that great Messiah which God hath promised you, and in the expectation of whom you live, Luk 2:26,38 Lu 19:11 Joh 4:25 . The diligence we shall constantly observe in the servants of God in holy writ, to avoid the arrogating of that honour to themselves which is due only to God and Christ; and this, together with John’ s steadiness and plainness, doth very well become all professors, but the ministers of the gospel especially.

Poole: Joh 1:21

John was at Bethabara when these messengers came to him, Joh 1:28 . They asked him if he were

Elias The Jews had not only an expectation of the Messias, but of Elias to come as a messenger before him, according to the prophecy, Mal 4:5 ; as appeareth, Mat 17:10 Mar 9:11 ; of which they had a gross conception here, that Elias should come out of heaven personally, or at least that his soul should come into another body, according to the Pythagorean opinion. Now the meaning of the prophecy was, that one should come like Elias; and this was fulfilled in John, Luk 1:17 , as our Saviour tells us, Mat 17:12 Mar 9:13 ; but they asked the question according to that notion they had of Elias. To which John answereth, that he was not; neither that Elias that ascended in a fiery chariot to heaven; nor any body informed with Elias’ s soul: and thus the words of our Saviour, Mat 17:12 Mar 9:12 , are easily reconciled to this text. They go on, and ask him if he were

that prophet or a prophet. Some think that they meant the Prophet promised, Deu 18:18 ; but that was no other than Christ himself, which he had before denied himself to be; nor doth it appear from any text of Scripture that the Jews had any expectation of any other particular prophet; but it is plain from Luk 9:8 , that they had a notion that it was possible one of the old prophets might rise again from the dead, for so they guessed there concerning Christ. But others think that the article in the Greek here is not emphatical, and they only asked him if he were a prophet; for the Jews had a general notion, that the spirit of prophecy had left them ever since the times of Zechariah and Malachi; which they hoped was returned in John the Baptist, and about this they question him if he were a prophet. To which he answereth, No; neither that Prophet promised, Deu 18:18 , nor yet any of the old prophets risen from the dead; nor yet one like the prophets of the Old Testament, who only prophesied of a Christ to come; but, as Christ calls him, Mat 11:9 , more than a prophet, one who showed and declared to them a Christ already come; for the law and the prophets prophesied but until John; the law in its types foreshowing, the prophets in their sermons foretelling, a Messiah to come; John did more. His father indeed, Luk 1:76 , called him the prophet of the Highest; but there prophet is to be understood not in a strict, but in a large sense, as the term prophecy is taken, Rom 12:6 . And the term prophet often signifieth one that revealeth the will of God to men; in which large sense John was a prophet, and yet more than a prophet in the stricter notion of the term; and in that sense no prophet, that is, no mere prophet: so, Num 11:19 , Moses tells the people they should not eat flesh one, or two, or five, or ten, or twenty days, because they should eat it a whole month together.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   

[In the beginning was the Word.] In the beginning; in the same sense with Bereshith, In the beginning; in the history of the creation, Gen 1:1. For the evangelist proposeth this to himself, viz. To shew how that, by the Word; by which the creation was perfected, the redemption was perfected also: That the second person in the holy Trinity, in the fulness of time, became our Redeemer, as in the beginning of time he had been our Maker. Compare this with Joh 1:14;   

Joh 1:1   

In the beginning was the Word.   

Was with God.   

The Word was God.   

Joh 1:14   

The Word was made flesh.   

Dwelt among us.   

Was made flesh, and we beheld, etc.   

[Was the Word.] There is no great necessity for us to make any very curious inquiry, whence our evangelist should borrow this title, when in the history of the creation we find it so often repeated, And God said. It is observed almost by all that have of late undertaken a commentary upon this evangelist, that the Word of the Lord; doth very frequently occur amongst the Targumists, which may something enlighten the matter now before us. "And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the Word of the Lord." "And the Word of the Lord accepted the face of Job." And the Word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. "They believed in the name of his Word." And my Word spared them. To add no more, Gen 26:3; instead of "I will be with thee," the Targum hath it And my Word shall be thine help. So Gen 39:2; "And the Lord was with Joseph": Targum. And the Word of the Lord was Joseph's helper. And so, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them...

Lightfoot: Joh 1:4

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.   

[In him was life.] The evangelist proceeds from the creation by the Word; to the redemption of the world by the same Word. He had declared how this Word had given to all creatures their first being, Joh 1:3; "All things were made by him": and he now sheweth how he restored life to man when he lay dead in trespasses and sins. "Adam called his wife's name Hevah, life;" [Eve, AV Chavah; margin] Gen 3:20; the Greek reads Adam called his wife's name, 'Life.' He called her Life who had brought in death; because he had now tasted a better life in the promise of the woman's seed. To which it is very probable our evangelist had some reference in this place.   

[And the life was the light of men.] Life through Christ was light arising in the darkness of man's fall and sin; a light by which all believers were to walk. St. John seems in this clause to oppose the life and light exhibited in the gospel, to that life and light which the Jews boasted of in their law. They expected life from the works of the law, and they knew no greater light than that of the law; which therefore they extol with infinite boasts and praises which they give it. Take one instance for all: "God said, Let there be light. R. Simeon saith, Light is written there five times, according to the five parts of the law [i.e. the Pentateuch], and God said, Let there be light; according to the book of Genesis, wherein God, busying himself, made the world. And there was light; according to the book of Exodus, wherein the Israelites came out of darkness into light. And God saw the light that it was good; according to the Book of Leviticus, which is filled with rites and ceremonies. And God divided betwixt the light and the darkness; according to the Book of Numbers, which divided betwixt those that went out of Egypt, and those that entered into the land. And God called the light; day; according to the Book of Deuteronomy, which is replenished with manifold traditions." A gloss this is upon light; full of darkness indeed!

Lightfoot: Joh 1:5

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.   

[And the light shineth in darkness.] This light of promise and life by Christ shined in the darkness of all the cloudy types and shadows under the law and obscurity of the prophets. And those dark things 'comprehended it not,' i.e. did not so cloud and suppress it but it would break out; nor yet so comprehended it, but that there was an absolute necessity there should a greater light appear. I do so much the rather incline to such a paraphrase upon this place, because I observe the evangelist here treateth of the ways and means by which Christ made himself known to the world before his great manifestation in the flesh; first, in the promise of life, Joh 1:4; next, by types and prophecies; and lastly, by John Baptist.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:9

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.   

[Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.] All the men that are in the world. "Doth not the sun rise upon all that come into the world?" " All that come into the word are not able to make one fly." "In the beginning of the year, all that come into the world present themselves before the Lord." There are numberless examples of this kind. The sense of the place is, that Christ, shining forth in the light of the gospel, is a light that lightens all the world. The light of the law shone only upon the Jews; but this light spreads wider, even over the face of the whole earth.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:   

[He gave them power.] He empowered them; so Ecc 5:19; and Ecc 6:2. He gave them the privilege, the liberty, the dignity; of being called and becoming the sons of God. Israel was once the son and the first-born, Exo 4:22; but now the adoption of sons to God was open and free to all nations whatever.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.   

[Which were born, not of blood.] It may be a question here, whether the evangelist in this place opposeth regeneration to natural generation, or only to those ways by which the Jews fancied men were made the sons of God. Expositors treat largely of the former: let us a little consider the latter.   

I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: "Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt -- but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised; and God accepted every one of them and kissed them." "I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live; i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision." The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.   

II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed of Israel and children of the covenant.   

III. Of the will of man; in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.   

These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to us by the gospel.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.   

[The glory as of the only begotten.] This glory in this place imports the same thing as worthy. We saw his glory as what was worthy or became the only-begotten Son of God. He did not glister in any worldly pomp or grandeur according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do; but he was decked with the glory, holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:16

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.   

[And grace for grace.] He appeared amongst us full of grace and truth; and all we who conversed with him, and saw his glory, "of his fulness did receive" grace and truth. Nay farther, we received grace towards the propagation of grace; i.e. the grace of apostleship, that we might dispense and propagate the grace of the gospel towards others.

Lightfoot: Joh 1:21

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.   

[Art thou that prophet?] that is, Luk 9:8; Luk 9:19; one of the old prophets that was risen again.   

I. The Masters of Traditions were wont to say that "the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel after the death of Zechariah and Malachi." So that we do not find they expected any prophet till the days of the Messiah; nor indeed that any, in that interim of time, did pretend to that character.   

II. They believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.   

"'Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,' Isa 52:8. R. Chaia Bar Abba and R. Jochanan say, All the prophets shall put forth a song with one voice."   

"All the just whom God shall raise from the dead shall not return again into the dust." Gloss, "Those whom he shall raise in the days of the Messiah."   

To this resurrection of the saints they apply that of Mic 5:5; "We shall raise against him seven shepherds; David in the middle, Adam, Seth, Methuselah on his right hand; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses on his left. And eight principal men: but who are these? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah [or rather Hezekiah, as Kimch. in loc.], Messiah and Elijah. But indeed [saith R. Solomon] i do not well know whence they had these things." Nor indeed do I.   

The Greek interpreters, instead of eight principal men have eight bitings of men; a very foreign sense.   

Hence by how much nearer still the 'kingdom of heaven,' or the expected time of Messiah's coming, drew on, by so much the more did they dream of the resurrection of the prophets. And when any person of more remarkable gravity, piety, and holiness appeared amongst them, they were ready to conceive of him as a prophet raised from the dead, Mat 16:14. That therefore is the meaning of this question, "Art thou one of the prophets raised from the dead?"

PBC: Joh 1:11

See Philpot: THE HEAVENLY BIRTH AND ITS EARTHLY COUNTERFEITS

PBC: Joh 1:13

The new birth is not the product of human lineage (" not of blood" ), nor is it the result of a human relationship (" nor of the will of the flesh" ), nor the result of a human decision (" nor of the will of man." ) Man’s will is not instrumental in his new birth. Man is born " of God" the preposition " of" denoting source or origin. People are not born again as a result of something they do, but solely on the basis of God’s sovereign will and power.

260

PBC: Joh 1:18

" No man hath seen God at any time"

We are not capable of seeing God the Father in His great glory. He is invisible to us. But through grace and faith, we are able to see Jesus who is the image of the invisible God. No wonder Jesus told the disciples if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. {Joh 14:9} No wonder Isaiah wrote that His name would be called " ... The everlasting Father..."{ Isa 9:6}

261

Haydock: Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the word: [1] or rather, the word was in the beginning. The eternal word, the increated wisdom, the second Person of the blessed Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, as he is here called (ver. 14.) of the same nature and substance, and the same God, with the Father and Holy Ghost. This word was always; so that it was never true to say, he was not, as the Arians blasphemed. This word was in the beginning. Some, by the beginning, expound the Father himself, in whom he was always. Others give this plain and obvious sense, that the word, or the Son of God, was, when all other things began to have a being; he never began, but was from all eternity. ---

And the word was with God; i.e. was with the Father; and as it is said, (ver. 18) in the bosom of the Father; which implies, that he is indeed a distinct person, but the same in nature and substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is repeated again in the second verse, as repetitions are very frequent in St. John. ---

And the word was God. This without question is the construction; where, according to the letter we read, and God was the word. (Witham) ---

The Greek for the word is Greek: Logos, which signifies not only the exterior word, but also the interior word, or thought; and in this latter sense it is taken here. (Bible de Vence) ---

Philo Judæus, in the apostolic age, uses the word Greek: Logos, p. 823, to personify the wisdom and the power of God. Greek: Logos estin eikon Theou di ou sumpas o Kosmos edemiourgeito. By a similar metonymy, Jesus Christ is called the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection. ---

And the word was God. Here the eternity and the divinity of the second Person are incontrovertibly established; or, we must say that language has no longer a fixed meaning, and that it is impossible to establish any point whatever from the words of Scripture. (Haydock)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et Deus erat Verbum, Greek: kai theos en o logos. Greek: Logos was a word very proper to give all that should believe a right notion of the Messias, and of the true Son of God. Greek: Logos, according to St. Jerome, (Ep. ad Paulinum. tom. iv. part 2, p. 570. Ed. Ben.) signifies divers things; as, the wisdom of the Father, his internal word or conception; and, as it were, the express image of the invisible God. Here it is not taken for any absolute divine attribute or perfection; but for the divine Son, or the second Person, as really distinct from the other two divine Persons. And that by Greek: Logos, was to be understood him that was truly God, the Maker and Creator of all things; the Jews might easily understand, by what they read adn frequently heard in the Chaldaic Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, which was read to them in the time of our Saviour, Christ, and at the time when St. John wrote his gospel. In this Paraphrase they were accustomed to hear that the Hebrew word Memreth, to which corresponded in Greek, Logos, was put for him that was God: as Isaias xlv. 12, I made the earth; in this Targum, I, by my word, made the earth: Isaias xlviii. 13, My hand also hath founded the earth; in this Paraphrase, in my word I founded the earth: Genesis iii. 8, They heard the voice of the Lord God; in the Paraphrase, the voice of the word of God. See Walton, prolog. xii, num. 18, p. 86.; Maldonatus on this place; Petavius, lib. vi. de Trin. chap. 1.; Dr. Pearson on the Creed, p. 11.; Dr. Hammond's note on St. Luke, chap. i, p. 203, &c. However, St. John shews us that he meant him who was the true God, by telling us that the world, and every thing that was made, was made by this word, or Greek: Logos; that in this word was life; that he was in the world, and was the light of the world; that he had glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, &c.

Haydock: Joh 1:2

The same was in the beginning with God. In the text is only, "this was in the beginning;" but the sense and construction certainly is, this word was in the beginning. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:3

All things were made by him, [2] and without him was made nothing that was made. These words teach us, that all created being, visible or invisible on earth, every thing that ever was made, or began to be, were made, produced, and created by this eternal word, or by the Son of God. The same is truly said of the Holy Ghost; all creatures being equally produced, created, and preserved by the three divine Persons as, by their proper, principal, and efficient cause, in the same manner, and by the same action: not by the Son, in any manner inferior to the Father; nor as if the Son produced things only ministerially, and acted only as the minister, and instrument of the Father, as the Arians pretended. In this sublime mystery of one God and three distinct Persons, if we consider the eternal processions, and personal proprieties, the Father is the first Person, but not by any priority of time, or of dignity; all the three divine Persons being eternal, or co-eternal, equal in all perfections, being one in nature, in substance, in power, in majesty: in a word, one and the same God. The Father in no other sense is called the first Person, but because he proceeds from none, or from no other person: and the eternal Son is the second Person begotten, and proceeding from him, the Father, from all eternity, proceeds now, and shall proceed from him for all eternity; as we believe that the third divine Person, the Holy Ghost, always proceeded without any beginning, doth now proceed, and shall proceed for ever, both from the Father and the Son. But when we consider and speak of any creatures, of any thing that was made, or had a beginning, all things were equally created in time, and are equally preserved, no less by the Son, and by the Holy Ghost, than by the Father. For this reason St. John tells us again in this chapter, (ver. 10.) that the world was made by the word. And our Saviour himself (John v. 19.) tells us, that whatsoever the Father doth, these things also in like manner, or in the same manner, the Son doth. Again the apostle, (Hebrews i. ver. 2.) speaking of the Son, says, the world was made by him: and in the same chapter, (ver. 10.) he applies to the Son these words, (Psalm ci. 26.) And thou, O Lord, in the beginning didst found the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands, &c. To omit other places, St. Paul again, writing to the Colossians, (Chap. i. ver. 16, 17.) and speaking of God's beloved Son, as may be seen in that chapter, says, that in him all things were created, visible and invisible---all things were created in him, and by him, or, as it is in the Greek, unto him, and for him; to shew that the Son was not only the efficient cause, the Maker and Creator of all things, but also the last end of all. Which is also confirmed by the following words: And he is before all, and all things subsist in him, or consist in him; as in the Rheims and Protestant translations. I have, therefore, in this third verse, translated, all things were made by him, with all English translations and paraphrases, whether made by Catholics or Protestants; and not all things were made through him, lest through should seem to carry with it a different and a diminishing signification; or as if, in the creation of the world, the eternal word, or the Son of God, produced things only ministerially, and, in a manner, inferior to the Father, as the Arians and Eunomians pretended; against whom, on this account, wrote St. Basil, lib. de spiritu Sto. St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril, on this very verse; where they expressly undertake to shew that the Greek text in this verse no ways favours these heretics. The Arians, and now the Socinians, who deny the Son to be true God, or that the word God applies as properly to him as to the Father, but would have him called God, that is, a nominal god, in an inferior and improper sense; as when Moses called the goa of Pharao; (Exodus vii. 1.) or as men in authority are called gods; (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) pretend, after Origen, to find another difference in the Greek text; as if, when mention is made of the Father, he is styled the God; but that the Son is only called God, or a God. This objection St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and others, have shewn to be groundless: that pretended significant Greek article being several times omitted, when the word God is applied to God the Father; and being found in other places, when the Son of God is called God. See this objection fully and clearly answered by the author of a short book, published in the year 1729, against Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, p. 64, and seq. (Witham) ---

Were made, &c. Mauduit here represents the word: ---"1. As a cause, or principle, acting extraneously from himself upon the void space, in order to give a being to all creatures:" whereas there was no void space before the creation. Ante omnia Deus erat solus, ipse sibe et mundus et locus, et omnia. (Tertullian, lib. cont. Prax. chap. v.) And St. Augustine in Psalm cxxii. says: antequam faceret Deus Sanctos, ubi habitabat? In se habitabat, apud se habitabat. ---

The creation of all things, visible and invisible, was the work of the whole blessed Trinity; but the Scriptures generally attribute it to the word; because wisdom, reason, and intelligence, which are the attributes of the Son, are displayed most in it. (Calmet) ---

What wonderful tergiversations the Arians used to avoid the evidence of this text, we see in St. Augustine, lib. iii. de doct. Christ. chap. 2; even such as modern dissenters do, to avoid the evidence of This is my Body, concerning the blessed Eucharist. (Bristow)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: Greek: panta di autou egeneto: all things were made by him. Let not any one pretend that Greek: di autou, in this verse signifies no more than, that all creatures were made by the Word, or Son of God, ministerially as if he was only the instrument of the eternal Father, the chief and principal cause of all things; of whom the apostle says, Greek: ex ou ta panta, ex ipso omnia. ---

Origen unless perhaps his writings were corrupted by the Arians, seems to have given occasion to this Greek: leptalogia, as St. Basil calls it, to groundless quibbling and squabbling about the sense of the prepositions; when he tells us, (tom. ii, in Joan. p. 55. Ed. Huetii.) the Greek: di ou never has the first place, but always the second place, meaning as to dignity: Greek: oudepote ten proten choran echei to di ou deuteran de aei. It is like many other false and unwarrantable assertions in Origen; as when we find in the same commentary on St. John, that he says only God the Father is called Greek: o Theos. Origen may perhaps be excused as to what he writes about Greek: di ou and Greek: ex ou, as if he spoke only with a regard to the divine processions in God, in which the Father is the first person, from whom proceeds even the eternal Son, the second person. But whatever Origen thought, or meant, whom St. Epiphanius calls the father of Arius, whose works, as then extant, were condemned in the fifth General Council; it appears that the Arians, in particular Aetius, of the Eunomian sect, pretended that Greek: ex ou had always a more eminent signification, and was only applied to the Father; the Father, said he, being the true God, the only principal efficient cause of all things; and Greek: di ou was applied to the word, or Son of God, who was not the same true God, to signify his interior and ministerial production, as he was the instrument of the Father. Aetius, without regard to other places in the Scripture, as we read in St. Basil, (lib. de Sp. S. chap. ii. p. 293. Ed Morelli. an. 1637) produced these words of the apostle: (1 Corinthians viii. 6.) Greek: eis Theos, pater, ex ou ta panta ... kai eis kurios, Iesous Christos; di ou panta: unus Deus, Pater, ex quo omnia, ... et unus Dominus Jesus Christus; per quem omnia. He concluded from hence, that as the prepositions were different, so were the natures and substance of the Father and of the Son. ---

But that no settled and certain rule can be built on these prepositions, and that Greek: di ou, in this third verse of the first chapter of St. John, has no diminishing signification, so that the Son was equally the proper and principal efficient cause of all things that were made and created, we have the authority of the greatest doctors, and the most learned and exact writers of the Greek Church, who knew both the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the rules and use of the Greek tongue. ---

St. Basil (lib. de Spir. S. chap. iii. et seq.) ridicules this Greek: leptologian, which, he says, had its origin from the vain and profane philosophy of the heathen writers, about the difference of causes. He denies that there is any fixed rule; and brings examples, in which Greek: di ou is applied to the Father, and Greek: ex ou to the Son. ---

St. Gregory of Nazianzus denies this difference, (Orat. xxxvii, p. 604. Ed. Morelli. Parisiis, ann. 1630) and affirms that Greek: ex ou, and Greek: di ou, in this verse, has no diminishing nor inferior signification: Greek: ei de to di ou nomizeis elattoseos einai, &c. ---

St. Cyril of Alexandria, (lib. i. in Joan. p. 48.) makes the very same remark, and with the like examples. His words are: Quod si existiment (Ariani) per quem, Greek: di ou, substantiam ejus (Filii) de æqualitate cum Patre dejicere, ita ut minister sit potius quam creator, ad se redeant insaui, &c. ---

St. Ambrose, a doctor of the Latin Church, (lib. ii. de Sp. S. 10. p. 212. 213. Ed. Par. an. 1586.) confutes, with St. Basil, the groundless and pretended differences of ex quo and per quem. ---

I shall only here produce that one passage in Romans, (Chap. xi. 36.) which St. Basil and St. Ambrose make use of, where we read: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, ( Greek: ex autou, kai di autou, kai eis auton ta panta ) et in ipsum omnia. Now either we expound all the three parts of this sentence, as spoken of the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, (as both St. Basil and St. Ambrose understand them) and then Greek: ex ou is applied to the Son; or we understand them of the Father, and Greek: di ou is applied to the first Person: or, in fine, as St. Augustine observes, (lib. i. de Trin. chap. 6.) we interpret them in such a manner, that the first part be understood of the Father, the second of the Son, the third of the Holy Ghost; and then the words that immediately follow in the singular number, to him be glory for ever, shew that all the three Persons are but one in nature, one God; and to all, and to each of the three Persons, the whole sentence belongs. ---

Had I not already said more than may seem necessary on these words, I might add all the Greek bishops in the council of Florence, when they came to an union with the Latin bishops about the procession of the Holy Ghost. After may passages had been quoted out of the ancient Fathers, some of which had said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, Greek: ek tou patros, kai ek tou uiou, many others had asserted that he proceeded Greek: ek tou Patros dia tou uiou; Bessarion, the learned Grecian bishop, in a long oration, (Sess. 25.) shewed that Greek: di uiou was the same as Greek: ek tou uiou. The Fathers, said he, shew, Greek: deiknusin isodunamousan te ek ten dia. See tom. xiii. Conc. Lab. p. 435. All the others allowed this to be true, as the emperor John Paleologus observed. (p. 487.) And the patriarch of Constantinople, when he was about to subscribe, declared the same: Greek: esti to dia tou uiou, tauton to ek tou uiou. Can any one imagine that none of these learned Grecians should know the force and use of these two prepositions, in their own language?

Haydock: Joh 1:4

In him: i.e. in this word, or Son of God, was life; because he give life to every creature. Or, as Maldonatus expounds it, because he is the author of grace, which is the spiritual life of our souls. ---

And the life was the light of men, whether we expound it of a rational soul and understanding, which he gives to all men; or of the spiritual life, and those lights of graces, which he gives to Christians. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:5

And the light shineth, or did shine, in darkness. Many understand this, that the light of reason, which God gave to every one, might have brought them to the knowledge of God by the visible effects of his Providence in this world: but the darkness did not comprehend it, because men, blinded by their passions, would not attend to the light of reason. Or we may again understand it, with Maldonatus, of the lights of grace, against which obstinate sinners wilfully shut their eyes. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:7

That all men might believe through him; i.e. by John the Baptist's preaching, who was God's instrument to induce them to believe in Jesus the Christ, or the Messias, their only Redeemer. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:8-9

He; that is John the Baptist, was not the true light: but the word was the true light. In the translation, it is necessary to express that the word was the true light, lest any one should think that John the Baptist was this light. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:10

He was in the world, &c. Many of the ancient interpreters understand this verse of Christ as God, who was in the world from its first creation, producing and governing all things: but the blind sinful world did not know and worship him. Others apply these words to the Son of God made man; whom even God's own chosen people, the Jews, at his coming, refused to receive and believe in him. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:11

His own. This regards principally the Jews. Jesus came to them as into his own family, but they did not receive him. It may likewise be extended to the Gentiles, who had groaned so long a time in darkness, and only seemed to wait for the rising sun of justice to run to its light. They likewise did not receive him. These words, though apparently general, must be understood with restriction; as there were some, though comparatively few, of both Jews and Gentiles, who embraced the faith. (Calmet)

Haydock: Joh 1:12

He gave to them power to be made the adoptive sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. They are made the children of God by believing and by a new spiritual birth in the sacrament of baptism, not of blood; (literally, no of bloods) not by the will, and desires of the flesh, not by the will of men, nor by human generation, as children are first born of their natural parents, but of God, by faith and divine grace. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:14

And the word was made flesh. This word, or Son of God, who was in the beginning, from all eternity, at the time appointed by the divine decrees, was made flesh, i.e. became man, by a true and physical union of his divine person, (from which the divine nature was inseparable) to our human nature, to a human soul, and a human body, in the womb, and of the substance, of his virgin Mother. From the moment of Christ's incarnation, as all Christians are taught to believe, he that was God from eternity, became also true man. In Jesus Christ, our blessed Redeemer, we believe one divine Person with two natures, and two wills; the one divine, the other human: by which substantial union, one and the same Person became truly both God and man; not two persons, or two sons, as Nestorius, the heretic, pretended. By this union, and a mutual communication of the proprieties of each nature, it is true to say, that the Son of God, remaining unchangeably God, was made man; and therefore that God was truly conceived and born of the virgin Mary, who, on this account, was truly the Mother of God: that God was born, suffered, and died on the cross, to redeem and save us. The word, in this manner made man, dwelt in us, or among us, by this substantial union with our human nature, not morally only, nor after such a manner, as God is said to dwell in a temple; nor as he is in his faithful servants, by a spiritual union, that the same person is truly both God and man. ---

And we saw his glory, manifested to the world by many signs and miracles; we in particular, who were present at his transfiguration. (Matthew xvii.) ---

Full of grace and truth. These words, in the construction, are to be joined in this manner: the word dwelt in us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, &c. This fulness of grace in Christ Jesus, infinitely surpassed the limited fulness, which the Scripture attributes to St. Stephen, (Acts vi. 8.) or to the blessed virgin Mother: (Luke i. 28.) they are said to be full of grace, only because of an extraordinary communication and greater share of graces than was given to other saints. But Christ, even as man, his grace and sanctity were infinite, as was his person. ---

As of the only begotten of the Father. [3] If we consider Christ in himself, and not only as he was made known to men by outward signs and miracles, St. John Chrysostom and others take notice that the word as, no ways diminisheth the signification; and that the sense is, we have seen the glory of him, who is truly from all eternity the only begotten Son of the Father: who, as the Scriptures assure us, is his true, his proper Son, his only begotten, who was sent into the world, who descended from heaven, and came from the Father, and leaving the world, returned where he was before, returned to his Father. We shall meet with many such Scripture texts, to shew him to be the eternal Son of his eternal Father; or to shew that the Father was always his Father, and the Son always his Son: as it was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, and as such declared in the general council of Nice, that this, his only Son, was born or begotten of the Father before all ages ... God from God, the true God from the true God. It was by denying this truth, "that the Son was the Son always, and the Father always, and from all eternity, the Father;" that the blaspheming Arius began his heresy in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, against his bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander. See the letter copied by St. Epiphanius, Hær. 69. p. 731. Ed. Petavii. (Witham) ---

Dwelt among us. In a material body, like ours, clothed with our nature. He is become mortal, and like us in every thing, but sin and concupiscence. The Greek literally translated, is, he has pitched his tent amongst us, like a stranger and passenger, who makes no long stay in one place. The body in Scripture, is sometimes called a tent or tabernacle, in which the soul dwells, as 2 Peter i. 14. (Calmet)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Gloriam quasi Unigeniti, Greek: os monogenous. St. John Chrysostom says, the word quasi, Greek: os, does no ways here diminish, be even confirms and increases the signification; as when we say of a king, that he carries himself like a king. Greek: To de os entauthen ouch omoioseos estin, alla bebaioseos.

Haydock: Joh 1:15

Is preferred before me. [4] Literally, is made before me. The sense, says St. John Chrysostom is, that he is greater in dignity, deserves greater honour, &c. though born after me, he was from eternity. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

and 27. Aute me factus est, Greek: emprosthen mou gegonen, is preferred before me: St. John Chrysostom says, he is Greek: lamproteros, entimoteros, illustrios, honorabilior.

Haydock: Joh 1:16

And of his fulness we all have received; not only Jews, but also all nations. ---

And grace for grace. [5] It may perhaps be translated grace upon grace, as Mr. Blackwall observes, and brings a parallel example in Greek out of Theognis, p. 164. It implies abundance of graces, and greater graces under the new law of Christ than in the time of the law of Moses; which exposition is confirmed by the following verse. (Witham) ---

Before the coming of the Messias all men had the light of reason. The Greeks had their philosophy, the Jews the law and prophets. All this was a grace and favour bestowed by God, the author of all good. But since the word was made flesh, and caused the gospel of salvation to be announced to all men; he has invited all nations to the faith and knowledge of the truth. Thus he has given us one grace for another; but the second is infinitely greater, more excellent, and more abundant than the first. The following verse seems to insinuate, that the evangelist means the law by the first grace, and the gospel by the second. Compare likewise Romans i. 17. The Jews were conducted by faith to faith; by faith in God and the law of Moses, to the faith of the gospel, announced by Christ. (Calmet)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Gratiam pro gratia, Greek: charin anti charitos, gratiam; so Job, (ii. 4.) pellem pro pelle, i.e. omnem pellem.

====================

Haydock: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God. No mortal in this life by a perfect union and enjoyment of him. Nor can any creature perfectly comprehend his infinite greatness: none but his only begotten divine Son, who is in the bosom of his Father, not only by an union of grace, but by an union and unity of substance and nature; of which Christ said, (John xiv. 11.) I am in the Father, and the Father in me. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 1:19

The Jews sent, &c. These men, who were priests and Levites, seem to have been sent and deputed by the sanhedrim, or great council at Jerusalem, to ask of John the Baptist, who was then in great esteem and veneration, whether he was not their Messias; who, as they knew by the predictions of the prophets, was to come about that time. John declared to them he was not. To their next question, if he was not Elias? He answered: he was not: because in person he was not; though our Saviour (Matthew xi. 14.) says he was Elias: to wit, in spirit and office only. Their third question was, if he was a prophet? He answered, no. Yet Christ (Matthew xi.) tells us, he was a prophet, and more than a prophet. In the ordinary acceptation only, they were called prophets who foretold things to come: John then, with truth, as well as humility, could say he was not a prophet; not being sent to foretell the coming of the Messias, but to point him out as already come, and present with the Jews. (Witham)

Gill: Joh 1:1

In the beginning was the word,.... That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to Joh 1:14 as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ, Joh 1:15. And likewise from what this evangelist elsewhere says of him, when he calls him the word of life, and places him between the Father and the Holy Ghost; and speaks of the record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, as the same thing; and represents him as a warrior and conqueror, 1Jo 1:1. Moreover this appears to be spoken of Christ, from what other inspired writers have said of him, under the same character; as the Evangelist Luke, Luk 1:2, the Apostle Paul, Act 20:32 and the Apostle Peter, 2Pe 3:5. And who is called the word, not as man; for as man he was not in the beginning with God, but became so in the fulness of time; nor is the man God; besides, as such, he is a creature, and not the Creator, nor is he the life and light of men; moreover, he was the word, before he was man, and therefore not as such: nor can any part of the human nature be so called; not the flesh, for the word was made flesh; nor his human soul, for self-subsistence, deity, eternity, and the creation of all things, can never be ascribed to that; but he is the word as the Son of God, as is evident from what is here attributed to him, and from the word being said to be so, as in Joh 1:14 and from those places, where the word is explained by the Son, compare 1Jo 5:5. And is so called from his nature, being begotten of the Father; for as the word, whether silent or expressed, is the birth of the mind, the image of it, equal to it, and distinct from it; so Christ is the only begotten of the Father, the express image of his person, in all things equal to him, and a distinct person from him: and he may be so called, from some action, or actions, said of him, or ascribed to him; as that he spoke for, and on the behalf of the elect of God, in the eternal council and covenant of grace and peace; and spoke all things out of nothing, in creation; for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, as he was in Eden's garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, מימרא דיי, "the word of the Lord", so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them: that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius ^f, a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master's doctrine: his words are these,

"and this was truly "Logos", or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man.

In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews ^g, and understood prophecy ^h, and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy ⁱ; but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests ^k, and to understand the rites of the prophets ^l; and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms ^m, he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher ⁿ, charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses "Atticising?" or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius ^o, an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown. Moreover, the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews, and may be the reason of the evangelist's using it. This word, he says, was in the beginning; by which is meant, not the Father of Christ; for he is never called the beginning, but the Son only; and was he, he must be such a beginning as is without one; nor can he be said to be so, with respect to the Son or Spirit, who are as eternal as himself; only with respect to the creatures, of whom he is the author and efficient cause: Christ is indeed in the Father, and the Father in him, but this cannot be meant here; nor is the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, by the preaching of John the Baptist, intended here: John's ministry was an evangelical one, and the Gospel was more clearly preached by him, and after him, by Christ and his apostles, than before; but it did not then begin; it was preached before by the angel to the shepherds, at the birth of Christ; and before that, by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden: nor did Christ begin to be, when John began to preach; for John's preaching and baptism were for the manifestation of him: yea, Christ existed as man, before John began to preach; and though he was born after him as man, yet as the Word and Son of God, he existed before John was born; he was in being in the times of the prophets, which were before John; and in the times of Moses, and before Abraham, and in the days of Noah: but by the beginning is here meant, the beginning of the world, or the creation of all things; and which is expressive of the eternity of Christ, he was in the beginning, as the Maker of all creatures, and therefore must be before them all: and it is to be observed, that it is said of him, that in the beginning he was; not made, as the heavens and earth, and the things in them were; nor was he merely in the purpose and predestination of God, but really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father: so Philo the Jew often calls the Logos, or word, the eternal word, the most ancient word, and more ancient than any thing that is made ^p. The eternity of the Messiah is acknowledged by the ancient Jews: Mic 5:2 is a full proof of it; which by them ^q is thus paraphrased,

"out of thee, before me, shall come forth the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel; whose name is said from eternity, from the days of old.

Jarchi upon it only mentions Psa 72:17 which is rendered by the Targum on the place, before the sun his name was prepared; it may be translated, "before the sun his name was Yinnon"; that is, the Son, namely the Son of God; and Aben Ezra interprets it, יקרא בן, "he shall be called the son"; and to this agrees what the Talmudisis say ^r, that the name of the Messiah was before the world was created; in proof of which they produce the same passage,

And the word was with God; not with men or angels; for he was before either of these; but with God, not essentially, but personally considered; with God his Father: not in the Socinian sense, that he was only known to him, and to no other before the ministry of John the Baptist; for he was known and spoken of by the angel Gabriel before; and was known to Mary and to Joseph; and to Zacharias and Elisabeth; to the shepherds, and to the wise men; to Simeon and Anna, who saw him in the temple; and to the prophets and patriarchs in all ages, from the beginning of the world: but this phrase denotes the existence of the word with the Father, his relation and nearness to him, his equality with him, and particularly the distinction of his person from him, as well as his eternal being with him; for he was always with him, and is, and ever will be; he was with him in the council and covenant of grace, and in the creation of the universe, and is with him in the providential government of the world; he was with him as the word and Son of God in heaven, whilst he as man, was here on earth; and he is now with him, and ever will be: and as John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; Psa 110:1 "the Lord said to my Lord", is rendered, "the Lord said to his word"; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in Hos 1:7 the Lord promises to "have mercy on the house of Judah", and "save them by the Lord their God". The Targum is, "I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God"; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of "the word" being "with God", is in the Targums expressed by, מימר מן קדם, "the word from before the Lord", or "which is before the Lord": being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases Gen 31:22 "and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban", &c. and Exo 20:19 thus, "and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die"; for so it is read in the King of Spain's Bible; and wisdom, which is the same with the word of God, is said to be by him, or with him, in Pro 8:1 agreeably to which John here speaks. John makes use of the word God, rather than Father, because the word is commonly called the word of God, and because of what follows,

and the word was God; not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, Joh 1:6 and which shows, that the word "God", is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Gen 28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos,

"if "the word of the Lord" will be my help, and will keep me, &c. then "the word of the Lord" shall be, לי לאלהא, "my God":

again, Lev 26:12 is paraphrased, by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, thus,

"I will cause the glory of my Shekinah to dwell among you, and my word shall "be your God", the Redeemer;

once more, Deu 26:17 is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum after this manner,

"ye have made "the word of the Lord" king over you this day, that he may be your God:

and this is frequent with Philo the Jew, who says, the name of God is his word, and calls him, my Lord, the divine word; and affirms, that the most ancient word is God ^s,

Gill: Joh 1:2

The same was in the beginning with God. This is a repetition of what is before said, and is made to show the importance of the truths before delivered; namely, the eternity of Christ, his distinct personality, and proper deity; and that the phrase, in the beginning, is to be joined to each of the above sentences; and so proves, not only his eternal existence, but his eternal existence with the Father, and also his eternal deity; and is also made to carry on the thread of the discourse, concerning the word, and not God the Father; and to express, not only his co-existence in nature, but his co-operation in the works of creation next mentioned.

Gill: Joh 1:3

All things were made by him,.... Which is a proof at once of all that is said before; as that he was in the beginning; and that he was with God the Father in the beginning; and that he was God; otherwise all things could not have been made by him, had either of these been untrue: which is to be understood, not of the new creation; for this would be a restraining "all" things to a "few" persons only; nor is it any where said, that all things are new made, but made; and it is false, that all were converted, that have been converted, by the ministry of Christ, as man: all men are not renewed, regenerated, nor reformed; and the greater part of those that were renewed, were renewed before Christ existed, as man; and therefore could not be renewed by him, as such: though indeed, could this sense be established, it would not answer the end for which it is coined; namely, to destroy the proof of Christ's deity, and of his existence before his incarnation; for in all ages, from the beginning of the world, some have been renewed; and the new creation is a work of God, and of almighty power, equally with the old; for who can create spiritual light, infuse a principle of spiritual life, take away the heart of stone, and give an heart of flesh, or produce faith, but God? Regeneration is denied to be of man, and is always ascribed to God; nor would Christ's being the author of the new creation, be any contradiction to his being the author of the old creation, which is intended here: by "all things", are meant the heaven, and all its created inhabitants, the airy, starry, and third heavens, and the earth, and all therein, the sea, and every thing that is in that; and the word, or Son of God, is the efficient cause of all these, not a bare instrument of the formation of them; for the preposition by does not always denote an instrument, but sometimes an efficient, as in 1Co 1:9 and so here, though not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit:

and without him was not any thing made that was made: in which may be observed the conjunct operation of the word, or Son, with the Father, and Spirit, in creation; and the extent of his concern in it to every thing that is made; for without him there was not one single thing in the whole compass of the creation made; and the limitation of it to things that are made; and so excludes the uncreated being, Father, Son, and Spirit; and sin also, which is not a principle made by God, and which has no efficient, but a deficient cause. So the Jews ascribe the creation of all things to the word. The Targumists attribute the creation of man, in particular, to the word of God: it is said in Gen 1:27. "God created man in his own image": the Jerusalem Targum of it is,

"and the word of the Lord created man in his likeness.

And Gen 3:22 "and the Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of us", the same Targum paraphrases thus,

"and the word of the Lord God said, behold the man whom I have created, is the only one in the world.

Also in the same writings, the creation of all things in general is ascribed to the word: the passage in Deu 33:27 "the eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms", is paraphrased by Onkelos,

"the eternal God is an habitation, by whose word the world was made.

In Isa 48:13 it is said, "mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth". The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah on it is,

"yea, by my word I have founded the earth:

which agrees with what is said in Heb 11:3, and the same says Philo the Jew, who not only calls him the archetype, and exemplar of the world, but the power that made it: he often ascribes the creation of the heavens, and the earth unto him, and likewise the creation of man after whose image, he says, he was made ^t. The Ethiopic version adds, at the end of this verse, "and also that which is made is for himself",

Gill: Joh 1:4

In him was life,.... The Persic version reads in the plural number, "lives". There was life in the word with respect to himself; a divine life, the same with the life of the Father and of the Spirit; and is in him, not by gift, nor by derivation or communication; but originally, and independently, and from all eternity: indeed he lived before his incarnation as Mediator, and Redeemer. Job knew him in his time, as his living Redeemer; but this regards him as the word and living God, and distinguishes him from the written word, and shows that he is not a mere idea in the divine mind, but a truly divine person: and there was life in Christ the word, with respect to others; the fountain of natural life is in him, he is the efficient cause, and preserver of it; whether vegetative, animal, or rational; and proves him to be truly God, and that he existed before his incarnation; since creatures, who have received such a life from him, did: and spiritual life was also in him; all his elect are dead in trespasses and sins, and cannot quicken themselves. Christ has procured life for them, and gives it to them, and implants it in them; a life of sanctification is from him; and a life of justification is upon him, and of faith is by him; all the comforts of a spiritual life, and all things appertaining to it, are from him, and he maintains, and preserves it. Eternal life is in him, and with him; not the purpose of it only, nor the promise of it barely, but the gift of it itself; which was granted in consequence of his asking it, and which he had by way of stipulation; and hence has a right and power to bestow it: now, this being in him proves him to be the true God, and shows us where life is to be had, and the safety and security of it:

and the life was the light of men; the life which was in, and by the word, was, with respect to men, a life of light, or a life attended with light: by which is meant, not a mere visive faculty, receptive of the sun's light, but rational knowledge and understanding; for when Christ, the word, breathed into man the breath of life, and he became a living soul, he filled him with rational light and knowledge. Adam had a knowledge of God; of his being, and perfections; of the persons in the Trinity; of his relation to God, dependence on him, and obligation to him; of his mind and will; and knew what it was to have communion with him. He knew much of himself, and of all the creatures; this knowledge was natural and perfect in its kind, but loseable; and different from that which saints now have of God, through Christ, the Mediator; and since this natural light was from Christ, the word, as a Creator, he must be the eternal God. The Socinians are not willing to allow this sense, but say that Christ is the light of men, by preaching the heavenly doctrine, and by the example of his holy life; but hereby he did not enlighten every man that cometh into the world; the greatest part of men, before the preaching, and example of Christ, sat in darkness; and the greatest part of the Jews remained in darkness, notwithstanding his preaching, and example; and the patriarchs that were enlightened under the former dispensation, were not enlightened this way: it will be owned, that all spiritual and supernatural light, which any of the sons of men have had, since the fall, was from Christ, from whom they had their spiritual life; even all spiritual light in conversion, and all after degrees of light; through him they enjoyed the light of God's countenance, and had the light of joy and gladness here, and of glory hereafter.

Gill: Joh 1:5

And the light shineth in darkness,.... Which, through sin, came upon the minds of men; who are naturally in the dark about the nature and perfections of God; about sin, and the consequences of it; about Christ, and salvation by him; about the Spirit of God, and his work upon the soul; and about the Scriptures of truth, and the doctrines of the Gospel. Man was created a knowing creature, but, not content with his knowledge, sins, and is banished from the presence of God, the fountain of light; which brought a darkness on him, and his posterity, and which is increased in them by personal iniquity, and in which Satan, the god of this world, has an hand; and sometimes they are left to judicial blindness, and which issues in worse darkness, if grace prevents not: now amidst this darkness there were some remains of the light of nature: with respect to the being of God, which shines in the works of creation and providence and to the worship of God, though very dimly; and to the knowledge of moral good and evil:

and the darkness comprehended it not; or "perceived it not"; as the Syriac version renders it. By the light of nature, and the remains of it, men could not come to any clear and distinct knowledge of the above things; and much less to any knowledge of the true way of salvation: unless, rather by the light should be meant, the light of the Messiah, or of the Gospel shining in the figures, types, and shadows of the law, and in the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament: and yet, such was the darkness upon the minds of men, that they could not very distinctly apprehend it, and much less fully comprehend it, so that there was need of a fresh and fuller revelation; an account of which follows;

Gill: Joh 1:6

There was a man sent from God,.... John the Baptist: he was not the Logos, or word; nor was he an angel, but a man; yet an extraordinary one, in his conception of a barren woman, and in being born when both parents were stricken in years; and whilst he was in the womb, he leaped for joy at the salutation of Mary; and as soon as born was filled with the Holy Ghost; and when he was grown up, and appeared in public, it was in an uncommon manner: his dress and his diet were both out of the common way; and his temper and spirit were that of Elias the prophet; and as for his work and office, it was very peculiar; he was the forerunner of Christ, and the first administrator of the new ordinance of baptism, and the greatest of all the prophets: this person had his mission from God, both to preach and baptize:

whose name was John; the name given him by the angel before his conception, and by his mother Elisabeth, after her neighbours and cousins had given him another; and which was confirmed by his father Zacharias, when deaf and dumb: it signifies grace, or gracious; and a gracious man he was; he was very acceptable to his parents; a man that had the grace of God in him, and great gifts of grace bestowed on him; he was a preacher of the doctrines of grace; and his ministry was very grateful to many.

Gill: Joh 1:7

The same came for a witness,.... The end of his being sent, and the design of his coming were,

to bear witness of the light: by which is meant, not the light of nature, or reason; nor the light of the Gospel: but Christ himself, the author of light, natural, spiritual, and eternal. This was one of the names of the Messiah with the Jews; of whom they say ^u, נהירא שמו, "light is his name"; as it is said in Dan 2:22 and the light dwelleth with him; on which they have ^w elsewhere this gloss, this is the King Messiah; and so they interpret Psa 43:3 of him ^x. Philo the Jew often speaks of the Logos, or word, as light, and calls him the intelligible light; the universal light, the most perfect light; represents him as full of divine light; and says, he is called the sun ^y. Now John came to bear a testimony to him, as he did; of which an account is given in this chapter, very largely, and elsewhere; as that he testified of his existence before his incarnation; of his being with the Father, and in his bosom: of his deity and divine sonship; of his being the Messiah; of the fulness of grace that was in him; of his incarnation and satisfaction; of his descent from heaven; and of his relation to his church, as in Joh 1:15 the end of which witness was,

that all men through him might believe; that is, that the Jews, to whom he preached, might, through his testimony, believe that Jesus was the light, and true Messiah; for these words are to be taken in a limited sense, and not to be extended, to every individual of mankind; since millions were dead before John began his testimony, and multitudes then in being, and since, whom it never reached: nor can it design more than the Jews, to whom alone he bore witness of Christ; and the faith which he taught, and required by his testimony, was an assent unto him as the Messiah; though the preaching of the Gospel is a means of true spiritual faith in Christ; and doubtless it was so to many, as preached by John: it points out the object of faith, and encourages souls to believe in Christ; and hence, Gospel ministers are instruments by whom ethers believe; and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and then is it, considerable end of the Gospel ministry answered,

Gill: Joh 1:8

He was not that light,.... He was a light; he was the forerunner of the sun of righteousness, the "phosphorus" of the Gospel day; he had great light in him; he knew that the Messiah was ready to come, and declared it; and upon his baptism he knew him personally, and signified him to others: he had great light into the person and work of Christ; and into the way of salvation by him, and remission of sins through him; into the doctrines of faith in Christ, and of evangelical repentance towards God; and into the abolition of the legal Mosaic and Jewish dispensation; and was an instrument of giving light to others; yea, he was a burning and shining light, in whose light the Jews rejoiced, at least for a season: but then he was not that light, the word and wisdom of God; that uncreated light that dwelt with him from all eternity; nor that which was the light of men, from the creation; nor that light, which was of old promised to the saints and patriarchs of the Old Testament, and shone in the ordinances and predictions of that state; nor that fountain and giver of light, of every sort, to men; not that light in which is no darkness, and always shines; not that true light, or sun of righteousness, the Messiah, or that lightens every man that comes into the world:

but was sent to bear witness of that light; which is repeated, to distinguish him from that light; to show what he was sent for, and that he acted according to his mission; and to express the honourableness to his work.

Gill: Joh 1:9

That was the true light,.... Christ is that light, that famous and excellent light, the fountain of all light to all creatures; that gave light to the dark earth at first, and spoke light out of darkness; that light of all men in the earth, and of all the angels in heaven, and of all the saints below, and of all the glorified ones above: he is the true light, in distinction from typical lights; the "Urim" of the former dispensation; the candlestick, with the lamps of it; the pillar of fire which directed the Israelites by night in the wilderness; and from all the typical light there was in the institutions and sacrifices of the law; and in opposition to the law itself, which the Jews ^z magnify, and cry up as the light, saying, there is no light but the law; and in opposition to all false lights, as priests, diviners, and soothsayers among the Gentiles, Scribes, and Pharisees, and the learned Rabbins among the Jews, so much boasted of as the lights of the world; and to all false Christs and prophets that have risen, or shall rise, in the world,

Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: the sense is, either that every man that is enlightened in a spiritual manner, is enlightened by him, which is true of Christ, as the Son of God, existing from the beginning; but not in the Socinian sense, as if they were enlightened by his human ministry and example; for the Old Testament saints were not enlightened by his preaching; and many were enlightened by the ministry of John the Baptist; and multitudes afterwards, through the ministry of the apostles; and very few, comparatively, were enlightened under the ministry of Christ; and none we read of, in this sense, enlightened by him, when, and as soon as they came into, the world: or, the meaning is, that he is that light which lighteth all sorts of men; which is true in, a spiritual sense: some connect the phrase, "that cometh into the world", not with "every man", but with the "true light"; and the Arabic version so reads, and joins it to the following verse; but this reading is not so natural and the order of the words requires the common reading; nor is the difficulty removed hereby; for still it is every man that is enlightened: it is best therefore to understand these words of the light of nature, and reason, which Christ, as the word, and Creator and light of men, gives to every man that is born into the world; and which serves to detect the Quakers' notion of the light within, which every man has, and is no other than the light of a natural conscience; and shows how much men, even natural men, are obliged to Christ, and how great a person he is, and how deserving of praise, honour, and glory. The phrase, "every man that cometh into the world", is Jewish, and often to be met with in Rabbinical writings, and signifies all men that are born into the world; the instances are almost innumerable; take one or two: on those words in Job 25:3 on whom doth not his light arise? it is asked ^a, who is he that cometh,

מכל באי עולם, "of all that come into the world"; and says, the sun hath not lightened me by day, nor hath the moon lightened me by night! thou enlightenest those above, and those below, and "all that come into the world".

Again, God is introduced thus speaking ^b:

"I am the God, לכל באי עולם, "of all that come into the world"; and I have not united my name, but to the people of Israel.

Once more ^c,

"Moses, our master, from the mouth of power, (i.e. God; see Mat 26:64.) commanded to oblige, את כל באי העולם, "all that come into the world", to receive the commandments which were commanded the sons of Noah.

Gill: Joh 1:10

He was in the world,.... This is to be understood, not of his incarnation; for the word was denotes past existence in the world, even all the time past from the creation of the world; and the world intends the world in general, as opposed to Judea, and the people of the Jews in the next verse; besides, the incarnation of the word is spoken of in Joh 1:14 as a new and distinct thing from this: but of his being in the world, when first made, and since, by his essence, by which he fills the whole world; and by his power, upholding and preserving it; and by his providence, ordering and managing all the affairs of it, and influencing and governing all things in it: he was in it as the light and life of it, giving natural life and light to creatures in it, and filling it, and them, with various blessings of goodness; and he was in the promise and type before, as well as after the Jews were distinguished from other nations, as his peculiar people; and he was frequently visible in the world, in an human form, before his incarnation, as in Eden's garden to our first parents, to Abraham, Jacob, Manoah, and his wife, and others,

And the world was made by him: so Philo the Jew often ascribes the making of the world to the Logos, or word, as before observed on Joh 1:3 and this regards the whole universe, and all created beings in it, and therefore cannot design the new creation: besides, if all men in the world were anew created by Christ, they would know him; for a considerable branch of the new creation lies in knowledge; whereas, in the very next clause, it is asserted, that the world knew him not; and they would also love him, and obey him, which the generality of the world do not; they would appear to be in him, and so not be condemned by him, as multitudes will. To understand this of the old creation, best suits the context, and proves the deity of Christ, and his pre-existence, as the word, and Son of God, to his incarnation,

And the world knew him not; that is, the inhabitants of the world knew him not as their Creator: nor did they acknowledge the mercies they received from him; nor did they worship, serve, and obey him, or love and fear him; nor did they, the greater part of them, know him as the Messiah, Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer. There was, at first, a general knowledge of Christ throughout the world among all the sons of Adam, after the first promise of him, and which, for a while, continued; but this, in process of time, being neglected and slighted, it was forgot, and utterly lost, as to the greater part of mankind; for the Gentiles, for many hundreds of years, as they knew not the true God, so they were without Christ, without any notion of the Messiah; and this their ignorance, as it was first their sin, became their punishment.

Gill: Joh 1:11

He came unto his own,.... Not all the world, who are his own by right of creation; for these, his own, are opposed to the world, and distinguished from them; and his coming to them designs some particular favour, which is not vouchsafed to all: nor yet are the elect of God intended; though they are Christ's own, in a very special sense; they are his by his own choice, by his Father's gift, by his own purchase, and through the conquest of his grace, and are the objects of his special love; and for their sake he came in the flesh, and to them he comes in a spiritual way, and to them will he appear a second time at the last day unto salvation: but they cannot be meant, because when he comes to them they receive him; whereas these did not, as the next clause affirms: but by his own are meant the whole body of the Jewish nation; so called, because they were chosen by the Lord above all people; had distinguishing favours bestowed upon them, as the adoption, the covenants, the promises, the giving of the law, and the service of God; and had the Shekinah, and the symbol of the divine presence in a remarkable manner among them; and the promise of the Messiah was in a particular manner made to them; and indeed, he was to be born of them, so that they were his kindred, his people, and his own nation: and this his coming to them is to be understood not of his incarnation; though when he came in the flesh, as he came of them, so he came to them, particularly being sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and was rejected by them as the Messiah; yet his incarnation is afterwards spoken of in Joh 1:14 as a new and distinct thing from this; and to understand it of some coming of his before his incarnation, best suits with the context, and the design of the evangelist. Now Christ, the word, came to the Jews before his incarnation, not only in types, personal and real, and in promises and prophecies, and in the word and ordinances, but in person; as to Moses in the bush, and gave orders to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt: he came and redeemed them himself with a mighty hand, and a outstretched arm; in his love and pity he led them through the Red Sea as on dry ground; and through the wilderness in a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night; and he appeared to them at Mount Sinai, who gave unto them the lively oracles of God:

and his own received him not; they did not believe in him, nor obey his voice; they rebelled against him, and tempted him often, particularly at Massah and Meribah; they provoked trim to anger, and vexed, and grieved his holy Spirit, as they afterwards slighted and despised his Gospel by the prophets. Of this nonreception of the word by the Jews, and their punishment for it, the Targumist on Hos 9:17 thus speaks:

"my God will remove them far away, because, לא קבילו למימריה, "they receive not his word"; and they shall wander among the people.

And so they treated this same "Logos", or word of God, when he was made flesh, and dwelt among them. Somewhat remarkable is the following discourse of some Jews among themselves ^e:

"when the word of God comes, who is his messenger, we shall honour him. Says R. Saul, did not the prophets come, and we slew them, and shed their blood? (compare this with Mat 23:30.) how therefore now, נקבל מדברו, "shall we receive his word?" or wherefore shall we believe? Says R. Samuel, the Levite, to him, because he will heal them, and deliver them from their destructions; and because of these signs we shall believe him, and honour him.

But they did not,

Gill: Joh 1:12

But as many as received him,.... This is explained, in the latter part of the text, by believing in his name; for faith is a receiving him as the word, and Son of God, as the Messiah, Saviour, and Redeemer; a receiving grace out of his fulness, and every blessing from him, as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified; for though the generality rejected him, there were some few that received him:

to them gave he power to become the sons of God; as such were very early called, in distinction from the children of men, or of the world; see Gen 6:2. To be the sons of God is a very special favour, a great blessing, and high honour: saints indeed are not in so high a sense the sons of God as Christ is; nor in so low a sense as angels and men in common are; nor in such sense as civil magistrates; nor merely by profession of religion; much less by natural descent; but by adopting grace: and in this, Christ, the word, has a concern, as all the three divine persons have. The Father predestinated men to the adoption of children, secures this blessing for them in the covenant of his grace, and puts them among the children, and assigns them a goodly heritage: the Spirit, and who is therefore called the spirit of adoption, discovers and applies this blessing to them, and witnesses to their spirits that they are the children of God: and Christ, the word, or Son of God, not only espoused their persons, and in time assumed their nature, and by the redemption of them opened a way for their reception of the adoption of children; but actually bestows upon them the "power", as it is here called, of becoming the sons of God: by which is meant, not a power of free will to make themselves the sons of God, if they will make use of it; but it signifies the honour and dignity conferred on such persons: so Nonnus calls it, "the heavenly honour"; as indeed, what can be a greater? It is more honourable than to be a son or daughter of the greatest potentate on earth: and it is expressive of its being a privilege; for so it is an undeserved and distinguishing one, and is attended with many other privileges; for such are of God's household and family, and are provided for by him; have liberty of access unto him; are Christ's free men, and are heirs to an incorruptible inheritance. This is a privilege that excels all others, even justification and remission of sins; and is an everlasting one: and it also intends the open right which believers have unto this privilege, and their claim of it: hence it follows,

even to them that believe in his name; that is, in himself, in Christ, the word: the phrase is explanative of the former part of the verse, and is a descriptive and manifestative character of the sons of God; for though the elect of God, by virtue of electing grace, and the covenant of grace, are the children of God before faith; and were so considered in the gift of them to Christ, and when he came into the world to gather them together, and save them; and so, antecedent to the Spirit of God, being sent down into their hearts, to make this known to them; yet no man can know his adoption, nor enjoy the comfort of it, or claim his interest in it, until he believes.

Gill: Joh 1:13

Which were born not of blood,.... Or bloods, in the plural number. The birth, here spoken of, is regeneration, expressed by a being born again, or from above; by a being quickened by the Spirit and grace of God; by Christ being formed in men; and by a partaking of the divine nature; and by being made new creatures, as all that believe in the name of Christ are; and which is the evidence of their being the sons of God: and now this is owing not to blood, or bloods; not to the blood of circumcision; or of the passover, which the Jews had an high opinion of, and ascribe life and salvation to, and to which notion this may be opposed: so their commentators ^f on Eze 16:6 where the word "live" is twice used, observe on the first "live", by the blood of the passover, on the second "live", by the blood of circumcision; but, alas! these contribute nothing to the life of the new creature: nor is regeneration owing to the blood of ancestors, to natural descent, as from Abraham, which the Jews valued themselves upon; for sin, and not grace, is conveyed by natural generation: all men are of one blood, and that is tainted with sin, and therefore can never have any influence on regeneration; no blood is to be valued, or any one upon it, but the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin,

Nor of the will of the flesh; man's free will, which is carnal and corrupt, is enmity to God, and impotent to every thing that is spiritually good: regeneration is ascribed to another will and power, even to the will and power of God, and denied of this:

nor of the will of man: of the best of men, as Abraham, David, and others; who, though ever so willing and desirous, that their children, relations, friends, and servants, should be born again, be partakers of the grace of God, and live in his sight, yet cannot effect any thing of this kind: all that they can do is to pray for them, give advice, and bring them under the means of grace; but all is ineffectual without a divine energy. So with the Jews, איש, "a man", signifies a great man, in opposition to "Adam", or "Enosh", which signify a mean, weak, frail man; and our translators have observed this distinction, in Isa 2:9 and the mean man (Adam) boweth down, and the great man (Ish) "humbleth himself": on which Jarchi has this note, "Adam boweth down", i.e. little men; "and a man humbleth himself", i.e. princes, and mighty men, men of power: and so Kimchi on Psa 4:2. "O ye sons of men", observes, that the Psalmist calls them the sons of men, with respect to the great men of Israel; for there were with Absalom the sons of great men. Though sometimes the Jews say ^g, Adam is greater than any of the names of men, as Geber, Enosh, Ish. But now our evangelist observes, let a man be ever so great, or good, or eminent, for gifts and grace, he cannot communicate grace to another, or to whom he will; none are born again of any such will:

but of God; of God, the Father of Christ, who begets to a lively hope; and of the Son, who quickens whom he will; and of the grace of the Spirit, to whom regeneration is generally ascribed,

Gill: Joh 1:14

And the word was made flesh,.... The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator:

and dwelt among us; or "tabernacled among us"; in allusion to the tabernacle, which was a type of Christ's human nature: the model of the tabernacle was of God, and not of man; it was coarse without, but full of holy things within; here God dwelt, granted his presence, and his glory was seen; here the sacrifices were brought, offered, and accepted. So the human nature of Christ was of God's pitching, and not man's; and though it looked mean without, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in it, as well as a fulness of grace and truth; in the face of Christ the glory of God is seen, and through him, even the vail of his flesh, saints have access unto him, and enjoy his presence; and by him their spiritual sacrifices become acceptable to God: or this is observed, in allusion to the feast of tabernacles, when the Jews dwelt in booths, in remembrance of their manner of living in the wilderness: the feast of tabernacles was typical of Christ, and of his tabernacling in our nature. Solomon's temple, which was also a type of Christ, was dedicated at the time of that feast; and it seems probable, that our Lord was born at that time; for as he suffered at the time of the passover, which had respect unto him, and the pouring forth of the Spirit was on the very day of Pentecost, which that prefigured; so it is highly probable, that Christ was born at the time of the feast of tabernacles, which pointed out his dwelling among us; and is therefore very pertinently hinted at, when mention is here made of his incarnation. However, reference is manifestly had to the Shekinah, and the glory of it, in the tabernacle and temple; and almost the very word is here used. The Targumists sometimes speak of the Shekinah of the word dwelling among the Israelites: so Onkelos in Num 11:20 where the Israelites are threatened with flesh, until they loath it; because, says the paraphrast,

"ye have loathed "the word of the Lord", whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.

Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the same place, expresses it thus,

"because ye have loathed the word of the Lord, the glory of whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.

And it follows here,

and we beheld his glory; the glory of his divine nature, which is essential to him, and underived, is equal to the Father's glory, is transcendent to all creatures, and is ineffable, and incomprehensible; some breakings forth of which there were in his incarnate state, and which were observed by the evangelist, and his companions; who, in various instances, saw plainly, that Christ was possessed of divine perfections, such as omniscience, and omnipotence; since he knew the thoughts of the heart, and could do the things he did: his Father declared him to be his beloved Son; and the miracles he wrought, and the doctrines he taught, manifested forth his glory; and not only there were some beams of his glory at his transfiguration, which were seen by the apostles, among which the Evangelist John was one, and to which he may have here a particular reference; but even at his apprehension, and death, and especially at his resurrection from the dead. The Jews speak of the glory of the Messiah to be seen in the world to come. They say ^h,

"If a man is worthy of the world to come, (i.e. the times of the Messiah,) he shall "see the glory" of the King Messiah.

And of Moses, they say ⁱ,

"there was (or will be) no generation like that in which he lived, until the generation in which the King Messiah comes, which shall "behold the glory" of the holy, blessed God, as he.

This our evangelist, and the other disciples of Christ have seen:

the glory, as of the only begotten of the Father; a glory becoming him, suitable to him as such; the very real glory of the Son of God; for the "as", here, is not a note of similitude, but of certainty, as in Mat 14:5 and the word is here called, "the only begotten of the Father"; which cannot be said of Christ, as man; for as such, he was not "begotten" at all: nor on the account of his resurrection from the dead; for so he could not be called the "only begotten", since there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead, besides him: nor by reason of adoption; for if adopted, then not begotten; these two are inconsistent; besides, he could not be called the only begotten, in this sense, because there are many adopted sons, even all the elect of God: nor by virtue of his office, as magistrates are called the sons of God; for then he would be so only in a figurative and metaphorical sense, and not properly; whereas he is called God's own Son, the Son of the same nature with him; and, as here, the only begotten of the Father, begotten by him in the same nature, in a way inconceivable and inexpressible by us:

full of grace and truth; that is, he dwelt among men, and appeared to have a fulness of each of these: for this clause is not to be joined with the glory of the only begotten, as if this was a branch of that; but regards him as incarnate, and in his office, as Mediator; who, as such, was full of "grace"; the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit; of all the blessings of grace, of justifying, pardoning, adopting, sanctifying, and persevering grace; of all the promises of grace; of all light, life, strength, comfort, peace, and joy: and also of truth, of all Gospel truths; and as he had the truth, the sum, and substance of all the types and prophecies concerning him in him; and as he fulfilled all his own engagements, and his Father's promises; and as possessed of sincerity towards men, and faithfulness and integrity to God,

Gill: Joh 1:15

John bare witness of him,.... Which was his office and business, for which purpose he was sent, Joh 1:6.

and cried; this agrees with his work and office, according to the prophecy of him in Isa 40:3 and with the time of his ministry, the year of jubilee; and with the nature of his ministry, which was clear, open, and public; and performed with vigour, and in a powerful manner, with much assurance and certainty, with boldness and intrepidity, and with great zeal and fervency, and in an evangelical way; for it was such a cry as debased the creature, and exalted Christ:

this was he, of whom I spake; when he first entered upon his ministry and baptism, before he saw Christ, or baptized him; see Mat 3:11.

he that cometh after me; for Christ came into the world after John; he was born six months after him; he came after him to be baptized by him, and attended on his ministry; and came later into the public ministry than he did,

is preferred before me; by God, the Father, in setting him up as Mediator; constituting him the head of the church; causing a fulness of grace to dwell in him; appointing him the Saviour of his people; and ordaining him judge of quick and dead. And by the prophets, who spake much of him, and sparingly of John; and of him as the Messiah and Saviour, and of John only as his harbinger: and by John himself, who represents him as coming from above, and as above all; and himself as of the earth, earthly: and by all Gospel ministers, and every true believer; and good reason there is for it:

for he was before me; which cannot be meant of honour and dignity; for this is expressed before; and it would be proving one thing by the same: nor of his birth, as man; for John in that sense was before him, being born before him; besides, being born before another, is no proof of superior worth; others were born before John, whom he yet excelled: but of his eternal existence, as the word, and Son of God, who was before John, or any of the prophets; before Abraham, and Noah, and Adam, or any creature whatever: the Arabic and Persic versions read, "for he was more ancient than me"; being from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Gill: Joh 1:16

And of his fulness have all we received,.... These are the words not of John the Baptist; but of the evangelist carrying on his account of Christ, after he had inserted the testimony of the Baptist, in connection with Joh 1:14 where he is said to be full of grace and truth; and which fulness is here intended; for the fulness of the Godhead in trim is incommunicable; and the fulness of his fitness, and ability for his office, as Mediator, was for himself; but his fulness of grace and truth is dispensatory, and is in him, on purpose to be communicated unto others: and "of it", the evangelist says, "have all we received"; not all mankind, though they all receive natural light and life from trim; nor merely all the prophets of the Old Testament, though they had their gifts and grace from him, who then was, as now, the head of the church; nor only all the apostles of Christ, though these may be principally intended; but all believers, who, though they have not all the same measure of grace, nor the same gifts, yet all have received something: nor is there any reason for discouragement, envy, or reproach. Faith is the hand which receives Christ, and grace from him; and the act of receiving, being expressed in the past tense, seems to regard first conversion, when faith is first wrought, and along with it abundance of grace is received; for a believer has nothing but what is given him, and what he has, is in a way of receiving; so that there is no room for boasting, but great reason for thankfulness, and much encouragement to apply to Christ for more grace, which is the thing received, as follows:

and grace for grace: according to the different senses of the preposition αντι, different interpretations are given of this passage; as that signifies a substitution of a person, or thing, in the room of another, the sense is thought to be, the Gospel, instead of the law; or the grace of the present dispensation, instead of the grace of the former dispensation; grace, different from the former grace, as Nonnus expresses it. If it designs the original, and moving cause, the meaning is, grace is for the sake of grace; for there is no other cause of electing, justifying, pardoning, adopting, and regenerating grace, and even eternal life, but the grace, or free favour of God; and the one is the reason why the other is received: if it signifies the end, or final cause, then it is explained in this way; the disciples received the grace of apostleship, or gift, of grace, in order to preach the Gospel of the grace of God, and for the implanting and increasing grace in men; and grace also, in this life, is received, in order to the perfection of grace, or glory, in the other: if it denotes the measure and proportion of a thing, as one thing is answerable to another, then if may be interpreted after this manner; the saints receive grace from the fulness of Christ, according, or answerable to the grace that is in him; or according to the measure of the gift of Christ, and in proportion to the place, station, and office they bear in the church. Some think the phrase only designs the freeness of grace, and the free and liberal manner in which it is distributed, and received; along with which, I also think, the abundance of it, at first conversion, with all after supplies, is intended; and that grace for grace, is the same with grace upon grace, heaps of grace; and that the phraseology is the same with this Jewish one ^k, טיבו על ההוא טיבו, "goodness upon that goodness", an additional goodness; so here, grace upon grace, an abundance of it, an addition to it, and an increase of it: so חדו על חדו ^l, joy upon joy, is an abundance of joy, a large measure of it; and "holiness upon holiness" ^m, abundance of it,

Gill: Joh 1:17

For the law was given by Moses,.... Both moral and ceremonial. The moral law was given to Adam, in innocence, which having been broken, and almost lost out of the minds, and memories of men, was given by Moses, in a new edition of it in writing; and points out what is man's duty both to God and men; discovers sin, accuses of it, convicts of it, and condemns for it; nor could it give strength to perform its demands; nor does it give the least hint of forgiveness; nor will it admit of repentance: and hence is opposed to grace; though it was a benefit to men, being in its own nature good and useful in its effects. The ceremonial law pointed out the pollution of human nature, the guilt and punishment of sin; was a type and shadow of deliverance by Christ, but could not give the grace it shadowed, and therefore is opposed both to grace and truth. Now both these were given by Moses to the people of the Jews, not as the maker, but the minister of them: it was God who appointed each of these laws, and ordained them in the hand of the mediator Moses, who received them from him, by the disposition of angels, and delivered them to the people of Israel; and a very high office this was he was put into, and a very great honour was conferred upon him; but Jesus Christ is a far greater person, and in an higher office:

but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ: by grace and truth, is meant the Gospel, in opposition to the law; which is called grace, because it is a declaration of the love, and grace, of God to men; it ascribes salvation, in all the parts of it, to the free grace and favour of God; and is the means of implanting and increasing grace in the hearts of men. And "truth", not only because it contains truth, and nothing but truth, it coming from the God of truth; and the substance of it being Christ, who is the truth; and being revealed, applied, and led into by the Spirit of truth; but because it is the truth of the types, and the substance of the shadows of the law: or these two may mean distinct things; grace may design all the blessings of grace which are in Christ, and come by him; and truth, the promises, and the fulfilment of them, which are all yea, and amen, in Christ: and when these are said to be by him, the meaning is, not that they are by him, as an instrument, but as the author of them; for Christ is the author of the Gospel, and the fulfiller of the promises, and the giver of all grace; which shows the superior excellency of Christ to Moses, and to all men, and even to angels also.

Gill: Joh 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time,.... That is, God the Father, whose voice was never heard, nor his shape seen by angels or men; for though Jacob, Moses, the elders of Israel, Manoah, and his wife, are said to see God, and Job expected to see him with his bodily eyes, and the saints will see him as he is, in which will lie their great happiness; yet all seems to be understood of the second person, who frequently appeared to the Old Testament saints, in an human form, and will be seen by the saints in heaven, in his real human nature; or of God in and by him: for the essence of God is invisible, and not to be seen with the eyes of the body; nor indeed with the eyes of the understanding, so as to comprehend it; nor immediately, but through, and by certain means: God is seen in the works of creation and providence, in the promises, and in his ordinances; but above all, in Christ the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person: this may chiefly intend here, man's not knowing any thing of God in a spiritual and saving way, but in and by Christ; since it follows,

the only begotten Son; the word that was with God in the beginning. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3:22 says almost the same of the word of the Lord, as here, where it introduces him saying,

"the word of the Lord God said, lo, the man whom I created, the only one in my world, even as I am, יחידי, "the only one", (or, as the word is sometimes rendered, "the only begotten",) in the highest heavens.

And to the same purpose the Targum of Jonathan, and also Jarchi, on the same place. The Syriac version here renders it, "the only begotten, God which is in the bosom of the Father"; clearly showing, that he is the only begotten, as he is God: the phrase,

which is in the bosom of the Father, denotes unity of nature, and essence, in the Father and Son; their distinct personality; strong love, and affection between them; the Son's acquaintance with his Father's secrets; his being at that time, as the Son of God, in the bosom of his Father, when here on earth, as the son of man; and which qualified him to make the declaration of him:

he hath declared him. The Persic and Ethiopic versions further add, "to us"; he has clearly and fully declared his nature, perfections, purposes, promises, counsels, covenant, word, and works; his thoughts and schemes of grace; his love and favour to the sons of men; his mind and will concerning the salvation of his people: he has made, and delivered a fuller revelation of these things, than ever was yet; and to which no other revelation in the present state of things will be added. Somewhat like this the Jews ⁿ say of the Messiah,

"there is none that can declare the name of his Father, and that knows him; but this is hid from the eyes of the multitude, until he comes, ויגידהו, "and he shall declare him".

He is come, and has declared him: so Philo speaks of the "Logos", or word, as the interpreter of the mind of God, and a teacher of men ^o,

Gill: Joh 1:19

And this is the record of John,.... The evangelist proceeds to give a large, and full account of the testimony John the Baptist bore to Christ, which he had hinted at before, and had signified was his work, and office, and the end of his being sent,

When the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, who art thou? The Jews that sent were the great sanhedrim that sat at Jerusalem, whose business it was to inquire into, examine, and try prophets, whether true or false ^p; and John appearing as a prophet, and being so esteemed by the people, they deputed messengers to him to interrogate him, and know who he was. The persons sent were very likely of their own body, since priests and Levites were in that council. For it is said ^q,

"they do not constitute, or appoint in the sanhedrim but priests, Levites, and Israelites, who have their genealogies---and it is commanded, that there should be in the great sanhedrim priests and Levites, as it is said, Deu 17:9 "and thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites", &c. and if they are not to be found, though they are all Israelites, (not of the tribe of Levi,) it is right.

Such a sanhedrim is a lawful one; but priests and Levites, if such could be found, that had proper qualifications, were to be admitted in the first place. A message from so august an assembly, at so great a distance, (for Jordan was a day's journey distant from Jerusalem ^r; according to Josephus ^s, it was 210 furlongs, or 26 miles and a quarter,) and by the hands of persons of such character and figure, was doing John a great deal of honour, and serves to make his testimony of Christ the more public and remarkable; and it also shows what a noise John's ministry and baptism made among the Jews, that it even reached Jerusalem, and the great council of the nation; and likewise the question put to him, which by John's answer seems to intimate as if it was thought he was the Messiah, shows the opinion that was entertained of him, and even the sanhedrim might not be without thoughts this way: and the question they put by their messengers might not be, as some have thought, to ensnare John, nor out of disrespect to Jesus, who, as yet, was not made manifest; but might be in good earnest, having, from many circumstances, reason to think there might be something in the people's opinion of him; since, though the government was not wholly departed from Judah, yet they could not but observe it was going away apace, an Idumean having been upon the throne for some years, placed there by the Roman senate; and now the government was divided among his sons by the same order; Daniel's weeks they could not but see were just accomplishing; and besides, from the uncommon appearance John made, the austerity of his life; the doctrine of remission of sins he preached, and the new ordinance of baptism he administered, they might be ready to conclude he was the person,

Gill: Joh 1:20

And he confessed, and denied not,.... He freely, and without any reserve, declared, and in the plainest and strongest terms professed to the messengers before all the people, that he was not the Messiah; nor did he retract his confession, or draw in his words again, or drop any thing that looked doubtful or suspicious,

but confessed, I am not the Christ: he stood to it, and insisted on it, that he was not that illustrious person; nor had they any reason to entertain such an opinion of him; nor would he have them do so; they might assure themselves he was not Christ.

Gill: Joh 1:21

And they asked him, what then? art thou Elias?.... Elijah, the prophet; the Tishbite, as Nonnus in his paraphrase expresses it; who was translated, soul and body, to heaven: the Jews had a notion that that prophet would come in person a little before the coming of the Messiah; See Gill on Mat 17:10 wherefore these messengers inquire, that since he had so fully satisfied them that he was not the Messiah, that he would as ingenuously answer to this question, if he was Elias, or not:

and he saith, I am not; that is, he was not Elijah the prophet that lived in Ahab's time, and was called the Tishbite; for John's answer is to the intention of their question, and their own meaning in it, and is no contradiction to what Christ says of him, Mat 11:14 that he was the Elias that was to come; for he was the person meant by him in Mal 4:5 though not in the sense the Jews understood it; nor is it any contradiction to what the angel said to Zacharias, Luk 1:17 for he does not say that John should come in the body, but in the power and spirit of Elias; See Gill on Mat 11:14.

Art thou that prophet? Jeremiah, whom some of the Jews ^t have thought to be the prophet Moses spoke of, in Deu 18:15 and expected that he would appear about the times of the Messiah; see Mat 16:14 or any one of the ancient prophets risen from the dead, which they also had a notion of, Luk 9:8 or, as it may be rendered, "art thou a prophet?" for prophecy had long ceased with them:

and he answered, no; he was not Jeremiah, nor any one of the old prophets risen from the dead, nor a prophet in the sense they meant: he was not like one of the prophets of the Old Testament; he was a prophet, and more than a prophet, as Christ says, Mat 11:9 yet not such a prophet as they were; his prophesying lay not so much in predicting future events, as in pointing out Christ, and preaching the doctrine of the remission of sins by him,

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Joh 1:1

¹ sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

² tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

³ tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

NET Notes: Joh 1:2

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Joh 1:3

¹ tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

² tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

³ tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

tn Or “made”; Grk “that has come into existence.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:4

¹ tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

sn An allusion to Ps 36:9, which gives significant OT background: “For with you is the fountain of life; In your light we see light.” In later Judaism, Bar 4:2 expresses a similar idea. Life, especially eternal life, will become one of the major themes of John’s Gospel.

² tn Or “humanity”; Grk “of men” (but ἄνθρωπος [anqrwpo"] is used in a generic sense here, not restricted to males only, thus “mankind,” “humanity”).

NET Notes: Joh 1:5

¹ tn To this point the author has used past tenses (imperfects, aorists); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines (thus the translation, “shines on”). Even as the author writes, it is shining. The present here most likely has gnomic force (though it is possible to take it as a historical present); it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine.

sn The light shines on. The question of whether John has in mind here the preincarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ is probably too specific. The incarnation is not really introduced until v. 9, but here the point is more general: It is of the very nature of light, that it shines.

² sn The author now introduces what will become a major theme of John’s Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Gen 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged. See T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,” BTB 8 (1978): 117-25.

³ tn Grk “and,” but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this has been translated as an adversative use of καί (kai).

⁴ tn Or “comprehended it,” or “overcome it.” The verb κατέλαβεν (katelaben) is not easy to translate. “To seize” or “to grasp” is possible, but this also permits “to grasp with the mind” in the sense of “to comprehend” (esp. in the middle voice). This is probably another Johannine double meaning – one does not usually think of darkness as trying to “understand” light. For it to mean this, “darkness” must be understood as meaning “certain people,” or perhaps “humanity” at large, darkened in understanding. But in John’s usage, darkness is not normally used of people or a group of people. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or ‘sphere’ in which people find themselves: “They loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness “overtake/overcome” them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to “understand (comprehend)” the light, but represents the forces of evil which seek to “overcome (conquer)” it. The English verb “to master” may be used in both sorts of contexts, as “he mastered his lesson” and “he mastered his opponent.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:6

¹ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

NET Notes: Joh 1:7

¹ tn Grk “came for a testimony.”

sn Witness is also one of the major themes of John’s Gospel. The Greek verb μαρτυρέω (marturew) occurs 33 times (compare to once in Matthew, once in Luke, 0 in Mark) and the noun μαρτυρία (marturia) 14 times (0 in Matthew, once in Luke, 3 times in Mark).

² tn Or “to bear witness.”

³ tn Grk “all.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:8

¹ tn Or “to bear witness.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:9

¹ tn Grk “every man” (but in a generic sense, “every person,” or “every human being”).

² tn Or “He was the true light, who gives light to everyone who comes into the world.” The participle ἐρχόμενον (ercomenon) may be either (1) neuter nominative, agreeing with τὸ φῶς (to fw"), or (2) masculine accusative, agreeing with ἄνθρωπον (anqrwpon). Option (1) results in a periphrastic imperfect with ἦν (hn), ἦν τὸ φῶς… ἐρχόμενον, referring to the incarnation. Option (2) would have the participle modifying ἄνθρωπον and referring to the true light as enlightening “every man who comes into the world.” Option (2) has some rabbinic parallels: The phrase “all who come into the world” is a fairly common expression for “every man” (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 31.6). But (1) must be preferred here, because: (a) In the next verse the light is in the world; it is logical for v. 9 to speak of its entering the world; (b) in other passages Jesus is described as “coming into the world” (6:14, 9:39, 11:27, 16:28) and in 12:46 Jesus says: ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα (egw fw" ei" ton kosmon elhluqa); (c) use of a periphrastic participle with the imperfect tense is typical Johannine style: 1:28, 2:6, 3:23, 10:40, 11:1, 13:23, 18:18 and 25. In every one of these except 13:23 the finite verb is first and separated by one or more intervening words from the participle.

sn In v. 9 the world (κόσμος, kosmos) is mentioned for the first time. This is another important theme word for John. Generally, the world as a Johannine concept does not refer to the totality of creation (the universe), although there are exceptions at 11:9. 17:5, 24, 21:25, but to the world of human beings and human affairs. Even in 1:10 the world created through the Logos is a world capable of knowing (or reprehensibly not knowing) its Creator. Sometimes the world is further qualified as this world (ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, Jo kosmos Joutos) as in 8:23, 9:39, 11:9, 12:25, 31; 13:1, 16:11, 18:36. This is not merely equivalent to the rabbinic phrase “this present age” (ὁ αἰών οὗτος, Jo aiwn Joutos) and contrasted with “the world to come.” For John it is also contrasted to a world other than this one, already existing; this is the lower world, corresponding to which there is a world above (see especially 8:23, 18:36). Jesus appears not only as the Messiah by means of whom an eschatological future is anticipated (as in the synoptic gospels) but also as an envoy from the heavenly world to this world.

NET Notes: Joh 1:10

¹ tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

² tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

³ tn Or “know.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:11

¹ tn Grk “to his own things.”

² tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

³ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

⁴ sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.

NET Notes: Joh 1:12

¹ tn On the use of the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuw + ei") construction in John: The verb πιστεύω occurs 98 times in John (compared to 11 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark [including the longer ending], and 9 times in Luke). One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form πίστις (pistis) is never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity, something that men do (cf. W. Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life – A Johannine Inquiry,” ExpTim 64 [1952/53]: 50-52). John uses πιστεύω in 4 major ways: (1) of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times; (2) of believing people (or the scriptures), 19 times; (3) of believing “in” Christ” (πιστεύω + εἰς + acc.), 36 times; (4) used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30 times (the one remaining passage is 2:24, where Jesus refused to “trust” himself to certain individuals). Of these, the most significant is the use of πιστεύω with εἰς + accusative. It is not unlike the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ (en Cristw) formula. Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as C. H. Dodd observed: “πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase – an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ – needed to be otherwise expressed” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 183).

NET Notes: Joh 1:13

¹ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

² tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

³ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

⁴ tn Or “man’s.”

⁵ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

NET Notes: Joh 1:14

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic, the incarnation of the Word. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

² tn This looks at the Word incarnate in humility and weakness; the word σάρξ (sarx) does not carry overtones of sinfulness here as it frequently does in Pauline usage. See also John 3:6.

³ tn Grk “and tabernacled.”

sn The Greek word translated took up residence (σκηνόω, skhnow) alludes to the OT tabernacle, where the Shekinah, the visible glory of God’s presence, resided. The author is suggesting that this glory can now be seen in Jesus (note the following verse). The verb used here may imply that the Shekinah glory that once was found in the tabernacle has taken up residence in the person of Jesus. Cf. also John 2:19-21. The Word became flesh. This verse constitutes the most concise statement of the incarnation in the New Testament. John 1:1 makes it clear that the Logos was fully God, but 1:14 makes it clear that he was also fully human. A Docetic interpretation is completely ruled out. Here for the first time the Logos of 1:1 is identified as Jesus of Nazareth – the two are one and the same. Thus this is the last time the word logos is used in the Fourth Gospel to refer to the second person of the Trinity. From here on it is Jesus of Nazareth who is the focus of John’s Gospel.

⁴ tn Grk “and we saw.”

⁵ tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

NET Notes: Joh 1:15

¹ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

² tn Or “bore witness.”

³ tn Grk “and shouted out saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant is English and has not been translated.

⁴ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:16

¹ tn Grk “for from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” The meaning of the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (carin anti carito") could be: (1) love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement; (2) grace “on top of” grace, thus accumulation; (3) grace corresponding to grace, thus correspondence. The most commonly held view is (2) in one sense or another, and this is probably the best explanation. This sense is supported by a fairly well-known use in Philo, Posterity 43 (145). Morna D. Hooker suggested that Exod 33:13 provides the background for this expression: “Now therefore, I pray you, if I have found χάρις (LXX) in your sight, let me know your ways, that I may know you, so that I may find χάρις (LXX) in your sight.” Hooker proposed that it is this idea of favor given to one who has already received favor which lies behind 1:16, and this seems very probable as a good explanation of the meaning of the phrase (“The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 [1974/75]: 53).

sn Earlier commentators (including Origen and Luther) took the words For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another to be John the Baptist’s. Most modern commentators take them as the words of the author.

NET Notes: Joh 1:17

¹ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

NET Notes: Joh 1:18

¹ tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

² tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

³ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

NET Notes: Joh 1:19

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

² tn Grk “is.”

³ sn John’s refers to John the Baptist.

⁴ tn Or “witness.”

sn John the Baptist’s testimony seems to take place over 3 days: day 1, John’s testimony about his own role is largely negative (1:19-28); day 2, John gives positive testimony about who Jesus is (1:29-34); day 3, John sends his own disciples to follow Jesus (1:35-40).

⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Iουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

⁶ tc ‡ Several important witnesses have πρὸς αὐτόν (pro" auton, “to him”) either here (B C* 33 892^c al it) or after “Levites” (Ì^{66c vid} A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 579 al lat), while the earliest mss as well as the majority of mss (Ì^66*,75 א C³ L W^s ˹ Ï) lack the phrase. On the one hand, πρὸς αὐτόν could be perceived as redundant since αὐτόν is used again later in the verse, thus prompting scribes to omit the phrase. On the other hand, both the variation in placement of πρὸς αὐτόν and the fact that this phrase rather than the latter αὐτόν is lacking in certain witnesses (cf. John 11:44; 14:7; 18:31), suggests that scribes felt that the sentence needed the phrase to make the sense clearer. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁷ has πρὸς αὐτόν in brackets, indicating doubt as to the phrase’s authenticity.

⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

⁸ sn “Who are you?” No uniform Jewish expectation of a single eschatological figure existed in the 1st century. A majority expected the Messiah. But some pseudepigraphic books describe God’s intervention without mentioning the anointed Davidic king; in parts of 1 Enoch, for example, the figure of the Son of Man, not the Messiah, embodies the expectations of the author. Essenes at Qumran seem to have expected three figures: a prophet, a priestly messiah, and a royal messiah. In baptizing, John the Baptist was performing an eschatological action. It also seems to have been part of his proclamation (John 1:23, 26-27). Crowds were beginning to follow him. He was operating in an area not too far from the Essene center on the Dead Sea. No wonder the authorities were curious about who he was.

NET Notes: Joh 1:20

¹ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

sn “I am not the Christ.” A 3rd century work, the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (1.54 and 1.60 in the Latin text; the statement is not as clear in the Syriac version) records that John’s followers proclaimed him to be the Messiah. There is no clear evidence that they did so in the 1st century, however – but Luke 3:15 indicates some wondered. Concerning the Christ, the term χριστός (cristos) was originally an adjective (“anointed”), developing in LXX into a substantive (“an anointed one”), then developing still further into a technical generic term (“the anointed one”). In the intertestamental period it developed further into a technical term referring to the hoped-for anointed one, that is, a specific individual. In the NT the development starts there (technical-specific), is so used in the gospels, and then develops in Paul to mean virtually Jesus’ last name.

NET Notes: Joh 1:21

¹ tn Grk “What then?” (an idiom).

² sn According to the 1st century rabbinic interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:11, Elijah was still alive. In Mal 4:5 it is said that Elijah would be the precursor of Messiah. How does one reconcile John the Baptist’s denial here (“I am not”) with Jesus’ statements in Matt 11:14 (see also Mark 9:13 and Matt 17:12) that John the Baptist was Elijah? Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a reconstruction of the text in the Gospel of John which makes the Baptist say that he was Elijah. However, external support for such emendations is lacking. According to Gregory the Great, John was not Elijah, but exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way. But this avoids the real difficulty, since in John’s Gospel the question of the Jewish authorities to the Baptist concerns precisely his function. It has also been suggested that the author of the Gospel here preserves a historically correct reminiscence – that John the Baptist did not think of himself as Elijah, although Jesus said otherwise. Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:28 indicate the people and Herod both distinguished between John and Elijah – probably because he did not see himself as Elijah. But Jesus’ remarks in Matt 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Matt 17:12 indicate that John did perform the function of Elijah – John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord. C. F. D. Moule pointed out that it is too simple to see a straight contradiction between John’s account and that of the synoptic gospels: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?” (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [SBT], 70).

³ sn The Prophet is a reference to the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. Acts 3:22 identifies Jesus as this prophet.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:1

In ^{( 1 )} the ^{( a )} beginning ^{( b )} was ^{( c )} the Word, and the Word was ^{( d )} with God, and the ^{( e )} Word was God.

^{( 1 )} The Son of God is of one and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature with the Father.

^{( a )} From the beginning, as the evangelist says in (1Jo 1:1); it is as though he said that the Word did not begin to have his being when God began to make all that was made: for the Word was even then when all things that were made began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.

^{( b )} Had his being.

^{( c )} This word "the" points out to us a peculiar and choice thing above all others, and puts a difference between this "Word", which is the Son of God, and the laws of God, which are also called the word of God.

^{( d )} This word "with" points out that there is a distinction of persons here.

^{( e )} This word "Word" is the first in order in the sentence, and is the subject of the sentence, and this word "God" is the latter in order, and is the predicate of the sentence.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:3

^{( 2 )} All ^{( f )} things were made by him; and ^{( g )} without him ^{( h )} was not any thing made that was made.

^{( 2 )} The Son of God declares that his everlasting Godhead is the same as the Father's, both by the creating of all things, and also by preserving them, and especially by the excellent gifts of reason and understanding with which he has beautified man above all other creatures.

^{( f )} Paul expounds on this in (Col 1:15-16).

^{( g )} That is, as the Father did work, so did the Son work with him: for the Son was a fellow worker with him.

^{( h )} Of all those things which were made, nothing was made without him.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:4

^{( i )} In him ^{( k )} was life; and the life was ^{( l )} the light of men.

^{( i )} That is, by him: and this is spoken after the manner of the Hebrews, meaning by this that by his force and working power all life comes to the world.

^{( k )} That is, even at that time when all things were made by him, for otherwise he would have said, "Life in him", and not "life was".

^{( l )} That force of reason and understanding which is kindled in our minds to acknowledge him, the author of so great a benefit.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:5

^{( 3 )} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness ^{( m )} comprehended it not.

^{( 3 )} The light of men is turned into darkness, but yet there is enough clearness so that they are without excuse.

^{( m )} They could not perceive nor reach it to receive any light from it, no, they did not so much as acknowledge him.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:6

^{( 4 )} There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.

^{( 4 )} There is another more full manifestation of the Son of God, by the consideration of which men are in good time stirred up, even to John's voice, who is as it were the herald of Christ.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:7

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] ^{( n )} through him might believe.

^{( n )} Through John.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:8

He was not ^{( o )} that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.

^{( o )} That light which we spoke of, that is, Christ, who alone can enlighten our darkness.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:9

^{( 5 )} [That] was ^{( p )} the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

^{( 5 )} When the Son of God saw that men did not acknowledge him by his works, although they were endued with understanding (which he had given to all of them), he exhibited himself unto his people to be seen by them with their physical eyes: yet not even then did they acknowledge him or receive him.

^{( p )} Who alone and properly deserves to be called the light, for he shines by his own accord and borrows light from no one.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:10

^{( q )} He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

^{( q )} The person of the Word was made manifest even at that time when the world was made.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:11

He came ^{( r )} unto his own, and his own received him not.

^{( r )} The Word showed himself again when he came in the flesh.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:12

^{( 6 )} But as many as received him, to them gave he ^{( s )} power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

^{( 6 )} The Son being shut out by the majority of his people, and acknowledged but by a few, regenerates those few by his own strength and power, and receives them into that honour which is common to all the children of God, that is, to be the sons of God.

^{( s )} He condescended to give them this power to take them to be his children.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the ^{( t )} will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

^{( t )} Of that shameful and corrupt nature of man, which is throughout the scriptures described as an enemy of the spirit.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:14

^{( 7 )} And the Word was made ^{( u )} flesh, and ^{( x )} dwelt among us, (and we beheld his ^{( y )} glory, the glory ^{( z )} as of the only begotten of the Father,) ^{( a )} full of grace and truth.

^{( 7 )} That Son who is God from everlasting took upon himself man's nature, so that one and the selfsame might be both God and man, who manifestly appeared to many witnesses that saw him, amongst whom he was conversant and unto whom by sure and undoubted arguments he showed both of his natures.

^{( u )} That is, man: so that, by the figure of speech synecdoche, the part is taken for the whole: for he took upon himself our entire nature, that is to say, a true body, and a true soul.

^{( x )} For a time, and when that was ended, he went up into heaven: for the word which he uses is used with reference to tents: and yet nonetheless he is always present with us, though not in flesh, but by the power of his spirit.

^{( y )} The glory which he speaks of here is that manifestation of Christ's majesty, which was as it were openly placed before our eyes when the Son of God appeared in the flesh.

^{( z )} This word "as" does not indicate here a likeness, but rather the truth of the matter, for his meaning is this, that we saw such a glory which suited and was proper for the true and only begotten Son of God, who is Lord and King over all the world.

^{( a )} He was not only a partaker of grace and truth, but was full of the very substance of grace and truth.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:15

^{( 8 )} John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh ^{( b )} after me is preferred ^{( c )} before me: for he was before me.

^{( 8 )} John is a faithful witness of the excellency of Christ.

^{( b )} That is, "He before whom I am sent to prepare him the way": so that these words refer to the time of his calling, and not of his age, for John was six months older than Christ.

^{( c )} This sentence has in it a turning of the reason as we call it, as one would say, a setting of that first which should be last, and that last which should be first: for in plain speech it is this, "He that comes after me, is better than I am, for he was before me." We find a similar turning of the reason in (Luk 7:47): "Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much", which is this much to say, "She loved much, because many sins are forgiven her."

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:16

^{( 9 )} And of his fulness have all we received, and ^{( d )} grace for grace.

^{( 9 )} Christ is the most plentiful fountain of all goodness, but he gave out his gifts most bountifully at that time when he exhibited and showed himself to the world.

^{( d )} That is, grace upon grace; as one would say, graces piled one upon another.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:18

^{( 10 )} No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the ^{( e )} bosom of the Father, he hath ^{( f )} declared [him].

^{( 10 )} The true knowledge of God proceeds only from Jesus Christ.

^{( e )} Who is nearest to his Father, not only in respect of his love towards him, but by the bond of nature, and by means of that union or oneness that is between them, by which the Father and the Son are one.

^{( f )} Revealed him and showed him unto us, whereas before he was hidden under the shadows of the law, so that our minds were not able to perceive him: for whoever sees him, sees the Father also.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:19

^{( 11 )} And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

^{( 11 )} John is neither the Messiah, nor like any of the other prophets, but is the herald of Christ, who is now present.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:20

And he ^{( g )} confessed, and ^{( h )} denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

^{( g )} He did acknowledge him, and spoke of him plainly and openly.

^{( h )} This repeating of the one and the selfsame thing, though in different words, is often used by the Hebrews, and it has great force, for they used to speak one thing twice in order to set it out more certainly and plainly.

Geneva Bible: Joh 1:21

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, ^{( i )} I am not. Art thou ^{( k )} that prophet? And he answered, No.

^{( i )} The Jews thought that Elias would come again before the days of the Messiah, and they took as the basis of their opinion (Mal 4:5), which is to be understood as referring to John, see (Mat 11:14). And yet John denies that he is Elias, answering their question just as they meant it.

^{( k )} They are inquiring about some great prophet, and not about Christ, for John denied before that he is Christ, for they thought that some great prophet would be sent like Moses, using to support this position (Deu 18:15), which is to be understood to refer to all the company of the prophets and ministers, which have been and shall be to the end, and especially of Christ who is the head of all prophets.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Joh 1:1-51

1 The divinity, humanity, office, and incarnation of Jesus Christ.

15 The testimony of John.

39 The calling of Andrew, Peter, etc.

Combined Bible: Joh 1:1-13

of the Gospel of John

   CHAPTER 2

   Christ, the Eternal Word

   Joh 1:1-13

   In the last chapter we stated, "Each book of the Bible has a prominent and dominant theme which is peculiar to itself. Just as each member in the human body has its own particular function, so, every book in the Bible has its own special purpose and mission. The theme of John’ s Gospel is the Deity of the Savior. Here, as nowhere else in Scripture so fully, the Godhood of Christ is presented to our view. That which is outstanding in this fourth Gospel is the Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. In this book we are shown that the One who was heralded by the angels to the Bethlehem shepherds, who walked this earth for thirty-three years, who was crucified at Calvary, who rose in triumph from the grave, and who forty days later departed from these scenes, was none other than the Lord of glory. The evidence for this is overwhelming, the proofs almost without number, and the effect of contemplating them must be to bow our hearts in worship before ‘ the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ’ (Tit 2:13 )."

   That John’ s Gospel does present the Deity of the Savior is at once apparent from the opening words of the first chapter. The Holy Spirit has, as it were, placed the key right over the entrance, for the introductory verses of this fourth Gospel present the Lord Jesus Christ in Divine relationships and unveil His essential glories. Before we attempt an exposition of this profound passage we shall first submit an analysis of its contents. In these first thirteen verses of John 1 we have set forth: —

   1. The Relation of Christ to Time— "In the beginning," therefore, Eternal: Joh 1:1 .

   2. The Relation of Christ to the Godhead— "With God," therefore, One of the Holy Trinity: Joh 1:1 .

   3. The Relation of Christ to the Holy Trinity— "God was the Word"— the Revealer: Joh 1:1 .

   4. The Relation of Christ to the Universe— "All things were made by him"— the Creator: Joh 1:3 .

   5. The Relation of Christ to Men— Their "Light": Joh 1:4 , 5.

   6. The Relation of John the Baptist to Christ— "Witness" of His Deity: Joh 1:6-9 .

   7. The Reception which Christ met here: Joh 1:10-13 .

   (a) "The world knew him not": Joh 1:10 .

   (b) "His own (Israel) received him not": Joh 1:11 .

   © A company born of God "received him": Joh 1:12 , 13.

   "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh 1:1-3 ). How entirely different is this from the opening verses of the other Gospels! John opens by immediately presenting Christ not as the Son of David, nor as the Son of man, but as the Son of God. John takes us back to the beginning, and shows that the Lord Jesus had no beginning. John goes behind creation and shows that the Savior was Himself the Creator. Every clause in these verses calls for our most careful and prayerful attention.

   "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." Here we enter a realm which transcends the finite mind, and where speculation is profane. "In the beginning" is something we are unable to comprehend: it is one of those matchless sweeps of inspiration which rises above the level of human thought. "In the beginning was the word," and we are equally unable to grasp the final meaning of this. A "word" is an expression: by words we articulate our speech. The Word of God, then, is Deity expressing itself in audible terms. And yet, when we have said this, how much there is that we leave unsaid! "And the word was with God," and this intimates His separate personality, and shows His relation to the other Persons of the blessed Trinity. But how sadly incapacitated are we for meditating upon the relations which exist between the different Persons of the Godhead. "And God was the word." Not only was Christ the Revealer of God, but He always was, and ever remains, none other than God Himself. Not only was our Savior the One through whom, and by whom, the Deity expressed itself in audible terms, but He was Himself co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. Let us now approach the Throne of grace and there seek the mercy and grace we so sorely need to help us as we turn now to take a closer look at these verses.

   "Our God and Father, in the name of Thy dear Son, we pray Thee that Thy Holy Spirit may now take of the things of Christ and show them unto us: to the praise of the glory of Thy grace. Amen."

   "In THE BEGINNING," or, more literally, "in beginning," for there is no article in the Greek. In what "beginning?" There are various "beginnings" referred to in the New Testament. There is the "beginning" of "the world" (Mat 24:21 ); of "the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mar 1:1 ); of "sorrows" (Mar 13:8 ); of "miracles" (or "signs"), (Joh 2:11 ), etc. But the "beginning" mentioned in Joh 1:1 clearly antedates all these "beginnings." The "beginning" of Joh 1:1 precedes the making of the "all things" of Joh 1:3 . It is then, the beginning of creation, the beginning of time. This earth of ours is old, how old we do not know, possibly millions of years. But "the word" was before all things. He was not only from the beginning, but He was "in the beginning."

   "In beginning:" the absence of the definite article is designed to carry us back to the most remote point that can be imagined. If then, He was before all creation, and He was, for "all things were made by him;" if He was "in the beginning," then He was Himself without beginning, which is only the negative way of saying He was eternal. In perfect accord with this we find, that in His prayer recorded in John 17, He said, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." As, then, the Word was "in the beginning," and if in the beginning, eternal, and as none but God Himself is eternal, the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus is conclusively established.

   "WAS the word." There are two separate words in the Greek which, in this passage, are both rendered "was": the one means to exist, the other to come into being. The latter word (egeneto) is used in Joh 1:3 which, literally rendered, reads, "all things through him came into being, and without him came into being not even one (thing) which has come into being;" and again we have this word "egeneto" in Joh 1:6 where we read, "there was (became to be) a man sent from God, whose name was John;" and again in Joh 1:14 , "And the word was made (became) flesh." But here in Joh 1:1 and Joh 1:2 it is "the word (ito) with God." As the Word He did not come into being, or begin to be, but He was "with God" from all eternity. It is noteworthy that the Holy Spirit uses this word "ito," which signifies that the Son personally subsisted, no less than four times in the first two verses of John 1. Unlike John the Baptist who "became (egeneto) a man," the "word" was (ito), that is, existed with God before time began.

   "Was THE WORD." The reference here is to the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. But why is the Lord Jesus Christ designated "the word?" What is the exact force and significance of this title? The first passage which occurs to our minds as throwing light on this question is the opening statement in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Here we learn that Christ is the final spokesman of God. Closely connected with this is the Savior’ s title found in Rev 1:8— "I am Alpha and Omega," which intimates that He is God’ s alphabet, the One who spells out Deity, the One who utters all God has to say. Even clearer, perhaps, is the testimony of Joh 1:18 : "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The word "declared" means tell out, cf. Act 15:14 , and 21:19; it is translated "told" in Luk 24:35 . Putting together these three passages we learn that Christ is the One who is the Spokesman of God, and One who spelled out the Deity, the One who has declared or told forth the Father.

   Christ, then, is the One who has made the incomprehensible God intelligible. The force of this title of His found in Joh 1:1 , may be discovered by comparing it with that name which is given to the Holy Scriptures— "the Word of God." What are the Scriptures? They are the Word of God. And what does that mean? This: the Scriptures reveal God’ s mind, express His will, make known His perfections, and lay bare His heart. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus has done for the Father. But let us enter a little more into detail:—

   (a) A "word" is a medium of manifestation. I have in my mind a thought, but others know not its nature. But the moment I clothe that thought in words it becomes cognizable. Words, then, make objective unseen thoughts. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus has done. As the Word, Christ has made manifest the invisible God.

   (b) A "word" is a means of communication. By means of words I transmit information to others. By words I express myself, make known my will, and impart knowledge. So Christ, as the Word, is the Divine Transmitter, communicating to us the life and love of God.

   © A "word" is a method of revelation. By his words a speaker exhibits both his intellectual caliber and his moral character. By our words we shall be justified, and by our ‘ words we shall be condemned. And Christ, as the Word, reveals the attributes and perfections of God. How fully has Christ revealed God! He displayed His power, He manifested His wisdom, He exhibited His holiness, He made known His grace, He unveiled His heart. In Christ, and nowhere else, is God fully and finally told out.

   "And the word was WITH GOD." This preposition "with" seems to suggest two thoughts. First, the Word was in the presence of God. As we read, "Enoch walked with God," that is, he lived in fellowship with God. There is a beautiful verse in Proverbs 8 which throws its light on the meaning of "with" in Joh 1:1 , and reveals the blessed relation which obtained from all eternity between the Word and God. The passage begins at Pro 8:22 where "wisdom" is personified. It tells us of the happy fellowship which existed between the Word and God before ever the world was. In Pro 8:30 we read, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." In addition to the two thoughts just suggested, we may add that the Greek preposition "pros" here translated "with" is sometimes rendered "toward," but most frequently "unto." The Word was toward or unto God. One has significantly said, "The word rendered with denotes a perpetual tendency, as it were, of the Son to the Father, in unity of essence."

   That it is here said "the word was with God" tells of His separate personality: He was not "in" God, but "with" God. Now, mark here the marvelous accuracy of Scripture. It is not said, "the word was with the Father" as we might have expected, but "the word was with God." The name "God" is common to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, whereas "the Father" is the special title of the first Person only. Had it said "the word was with the Father," the Holy Spirit had been excluded; but "with God" takes in the Word dwelling in eternal fellowship with both the Father and the Spirit. Observe, too, it does not say, And God was with God,"’ for while there is plurality of Persons in the Godhead, there is but "one God," therefore the minute accuracy of "the WORD was with God."

   "And the word WAS GOD," or, more literally, "and God was the word." Lest the figurative expression "the word" should convey to us an inadequate conception of the Divine glories of Christ, the Holy Spirit goes on to say, "and the word was with God," which denoted His separate personality, and intimated His essential relation to the Godhead. And, as though that were not strong enough, the Holy Spirit expressly adds, "and God was the word." Who could express God save Him who is God! The Word was not an emanation of God, but God Himself made manifest. Not only the revealer of God, but God Himself revealed. A more emphatic and unequivocal affirmation of the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ it is impossible to conceive.

   "The same was in the beginning with God." The same," that is, the Word; "was," that is, subsisted, not began to be; "in the beginning," that is, before time commenced; "with God," that is, as a distinct Personality. That it is here repeated Christ was "with God," seems to be intended as a repudiation of the early Gnostic heresy that Christ was only an idea or ideal IN the mind of God from eternity, duly made manifest in time— a horrible heresy which is being reechoed in our own day. It is not said that the Word was in God; He was, eternally, "with God."

   Before we pass on to the next verse, let us seek to make practical application of what has been before us, and at the same time answer the third of the seven questions asked at the close of the previous chapter; "How may I obtain a better, deeper, fuller knowledge of God Himself? By studying nature? By prayer? By studying Scripture? Or— how?" A more important question we cannot consider. What conception have you formed, dear reader, of the Being, Personality, and Character, of God? Before the Lord Jesus came to this earth, the world was without the knowledge of the true and living God. To say that God is revealed in nature is true, yet it is a statement which needs qualifying. Nature reveals the existence of God, but how little it tells of His character. Nature manifests His natural attributes— His power, His wisdom, His immutability, etc.; but what does nature say to us of His moral attributes— His justice, His holiness, His grace, His love? Nature, as such knows no mercy and shows no pity. If a blind saint unwittingly steps over the edge of a precipice he meets with the same fate as if a vile murderer had been hurled over it. If I break nature’ s laws, no matter how sincere may be my subsequent repentance, there is no escaping the penalty. Nature conceals as well as reveals God. The ancients had "nature" before them, and what did they learn of God? Let that altar, which the Apostle Paul beheld in one of the chief centers of ancient learning and culture make answer— "to the Unknown God" is what he found inscribed thereon!

   It is only in Christ that God is fully told out. Nature is no longer as it left the Creator’ s hands: it is under the Curse, and how could that which is imperfect be a perfect medium for revealing God? But the Lord Jesus Christ is the Holy One. He was God, the Son, manifest in flesh. And so fully and so perfectly did He reveal God, He could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (Joh 14:9 ). Here, then, is the answer to our question, and here is the practical value of what is before us in these opening verses of John’ s Gospel. If the believer would enter into a better, deeper, fuller knowledge of God, he must prayerfully study the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures! Let this be made our chief business, our great delight, to reverently scrutinize and meditate upon the excellencies of our Divine Savior as they are displayed upon the pages of Holy Writ, then, and only then, shall we "increase in the knowledge of God" (Col 1:10 ). The "light of the knowledge of the glory of God" is seen only "in the face of Jesus Christ" (2Co 4:6 ).

   "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh 1:3 ). How this brings out, again, the absolute deity of Christ! Here creation is ascribed to Him, and none but God can create. Man, with all his boasting, is unable to bring into existence a single blade of grass. Observe, that the whole of creation is here ascribed to the Word— "all things were made by him." This would not be true if He were Himself a creature, even though the first and the highest creature. But nothing is excepted— "all things were made by him." Just as He was before all things, and therefore, eternal; so was He the Originator of all things, and therefore, omnipotent.

   "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (Joh 1:4 ). This follows logically from what has been said in the previous verse. If Christ created all things He must be the Fountain of life. He is the Life-Giver. We understand "life" to be used here in its widest sense. Creature life is found in God, for "in him we live and move and have our being"; spiritual life or eternal life, and resurrection life, are also found "in Him." If it be objected that the Greek word for "life" here is "zoe," and that zoe has exclusive reference to spiritual life, we answer, Not always: see Luk 12:15 ; Luk 16:25 (translated "life-time"), Act 17:25 , etc., where, in each case, "zoe" has reference to human (natural) life, as such. Thus, "zoe" includes within its scope all "life."

   "And the Life was THE LIGHT of men." What are we to understand by this? Notice two things: this statement in verse 4 follows immediately after the declaration that "all things were made" by Christ, so that it is creatures, as such, which are here in view; second, it is "men," as men, not only believers, which are here referred to. The "life" here is one of the Divine titles of the Lord Jesus, hence, it is equivalent to saying, "God was the light of men." It speaks of the relation which Christ sustains to men, all men— He is their "light." This is confirmed by what we read in verse 9, "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." In what sense, then, is Christ as "the life" the "light of men?" We answer, In that which renders men accountable creatures. Every rational man is morally enlightened. All rational men "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom 2:15 ). It is this "light," which lightens every man that cometh into the world, that constitutes them responsible human beings. The Greek word for "light" in Joh 1:4 is "phos," and that it is not restricted to spiritual illumination is plainly evident from its usage in Mat 6:23 , "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness," and also see Luk 11:35 ; Act 16:29 , etc.

   Let no reader infer from what has been said that we are among the number who believe the unscriptural theory that there is in every man a spark of Divine life, which needs only to be fanned, to become a flame. No, we expressly repudiate any such satanic lie. By nature, spiritually, he is "dead in trespasses and sins." Yet, notwithstanding, the natural man is a responsible being before God, to Whom he shall give an account of himself; responsible, because the work of God’ s law is written in his heart, his conscience also bearing witness, and this, we take it, is the "light" which is referred to in Joh 1:4 , and the "lighteneth" in Joh 1:9 .

   "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" (Joh 1:5 ). This gives us still another of the Divine titles of Christ. In verse 1 He is spoken of as "the word." In verse 3 as the Maker of all things. In verse 4 as "the life." Now, in verse 5 as "the light." With this should be compared 1Jo 1:5 where we read "God is light." The conclusion, then, is irresistible, the proof complete and final, that the Lord Jesus is none other than God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity.

   The "Englishman’ s Greek New Testament" renders the last clause of Joh 1:5 as follows— "and the light in the darkness appears, and the darkness it apprehended not." This tells us of the effects of the Fall. Every man that comes into this world is lightened by his Creator, but the natural man disregards this light, he repels it, and in consequence, is plunged into darkness. Instead of the natural man "living up to the light he has" (which none ever did) he "loves darkness rather than light" (Joh 3:19 ). The unregenerate man, then, is like one that is blind— he is in the dark. Proof of this appears in the fact that "the Light in the darkness appears, and the darkness apprehended it not." All other darkness yields to and fades away before light, but here "the darkness" is so impenetrable and hopeless, it neither apprehends nor comprehends. What a fearful and solemn indictment of fallen human nature! And how evident it is that nothing short of a miracle of saving grace can ever bring one "out of darkness into God’ s marvelous light."

   "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John" (Joh 1:6 ). The change of subject here is most abrupt. From "the Word" who was God, the Holy Spirit now turns to speak of the forerunner of Christ. He is referred to as "a man," to show us, by way of contrast, that the One to Whom he bore witness was more than Man. This man was "sent from Cod," so is every man who bears faithful witness to the Person of Christ. The name of this man was "John" which, as etymologists tell us, signifies "the gift of God."

   ‘ The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all through him might believe" (Joh 1:7 ). John came to bear witness of "the light." Weigh well these words: they are solemn, pathetic, tragic. Perhaps their force will be the more evident if we ask a question: When the sun is shining in all its beauty, who are the ones that are unconscious of the fact? Who need to be told it is shining? The blind! How tragic, then, when we read that God sent John to "bear witness of the light." How pathetic that there should be any need for this! How solemn the statement that men have to be told "the light" is now in their midst. What a revelation of man’ s fallen condition. The Light shone in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not. Therefore, did God send John to bear witness of the Light. God would not allow His beloved Son to come here unrecognized and unheralded. As soon as He was born into this world, He sent the angels to the Bethlehem shepherds to proclaim Him, and just before His public ministry began, John appeared bidding Israel to receive Him.

   "The same came for a witness." This defines the character of the preacher’ s office. He is a "witness," and a witness is one who knows what he says and says what he knows. He deals not with speculations, he speaks not of his own opinions, but he testifies to what he knows to be the truth.

   "To bear witness of the light." This should ever be the aim of the preacher: to get his hearers to look away from himself to Another. He is not to testify of himself, nor about himself, but he is to "preach Christ" (1Co 1:23 ). This is the message the Spirit of God will own, for Christ has said of Him, "He shall glorify me" (Joh 16:14 ).

   "That all through him might believe." "That" means "in order that." "To bear witness" defines the character of the preacher’ s office: to "bear witness of the light" makes known the preacher’ s theme; that "all through him might believe" speaks of the design of his ministry. Men become believers through receiving the testimony of God’ s witness. The "all" is the same as in Joh 6:45 .

   "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light" (Joh 1:8 ). No, John himself was not "that light," for "light" like "life" is to be found only in God. Apart from God all is darkness, profound and unrelieved. Even the believer has no light in himself. What saith the Scriptures? "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye the light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8 ). There is a statement found in Joh 5:35 which, as it stands in the A.V., conflicts with what is said here in Joh 1:8 . In verse 35 when speaking of John, Christ said, "He was a burning and shining light," but the Greek word used here is entirely different from that translated "light" in Joh 1:8 , and in the R.V. it is correctly translated "He was the lamp that burneth and shineth." This word used of John, correctly translated "lamp," points a striking contrast between the forerunner and Christ as "the light." A lamp has no inherent light of its own— it has to be supplied! A "lamp" has to be carried by another! A "lamp" soon burns out: in a few hours it ceases to shine.

   "That was the true light, which lighteth every man which cometh into the world" (Joh 1:9 ). Bishop Ryle in his most excellent notes on John’ s Gospel, has suggested that the adjective "true" has here at least a fourfold reference. First, Christ, is the "true light" as the Undeceiving Light. Satan himself, we read, "is transformed into an angel of light" (2Co 11:14 ), but he appears as such only to deceive. But Christ is the true Light in contrast from all the false lights which are in the world. Second, as the "true light," Christ is the Real Light. The real light in contrast from the dim and shaded light which was conveyed through the types and shadows of the Old Testament ritual. Third, as the "true light" Christ is the Underived Light: there are lesser lights which are borrowed and reflected, as the moon from the sun, but Christ’ s "light" is His own essential and underived glory. Fourth, as the "true light," Christ is the Supereminent Light, in contrast from all that is ordinary and common. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another of the stars; but all other lights pale before Him who is "the light." The latter part of this ninth verse need not detain us now, having already received our consideration under the exposition of verse four. The light which "every man" has by nature is the light and reason and conscience.

   "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (Joh 1:10 ). "He was in the world" refers, we believe, to His incarnation and the thirty-three years during which He tabernacled among men. Then it is said "and the world was made by him." This is to magnify the Divine glory of the One who had become incarnate, and to emphasize the tragedy of what follows, "and the world knew him not."

   "He was in the world." Who was? None other than the One who had made it. And how was He received? The great Creator was about to appear: will not a thrill of glad expectancy run around the world? He is coming not to judge, but to save. He is to appear not as a haughty Despot, but as a Man "holy, harmless, undefiled;" not to be ministered unto, but to minister. Will not such an One receive a hearty welcome? Alas, "the world knew him not." Full of their own schemes and pursuits, they thought nothing of Him. Unspeakably tragic is this, yet something even more pathetic follows.

   "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (Joh 1:11 ). How appropriate are the terms here used: note the nice distinction: "He was in the world" and, therefore, within the reach of inquiry. But to the seed of Abraham He "came," knocking as it were, at their door for admission; but "they received him not." The world is charged with ignorance, but Israel with unbelief, yea, with a positive refusal of Him. Instead of welcoming the Heavenly Visitant, they drove Him from their door, and even banished Him from the earth. Who would have supposed that a people whose believing ancestors had been eagerly awaiting the appearance of the Messiah for long ages past, would have rejected Him when He came among them! Yet so it was: and should any ask, How could these things be? we answer, This very thing was expressly foretold by their own prophet, that He should possess neither form nor comeliness in their eyes, and when they should see Him there would be no beauty that they should desire Him. Ah! would it have been any wonder if He had turned away from such ingrates in disgust! What blessed subjection to the Father’ s will, and what wondrous love for sinners, that He remained on earth in order that He might later die the death of the Cross!

   But if the world "knew him not," and Israel "received him not," was the purpose of God defeated? No, indeed, for that could not be. The counsel of the Lord "shall stand’ : (Pro 19:21 ). The marvelous condescension of the Son could not be in vain. So, we read, "but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (verse 12). This tells us of the human side of salvation, what is required of sinners. Salvation comes to the sinner through "receiving" Christ, that is, by "believing on his name." There is a slight distinction between these two things, though in substance they are one. Believing, respects Christ as He is exhibited by the Gospel testimony: it is the personal acceptance as truth of what God has said concerning His Son. Receiving, views Christ as presented to us as God’ s Gift, presented to us for our acceptance. And "as many as," no matter whether they be Jews or Gentiles, rich or poor, illiterate or learned, receive Christ as their own personal Savior, to them is given the power or right to become the sons (better "children") of God.

   But who receive Him thus? Not all by any means. Only a few. And is this left to chance? Far from it. As the following verse goes on to state, "which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Joh 1:13 ). This explains to us why the few "receive" Christ. It is because they are born of God. Just as verse 12 gives us the human side, so verse 13 gives us the Divine. The Divine side is the new birth: and the taking place of the new birth is "not of blood," that is to say, it is not a matter of heredity, for regeneration does not run in the veins; "nor of the will of the flesh," the will of the natural man is opposed to God, and he has no will Godward until he has been born again; "nor of the will of man," that is to say, the new birth is not brought about by the well-meant efforts of friends, nor by the persuasive powers of the preacher; "but of God." The new birth is a Divine work. It is accomplished by the Holy Spirit applying the Word in living power to the heart. The reception Christ met during the days of His earthly ministry is the same still: the world "knows him not;" Israel "receives him not;" but a little company do receive him, and who these are Act 13:48 tells us— "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." And here we must stop.

   Preparatory to our next chapter, we are anxious that the reader should study the following questions:

   1. In Joh 1:14 the word "dwelt" signifies "tabernacled." The Word tabernacled among men. It points us back to the Tabernacle of Israel in the wilderness. In what respects did the Tabernacle of old typify and foreshadow Christ?

   2. "We beheld his glory" (Joh 1:14 ): what is meant by this? what "glory?" At least a threefold "glory."

   3. In what sense was Christ "before" John the Baptist (Joh 1:15 )?

   4. What is the meaning of Joh 1:16 ?

   5. Why are we told that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17 )?

   6. Was there any "grace and truth" before Jesus Christ came? If so, what is meant by them coming by Jesus Christ?

   7. How many contrasts can you draw between Law and Grace?

  

  

Combined Bible: Joh 1:14-18

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 3   

Christ, The Word Incarnate   

John 1:14-18   

We first submit a brief Analysis of the passage which is to be before us— John 1:14-18. We have here:—   

1. Christ’ s Incarnation— "The word became flesh": John 1:14.  

2. Christ’ s Earthly sojourn— "And tabernacled among us:" John 1:14.  

3. Christ’ s Essential Glory— "As of the only Begotten:" John 1:14.  

4. Christ’ s Supreme excellency— "Preferred before:" John 1:15.  

5. Christ’ s Divine sufficiency— "His fulness:" John 1:16.  

6. Christ’ s Moral perfections— "Grace and truth:" John 1:17.  

7. Christ’ s Wondrous revelation— Made known "the Father:" John 1:18.  

"And the word was made (became) flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The Infinite became finite. The Invisible became tangible. The Transcendent became imminent. That which was far off drew nigh. That which was beyond the reach of the human mind became that which could be beholden within the realm of human life. Here we are permitted to see through a veil that, which unveiled, would have blinded us. "The word became flesh:" He became what He was not previously. He did not cease to be God, but He became Man.  

"And the word became flesh." The plain meaning of these words is, that our Divine Savior took upon Him human nature. He became a real Man, yet a sinless, perfect Man. As Man He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). This union of the two natures in the Person of Christ is one of the mysteries of our faith— "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). It needs to be carefully stated. "The word" was His Divine title; "became flesh" speaks of His holy humanity. He was, and is, the God-man, yet the Divine and human in Him were never confounded. His Deity, though veiled, was never laid aside; His humanity, though sinless, was a real humanity; for as incarnate, He "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). As "the word" then, He is the Son of God; as "flesh," the Son of man.  

This union of the two natures in the Person of Christ was necessary in order to fit Him for the office of Mediator. Three great ends were accomplished by God becoming incarnate, by the Word being made flesh. First, it was now possible for Him to die. Second, He can now be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Third, He has left us an example, that we should follow His steps.  

This duality of nature was plainly intimated in Old Testament prediction. Prophecy sometimes represented the coming Messiah as human, sometimes as Divine. He was to be the woman’ s "seed" (Gen. 3:15); a "prophet" like unto Moses (see Deuteronomy 18:18); a lineal descendant of David (see 2 Samuel 7:12); Jehovah’ s "Servant" (Isa. 42:1); a "Man of sorrows" (Isa. 53:3). Yet, on the other hand, He was to be "the Branch of the Lord, beautiful and glorious" (Isa. 4:2); He was "the wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of the ages, the Prince of peace" (Isa. 9:6). As Jehovah He was to come suddenly to His temple (see Malachi 3:1). The One who was to be born in Bethlehem and be Ruler in Israel, was the One "whose goings forth had been from the days of eternity" (Mic. 5:2). How were those two different sets of prophecy to be harmonized? John 1:14 is the answer. The One born at Bethlehem was the Divine and eternal Word. The Incarnation does not mean that God dwelt in a man, but that God became Man. He became what He was not previously, though He never ceased to be all that He was before. The Babe of Bethlehem was Immanuel— God with us.  

"And the word became flesh." It is the design of John’ s Gospel to bring this out in a special way. The miracles recorded therein illustrate and demonstrate this in a peculiar manner. For example: He turns the water into wine— but how? He, Himself, did nothing but speak the word. He gave His command to the servants and the transformation was wrought. Again; the nobleman’ s son was sick. The father came to the Lord Jesus and besought Him to journey to his home and heal his boy. What was our Lord’ s response? "Jesus said unto him, Go thy way, thy son liveth" (John 4:50), and the miracle was performed. Again; an impotent man was lying by the porch of Bethesda. He desired some one to put him into the pool, but while he was waiting another stepped in before him, and was healed. Then the Lord Jesus passed that way and saw him. What happened? "Jesus saith unto him, Rise," etc. The word of power went forth, and the sufferer was made whole. Once more: consider the case of Lazarus, recorded only by John. In the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Christ took the damsel by the hand; when He restored to life the widow’ s son of Nain, He touched the bier. But in bringing Lazarus from the dead He did nothing except speak the word, "Lazarus, come forth." In all of these miracles we see the Word at work. The One who had become flesh and tabernacled among men was eternal and omnipotent— "the great God (the Word) and our Savior (became flesh) Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13).  

"And dwelt (tabernacled) among us." He pitched His tent on earth for thirty-three years. There is here a latent reference to the tabernacle of Israel in the wilderness. That tabernacle had a typical significance: it forshadowed God the Son incarnate. Almost everything about the tabernacle adumbrated the Word made flesh. Many and varied are the correspondences between the type and the Anti-type. We notice a few of the more conspicuous.  

1. The "tabernacle" was a temporary appointment. In this it differed from the temple of Solomon, which was a permanent structure. The tabernacle was merely a tent, a temporary convenience, something that was suited to be moved about from place to place during the journeyings of the children of Israel. So it was when our blessed Lord tabernacled here among men. His stay was but a brief one— less than forty years; and, like the type, He abode not long in any one place, but was constantly on the move— unwearied in the activity of His love.  

2. The "tabernacle" was for use in the wilderness. After Israel settled in Canaan, the tabernacle was superseded by the temple. But during the time of their pilgrimage from Egypt to the promised land, the tabernacle was God’ s appointed provision for them. The wilderness strikingly foreshadowed the conditions amid which the eternal Word tabernacled among men at His first advent. The wilderness home of the tabernacle unmistakably foreshadowed the manger-cradle, the Nazarite-carpenter’ s bench, the "nowhere" for the Son of man to lay His head, the borrowed tomb for His sepulcher. A careful study of the chronology of the Pentateuch seems to indicate that Israel used the tabernacle in the wilderness rather less than thirty-five years!  

3. Outwardly the "tabernacle" was mean, humble, and unattractive in appearance. Altogether unlike the costly and magnificent temple of Solomon, there was nothing in the externals of the tabernacle to please the carnal eye. Nothing but plain boards and skins. So it was at the Incarnation. The Divine majesty of our Lord was hidden beneath a veil of flesh. He came, unattended by any imposing retinue of angels. To the unbelieving gaze of Israel He had no form nor comeliness; and when they beheld Him, their unanointed eyes saw in Him no beauty that they should desire Him.  

4. The "tabernacle" was God’ s dwelling place. It was there, in the midst of Israel’ s camp, He took up His abode. There, between the cherubim upon the mercy-seat He made His throne. In the holy of holies He manifested His presence by means of the Shekinah glory. And during the thirty-three years that the Word tabernacled among men, God had His dwelling place in Palestine. The holy of holies received its anti-typical fulfillment in the Person of the Holy One of God. Just as the Shekinah dwelt between the two cherubim, so on the mount of transfiguration the glory of the God-man flashed forth from between two men— Moses and Elijah. "We beheld his glory" is the language of the tabernacle type.  

5. The "tabernacle" was, therefore, the place where God met with men. It was termed "the tent of meeting." If an Israelite desired to draw near unto Jehovah He had to come to the door of the tabernacle. When giving instructions to Moses concerning the making of the tabernacle and its furniture, God said, "And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (Ex. 25:21, 22). How perfect is this lovely type! Christ is the meeting place between God and men. No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (see John 14:16). There is but one Mediator between God and men— the Man Christ Jesus (see 1 Timothy 2:5). He is the One who spans the gulf between deity and humanity, because He is Himself both God and Man.  

6. The "tabernacle" was the center of Israel’ s camp. In the immediate vicinity of the tabernacle dwelt the Levites, the priestly tribe: "But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle" (Num. 1:50), and around the Levites were grouped the twelve tribes, three on either side— see Numbers 2. Again; we read, that when Israel’ s camp was to be moved from one place to another, "Then the tabernacle of the congregation shall set forward with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camp" (Num. 2:17). And, once more, "And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in a cloud and spake unto him" (Num. 11:24, 25). How striking is this! The tabernacle was the great gathering center. As such it was a beautiful foreshadowing of the Lord Jesus. He is our great gathering-center. And His precious promise is, that "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).  

7. The "tabernacle" was the place where the Law was preserved. The first two tables of stone, on which Jehovah had inscribed the ten commandments were broken (see Exodus 32:19); but the second set were deposited in the ark in the tabernacle for safe keeping (see Deuteronomy 10:2-5). It was only there, within the holy of holies, the tablets of the Law were preserved intact. How this, again, speaks to us of Christ! He it was that said, "Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart" (Ps. 40:7, 8). Throughout His perfect life He preserved in thought, word and deed, the Divine Decalogue, honoring and magnifying God’ s Law.  

8. The "tabernacle" was the place where sacrifice was made. In its outer court stood the brazen altar, to which the animals were brought, and on which they were slain. There it was that blood was shed and atonement was made for sin. So it was with the Lord Jesus. He fulfilled in His own Person the typical significance of the brazen altar, as of every piece of the tabernacle furniture. The body in which He tabernacled on earth was nailed to the cruel Tree. The Cross was the altar upon which God’ s Lamb was slain, where His precious blood was shed, and where complete atonement was made for sin.  

9. The "tabernacle" was the place where the priestly family was fed. "And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it... The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten" (Lev. 6:16, 26). How deeply significant are these scriptures in their typical import! And how they speak to us of Christ as the Food of God’ s priestly family today, that is, all believers (see 1 Peter 2:5). He is the Bread of Life. He is the One upon whom our souls delight to feed.  

10. The "tabernacle" was the place of worship. To it the pious Israelite brought his offerings. To it he turned when he desired to worship Jehovah. From its door the Voice of the Lord was heard. Within its courts the priests ministered in their sacred service. And so it was with the Anti-type. It is "by him" we are to offer unto God a sacrifice of praise (see Hebrews 13:15). It is in Him, and by Him, alone, that we can worship the Father. It is through Him we have access to the throne of grace.  

Thus we see how fully and how perfectly the tabernacle of old foreshadowed the Person of our blessed Lord, and why the Holy Spirit, when announcing the Incarnation, said, "And the word became flesh, and tabernacled among us." Before passing on to the next clause of John 1:14, it should be pointed out that there is a series of striking contrasts between the wilderness tabernacle and Solomon’ s temple in their respective foreshadowings of Christ.  

(1) The tabernacle foreshadowed Christ in His first advent; the temple looks forward to Christ at His second advent.  

(2) The tabernacle was first, historically; the temple was not built until long afterwards.  

(3) The tabernacle was but a temporary erection; the temple was a permanent structure.  

(4) The tabernacle was erected by Moses the prophet (which was the office Christ filled during His first advent); the temple was built by Solomon the king (which is the office Christ will fill at His second advent).  

(5) The tabernacle was used in the wilderness— speaking of Christ’ s humiliation; the temple was built in Jerusalem, the "city of the great King" (Matthew 5:35)— speaking of Christ’ s future glorification.  

(6) The numeral which figured most prominently in the tabernacle was five, which speaks of grace, and grace was what characterized the earthly ministry of Christ at His first advent; but the leading numeral in the temple was twelve which speaks of government, for Christ shall rule and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords.  

(7) The tabernacle was unattractive in its externals— so when Christ was here before He was as "a root out of a dry ground;" but the temple was renowned for its outward magnificence— so Christ when He returns shall come in power and great glory.  

"And we beheld his glory." "We beheld" refers, directly, to the first disciples, yet it is the blessed experience of all believers today. "But we all . . . beholding, as in a glass (mirror) the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18). The term used in both of these verses seems to point a contrast. In John 12:41 we read, "These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him," the reference being to Isaiah 6. The Old Testament celebrities only had occasional and passing glimpses of God’ s glory. But, in contrast from these who only "saw," we— believers of this dispensation— "behold his glory." But more particularly, there is a contrast here between the beholding and the non-beholding of God’ s glory: the Shekinah glory abode in the holy of holies, and therefore, was hidden. But we, now, "behold" the Divine glory.  

"We beheld his glory." What is meant by this? Ah! who is competent to answer. Eternity itself will be too short to exhaustively explore this theme. The glories of our Lord are infinite, for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. No subject ought to be dearer to the heart of a believer. Briefly defined, "We beheld his glory" signifies His supreme excellency, His personal perfections. For the purpose of general classification we may say the "glories" of our Savior are fourfold, each of which is capable of being subdivided indefinitely. First, there are His essential "glories," as the Son of God; these are His Divine perfections, as for example, His Omnipotence. Second, there are His moral "glories," and these are His human perfections, as for example, His meekness. Third, there are His official "glories," and these are His mediatorial perfections, as for example, His priesthood. Fourth, there are His acquired "glories," and these are the reward for what He has done. Probably the first three of these are spoken of in our text.  

First, "We beheld his glory" refers to His essential "glory," or Divine perfections. This is clear from the words which follow: "The glory as of the only begotten of the Father." From the beginning to the end of His earthly life and ministry the Deity of the Lord Jesus was plainly evidenced. His supernatural birth, His personal excellencies, His matchless teaching, His wondrous miracles, His death and resurrection, all proclaimed Him as the Son of God. But it is to be noted that these words, "we beheld his glory," follow immediately after the words "tabernacled" among men. We cannot but believe there is here a further reference to the tabernacle. In the tabernacle, in the holy of holies, Jehovah made His throne upon the mercy seat, and the evidence of His presence there was the Shekinah glory, frequently termed "the cloud." When the tabernacle had been completed, and Jehovah took possession of it, we read, "then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Ex. 40:34). It was the same at the completion of Solomon’ s temple: "The cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord" (1 Kings 8:10, 11). Here "the cloud" and "the glory" are clearly identified. The Shekinah glory, then, was the standing sign of God’ s presence in the midst of Israel. Hence, after Israel’ s apostasy, and when the Lord was turning away from them, we are told, "And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city" (Ezek. 11:23). Therefore, when we read, "The Word . . . tabernacled among men, and we beheld his glory" it was the proof that none other than Jehovah was again in Israel’ s midst. And it is a remarkable fact, to which we have never seen attention called, that at either extremity of the Word’ s tabernacling among men the Shekinah glory was evidenced. Immediately following His birth we are told, "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid" (Luke 2:8, 9). And, at His departure from this world, we read "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9)— not "clouds," but "a cloud! We beheld his glory," then, refers, first, to His Divine glory.  

Second, there also seems to be a reference here to His official "glory," which was exhibited upon the Holy Mount. In 2 Peter 1:16 we read, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." The reference is to the Transfiguration, for the next verse goes on to say, "For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It is the use of the word "glory" here which seems to link the transfiguration-scene with John 1:14. This is confirmed by the fact that on the Mount, "while. he vet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them" (Matthew 17:5).  

Third, there is also a clear reference in John 1:14 to the moral "glory" or perfections of the God-Man, for after saying "we beheld his glory," John immediately adds (omitting the parenthesis) "full of grace and truth." What marvelous grace we behold in that wondrous descent from heaven’ s throne to Bethlehem’ s manger! It had been an act of infinite condescension if the One who was the Object of angelic worship had deigned to come down to this earth and reign over it as King; but that He should appear in weakness, that He should voluntarily choose poverty, that He should become a helpless Babe— such grace is altogether beyond our ken; such matchless love passeth knowledge. O that we may never lose our sense of wonderment at the infinite condescension of God’ s Son.  

In His marvelous stoop we behold His glory. Greatness is never so glorious as when it takes the place of lowliness. Power is never so attractive as when it is placed at the disposal of others. Might is never so triumphant as when it sets aside its own prerogatives. Sovereignty is never so winsome as when it is seen in the place of service. And, may we not say it reverently, Deity had never appeared so glorious as when It hung upon a maiden’ s breast! Yes, we behold His glory— the glory of an infinite condescension, the glory of a matchless grace, the glory of a fathomless love.  

Concerning the acquired "glories" of our Lord we cannot now treat at length. These include the various rewards bestowed upon Him by the Father after the successful completion of the work which had been committed into His hands. It is of these acquired glories Isaiah speaks, when, after treating of the voluntary humiliation and death of the Savior, he gives us to hear the Father saying of Christ, "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death" (Isa. 53:12). It is of these acquired glories the Holy Spirit speaks in Philippians 2, where after telling of our Lord’ s obedience even unto the death of the Cross, He declares, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9). And so we might continue. But how unspeakably blessed to know, that at the close of our great High Priest’ s prayer, recorded in John 17, we find Him saying, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me" (verse 24)!  

Before we pass on to the next verse we would point out that there is an intimate connection between the one which has just been before us (John 5:14) and the opening verse of the chapter. Verse 14 is really an explanation and amplification of verse 1. There are three statements in each which exactly correspond, and the latter throw light on the former. First, "in the beginning was the word," and that is something that transcends our comprehension; but "and the word became flesh" brings Him within reach of our sense. Second "and the word was with God," and again we are unable to understand; but the Word "tabernacled among us," and we may draw near and behold. Third, "and the word was God," and again we are in the realm of the Infinite; but "full of grace and truth," and here are two essential facts concerning God which come within the range of our vision. Thus by coupling together verses 1 and 14 (reading the verses in between as a parenthesis) we have a statement which is, probably, the most comprehensive in its sweep, the profoundest in its depths, and yet the simplest in its terms to be found between the covers of the Bible. Put these verses side by side:—   

(1) "In the beginning was the word:"  

(a) "And the word became flesh" tells of the beginning of His human life.  

(2) "And the word was with God"  

(b) "And tabernacled among us" shows Him with men.  

(3) "And the word was God"  

© "Full of grace and truth," and this tells what God is.  

"John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me" (John 1:15). Concerning the ministry and testimony of John the Baptist we shall have more to say in our next chapter, D.V., so upon this verse we offer only two very brief remarks. First, we find that here the Lord’ s forerunner bears witness to Christ’ s supreme excellency: "He that cometh after me is preferred before me," he declares, which, in the Greek, signifies Christ had His being "before" John. Second, "For he was before me." But, historically, John the Baptist was born into this world six months before the Savior was. When, then, the Baptist says Christ "was before" him, he is referring to His eternal existence, and, therefore, bears witness to His deity.  

"And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace" (John 1:16). The word "fulness" is still another term in this important passage which brings out the absolute Deity of the Savior. It is the same word which is found in Colossians 1:19 and 2:9— "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; . . . For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The Greek preposition "ek" signifies "out of." Out of the Divine fulness have all we (believers) "received." What is it we have "received" from Christ? Ah, what is it we have not "received!" It is out of His inexhaustible "fulness" we have "received." From Him we have "received" life (see John 10:28); peace (John 14:27); joy (John 15:11); God’ s own Word (John 17:14); the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). There is laid up in Christ, as in a great storehouse, all that the believer needs both for time and for eternity.  

"And grace for grace." Bishop Ryle tells us the Greek preposition here may be translated two different ways, and suggests the following thoughts. First, we have received "grace upon grace," that is, God’ s favors heaped up, one upon another. Second, "grace for grace," that is, new grace to supply old grace; grace sufficient to meet every recurring need.  

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). A contrast is drawn between what was "given" by Moses, and what "came" by Jesus Christ; for "grace and truth" were not merely "given," they "came by Jesus Christ," came in all their fulness, came in their glorious perfections. The Law was "given" to Moses, for it was not his own; but "grace and truth" were not "given" to Christ, for these were His own essential perfections. On looking into this contrast we must bear in mind that the great point here is the manifestation of God: God as He was manifested through the Law, and God as He was made known by the Only Begotten Son.  

Was not the Law "truth?" Yes, so far as it went. It announced what God righteously demanded of men, and therefore, what men ought to be according to God’ s mind. It has often been said, the Law is a transcript of God’ s mind. But how inadequate such a statement is! Did the Law reveal what God is? Did it display all His attributes? If it did, there would be nothing more to learn of God than what the Law made known.  

Did the Law tell out the grace of God? No; indeed. The Law was holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good. It demanded obedience; it required the strictest doing and continuance of all things written in it. And the only alternative was death. Inflexible in its claims, it remitted no part of its penalty. He that despised it "died without mercy," and, "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward" (Heb. 10:28; see Hebrews 2:2). Such a Law could never justify a sinner. For this it was never given.  

The inevitable effect of the Law when received by the unsaved is just that which was produced at Sinai, to whom it first came: "And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die" (Ex. 20:19). "Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die" (Deut. 5:25). Why such terror? Because "they could not endure that which was commanded" (Heb. 12:20). This terror was the testimony which the Law extorts from every sinner, to whom it is brought home as God’ s Law; it is "the ministration of condemnation, and of death" (2 Cor. 3:7, 9). It has a "glory," indeed, but it is the glory of thunder and lightning, of fire, of blackness, and of darkness, and the sound of the trumpet, and of the voice of words, which only bring terror to the guilty conscience. But, blessed be God, there is "a glory that excelleth" (2 Cor. 3:10).  

"Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The "glory that excelleth" is the glory of "the word that became flesh, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." The Law revealed God’ s justice, but it did not make known His mercy; it testified to His righteousness, but it did not exhibit His grace. It was God’ s "truth," but not the full truth about God Himself. "By the law is the knowledge of sin;" we never read "by the law is the knowledge of God." No; the "law entered that the offense might abound," "sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful." It made known the heinousness of sin; it condemned the sinner, but it did not fully reveal God. It exhibited His righteous hatred of sin and His holy determination to punish it: it exposed the guilt and corruption of the sinner, but for ought it could tell him, it left him to his doom. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3, 4).  

"Grace and truth." These are fitly and inseparably joined together. We cannot have the one without having the other. There are many who do not like salvation by grace, and there are those who would tolerate grace if they could have it without the truth. The Nazarenes could "wonder" at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth, but as soon as Christ pressed the truth upon them, they "were filled with wrath," and sought to "cast him down headlong from the brow of the hill whereon their city was built" (Luke 4:29). Such, too, was the condition of those who sought Him for "the meat that perisheth." They were willing to profit from His grace, but when He told them the truth some "murmured" at Him, others were "offended," and "many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). And in our own day, there are many who admire the grace which came by Jesus Christ, and would consent to be saved by it, provided this could be without the intrusion of the truth. But this cannot be. Those who reject the truth, reject grace.  

There is, in Romans 5:21, another sentence which is closely parallel, and really, an amplification of these words "grace and truth"— "Grace reigns through righteousness, unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." The grace which saves sinners is no mere moral weakness such as is often to be found in human government. Nor is "the righteousness of God," through which grace reigns, some mere semblance of justice. No; on the Cross Christ was "set forth a proptiation (a perfect satisfaction to the broken Law) through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’ s) righteousness for the remission of sins" (Rom. 3:25). Grace does not ignore the Law, or set aside its requirements; nay verily, "it establishes the law" (Rom. 3:31): establishes it because inseparably linked with "truth;" establishes it because it reigns "through righteousness," not at the expense of it; establishes it because grace tells of a Substitute who kept the Law for and endured the death penalty on behalf of all who receive Him as their Lord and Savior; and establishes it by bringing the redeemed to "delight" in the Law.  

But was there no "grace and truth" before Jesus Christ came? Assuredly there was. God dealt according to "grace and truth" with our first parents immediately after their transgression— it was grace that sought them, and provided them with a covering; as it was truth that pronounced sentence upon them, and expelled them from the garden. God dealt according to "grace and truth" with Israel on the passover night in Egypt: it was grace that provided shelter for them beneath the blood; it was truth that righteously demanded the death of an innocent substitute in their stead. But "grace and truth" were never fully revealed till the Savior Himself appeared. By Him they "came:" in Him they were personified, magnified, glorified.  

And now let us notice a few contrasts between Law and Grace:  

1. Law addresses men as members of the old creation; Grace makes men members of a new creation.  

2. Law manifested what was in Man-sin; Grace manifests what is in God-Love.  

3. Law demanded righteousness from men; Grace brings righteousness to men.  

4. Law sentences a living man to death; Grace brings a dead man to life.  

5. Law speaks of what men must do for God; Grace tells of what Christ has done for men.  

6. Law gives a knowledge of sin; Grace puts away sin.  

7. Law brought God out to men; Grace brings men in to God.  

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). This verse terminates the Introduction to John’ s Gospel, and summarizes the whole of the first eighteen verses of John 1. Christ has "declared"— told out, revealed, unveiled, displayed the Father; and the One who has done this is "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father." The "bosom of the Father" speaks of proximity to, personal intimacy with, and the enjoyment of the Father’ s love. And, in becoming flesh, the Son did not leave this place of inseparable union. It is not the "Son which was," but "which is in the bosom of the Father." He retained the same intimacy with the Father, entirely unimpaired by the Incarnation. Nothing in the slightest degree detracted from His own personal glory, or from the nearness and oneness to the Father which He had enjoyed with Him from all eternity. How we ought, then, to honor, reverence, and worship the Lord Jesus!  

But a further word on this verse is called for. A remarkable contrast is pointed. In the past, God, in the fulness of His glory, was unmanifested— "No man" had seen Him; but now, God is fully revealed— the Son has "declared" Him. Perhaps this contrast may be made clearer to our readers if we refer to two passages in the Old Testament and compare them with two passages in the New Testament.  

In 1 Kings 8:12 we read, "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." Again, "Clouds and darkness are round about him" (Ps. 97:2). These verses tell not what God is in Himself, but declare that under the Law He was not revealed. What could be known of a person who dwelt in "thick darkness!" But now turn to 1 Peter 2:9, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." Ah, how blessed this is. Again, we read in 1 John 1:5, 7, "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all... but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another." And this, because the Father has been fully "declared" by our adorable Savior.  

Once more: turn to Exodus 33:18— "And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory." This was the earnest request of Moses. But was it granted? Read on, "And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of a rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hind, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." Character is not declared in a person’ s "back parts" but in his face! That Moses saw not the face, but only the back parts of Jehovah, was in perfect accord with the dispensation of Law in which he lived. How profoundly thankful should we be that the dispensation of Law has passed, and that we live in the full light of the dispensation of Grace! How deeply grateful should we be, that we look not on the back parts of Jehovah "for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). May grace be given us to magnify and adorn that superlative grace which has brought us out of darkness into marvelous light, because the God whom no man hath seen at any time has been fully "declared" by the Son.  

We conclude, once more, by drawing up a number of questions on the passage which will be before us in the next chapter (John 1:19-34), so that the interested reader, who desires to "Search the Scriptures" may give them careful study in the interval.  

1. Why did the Jews ask John if he were Elijah, John 1:21?  

2. What "prophet" did they refer to in John 1:21?  

3. What are the thoughts suggested by "voice" in John 1:23?  

4. Why did John cry "in the wilderness" rather than in the temple, John 1:23?  

5. "Whom ye know not," John 1:26— What did this prove?  

6. What are the thoughts suggested by the Savior’ s title "The Lamb of God," John 1:29?  

7. Why did the Holy Spirit descend on Christ as a "dove," John 1:32?  

  

Combined Bible: Joh 1:19-34

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 4   

Christ’ s Forerunner   

John 1:19-34   

Following our usual custom, we begin by submitting an Analysis of the passage which is to be before us. In it we have:—   

1. The Jews’ inquiry of John, and his answers, John 1:19-26,  

(1) "Who art thou?" Not the Christ: 19, 20.  

(2) "Art thou Elijah?" No: 21.  

(3) "Art thou that prophet?" No: 21.  

(4) "What sayest thou of thyself?" A "voice:" 22, 23.  

(5) "Why baptizeth thou?" To prepare the way for Christ: 24-26.  

2. John’ s witness concerning Christ: John 1:27.  

3. Location of the Conference, John 1:28.  

4. John proclaims Christ as God’ s "Lamb," John 1:29.  

5. The purpose of John’ s baptism, John 1:30-31.  

6. John tells of the Spirit descending on Christ at His baptism, and foretells that Christ shall baptize with the Spirit, John 1:32, 33.  

7. John owns Christ’ s Deity, John 1:34.  

Even a hurried reading of these verses will make it evident that the personage which stands out most conspicuously in them is John the Baptist. Moreover, we do not have to study this passage very closely to discover that, the person and the witness of the Lord’ s forerunner are brought before us here in a manner entirely different from what we find in the first three Gospels. No hint is given that his raiment was "of camel’ s hair," that he had "a leathern girdle about his loins," or that "his meat was locusts and wild honey." Nothing is recorded of his stem Call to Repentance, nor is anything said of his announcement that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." These things were foreign to the design of the Holy Spirit in this fourth Gospel. Again; instead of referring to the Lord Jesus as the One "whose fan is in his hand," and of the One who "will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), he points to Him as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." And this is most significant and blessed to those who have been divinely taught to rightly divide the Word of Truth.  

Without doubt John the Baptist is, in several respects, one of the most remarkable characters that is brought before us in the Bible. He was the subject of Old Testament prophecy (Isa. 40); his birth was due to the direct and miraculous intervention of God (Luke 1:7, 13); he was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’ s womb" (Luke 1:15); he was a man sent from God" (John 1:6); he was sent to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3). Of him the Lord said, "Among them that are born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11); the reference being to his positional "greatness," as the forerunner of the Messiah: to him was accorded the high honor of baptizing the Lord Jesus. That Christ was referring to the positional "greatness" of John is clear from His next words, "notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." To have a place in the kingdom of heaven will be a more exalted position than to be heralding the King outside of it, as John was. This, we take it is the key to that word in John 14:28, where we find the Lord Jesus saying, "My Father is greater than I"— greater not in His person, but in His position; for, at the time the Savior uttered those words He was in the place of subjection, as God’ s "Servant."  

Our passage opens by telling of a deputation of priests and Levites being sent from Jerusalem to enquire of John as to who he was: "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" (John 1:19). Nothing like this is found in the other Gospels, but it is in striking accord with the character and scope of the fourth Gospel, which deals with spiritual rather than dispensational relationships. The incident before us brings out the spiritual ignorance of the religious leaders among the Jews. In fulfillment of Isaiah’ s prophecy, the Lord’ s forerunner had appeared in the wilderness, but, lacking in spiritual discernment, the leaders in Jerusalem knew not who he was. Accordingly, their messengers came and enquired of John, "Who art thou?" Multitudes of people were flocking to this strange preacher in the wilderness, and many had been baptized by him. A great stir had been made, so much so that "men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were Christ, or not" (Luke 3:15), and the religious leaders in Jerusalem were compelled to take note of it; therefore, did they send a deputation to wait upon John, to find out who he really was, and to enquire into his credentials.  

"And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ" (John 1:20). These words give plain intimation of the Spirit in which the priests and Levites must have approached John, as also of the design of "the Jews" who had sent them. To them the Baptist was an interloper. He was outside the religious systems of that day. He had not been trained in the schools of the Rabbins, he had held no position of honor in the temple ministrations, and he was not identified with either the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Herodians. From whence then had he received his authority? Who had commissioned him to go forth bidding men to "Repent." By what right did he baptize people? One can imagine the tone in which they said to John, "Who art thou?" No doubt they expected to intimidate him. This seems clear from the fact that we are here told, "and he confessed, and denied not." He boldly stood his ground. Neither the dignity of those who had sent this embassy to John, nor their threatening frowns, moved him at all. "He confessed, and denied not." May like courage be found in us when we are challenged with an "Who art thou?"  

"But confessed, I am not the Christ." Having taken the firm stand he had, did Satan now tempt him to go to the other extreme? Failing to intimidate him, did the enemy now seek to make him boastfully exaggerate? Christ had not then been openly manifested: John was the one before the public eye, as we read in Mark 1:5, "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan" (Mark 1:5). Now that the multitudes were flocking to him, and many had become his disciples (cf. John 1:35), why not announce that he was the Messiah himself! But he instantly banished such wicked and presumptuous thoughts, if such were presented by Satan to his mind, as most likely they were, or, why tell us that he "confessed I am not the Christ?" May God deliver us from the evil spirit of boasting, and keep us from ever claiming to be anything more than what we really are— sinners saved by grace.  

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not" (John 1:21). Why should they have asked John if he were Elijah? The answer is, Because there was a general expectation among the Jews at that time that Elijah would again appear on earth. That this was so, is dear from a number of passages in the Gospels. For instance, when the Lord asked His disciples, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" they answered, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist (who had been slain in the interval), some Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:13, 14). Again; as the Lord Jesus and His disciples came down from the Mount of Transfiguration, He said unto them, "Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be raised from the dead." Then, we read, "His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" (Matthew 17:9, 10). The expectation of the Jews had a scriptural foundation, for the last verses of the Old Testament say, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Mal. 4:5, 6). This prophecy has reference to the return to earth of Elijah, to perform a ministry just before the second advent of Christ, similar in character to that of John the Baptist before the first public appearing of Christ.  

When asked, "Art thou Elijah?" John replied, emphatically, "I am not." John had much in common with the Tishbite, and his work was very similar in character to the yet future work of Elijah; nevertheless, he was not Elijah himself. He went before Christ "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17), bemuse he came "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."  

Next, John’ s interrogators asked him, "Art thou that prophet?" (John 1:21). What "prophet?" we may well enquire. And the answer is, The "prophet" predicted through Moses. The prediction is recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18: "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken... I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." This was one of the many Messianic prophecies given in the Old Testament times, which received its fulfillment in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Art thou that prophet?" John was asked; and, again, he answered, "No."  

"Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" (John 1:22). Searching questions were these— "Who art thou?"; "what sayest thou of thyself?" John might have answered, and answered truthfully, "I am the son of Zacharias the priest. I am one who has been filled with the Holy Spirit from my birth." Or, he might have replied, "I am the most remarkable character ever raised up by God and sent unto Israel." "What sayest thou of thyself?" Ah! that was indeed a searching question, and both writer and reader may well learn a lesson from John’ s reply, and seek grace to emulate his lovely modesty— a lesson much needed in these days of Laodicean boasting.  

"He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah" (John 1:23). Here was John’ s answer. "What sayest thou of thyself?" "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," he said. Becoming humility was this. Humility is of great price in the sight of God, and has had a prominent place in the men whom He has used. Paul, the greatest of the apostles, confessed himself "less than the least of all saints" (Eph. 3:8). And John here confesses much the same thing, when he referred to himself as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Reader, what reply would you make to such a query— "What sayest thou of thyself?" Surely you would not answer, "I am an eminent saint of God: I am living on a very exalted plane of spirituality: I am one who has been much used of God." Such self-exaltation would show you had learned little from Him who was "meek and lowly in heart," and would evidence a spirit far from that which should cause us to own that, after all, we are only "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:10).  

When John referred to himself as "the voice," he employed the very term which the Holy Spirit had used of him seven hundred years previously, when speaking through Isaiah the prophet— "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Isa. 40:3). And we cannot but believe this appellation was selected with Divine discrimination. In a former chapter, when commenting upon the titles of the Lord Jesus, found in John 1:7— "The light"— we called attention to the fact that Christ referred to His forerunner (in evident contrast from Himself as "the light") as "the lamp that burneth and shineth" (John 5:35, R.V.). And so here, we are satisfied that another contrast is pointed. Christ is "the Word;" John was but "the voice." What, then, are the thoughts suggested by this figurative title?  

In the first place, the word exists (in the mind) before the voice articulates it. Such was the relation between Christ and His forerunner. It is true that John was the first to appear before the public eye; yet, as the "Word," Christ had existed from all eternity. Second, the voice is simply the vehicle or medium by which the word is expressed or made known. Such was John. The object of his mission and the purpose of his ministry was to bear witness to "the Word." Again, the voice is simply heard but not seen. John was not seeking to display himself. His work was to get men to listen to his God-given message in order that they might behold "the Lamb." May the Lord today make more of His servants John-like; just "voices," heard but not seen! Finally, we may add, that the word endures after the voice is silent. The voice of John has long since been stilled by death, but "the Word" abideth forever. Appropriately, then, was the one who introduced the Messiah to Israel, termed the "voice." What wonderful depths there are in the Scriptures! How much is contained in a single word! And how this calls for prolonged meditation and humble prayer!  

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness." What a position for the Messiah’ s forerunner to occupy! Surely his place was in Jerusalem. Why then did not John cry in the temple? Why, because Jehovah was no more there in the temple. Judaism was but a hollow shell: outward form there was, but no life within. It was to a nation of legalists, Pharisee ridden, who neither manifested Abraham’ s faith nor produced his works, that John came. God would not own the self-righteous formalism of the Jews. Therefore, the one "sent of God" appeared outside the religious systems and circles of that day. But why did John preach "in the wilderness?" Because the "wilderness" symbolized the spiritual barrenness of the Jewish nation. John could only mourn over that which was not of God, and everything about him was in keeping with this: his food was that which he found in the wilderness, and his prophet’ s garment testified to the failure that was evident on every hand.  

"And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (John 1:24, 25). This final question put to John by the embassy from Jerusalem confirms what we have said upon verse 20. The religious leaders among the Jews were disputing John’ s right to preach, and challenging his authority to baptize. He had received no commission from the Sanhedrin, hence "why baptizest thou?" John does not appear to have answered the last question directly, instead, he turns to them and speaks of Christ.  

"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not" (John 1:26). John continued to stand his ground: he would not deny that he baptized with water, or more correctly, in water, but he sought to get them occupied with something of greater importance than a symbolical rite. There is much to be learned from John’ s answer here. These men were raising questions about baptism, while as yet they were utter strangers to Christ Himself— how like many today! Of what use was it to discuss with these Pharisee— commissioned "priests and Levites" the "why" of baptism, when they were yet in their sins? Well would it be for the Lord’ s servants and those engaged in personal work for Christ, to carefully heed what is before us here. People are willing to argue about side issues, while the vital and central Issue remains undecided! And only too often the Christian worker follows them into "By-path meadow." What is needed is for us to ignore all irrelevant quibbles, and press upon the lost the claims of Christ and their need of accepting Him as their Lord and Savior.  

"There standeth one among you, whom ye know not." How this exposed Israel’ s [1] condition! How this revealed their spiritual ignorance! And how tragically true, in principle, is this today. Even in this so-called Christian land, while many have heard about Christ, yet in how many circles, yes, and in religious circles too, we may say, "there standeth one among you, whom ye know not!" O the spiritual blindness of the natural man. Christ, by His Spirit, stands in the midst of many a congregation, unseen and unknown.  

"He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’ s latchet I am not worthy to unloose" (John 1:27). What a noble testimony was this! How these words of John bring out the Divine glory of the One he heralded! Remember who he was. No ordinary man was John the Baptist. The subject of Old Testament prophecy, the son of a priest, born as the result of the direct intervention of God’ s power, filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’ s womb, engaged in a ministry which drew great multitudes unto him, and yet he looked up to Christ as standing on a plane infinitely higher than the one he occupied, as a Being from another world, as One before whom he was not worthy to stoop down and unloose His shoes. He could find no expression strong enough to define the difference which separated him from the One who was "preferred before" him. Again we say, How these words of John bring out the Divine glory of the One he heralded!  

"These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing" (John 1:28). There is, of course, some good reason why the Holy Spirit has been pleased to tell us where this conference took place, whether we are able to discover it or not. Doubtless, the key to its significance is found in the meaning of the proper nouns here recorded. Unfortunately, there is some variation in the spelling of "Bethabara" in the Greek manuscripts; but with Gesenius, the renowned Hebrew scholar, we are firmly inclined to believe this place is identical with "Bethbarah" mentioned in Judges 7:24, and which signifies "House of Passage,’’ which was so named to memorialize the crossing of the Jordan in the days of Joshua. It was here, then, (apparently) at a place whose name signified "house of passage," beyond Jordan, the symbol of death, that John was baptizing as the forerunner of Christ. The meaning of this should not be hard to find. The significance of these names correspond closely with the religious position that John himself occupied, and with the character of his mission. Separated as he was from Judaism, those who responded to his call to repent, and were baptized of him confessing their sins, passed out of the apostate Jewish system, and took their place with the little remnant who were "prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). Well, then, was the place where John was baptizing named "Bethbarah"— House of Passage.  

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). "Behold the lamb of God:" the connection in which these words are found should be carefully noted. It was the day following the meeting between John and the Jerusalem delegation, a meeting which evidently occurred in the presence of others also, for John continues "this is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me," which is a word for word reference to what he had said to those who had interrogated him on the previous day— see verse 27; when he had also declared to those priests and Levites "which were sent of the Pharisees" (verse 24), "there standeth one among you, whom ye know not."  

"Behold the lamb of God." The force of this Call was deeply significant when viewed in the light of its setting. The Pharisees were looking for a "prophet," and they desired a "king" who should deliver them from the Roman yoke, but they had no yearnings for a Savior-priest. The questions asked of John betrayed the hearts of those who put them. They appeared to be in doubt as to whether or not the Baptist was the long promised Messiah, so they asked him, "Art thou Elijah? Art thou that prophet?" But, be it noted, no enquiry was made as to whether he was the one who should deliver them "from the wrath to come!" One would have naturally expected these priests and Levites to have asked about the sacrifice, but no; apparently they had no sense of sin! It was under these circumstances that the forerunner of Christ announced Him as "the lamb of God," not as "the word of God," not as "the Christ of God," but as THE LAMB. It was the Spirit of God presenting the Lord Jesus to Israel in the very office and character in which they stood in deepest need of Him. They would have welcomed Him on the throne, but they must first accept Him on the altar. And is it any different today? Christ as an Elijah— a Social Reformer— will be tolerated; and Christ as a Prophet, as a Teacher of ethics, will receive respect. But what the world needs first and foremost is the Christ of the Cross, where the Lamb of God offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin.  

"Behold the lamb of God." There before John stood the One whom all the sacrifices of Old Testament times had foreshadowed. It is exceedingly striking to observe the progressive order followed by God in the teaching of Scripture concerning "the lamb." First, in Genesis 4, we have the Lamb typified in the firstlings of the flock slain by Abel in sacrifice. Second, we have the Lamb prophesied in Genesis 22:8 where Abraham said to Isaac, "God will provide himself a lamb." Third, in Exodus 12, we have the Lamb slain and its blood applied. Fourth, in Isaiah 53:7, we have the Lamb personified: here for the first time we learn that the Lamb would be a Man. Fifth, in John 1:29, we have the Lamb identified, learning who He was. Sixth, in Revelation 5, we have the Lamb magnified by the hosts of heaven. Seventh, in the last chapter of the Bible we have the Lamb glorified, seated upon the eternal throne of God, Revelation 22:1. Once more; mark the orderly development in the scope of the sacrifices. In Genesis 4 sacrifice is offered for the individual— Abel. In Exodus 12 the sacrifice avails for the whole household. In Leviticus 16, on the annual Day of Atonement, the sacrifice was efficacious for the entire nation. But here in John 1:29 it is "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world"— Gentiles are embraced as well as Jews!  

"Behold the lamb of God." What are the thoughts suggested by this title? It points to His moral perfections, His sinlessness, for He was the "lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1:19). It tells of His gentleness, His voluntary offering Himself to God on our behalf— He was "led" (not driven) as "a lamb to the slaughter" (Acts 8:32, R.V.). But, more especially, and particularly, this title of our Lord speaks of sacrifice— He was "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and this could only be through death, for "without shedding of blood is no remission." There was only one way by which sin could be taken away, and that was by death. "Sin" here signifies guilt (condemnation) as in Hebrews 9:26; and "the world" refers to the world of believers, for it is only those who are in Christ for whom there is now "no condemnation" (Rom. 8:1); it is the world of believers, as contrasted from "the world of the ungodly" (2 Pet. 2:5).  

"This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water" (John 1:30, 31). Here for the third time John declares that Christ was "preferred before him"— (see verses 15, 27, 30). It affirmed His pre-existence: it was a witness to His eternality. Then John tells of the purpose of his baptism. It was to make Christ "manifest" to Israel. It was to prepare a people for Him. This people was prepared by them taking the place of sinners before God (Mark 1:5), and that is why John baptized in Jordan, the river of death; for, being baptized in Jordan, they acknowledged that death was their due. In this, John’ s baptism differs from Christian baptism. In Christian baptism the believer does not confess that death is his due, but he shows forth the fact that he has already died, died to sin, died with Christ (Rom. 6:3, 4).  

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him" (John 1:32). This has reference, of course, to the occasion when Christ Himself was baptized of John in the Jordan, when the Father testified to His pleasure, in the Son, and when the Spirit descended upon Him as a dove. It manifested the character of the One on whom He came. The "dove" is the bird of love and sorrow: apt symbol, then, of Christ. The love expressed the sorrow, and the sorrow told out the depths of His love. Thus did the heavenly Dove bear witness to Christ. When the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples on the Day of Pentecost, we read "there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them" (Acts 2:3). "Fire," uniformly signifies Divine judgment. There was that in the disciples which needed to be judged— the evil nature still remained within them. But, there was nothing in the Holy One of God that needed judging; hence, did the Holy Spirit descend upon Him like a dove!  

"And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33). The word "remaining" is rendered "abiding" in the R.V., and this is one of the characteristic words of the fourth Gospel. The other three Gospels all make mention of the Lord Jesus being anointed by the Holy Spirit, but John is the only one that says the Spirit "abode" upon Him. The Holy Spirit did not come upon Him, and then leave again, as with the prophets of old— He "abode" on Christ. This term has to do with the Divine side of things, and speaks of fellowship. We have the same word again in John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say unto you, I speak not from myself, but the Father abiding in me doeth his works" (R.V.). So, in John 15, where the Lord Jesus speaks of the fundamental requirement in spiritual fruit-bearing— fellowship with Himself— He says, "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit" (John 15:5 R.V.). That Christ shall "baptize with (or ‘ in’ ) the Holy Spirit" was another proof of His Godhood.  

"And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34). Here the witness of John the Baptist to the person of Christ terminates. It is to be noted that the forerunner bore a seven-fold witness to the excellency of the One he heralded. First, he testified to His pre-existence— "He was before me," verse 15. Second, He testified to His Lordship, verse 23. Third, he testified to His immeasurable superiority— "I am not worthy to unloose" His "shoe’ s latchet," verse 27. Fourth, he testified to His sacrificial work— "Behold the lamb," verse 29. Fifth, he testified to His moral perfections— "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him," verse 32. Sixth, he testified to His Divine right to baptize with the Holy Spirit, verse 33. Seventh, he testified to His Divine Sonship, verse 34.  

The questions below concern the passage which we shall expound in the next chapter, namely, John 1:35-51, and to prepare our readers for it we ask them to give these questions their prayerful and careful study:—   

1. Why did Christ ask the two disciples of John, "What seek ye?" John 1:38.  

2. What is signified by their reply, "Where dwellest thou?" John 1:38.  

3. What important practical truth is incorporated in John 1:40, 41?  

4. What blessed truth is illustrated by "findeth" in John 1:43?  

5. What is meant by, "in whom is no guile?" John 1:47.  

6. What attribute of Christ does John 1:48 demonstrate?  

7. To what does Christ refer in John 1:51?  

ENDNOTES:   

[1] "We must not, however, limit this picture to Israel, for it is equally applicable and pertinent to sinners of the Gentiles too. Israel in the flesh was only a sample of fallen man as such. What we have here is a pointed and solemn delineation of human depravity . . . its normal application is to the whole of Adam’ s fallen race. Let every reader see here a portrait of what he or she is by nature. The picture is not a flattering. one we know. No, it is drawn by one who searches the innermost recesses of the human heart, and is presented here to humble us." (A.W.P.). And so all through.  

  

Maclaren: Joh 1:8

The Light And The Lamps

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.'--John 1:8.

He was a burning and a shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in His light.'--John 5:35.

MY two texts both refer to John the Baptist. One of them is the Evangelist's account of him, the other is our Lord's eulogium upon him. The latter of my texts, as the Revised Version shows, would be more properly rendered,' He was a lamp' rather than He was a light,' and the contrast between the two words, the light' and the lamps,' is my theme. I gather all that I would desire to say into three points: that Light' and its witnesses; the underived Light and the kindled lamps; the undying Light and the lamps that go out.

I. The Contrast Suggested To Us Is Between That Light' And Its Witnesses.

First of all, then, the contrast suggested to us is between that Light' and its witnesses.

John, in that profound prologue which is the deepest part of Scripture, and lays firm and broad in the depths the foundation-stones of a reasonable faith, draws the contrast between that Light' and them whose business it was to bear witness to it. As for the former, I cannot here venture to dilate upon the great, and to me absolutely satisfying and fundamental, thoughts that lie in these eighteen first verses of this Gospel. The Word was with God,' and that Word was the Agent of Creation, the Fountain of Life, the Source of the Light which is inseparable from all human life. John goes back, with the simplicity of a child's speech, which yet is deeper than all philosophies, to a Beginning, far anterior to the Beginning' of which Genesis speaks, and declares that before creation that Light shone; and he looks out over the whole world, and declares, that before and beyond the limits of the historical manifestation of the Word in the flesh, its beams spread over the whole race of man. But they are all focussed, if I may so speak, and gathered to a point which burns as well as illuminates, in the historical manifestation of Jesus Christ in the flesh. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.'

Next, he turns to the highest honour and the most imperative duty laid, not only upon mighty men and officials, but upon all on whose happy eyeballs this Light has shone, and into whose darkened hearts the joy and peace and purity of it have flowed, and he says, He was sent'--and they are sent--to bear witness of that Light.' It is the noblest function that a man can discharge. It is a function that is discharged by the very existence through the ages of a community which, generation after generation, subsists, and generation after generation manifests in varying degrees of brightness, and with various modifications of tint, the same light. There is the family character in all true Christians, with whatever diversities of idiosyncrasies, and national life or ecclesiastical distinctions. Whether it he Francis of Assisi or John Wesley, whether it be Thomas a Kempis or George Fox, the light is one that shines through these many-coloured panes of glass, and the living Church is the witness of a living Lord, not only before it, and" behind it, and above it, but living in it. They are light' because they are irradiated by Him. They are light' because they are' in the Lord.' But not only by the fact of the existence of such a community is the witness-bearing effected, but it comes as a personal obligation, with immense weight of pressure and immense possibilities of joy in the discharge of it, to every Christian man and woman.

What, then, is the witness that we all are bound to bear, and shall bear if we are true to our obligations and to our Lord? Mainly, dear brethren, the witness of experience. That a Christian man shall be able to stand up and say,' I know this because I live it, and I testify to Jesus Christ because I for myself have found Him to be the life of my life, the Light of all my seeing, the joy of my heart, my home, and my anchorage '--that is the witness that is impregnable. And there is no better sign of the trend of Christian thought to-day than the fact that the testimony of experience is more and more coming to be recognised by thoughtful men and writers as being the sovereign attestation of the reality of the Light. I see'; that is the proof that light has touched my eyeballs. And when a man can contrast, as some of us can, our present vision with our erstwhile darkness, then the evidence, like that of the sturdy blind man in the Gospels, who had nothing to say in reply to the subtleties and Rabinical traps and puzzles but only I was blind; now I see '--his experience is likely to have the effect that it had in another miracle of healing: Beholding the man which was healed standing amongst them, they could say nothing against it.' I should think they could not.

But there is one thing that will always characterise the true witnesses to that Light, and that is self-suppression. Remember the beautiful, immovable humility of the Baptist about whom these texts were spoken: What sayest thou of thyself?' I am a Voice,' that is all. Art thou that Prophet?' No!' Art thou the Christ?' No! I am nothing but a Voice.' And remember how, when John's disciples tried to light the infernal fires of jealousy in his quiet heart by saying, He whom thou didst baptise, and to whom thou didst give witness '--He whom thou didst start on His career --is baptising,' poaching upon thy preserves, and all men come unto Him,' the only answer that he gave was, The friend of the Bridegroom '--who stands by in a quiet, dark corner--rejoices greatly because of the Bridegroom's voice.' Keep yourself out of sight, Christian teachers and preachers; put Christ in the front, and hide behind Him.

II. The Underived Light And The Kindled Lamps.

Now let me ask you to look at the other contrast that is suggested by our other text.

It is possible to read the words of that second text thus--He was a lamp kindled and (therefore) shining.' But whether that be the meaning, or whether the usual rendering is correct, the emblem itself carries the same thought, for a lamp must be lit by contact with a light, and must be fed with oil, if its flame is to be sustained. And so the very metaphor--whatever the force of the ambiguous word--in its eloquent contrast between the Light and the lamp, suggests this thought, that the one is underived, self-fed, and therefore undying, and that the other owes all its flame to the touch of that uncreated Light, and burns brightly only on condition of its keeping up the contact with Him, and being fed continually from His stores of radiance.

I need not say more than a word with regard to the former member of that contrast suggested here. That unlit Light derives its brilliancy, according to the Scriptural teaching, from nothing but its divine union with the Father. So that long before there were eyes to see, there was the eradiation and outshining of the Father's glory. I do not enter into these depths, but this I would say, that what is called the originality' of Jesus is only explained when we reverently see in that unique life the shining through a pure humanity, as through a sheet of alabaster, of that underived, divine Light. Jesus is an insoluble problem to men who will not see in Him the Eternal Light which in the beginning was with God.' You find in Him no trace of gradual acquisition of knowledge, or of arguing or feeling His way to His beliefs. You find in Him no trace of consciousness of a great horizon of darkness encompassing the region where He sees light. You find in Him no trace of a recognition of other sources from which He has drawn any portion of His light. You find in Him the distinct declaration that His relation to truth is not the relation of men who-learn, and grow, and acquire, and know in part; for, says He, I am the Truth.' He stands apart from us all, and above us all, in that He owes His radiance to none, and can dispense it to every man. The question which the puzzled Jews asked about Him.

How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?' may be widened out to all the characteristics of His human life. To me the only answer is: Thou art the King of glory, O Christ! Thou art the Everlasting Son of the Father.'

Dependent on Him are the little lights which He has lit, and in the midst of which He walks. Union with Jesus Christ--that Light'--is the condition of all human light. That is true over all regions, as I believe. The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.' The candle of the Lord shines in every man, and that true Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' Thinker, student, scientist, poet, author, practical man--all of them are lit from the uncreated Source, and all of them, if they understand their own nature, would say, In Thy light do we see Light.'

But especially is this great thought true and exemplified within the limits of the Christian life. For the Christian to be touched with Christ's Promethean finger is to flame into light. And the condition of continuing to shine is to continue the contact which first illuminated. A break in the contact, of a finger's breadth, is as effectual as one of a mile. Let Christian men and women, if they would shine, remember, Ye are light in the Lord'; and if we stray, and get without the circle of the Light, we pass into darkness, and ourselves cease to shine.

Brethren, it is threadbare truth, that the condition of Christian vitality and radiance is close and unbroken contact with Jesus Christ, the Source of all light. Threadbare; but if we lived as if we believed it, the Church would be revolutionised and the world illuminated; and many a smoking wick would flash up into a blazing torch. Let Christian people remember that the words of my text define no special privilege or duty of any official or man of special endowments, but that to all of us has been said,' Ye are My witnesses,' and to all of us is offered the possibility of being ,burning and shining lights' if we keep ourselves close to that Light.

III. The Contrast Between The Undying Light And The Lamps That Go Out.

Lastly, the second of my texts suggests--the contrast between the Undying Light and the lamps that go out.

For a season ye were willing to rejoice in His light.' There is nothing in the present condition of the civilised and educated world more remarkable and more difficult for some people to explain than the contrast between the relation which Jesus Christ bears to the present age, and the relation which all other great names in the past--philosophers, poets, guides of men --bear to it. There is nothing in the world the least like the vividness, the freshness, the closeness, of the personal relation which thousands and thousands of people, with common sense in their heads, bear to that Man who died nineteen hundred years ago. All others pass, sooner or later, into the darkness. Thickening mists of oblivion, fold by fold, gather round the brightest names. But here is Jesus Christ, whom all classes of thinkers and social reformers have to reckon with to-day, who is a living power amongst the trivialities of the passing moment, and in whose words and in the teaching of whose life serious men feel that there lie undeveloped yet, and certainly not yet put into practice, principles which are destined to revolutionise society and change the world. And how does that come?

I am not going to enter upon that question; I only ask you to think of the contrast, between His position, in this generation, to communities and individuals, and the position of all other great names which lie in the past. Why, it does not take more than a lifetime such as mine, for instance, to remember how the great lights that shone seventy years ago in English thinking and in English literature, have for the most part gone out, and what we young men thought to be bright particular stars, this new generation pooh-poohs as mere exhalations from the marsh or twinkling and uncertain tapers, and you will find their books in the twopenny-box at the bookseller's door. A cynical diplomatist, in one of our modern dramas, sums it up, after seeing the death of a revolutionary, I have known eight leaders of revolts.' And some of us could say, We have known about as many guides of men who have been forgotten and passed away.' His Name shall endure for ever. His name shall continue as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in Him; all generations shall call Him blessed.' Even Shelley had the prophecy forced from him,

The moon of MahometArose and it shall set,While blazoned as on heaven's eternal noon,The Cross leads generations on.'

We may sum up the contrast between the undying Light and the lamps that go out in the old words: They truly were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, but this Man, because He continueth ever.., is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God through Him.'

So, brethren, when lamps are quenched, let us look to the Light. When our own lives are darkened because our household light is taken from its candlestick, let us lift up our hearts and hopes to Him that abideth for ever. Do not let us fall into the folly, and commit the sin, of putting our heart's affections, our spirit's trust, upon any that can pass and that must change. We need a Person whom we can clasp, and who never will glide from our hold. We need a Light uncreated, self-fed, eternal. Whilst ye have the Light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light.'

Maclaren: Joh 1:10

The Fulness Of Christ

And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.'--John 1:10.

WHAT a remarkable claim that is which the Apostle here makes for his Master! On the one side he sets His solitary figure as the universal Giver; on the other side are gathered the whole race of men, recipients from Him. As in the wilderness the children of Israel clustered round the rock from which poured out streams, copious enough for all the thirsty camp, John, echoing his Master's words, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink,' here declares Of His fulness have all we received.'

I. Notice, Then, The One Ever Full Source.

The words of my text refer back to those of the fourteenth verse: The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.' And of His fulness have all we received.' The fulness' here seems to mean that of which the Incarnate Word was full, the grace and truth' which dwelt without measure in Him; the unlimited and absolute completeness and abundance of divine powers and glories which tabernacled' in Him. And so the language of my text, both verbally and really, is substantially equivalent to that of the Apostle Paul. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are complete in Him.' The whole infinite Majesty, and inexhaustible resources of the divine nature, were incorporated and insphered in that Incarnate Word from whom all men may draw.

There are involved in that thought two ideas. One is the unmistakable assertion of the whole fulness of the divine nature as being in the Incarnate Word, and the other is that the whole fulness of the divine nature dwells in the Incarnate Word in order that men may get at it.

The words of my text go back, as I said, to the previous verse; but notice what an advance upon that previous verse they present to us. There we read, We beheld His glory.' To behold is much, but to possess is more. It is much to say that Christ comes to manifest God, but that is a poor, starved account of the purpose of His coming, if that is all you have to say. He comes to manifest Him. Yes! but He comes to communicate Him, not merely to dazzle us with a vision, not merely to show us Him as from afar, not merely to make Him known to understanding or to heart; but to bestow--in no mere metaphor, but in simple, literal fact--the absolute possession of the divine nature. We beheld His glory' is a reminiscence that thrills the Evangelist, though half a century has passed since the vision gleamed upon his eyes; but' of His fulness have all we received' is infinitely and unspeakably more. And the manifestation was granted that the possession might be sure, for this is the very centre and heart of Christianity, that in Him who is Christianity God is not merely made known, but given; not merely beheld, but possessed.

In order that that divine fulness might belong to us there was needed that the Word should be made flesh; and there was further needed that incarnation should be crowned by sacrifice, and that life should be perfected in death. The alabaster box had to be broken before the house could be filled with the odour of the ointment. If I may so say, the sack, the coarse-spun sack of Christ's humanity, had to be cut asunder in order that the wealth that was stored in it might be poured into our hands. God came near us in the life, but God became ours in the death, of His dear Son. Incarnation was needed for that great privilege--we beheld His glory'; but the Crucifixion was needed in order to make possible the more wondrous prerogative: Of His fulness have all we received.' God gives Himself to men in the Christ whose life revealed and whose death imparted Him to the world.

And so He is the sole Source. All men, in a very real sense, draw from His fulness. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.' The life of the body and the life of the spirit willing, knowing, loving, all which makes life into light, all comes to us through that everlasting Word of God. And when that Word has become flesh and dwelt among us,' His gifts are not only the gifts of light and life, which all men draw from Him, but the gifts of grace and truth which all those who love Him receive at His hands. His gifts, like the water from some fountain, may flow underground into many of the pastures of the wilderness; and many a man is blessed by them who knows not from whence they come. It is He from whom all the truth, all the grace which illuminates and blesses humanity, flow into all lands in all ages.

II. Of His Fulness Have All We Received.

Consider, then, again, the many receivers from the one Source. Of His fulness have all we received.'

Observe, we are not told definitely what it is that we receive. If we refer back to words in a previous verse, they may put us on the right track for answering the question, What is it that we get? He came unto His own,' says John 1:11, and His own received Him not; but as many as received Him, to them gave He power,' etc. That answers the question, What do we receive? Christ is more than all His gifts. All His gifts are treasured up in Him and inseparable from Him. We get Jesus Christ Himself.

The blessings that we receive may be stated in many different ways. You may say we get pardon, purity, hope, joy, the prospect of Heaven, power for service; all these and a hundred more designations by which we might describe the one gift. All these are but the consequences of our having got the Christ within our hearts. He does not give pardon and the rest, as a king might give pardon and honours, a thousand miles off, bestowing it by a mere word, upon some criminal, but He gives all that He gives because He gives Himself. The real possession that we receive is neither more nor less than a loving Saviour, to enter our spirits and abide there, and be the spirit of our spirits, and the life of our lives.

Then, notice the universality of this possession. John has said, in the previous words, We beheld His glory.' He refers there, of course, to the comparatively small circle of the eye-witnesses of our Master's life; who, at the time when he wrote, must have been very, very few in number. They had had the prerogative of seeing with their eyes and handling with their hands the Word of life that was manifested unto us'; and with that prerogative the duty of bearing witness of Him to the rest of men. But in the receiving,' John associates with himself, and with the other eyewitnesses, all those who had listened to their word, and had received the truth in the love of it. We beheld' refers to the narrower circle; we all received' to the wider sweep of the whole Church. There is no exclusive class, no special prerogative. Every Christian man, the weakest, the lowliest, the most uncultured, rude, ignorant, foolish, the most besotted in the past, who has wandered furthest away from the Master; whose spirit has been most destitute of all sparks of goodness and of God--receives from out of His fulness. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of .His.' And every one of us, if we will, may have dwelling in our hearts, in the greatness of .His strength, in the sweetness of .His love, in the clearness of His illuminating wisdom, the Incarnate Word, the Comforter, the All-in-all whom we all receive.'

And, as I said, that word all' might have even a wider extension without going beyond the limits of the truth. For on the one side there stands Christ, the universal Giver; and grouped before Him, in all attitudes of weakness and of want, is gathered the whole race of mankind. And from .Him there pours out a stream copious enough to supply all the necessities of every human soul that lives to-day, of every human soul that has lived in the past, of every one that shall live in the future. There is no limit to the universality except only the limit of the human will: Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.'

Think of that solitary figure of the Christ reared up, as it were, before the whole race of man, as able to replenish all their emptiness with His fulness, and to satisfy all their thirst with His sufficiency. Dear brother! you have a great gaping void in your heart --an aching emptiness there, which you know better than I can tell you. Look to Him who can fill it and it shall be filled. He can supply all your wants as He can supply all the wants of every soul of man. And after generations have drawn from Him, the water will not have sunk one hairsbreadth in the great fountain, but there will be enough for all coming eternities as there has been enough for all past times. He is like His own miracle--the thousands are gathered on the grass, they do all eat and are filled.' As their necessities required the bread was multiplied, and at the last there was more left than there had seemed to be at the beginning. So of His fulness have all we received'; and after a universe has drawn from it, for an Eternity, the fulness is not turned into scantiness or emptiness.

III. Of His Fulness Have All We Received, And Grace For Grace.

And so, lastly, notice the continuous flow from the inexhaustible Source. Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.'

The word for' is a little singular. Of course it means instead of, in exchange for; and the Evangelist's idea seems to be that as one supply of grace is given and used, it is, as it were, given back to the Bestower, who substitutes for it a fresh and unused vessel, filled with new grace. He might have said, grace upon grace; one supply being piled upon the other. But his notion is, rather, one supply given in substitution for the other, new lamps for old ones.'

Just as a careful gardener will stand over a plant that needs water, and will pour the water on the surface until the earth has drunk it up, and then add a little more; so He gives step by step, grace for grace, an uninterrupted bestowal, yet regulated according to the absorbing power of the heart that receives it. Underlying that great thought are two things: the continuous communication of grace, and the progressive communication of grace. We have here the continuous communication of grace. God is always pouring Himself out upon us in Christ. There is a perpetual outflow from Him to us: if there is not a perpetual inflow into us from Him it is our fault, and not His. He is always giving, and His intention is that our lives shall be a continual reception. Are they? How many Christian men there are whose Christian lives at the best are like some of those Australian or Siberian rivers; in the dry season, a pond here, a stretch of sand, waterless and barren there, then another place with a drop of muddy water in some hollow, and then another stretch of sand, and so on. Why should not the ponds be linked together by a flashing stream? God is always pouring Himself out; why do we not always take Him in?

There is but one answer, and the answer is, that we do not fulfil the condition, which condition is simple faith. As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God; even to them that believed on His name.' Faith is the condition of receiving, and wherever there is a continuous trust there will be an unbroken grace; and wherever there are interrupted gifts it is because there has been an intermitted trust in Him. Do not let your lives be like some dimly lighted road, with a lamp here, and a stretch of darkness, and then another twinkling light; let the light run all along the side of your path, because at every moment your heart is turning to Christ with trust. Make your faith continuous, and God will make His grace incessant, and out of His fulness you will draw continual supplies of needed strength.

But not only have we here the notion of continuous, but also, as it seems to me, of progressive gifts. Each measure of Christ received, if we use it aright, makes us capable of possessing more of Christ. And the measure of our capacity is the measure of His gift, and the more we can hold the more we shall get. The walls of our hearts are elastic, the vessel expands by being filled out; it throbs itself wider by desire and faith. The wider we open our mouths the larger will be the gift that God puts into them. Each measure and stage of grace utilised and honestly employed will make us capable and desirous, and, therefore, possessors, of more and more of the grace that He gives. So the ideal of the Christian life, and God's intention concerning us, is not only that we should have an uninterrupted, but a growing possession, of Christ and of His grace.

Is that the case with you, my friend? Can you hold more of God than you could twenty years ago? Is there any more capacity in your soul for more of Christ than there was long, long ago? If there is you have more of Him; if you have not more of Him it is because you cannot contain more; and you cannot contain more because you have not desired more, and because you have been so wretchedly unfaithful in your use of what you had. The ideal is, they go from strength to strength,' and the end of that is,' every one of them appeareth before God.'

So, dear brother, as the dash of the waves will hollow out some little indentation on the coast, and make it larger and larger until there is a great bay, with its headlands miles apart, and its deep bosom stretching far into the interior, and all the expanse full of flashing waters and leaping waves, so the giving Christ works a place for Himself in a man's heart, and makes the spirit which receives and faithfully uses the gifts which He brings, capable of more of Himself, and fills the widened space with larger gifts and new grace.

Only remember the condition of having Him is trusting to His name and longing for His presence. If any man open the door I will come in.' We have Him if we trust Him. That trust is no mere passive reception, such as is the case with some empty jar which lies open-mouthed on the shore and lets the sea wash into it and out of it, as may happen. But the receive' of our text might be as truly rendered take.' Faith is an active taking, not a passive receiving. We must lay hold on eternal life.' Faith is the hand that grasps the offered gift, the mouth that feeds upon the bread of God, the voice that says to Christ, Come in, Thou blessed of the Lord; why standest Thou without?' Such a faith alone brings us into vital connection with Jesus. Without it, you will be none the richer for all His fulness, and may perish of famine in the midst of plenty, like a man dying of hunger outside the door of a granary. They who believe take the Saviour who is given, and they who take receive, and they who receive obtain day by day growing grace from the fulness of Christ, and so come ever nearer to the realisation of the ultimate purpose of the Father, that they should be filled with all the fulness of God.'

Maclaren: Joh 1:14

Three Tabernacles'

The Word dwelt among us.'--John 1:14.

He that sitteth on the Throne shall dwell among them.'--Rev. 7:15.

Behold, the Tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them.' --Rev. 22:3.

THE word rendered dwelt,' in these three passages, is a peculiar one. It is only found in the New Testament--in this Gospel and in the Book of Revelation. That fact constitutes one of the many subtle threads of connection between these two books, which at first sight seem so extremely unlike each other; and it is a morsel of evidence in favour of the common authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse, which has often, and very vehemently in these latter days of criticism, been denied.

The force of the word, however, is the matter to which I desire especially to draw attention. It literally means to dwell in a tent,' or, if we may use such a word, to tabernacle,' and there is no doubt a reference to the Tabernacle in which the divine Presence abode in the wilderness and in the land of Israel before the erection. In all three passages, then, we may see allusion to that early symbolical dwelling of God with man. The Word tabernacled among us'; so is the truth for earth and time. He that sitteth upon the throne shall spread His tabernacle upon' the multitude which no man can number, who have made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb; that is the truth for the spirits of just men made perfect, the waiting Church, which expects the redemption of the body. God shall tabernacle with them'; that is the truth for the highest condition of humanity, when the Tabernacle of God shall be with redeemed men in the new earth. Let us build three tabernacles,' one for the Incarnate Christ, one for the interspace between earth and heaven, and one for the culmination of all things. And it is to these three aspects of the one thought, set forth in rude symbol by the movable tent in the wilderness, that I ask you to turn now.

I. First, Then, We Have To Think Of That Tabernacle For Earth.

The Word was made flesh, and dwelt, as in a tent, amongst us.'

The human nature, the visible, material body of Jesus Christ, in which there enshrined itself the everlasting Word, which from the beginning was the Agent of all divine revelation, that is the true Temple of God. When we begin to speak about the special presence of Omnipresence in any one place, we soon lose ourselves, and get into deep waters of glory, where there is no standing. And I do not care to deal here with theological definitions or thorny questions, but simply to set forth, as the language of my text sets before us, that one transcendent, wonderful, all-blessed thought that this poor human nature is capable of, and has really once in the history of the world received into itself, the real, actual presence of the whole fulness of the Divinity. What must be the kindred and likeness between Godhood and manhood when into the frail vehicle of our humanity that wondrous treasure can be poured; when the fire of God can burn in the bush of our human nature, and that nature not be consumed? So it has been. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'

And when we come with our questions, How? In what manner? How can the lesser contain the greater? we have to be content with the recognition that the manner is beyond our fathoming, and to accept the fact, pressed upon our faith, that our hearts may grasp it and be at peace. God hath dwelt in humanity. The everlasting Word, who is the forthcoming of all the fulness of Deity into the realm of finite creatures, was made flesh and dwelt among us.

But the Tabernacle was not only the dwelling-place of God, it was also and, therefore, the place of Revelation of God. So in our text there follows, we beheld His glory.' As in the tent in the wilderness there hovered between the outstretched wings of the silent cherubim, above the Mercy-seat, the brightness of the symbolical cloud which was expressly named' the glory of God,' and was the visible manifestation of His real presence; so John would have us think that in that lowly humanity, with its curtains and its coverings of flesh, there lay shrined in the inmost place the brightness of the light of the manifest glory of God. We beheld His glory.' The rapturous adoration of the remembrance overcomes him, and he breaks his sentence, reckless of grammatical connection, as the fulness of the blessed memory floods into his soul. That glory was as of the Only Begotten of the Father.' The manifestation of God in Christ is unique, as becomes Him who partakes of the nature of that God of whom He is the Representative and the Revealer.

And how did that glory make itself known to us? By miracle? Yes! As we read in the story of the first that Christ wrought,' He manifested forth His glory and His disciples believed upon Him.' By miracle? Yes! As we read His own promise at the grave of Lazarus: Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?' But, blessed be His name, miracle is not the highest manifestation of Christ's glory and of God's. The uniqueness of the revelation of Christ's glory in God does not depend upon the deeds which He wrought. For, as the context goes on to tell, the Word which tabernacled among us was full of grace and truth,' and therein is the glory most gloriously revealed.

The lambent light of stooping love that shone forth warning and attracting in His gentle life, and the clear white beam of unmingled truth that streamed from the radiant purity of Christ's life, revealed God to hearts that pine for love and spirits that hunger for truth, as no others of God's self-revealing works have done. And that revelation of the glory of God in the fulness of grace and truth is the highest possible revelation. For the divinest thing in God is love, and the true glory of God' is neither some symbolical flashing light nor the pomp of mere power and majesty; nor even those inconceivable and incommunicable attributes which we christen with names like Omnipotence and Omnipresence and Infinitude, and the like. These are all but the fringes of the brightness. The true central heart and lustrous light of the glory of God lie in His love, and of that glory Christ is the unique Representative and Revealer, because He is the only Begotten Son, and full of grace and truth.'

Thus the Word tabernacled amongst us. And though the Tabernacle to outward seeming was covered by curtains and skins that hid all the glowing splendour within; yet in that lowly life that was lived in the body of His humiliation, and knew our limitations and our weaknesses, the glory of the Lord was revealed; and all flesh hath seen it together' and acknowledged the divine Presence there.

Still further the Tabernacle was the place of sacrifice. So in the tabernacle of His flesh Jesus offered up the one sacrifice for sins for ever. In the offering up of His human life in continuous obedience, and in the offering up of His body and blood in the bitter Passion of the Cross, He brought men nigh unto God.

Therefore, because of all these things, because the Tabernacle is the dwelling-place of God, the place of revelation, and the place of sacrifice, therefore, finally is it the meeting-place betwixt God and man. In the Old Testament it is always called by the name which our Revised Version has accurately substituted for tabernacle of the congregation,' namely' tent of meeting.' The correctness of that rendering and the meaning of the name are established by several passages in the Old Testament, as for instance, There I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee, and there I will meet with the children of Israel.' So in Christ, who by His Incarnation lays His hand upon both, God touches man and man touches God. We who are afar off are made nigh, and in that true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man' we meet God and are glad.

And so the word was flesh, and wroughtWith human hands the creed of creeds,In loveliness of perfect deeds.'The temple for earth is the temple of His body.'

II. We Have The Tabernacle For The Heavens.

In the context of our second passage we have a vision of the great multitude redeemed out of all nations and kindreds, standing before the Throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands.' The palms in their hands give important help towards understanding the vision. As has been often remarked, there are no heathen emblems in the Book of the Apocalypse. All its metaphors move within the circle of Jewish experiences and facts. So that we are not to think of the Roman palm of victory, but of the Jewish palm which was borne at the Feast of Tabernacles. What was the Feast of Tabernacles? A festival established on purpose to recall to the minds and to the gratitude of the Jews settled in their own land the days of their wandering in the wilderness. Part of the ritual of it was that during its celebration they builded for themselves booths or tabernacles of leaves and boughs of trees, under which they dwelt, thus reminding themselves of their nomad condition.

Now what beauty and power it gives to the word of my text, if we take in this allusion to the Jewish festival! The great multitude bearing the palms are keeping the feast, memorial of past wilderness wanderings; and He that sitteth on the throne shall spread His tabernacle above them,' as the word might he here rendered. That is to say, He Himself shall build and be the tent in which they dwell; He Himself shall dwell with them in it. He Himself, in closer union than can be conceived of here, shall keep them company during that feast.

What a thought of that condition--the condition as I believe represented in this vision--of the spirits of the just made perfect, who wait for the adoption, to wit, the resurrection of the body,' is given us if we take this point of view to interpret the whole lovely symbolism. It is all a time of glad, grateful remembrance of the wilderness march. It is all a time in which festal joys shall be theirs, and the memory of the trials and the weariness and the sorrow and the solitude that are past shall deepen to a more exquisite poignancy of delight, the rest and the fellowship and the felicity of that calm Presence, and God Himself shall spread His tent above them, lodge with them, and they with Him.

And so, dear brethren, rest in that assurance, that though we know so little of that state, we know this: Absent from the body, present with the Lord,' and that the happy company who bear the palms shall dwell in God, and God in them.

III. The Tabernacle For The Renewed Earth.

And now, lastly, look at that final vision which we have in these texts, which we may call the Tabernacle for the renewed earth.

I do not pretend to interpret the scenery and the setting of these Apocalyptic visions with dogmatic confidence, but it seems to me as if the emblems of this final vision coincide with dim hints in many other portions of Scripture; to the effect that some cosmical change having passed upon this material world in which we dwell, it, in some regenerated form, shall be the final abode of a regenerated and redeemed humanity. That, I think, is the natural interpretation of a great deal of Scriptural teaching.

For that highest condition there is set forth this as the all-sufficing light upon it. Behold, the Tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them.' The climax and the goal of all the divine working, and the long processes of God's love for, and discipline of, the world, are to be this, that He and men shall abide together in unity and concord. That is God's wish from the beginning. We read in one of the profound utterances of the Book of Proverbs how from of old the delights' of the Incarnate Wisdom which foreshadowed the Incarnate Word were with the sons of men.' And, at the close of all things, when the vision of this final chapter shall be fulfilled, God will say, settling Himself in the midst of a redeemed humanity, Lo! here will I dwell, for I have desired it. This is My rest for ever.' He will tabernacle with men, and men with Him.

We know not, and never shall know until experience strips the bandages from our eyes, what new methods of participation of the divine nature, and new possibilities of intimacy and intercourse with Him may be ours when the veils of flesh and sense and time have all dropped away. New windows may be opened in our spirits, from which we shall perceive new aspects of the divine character. New doors may be opened in our souls, from out of which we may pass to touch parts of His nature, all impalpable and inconceivable to us now. And when all the veils of a discordant moral nature are taken away, and we are pure, then we shall see, then we shall draw nigh to God. The thing that chiefly separates man from God is man's sin. When that is removed, the centrifugal force which kept our tiny orb apart from the great central sun being withdrawn, we shall, as it were, fall into the brightness and be one, not losing our sense of individuality, which would be to lose all the blessedness, but united with Him in a union far more intimate than earth can parallel. The Tabernacle of God shall be with men, and He will tabernacle with them.'

Do not let us forget that this highest and ultimate hope that is held forth here, of file union and communion, perfect and perpetual, of humanity with God, does not sweep aside Jesus Christ. For through all eternity the Everlasting Word, the Christ who bears our nature in its glorified form, or, rather, whose nature in its glorified form we shall bear, is the Medium of Revelation, and the Medium of communication between man and God.

I saw no Temple therein,' says this final vision of the Apocalypse, but God Almighty and the Lamb,' and these are the Temples thereof. Therefore through eternity God shall tabernacle with men, as He does tabernacle with us now through Him, in whom dwelleth as in its perennial habitation, all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'

So we have the three tabernacles, for earth, for heaven, for the renewed earth; and these three, if I may say so, are like the triple division of that ancient Tabernacle in the wilderness: the Outer Court; the Holy Place; the Holiest of all. Let us enter into that outer court, and abide and commune with that God who comes near to us, revealing, forgiving, in the person of His Son, and then we shall pass from court to court,' and go from strength to strength, until every one of us in Zion appear before God'; and enter into the Holiest of all, where within the veil' we shall receive splendours of revelation undreamed of here, and enjoy depths of communion to which the selectest moments of fellowship with God on earth are shallow and poor.

Maclaren: Joh 1:17

Grace And Truth

The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' John 1:17.

THERE are scarcely any traces, in the writings of the Apostle John, of that great controversy as to the relation of the Law and the Gospel which occupied and embittered so much of the work of the Apostle Paul. We have floated into an entirely different region in John's writings. The old controversies are dead--settled, I suppose, mainly by Paul's own words, and also to a large extent by the logic of events. This verse is almost the only one in which John touches upon that extinct controversy, and here the Law is introduced simply as a foil to set off the brightness of the Gospel. All artists know the value of contrast in giving prominence. A dark background flashes up brighter colours into brilliancy. White is never so white as when it is relieved against black. And so here the special preciousness and distinctive peculiarities of what we receive in Christ are made more vivid and more distinct by contrast with what in old days was given by Moses.'

Every word in this verse is significant. Law' is set against grace and truth.' It was given'; they came.' Moses is contrasted with Christ. So we have a threefold antithesis as between Law and Gospel: in reference to their respective contents; in reference to the manner of their communication; and in reference to the person of their Founders. And I think, if we look at these three points, we shall get some clear apprehension of the glories of that Gospel which the Apostle would thereby commend to our affection and to our faith.

I. The Gospel Heightened By The Contrast With Law.

First of all, then, we have here the special glory of the contents of the Gospel heightened by the contrast with Law.

Law has no tenderness, no pity, no feeling. Tables of stone and a pen of iron are its fitting vehicles. Flashing lightnings and rolling thunders symbolise the fierce light which it casts upon men's duty and the terrors of its retribution. Inflexible, and with no compassion for human weakness, it tells us what we ought to be, but it does not help us to be it. It binds heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne,' upon men's consciences, but puts not forth the tip of a finger' to enable men to bear them. And this is true about law in all forms, whether it be the Mosaic Law, or whether it be the law of our own country, or whether it be the laws written upon men's consciences. These all partake of the one characteristic, that they help nothing to the fulfilment of their own behests, and that they are barbed with threatenings of retribution. Like some avenging goddess, law comes down amongst men, terrible in her purity, awful in her beauty, with a hard light in her clear grey eyes--in the one hand the tables of stone, bearing the commandments which we have broken, and in the other a sharp two-edged sword.

And this is the opposite of all that comes to us in the Gospel. The contrast divides into two portions. The Law' is set against grace and truth.' Let us look at these two in order.

What we have in Christ is not law, but grace. Law, as I said, has no heart; the meaning of the Gospel is the unveiling of the heart of God. Law commands and demands; it says: This shalt thou do, or else--; and it has nothing more that it can say. What is the use of standing beside a lame man, and pointing to a shining summit, and saying to him, Get up there, and you will breathe a purer atmosphere'? He is lying lame at the foot of it. There is no help for any soul in law. Men are not perishing because they do not know what they ought to do. Men are not bad because they doubt as to what their duty is. The worst man in the world knows a great deal more of what he ought to do than the best man in the world practises. So it is not for want of precepts that so many of us are going to destruction, but it is for want of power to fulfil the precepts.

Grace is love giving. Law demands, grace bestows. Law comes saying Do this,' and our consciences respond to the imperativeness of the obligation. But grace comes and says, I will help thee to do it.' Law is God requiring; grace is God bestowing. Give what Thou commandest, and then command what Thou wilt.'

Oh, brethren! we have all of us written upon the fleshly tablets of our hearts solemn commandments which we know are binding upon us; and which we sometimes would fain keep, but cannot. Is this not a message of hope and blessedness that comes to us? Grace has drawn near in Jesus Christ, and a giving God, who bestows upon us a life that will unfold itself in accordance with the highest law, holds out the fulness of His gift in that Incarnate Word. Law has no heart; the Gospel is the unveiling of the heart of God. Law commands; grace is God bestowing Himself.

And still further, law condemns. Grace is love that bends down to an evildoer, and deals not on the footing of strict retribution with the infirmities and the sins of us poor weaklings. And so, seeing that no man that lives but hears in his heart an accusing voice, and that every one of us knows what it is to gaze upon lofty duties that we have shrunk from, upon plain obligations from the yoke of which we have selfishly and cowardly withdrawn our necks; seeing that every man, woman, and child listening to me now has, lurking in some corner of their hearts, a memory that only needs to be quickened to be a torture, and deeds that only need to have the veil drawn away from them to terrify and shame them --oh! surely it ought to be a word of gladness for every one of us that, in front of any law that condemns us, stands forth the gentle, gracious form of the Christ that brings pardon, and the grace of God that bringeth salvation unto all men.' Thank God! law needed to be given,' but it was only the foundation on which was to be reared a better thing. The law was given by Moses'--a schoolmaster,' as conscience is to-day, to bring us to Christ' by whom comes the grace that loves, that stoops, that gives, and that pardons.

Still further, there is another antithesis here. The Gospel which comes by Christ is not law, but truth. The object of law is to regulate conduct, and only subordinately to inform the mind or to enlighten the understanding. The Mosaic Law had for its foundation, of course, a revelation of God. But that revelation of God was less prominent, proportionately, than the prescription for man's conduct. The Gospel is the opposite of this. It has for its object the regulation of conduct; but that object is less prominent, proportionately, than the other, the manifestation and the revelation of God. The Old Testament says Thou shalt'; the New Testament says God is.' The Old was Law; the New is Truth.

And so we may draw the inference, on which I do not need to dwell, how miserably inadequate and shallow a conception of Christianity that is which sets it forth as being mainly a means of regulating conduct, and how false and foolish that loose talk is that we hear many a time.--Never mind about theological subtleties; conduct is the main thing.' Not so. The Gospel is not law; the Gospel is truth. It is a revelation of God to the understanding and to the heart, in order that thereby the will may be subdued, and that then the conduct may be shaped and moulded. But let us begin where it begins, and let us remember that the morality of the New Testament has never long been held up high and pure, where the theology of the New Testament has been neglected and despised. The law came by Moses; truth came by Jesus Christ.'

But, still further, let me remind you that, in the revelation of a God who is gracious, giving to our emptiness and forgiving our sins--that is to say, in the revelation of grace--we have a far deeper, nobler, more blessed conception of the divine nature than in law. It is great to think of a righteous God, it is great and ennobling to think of One whose pure eyes cannot look upon sin, and who wills that men should live pure and noble and Godlike lives. But it is far more and more blessed, transcending all the old teaching, when we sit at the feet of the Christ who gives, and who pardons, and look up into His deep eyes, with the tears of compassion shining in them, and say: Lo! This is our God! We have waited for Him and He will save us.' That is a better truth, a deeper truth than prophets and righteous men of old possessed; and to us there has come, borne on the wings of the mighty angel of His grace, the precious revelation of the Father-God whose heart is love. The law was given by Moses,' but brighter than the gleam of the presence between the Cherubim is the lambent light of gentle tenderness that shines from the face of Jesus Christ. Grace, and therefore truth, a deeper truth, came by Him.

And, still further, let me remind you of how this contrast is borne out by the fact that all that previous system was an adumbration, a shadow and a premonition of the perfect revelation that was to come. Temple, priest, sacrifice, law, the whole body of the Mosaic constitution of things was, as it were, a shadow thrown along the road in advance by the swiftly coming King. The shadow fell before Him, but when He came the shadow disappeared. The former was a system of types, symbols, pictures. Here is the reality that antiquates and fulfils and transcends them all. The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'

II. Now, Secondly, Look At The Other Contrast That Is Here, Between Giving And Coming.

I do not know that I have quite succeeded in making clear to my own mind the precise force of this antithesis. Certainly there is a profound meaning if one can fathom it; perhaps one might put it best in something like the following fashion.

The word rendered came' might be more correctly translated became,' or came into being.' The law was given; grace and truth came to be.

Now, what do we mean when we talk about a law being given? We simply mean, I suppose, that it is promulgated, either in oral or in written words. It is, after all, no more than so many words. It is given when it is spoken or published. It is a verbal communication at the best. But grace and truth came to be.' They are realities; they are not words. They are not communicated by sentences, they are actual existences; and they spring into being as far as man's historical possession and experience of them are concerned they spring into being in Jesus Christ, and through Him they belong to us all. Not that there was no grace, no manifest love of God, in the world, nor any true knowledge of Him before the Incarnation, but the earlier portions of this chapter remind us that all of grace, however restrained and partial, that all of truth, however imperfect and shadowy it may have been, which were in the world before Christ came, were owing to the operation of that Eternal Word Who became flesh and dwelt among us,' and that these, in comparison with the affluence and the fulness and the nearness of grace and truth after Christ's coming, were so small and remote that it is not an exaggeration to say that, as far as man's possession and experience of them are concerned, the giving love of God and the clear and true knowledge of His deep heart of tenderness and grace, sprang into being with the historical manifestation of Jesus Christ the Lord.

He comes to reveal by no words. His gift is not like the gift that Moses brought down from the mountain, merely a writing upon tables; His gift is not the letter of an outward commandment, nor the letter of an outward revelation. It is the thing itself which He reveals by being it. He does not speak about grace, He brings it; He does not show us God by His words, He shows us God by His acts. He does not preach about Him, but He lives Him, He manifests Him. His gentleness, His compassion, His miracles, His wisdom, His patience, His tears, His promises; all these are the very Deity in action before our eyes; and instead of a mere verbal revelation, which is so imperfect and so worthless, grace and truth, the living realities, are flashed upon a darkened world in the face of Jesus Christ. How cold, how hard, how superficial, in comparison with that fleshly table of the heart of Christ on which grace and truth were written, are the stony tables of law, which bore after all, for all their majesty, only words which are breath and nothing besides.

III. The Contrast That Is Drawn Here Between The Persons Of The Founders.

And so, lastly, look at the contrast that is drawn here between the persons of the Founders.

I do not suppose that we are to take into consideration the difference between the limitations of the one and the completeness of the other. I do not suppose that the Apostle was thinking about the difference between the reluctant service of the Lawgiver and the glad obedience of the Son; or between the passion and the pride that sometimes marred Moses' work, and the continual calmness and patient meekness that perfected the sacrifice of Jesus. Nor do I suppose that there flashed before his memory the difference between that strange tomb where God buried the prophet, unknown of men, in the stern solitude of the desert, true symbol of the solemn mystery and awful solitude with which the law which we have broken invests death, to our trembling consciences, and the grave in the garden with the spring flowers bursting round it, and visited by white-robed angels, who spoke comfort to weeping friends, true picture of what His death makes the grave for all His followers.

But I suppose he was mainly thinking of the contrast between the relation of Moses to his law, and of Christ to His Gospel. Moses was but a medium. His personality had nothing to do with his message. You may take away Moses, and the law stands all the same. But Christ is so interwoven with Christ's message that you cannot rend the two apart; you cannot have the figure of Christ melt away, and the gift that Christ brought remain. If you extinguish the sun you cannot keep the sunlight; if you put away Christ in the fulness of His manhood and of His divinity, in the power of His Incarnation and the omnipotence of His cross, if you put away Christ from Christianity, it collapses into dust and nothingness.

So, dear brethren, do not let any of us try that perilous experiment. You cannot melt away Jesus and keep grace and truth. You cannot tamper with His character, with His nature, with the mystery of His passion, with the atoning power of His cross, and preserve the blessings that He has brought to the world. If you want the grace which is the unveiling of the heart of God, the gift of a giving God and the pardon of a forgiving Judge; or if you want the truth, the reality of the knowledge of Him, you can only get them by accepting Christ. I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.' There is a law given which gives life,' and righteousness is by that law.' There is a Person who is the Truth, and our knowledge of the truth is through that Person, and through Him alone. By humble faith receive Him into your hearts, and He will come bringing to you the fulness of grace and truth.

MHCC: Joh 1:1-5

The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. What the evangelist says of Christ proves that he is God. He asserts, His existence in the beginning; His coexistence with the Father. The Word was with God. All things were made by him, and not as an instrument. Without him was not any thing made that was made, from the highest angel to the meanest worm. This shows how well qualified he was for the work of our redemption and salvation. The light of reason, as well as the life of sense, is derived from him, and depends upon him. This eternal Word, this true Light shines, but the darkness comprehends it not. Let us pray without ceasing, that our eyes may be opened to behold this Light, that we may walk in it; and thus be made wise unto salvation, by faith in Jesus Christ.

MHCC: Joh 1:6-14

John the Baptist came to bear witness concerning Jesus. Nothing more fully shows the darkness of men's minds, than that when the Light had appeared, there needed a witness to call attention to it. Christ was the true Light; that great Light which deserves to be called so. By his Spirit and grace he enlightens all that are enlightened to salvation; and those that are not enlightened by him, perish in darkness. Christ was in the world when he took our nature upon him, and dwelt among us. The Son of the Highest was here in this lower world. He was in the world, but not of it. He came to save a lost world, because it was a world of his own making. Yet the world knew him not. When he comes as a Judge, the world shall know him. Many say that they are Christ's own, yet do not receive him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have him to reign over them. All the children of God are born again. This new birth is through the word of God as the means, 1Pe 1:23, and by the Spirit of God as the Author. By his Divine presence Christ always was in the world. But now that the fulness of time was come, he was, after another manner, God manifested in the flesh. But observe the beams of his Divine glory, which darted through this veil of flesh. Men discover their weaknesses to those most familiar with them, but it was not so with Christ; those most intimate with him saw most of his glory. Although he was in the form of a servant, as to outward circumstances, yet, in respect of graces, his form was like the Son of God His Divine glory appeared in the holiness of his doctrine, and in his miracles. He was full of grace, fully acceptable to his Father, therefore qualified to plead for us; and full of truth, fully aware of the things he was to reveal.

MHCC: Joh 1:15-18

As to the order of time and entrance on his work, Christ came after John, but in every other way he was before him. The expression clearly shows that Jesus had existence before he appeared on earth as man. All fulness dwells in him, from which alone fallen sinners have, and shall receive, by faith, all that renders them wise, strong, holy, useful, and happy. Our receivings by Christ are all summed up in this one word, grace; we have received " even grace," a gift so great, so rich, so invaluable; the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. The law of God is holy, just, and good; and we should make the proper use of it. But we cannot derive from it pardon, righteousness, or strength. It teaches us to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, but it cannot supply the place of that doctrine. As no mercy comes from God to sinners but through Jesus Christ, no man can come to the Father but by him; no man can know God, except as he is made known in the only begotten and beloved Son.

MHCC: Joh 1:19-28

John disowns himself to be the Christ, who was now expected and waited for. He came in the spirit and power of Elias, but he was not the person of Elias. John was not that Prophet whom Moses said the Lord would raise up to them of their brethren, like unto him. He was not such a prophet as they expected, who would rescue them from the Romans. He gave such an account of himself, as might excite and awaken them to hearken to him. He baptized the people with water as a profession of repentance, and as an outward sign of the spiritual blessings to be conferred on them by the Messiah, who was in the midst of them, though they knew him not, and to whom he was unworthy to render the meanest service.

Matthew Henry: Joh 1:1-5

Austin says ( de Civitate Dei, lib. 10, cap. 29) that his friend Simplicius told him he had heard a Platonic philosopher say that these first verses of St. John's gospel were worthy to be written in letters of gold. The learned Francis Junius, in the account he gives of his own life, tells how he was in his youth infected with loose notions in religion, and by the grace of God was wonderfully recovered by reading accidentally these verses in a bible which his father had designedly laid in his way. He says that he observed such a divinity in the argument, such an authority and majesty in the style, that his flesh trembled, and he was struck with such amazement that for a whole day he scarcely knew where he was or what he did; and thence he dates the beginning of his being religious. Let us enquire what there is in those strong lines. The evangelist here lays down the great truth he is to prove, that Jesus Christ is God, one with the Father. Observe,

I. Of whom he speaks - The Word - ho logos . This is an idiom peculiar to John's writings. See 1Jo 1:1; 1Jo 5:7; Rev 19:13. Yet some think that Christ is meant by the Word in Act 20:32; Heb 4:12; Luk 1:2. The Chaldee paraphrase very frequently calls the Messiah Memra - the Word of Jehovah, and speaks of many things in the Old Testament, said to be done by the Lord, as done by that Word of the Lord. Even the vulgar Jews were taught that the Word of God was the same with God. The evangelist, in the close of his discourse (Joh 1:18), plainly tells us why he calls Christ the Word - because he is the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has declared him. Word is two-fold: logos endiathetos - word conceived; and logos prophorikos - word uttered. The logos ho esō and ho exō , ratio and oratio - intelligence and utterance. 1. There is the word conceived, that is, thought, which is the first and only immediate product and conception of the soul (all the operations of which are performed by thought ), and it is one with the soul. And thus the second person in the Trinity is fitly called the Word; for he is the first-begotten of the Father, that eternal essential Wisdom which the Lord possessed, as the soul does its thought, in the beginning of his way, Pro 8:22. There is nothing we are more sure of than that we think, yet nothing we are more in the dark about than how we think; who can declare the generation of thought in the soul? Surely then the generations and births of the eternal mind may well be allowed to be great mysteries of godliness, the bottom of which we cannot fathom, while yet we adore the depth. 2. There is the word uttered, and this is speech, the chief and most natural indication of the mind. And thus Christ is the Word, for by him God has in these last days spoken to us (Heb 1:2), and has directed us to hear him, Mat 17:5. He has made known God's mind to us, as a man's word or speech makes known his thoughts, as far as he pleases, and no further. Christ is called that wonderful speaker (see notes on Dan 8:13), the speaker of things hidden and strange. He is the Word speaking from God to us, and to God for us. John Baptist was the voice, but Christ the Word: being the Word, he is the Truth, the Amen, the faithful Witness of the mind of God.

II. What he saith of him, enough to prove beyond contradiction that he is God. He asserts,

1. His existence in the beginning: In the beginning was the Word. This bespeaks his existence, not only before his incarnation, but before all time. The beginning of time, in which all creatures were produced and brought into being, found this eternal Word in being. The world was from the beginning, but the Word was in the beginning. Eternity is usually expressed by being before the foundation of the world. The eternity of God is so described (Psa 90:2), Before the mountains were brought forth. So Pro 8:23. The Word had a being before the world had a beginning. He that was in the beginning never began, and therefore was ever, achronos - without beginning of time. So Nonnus.

2. His co-existence with the Father: The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Let none say that when we invite them to Christ we would draw them from God, for Christ is with God and is God; it is repeated in Joh 1:2 : the same, the very same that we believe in and preach, was in the beginning with God, that is, he was so from eternity. In the beginning the world was from God, as it was created by him; but the Word was with God, as ever with him. The Word was with God, (1.) In respect of essence and substance; for the Word was God: a distinct person or substance, for he was with God; and yet the same in substance, for he was God, Heb 1:3. (2.) In respect of complacency and felicity. There was a glory and happiness which Christ had with God before the world was (Joh 17:5), the Son infinitely happy in the enjoyment of his Father's bosom, and no less the Father's delight, the Son of his love, Pro 8:30. (3.) In respect of counsel and design. The mystery of man's redemption by this Word incarnate was hid in God before all worlds, Eph 3:9. He that undertook to bring us to God (1Pe 3:18) was himself from eternity with God; so that this grand affair of man's reconciliation to God was concerted between the Father and Son from eternity, and they understand one another perfectly well in it, Zec 6:13; Mat 11:27. He was by him as one brought up with him for this service, Pro 8:30. He was with God, and therefore is said to come forth from the Father.

3. His agency in making the world, Joh 1:3. This is here, (1.) Expressly asserted: All things were made by him. He was with God, not only so as to be acquainted with the divine counsels from eternity, but to be active in the divine operations in the beginning of time. Then was I by him, Pro 8:30. God made the world by a word (Psa 33:6) and Christ was the Word. By him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, God made the world (Heb 1:2), not as the workman cuts by his axe, but as the body sees by the eye. (2.) The contrary is denied: Without him was not any thing made that was made, from the highest angel to the meanest worm. God the Father did nothing without him in that work. Now, [1.] This proves that he is God; for he that built all things is God, Heb 3:4. The God of Israel often proved himself to be God with this, that he made all things: Isa 40:12, Isa 40:28; Isa 41:4; and see Jer 10:11, Jer 10:12. [2.] This proves the excellency of the Christian religion, that the author and founder of it is the same that was the author and founder of the world. How excellent must that constitution needs be which derives its institution from him who is the fountain of all excellency! When we worship Christ, we worship him to whom the patriarchs gave honour as the Creator of the world, and on whom all creatures depend. [3.] This shows how well qualified he was for the work of our redemption and salvation. Help was laid upon one that was mighty indeed; for it was laid upon him that made all things; and he is appointed the author of our bliss who was the author of our being.

4. The original of life and light that is in him: In him was life, Joh 1:4. This further proves that he is God, and every way qualified for his undertaking; for, (1.) He has life in himself; not only the true God, but the living God. God is life; he swears by himself when he saith, As I live. (2.) All living creatures have their life in him; not only all the matter of the creation was made by him, but all the life too that is in the creation is derived from him and supported by him. It was the Word of God that produced the moving creatures that had life, Gen 1:20; Act 17:25. He is that Word by which man lives more than by bread, Mat 4:4. (3.) Reasonable creatures have their light from him; that life which is the light of men comes from him. Life in man is something greater and nobler than it is in other creatures; it is rational, and not merely animal. When man became a living soul, his life was light, his capacities such as distinguished him fRom. and dignified him above, the beasts that perish. The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord, and it was the eternal Word that lighted this candle. The light of reason, as well as the life of sense, is derived from him, and depends upon him. This proves him fit to undertake our salvation; for life and light, spiritual and eternal life and light, are the two great things that fallen man, who lies so much under the power of death and darkness, has need of. From whom may we better expect the light of divine revelation than from him who gave us the light of human reason? And if, when God gave us natural life, that life was in his Son, how readily should we receive the gospel-record, that he hath given us eternal life, and that life too is in his Son!

5. The manifestation of him to the children of men. It might be objected, If this eternal Word was all in all thus in the creation of the world, whence is it that he has been so little taken notice of and regarded? To this he answers (Joh 1:5), The light shines, but the darkness comprehends it not. Observe,

(1.) The discovery of the eternal Word to the lapsed world, even before he was manifested in the flesh: The light shineth in darkness. Light is self-evidencing, and will make itself known; this light, whence the light of men comes, hath shone, and doth shine. [1.] The eternal Word, as God, shines in the darkness of natural conscience. Though men by the fall are become darkness, yet that which may be known of God is manifested in them; see Rom 1:19, Rom 1:20. The light of nature is this light shining in darkness. Something of the power of the divine Word, both as creating and as commanding, all mankind have an innate sense of; were it not for this, earth would be a hell, a place of utter darkness; blessed be God, it is not so yet. [2.] The eternal Word, as Mediator, shone in the darkness of the Old Testament types and figures, and the prophecies and promises which were of the Messiah from the beginning. He that had commanded the light of this world to shine out of darkness was himself long a light shining in darkness; there was a veil upon this light, 2Co 3:13.

(2.) The disability of the degenerate world to receive this discovery: The darkness comprehended it not; the most of men received the grace of God in these discoveries in vain. [1.] The world of mankind comprehended not the natural light that was in their understandings, but became vain in their imaginations concerning the eternal God and the eternal Word, Rom 1:21, Rom 1:28. The darkness of error and sin overpowered and quite eclipsed this light. God spoke once, yea twice, but man perceived it not, Job 33:14. [2.] The Jews, who had the light of the Old Testament, yet comprehended not Christ in it. As there was a veil upon Moses's face, so there was upon the people's hearts. In the darkness of the types and shadows the light shone; but such as the darkness of their understandings that they could not see it. It was therefore requisite that Christ should come, both to rectify the errors of the Gentile world and to improve the truths of the Jewish church.

Matthew Henry: Joh 1:6-14

The evangelist designs to bring in John Baptist bearing an honourable testimony to Jesus Christ, Now in these verses, before he does this,

I. He gives us some account of the witness he is about to produce. His name was John, which signifies gracious; his conversation was austere, but he was not the less gracious. Now,

1. We are here told concerning him, in general, that he was a man sent of God. The evangelist had said concerning Jesus Christ that he was with God and that he was God; but here concerning John that he was a man, a mere man. God is pleased to speak to us by men like ourselves. John was a great man, but he was a man, a son of man; he was sent from God, he was God's messenger, so he is called, Mal 3:1. God gave him both his mission and his message, both his credentials and his instructions. John wrought no miracle, nor do we find that he had visions and revelations; but the strictness and purity of his life and doctrine, and the direct tendency of both to reform the world, and to revive the interests of God's kingdom among men, were plain indications that he was sent of God.

2. We are here told what his office and business were (Joh 1:7): The same came for a witness, an eye-witness, a leading witness. He came eis marturian - for a testimony. The legal institutions had been long a testimony for God in the Jewish church. By them revealed religion was kept up; hence we read of the tabernacle of the testimony, the ark of the testimony, the law and the testimony: but now divine revelation is to be turned into another channel; now the testimony of Christ is the testimony of God, 1Co 1:6; 1Co 2:1. Among the Gentiles, God indeed had not left himself without witness (Act 14:17), but the Redeemer had no testimonies borne him among them. There was a profound silence concerning him, till John Baptist came for a witness to him. Now observe, (1.) The matter of his testimony: He came to bear witness to the light. Light is a thing which witnesses for itself, and carries its own evidence along with it; but to those who shut their eyes against the light it is necessary there should be those that bear witness to it. Christ's light needs not man's testimony, but the world's darkness does. John was like the night watchman that goes round the town, proclaiming the approach of the morning light to those that have closed their eyes, and are not willing themselves to observe it; or like that watchman that was set to tell those who asked him what of the night that the morning comes, and, if you will enquire, enquire ye, Isa 21:11, Isa 21:12. He was sent of God to tell the world that the long-looked-for Messiah was now come, who should be a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel; and to proclaim that dispensation at hand which would bring life and immortality to light. (2.) The design of his testimony: That all men through him might believe; not in him, but in Christ, whose way he was sent to prepare. He taught men to look through him, and pass through him, to Christ; through the doctrine of repentance for sin to that of faith in Christ. He prepared men for the reception and entertainment of Christ and his gospel, by awakening them to a sight and sense of sin; and that, their eyes being thereby opened, they might be ready to admit those beams of divine light which, in the person and doctrine of the Messiah, were now ready to shine in their faces. If they would but receive this witness of man, they would soon find that the witness of God was greater, 1Jo 5:9. See Joh 10:41. Observe, it was designed that all men through him might believe, excluding none from the kind and beneficial influences of his ministry that did not exclude themselves, as multitudes did, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and so received the grace of God in vain.

3. We are here cautioned not to mistake him for the light who only came to bear witness to it (Joh 1:8): He was not that light that was expected and promised, but only was sent to bear witness of that great and ruling light. He was a star, like that which guided the wise men to Christ, a morning star; but he was not the Sun; not the Bridegroom, but a friend of the Bridegroom; not the Prince, but his harbinger. There were those who rested in John's baptism, and looked no further, as those Ephesians, Act 19:3. To rectify this mistake, the evangelist here, when he speaks very honourably of him, yet shows that he must give place to Christ. He was great as the prophet of the Highest, but not the Highest himself. Note, We must take heed of over-valuing ministers, as well as of under-valuing them; they are not our lords, nor have they dominion over our faith, but ministers by whom we believe, stewards of our Lord's house. We must not give up ourselves by an implicit faith to their conduct, for they are not that light; but we must attend to, and receive, their testimony; for they are sent to bear witness of that light; so then let us esteem them, and not otherwise. Had John pretended to be that light he had not been so much as a faithful witness of that light. Those who usurp the honour of Christ forfeit the honour of being the servants of Christ; yet John was very serviceable as a witness to the light, though he was not that light. Those may be of great use to us who yet shine with a borrowed light.

II. Before he goes on with John's testimony, he returns to give us a further account of this Jesus to whom John bore record. Having shown in the beginning of the chapter the glories of his Godhead, he here comes to show the graces of his incarnation, and his favours to man as Mediator.

1. Christ was the true Light (Joh 1:9); not as if John Baptist were a false light, but, in comparison with Christ, he was a very small light. Christ is the great light that deserves to be called so. Other lights are but figuratively and equivocally called so: Christ is the true light. The fountain of all knowledge and of all comfort must needs be the true light. He is the true light, for proof of which we are not referred to the emanations of his glory in the invisible world (the beams with which he enlightens that), but to those rays of his light which are darted downwards, and with which this dark world of ours is enlightened. But how does Christ enlighten every man that comes into the world? (1.) By his creating power he enlightens every man with the light of reason; that life which is the light of men is from him; all the discoveries and directions of reason, all the comfort it gives us, and all the beauty it puts upon us, are from Christ. (2.) By the publication of his gospel to all nations he does in effect enlighten every man. John Baptist was a light, but he enlightened only Jerusalem and Judea, and the region round about Jordan, like a candle that enlightens one room; but Christ is the true light, for he is a light to enlighten the Gentiles. His everlasting gospel is to be preached to every nation and language, Rev 14:6. Like the sun which enlightens every man that will open his eyes, and receive its light (Psa 19:6), to which the preaching of the gospel is compared. See Rom 10:18. Divine revelation is not now to be confined, as it had been, to one people, but to be diffused to all people, Mat 5:15. (3.) By the operation of his Spirit and grace he enlightens all those that are enlightened to salvation; and those that are not enlightened by him perish in darkness. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is said to be in the face of Jesus Christ, and is compared with that light which was at the beginning commanded to shine out of darkness, and which enlightens every man that comes into the world. Whatever light any man has, he is indebted to Christ for it, whether it be natural or supernatural.

2. Christ was in the world, Joh 1:10. He was in the world, as the essential Word, before his incarnation, upholding all things; but this speaks of his being in the world when he took our nature upon him, and dwelt among us; see Joh 16:28. I am come into the world. The Son of the Highest was here in this lower world; that light in this dark world; that holy thing in this sinful polluted world. He left a world of bliss and glory, and was here in this melancholy miserable world. He undertook to reconcile the world to God, and therefore was in the world, to treat about it, and settle that affair; to satisfy God's justice for the world, and discover God's favour to the world. He was in the world, but not of it, and speaks with an air of triumph when he can say, Now I am no more in it, Joh 17:11. The greatest honour that ever was put upon this world, which is so mean and inconsiderable a part of the universe, was that the Son of God was once in the world; and, as it should engage our affections to things above that there Christ is, so it should reconcile us to our present abode in this world that once Christ was here. He was in the world for awhile, but it is spoken of as a thing past; and so it will be said of us shortly, We were in the world. O that when we are here no more we may be where Christ is! Now observe here, (1.) What reason Christ had to expect the most affectionate and respectful welcome possible in this world; for the world was made by him. Therefore he came to save a lost world because it was a world of his own making. Why should he not concern himself to revive the light that was of his own kindling, to restore a life of his own infusing, and to renew the image that was originally of his own impressing? The world was made by him, and therefore ought to do him homage. (2.) What cold entertainment he met with, notwithstanding: The world knew him not. The great Maker, Ruler, and Redeemer of the world was in it, and few or none of the inhabitants of the world were aware of it. The ox knows his owner, but the more brutish world did not. They did not own him, did not bid him welcome, because they did not know him; and they did not know him because he did not make himself known in the way that they expected - in external glory and majesty. His kingdom came not with observation, because it was to be a kingdom of trail and probation. When he shall come as a Judge the world shall know him.

3. He came to his own (Joh 1:11); not only to the world, which was his own, but to the people of Israel, that were peculiarly his own above all people; of them he came, among them he lived, and to them he was first sent. The Jews were at this time a mean despicable people; the crown was fallen from their head; yet, in remembrance of the ancient covenant, bad as they were, and poor as they were, Christ was not ashamed to look upon them as his own. Ta idia - his own things; not tous idious - his own persons, as true believers are called, Joh 13:1. The Jews were his, as a man's house, and lands, and goods are his, which he uses and possesses; but believers are his as a man's wife and children are his own, which he loves and enjoys. He came to his own, to seek and save them, because they were his own. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for it was he whose own the sheep were. Now observe,

(1.) That the generality rejected him: His own received him not. He had reason to expect that those who were his own should have bidden him welcome, considering how great the obligations were which they lay under to him, and how fair the opportunities were which they had of coming to the knowledge of him. They had the oracles of God, which told them beforehand when and where to expect him, and of what tribe and family he should arise. He came among them himself, introduced with signs and wonders, and himself the greatest; and therefore it is not said of them, as it was of the world (Joh 1:10), that they knew him not; but his own, though they could not but know him, yet received him not; did not receive his doctrine, did not welcome him as the Messiah, but fortified themselves against him. The chief priests, that were in a particular manner his own (for the Levites were God's tribe), were ring-leaders in this contempt put upon him. Now this was very unjust, because they were his own, and therefore he might command their respect; and it was very unkind and ungrateful, because he came to them, to seek and save them, and so to court their respect. Note, Many who in profession are Christ's own, yet do not receive him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have him to reign over them.

(2.) That yet there was a remnant who owned him, and were faithful to him. Though his own received him not, yet there were those that received him (Joh 1:12): But as many as received him. Though Israel were not gathered, yet Christ was glorious. Though the body of that nation persisted and perished in unbelief, yet there were many of them that were wrought upon to submit to Christ, and many more that were not of that fold. Observe here,

[1.] The true Christian's description and property; and that is, that he receives Christ, and believes on his name; the latter explains the former. Note, First, To be a Christian indeed is to believe on Christ's name; it is to assent to the gospel discovery, and consent to the gospel proposal, concerning him. His name is the Word of God; the King of kings, the Lord our righteousness; Jesus a Saviour. Now to believe on his name is to acknowledge that he is what these great names bespeak him to be, and to acquiesce in it, that he may be so to us. Secondly, Believing in Christ's name is receiving him as a gift from God. We must receive his doctrine as true and good; receive his law as just and holy; receive his offers as kind and advantageous; and we must receive the image of his grace, and impressions of his love, as the governing principle of our affections and actions.

[2.] The true Christian's dignity and privilege are twofold: -

First, The privilege of adoption, which takes them into the number of God's children: To them gave he power to become the sons of God. Hitherto, the adoption pertained to the Jews only ( Israel is my son, my first-born ); but now, by faith in Christ, Gentiles are the children of God, Gal 3:26. They have power, exousian - authority; for no man taketh this power to himself, but he who is authorized by the gospel charter. To them gave he a right; to them gave he this pre-eminence. This power have all the saints. Note, 1. It is the unspeakable privilege of all good Christians, that they are become the children of God. They were by nature children of wrath, children of this world. If they be the children of God, they become so, are made so Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani - Persons are not born Christians, but made such. - Tertullian. Behold what manner of love is this, 1Jo 3:1. God calls them his children, they call him Father, and are entitled to all the privileges of children, those of their way and those of their home. 2. The privilege of adoption is entirely owing to Jesus Christ; he gave this power to them that believe on his name. God is his Father, and so ours; and it is by virtue of our espousals to him, and union with him, that we stand related to God as a Father. It was in Christ that we were predestinated to the adoption; from him we receive both the character and the Spirit of adoption, and he is the first-born among many brethren. The Son of God became a Son of man, that the sons and daughters of men might become the sons and daughters of God Almighty.

Secondly, The privilege of regeneration (Joh 1:13): Which were born. Note, All the children of God are born again; all that are adopted are regenerated. This real change evermore attends that relative one. Wherever God confers the dignity of children, he creates the nature and disposition of children. Men cannot do so when they adopt. Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. 1. Negatively. (1.) It is not propagated by natural generation from our parents. It is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of corruptible seed, 1Pe 1:23. Man is called flesh and blood, because thence he has his original: but we do not become the children of God as we become the children of our natural parents. Note, Grace does not run in the blood, as corruption does. Man polluted begat a son in his own likeness (Gen 5:3); but man sanctified and renewed does not beget a son in that likeness. The Jews gloried much in their parentage, and the noble blood that ran in their veins: We are Abraham's seed; and therefore to them pertained the adoption because they were born of that blood; but this New Testament adoption is not founded in any such natural relation. (2.) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the will of man, which labours under a moral impotency of determining itself to that which is good; so that the principles of the divine life are not of our own planting, it is the grace of God that makes us willing to be his. Nor can human laws or writings prevail to sanctify and regenerate a soul; if they could, the new birth would be by the will of man. But, 2. Positively: it is of God. This new birth is owing to the word of God as the means (1Pe 1:23), and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole author. True believers are born of God, 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 5:1. And this is necessary to their adoption; for we cannot expect the love of God if we have not something of his likeness, nor claim the privileges of adoption if we be not under the power of regeneration.

4. The word was made flesh, Joh 1:14. This expresses Christ's incarnation more clearly than what went before. By his divine presence he always was in the world, and by his prophets he came to his own. But now that the fulness of time was come he was sent forth after another manner, made of a woman (Gal 4:4); God manifested in the flesh, according to the faith and hope of holy Job; Yet shall I see God in my flesh, Job 19:26. Observe here,

(1.) The human nature of Christ with which he was veiled; and that expressed two ways.

[1.] The word was made flesh. Forasmuch as the children, who were to become the sons of God, were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, Heb 2:14. The Socinians agree that Christ is both God and man, but they say that he was man, and was made a God, as Moses (Exo 7:1), directly contrary to John here, who saith, Theos ēn - He was God, but sarxegeneto - He was made flesh. Compare v. 1 with this. This intimates not only that he was really and truly man, but that he subjected himself to the miseries and calamities of the human nature. He was made flesh, the meanest part of man. Flesh bespeaks man weak, and he was crucified through weakness, 2Co 13:4. Flesh bespeaks man mortal and dying (Psa 78:39), and Christ was put to death in the flesh 1Pe 3:18. Nay, flesh bespeaks man tainted with sin (Gen 6:3), and Christ, though he was perfectly holy and harmless, yet appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), and was made sin for us, 2Co 5:21. When Adam had sinned, God said to him, Dust thou art; not only because made out of the dust, but because by sin he was sunk into dust. His fall did, sōmatoun tēn psuchēn , turn him as it were all into body, made him earthly; therefore he that was made a curse for us was made flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh, Rom 8:3. Wonder at this, that the eternal Word should be made flesh, when flesh was come into such an ill name; that he who made all things should himself be made flesh, one of the meanest things, and submit to that from which he was at the greatest distance. The voice that ushered in the gospel cried, All flesh is grass (Isa 40:6), to make the Redeemer's love the more wonderful, who, to redeem and save us, was made flesh, and withered as grass; but the Word of the Lord, who was made flesh, endures for ever; when made flesh, he ceased not to be the Word of God.

[2.] He dwelt among us, here in this lower world. Having taken upon him the nature of man, he put himself into the place and condition of other men. The Word might have been made flesh, and dwelt among the angels; but, having taken a body of the same mould with ours, in it he came, and resided in the same world with us. He dwelt among us, us worms of the earth, us that he had no need of, us that he got nothing by, us that were corrupt and depraved, and revolted from God. The Lord God came and dwelt even among the rebellious, Psa 68:18. He that had dwelt among angels, those noble and excellent beings, came and dwelt among us that are a generation of vipers, us sinners, which was worse to him than David's swelling in Mesech and Kedar, or Ezekiel's dwelling among scorpions, or the church of Pergamus dwelling where Satan's seat is. When we look upon the upper world, the world of spirits, how mean and contemptible does this flesh, this body, appear, which we carry about with us, and this world in which our lot is cast, and how hard is it to a contemplative mind to be reconciled to them! But that the eternal Word was made flesh, was clothed with a body as we are, and dwelt in this world as we do, this has put an honour upon them both, and should make us willing to abide in the flesh while God has any work for us to do; for Christ dwelt in this lower world, bad as it is, till he had finished what he had to do here, Joh 17:4. He dwelt among the Jews, that the scripture might be fulfilled, He shall dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen 9:27. And see Zec 2:10. Though the Jews were unkind to him, yet he continued to dwell among them; though (as some of the ancient writers tell us) he was invited to better treatment by Abgarus king of Edessa, yet he removed not to any other nation. He dwelt among us. He was in the world, not as a wayfaring man that tarries but for a night, but he dwelt among us, made a long residence, the original word is observable, eskēnōsen en hēmin - he dwelt among us, he dwelt as in a tabernacle, which intimates, First, That he dwelt here in very mean circumstances, as shepherds that dwell in tents. He did not dwell among us as in a palace, but as in a tent; for he had not where to lay his head, and was always upon the remove. Secondly, That his state here was a military state. Soldiers dwell in tents; he had long since proclaimed war with the seed of the serpent, and now he takes the field in person, sets up his standard, and pitches his tent, to prosecute this war. Thirdly, That his stay among us was not to be perpetual. He dwelt here as in a tent, not as at home. The patriarchs, by dwelling in tabernacles, confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth, and sought the better country, and so did Christ, leaving us an example, Heb 13:13, Heb 13:14. Fourthly, That as of old God dwelt in the tabernacle of Moses, by the shechinah between the cherubim, so now he dwells in the human nature of Christ; that is now the true shechinah, the symbol of God's peculiar presence. And we are to make all our addresses to God through Christ, and from him to receive divine oracles.

(2.) The beams of his divine glory that darted through this veil of flesh: We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. The sun is still the fountain of light, though eclipsed or clouded; so Christ was still the brightness of his Father's glory, even when he dwelt among us in this lower world. And how slightly soever the Jews thought of him there were those that saw through the veil. Observe,

[1.] Who were the witnesses of this glory: we, his disciples and followers, that conversed most freely and familiarly with him; we among whom he dwelt. Other men discover their weaknesses to those that are most familiar with them, but it was not so with Christ; those that were most intimate with him saw most of his glory. As it was with his doctrine, the disciples knew the mysteries of it, while others had it under the veil of parables; so it was with his person, they saw the glory of his divinity, while others saw only the veil of his human nature. He manifested himself to them, and not unto the world. These witnesses were a competent number, twelve of them, a whole jury of witnesses; men of plainness and integrity, and far from any thing of design or intrigue.

[2.] What evidence they had of it: We saw it. They had not their evidence by report, at second hand, but were themselves eye-witnesses of those proofs on which they built their testimony that he was the Son of the living God: We saw it. The word signifies a fixed abiding sight, such as gave them an opportunity of making their observations. This apostle himself explains this: What we declare unto you of the Word of life is what we have seen with our eyes, and what we have looked upon, 1Jo 1:1.

[3.] What the glory was: The glory as of the only begotten of the Father. The glory of the Word made flesh was such a glory as became the only begotten Son of God, and could not be the glory of any other. Note, First, Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father. Believers are the children of God by the special favour of adoption and the special grace of regeneration. They are in a sense homoiousioi - of a like nature (2Pe 1:4), and have the image of his perfections; but Christ is homousios - of the same nature, and is the express image of his person, and the Son of God by an eternal generation. Angels are sons of God, but he never said to any of them, This day have I begotten thee, Heb 1:5. Secondly, He was evidently declared to be the only begotten of the Father, by that which was seen of his glory when he dwelt among us. Though he was in the form of a servant, in respect of outward circumstances, yet, in respect of graces, his form was as that of the fourth in the fiery furnace, like the Son of God. His divine glory appeared in the holiness and heavenliness of his doctrine; in his miracles, which extorted from many this acknowledgment, that he was the Son of God; it appeared in the purity, goodness, and beneficence, of his whole conversation. God's goodness is his glory, and he went about doing good; he spoke and acted in every thing as an incarnate Deity. Perhaps the evangelist had a particular regard to the glory of his transfiguration, of which he was an eye-witness; see 2Pe 1:16-18. God's calling him his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, intimated that he was the only begotten of the Father; but the full proof of this was at his resurrection.

[4.] What advantage those he dwelt among had from this. He dwelt among them, full of grace and truth. In the old tabernacle wherein God dwelt was the law, in this was grace; in that were types, in this was truth. The incarnate Word was every way qualified for his undertaking as Mediator; for he was full of grace and truth, the two great things that fallen man stands in need of; and this proved him to be the Son of God as much as the divine power and majesty that appeared in him. First, He has a fulness of grace and truth for himself; he had the Spirit without measure. He was full of grace, fully acceptable to his Father, and therefore qualified to intercede for us; and full of truth, fully apprized of the things he was to reveal, and therefore fit to instruct us. He had a fulness of knowledge and a fulness of compassion. Secondly, He has a fulness of grace and truth for us. He received, that he might give, and God was well pleased in him, that he might be well pleased with us in him; and this was the truth of the legal types.

Matthew Henry: Joh 1:15-18

In these verses,

I. The evangelist begins again to give us John Baptist's testimony concerning Christ, Joh 1:15. He had said (Joh 1:8) that he came for a witness; now here he tells us that he did accordingly bear witness. Here, Observe,

1. How he expressed his testimony: He cried, according to the prediction that he should be the voice of one crying. The Old Testament prophets cried aloud, to show people their sins; this New Testament prophet cried aloud, to show people their Saviour. This intimates, (1.) That it was an open public testimony, proclaimed, that all manner of persons might take notice of it, for all are concerned in it. False teachers entice secretly, but wisdom publishes her dictates in the chief places of concourse. (2.) That he was free and hearty in bearing this testimony. He cried as one that was both well assured of the truth to which he witnessed and well affected to it. He that had leaped in his mother's womb for joy of Christ's approach, when newly conceived, does now with a like exultation of spirit welcome his public appearance.

2. What his testimony was. He appeals to what he had said at the beginning of his ministry, when he had directed them to expect one that should come after him, whose forerunner he was, and never intended any other than to lead them to him, and to prepare his way. This he had given them notice of from the first. Note, It is very comfortable to a minister to have the testimony of his conscience for him that he set out in his ministry with honest principles and sincere intentions, with a single eye to the glory and honour of Christ. Now what he had then said he applies to this Jesus whom he had lately baptized, and who was so remarkably owned from heaven: This was he of whom I spoke. John did not tell them that there would shortly appear such a one among them, and then leave them to find him out; but in this he went beyond all the Old Testament prophets that he particularly specified the person: " This was he, the very man I told you of, and to him all I said is to be accommodated."Now what was it he said?

(1.) He had given the preference to this Jesus: He that comes after me, in the time of his birth and public appearance, is preferred before me; he that succeeds me in preaching and making disciples is a more excellent person, upon all accounts; as the prince or peer that comes after is preferred before the harbinger or gentleman-usher that makes way for him. Note, Jesus Christ, who was to be called the Son of the Highest (Luk 1:32), was preferred before John Baptist, who was to be called only the prophet of the Highest, Luk 1:76. John was a minister of the New Testament, but Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament. And observe, though John was a great man, and had a great name and interest, yet he was forward to give the preference to him to whom it belonged. Note, All the ministers of Christ must prefer him and his interest before themselves and their own interests; they will make an ill account that seek their own things, not the things of Christ, Phi 2:21. He comes after me, and yet is preferred before me. Note, God dispenses his gifts according to his good pleasure, and many times crosses hands, as Jacob did, preferring the younger before the elder. Paul far outstripped those that were in Christ before him.

(2.) He here gives a good reason for it: For he was before me, prōtos mou ēn - He was my first, or first to me; he was my first Cause, my original. The First is one of God's names, Isa 44:6. He is before me, is my first, [1.] In respect of seniority: he was before me, for he was before Abraham, Joh 8:58. Nay, he was before all things, Col 1:17. I am but of yesterday, he from eternity. It was but in those days that John Baptist came (Mat 3:1), but the goings forth of our Lord Jesus were of old, from everlasting, Mic 5:2. This proves two natures in Christ. Christ, as man, came after John as to his public appearance; Christ, as God, was before him; and how could he otherwise be before him but by an eternal existence? [2.] In respect of supremacy; for he was my prince; so some princes are called the first; prōton , "It is he for whose sake and service I am sent: he is my Master, I am his minister and messenger."

II. He presently returns again to speak of Jesus Christ, and cannot go on with John Baptist's testimony till Joh 1:19. The Joh 1:16 has a manifest connection with Joh 1:14, where the incarnate Word was said to be full of grace and truth. Now here he makes this the matter, not only of our adoration, but of our thankfulness, because from that fulness of his we all have received. He received gifts for men (Psa 68:18), that he might give gifts to men, Eph 4:8. He was filled, that he might fill all in all (Eph 1:23), might fill our treasures, Pro 8:21. He has a fountain of fulness overflowing: We all have received. All we apostles; so some. We have received the favour of this apostleship, that is grace; and a fitness for it, that is truth. Or, rather, All we believers; as many as received him (Joh 1:16), received from him. Note, All true believers receive from Christ's fulness; the best and greatest saints cannot live without him, the meanest and weakest may live by him. This excludes proud boasting, that we have nothing but we have received it; and silences perplexing fears, that we want nothing but we may receive it. Let us see what it is that we have received.

1. We have received grace for grace. Our receivings by Christ are all summed up in this one word, grace; we have received kai charin - even grace, so great a gift, so rich, so invaluable; we have received no less than grace; this is a gift to be spoken of with an emphasis. It is repeated, grace for grace; for to every stone in this building, as well as to the top-stone, we must cry, Grace, grace. Observe,

(1.) The blessing received. It is grace; the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. God's good will works the good work, and then the good work qualifies us for further tokens of his good will. As the cistern receives water from the fulness of the fountain, the branches sap from the fulness of the root, and the air light from the fulness of the sun, so we receive grace from the fulness of Christ.

(2.) The manner of its reception: Grace for grace - charin anti charitos . The phrase is singular, and interpreters put different senses upon it, each of which will be of use to illustrate the unsearchable riches of the grace of Christ. Grace for grace bespeaks, [1.] The freeness of this grace. It is grace for grace' sake; so Grotius. We receive grace, not for our sakes (be it known to us), but even so, Father, because it seemed good in thy sight. It is a gift according to grace, Rom 12:6. It is grace to us for the sake of grace to Jesus Christ. God was well pleased in him, and is therefore well pleased with us in him, Eph 1:6. [2.] The fulness of this grace. Grace for grace is abundance of grace, grace upon grace (so Camero ), one grace heaped upon another; as skin for skin is skin after skin, even all that a man has, Job 2:4. It is a blessing poured out, that there shall not be room to receive it, plenteous redemption: one grace a pledge of more grace. Joseph - he will add. It is such a fulness as is called the fulness of God which we are filled with. We are not straitened in the grace of Christ, if we be not straitened in our own bosoms. [3.] The serviceableness of this grace. Grace for grace is grace for the promoting and advancing of grace. Grace to be exercised by ourselves; gracious habits for gracious acts. Grace to be ministered to others; gracious vouchsafements for gracious performances: grace is a talent to be traded with. The apostles received grace (Rom 1:5; Eph 3:8), that they might communicate it, 1Pe 4:10. [4.] The substitution of New Testament grace in the room and stead of Old Testament grace: so Beza. And this sense is confirmed by what follows (Joh 1:17); for the Old Testament had grace in type, the New Testament has grace in truth. There was a grace under the Old Testament, the gospel was preached then (Gal 3:8); but that grace is superseded, and we have gospel grace instead of it, a glory which excelleth, 2Co 3:10. Discoveries of grace are now more clear, distributions of grace far more plentiful; this is grace instead of grace. [5.] It bespeaks the augmentation and continuance of grace. Grace for grace is one grace to improve, confirm, and perfect another grace. We are changed into the divine image, from glory to glory, from one degree of glorious grace to another, 2Co 3:18. Those that have true grace have that for more grace, Jam 4:6. When God gives grace he saith, Take this in part; for he who hath promised will perform. [6.] It bespeaks the agreeableness and conformity of grace in the saints to the grace that is in Jesus Christ; so Mr. Clark . Grace for grace is grace in us answering to grace in him, as the impression upon the wax answers the seal line for line. The grace we receive from Christ changes us into the same image (2Co 3:18), the image of the Son (Rom 8:29), the image of the heavenly, 1Co 15:49.

2. We have received grace and truth, Joh 1:17. He had said (Joh 1:14) that Christ was full of grace and truth; now here he says that by him grace and truth came to us. From Christ we receive grace; this is a string he delights to harp upon, he cannot go off from it. Two things he further observes in this verse concerning this grace: - (1.) Its preference above the law of Moses: The law was given by Moses, and it was a glorious discovery, both of God's will concerning man and his good will to man; but the gospel of Christ is a much clearer discovery both of duty and happiness. That which was given by Moses was purely terrifying and threatening, and bound with penalties, a law which could not give life, which was given with abundance of terror (Heb 12:18); but that which is given by Jesus Christ is of another nature; it has all the beneficial uses of the law, but not the terror, for it is grace: grace teaching (Tit 2:11), grace reigning, Rom 5:21. It is a law, but a remedial law. The endearments of love are the genius of the gospel, not the affrightments of law and the curse. (2.) Its connection with truth: grace and truth. In the gospel we have the discovery of the greatest truths to be embraced by the understanding, as well as of the richest grace to be embraced by the will and affections. It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation; that is, it is grace and truth. The offers of grace are sincere, and what we may venture our souls upon; they are made in earnest, for it is grace and truth. It is grace and truth with reference to the law that was given by Moses. For it is, [1.] The performance of all the Old Testament promises. In the Old Testament we often find mercy and truth put together, that is, mercy according to promise; so here grace and truth denote grace according to promise. See Luk 1:72; 1Ki 8:56. [2.] It is the substance of all the Old Testament types and shadows. Something of grace there was both in the ordinances that were instituted for Israel and the providences that occurred concerning Israel; but they were only shadows of good things to come, even of the grace that is to be brought to us by the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the true paschal lamb, the true scape-goat, the true manna. They had grace in the picture; we have grace in the person, that is, grace and truth. Grace and truth came, egeneto - was made; the same word that was used (Joh 1:3) concerning Christ's making all things. The law was only made known by Moses, but the being of this grace and truth, as well as the discovery of them, is owing to Jesus Christ; this was made by him, as the world at first was; and by him this grace and truth do consist.

3. Another thing we receive from Christ is a clear revelation of God to us (Joh 1:18): He hath declared God to us, whom no man hath seen at any time. This was the grace and truth which came by Christ, the knowledge of God and an acquaintance with him. Observe,

(1.) The insufficiency of all other discoveries: No man hath seen God at any time. This intimates, [1.] That the nature of God being spiritual, he is invisible to bodily eyes, he is a being whom no man hath seen, nor can see, 1Ti 6:16. We have therefore need to live by faith, by which we see him that is invisible, Heb 11:27. [2.] That the revelation which God made of himself in the Old Testament was very short and imperfect, in comparison with that which he has made by Christ: No man hath seen God at any time; that is, what was seen and known of God before the incarnation of Christ was nothing to that which is now seen and known; life and immortality are now brought to a much clearer light than they were then. [3.] That none of the Old Testament prophets were so well qualified to make known the mind and will of God to the children of men as our Lord Jesus was, for none of them had seen God at any time. Moses beheld the similitude of the Lord (Num 12:8), but was told that he could not see his face, Exo 33:20. But this recommends Christ's holy religion to us that it was founded by one that had seen God, and knew more of his mind than any one else ever did.

(2.) The all-sufficiency of the gospel discovery proved from its author: The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Observe here,

[1.] How fit he was to make this discovery, and every way qualified for it. He and he alone was worthy to take the book, and to open the seals, Rev 5:9. For, First, He is the only-begotten Son; and who so likely to know the Father as the Son? or in whom is the Father better known than in the Son? Mat 11:27. He is of the same nature with the Father, so that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, Joh 14:9. The servant is not supposed to know so well what his Lord does as the Son, Joh 15:15. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ as a Son. Secondly, He is in the bosom of the Father. He had lain in his bosom from eternity. When he was here upon earth, yet still, as God, he was in the bosom of the Father, and thither he returned when he ascended. In the bosom of the Father; that is, 1. In the bosom of his special love, dear to him, in whom he was well pleased, always his delight. All God's saints are in his hand, but his Son was in his bosom, one in nature and essence, and therefore in the highest degree one in love. 2. In the bosom of his secret counsels. As there was a mutual complacency, so there was a mutual consciousness, between the Father and Son (Mat 11:27); none so fit as he to make known God, for none knew his mind as he did. Our most secret counsels we are said to hide in our bosom ( in pectore ); Christ was privy to the bosom-counsels of the Father. The prophets sat down at his feet as scholars; Christ lay in his bosom as a friend. See Eph 3:11.

[2.] How free he was in making this discovery: He hath declared. Him is not in the original. He has declared that of God which no man had at any time seen or known; not only that which was hid of God, but that which was hid in God (Eph 3:9), exēgēsato - it signifies a plain, clear, and full discovery, not by general and doubtful hints, but by particular explications. He that runs may now read the will of God and the way of salvation. This is the grace, this the truth, that came by Jesus Christ.

Matthew Henry: Joh 1:19-28

We have here the testimony of John, which he delivered to the messengers who were sent from Jerusalem to examine him. Observe here,

I. Who they were that sent to him, and who they were that were sent. 1. They that sent to him were the Jews at Jerusalem, the great sanhedrim or high-commission court, which sat at Jerusalem, and was the representative of the Jewish church, who took cognizance of all matters relating to religion. One would think that they who were the fountains of learning, and the guides of the church, should have, by books, understood the times so well as to know that the Messiah was at hand, and therefore should presently have known him that was his forerunner, and readily embraced him; but, instead of this, they sent messengers to cross questions with him. Secular learning, honour, and power, seldom dispose men's minds to the reception of divine light. 2. They that were sent were, (1.) Priests and Levites, probably members of the council, men of learning, gravity, and authority. John Baptist was himself a priest of the seed of Aaron, and therefore it was not fit that he should be examined by any but priests. It was prophesied concerning John's ministry that it should purify the Sons of Levi (Mal 3:3), and therefore they were jealous of him and his reformation. (2.) They were of the Pharisees, proud, self-justiciaries, that thought they needed no repentance, and therefore could not bear one that made it his business to preach repentance.

II. On what errand they were sent; it was to enquire concerning John and his baptism. They did not send for John to them, probably because they feared the people, lest the people where John was should be provoked to rise, or lest the people where they were should be brought acquainted with him; they thought it was good to keep him at a distance. They enquire concerning him, 1. To satisfy their curiosity; as the Athenians enquired concerning Paul's doctrine, for the novelty of it, Act 17:19, Act 17:20. Such a proud conceit they had of themselves that the doctrine of repentance was to them strange doctrine. 2. It was to show their authority. They thought they looked great when they called him to account whom all men counted as a prophet, and arraigned him at their bar. 3. It was with a design to suppress him and silence him if they could find any colour for it; for they were jealous of his growing interest, and his ministry agreed neither with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah's kingdom.

III. What was the answer he gave them, and his account, both concerning himself and concerning his baptism, in both which he witnessed to Christ.

1. Concerning himself, and what he professed himself to be. They asked him, Su tis ei - Thou, who art thou? John's appearing in the world was surprising. He was in the wilderness till the day of his showing unto Israel. His spirit, his converse, he doctrine, had something in them which commanded and gained respect; but he did not, as seducers do, give out himself to be some great one. He was more industrious to do good than to appear great; and therefore waived saying any thing of himself till he was legally interrogated. Those speak best for Christ that say least of themselves, whose own works praise them, not their own lips. He answers their interrogatory,

(1.) Negatively. He was not that great one whom some took him to be. God's faithful witnesses stand more upon their guard against undue respect than against unjust contempt. Paul writes as warmly against those that overvalued him, and said, I am of Paul, as against those that undervalued him, and said that his bodily presence was weak; and he rent his clothes when he was called a god. [1.] John disowns himself to be the Christ (Joh 1:20): He said, I am not the Christ, who was now expected and waited for. Note, The ministers of Christ must remember that they are not Christ, and therefore must not usurp his powers and prerogatives, nor assume the praises due to him only. They are not Christ, and therefore must not lord it over God's heritage, nor pretend to a dominion over the faith of Christians. They cannot created grace and peace; they cannot enlighten, convert, quicken, comfort; for they are not Christ. Observe how emphatically this is here expressed concerning John: He confessed, and denied not, but confessed; it denotes his vehemence and constancy in making this protestation. Note, Temptations to pride, and assuming that honour to ourselves which does not belong to us, ought to be resisted with a great deal of vigour and earnestness. When John was taken to be the Messiah, he did not connive at it with a Si populus vult decipi, decipiatur - If the people will be deceived, let them; but openly and solemnly, without any ambiguities, confessed, I am not the Christ; hoti ouk eimi egō ho Christos - I am not the Christ, not I; another is at hand, who is he, but I am not. His disowning himself to be the Christ is called his confessing and not denying Christ. Note, Those that humble and abase themselves thereby confess Christ, and give honour to him; but those that will not deny themselves do in effect deny Christ, [2.] He disowns himself to be Elias, Joh 1:21. The Jews expected the person of Elias to return from heaven, and to live among them, and promised themselves great things from it. Hearing of John's character, doctrine, and baptism, and observing that he appeared as one dropped from heaven, in the same part of the country from which Elijah was carried to heaven, it is no wonder that they were ready to take him for this Elijah; but he disowned this honour too. He was indeed prophesied of under the name of Elijah (Mal 4:5), and he came in the spirit and power of Elias (Luk 1:17), and was the Elias that was to come (Mat 11:14); but he was not the person of Elias, not that Elias that went to heaven in the fiery chariot, as he was that met Christ in his transfiguration. He was the Elias that God had promised, not the Elias that they foolishly dreamed of. Elias did come, and they knew him not (Mat 17:12); nor did he make himself known to them as the Elias, because they had promised themselves such an Elias as God never promised them. [3.] He disowns himself to be that prophet, or the prophet. First, He was not that prophet which Moses said the Lord would raise up to them of their brethren, like unto him. If they meant this, they needed not ask that question, for that prophet was no other than the Messiah, and he had said already, I am not the Christ. Secondly, He was not such a prophet as they expected and wished for, who, like Samuel and Elijah, and some other of the prophets, would interpose in public affairs, and rescue them from under the Roman yoke. Thirdly, He was not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, as they expected one to come before Elias, as Elias before the Messiah. Fourthly, Though John was a prophet, yea, more than a prophet, yet he had his revelation, not by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. If John had said that he was Elias, and was a prophet, he might have made his words good; but ministers must, upon all occasions, express themselves with the utmost caution, both that they may not confirm people in any mistakes, and particularly that they may not give occasion to any to think of them above what is meet.

(2.) Affirmatively. The committee that was sent to examine him pressed for a positive answer (Joh 1:22), urging the authority of those that sent them, which they expected he should pay a deference to: " Tell us, What art thou? not that we may believe thee, and be baptized by three, but that we may give an answer to those that sent us, and that it may not be said we were sent on a fool's errand."John was looked upon as a man of sincerity, and therefore they believed he would not give an evasive ambiguous answer; but would be fair and above-board, and give a plain answer to a plain question: What sayest thou of thyself? And he did so, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Observe,

[1.] He gives his answer in the words of scripture, to show that the scripture was fulfilled in him, and that his office was supported by a divine authority. What the scripture saith of the office of the ministry should be often thought of by those of that high calling, who must look upon themselves as that, and that only, which the word of God makes them.

[2.] He gives in his answer in very humble, modest, self-denying expressions. He chooses to apply that scripture to himself which denotes not his dignity, but his duty and dependence, which bespeaks him little: I am the voice, as if he were vox et praeterea nihil - mere voice.

[3.] He gives such an account of himself as might be profitable to them, and might excite and awaken them to hearken to him; for he was the voice (see Isa 40:3), a voice to alarm, an articulate voice to instruct. Ministers are but the voice, the vehicle, by which God is pleased to communicate his mind. What are Paul and Apollos but messengers? Observe, First, He was a human voice. The people were prepared to receive the law by the voice of thunders, and a trumpet exceedingly loud, such as made them tremble; but they were prepared for the gospel by the voice of a man like ourselves, a still small voice, such as that in which God came to Elijah, 1Ki 19:12. Secondly, He was the voice of one crying, which denotes, 1. His earnestness and importunity in calling people to repentance; he cried aloud, and did not spare. Ministers must preach as those that are in earnest, and are themselves affected with those things with which they desire to affect others. Those words are not likely to thaw the hearers' hearts that freeze between the speaker's lips. 2. His open publication of the doctrine he preached; he was the voice of one crying, that all manner of persons might hear and take notice. Doth not wisdom cry? Pro 8:1. Thirdly, It was in the wilderness that this voice was crying; in a place of silence and solitude, out of the noise of the world and the hurry of its business; the more retired we are from the tumult of secular affairs the better prepared we are to hear from God. Fourthly, That which he cried was, Make straight the way of the Lord; that is, 1. He came to rectify the mistakes of people concerning the ways of God; it is certain that they are right ways, but the scribes and Pharisees, with their corrupt glosses upon the law, had made them crooked. Now John Baptist calls people to return to the original rule. 2. He came to prepare and dispose people for the reception and entertainment of Christ and his gospel. It is an allusion to the harbingers of a prince or great man, that cry, Make room. Note, When God is coming towards us, we must prepare to meet him, and let the word of the Lord have free course. See Psa 24:7.

2. Here is his testimony concerning his baptism.

(1.) The enquiry which the committee made about it: Why baptizest thou, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet? Joh 1:25. [1.] They readily apprehended baptism to be fitly and properly used as a sacred rite or ceremony, for the Jewish church had used it with circumcision in the admission of proselytes, to signify the cleansing of them from the pollutions of their former state. That sign was made use of in the Christian church, that it might be the more passable. Christ did not affect novelty, nor should his ministers. [2.] They expected it would be used in the days of the Messiah, because it was promised that then there should be a fountain opened (Zec 13:1), and clean water sprinkled, Eze 36:25. It is taken for granted that Christ, and Elias, and that prophet, would baptize, when they came to purify a polluted world. Divine justice drowned the old world in its filth, but divine grace has provided for the cleansing of this new world from its filth. [3.] They would therefore know by what authority John baptized. His denying himself to be Elias, or that prophet, subjected him to this further question, Why baptizest thou? Note, It is no new thing for a man's modesty to be turned against him, and improved to his prejudice; but it is better that men should take advantage of our low thoughts of ourselves, to trample upon us, than the devil take advantage of our high thoughts of ourselves, to tempt us to pride and draw us into his condemnation.

(2.) The account he gave of it, Joh 1:26, Joh 1:27.

[1.] He owned himself to be only the minister of the outward sign: " I baptize with water, and that is all; I am no more, and do no more, than what you see; I have no other title than John the Baptist; I cannot confer the spiritual grace signified by it."Paul was in care that none should think of him above what they saw him to be (2Co 12:6); so was John Baptist. Ministers must not set up for masters.

[2.] He directed them to one who was greater than himself, and would do that for them, if they pleased, which he could not do: " I baptize with water, and that is the utmost of my commission; I have nothing to do but by this to lead you to one that comes after me, and consign you to him."Note, The great business of Christ's ministers is to direct all people to him; we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. John gave the same account to this committee that he had given to the people (Joh 1:15): This as he of whom I spoke. John was constant and uniform in his testimony, not as a reed shaken with the wind. The sanhedrim were jealous of his interest in the people, but he is not afraid to tell them that there is one at the door that will go beyond him. First, He tells them of Christ's presence among them now at this time: There stands one among you, at this time, whom you know not. Christ stood among the common people, and was as one of them. Note, 1. Much true worth lies hid in this world; obscurity is often the lot of real excellency. Saints are God's hidden ones, therefore the world knows them not. 2. God himself is often nearer to us than we are aware of. The Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. They were gazing, in expectation of the messiah: Lo he is here, or he is there, when the kingdom of God was abroad and already among them, Luk 17:21. Secondly, He tells them of Christ's preference above himself: He comes after me, and yet is preferred before me. This he had said before; he adds here, "Whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to loose; I am not fit to be named the same day with him; it is an honour too great for me to pretend to be in the meanest office about him,"1Sa 25:41. Those to whom Christ is precious reckon his service, even the most despised instances of it, an honour to them. See Psa 84:10. If so great a man as John accounted himself unworthy of the honour of being near Christ, how unworthy then should we account ourselves! Now, one would think, these chief priests and Pharisees, upon this intimation given concerning the approach of the Messiah, should presently have asked who, and where, this excellent person was; and who more likely to tell them than he who had given them this general notice? No, they did not think this any part of their business or concern; they came to molest John, not to receive any instructions from him: so that their ignorance was wilful; they might have known Christ, and would not.

Lastly, Notice is taken of the place where all this was done: In Bethabara beyond Jordan, Joh 1:28. Bethabara signifies the house of passage; some think it was the very place where Israel passed over Jordan into the land of promise under the conduct of Joshua; there was opened the way into the gospel state by Jesus Christ. It was at a great distance from Jerusalem, beyond Jordan; probably because what he did there would be least offensive to the government. Amos must go prophesy in the country, not near the court; but it was sad that Jerusalem should put so far from her the things that belonged to her peace. He made this confession in the same place where he was baptizing, that all those who attended his baptism might be witnesses of it, and none might say that they knew not what to make of him.

Barclay: Joh 1:1-2

The beginning of John's gospel is of such importance and of such depth of meaning that we must study it almost verse by verse. It is John's great thought that Jesus is none other than God's creative and life-giving and light-giving word, that Jesus is the power of God which created the world and the reason of God which sustains the world come to earth in human and bodily form.

Here at the beginning John says three things about the word; which is to say that he says three things about Jesus.

(i) The word was already there at the very beginning things. John's thought is going back to the first verse of the Bible. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). What John is saying is this--the word is not one of the created things; the word was there before creation. the word is not part of the world which came into being in time; the word is part of eternity and was there with God before time and the world began. John was thinking of what is known as the preexistence of Christ.

In many ways this idea of preexistence is very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to grasp. But it does mean one very simple, very practical, and very tremendous thing. If the word was with God before time began, if God's word is part of the eternal scheme of things, it means that God was always like Jesus. Sometimes we tend to think of God as stern and avenging; and we tend to think that something Jesus did changed God's anger into love and altered his attitude to men. The New Testament knows nothing of that idea. The whole New Testament tells us, this passage of John especially, that God has always been like Jesus. What Jesus did was to open a window in time that we might see the eternal and unchanging love of God.

We may well ask, "What then about some of the things that we read in the Old Testament? What about the passages which speak about commandments of God to wipe out whole cities and to destroy men, women and children? What of the anger and the destructiveness and the jealousy of God that we sometimes read of in the older parts of Scripture?" The answer is this--it is not God who has changed; it is men's knowledge of him that has changed. Men wrote these things because they did not know any better; that was the stage which their knowledge of God had reached.

When a child is learning any subject, he has to learn it stage by stage. He does not begin with full knowledge; he begins with what he can grasp and goes on to more and more. When he begins music appreciation, he does not start with a Bach Prelude and Fugue; he starts with something much more simple; and goes through stage after stage until his knowledge grows. It was that way with men and God. They could only grasp and understand God's nature and his ways in part. It was only when Jesus came that they saw fully and completely what God has always been like.

It is told that a little girl was once confronted with some of the more bloodthirsty and savage parts of the Old Testament. Her comment was: "But that happened before God became a Christian!" If we may so put it with all reverence, when John says that the word was always there, he is saying that God was always a Christian. He is telling us that God was and is and ever shall be like Jesus; but men could never know and realize that until Jesus came.

(ii) John goes on to say that the word was with God What does he mean by that? He means that always there has been the closest connection between the word and God. Let us put that in another and a simpler way--there has always been the most intimate connection between Jesus and God. That means no one can tell us what God is like, what God's will is for us, what God's love and heart and mind are like, as Jesus can.

Let us take a simple human analogy. If we want to know what someone really thinks and feels about something, and if we are unable to approach the person ourselves, we do not go to someone who is merely an acquaintance of that person, to someone who has known him only a short time; we go to someone whom we know to be an intimate friend of many years' standing. We know that he will really be able to interpret the mind and the heart of the other person to us.

It is something like that that John is saying about Jesus. He is saying that Jesus has always been with God. Let us use every human language because it is the only language we can use. John is saying that Jesus is so intimate with God that God has no secrets from him; and that, therefore, Jesus is the one person in all the universe who can reveal to us what God is like and how God feels towards us.

(iii) Finally John says that the word was God This is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is theos (2316) and the definite article is ho (3588). When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say theos (2316); it says ho theos (2316). Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective. John did not say that the word was ho (3588) theos (2316); that would have been to say that the word was identical with God. He said that the word was theos (2316)--without the definite article--which means that the word was, we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.

So right at the beginning of his gospel John lays it down that in Jesus, and in him alone, there is perfectly revealed to men all that God always was and always will be, and all that he feels towards and desires for men.

Barclay: Joh 1:3

It may seem strange to us that John so stresses the way in which the world was created; and it may seem strange that he so definitely connects Jesus with the work of creation. But he had to do this because of a certain tendency in the thought of his day.

In the time of John there was a kind of heresy called Gnosticism. Its characteristic was that it was an intellectual and philosophical approach to Christianity. To the Gnostics the simple beliefs of the ordinary Christian were not enough. They tried to construct a philosophic system out of Christianity. They were troubled about the existence of sin and evil and sorrow and suffering in this world, so they worked out a theory to explain it. The theory was this.

In the beginning two things existed--the one was God and the other was matter. Matter was always there and was the raw material out of which the world was made. The Gnostics held that this original matter was flawed and imperfect. We might put it that the world got off to a bad start. It was made of material which had the seeds of corruption in it.

The Gnostics went further. God, they said, is pure spirit, and pure spirit can never touch matter at an, still less matter which is imperfect. Therefore it was not possible for God to carry out the work of creation himself So he put out from himself a series of emanations. Each emanation was further and further away from God and as the emanations got further and further away from him, they knew less and less about him. About halfway down the series there was an emanation which knew nothing at all about God. Beyond that stage the emanations began to be not only ignorant of but actually hostile to God. Finally in the series there was an emanation which was so distant from God that it was totally ignorant of him and totally hostile to him--and that emanation was the power which created the world, because it was so distant from God that it was possible for it to touch this flawed and evil matter. The creator god was utterly divorced from and utterly at enmity with the real God.

The Gnostics took one step further. They identified the creator god with the God of the Old Testament; and they held that the God of the Old Testament was quite different from, quite ignorant of and quite hostile to the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

In the time of John this kind of belief was widespread. Men believed that the world was evil and that an evil God had created it. It is to combat this teaching that John here lays down two basic Christian truths. In point of fact the connection of Jesus with creation is repeatedly laid down in the New Testament, just because of this background of thought which divorced God from the world in which we live. In Col 1:16Paul writes: "For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth ... all things were created through him and for him." In 1Co 8:6he writes of the Lord Jesus Christ "through whom are all things." The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the one who was the Son, "through whom also God created the world" (Heb 1:2). John and the other New Testament writers who spoke like this were stressing two great truths.

(i) Christianity has always believed in what is called creation out of nothing. We do not believe that in his creation of the world God had to work with alien and evil matter. We do not believe that the world began with an essential flaw in it. We do not believe that the world began with God and something else. It is our belief that behind everything there is God and God alone.

(ii) Christianity has always believed that this is God's world. So far from being so detached from the world that he could have nothing to do with it, God is intimately involved in it. The Gnostics tried to put the blame for the evil of the world on the shoulders of its creator. Christianity believes that what is wrong with the world is due to man's sin. But even though sin has injured the world and kept it from being what it might have been, we can never despise the world, because it is essentially God's. If we believe this it gives us a new sense of the value of the world and a new sense of responsibility to it.

There is a story of a child from the back streets of a great city who was taken for a day in the country. When she saw the bluebells in the woods, she asked: "Do you think God would mind if I picked some of his flowers?" This is God's world; because of that nothing is out of his control; and because of that we must use all things in the awareness that they belong to God. The Christian does not belittle the world by thinking that it was created by an ignorant and a hostile god; he glorifies it by remembering that everywhere God is behind it and in it. He believes that the Christ who re-creates the world was the co-worker of God when the world was first created, and that, in the act of redemption, God is seeking to win back that which was always his own.

Barclay: Joh 1:4

In a great piece of music the composer often begins by stating the themes which he is going to elaborate in the course of the work. That is what John does here. Life and light are two of the great basic words on which the Fourth Gospel is built up. They are two of the main themes which it is the aim of the gospel to develop and to expound. Let us look at them in detail.

The Fourth Gospel begins and ends with life. At the very beginning we read that in Jesus was life; and at the very end we read that John's aim in writing the gospel was that men might "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (Joh 20:31). The word is continually on the lips of Jesus. It is his wistful regret that men will not come to him that they might have life (Joh 5:40). It is his claim that he came that men might have life and that they might have it abundantly (Joh 10:10). He claims that he gives men life and that they will never perish because no one will snatch them out of his hand (Joh 10:28). He claims that he is the way, the truth and the life (Joh 14:6). In the gospel the word "life" (zoe, 2222) occurs more than thirty-five times and the verb "to live" or "to have life" (zao, 2198) more than fifteen times. What then does John mean by "life"?

(i) Quite simply, he means that life is the opposite of destruction, condemnation and death. God sent his Son that the man who believes should not perish but have eternal life (Joh 3:16). The man who hears and believes has eternal life and will not come into judgment (Joh 5:24). There is a contrast between the resurrection to life and the resurrection to judgment (Joh 5:29). Those to whom Jesus gives life will never perish (Joh 10:28). There is in Jesus that which gives a man security in this life and in the life to come. Until we accept Jesus and take him as our saviour and enthrone him as our king we cannot be said to live at all. The man who lives a Christless life exists, but he does not know what life is. Jesus is the one person who can make life worth living, and in whose company death is only--the prelude to fuller life.

(ii) But John is quite sure that, although Jesus is the bringer of this life, the giver of life is God. Again and again John uses the phrase the living God, as indeed the whole Bible does. It is the will of the Father who sent Jesus that everyone who sees him and believes on him should have life (Joh 6:40). Jesus is the giver of life because the Father has set his own seal of approval upon him (Joh 6:27). He gives life to as many as God has given him (Joh 17:2). At the back of it all there is God. It is as if God was saying: "I created men that they should have real life; through their sin they have ceased to live and only exist; I have sent them my Son to enable them to know what real life is."

(iii) We must ask what this life is. Again and again the Fourth Gospel uses the phrase eternal life. We shall discuss the full meaning of that phrase later. At present we note this. The word John uses for eternal is aionios (166). Clearly whatever else eternal life is, it is not simply life which lasts for ever. A life which lasted for ever could be a terrible curse; often the thing for which men long is release from life. In eternal life there must be more than duration of life; there must be a certain quality of life.

Life is not desirable unless it is a certain kind of life. Here we have the clue. Aionios (166) is the adjective which is repeatedly used to describe God. In the true sense of the word only God is aionios (166), eternal; therefore eternal life is that life which God lives. What Jesus offers us from God is God's own life. Eternal life is life which knows something of the serenity and power of the life of God himself. When Jesus came offering men eternal life, he was inviting them to enter into the very life of God.

(iv) How, then, do we enter into that life? We enter into it by believing in Jesus Christ. The word to believe (pisteuein, 4100) occurs in the Fourth Gospel no fewer than seventy times. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life" (Joh 3:36). "He who believes", says Jesus, "has eternal life" (Joh 6:47). It is God's will that men should see the Son, and believe in him, and have eternal life (Joh 5:24). What does John mean by to believe? He means two things.

(a) He means that we must be convinced that Jesus is really and truly the Son of God. He means that we must make up our minds about him. After all, if Jesus is only a man, there is no reason why we should give him the utter and implicit obedience that he demands. We have to think out for ourselves who he was. We have to look at him, learn about him, study him, think about him until we are driven to the conclusion that this is none other than the Son of God. (b) But there is more than intellectual belief in this. To believe in Jesus means to take Jesus at his word, to accept his commandments as absolutely binding, to believe without question that what he says is true.

For John, belief means the conviction of the mind that Jesus is the Son of God, the trust of the heart that everything he says is true and the basing of every action on the unshakable assurance that we must take him at his word. When we do that we stop existing and begin living. We know what Life with a capital L really means.

Barclay: Joh 1:4

The second of the great Johannine key-words which we meet here is the word light. This word occurs in the Fourth Gospel no fewer than twenty-one times. Jesus is the light of men. The function of John the Baptist was to point men to that light which was in Christ. Twice Jesus calls himself the light of the world (Joh 8:12; Joh 9:5). This light can be in men (Joh 11:10), so that they can become children of the light (Joh 12:36), "I have come," said Jesus, "as light into the world" (Joh 12:46). Let us see if we can understand something of this idea of the light which Jesus brings into the world. Three things stand out.

(i) The light Jesus brings is the light which puts chaos to flight. In the creation story God moved upon the dark, formless chaos which was before the world began and said: "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3). The new-created light of God routed the empty chaos into which it came. So Jesus is the light which shines in the darkness (Joh 1:5). He is the one person who can save life from becoming a chaos. Left to ourselves we are at the mercy of our passions and our fears.

When Jesus dawns upon life, light comes. One of the oldest fears in the world is the fear of the dark. There is a story of a child who was to sleep in a strange house. His hostess, thinking to be kind, offered to leave the light on when he went to bed. Politely he declined the offer. "I thought," said his hostess, "that you might be afraid of the dark." "Oh, no," said the lad, "you see, it's God's dark." With Jesus the night is light about us as the day.

(ii) The light which Jesus brings is a revealing light. It is the condemnation of men that they loved the darkness rather than the light; and they did so because their deeds were evil; and they hated the light lest their deeds should be exposed (Joh 3:19-20). The light which Jesus brings is something which shows things as they are. It strips away the disguises and the concealments; it shows things in all their nakedness; it shows them in their true character and their true values.

Long ago the Cynics said that men hate the truth for the truth is like the light to sore eyes. In Caedmon's poem there is a strange picture. It is a picture of the last day and in the centre of the scene there is the Cross; and from the Cross there flows a strange blood-red light, and the mysterious quality of that light is such that it shows things as they are. The externals, the disguises, the outer wrappings and trappings are stripped away; and everything stands revealed in the naked and awful loneliness of what it essentially is.

We never see ourselves until we see ourselves through the eyes of Jesus. We never see what our lives are like until we see them in the light of Jesus. Jesus often drives us to God by revealing us to ourselves.

(iii) The light which Jesus brings is a guiding light. If a man does not possess that light he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going (Joh 12:36). When a man receives that light and believes in it, he walks no more in darkness (Joh 12:46). One of the features of the gospel stories which no one can miss is the number of people who came running to Jesus asking: "What am I to do?" When Jesus comes into life the time of guessing and of groping is ended, the time of doubt and uncertainty and vacillation is gone. The path that was dark becomes light; the decision that was wrapped in a night of uncertainty is illumined. Without Jesus we are like men groping on an unknown road in a black-out. With him the way is clear.

Barclay: Joh 1:5

Here we meet another of John's key-words--darkness (skotos, 4655, skotia, 4653). This word occurs seven times in the gospel. To John there was a darkness in the world that was as real as the light.

(i) The darkness is hostile to the light. The light shines in the darkness, but, however hard the darkness tries, it cannot extinguish it. Sinning man loves the darkness and hates the light, because the light shows up too many things.

It may well be that in John's mind there is a borrowed thought here. John, as we know, was prepared to go out and to take in new ideas, if by so doing he could present and commend the Christian message to men. The great Persian religion of Zoroastrianism had at this time a very great influence on men's thoughts. It believed that there were two great opposing powers in the universe, the god of the light and the god of the dark, Ahriman and Ormuzd. This whole universe was a battle-ground in the eternal, cosmic conflict between the light and the dark; and all that mattered in life was the side a man chose.

So John is saying: "Into this world there comes Jesus, the light of the world; there is a darkness which would seek to eliminate him, to banish him from life, to extinguish him. But there is a power in Jesus that is undefeatable. The darkness can hate him, but it can never get rid of him." As has been truly said: "Not all the darkness in the world can extinguish the littlest flame." The unconquerable light will in the end defeat the hostile dark. John is saying: "Choose your side in the eternal conflict and choose aright."

(ii) The darkness stands for the natural sphere of all those who hate the good. It is men whose deeds are evil who fear the light (Joh 3:19-20). The man who has something to hide loves the dark; but it is impossible to hide anything from God. His searchlight sweeps the shadows and illuminates the skulking evils of the world.

(iii) There are certain passages where the darkness seems to stand for ignorance, especially for that wilful ignorance which refuses the light of Jesus Christ. Jesus says: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness" (Joh 8:12). He says to his disciples that the light will be with them only for so short a time; let them walk in it; if they do not, the darkness comes and a man who walks in darkness does not light that men should not abide in darkness (Joh 12:46). Without Jesus Christ a man cannot find or see the way. He is like a blindfolded man or even a blind man. Without Jesus Christ life goes lost. It was Goethe who cried out for: "Light, more light!" It was one of the old Scots leaders who said to his friends towards the end: "Light the candle that I may see to die." Jesus is the light which shows a man the road, and which lights the road at every step of the way.

There are times when John uses this word darkness symbolically. He uses it at times to mean more than merely the dark of an earthly night. He tells of Jesus walking on the water. He tells how the disciples had embarked on their boat and were crossing the lake without Jesus; and then he says, "And it was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them" (Joh 6:17). Without the presence of Jesus there was nothing but the threatening dark. He tells of the Resurrection morning and of the hours before those who had loved Jesus realized that he had risen from the dead. He begins the story: "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came, while it was still dark" (Joh 20:1). She was living at the moment in a world from which she thought Jesus had been eliminated, and a world like that was dark. He tells the story of the Last Supper. He tells how Judas received the sop and then went out to do his terrible work and arrange for the betrayal of Jesus; and he says with a kind of terrible symbolism: "So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night" (Joh 13:30). Judas was going out into the night of a life which had betrayed Christ.

To John the Christless life was life in the dark. The darkness stands for life without Christ, and especially for that which has turned its back on Christ.

Before we leave this passage there is one other thing to note. The word which we have translated put out is in Greek katalambanein (2638). This word can have three meanings.

There is a sense in which the man of the world simply cannot understand the demands of Christ and the way Christ offers him. To him it seems sheer foolishness. A man cannot understand Christ until he first submits to him.

(b) It can mean the darkness never overcame the light. Katalambanein (2638) can mean to pursue until one overtakes and so lays hold on and overcomes. This could mean that the darkness of the world had done everything possible to eliminate Jesus Christ, even to crucifying him, but it could never destroy him. This could be a reference to the crucified and conquering Christ.

© It can be used of extinguishing afire or flame. That is the sense in which we have taken it here. Although men did all they could to obscure and extinguish the light of God in Christ, they could not quench it. In every generation the light of Christ still shines in spite of the efforts of men to extinguish the flame.

Barclay: Joh 1:6-8

It is a strange fact that in the Fourth Gospel every reference to John the Baptist is a reference of depreciation. There is an explanation of that. John was a prophetic voice; for four hundred years the voice of prophecy had been silent, and in John it spoke again. It seems that certain people were so fascinated by John that they gave him a higher place than he ought to have had. There are, in fact, indications that there was actually a sect who put John the Baptist in the highest place. We find an echo of them in Act 19:3-4. In Ephesus Paul came upon certain people who knew nothing but the baptism of John. It was not that the Fourth Gospel wished to criticize John or that it under-rated his importance. It was simply that John knew that there were certain people who gave John the Baptist a place that encroached upon the place of Jesus himself.

So all through the Fourth Gospel John is careful to point out that the place of John the Baptist in the scheme of things was high, but that nonetheless it was still subordinate to the place of Jesus Christ. Here he is careful to say that John was not that light, but only a witness to the light (Joh 1:8). He shows us John denying that he was the Christ, or even that he was the great prophet whom Moses had promised (Joh 1:20). When the Jews came to John and told him that Jesus had begun his career as a teacher they must have expected John to resent this intrusion. But the Fourth Gospel shows us John denying that the first place was his and declaring that he must decrease while Jesus increased (Joh 3:25-30). It is pointed out that Jesus was more successful in his appeal to men than John was (Joh 4:1). It is pointed out that even the people said that John was not able to do the things that Jesus did (Joh 10:41).

Somewhere in the church there was a group of men who wished to give John the Baptist too high a place. John the Baptist himself gave no encouragement to that but rather did everything to discourage it. But the Fourth Gospel knew that that tendency was there and took steps to guard against it. It can still happen that men may worship a preacher rather than Christ. It can still happen that men's eyes may be fixed upon the herald rather than upon the King of whom he is the messenger. John the Baptist was not in the least to blame for what had happened; but John the evangelist was determined to see that none should shoulder Christ from out the topmost niche.

It is more important to note that in this passage we come upon another of the great key-words of the Fourth Gospel. That is the word witness. The Fourth Gospel presents us with witness after witness to the supreme place of Jesus Christ, eight no less.

(i) There is the witness of the Father. Jesus said: "The Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me" (Joh 5:37). "The Father who sent me bears witness to me" (Joh 8:18). What did Jesus mean by this? He meant two things.

He meant something which affected himself. In his heart the inner voice of God spoke, and that voice left him in no doubt as to who he was and what he was sent to do. Jesus did not regard himself as having himself chosen his task. His inner conviction was that God had sent him into the world to live and to die for men.

He meant something which affected men. When a man is confronted with Christ there comes an inner conviction that this is none other than the Son of God. Father Tyrrell has said that the world can never get away from that "strange man upon the Cross." That inner power which always brings our eyes back to Christ even when we wish to forget him, that inner voice which tells us that this Jesus is none other than the Son of God and the Saviour of the world is the witness of God within our souls.

(ii) There is the witness of Jesus himself. "I bear witness," he said, "to myself" (Joh 8:18). "Even if I do bear witness to myself," he said, "my testimony is true" (Joh 8:14). What does this mean? It means that it was what Jesus was that was his best witness. He claimed to be the light and the life and the truth and the way. He claimed to be the Son of God and one with the Father. He claimed to be the Saviour and the Master of all men. Unless his life and character had been what they were, such claims would have been merely shocking and blasphemous. What Jesus was in himself was the best witness that his claims were true.

(iii) There is the witness of his works. He said: "The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish ... bear me witness" (Joh 5:36). "The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me" (Joh 10:25). He tells Philip of his complete identity with the Father, and then goes on to say: "Believe me for the sake of the works themselves" (Joh 14:11). One of the condemnations of men is that they have seen his works, and have not believed (Joh 15:24). We must note one thing--when John spoke of the works of Jesus, he was not speaking only of the miracles of Jesus; he was thinking of Jesus' whole life. He was thinking not only of the great outstanding moments, but of the life that Jesus lived every minute of the day. No man could have done the mighty works that Jesus did unless he was closer to God than any other man ever was; but, equally, no man could have lived that life of love and pity, compassion and forgiveness, service and help in the life of the everyday unless he had been in God and God in him. It is not by working miracles that we can prove that we belong to Christ, but by living a Christ-like life every moment of every day. It is in the ordinary things of life that we show that we belong to him.

(iv) There is the witness which the Scriptures bear to him. Jesus said: "Search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me" (Joh 5:39). "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" (Joh 5:46). It is Philip's conviction that he has found him of whom Moses and the law and the prophets wrote (Joh 1:45). All through the history of Israel men had dreamed of the day when God's Messiah would come. They had drawn their pictures and set down their ideas of him. And now in Jesus all these dreams and pictures and hopes were finally and fully realized. He for whom the world was waiting had come.

(v) There is the witness of the last of the prophets, John the Baptist. "He came for testimony to bear witness to the light" (Joh 1:7-8). John bore witness that he saw the Spirit descending upon Jesus. The one in whom the prophetic witness culminated was the one who bore witness to Jesus to whom all the prophetic witness pointed.

(vi) There is the witness of those with whom Jesus came into contact. The woman of Samaria bore witness to the insight and to the power of Jesus (Joh 4:39). The man born blind bore witness to his healing power (Joh 9:25; Joh 9:38). The people who witnessed his miracles told of their wonder at the things he did (Joh 12:17). There is a legend which tells how the Sanhedrin sought for witnesses when Jesus was on trial. There came a crowd of people saying: "I was a leper and he healed me"; "I was blind and he opened my eyes"; "I was deaf and he made me able to hear." That was precisely the kind of witness the Sanhedrin did not want. In every age and in every generation there have always been a great crowd ready to bear witness to what Christ had done for them.

(vii) There is the witness of the disciples and especially of the writer of the gospel himself It was Jesus' commission to his disciples: "You also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning" (Joh 15:27). The writer of the gospel is a personal witness and guarantor of the things he relates. Of the crucifixion he writes: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true" (Joh 19:35). "This" he says, "is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things" (Joh 21:24). The story he tells is no carried story, no second-hand tale, but what he had seen and experienced himself. The best kind of witness of all is the one which can say: "This is true, because I know it from my own experience."

(viii) There is the witness of the Holy Spirit. "When the Counsellor comes ... even the Spirit of truth ... he will bear witness to me" (Joh 15:26). In the First Epistle John writes: "And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth" (1Jo 5:7). To the Jew the Spirit had two functions. The Spirit brought God's truth to men, and the Spirit enabled men to recognize that truth when they saw it. It is the work of the Spirit within our hearts which enables us to recognize Jesus for what he is and to trust him for what he can do.

John wrote his gospel to present the unanswerable witness that Jesus Christ is the mind of God fully revealed to men.

Barclay: Joh 1:9

In this verse John uses a very significant word to describe Jesus. He says that Jesus was the real light. In Greek there are two words which are very like each other. The King James Version and the Revised Standard use the word true to translate both of them; but they have different shades of meaning. The first is alethes (227). Alethes (227) means true as opposed to false; it is the word that would be used of a statement which is true. The other word is alethinos (228). Alethinos (228) means real or genuine as opposed to unreal.

So what John is saying is that Jesus is the real light come to illumine men. Before Jesus came there were other lights which men followed. Some were flickers of the truth; some were faint glimpses of reality; some were will o' the wisps which men followed and which led them out into the dark and left them there. It is still the case. There are still the partial lights; and there are still the false lights; and men still follow them. Jesus is the only genuine light, the real light to guide men on their way.

John says that Jesus, by his coming into the world, brought the real light to men. His coming was like a blaze of light. It was like the coming of the dawn. A traveller tells how once in Italy he was standing on a hill overlooking the Bay of Naples. It was so dark that nothing could be seen; then an a sudden there came a lightning flash and everything, in every detail, was lit up. When Jesus came into this world he came like a light in the dark.

(i) His coming dissipated the shadows of doubt. Until he came men could only guess about God. "It is difficult to find out about God," said one of the Greeks, "and when you have found out about him it is impossible to tell anyone else about him." To the pagan, God either dwelt in the shadows that no man can penetrate or in the light that no man can approach. But when Jesus came men saw full-displayed what God is like. The shadows and the mists were gone; the days of guessing were at an end; there was no more need for a wistful agnosticism. The light had come.

(ii) His coming dissipated the shadows of despair. Jesus came to a world that was in despair. "Men," as Seneca said, "are conscious of their helplessness in necessary things." They were longing for a hand let down to help them up. "They hate their sins but cannot leave them." Men despaired of ever making themselves or the world any better. But with the coming of Jesus a new power came into life. He came not only with knowledge but with power. He came not only to show them the right way but to enable them to walk in it. He gave them not only instruction but a presence in which all the impossible things had become possible. The darkness of pessimism and despair was gone for ever.

(iii) His coming dissipated the darkness of death. The ancient world feared death. At the best, death was annihilation and the soul of man shuddered at the thought. At the worst, it was torture by whatever gods there be and the soul of man was afraid. But Jesus by his coming, by his life, his death, his Resurrection showed that death was only the way to a larger life. The darkness was dispelled. Stevenson has a scene in one of his stories in which he draws the picture of a young man who has almost miraculously escaped in a duel in which he was certain he would be killed. As he walks away his heart is singing: "The bitterness of death is past." Because of Jesus the bitterness of death is past for every man.

Further, Jesus is the light who lights every man who comes into the world. The ancient world was exclusive. The Jew hated the Gentile and held that Gentiles were created for no other purpose than to be fuel for the fires of hell. True, there was a lonely prophet who saw that Israel's destiny was to be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6) but that was a destiny which Israel had always definitely refused. The Greek world never dreamed that knowledge was for every man. The Roman world looked down on the barbarians, the lesser breeds without the law. But Jesus came to be a light to every man. Only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has a heart big enough to hold all the world.

Barclay: Joh 1:10-11

When John wrote this passage two thoughts were in his mind.

(i) He was thinking of the time before Jesus Christ came into the world in the body. From the beginning of time God's Logos (3056) has been active in the world. In the beginning God's creating, dynamic word brought the world into being; and ever since it is the word, the Logos (3056), the reason of God which has made the world an ordered whole and man a thinking being. If men had only had the sense to see him, the Logos (3056) was always recognizable in the universe.

The Westminster Confession of Faith begins by saying that "the lights of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God as to leave men inexcusable." Long ago Paul had said that the visible things of the world were so designed by God as to lead men's thoughts to the invisible things, and that if men had looked with open eyes and an understanding heart at the world their thoughts would have been inevitably led to the creator of the world (Rom 1:19-20). The world has always been such that, looked at in the right way, it would lead men's minds to God.

Theology has always made a distinction between natural theology and revealed theology. Revealed theology deals with the truths that came to us directly from God in the words of the prophets, the pages of his book, and supremely in Jesus Christ. Natural theology deals with the truths that man could discover by the exercise of his own mind and intellect on the world in which he lives. How, then, can we see God's word, God's Logos (3056), God's reason, God's mind in the world in which we live?

(a) We must look outwards. It was always a basic Greek thought that where there is order there must be a mind. When we look at the world we see an amazing order. The planets keep to their appointed courses. The tides observe their appointed times. Seed times and harvest, summer and winter, day and night come in their appointed order. Clearly there is order in nature, and, therefore, equally clearly there must be a mind behind it all. Further, that mind must be greater than any human mind because it achieves results that the human mind can never achieve. No man can make day into night, or night into day; no man can make a seed that will have in it the power of growth; no man can make a living thing. If in the world there is order, there must be mind; and if in that order there are things which are beyond the mind of man to do, then the mind behind the order of nature must be a mind above and beyond the mind of man--and straightway we have reached God. To look outwards upon the world is to come face to face with the God who made it.

(b) We must look upwards. Nothing demonstrates the amazing order of the universe so much as the movement of the world. Astronomers tell us that there are as many stars as there are grains of sand upon the seashore. If we may put it in human terms, think of the traffic problem of the heavens; and yet the heavenly bodies keep their appointed courses and travel their appointed way. An astronomer is able to forecast to the minute and to the inch when and where a certain planet will appear. An astronomer can tell us when and where an eclipse of the sun will happen hundreds of years from now, and he can ten us to the second how long it will last. It has been said that "no astronomer can be an atheist." When we look upwards we see God.

© We must look inwards. Where did we get the power to think, to reason and to know? Where did we get our knowledge of right and of wrong? Why does even the most evil-ridden man know in his heart of hearts when he is doing a wrong thing? Kant said long ago that two things convinced him of the existence of God--the starry heavens above him and the moral law within him. We neither gave ourselves life, nor did we give ourselves the reason which guides and directs life. It must have come from some power outside ourselves. Where do remorse and regret and the sense of guilt come from? Why can we never do what we like and be at peace? When we look inwards we find what Marcus Aurelius called "the god within," and what Seneca called "the holy spirit which sits within our souls." No man can explain himself apart from God.

(d) We must look backwards. Froude, the great historian, said that the whole of history is a demonstration of the moral law in action. Empires rise and empires collapse. As Kipling wrote:

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

And it is a demonstrable fact of history that moral degeneration and national collapse go hand in hand. "No nation," said George Bernard Shaw, "has ever outlived the loss of its gods." AU history is the practical demonstration that there is a God.

So, then, even if Jesus Christ had never come into this world in bodily form, it would still have been possible for men to see God's word, God's Logos (3056), God's reason in action. But, although the action of the word was there for all to see, men never recognized him.

Barclay: Joh 1:10-11

(i) In the end God's creating and directing word did come into this world in the form of the man Jesus. John says that the word came to his own home and his own people gave him no welcome. What does he mean by that? He means that when God's word entered this world, he did not come to Rome or to Greece or to Egypt or to the Eastern Empires. He came to Palestine; Palestine was specially God's land and the Jews were specially God's people.

The very titles by which the Old Testament calls the land and the people show that. Palestine is repeatedly called the holy land (Zec 2:12; 2Macc 1:7; Wis 12:3). It is called the Lord's land; God speaks of it as his land (Hos 9:3; Jer 2:7; Jer 16:18; Lev 25:23). The Jewish nation is called God's peculiar treasure (Exo 19:5; Psa 135:4). The Jews are called God's special people (Deu 7:6). They are called God's peculiar people (Deu 14:2; Deu 26:18). They are called the Lord's portion (Deu 32:9).

Jesus came to a land which was peculiarly God's land and a people who were peculiarly God's people. He ought, therefore, to have been coming to a nation that would welcome him with open arms; the door should have been wide open for him; he should have been welcomed like a wayfarer coming home; or, even more, like a king coming to his own--but he was rejected He was received with hate and not with adoration.

Here is the tragedy of a people being prepared for a task and then refusing that task. It may be, that parents plan and save and sacrifice to give a son or a daughter a chance in life, to prepare that son or daughter for some special task and opportunity--and then when the chance comes, the one for whom so much sacrifice was made refuses to grasp the opportunity, or fails miserably when confronted with the challenge. Therein is tragedy. And that is what happened to God.

It would be wrong to think that God prepared only the Jewish people. God is preparing every man and woman and child in this world for some task that he has in store for them. A novelist tells of a girl who refused to touch the soiling things of life. When she was asked why, she said: "Some day something fine is going to come into my life, and I want to be ready for it." The tragedy is that so many people refuse the task God has for them.

We may put it in another way--a way that strikes home there are so few people who become what they have it in them to be. It may be through lethargy and laziness, it may be through timidity and cowardice, it may be through lack of discipline and self-indulgence, it may be through involvement in second-bests and byways; but the world is full of people who have never realized the possibilities which are in them. We need not think of the task God has in store for us in terms of some great act or achievement of which all men will know. It may be to fit a child for life; it may be at some crucial moment to speak that word and exert that influence which will stop someone ruining his life; it may be to do some quite small job superlatively well; it may be to touch the lives of many by our hands, our voices or our minds. The fact remains that God is preparing us by all the experiences of life for something; and many refuse the task when it comes and never even realize that they are refusing it.

There is all the pathos in the world in the simple saying: "He came to his own home and his own people gave him no welcome." It happened to Jesus long ago--and it is happening yet.

Barclay: Joh 1:12-13

Not everyone rejected Jesus when he came; there were some who did receive him and welcome him; and to them Jesus gave the right to become children of God.

There is a sense in which a man is not naturally a child of God. There is a sense in which he has to become a child of God. We may think of this in human terms, because human terms are the only ones open to us.

There are two kinds of sons. There is the son who never does anything else but use his home. All through his youth he takes everything that the home has to offer and gives nothing in return. His father may work and sacrifice to give him his chance in life, and he takes it as a right, never realizing what he is taking and making no effort to deserve it or repay it. When he leaves home, he makes no attempt to keep in touch. The home has served his purpose and he is finished with it. He realizes no bond to be maintained and no debt to be paid. He is his father's son; to his father he owes his existence; and to his father he owes what he is; but between him and his father there is no bond of love and intimacy. The father has given all in love; but the son has given nothing in return.

On the other hand there is the son who all his life realizes what his father is doing and has done for him. He takes every opportunity to show his gratitude by trying to be the son his father would wish him to be; as the years go on he grows closer and closer to his father; the relationship of father and son becomes the relationship of fellowship and friendship. Even when he leaves home the bond is still there and he is still conscious of a debt that can never be repaid.

In the one case the son grows further and further away from the father; in the other he grows nearer and nearer the father. Both are sons, but the sonship is very different. The second has become a son in a way that the first never was.

We may illustrate this kind of relationship from another, but a kindred, sphere. The name of a certain younger man was mentioned to a famous teacher, whose student the younger man claimed to be. The older man answered: "He may have attended my lectures, but he was not one of my students." There is a world of difference between sitting in a teacher's class room and being one of his students. There can be contact without communion; there can be relationship without fellowship. All men are the sons of God in the sense that they owe to him the creation and the preservation of their lives; but only some men become the sons of God in the depth and intimacy of the true father and son relationship.

It is the claim of John that men can enter into that true and real sonship only through Jesus Christ. When he says that it does not come from blood, he is using Jewish thought, for the Jews believed that a physical son was born from the union of the seed of the father with the blood of the mother. This sonship does not come from any human impulse or desire or from any act of the human will; it comes entirely from God. We cannot make ourselves sons of God; we have to enter into a relationship which God offers us. No man can ever enter into friendship with God by his own will and power; there is a great gulf fixed between the human and the divine. Man can only enter into friendship with God when God himself opens the way.

Again let us think in human terms. A commoner cannot approach a king with the offer of friendship; if there is ever to be such a friendship it must depend entirely on the approach of the king. It is so with us and God. We cannot by will or achievement enter into fellowship with God, for we are men and he is God. We can enter into it only when God in his totally undeserved grace condescends to open the way to himself.

But there is a human side to this. What God offers, man has to appropriate. A human father may offer his son his love, his advice, his friendship, and the son may refuse it and prefer to take his own way. It is so with God; God offers us the right to become sons but we need not accept it.

We do accept it through believing in the name of Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Hebrew thought and language had a way of using the name which is strange to us. By that expression Jewish thought did not so much mean the name by which a person was called as his nature in so far as it was revealed and known. For instance, in Psa 9:10the psalmist says: "Those who know thy name put their trust in thee." Clearly that does not mean that those who know that God is called Jehovah will trust him; it means that those who know God's character, God's nature, who know what God is like, will be ready and willing to trust him for everything. In Psa 20:7the psalmist says: "Some boast of chariots and some of horses: but we boast of the name of the Lord our God." Clearly that does not mean that we will boast that God is caned Jehovah. It means that some people will put their trust in human aids, but we will put our trust in God because we know what he is like.

To trust in the name of Jesus therefore means to put our trust in what he is. He was the embodiment of kindness and love and gentleness and service. It is John's great central doctrine that in Jesus we see the very mind of God, the attitude of God to men. If we believe that, then we also believe that God is like Jesus, as kind, as loving as Jesus was. To believe in the name of Jesus is to believe that God is like him; and it is only when we believe that, that we can submit ourselves to God and become his children. Unless we had seen in Jesus what God is like we would never even have dared to think of ourselves as being able to become the children of God. It is what Jesus is that opens to us the possibility of becoming the children of God.

Barclay: Joh 1:14

Here we come to the sentence for the sake of which John wrote his gospel. He has thought and talked about the word of God, that powerful, creative, dynamic word which was the agent of creation, that guiding, directing, controlling word which puts order into the universe and mind into man. These were ideas which were known and familiar to both Jew and Greek. Now he says the most startling and incredible thing that he could have said. He says quite simply: "This word which created the world, this reason which controls the order of the world, has become a person and with our own eyes we saw him." The word that John uses for seeing this word is theasthai (2300); it is used in the New Testament more than twenty times and is always used of actual physical sight. This is no spiritual vision seen with the eye of the soul or of the mind. John declares that the word actually came to earth in the form of a man and was seen by human eyes. He says: "If you want to see what this creating word, this controlling reason, is like, look at Jesus of Nazareth."

This is where John parted with all thought which had gone before him. This was the entirely new thing which John brought to the Greek world for which he was writing. Augustine afterwards said that in his pre-Christian days he had read and studied the great pagan philosophers and had read many things, but he had never read that the word became flesh.

To a Greek this was the impossible thing. The one thing that no Greek would ever have dreamed of was that God could take a body. To the Greek the body was an evil, a prison-house in which the soul was shackled, a tomb in which the spirit was confined. Plutarch, the wise old Greek, did not even believe that God could control the happenings of this world directly; he had to do it by deputies and intermediaries, for, as Plutarch saw it, it was nothing less than blasphemy to involve God in the affairs of the world. Philo could never have said it. He said: "The life of God has not descended to us; nor has it come as far as the necessities of the body." The great Roman Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, despised the body in comparison with the spirit. "Therefore despise the flesh-blood and bones and a net-work, a twisted skein of nerves and veins and arteries." "The composition of the whole body is under corruption."

Here was the shatteringly new thing--that God could and would become a human person, that God could enter into this life that we live, that eternity could appear in time, that somehow the Creator could appear in creation in such a way that men's eyes could actually see him.

So staggeringly new was this conception of God in a human form that it is not surprising that there were some even in the church who could not believe it. What John says is that the word became sarx (4561). Now sarx (4561) is the very word Paul uses over and over again to describe what he called the flesh, human nature in all its weakness and in all its liability to sin. The very thought of taking this word and applying it to God, was something that their minds staggered at. So there arose in the church a body of people called Docetists.

Dokein (1380) is the Greek word for to seem to be. These people held that Jesus in fact was only a phantom; that his human body was not a real body; that he could not really feel hunger and weariness, sorrow and pain; that he was in fact a disembodied spirit in the apparent form of a man. John dealt with these people much more directly in his First Letter. "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist" (1Jo 4:2-3). It is true that this heresy was born of a kind of mistaken reverence which recoiled from saying that Jesus was really, fully and truly human. To John it contradicted the whole Christian gospel.

It may well be that we are often so eager to conserve the fact that Jesus was fully God that we tend to forget the fact that he was fully man. The word became flesh--here, perhaps as nowhere else in the New Testament, we have the full manhood of Jesus gloriously proclaimed. In Jesus we see the creating word of God, the controlling reason of God, taking manhood upon himself In Jesus we see God living life as he would have lived it if he had been a man. Supposing we said nothing else about Jesus we could still say that he shows us how God would live this life that we have to live.

Barclay: Joh 1:14

It might well be held that this is the greatest single verse in the New Testament; we must therefore spend much time upon it so that we may enter the more fully into its riches.

We have already seen how John has certain great words which haunt his mind and dominate his thought and we are the themes out of which his whole message is elaborated. Here we have three more of these words.

(i) The first is grace. This word has always two basic ideas in it.

(a) It always has the idea of something completely undeserved. It always has the idea of something that we could never have earned or achieved for ourselves. The fact that God came to earth to live and to die for men is not something which humanity deserved; it is an act of pure love on the part of God. The word grace emphasizes at one and the same time the helpless poverty of man and the limitless kindness of God.

(b) It always has the idea of beauty in it. In modern Greek the word means charm. In Jesus we see the sheer winsomeness of God. Men had thought of God in terms of might and majesty and power and judgment. They had thought of the power of God which could crush all opposition and defeat all rebellion; but in Jesus men are confronted with the sheer loveliness of God.

(ii) The second is truth. This word is one of the dominant notes of the Fourth Gospel. We meet it again and again. Here we can only briefly gather together what John has to say about Jesus and the truth.

(a) Jesus is the embodiment of the truth. He said: "I am the truth" (Joh 14:6). To see truth we must look at Jesus. Here is something infinitely precious for every simple mind and soul. Very few people can grasp abstract ideas; most people think in pictures. We could think and argue for ever and we would very likely be no nearer arriving at a definition of beauty. But if we can point at a beautiful person and say that is beauty, the thing becomes clear. Ever since men began to think about God they have been trying to define just who and what he is--and their puny minds get no nearer a definition. But we can cease our thinking and look at Jesus Christ and say: "That is what God is like." Jesus did not come to talk to men about God; he came to show men what God is like, so that the simplest mind might know him as intimately as the mind of the greatest philosopher.

(b) Jesus is the communicator of the truth. He told his disciples that if they continued with him they would know the truth (Joh 8:31). He told Pilate that his object in coming into this world was to witness to the truth (Joh 18:37). Men will flock to a teacher or preacher who can really give them guidance for the tangled business of thinking and living. Jesus is the one who, amidst the shadows, makes things clear; who, at the many crossroads of life, shows us the right way; who, in the baffling moments of decision, enables us to choose aright; who, amidst the many voices which clamour for our allegiance, tells us what to believe.

© Even when Jesus left this earth in the body, he left us his Spirit to guide us into the truth. His Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Joh 14:17; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:13). He did not leave us only a book of instruction and a body of teaching. We do not need to search through some unintelligible textbook to find out what to do. Still, to this day, we can ask Jesus what to do, for his Spirit is with us every step of the way.

(d) The truth is what makes us free (Joh 8:32). There is always a certain liberating quality in the truth. A child often gets queer, mistaken notions about things when he thinks about them himself; and often he becomes afraid. When he is told the truth he is emancipated from his fears. A man may fear that he is ill; he goes to the doctor; even if the verdict is bad he is at least liberated from the vague fears which haunted his mind. The truth which Jesus brings liberates us from estrangement from God; it liberates us from frustration; it liberates us from our fears and weaknesses and defeats. Jesus Christ is the greatest liberator on earth.

(e) The truth can be resented. They sought to kill Jesus because he told them the truth (Joh 8:40). The truth may well condemn a man; it may well show him how far wrong he was. "Truth," said the Cynics, "can be like the light to sore eyes." The Cynics declared that the teacher who never annoyed anyone never did anyone any good. Men may shut their ears and their minds to the truth; they may kill the man who tens them the truth--but the truth remains. No man ever destroyed the truth by refusing to listen to the voice that told it to him; and the truth will always catch up with him in the end.

(f) The truth can be disbelieved (Joh 8:45). There are two main reasons why men disbelieve the truth. They may disbelieve it because it seems too good to be true; or they may disbelieve it because they are so fastened to their half-truths that they will not let them go. In many instances a half-truth is the worst enemy of a whole truth.

(g) The truth is not something abstract; it is something which must be done (Joh 3:21). It is something which must be known with the mind, accepted with the heart, and acted out in the life.

Barclay: Joh 1:14

A life-time of study and thought could not exhaust the truth of this verse. We have already looked at two of the great theme words in it; now we look at the third-glory. Again and again John uses this word in connection with Jesus Christ. We shall first look at what John says about the glory of Christ, and then we shall go on to see if we can understand a little of what he means.

(i) The life of Jesus Christ was a manifestation of glory. When he performed the miracle of the water and the wine at Cana of Galilee, John says that he manifested forth his glory (Joh 2:11). To look at Jesus and to experience his power and love was to enter into a new glory.

(ii) The glory which he manifests is the glory of God. It is not from men that he receives it (Joh 5:41). He seeks not his own glory but the glory of him who sent him (Joh 7:18). It is his Father who glorifies him (Joh 8:50, Joh 8:54). It is the glory of God that Martha will see in the raising of Lazarus (Joh 11:4). The raising of Lazarus is for the glory of God, that the Son may be glorified thereby (Joh 11:4). The glory that was on Jesus, that clung about him, that shone through him, that acted in him is the glory of God.

(iii) Yet that glory was uniquely his own. At the end he prays that God will glorify him with the glory that he had before the world began (Joh 17:5). He shines with no borrowed radiance; his glory is his and his by right.

(iv) The glory which is his he has transmitted to his disciples. The glory which God gave him he has given to them (Joh 17:22). It is as if Jesus shared in the glory of God and the disciple shares in the glory of Christ. The coming of Jesus is the coming of God's glory among men.

What does John mean by all this? To answer that we must turn to the Old Testament. To the Jew the idea of the Shechinah was very dear. The Shechinah (compare 07931) means that which dwells; and it is the word used for the visible presence of God among men. Repeatedly in the Old Testament we come across the idea that there were certain times when God's glory was visible among men. In the desert, before the giving of the manna, the children of Israel "looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud" (Exo 16:10). Before the giving of the Ten Commandments, "the glory of the Lord settled upon Mount Sinai" (Exo 24:16). When the Tabernacle had been erected and equipped, "the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Exo 40:34). When Solomon's Temple was dedicated the priests could not enter in to minister "for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord" (1Ki 8:11). When Isaiah had his vision in the Temple, he heard the angelic choir singing that "the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isa 6:3). Ezekiel in his ecstasy saw "the likeness of the glory of the Lord" (Eze 1:28). In the Old Testament the glory of the Lord came at times when God was very close.

The glory of the Lord means quite simply the presence of God. John uses a homely illustration. A father gives to his eldest son his own authority, his own honour. The heir apparent to the throne, the king's heir, is invested with all the royal glory of his father. It was so with Jesus. When he came to this earth men saw in him the splendour of God, and at the heart of that splendour was love. When Jesus came to this earth men saw the wonder of God, and the wonder was love. They saw that God's glory and God's love were one and the same thing. The glory of God is not that of a despotic eastern tyrant, but the splendour of love before which we fall not in abject terror but lost in wonder, love and praise.

Barclay: Joh 1:15-17

We have already seen that the Fourth Gospel was written in a situation where it was necessary to make sure that John the Baptist did not occupy an exaggerated position in men's thoughts. So John begins this passage with a saying of John the Baptist which gives to Jesus the first place.

John the Baptist says of Jesus: "He who comes after me was before me." He may mean more than one thing by that. (a) Jesus was actually six months younger in age than John, and John may be saying quite simply: "He who is my junior has been advanced beyond me." (b) John may be saying: "I was in the field before Jesus; I occupied the centre of the stage before he did; my hand was laid to work before his was; but all that I was doing was to prepare the way for his coming; I was only the advance guard of the main force and the herald of the king." © It may be that John is thinking in terms much more deep than that. He may be thinking not in terms of time but of eternity. He may be thinking of Jesus as the one who existed before the world began, and beside whom any human figure has no standing at all. It may be that all three ideas are in John's mind. It was not he who had exaggerated his own position; that was the mistake that some of his followers had made. To John the topmost place belonged to Jesus.

This passage then goes on to say three great things about Jesus.

(i) On his fullness we all have drawn. The word that John uses for fullness is a great word; it is pleroma (4138), and it means the sum total of all that is in God. It is a word which Paul uses often. In Col 1:19he says that all pleroma (4138) dwelt in Christ. In Col 2:9he says in Christ there dwelt the pleroma (4138) of deity in a bodily form. He meant that in Jesus there dwelt the totality of the wisdom, the power, the love of God. Just because of that Jesus is inexhaustible. A man can go to Jesus with any need and find that need supplied. A man can go to Jesus with any ideal and find that ideal realized. In Jesus the man in love with beauty will find the supreme beauty. In Jesus the man to whom life is the search for knowledge will find the supreme revelation. In Jesus the man who needs courage will find the pattern and the secret of being brave. In Jesus the man who feels that he cannot cope with life will find the Master of life and the power to live. In Jesus the man who is conscious of his sin will find the forgiveness for his sin and the strength to be good. In Jesus the pleroma (4138), the fullness of God, all that is in God, what Westcott called "the spring of divine life," becomes available to men.

(ii) From him we have received grace upon grace. Literally the Greek means grace instead of grace. What does that strange phrase mean?

(a) It may mean that in Christ we have found one wonder leading to another. One of the old missionaries came to one of the ancient Pictish kings. The king asked him what he might expect if he became a Christian. The missionary answered: "You will find wonder upon wonder and every one of them true." Sometimes when we travel a very lovely road, vista after vista opens to us. At every view we think that nothing could be lovelier, and then we turn another corner and an even greater loveliness opens before us. When a man enters on the study of some great subject, like music or poetry or art, he never gets to the end of it. Always there are fresh experiences of beauty waiting for him. It is so with Christ. The more we know of him, the more wonderful he becomes. The longer we live with him, the more loveliness we discover. The more we think about him and with him, the wider the horizon of truth becomes. This phrase may be John's way of expressing the limitlessness of Christ. It may be his way of saying that the man who companies with Christ will find new wonders dawning upon his soul and enlightening his mind and enchaining his heart every day.

(b) It may be that we ought to take this expression quite literally. In Christ we find grace instead of grace. The different ages and the different situations in life demand a different kind of grace. We need one grace in the days of prosperity and another in the days of adversity. We need one grace in the sunlit days of youth and another when the shadows of age begin to lengthen. The church needs one grace in the days of persecution and another when the days of acceptance have come. We need one grace when we feel that we are on the top of things and another when we are depressed and discouraged and near to despair. We need one grace to bear our own burdens and another to bear one another's burdens. We need one grace when we are sure of things and another when there seems nothing certain left in the world. The grace of God is never a static but always a dynamic thing. It never fads to meet the situation. One need invades life and one grace comes with it. That need passes and another need assaults us and with it another grace comes. All through life we are constantly receiving grace instead of grace, for the grace of Christ is triumphantly adequate to deal with any situation.

(iii) The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. In the old way, life was governed by law. A man had to do a thing whether he liked it or not, and whether he knew the reason for it or not; but with the coming of Jesus we no longer seek to obey the law of God like slaves; we seek to answer the love of God like sons. It is through Jesus Christ that God the law-giver has become God the Father, that God the judge has become God the lover of the souls of men.

Barclay: Joh 1:18

When John said that no man has ever seen God, everyone in the ancient world would fully agree with him. Men were fascinated and depressed and frustrated by what they regarded as the infinite distance and the utter unknowability of God. In the Old Testament God is represented as saying to Moses: "You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live" (Exo 33:20). When God reminds the people of the giving of the law, he says: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deu 4:12). No one in the Old Testament thought it possible to see God. The great Greek thinkers felt exactly the same. Xenophanes said: "Guesswork is over all." Plato said: "Never man and God can meet." Celsus laughed at the way that the Christians called God Father, because "God is away beyond everything." At the best, Apuleius said, men could catch a glimpse of God as a lightning flash lights up a dark night--one split second of illumination, and then the dark. As Glover said: "Whatever God was, he was far from being within the reach of ordinary men." There might be very rare moments of ecstasy when men caught a glimpse of what they called "Absolute Being," but ordinary men were the prisoners of ignorance and fancy. There would be none to disagree with John when he said that no man has ever seen God.

But John does not stop there; he goes on to make the startling and tremendous statement that Jesus has fully revealed to men what God is like. What has come to men is what J. H. Bernard calls "the exhibition to the world of God in Christ." Here again the keynote of John's gospel sounds: "If you want to see what God is like, look at Jesus."

Why should it be that Jesus can do what no one else has ever done? Wherein lies his power to reveal God to men? John says three things about him.

(i) Jesus is unique. The Greek word is monogenes (3439), which the King James Version translates only-begotten. It is true that that is what monogenes (3439) literally means; but long before this it had lost its purely physical sense, and had come to have two special meanings. It had come to mean unique and specially beloved. Obviously an only son has a unique place and a unique love in his father's heart. So this word came to express uniqueness more than anything else. It is the conviction of the New Testament that there is no one like Jesus. He alone can bring God to men and bring men to God.

(ii) Jesus is God. Here we have the very same form of expression as we had in the first verse of the chapter. This does not mean that Jesus is identical with God; it does mean that in mind and character and being he is one with God. In this case it might be better if we thought of it as meaning that Jesus is divine. To see him is to see what God is.

(iii) Jesus is in the bosom of the Father. To be in the bosom of someone is the Hebrew phrase which expresses the deepest intimacy possible in human life. It is used of mother and child; it is used of husband and wife; a man speaks of the wife of his bosom (Num 11:12; Deu 13:6); it is used of two friends who are in complete communion with one another. When John uses this phrase about Jesus, he means that between Jesus and God there is complete and uninterrupted intimacy. It is because Jesus is so intimate with God, that he is one with God and can reveal him to men.

In Jesus Christ the distant, unknowable, invisible, unreachable God has come to men; and God can never be a stranger to us again.

Barclay: Joh 1:19-28

With this passage John begins the narrative part of his gospel. In the prologue he has shown what he intends to do; he is writing his gospel to demonstrate that Jesus is the Mind, the Reason, the Word of God come into this world in the form of a human person. Having set down his central thought, he now begins the story of the life of Jesus.

No one is so careful of details of time as John is. Starting from this passage and going on to Joh 2:11he tells step by step the story of the first momentous week in the public life of Jesus. The events of the first day are in Joh 1:19-28; the story of the second day is Joh 1:29-34; the third day is unfolded in Joh 1:35-39. The three verses Joh 1:40-42tell the story of the fourth day. The events of the fifth day are told in Joh 1:43-51. The sixth day is left a blank. And the events of the last day of the week are told in Joh 2:1-11.

In this same section from Joh 1:19to Joh 2:11the Fourth Gospel gives us three different kinds of witness to the greatness and the uniqueness of Jesus. (i) There is the witness of John the Baptist (Joh 1:19-34). (ii) There is the witness of those who accepted Jesus as their Master, and who became his disciples (Joh 1:41-51). (iii) There is the witness of Jesus' own wonderful powers (Joh 2:1-11). John is setting Jesus before us in three different contexts, and in each showing us his supreme wonder.

We have already seen that the Fourth Gospel had to take account of a situation in which John the Baptist was given a position far higher than he himself had claimed. As late as A.D. 250 the Clementine Recognitions tell us that "there were some of John's disciples who preached about him as if their master was the Messiah." In this passage we see that that was a view that John the Baptist himself would have definitely repudiated.

Let us now turn to the passage itself. Right at the beginning we come upon a characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. It is emissaries of the Jews who come to cross-examine John. The word Jews (Ioudaioi, 2453) occurs in this gospel no fewer than seventy times; and always the Jews are the opposition. They are the people who have set themselves against Jesus. The mention of the Jews brings the opposition thus early upon the stage. The Fourth Gospel is two things. First, as we have seen, it is the exhibition of God in Jesus Christ. But, second, it is equally the story of the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews, the story of God's offer and man's refusal, the story of God's love and man's sin, the story of Jesus Christ's invitation and man's rejection. The Fourth Gospel is the gospel in which love and warning are uniquely and vividly combined.

The deputation which came to interview John was composed of two kinds of people. First, there were the priests and the Levites. Their interest was very natural, for John was the son of Zacharias, and Zacharias was a priest (Luk 1:5). In Judaism the only qualification for the priesthood was descent. If a man was not a descendant of Aaron nothing could make him a priest; if he was a descendant of Aaron nothing could stop him being one. Therefore, in the eyes of the authorities John the Baptist was in fact a priest and it was very natural that the priests should come to find out why he was behaving in such an unusual way. Second, there were emissaries of the Pharisees. It may well be that behind them was the Sanhedrin. One of the functions of the Sanhedrin was to deal with any man who was suspected of being a false prophet. John was a preacher to whom the people were flocking in hordes. The Sanhedrin may well have felt it their duty to check up on this man in case he was a false prophet.

The whole thing shows how suspicious orthodoxy was of anything unusual. John did not conform to the normal idea of a priest; and he did not conform to the normal idea of a preacher; therefore the ecclesiastical authorities of the day looked upon him askance. The church always runs the danger of condemning a new way just because it is new. In one sense there is hardly any institution in the world which resents change so much as the church does. It has often rejected a great teacher and often refused some great adventure simply because it suspected all things new.

Barclay: Joh 1:19-28

The emissaries of the orthodox could think of three things that John might claim to be.

(i) They asked him if he was the Messiah. The Jews were waiting, and are waiting to this day, for the Messiah. There was no one idea of the Messiah. Some people expected one who would bring peace over all the earth. Some expected one who would bring in the reign of righteousness. Most expected one who would be a great national champion to lead the armies of the Jews as conquerors over all the world. Some expected a supernatural figure straight from God. Still more expected a prince to rise from David's line. Frequently Messianic pretenders arose and caused rebellions. The time of Jesus was an excited age. It was natural to ask John if he claimed to be the Messiah. John completely rejected that claim; but he rejected it with a certain hint. In the Greek the word I is stressed by its position. It is as if John said: "I am not the Messiah, but, if you only knew, the Messiah is here."

(ii) They asked him if he was Elijah. It was the Jewish belief that, before the Messiah came, Elijah would return to herald his coming and to prepare the world to receive him. Particularly, Elijah was to come to arrange all disputes. He would settle what things and what people were clean and unclean; he would settle who were Jews and who were not Jews; he would bring together again families which were estranged. So much did the Jews believe this that the traditional law said that money and property whose owners were disputed, or anything found whose owner was unknown, must wait "until Elijah comes." The belief that Elijah would come before the Messiah goes back to Mal 4:5. It was even believed that Elijah would anoint the Messiah to his kingly office, as all kings were anointed, and that he would raise the dead to share in the new kingdom; but John denied that any such honour was his.

(iii) They asked him if he was the expected and promised prophet. It was sometimes believed that Isaiah and, especially, Jeremiah would return at the coming of the Messiah. But this is really a reference to the assurance which Moses gave to the people in Deu 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren--him you shall heed." That was a promise that no Jew ever forgot. They waited and longed for the emergence of the prophet who would be the greatest of all prophets, the Prophet par excellence. But once again John denied that this honour was his.

So they asked him who he was; his answer was that he was nothing but a voice bidding men prepare the way for the king. The quotation is from Isa 40:3. All the gospels cite it (Mar 1:3; Mat 3:3; Luk 3:4). The idea behind it is this. Eastern roads were not surfaced and metalled. They were mere tracks. When a king was about to visit a province, when a conqueror was about to travel through his domains, the roads were smoothed and straightened out and put in order. What John was saying was: "I am nobody; I am only a voice telling you to get ready for the coming of the king, for he is on the way."

John was what every true preacher and teacher ought to be--only a voice, a pointer to the king. The last thing that he wanted men to do was to look at him; he wanted them to forget him and see only the king.

But the Pharisees were puzzled about one thing--what right had John to baptize? If he had been the Messiah, or even Elijah or the prophet, he might have baptized. Isaiah had written: "So shall he sprinkle many nations" (Isa 52:15). Ezekiel had said: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean" (Eze 36:25). Zechariah had said: "On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness" (Zec 13:1). But why should John baptize?

What made the matter still more strange was this. Baptism at the hands of men was not for Israelites at all. It was proselytes, incomers from other faiths, who were baptized. An Israelite was never baptized; he was God's already and did not need to be washed. But Gentiles had to be washed in baptism. John was making Israelites do what only Gentiles had to do. He was suggesting that the chosen people had to be cleansed. That was indeed precisely what John believed. But he did not answer directly.

He said: "I am baptizing only with water; but there is One among you--you don't recognize him--and I am not worthy to untie the straps of his shoes." John could not have cited a more menial office. To untie the straps of sandals was slaves' work. There was a Rabbinic saying which said that a disciple might do for his master anything that a servant did, except only to untie his sandals. That was too menial a service for even a disciple to render. So John said: "One is coming whose slave I am not fit to be." We are to understand that by this time the baptism of Jesus had taken place at which John had recognized Jesus. So here John is saying again: "The king is coming. And, for his coming, you need to be cleansed as much as any Gentile. Prepare yourself for the entry into history of the king."

John's function was to be only the preparer of the way. Any greatness he had came from the greatness of the one whose coming he foretold. He is the great example of the man prepared to obliterate himself in order that Jesus Christ may be seen. He was only, as he saw it, a finger-post pointing to Christ. God give us grace to forget ourselves and to remember only Christ.

Constable: Luk 22:1--Joh 1:1

VII. Jesus' passion, resurrection, and ascension 22:1--24:53

Luke's unique rendition of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus has several important characteristics. It contains more of Jesus' farewell comments to the disciples at the Last Supper compared with the other synoptic accounts. It also clarifies some of the events surrounding Jesus' trials. It provides additional details of the crucifixion, and it includes other of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. Generally Luke pictured Jesus as a righteous man suffering unjustly though pursuing the path that His Father, the Old Testament prophets, and He had foreordained and foretold. Though this is the concluding section of this Gospel, Luke left an ending to which he could later attach the Book of Acts smoothly.

Constable: Joh 1:1-18

I. Prologue 1:1-18

Each of the four Gospels begins with an introduction to Jesus that places Him in the historical setting of His earthly ministry. Matthew connected Him with David and Abraham. Mark associated Him directly with John the Baptist. Luke recorded the predictions of His birth. John, however, declared Him to be the eternal Son of God. Many writers have referred to John's prologue as a theological prologue because this evangelist stressed Jesus' connection with the eternal God.

As with many introductions, this one contains several key terms that recur throughout the remainder of the book. These terms include life and light (v. 4), darkness (v. 5), witness (v. 7), true (i.e., genuine or ultimate) and world (v. 9), as well as Son, Father, glory, and truth (v. 14). The Word (as a Christological title, v. 1) and grace (v. 14) are also important theological terms, but they occur only in the prologue.

"But supremely, the Prologue summarizes how the Word' which was with God in the very beginning came into the sphere of time, history, tangibility--in other words, how the Son of God was sent into the world to become the Jesus of history, so that the glory and grace of God might be uniquely and perfectly disclosed. The rest of the book is nothing other than an expansion of this theme."²⁹

Some writers have identified a chiastic structure in the prologue. R. Alan Culpepper's is essentially as follows.³⁰

A The eternal Word with God vv. 1-2

B What came through the Word: creation v. 3

C What we have received from the Word: life vv. 4-5

D John's purpose: to testify vv. 6-8

E The Incarnation and the world's response vv. 9-10

F The Word and His own (Israel) v. 11

G Those who accepted the Word v. 12a

H He gave them authority to become God's children v. 12b

G' Those who believed in the Word v. 12c

F' The Word and His own (Christians) v. 13

E' The Incarnation and the church's response v. 14

D' John's testimony v. 15

C' What we have received from the Word: grace v. 16

B' What came through the Word: grace and truth v. 17

A' The eternal Word from God v. 18

Jeff Staley also saw a chiasm in these verses, though his perception of the parts is slightly different from Culpepper's.³¹

A The relationship of the Logos to God, creation, and humanity vv. 1-5

B The witness of John (negative) vv. 6-8

C The journey of the Light/Logos (negative) vv. 9-11

D The gift of empowerment (positive) vv. 12-13

C' The journey of the Logos (positive) v. 14

B' The witness of John (positive) v. 15

A' The relationship of the Logos to humankind, re-creation, and God vv. 16-18

These structural analyses point out that all that John wrote in this prologue centers on God's gift of eternal life that comes to people through the Word (v. 12). This emphasis on salvation through Jesus continues to be central throughout the Gospel (cf. 20:30-31).

Constable: Joh 1:1-5

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

John began his Gospel by locating Jesus before the beginning of His ministry, before His virgin birth, and even before Creation. He identified Jesus as co-existent with God the Father and the Father's agent in providing creation and salvation.

1:1 The Bible identifies many beginnings. The beginning that John spoke of was not really the beginning of something new at a particular time. It was rather the time before anything that has come into existence began. The Bible does not teach a timeless state either before Creation or after the consummation of all things.³² Time is the way God and we measure events in relationship to one another. Even before God created the universe (Gen. 1:1) there was succession of events. We often refer to this pre-creation time as eternity past. This is the time that John referred to here. At the beginning of this eternity, when there was nothing else, the Word existed.

"John is writing about a new beginning, a new creation, and he uses words that recall the first creation. He soon goes on to use other words that are important in Genesis 1, such as life' (v. 4), light' (v. 4), and darkness' (v. 5). Genesis 1 described God's first creation; John's theme is God's new creation. Like the first, the second is not carried out by some subordinate being. It is brought about through the agency of the Logos, the very Word of God."³³

Obviously the word "Word" (Gr. logos) to which John referred was a title for God. Later in this verse he identified the Word as God. He evidently chose this title because it communicates the fact that the Word was not only God but also the expression of God. A spoken or written word expresses what is in the mind of its speaker or writer. Likewise Jesus, the Word (v. 14), was not only God, but He was the expression of God to humankind. Jesus' life and ministry expressed to humankind what God wanted us to know.

The word "word" had this metaphorical meaning in Jewish and Greek literature when John wrote his Gospel.

"To the Hebrew the word of God' was the self-assertion of the divine personality; to the Greek the formula denoted the rational mind that ruled the universe."³⁴

"It has not been proven beyond doubt whether the term logos, as John used it, derives from Jewish or Greek (Hellenistic) backgrounds or from some other source. Nor is it plain what associations John meant to convey by his use of it. Readers are left to work out the precise allusions and significance for themselves. John was working with allusions to the Old Testament, but he was also writing to an audience familiar with Hellenistic (Greek) thought, and certain aspects of his use of logos would occur to them. Both backgrounds are important for understanding this title as John used it in 1:1, 14."³⁵

John adopted this word and used it in personification to express Jesus as the ultimate divine self-revelation (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). In view of Old Testament usage it carries connotations of creation (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Isa. 9:8; Jer. 1:4; Ezek. 33:7; Amos 3:1, 8), and deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Isa. 55:1).

John's description of the Word as with God shows that Jesus was in one sense distinct from God. He was the second person of the Trinity who is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of His subsistence. However, John was also careful to note that Jesus was in another sense fully God. He was not less God than the Father or the Spirit in His essence. Thus John made one of the great Trinitarian statements in the Bible in this verse. In His essence Jesus is equal with the Father, but He subsists as a separate person within the Godhead.

There is probably no fully adequate illustration of the Trinity in the natural world. Perhaps the egg is one of the best. An egg consists of three parts: shell, yolk, and white. Each part is fully egg yet each has its own identity that distinguishes it from the other parts. The human family is another illustration. Father, mother, and child are all separate entities yet each one is fully a member of its own family. Each has a different first name, but all bear the same family name.

Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to this verse to support their doctrine that Jesus was not fully God but the highest created being. They translate it "the Word was a god." Grammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article ("a") when no article is present in the Greek text. However, that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than God. Other Scriptures affirm Jesus' full deity (e.g., vv. 2, 18; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; et al.). Here the absence of the indefinite article was deliberate.

"As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it [cf. vv. 6, 12, 13, 18, et al.]."³⁶

Jesus was not a god. He is God.

"John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous."³⁷

John 1:1 is the first of many "asides" in this Gospel. An aside is a direct statement that tells the reader something. They are never observable events but are interpretive commentary on observable events. This commentary reveals information below the surface of the action.

"Some asides function to stage an event by defining the physical context in which it occurs. Other asides function to define or specify something. Still other asides explain discourse, telling why something was said (or was not said, e.g., 7:13, 30). Parallel to these are others that function to explain actions, noting why something happened (or did not happen)."³⁸

1:2 The Word was not only in the beginning and with God (v. 1). He (v. 14) was also in the beginning with God. This statement clarifies further that Jesus was with God before the creation of the universe. It is a further assertion of Jesus' deity. He did not come into existence. He always existed. Moreover Jesus did not become deity. He always was deity. Verse 2 clarifies the revelation of verse 1 that is so concise and profound.

1:3 John next explicitly declared what was implicit in the Old Testament use of the word "word." Jesus was God's agent in creating everything that has come into existence (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14). It was the second person of the Trinity who created the universe and all it contains. However, John described the Word as God's agent. The Word did not act independently from the Father. Thus John presented Jesus as under God's authority but over every created thing in authority. Jesus' work of revealing God began with Creation because all creation reveals God (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20).

John characteristically stated a proposition positively and then immediately repeated it negatively for emphasis and clarification.

1:4 ". . . we move on from creation in general to the creation of life, the most significant element in creation. Life is one of John's characteristic concepts: he uses the word 36 times, whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than 17 times (Revelation; next come Romans with 14 times and 1 John with 13 times). Thus more than a quarter of all the New Testament references to life occur in this one writing."³⁹

Jesus was the source of life. Therefore He could impart life to the things He created. Every living thing owes its life to the Creator, Jesus. Life for humankind constitutes light. Where there is life there is light, metaphorically speaking, and where there is no light there is darkness. John proceeded to show that Jesus is the source of spiritual life and light as well as physical life and light (cf. 5:26; 6:57; 8:12; 9:5; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; 17:3; 20:31). Metaphorically God's presence dispels the darkness of ignorance and sin by providing revelation and salvation (cf. Isa. 9:2). Jesus did this in the Incarnation.

1:5 As light shines (present tense for the first time) in the darkness, so Jesus brought the revelation and salvation of God to humanity in its fallen and lost condition. He did this in the Incarnation. As the word of God brought light to the chaos before Creation, so Jesus brought light to fallen mankind when He became a man.

Furthermore the light that Jesus brought was superior to the darkness that existed both physically and spiritually. The darkness did not overcome (Gr. katelaben, "lay hold of," cf. 6:17; 8:3-4; 12:35; Mark 9:18) and consume the light, but the light overcame the darkness. John did not view the world as a stage on which two equal and opposing forces battle; He was not a philosophical dualist. He viewed Jesus as superior to the forces of darkness that sought to overcome Him but could not. This gives humankind hope. The forces of light are stronger than the forces of darkness. John was here anticipating the outcome of the story that he would tell, specifically Calvary. Though darkness continues to prevail, the light can overcome it.

"The imagery of John, though limited to certain concepts and expressed in a fixed vocabulary, is integrated with the total theme of the Gospel. It expresses the conflict of good with evil, culminating in the incarnation and death of Christ, who brought light into darkness, and, though He suffered death, was not overcome by it."⁴⁰

Throughout these introductory verses John was clearly hinting at parallels between what Jesus did physically in Creation and what He did spiritually through the Incarnation. These parallels continue through the Gospel as do the figures of light and darkness. Light represents both revelation and salvation. Likewise darkness stands for ignorance and sin (3:19-20; 8:12; 12:35, 46).

Constable: Joh 1:6-8

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

John the Apostle introduced John the Baptist because John the Baptist bore witness to the light, namely Jesus. John the Baptist was both a model evangelist pointing those in darkness to the light and a model witness providing an excellent example for believers who would follow him. John the Baptist introduced the Light to a dark world. He inaugurated Jesus' ministry. Therefore mention of him was appropriate at the beginning of the Apostle John's account of Jesus' ministry.

1:6 In introducing John the Baptist the writer stressed that God had sent him. He was a prophet in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who bore witness to the light (Exod. 3:10-15; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:4; cf. John 3:17). He was a man in contrast to the Word who was God. The other Gospel writers described John with the words "the Baptist," but John the Evangelist did not. He probably called him simply John because this is the only John that the Apostle John mentioned by name in his Gospel. He always referred to himself obliquely either as the disciple whom Jesus loved or as the other disciple or in some other veiled way.

1:7 John the Baptist was the first of many witnesses to the light that John the Apostle identified in this Gospel (cf. 4:39; 5:32, 36-37, 39-40; 8:18; 10:25; 12:17; 15:26-27; 18:13-18, 37). The Apostle John frequently used courtroom terminology in his Gospel to stress the truthfulness of the witnesses to the Light. John the Baptist bore witness to the light of God's revelation but also to the person of the Light of the World (8:12). This Gospel stresses the function of John the Baptist as a witness to the light.⁴¹ The other Gospels also identified his origin and character in their introductions (Matt. 3; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 1:5-24, 57-80).

John the Baptist's ultimate purpose was eliciting belief in Jesus (cf. vv. 35-37). That was also John the Evangelist's purpose in writing this book (20:30-31). Consequently John the Baptist's witness is an important part of the argument of the fourth Gospel. It was not immediately apparent to everyone that Jesus was the Light. John needed to identify Him as such to them.

1:8 Perhaps the writer stressed the fact that John the Baptist was not the Light because some people continued to follow John as his disciples long after he died (cf. 4:1; Mark 6:29; Luke 5:33; Acts 18:25; 19:1-7).

"A Mandaean sect still continues south of Baghdad which, though hostile to Christianity, claims an ancestral link to the Baptist."⁴²

John the Baptist's function was clearly to testify that Jesus was the Light. He was not that Light himself.

The reason the writer referred to John the Baptist in his prologue seems obvious. As the Word came to bring light to humanity, so God sent John the Baptist to illuminate the identity of the Light to people.

Constable: Joh 1:9-13

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

The first section of the prologue (vv. 1-5) presents the preincarnate Word. The second section (vv. 6-8) identifies the forerunner of the Word's earthly ministry. This third section introduces the ministry of the Incarnate Word.

"Two points receive special emphasis: one is the astonishing fact that the Word of God, true God as he is, took upon him human nature, and the other is the even more astonishing fact that when he did this, people would have nothing to do with him."⁴³

1:9 There are two possible interpretations of this verse. One is that the true Light enlightens every person who comes into the world (Gr. masculine participle erchomenon, AV, and NASB and NIV margins). The other is that the true Light comes into the world and enlightens everyone (Gr. neuter participle erchomenon, NASB and NIV). The second option seems preferable since the Incarnation is so much in view in the context. The point is that Jesus as the Light affects everyone. Everyone lives under the spotlight of God's illuminating revelation in Jesus Christ since the Incarnation (cf. 1 John 1). His light clarifies the sinfulness and spiritual need of human beings. Those who respond to this convicting revelation positively experience salvation. Those who reject it and turn from the light will end up in outer darkness. They will experience eternal damnation.

The Quakers prefer the first of the two interpretations above. They use this verse to support their doctrine of the "inner light." They believe that God has placed some revelation in the heart of every person. A person can elicit that revelation by meditation. This is not general but special revelation. Their view is very close to the charismatic belief that God gives new revelation today. Non-charismatics see no basis in Scripture for this view. We believe that while God now illuminates the revelation that He has previously given He does not give new revelation now.

The word "true" is one that John used repeatedly in this Gospel. "True" (Gr. alethinon) here refers to what is the ultimate form of the genuine article, the real as opposed to the counterfeit. John did not mean that Jesus was "truthful" (Gr. alethes). Jesus was not only a genuine revelation from God, but He was also the ultimate revelation (cf. 4:23; 6:32; 15:1; 17:3).

John usually used the word "world" (Gr. kosmos) in a negative sense in this Gospel (cf. v. 10; 7:7; 14:17, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14). It does not refer to this planet as a planet but to the inhabited earth fallen in sin and in rebellion against God. It is a world darkened by sin.

1:10 Jesus entered the world that He had created in the Incarnation. Yet the world did not recognize Him for who He was because people's minds had become darkened by the Fall and sin (12:37). Even the Light of the World was incomprehensible to them (cf. Matt. 13:55). The Light shines on everyone even though most people do not see it.

John drew attention to the world by repeating this word three times. However the meaning shifts a bit from the world and all that is in it, in the first two occurrences of the word, to the people in the world who came in contact with Jesus, in the third occurrence.

"The world's characteristic reaction to the Word is one of indifference."⁴⁴

1:11 More seriously, when Jesus visited His own creation (Gr. idia, neuter), the creatures whom He had created (Gr. idioi, masculine) did not receive Him but rejected Him. The specific people whom Jesus visited in the Incarnation were the Jews. They were His own in a double sense. He had not only created them but also bought them for Himself out from the nations. Jesus had created the earth as a house, but when He visited it He found it inhabited by people who refused to acknowledge Him for who He was. In the Incarnation Jesus did not come as an alien; He came home.

1:12 The contrast with rejection is acceptance. Not everyone rejected Jesus when He came. Some accepted Him. To these He gave as a gift the authority (Gr. exousian) to become God's children (Gr. tekna). Receiving Jesus consists of believing in His name. Believing therefore equals receiving. "His name" summarizes all that He is. To believe in His name means to accept the revelation of who Jesus is that God has given. Because that revelation includes the fact that Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice in the place of sinners, belief involves reliance on Jesus for salvation rather than on self. It does not just mean believing facts intellectually. It involves volitional trust as well.

"In the gospel of John belief is viewed in terms of a relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with a decision to accept rather than reject who Jesus claims to be. This leads to a new relationship with God . . .

". . . in the Johannine writings . . . pisteuo ["believe"] with eis ["in" or "into"] refers to belief in a person."⁴⁵

In one sense all human beings are the children of God: we are His creatures. However the Bible speaks of the children of God primarily as those who are His spiritual children by faith in Jesus Christ. The new birth brings us into a new family with new relationships. Clearly John was referring to this family of believers since he wrote that believing in Jesus gives people the right to become God's children. The New Testament speaks of the believer as a child of God and as a son of God. Technically it describes us as children by birth, the new birth, and as sons by adoption. John consistently referred to believers only as children of God in his Gospel. He did not call us the sons of God. In this Gospel Jesus is the only son of God. "Children" draws attention to community of nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) whereas "sons" emphasizes rights and privileges.

When a person offers you a gift that has cost him or her much, it does not become yours until you receive it from that person. The beautifully wrapped package in the outstretched hand of the giver will do the receiver no good until he or she reaches out and takes it. Likewise reception of God's gracious gift of eternal life is necessary before a person can benefit from it. Receiving a gift from someone else does not constitute a meritorious act or good work, and the Bible never regards it as a work. It is simply a response to the work of another.

1:13 The antecedent of "who" is those who believe in Jesus' name (v. 12). Their new life as children of God comes from God. It does not come because of their blood, namely their physical ancestors. Many of the Jews believed that because they were Abraham's descendants they were the spiritual children of God (cf. ch. 8; Rom. 4; Gal. 3). Even today some people think that the faith or works of their ancestors somehow guarantees their salvation. However, God has no grandchildren.

New life does not come because of physical desire either. No amount of wanting it and striving for it will bring it. The only thing that will is belief in Jesus.

"The term flesh' (sarx) is not used by John to convey the idea of sinfulness, as it often does in Paul's writings. . . . Rather, it is indicative of weakness and humiliation as seen in 1:14. It simply affirms that in the Incarnation Jesus became fully human."⁴⁶

Third, new spiritual life does not come because of a human decision either, specifically the choice of a husband to produce a child. It comes as the result of a spiritual decision to trust in Jesus Christ. The Greek word for "man" here is andros meaning "male." The NIV interpreted it properly as "husband" here.

New spiritual life does not come from any of these sources but from God Himself. Ultimately it is the result of God's choice, not man's (cf. Eph. 1:4). Therefore the object of our faith must be God rather than our heritage or race, our works, or our own initiative.

This section of the prologue summarizes the theological issue involved in the Incarnation. It is in a sense a miniature of the whole Gospel.

Constable: Joh 1:14-18

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

John's return to the Word in verse 14 from verse 1 introduces new revelation about Him. Though still part of the prologue, the present section focuses on the Incarnation of the Word.

1:14 The Word, who existed equal with God before anything else came into being, became a human.⁴⁷ This is the most concise statement of the Incarnation. He did not just appear to be a man; He became one (cf. Phil. 2:5-9). Yet He maintained His full deity. The word "became" (Gr. egeneto) usually implies a complete change, but that was not true in Jesus' case. He did not cease to be God. Flesh in Scripture has a literal meaning, namely material human flesh, and a metaphorical meaning, human nature.⁴⁸ Here John used it in the metaphorical sense. God the Son assumed a human, though not sinful, nature.

"John does not say, the Word became man,' nor the Word took a body.' He chooses that form of expression which puts what he wants to say most bluntly. It seems probable that he was confronted by opponents of a docetic type, people who were ready to think of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God but who denied the reality of his humanity. They thought of him as only appearing to live a human life. Since God could not, on their premises, defile himself by real contact with humankind, the whole life of Jesus must be appearance only. John's strong term leaves no room for such fancies. He is clear on the deity of the Word. But he is just as clear on the genuineness of his humanity."⁴⁹

Jesus literally lived among His disciples. The Greek word eskenosen, translated "dwelt" or "lived," is related to skene, meaning tabernacle. As God's presence dwelt among the Israelites in the tabernacle, so it lived among them in the person of Jesus temporarily (cf. Exod. 25:8-9; 33:7, 11).⁵⁰ Solomon thought it incredible that God would dwell on the earth (1 Kings 8:27), but that is precisely what He did in Jesus.

For the first time, John equated the Word and Jesus, but this is the last reference to the Word in this Gospel. From now on, John referred to the Word by His historical name, Jesus, and to the personal terms "Father" and "Son."

"As the preexistent Son of God, he was the Creator of the world and the Executor of the will of the Father. As the incarnate Son of God, he exercised in his human existence these same powers and revealed effectively the person of the Father."⁵¹

The glory that John and the other disciples beheld as eyewitnesses refers to the god-like characteristics of Jesus (cf. Exod. 33:22; Deut. 5:22; Isa. 60:1; 1 John 1:1-2). God's character and qualities came through Jesus as a human son resembles his human father, except that the likeness in Jesus' case was exact (Phil. 2:6). The disciples saw Jesus' glory clearest at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:2-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). His relationship to the Father was unique, and so was His similarity to the Father. Jesus' relationship to God as His Son was unique (Gr. monogenous, cf. v. 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) even though we can become children of God (vv. 12-13). He is eternal and of the same essence as the Father. "Only begotten" does not mean that there was a time when Jesus was not, and then the Father brought Him into being.⁵²

Particularly grace and truth marked the glory of God that Jesus manifested. Grace in this context refers to graciousness (i.e., goodness, Heb. hesed), and truth means integrity (i.e., truthfulness, Heb. yemet, cf. v. 17). The Incarnation was the greatest possible expression of God's grace to humankind. It was also the best way to communicate truth accurately to human understanding. Nevertheless many people who encountered Jesus during His ministry failed to see these things (v. 10). Neither grace nor truth are knowable apart from God who has revealed them through Jesus Christ.⁵³

1:15 John the Baptist was another witness beside John the Apostle and the other disciples of Jesus who testified to Jesus' person.

"John the Baptist is one of six persons named in the Gospel of John who gave witness that Jesus Is God. The others are Nathanael (John 1:49), Peter (John 6:69), the blind man who was healed (John 9:35-38), Martha (John 11:27), and Thomas (John 20:28). If you add our Lord Himself (John 5:25; 10:36), then you have seven clear witnesses."⁵⁴

Even though John the Baptist was older and began his ministry before Jesus, He acknowledged Jesus' superiority to himself.

"In a society where age and precedence bestowed peculiar honour, that might have been taken by superficial observers to mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus."⁵⁵

Jesus' superiority rested in His preexistence with the Father and therefore His deity. John the Baptist's witness to Jesus' identity was important to the writer of this Gospel (cf. vv. 6-8, 19-36).

1:16 The glory of God that Jesus manifested was full of grace and truth (v. 14). From the fullness of that grace all people have received one expression of grace after another.

There are several possible interpretations of the phrase "grace upon grace" (NASB, Gr. charin anti charitos). The problem is the meaning of the preposition anti here. Some interpreters believe that John was saying grace follows grace as ocean wave follows wave washing believers with successive blessings.⁵⁶ The NIV "one blessing after another" effectively expresses this view, and the NASB "grace upon grace" implies it. Another translation that gives the same sense is "grace to meet every need that arises (see 2 Cor. xii. 9)."⁵⁷ It is true that God keeps pouring out His inexhaustible grace on the believer through Jesus Christ, but is this what John meant here?

A second view is that the Greek preposition anti means "instead of" here as it often does elsewhere.⁵⁸ According to this interpretation John meant that God's grace though Jesus Christ replaces the grace that He bestowed through Moses when He gave the law. Verse 17 seems to continue this thought and so supports this interpretation.

I wonder if John may have intended both ideas. He could have been thinking of God's grace in Jesus Christ superseding His grace through Moses and continuing to supply the Christian day by day. This interpretation recognizes John's mention of the fullness of God's grace as well as the contrast in verse 17.

Another less acceptable view is that anti means "corresponds to."⁵⁹ The grace we receive corresponds in some way to the grace Jesus receives from the Father. However, anti rarely has this meaning by itself, though it does occasionally when it combines with other nouns. Furthermore this interpretation offers no connection with verse 17.

A fourth view, also inadequate from my viewpoint, is that anti means "in return for."⁶⁰ Yet the idea of God giving us grace in return for grace that we give to him is foreign to the New Testament.

1:17 Whereas Moses was the individual through whom God gave His law to His people, Jesus Christ is the one through whom He has manifested abundant grace and truth.⁶¹ This statement shows the superiority of the gracious dispensation that Jesus introduced over the legal dispensation that Moses inaugurated (cf. Rom. 5:20-21; Eph. 2:8). The legal age contained grace, and the gracious age contains laws.⁶² John was contrasting their dominant characteristics. Law expresses God's standards, but grace provides help so we can do His will.⁶³

"What God showed Himself to be through His revelation in the Torah, so now Jesus shows Himself to be through the Incarnation. And what was the Torah? It was not handcuffs, but Yahweh's pointed finger, graciously marking out to the redeemed the path of life and fellowship with Him [cf. Deut. 6:1-3]. The point of John 1:17 is not Then bad, now good'; the point is rather, Then, wonderful! And now, better than ever!'"⁶⁴

This verse clearly contrasts the two dispensations in view. Even non-dispensationalists acknowledge this and admit that they recognize two different economies, the Old Testament legal economy and the New Testament gracious economy. They are more dispensational than they are willing to admit.

1:18 There are many passages of Scripture that record various individuals seeing God (e.g., Exod. 33:21-23; Isa. 6:1-5; Rev. 1:10-18). Those instances involved visions, theophanies, or anthropomorphic representations of God rather than encounters with His unveiled spiritual essence (cf. Exod. 33:20; Deut. 4:12; Ps. 97:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 1 John 4:12). The way we know what God is like is not by viewing His essence. No one can do that and live. God has sent His unique and only Son (monogenous, cf. v. 14) from His own most intimate presence to reveal God to humankind.

"In the bosom of is a Hebrew idiom expressing the intimate relationship of child and parent, and of friend and friend (cf. xiii. 23)."⁶⁵

In the system that Moses inaugurated, no one could "see" God, but Jesus has revealed Him now to everyone. Note also that John called Jesus God here again.⁶⁶

Jesus "explained" (NASB) God in the sense of revealing Him. The Greek word is exegesato from which we get "exegete." The Son has exegeted (i.e., explained, interpreted, or narrated) the Father to humankind. The reference to Jesus being in the bosom of the Father softens and brings affection to the idea of Jesus exegeting the Father. The nature of God is in view here, not His external appearance.

"God is invisible, not because he is unreal, but because physical eyes are incapable of detecting him. The infrared and ultraviolet rays of the light spectrum are invisible because the human eye is not sensitive enough to register them. However, photographic plates or a spectroscope can make them visible to us. Deity as a being is consequently known only through spiritual means that are able to receive its (his) communications."⁶⁷

John ended his prologue as he began it, with a reference to Jesus' deity. He began by saying the Word was with God (v. 1), and he concluded by saying that He was at the Father's side. This indicates the intimate fellowship, love, and knowledge that the Father and the Son shared. It also gives us confidence that the revelation of the Father that Jesus revealed is accurate. John's main point in this prologue was that Jesus is the ultimate revealer of God.

". . . John in his use of Logos is cutting clean across one of the fundamental Greek ideas. The Greeks thought of the gods as detached from the world, as regarding its struggles and heartaches and joys and fears with serene divine lack of feeling. John's idea of the Logos conveys exactly the opposite idea. John's Logos does not show us a God who is serenely detached, but a God who is passionately involved."⁶⁸

Later John described himself as reclining on Jesus' bosom (cf. 13:23). His Gospel is an accurate revelation of the Word because John enjoyed intimate fellowship with Him just as Jesus was an accurate revelation of God that came from intimate relationship with Him.

Constable: Joh 1:19--13:1

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19--12:50

The first part of the body of John's Gospel records Jesus' public ministry to the multitudes in Palestine who were primarily Jewish. Some writers have called this section of the Gospel "the book of signs" because it features seven miracles that signify various things about Jesus.

"Signs are miraculous works performed or mentioned to illustrate spiritual principles."⁶⁹

Often John recorded a lengthy discourse that followed the miracle, in which Jesus explained its significance to the crowds. This section also contains two extended conversations that Jesus had with two individuals (chs. 3 and 4).

"The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the Baptist. The next day' we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 . . . It tells of Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the In the beginning' that opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity."⁷⁰

Constable: Joh 1:19-51

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

The rest of the first chapter continues the introductory spirit of the prologue. It records two events in John the Baptist's ministry and the choice of some men to follow Jesus.

Constable: Joh 1:19-28

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

The writer recorded John the Baptist's witness to Jesus' identity as preparation for his narration of Jesus' public ministry. He was the first of the Apostle John's witnesses to the Incarnation.

Previously the writer had mentioned that God had sent John the Baptist to bear witness concerning the light (vv. 6-8). He also mentioned what John had said about Jesus, namely that Jesus had a higher rank than he did (v. 15). Now the evangelist explained John the Baptist's witness in more detail.

1:19 This verse explains the context in which John the Baptist explained his own identity in relation to Jesus. As the Synoptics reveal, John's ministry was so influential that the Jewish religious authorities investigated him (Matt. 3:5-6). The Sanhedrin probably sent the delegation of priests and Levites. The priests were descendants of Aaron who took the leadership in matters of theological and practical orthodoxy including ritual purity. The Levites descended from Levi, one of Aaron's ancestors, and assisted the priests in their ministry mainly in the areas of temple music and security.⁷¹

"The Jews" is a term that John used 71 times, in contrast to the other evangelists who used it rarely. Usually in John it refers to Jewish people who were hostile to Jesus, though occasionally it occurs in a neutral sense (e.g., 2:6) or in a good sense (e.g., 4:22). Most often, however, it refers to the Jews of Judea, especially those in and around Jerusalem, who constituted the organized and established religious world apart from faith in Jesus. Consequently it usually carries overtones of hostility to Jesus.⁷²

1:20 The writer stressed that John vigorously repudiated any suggestion that he might be the Messiah. "Christ" (Gr. Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Anointed One." John's ministry consisted of pointing the Messiah out to others so they would follow Him. Therefore it would have been counterproductive to allow anyone to confuse him with the Messiah.

1:21 The leaders asked John if he was Elijah because messianic expectation was high then due to Daniel's prediction that dated the appearance of Messiah then (Dan. 9:25). Malachi had predicted that Elijah would return to herald the day of the Lord that Messiah would inaugurate (Mal. 4:5-6). When John the Baptist denied being Elijah, he was denying being Elijah himself. His dress, diet, lifestyle, and ministry, however, were very similar to Elijah's.

The prophet whom the leaders had in mind when they asked their third question was the prophet that Moses had predicted would come (Deut. 18:15-18).⁷³ He would bring new revelation from God and might lead them in a new Exodus and overcome their oppressors. They incorrectly failed to identify this prophet with Messiah (cf. 7:40-41).⁷⁴ John the Baptist claimed that he was not that long-expected prophet either.

1:22-23 In response to the leaders' question, John the Baptist claimed to be a prophet who was preparing the way for the Lord's coming. He quoted Isaiah 40:3, which is part of a messianic prophecy (cf. Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). In that prophecy Isaiah predicted the manifestation of God's glory when Messiah appeared (Isa. 40:5; cf. John 1:14). Significantly John did not claim to be the Word but only a voice.

1:24 The NASB translators understood this verse to be parenthetical describing the authorities who had sent the delegation that had been questioning John. The NIV translators interpreted it as identifying some of John's questioners. Probably the NIV is correct here. It would be unusual for the writer to interrupt the narrative flow with this relatively insignificant detail, but for him to identify some of John's examiners as Pharisees makes sense. The Pharisees were the strict interpreters of the Jewish laws, and John seemed close to violating these.

1:25 Their question implied that it was inappropriate for John to baptize. The Jews practiced baptism for ritual cleansing, but in all cases the baptismal candidates baptized themselves.⁷⁵ There was no precedent for John baptizing other people, and the Jews did not regard themselves as needing to repent. This was something Gentiles needed to do when they converted to Judaism.⁷⁶ Moreover since he was not one of the prophesied eschatological figures he appeared to them to lack authority to do what he did.

1:26-27 John replied by implying that his authority to baptize as he did came from an authoritative figure who was present but who was yet unknown. John did not identify Him then. This would have exposed Jesus to the scrutiny of Israel's leadership prematurely. John only realized that Jesus was the Messiah after he said these words (cf. v. 31). John simply referred to this One and implied that he baptized in water under divine authority. He stressed the great authority of Jesus by saying he was unworthy to do even menial service for Him. Thus John bore witness to Jesus even before he identified Him as the Messiah.

"To get the full impact of this we must bear in mind that disciples did do many services for their teachers. Teachers in ancient Palestine were not paid (it would be a terrible thing to ask for money for teaching Scripture!). But in partial compensation disciples were in the habit of performing small services for their rabbis instead. But they had to draw the line somewhere, and menial tasks like loosing the sandal thong came under this heading. There is a rabbinic saying (in its present form dating from c. A.D. 250, but probably much older): Every service which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong.' John selects the very task that the rabbinic saying stresses as too menial for any disciple, and declares himself unworthy to perform it."⁷⁷

1:28 The site of Jesus' ministry was primarily west of the Jordan River. "Beyond the Jordan" then evidently refers to the east side of that river. The Bethany in view then would be a town different from the site of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus' home (11:1), which was on the west side just east of Jerusalem. Perhaps John mentioned Bethany by name because its site was known when he wrote. It is unknown now. It may be significant that John recorded Jesus' public ministry beginning at one Bethany and almost ending at the other (12:1-11). "Bethany" means "house of depression or misery."⁷⁸

John the Baptist fulfilled his mission of bearing witness to the Word first by publicly declaring his submission to Jesus' authority. The veiled identity of Jesus as the Word continues from the prologue into this pericope.

College: Joh 1:1-51

JOHN 1

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF (HIS GLORY)

TO THE WORLD (1:1-12:50)

A. THE PROLOGUE (1:1-18)

For an inscription or title manuscripts a and B read " According to John" ; older manuscripts ( ^66,75 ) read " (The) Gospel according to John." The former may be more primitive here and the likely original title of the book.

1. The Logos before Time (1:1-4)

His Relationship to Deity (1:1-2)

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning.

1:1. The words " In the beginning" echo Genesis 1:1, especially to Jewish Christians; however, these words in John 1:1 do not refer to the act of creating but to the one who existed and who was present when creation took place, that is, the Word. One might expect to read " In the beginning . . . God," but instead is surprised to read In the beginning was the Word, and this title is more fitting here than the titles " the Christ," " the Son of Man," " the Son of God," etc. John's prologue seems specially composed to introduce and to summarize the person and work of Jesus who is the Christian gospel. It is possible also that the words " In the beginning" are meant to recall the opening of the Gospel according to Mark. Each of the four evangelists opens his Gospel by pushing the activity of Jesus back to the beginning (ajrchv, archç): Mark to the ministry of John with its baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and God's acknowledgment of Jesus' sonship; Matthew and Luke to the virginal conception and birth of Jesus; and John to the creation and to the time before it. John may refer to the opening events recorded by Mark (see 1:6-8,13) and by Matthew and Luke (1:13); his opening is surely a stunning one, for the writer begins with God in eternity. Not many books so begin!

The background to the title " Word" is claimed by the scholarly world to be varied and diverse. (1) Some students have seen the ideas that John associated with the term " Word" as deriving from Grecian philosophy, specifically from Heraclitus and the Stoics; i.e., both Heraclitus and the Stoics described the Word as the omnipresent force used by God to create the world. Philo, a Jewish philosopher and Old Testament commentator, followed the Greeks, which meant that none of these people conceived the Word as a genuinely personal being but mostly as an impersonal force much like gravitation or the fusion of catenae (chains of atoms). (2) Others derived the meaning of " Word" from (a) the Old Testament (Prov 7:22-8:1, where God's wisdom attended the world's creation; but again, wisdom was here less personal and more of an impersonal force) and/or (b) from extracanonical Jewish literature (e.g., Wisdom 24). (3) More than likely the term " Word" derived from Jesus and his preaching and ministering . He preached the Word with his mouth, enacted the Word with his actions, and embodied the Word with his birth and person. In the New Testament the gospel of Jesus is often referred to as " the Word of God." The title for Jesus, " the Word," may, therefore, derive entirely from the Christians, and from neither the pagans nor the Jews, though some students contend that the emphases of both paganism and the Old Testament cling here to the term " Word."

The following may have been the meaning (and reason for the usage) of the title Word as applied to Jesus: (1) Jesus was the major revelation of God's will to humankind, and revelation usually takes the form of words. This explanation has to do primarily with God's relationships to human beings which are described in 1:3ff, not with relationships within the deity himself. John, however, never used the terms ajpokaluvptw (apokalyptô) and ajpokavluyi" ( apokalypsis ), but instead employed such words as levgw (legô, " I say" ), lalevw (laleô, " I speak" ), and fanerovw (phaneroô, " I manifest" ). (2) Jesus not only spoke God's word or message to humankind, but he is God's word or message. There may be a further truth concealed in the use of Logos as the title for Jesus in John 1:1ff; it is simply this: (3) as any word is intimately bound to its idea (or vice versa), so that one cannot have a word without its accompanying idea (in speech or in writing), so close are the Father and Jesus the Son - to have one is to have the other. This observation may help to understand such difficult verses as 10:30; 14:9, 28; etc.

The title " Word" for Jesus has been compared to the relation of the term " name (shçm) of God" in the Old Testament, in which the name of God sometimes stands alongside of God as a separate power, and yet in fact is not anything separate. It describes God in so far as he acts, and especially as he reveals himself (Exod 23:21; Isa 30:27; Ps 8:2,10; 20:2; etc.).

[A]nd the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ProÉ" toÉn qeovn ( pros ton theon , " with God" ) can mean " in the presence of God" (cf. Mark 6:3), or in " fellowship with God." In the phrase " the Word was God," qevo" ( theos ), without the article, is predicative; that is, theos is somewhat like a predicative adjective. One should not, however, translate theos as " divine," nor should one translate it as " the God" (with the definite article) as though Jesus were the only being of whom this could be asserted. " The Word was God" (or deity) is the best way to render the short sentence. The words " with God" describe the nature and environment of the Word in eternity prior to his coming to earth. The verse also says that Jesus, who was the one in whom the Word came to earth, was not a mere man (and Jesus' mission was not performed by a mere human being), but was the Word of God who was God. These opening words of the Fourth Gospel ground things aright from the very beginning. The story that is to follow in this book centers on one who is a human being, but who also is God himself. There are no polytheistic notions nor concepts of imagination in this text; thus, John warns the reader that the words and works ascribed to Jesus in this book are the words and works of God himself.

1:2. In 1:2 John reaffirms what he has already said of Jesus in verse 1, as ou|to" ( houtos , " this one" ) shows.

His Relationship to the World (1:3-4)

³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

1:3. In 1:3, the Word is described as the agent (di= aujtou', di ' autou , " through him" ) of all creation, and the description is stated both positively ( all things ) and negatively (" nothing without him" ). This creating definitely makes the Word deity, because who or what else can make a universe except God? " All things" (pavnta, panta ) means the universe (oJ kovsmo", ho kosmos , cf. 1:10). Note that the Word was appears four times in verses one and two, the imperfect of duration, but 1:3 ejgevneto ( egeneto , a second person aorist form) connotes " came into being" as over against the Word who, on his divine side, did not begin, evolve, or maturate.

The Hellenistic Greeks, especially the Stoics, called the universe (taÉ) pavnta ([ ta ] panta ) or toÉ pa'n ( to pan , " all" ), e.g., Heraclitus: ejk pavntwn e}n kaiÉ ejx eJnoÉ" pavnta (ek pantôn hen kai ex henos panta), " out of all things (is) one and out of one (are) all things." The Jews likewise used the same expression to refer to the world or universe.

Some Christian students understand the words " all things" to refer to the world of human beings, while most take the words to refer to the creation in its entirety and not simply to mankind.

Though the Gnostics made early use of the Fourth Gospel, these words in the first half of 1:3 eliminate the possibility of the author's being a Gnostic. According to Gnostics, the created world could not have come into being by God or by the Logos. Verse 3, however, bluntly declares that everything in creation, which must include all forms of matter, came into being by the direct agency of the Word (di= aujtou' ejgevneto, di ' autou egeneto ).

Since punctuation is not used in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the place of the period at the close of 1:3 has been debated: should o} gevgonen ( ho gegonen ) be joined to the preceding or succeeding words; that is, should the text read " . . . nothing was made that has been made" (so NIV) or " That which has been made in him was life" ? The former reading seems more Johannine.

1:4. The two words ejn aujtw'/ (en autô, " in him" ) remind the reader of Paul's much used formula " in Christ." In him was life and that life was the light of men. Life and light are two of the most frequent terms in this Gospel. The terms had a long and broad background. Both words are used in (1) the Old Testament of creation and salvation (Gen 1). God supplies life (Ezek 37:1-14; Dan 12:2) and also light (Ps 119:130; cf. Ps 36:10). Torah, for the Jews, became the source of life (cf. Aboth 2:7, " The more study of the law the more life" ) and light (see Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:3 " . . . as oil is light for the world, so also words of Torah are light for the world" ). Life and light were terms also extensively used in (2) Hellenism . Gnosticism, whether pagan, Jewish, or heretical-Christian, used the same two words repeatedly, though extant Gnostic literature is probably post-Christian. The same was true of these terms in Zoroastrianism and other pagan religious thought. (3) More important for John is the Christian background of life and light: Jesus' works and words showed him to be the life and light of his followers (cf. Matt 5:14; Mark 4:21-22; Luke 17:24). That Jesus was the life of human beings meant that he was and is the basic energy that makes possible the entire world, not only the existence and activity of human individuals. He is the light of the world in that he reveals such life which is inherent in God (5:26) and can be shared by God with humankind, in spite of the prevalence of death and darkness in this world. The Word's life made the world and the human race possible; the Word's light will make that life (not sin and death) dominant in the world and its race. In other words, " In him was life" meant that life was inherent in Jesus so that he could make the physical world and its habitants, and " the life was the light of man" meant that he was the revealer of this truth to humankind. Both statements meant also, in the light of the rest of this Gospel, that Jesus came to make a new creation (the church), and to reveal this new order to the human race.

How was Jesus' life the light of human beings? It was light in that he supplied the standards or patterns, principles, power, and purpose by which the human race might live; otherwise, the race would perish - and this perishing includes both Jews and Gentiles. He showed humanity how to live, die, and live again; nobody else could do this. We live in and by his life. (Cf. Rom 6:4; Phil 1:20-21; Col 2:20-3:4. Note Col 3:4, " Christ our life." ) The power supplied by his life and the selfless ethical examples supplied by his living seem to be alluded to here. " Jesus' light" shines in the physical world, (human intellect and understanding), in the spirit world (the church), and in the eschatological or heavenly world (heaven).

2. The Logos Manifested in History (1:5-18)

John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos (1:5-13)

⁵ The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood ^a it.

⁶ There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. ⁷ He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. ⁸ He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. ⁹ The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. ^b

¹⁰ He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹ He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹² Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - ¹³ children born not of natural descent, ^c nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

^a 5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome ^b 9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world ^c 13 Greek of bloods

1:5. The light shines in the darkness of an ignorant and sinning race. The verb " shines" (favinei, phainei ) is present active indicative which means (1) that it is the nature of light to continue to shine, or (2) that Jesus' light continues to shine or goes on shining - probably as over against numerous efforts to extinguish it, as the rest of the verse may imply. " The darkness did not katevlaben ( katelaben )." The Greek word may mean either (1) grasp/understand or (2) conquer/suppress . Some have suggested that perhaps John intended to include both meanings here and have proposed that some such translations as " master" might suggest this. Verses 10-12 seem to suggest that receiving or rejecting the truth that Jesus made manifest in this world is what the verb means.

1:6. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. History within earthly time is now reached with John the Baptist. He was sent from God (ajpestalmevno", apestalmenos ), his message was repentance, and his action was immersion in water, so that his audience could publicly certify their repentance.

1:7. John's real purpose was not (1) to save the world (he never died or rose for anyone), nor (2) to seek recognition as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy (he acknowledged that he was not the Messiah), nor (3) to found the Kingdom and/or the church (he was not even a part of or in the kingdom/church [Matt. 11:11]). John's purpose was (4) to testify or to bear witness to the Light, who was Jesus.

Witness bearing or testifying in the New Testament is of supreme importance. One bears testimony to facts. The noun " testimony" or " witness" and the verb " to testify" or " to bear witness to" are courtroom terms - in paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. One bears witness to the truth of what one has seen and/or heard - to the facts as facts. This testimony is preserved to this day - usually in writing in books. John's testimony to Jesus as the Light was preserved in a book, our present Gospel according to John. Testimony is preserved that people may believe the facts which are being testified to - that through him all men might believe. These words refer to John, because people do not believe through Jesus but in Jesus.

1:8. Verse 8 continues with the purpose for the Testimony: in order that (i{na, hina ) all might believe what they have heard or read. There are two purpose clauses here in verses 7 and 8 and the second is dependent on the former. John came in order that he might testify to the Light, and that testimony is produced in order that all persons might believe. Here in verse 8 is the Bible's clear statement of what faith is: faith is the acceptance of testimony (recorded in the Scriptures) to Jesus the Light - the Messiah, the Son of God. That is why the Fourth Gospel is so full of testimony and testifying to Christ - by the Baptist (1:7-13,15,32-34; 3:26; 5:33), by the woman of Samaria (4:39), by Jesus' works (5:36; 10:25), by the Old Testament (5:39), by the crowds of people (12:17), by the Father (5:37; 8:18), by Jesus himself (8:18), by the Holy Spirit (15:26) and by the apostles (15:27).

" Faith" has been defined as " the acceptance of testimony" ; such a definition certainly fits the four Gospels, and especially the Fourth Gospel. If one accepts the data in any biblical book, then one believes; but if one rejects or refuses to accept the data, one disbelieves. What John's book seeks to realize in each of its readers is one's acceptance of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, so that one might have everlasting life as a result (20:31). John the Baptist's testimony was both negative and positive: he was not the Light but merely bore witness to the Light; that is, he told people that Jesus is the Christ. John, therefore, by means of testimony evoked their acceptance or belief in Jesus as Messiah.

1:9. In the expression was coming into the world (ejrcovmenon eij" toÉn kovsmon, erchomenon eis ton kosmon ), erchomenon may be (1) nominative , neuter, singular, agreeing with fw'" (phôs), or (2) accusative , masculine, singular, agreeing with a[nqrwpon (anthrôpon). Number (2) contains a formula that is used in Hebrew for " every person." The line may be read " gives light to every person who comes into the world" (so KJV). Number (1) may be translated " the true light . . . was coming into the world." Number (1) seems to be the intended sense, and thus refers to the incarnation. Reasons for so thinking are as follows: (a) Number (1) has an imperfect periphrastic participle: " the light was coming," which is in harmony with Johannine literary style; and, (b) number (1), further, agrees with 12:46, which says, ejgwÉ fw'" eij" toÉn kovsmon ejlhvluqa (egô phôs eis ton kosmon elçlytha, " I have come into the world as a light" ) (NIV). Number (1), therefore, seems preferable: the " coming" refers to Jesus' incarnation and not to each person's natural birth. C.H. Dodd sought to hold both positions together: light came when Jesus came, but light (ultimately from Jesus) came also when each person came into the world.

Kovsmo" ( kosmos ) appears here for the first time in this Gospel. The term means in this context the physical creation or universe.

1:10. The same word kosmos appears in this verse three times. In John kosmos rarely means simply the physical world or the totality of creation (exceptions are 11:9; 17:5,24; 21:25) (so 10a) and often means the world inhabited by and including human beings and human affairs (so 10b). Sometimes it means simply humanity, as here in 10c.

Though the Logos made the inhabitants of the world, none of them recognized or accepted (believed) him when he made his appearance among his creatures, though they should have known him (Rom 1:18-21; Acts 10:16-17). John uses ginwvskein (ginôskein) here; sometimes he uses ejidevnai ( eidenai ) synonymously with ginôskein.

1:11. In the phrase He came to that which was his own , " his own" (taÉ i[dia, ta idia ) is literally " his own things" or possessions/ property, his own home. What constituted ta idia ? (1) Possibly Israel, or (2) human beings (not those confined to Israel). The NIV seems to understand the plural idia as a singular collective noun (nation, race, etc.).

1:12. Notice that in this verse believing and receiving are equated: Who received him . . . who believed in his name. This may help solve the dilemma created by the doctrine which asserts that nothing but faith saves, which is understood to mean that Christ is received by faith alone; however, repentance from sin, confession of Jesus as Messiah, and baptism into Christ are also, in the New Testament, related to salvation for every person. These are the means of one's receiving Christ or of one's being saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 10:10; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21). The broader or more inclusive term is " receive," yet in John 1:12 the word is equated with " believe." This would imply that " believe" can be used to embrace more than simple " believing" ; " believe" may also include the entire process that is called " conversion." This would still preserve the doctrine that one is saved by divine grace or mercy rather than human merits. Many theologians have yet to wrestle seriously with this problem posed by the biblical and traditional views of conversion and salvation.

For those who receive and believe he gave the right to become children of God. Note that becoming children of God is not a human but a divine arrangement. Note also that if one tries to extend the concept (of becoming a child of God) to human infants (as is often attempted), becoming a child of God involves actions that an infant cannot perform, and that these words were intended to be applied to adults, not to babies. By receiving Christ, through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, one attains the right (ejxousiva, exousia ) to become a child of God.

1:13. Verse thirteen contrasts birth from God with human begetting and birth (cf. 3:3,5). " Not of bloods" - the Greek is plural and probably is due to (1) the common use of damim ) in the plural in Hebrew, and also to (2) the blood of the two parents who beget and bear. The NIV translates children born not of natural descent. The clause could refer to one's godly ancestors (e.g., Abraham) who cannot confer divine sonship on human beings. OujdeÉ ejk qelhvmato" sarkov" ( oude ek thelçmatos sarkos) is translated (by NIV) nor of human decision ; oujdeÉ ejk qelhvmato" ajndrov" (oude ek thelçmatos andros) is rendered nor of a husband's will, and may refer to the initiative in sexual relations usually ascribed to the husband. In short, the children of God are those who have not been begotten " of bloods."

Several textual scribes and theologians have sought to change the opening word of verse 13, oi{ ( hoi , " who," a plural form) into a singular (o{", hos ), " [he] who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." They thus make the verse apply to Jesus and, ultimately, to his virgin birth. This would be a tremendously important allusion in the Fourth Gospel to a very important doctrine (which is not elsewhere clearly referred to in the Gospel), and a number of learned commentators adopt the singular reading. The fact, however, that all the Greek manuscripts, as well as nearly all of the versions and patristic citations of the verse, read the plural calls for caution. (The ancient witnesses for the singular are mostly Latin). The singular hos may also have been influenced by the singular number of the immediately preceding aujtou' ( autou ), " of him ."

The Logos in Flesh (1:14-18)

¹⁴ The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, ^a who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

¹⁵ John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, " This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" ¹⁶ From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, ^a,b who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

^a 14,18 Or the Only Begotten ^b 18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten ) Son

1:14. This is one of the most profound and meaningful verses in the Bible: the Logos who was God became flesh (a human being) and " lived for a while" among us (so the 1978 edition NIV), so that people could see his glory , glory of the only son of God. Jesus is therefore God and God's highest revelation, not merely in spoken words or writings, but in his human person and actions. The verse does not say merely that God took up residence in Jesus in a manner or degree not realized in anyone else. Rather, the verse says that God turned into a human, masculine being who was made of plain human flesh and resided for a while among plain human beings. In fact, it was through the flesh of the human Jesus that God's glory and truth would be revealed in the fullest way. The truth of this verse concerning Jesus is startling and exciting. Once this is grasped, a reader can never be the same again, because the impact of the incarnation of Jesus upon us changes all of our thoughts, philosophy, life, and influence. The rest of this Gospel shows what this verse means.

The Word became . . . (ejgevneto, egeneto ) is a more graphic statement than 1 Tim 3:16: 'O" ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv (hos ephanerôthç en sarki), " who was manifested in the flesh." When used with a noun in the predicative position, the verb givnomai ( ginomai , " to become" ) signifies that something changed its features or began a new situation by becoming what it was not beforehand.

" The word . . . made his dwelling among us." The Greek verb made his dwelling (skhnovw, skçnoô) means " to live in a tent," " to take up one's residence." Some take the verb to be an echo of the Hebrew /kv ( shakan ) meaning " to dwell," and a noun derived from this Hebrew root (hnykv, shekinah ) meaning " presence," which sounds a bit like the Greek " tent" (skhnhv, skçnç), and so in John 1:14 the verb points to the Word's incarnation. The Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), however, did not usually translate /kv by skçnoô, but this does not prove that John could not have made the association for himself.

From the statement We have seen (ejqeasovmeqa, etheasometha ), it should be concluded that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. Many modern exegetes discount such a view, but they certainly are unable to demonstrate that it cannot be so understood. Who is the " us" and the " we" of 1:14? Are they (1) Humanity; (2) John and the prophets; (3) or most likely, the apostle John and the early Christians?

The author also says We beheld his glory (dovxan, doxan ). Like his holiness God's glory may be defined as (1) " the sum of all God's attributes." (2) In classical and Hellenistic Greek doxa normally meant (a) opinion or (b) honor. It came to mean (3) dynamis or might. The term in the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature is (4) dobK ( kavod ), which came to be associated with " lights." In the Septuagint, the New Testament, and Hellenistic literature the word can refer to (5) an epiphany or manifestation of the Godhead .

Doxa here seems to point to Jesus' greatness, (as seen, for example, in his miracles), which lies not only in his deity, wisdom, and power, but all through this Gospel to his humiliating death by crucifixion and to his resurrection from the dead. His " glory" is thus seen in his dying and rising; in these acts the " perfection" of the incarnate Logos is witnessed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Gospel according to John is, then, a book of testimony to Jesus' glory (cf. 20:30-31a; 21:24). Jesus' glory is seen , not primarily in his attributes (even " grace and truth" ), but in his actions, or works as John calls them, especially in his culminating works of dying and rising. For John, Christ's highest moment of glory is his crucifixion (and rising again). At first, it is indeed difficult to see that a bloodletting death of a criminal on a cross could have anything at all to do with " glory," but this book will go on to show how this very horror became the occasion of revealing the divine " glory."

The words The glory of the one and only Son translate dovxan wJ" monogenou'" paraÉ patrov" (doxan hôs monogenous para patros). Monogenou'" ( monogenous ) means " only one of its category" - movno" " only" and gevno" " race," " kind," and when used in relation to the " father" it means " only begotten son." Bultmann cites instances of the term's being applied to pagan divinities with the meaning " begotten by one alone," that is, by one father without the aid of a mother (as in the case of Athena who sprang fully grown from the brain of Zeus), but the LXX's translation of dyjy ( yahid ) as monogenhv" (monogençs) favors " only son," not " only father" (or mother), or as Bultmann translates: " unique." Jesus is for the first time called " Son" here.

" Full of grace and truth." " Grace" is not a favorite term in the Fourth Gospel - in fact, it appears only in 1:14, 16, and 17 - though its threefold appearance here shows the importance of the term for the author. Grace is God's undeserved favor. The term " truth" is a real Johannine term. Sometimes " truth" retains (1) its ordinary Greek meaning: that which pertains to fact and so is not false. The Greek ajlhvqeia, " truth," derives from a- , " not," and lanthanô, " to be hidden;" hence " truth" (for the Greek) was " that which is not hidden," or " what is made manifest." This applies to what is " uncovered" by human science as well as by divine revelation. (2) The Hebrew for " truth," tma, emeth (from amath , " to be solid or stable" ) applies more to personal relationships, and its opposite was " to break the tie between two or more persons." These two emphases in truth flow together in Jesus in John's Gospel. It was suggested by Hoskyns that cavri" ( charis ) referred to Jesus' miracles, while ajlhvqeia (alçtheia) referred to his teachings, but some students have thought this an impossible idea.

1:15. The words This was he of whom I spoke are awkward in Greek (ou|to" h o}n eipon, houtos çn hon eipon), and as one would expect, several attempts were made by copyists through the earlier centuries to smooth out the text.

Notice that John the Baptist's words still witnessed to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. These words in 1:15 also refer to 1:30.

He who comes after me has surpassed me, because he was before me. Jesus was before John (1) in chronology and (2) in significance. John the Baptist had preached about Jesus before Jesus appeared to begin his ministry. John was by six months Jesus' chronological antecedent; Jesus, however, as Logos, existed long before John and also surpassed John in nature, mission, rank, and importance. Jesus, as the Word, existed from eternity, while John was simply a human prophet whose identity would probably have been extinguished and would have remained unknown to posterity except for the renown of Jesus. The expression " before me" (prw'tov" mou, prôtos mou ) refers to Jesus' preexistence (as the Logos). (On John's understanding of Jesus' preexistence see 1:30; 6:62; 8:58; 17:5,24.) John's testimony (1) affirms the truth of the incarnation in 1:14 and also (2) rejects any attempt by John or his followers to assert that John was greater than the Messiah due to (1) John's appearing first in history, and (2) John's baptizing Jesus. There were later Baptist sects in the early history of the church who held just such positions.

1:16. The words in verses 16-18 are sometimes ascribed to the writer of the Gospel, while others trace them to the Baptist. The Greek begins, " From his fulness we all have received." Jesus was full of grace and truth (1:14) (and all the other features of deity). We here surely means Christians, who by union with Christ, receive many of his qualities, especially grace (cf. Phil 1:9-11; 1 Cor 1:30).

The words one blessing after another (cavri" ajntiÉ cavrito", charis anti charitos ). have stimulated a mass of interpretations, some of which are: (1) the grace of Jesus takes the place of an earlier Old Testament grace (ajntiv often means " instead of;" so Chrysostom, but 1:17 says that law, not grace, came through Moses); (2) the phrase describes grace as inexhaustible, in that fresh grace replaces grace that is used up or consumed and will go on doing so perpetually; (3) behind the Greek lies an Aramaic wordplay that eluded the translator: hisda (grace) instead of hisuda or hisda (shame), that is, " shame" (the law) came through Moses, but grace and truth come through Jesus Christ. To this last interpretation it may be objected that (a) an Aramaic prologue remains unproven, and (b) so does a translation error, and further, (c) the Old Testament is never referred to by John as a matter of shame. Number (2) above makes good sense.

1:17. For the law was given (ejdovqh, edothç). The law was not of human origin, though much of it can be paralleled in human/ pagan law codes of the old civilizations of the Near East and Greece and Rome. Such laws, however, as reveal and pertain to Monotheism are largely absent from pagan law collections, though note the law of Hammurabi as a gift of the deity and the view of some Greeks that presupposed one, single God as creator and sustainer of the universe. These, however, were the decidedly minority views of most ancient peoples.

Note that the law was given from God to Moses by angels on Mt. Sinai (Heb. 2:2) and that the law is set in contrast to grace very early in this Gospel; that is, the heart of the Old Testament is seen as less than the New Testament early on in John. Indeed, law and grace or law and gospel are here sharply contrasted. Through Jesus came God's grace and truth (see Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3). This verse excludes Judaism, mystery religions, Gnosticism and all other false " isms" (old and new) as means of salvation.

The law of Moses was intended to bear witness to Jesus (John 5:39), but Moses was more often an accuser (5:45). Note that Jesus is here called Jesus Christ.

1:18. The phrase No one has ever seen God shows that just as invisibility is a basic feature of God in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 34:18-20), so it is in the New (1 John 4:12-20; 1 Tim. 6:10). This is why God must reveal himself; he is nondiscoverable until he takes initiative to make himself known. The Bible is a repository of God's disclosure(s) of himself to human witnesses and recipients. Little can be learned of God (except his existence, his power, and possibly that he is a high God morally) without his special revelation to us (Rom 1:20). His will , like the will of a stranger, has to be disclosed by revelation from God (1 Cor. 2:11). Once God has revealed his will, he does not need to repeat this revelational information to every human being individually, or to groups, or to special leaders. And John insists here that such revelation of God comes at its highest and clearest form only in Jesus Christ.

The center of this revelation is Jesus Christ because he is the one who has made him [the Father] known. The term " make known" is ejxeghvsato (exegçsato), and related to it is the English " exegete." =Exhgevomai (exçgeomai) seems to have been more of a Hellenistic than a biblical term. The word meant (1) to recount facts or relate a narrative. This was the main Greek use of the term. The word also meant (2) to make known or explain divine secrets. This latter is its meaning here, and has to do with Hellenistic notions of revelation as well as biblical. It seems important that the prologue closes with such a term. To Jew and Hellenist, Jesus is the revelation of God's glory, grace, and truth.

Should God the One and Only . . . has made him known or " the only Son . . . has made him known" be read; that is, should we read " God" or " Son?" The oldest manuscript evidence is heavy for the former reading " God the One and Only." Some students object on the ground that the rest of this verse calls for " son" (uiJov", huios ), that is, the Son is the " one who is in the Father's bosom" (or with NIV, " at the Father's side" ); Jesus (as the Logos), however, has already been described in 1:1 as God and, further, John may be intentionally coming back, at the end of his preface, to this very revelation made in 1:1, namely, that Jesus is God (in flesh).

Some commentators of the twentieth century construe monogenhv" (monogençs) as a noun and so take monogençs, qeov" ( theos ), and oJ w eij" toÉn kovlpon tou' patrov" (ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros) as three titles of the one who makes God known: " the only (begotten)," " God," and " the one being in the bosom of the father." This is a real possibility.

B. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

AND OF JESUS' FIRST DISCIPLES (1:19-51)

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)

The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders (1:19-28)

¹⁹ Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. ²⁰ He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, " I am not the Christ. ^a"

²¹ They asked him, " Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"

He said, " I am not."

" Are you the Prophet?"

He answered, " No."

²² Finally they said, " Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

²³ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, " I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" ^b

²⁴ Now some Pharisees who had been sent ²⁵ questioned him, " Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

²⁶" I baptize with ^c water," John replied, " but among you stands one you do not know. ²⁷ He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."

²⁸ This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

^a 20 Or Messiah. " The Christ" (Greek) and " the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean " the Anointed One" ; also in verse 25. ^b 23 Isaiah 40:3 ^c 26 Or in ; also in verses 31 and 33

Many think that 1:19-51 is the second and subsidiary introduction to the Gospel. The first, the Prologue, is more theological; the second more practical in that it is centered in the beginning of the ministry of John and Jesus. All four Gospels view John the Baptist as the introducer of Jesus' ministry. In 1:19-34 the Jewish leaders sent a delegation to examine John's own claims and purposes (19-28). John identified himself with no model known to the delegation, though finally in 1:26-27 John enlarged his testimony about the one who was to come after him. In 1:19 he said that that one is the Lamb of God, and in 1:32, 34 John testified that Jesus both received the Holy Spirit and will baptize with the same.

Verses 19-34 seem to echo the Synoptic accounts of the coming one (Mark 1:7-8) and the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11). Verse 19 is the heading that announced the theme of 1:19-34, namely, " witness" or " testimony" of John. John was the first of a line of witnesses to Jesus in this Gospel. This is because " faith" is " the acceptance of testimony," and here begins the testimony concerning Jesus so that people can accept or reject him (believe or disbelieve) (cf. John 5:32-33).

1:19. In the expression the Jews of Jerusalem, " Jews" (in the plural) is the designation usually ascribed by John to Judaism and its leaders (some 70 times). They opposed Jesus and the church, which is presupposed by the writer of this Gospel, even though he never uses the term " church." The Jews represent the unbelieving world; John the Baptist is a forerunner, not only of Christ, but also of the believing Christians. The Baptist witnessed to a struggle between belief and unbelief that continues and intensifies throughout the life of Jesus.

The priests were the main worship functionaries in the temple in Jerusalem and the Levites assisted them, especially in music and as temple police. They were also teachers of the law (2 Chr 5:4-14; Neh 8:7-9). John's success in attracting crowds and public excitement probably prompted the investigation by the Jewish leaders. This is the only time that the priests and Levites are mentioned in this Gospel.

1:20. The Baptist was asked to give testimony concerning himself and to answer the Jewish leaders' enquiry as to his own identity. He answered first by a negative piece of testimony concerning who he is not : he is not the Messiah. This is the first of a series of denial testimonies from the Baptist, and it concerned the greatest person and title in the series. In verses 19-20, the Baptist testified with the solemnity of a trial; that is, John did not deny but confessed . These verbs suggest confession and denial of Christ, both of which occur in John (9:22; 12:42; 13:38; 18:25,27). Some suppose that these very words were included in this Gospel in order to refute the false belief of followers of the Baptist towards the end of the first century that the Baptist was the Christ.

1:21. The delegation then asked if he were Elijah. Among Jews it was a well established piece of apocalyptic expectation that Elijah would return before the Messiah's coming and indeed would introduce the Messiah by anointing him. Such expectations rested on Malachi 4:5. See verse 31 below. John denied that he was Elijah.

They then asked if he were the Prophet (oJ profhvth", ho prophçtçs). This was not simply a title for the Messiah, but for some old or new prophet who would surpass the great prophet Moses (Deut. 18:15-18), as well as all the other prophets of the Old Testament. John's preaching of repentance reminds one of many Old Testament prophets, but his real greatness lay in his relation to Jesus, not to the Old Testament.

1:22. Who are you? The emissaries from Jerusalem were back where they started. The Baptist fit no known person within the spectrum of Jewish history and religion.

1:23. For identification of himself and his work, John resorted to the Scriptures, to the line in Isaiah 40:3 that did not point to him even as a full person much less as a famous person: I am [a] voice of one calling [bow'nto", boôntos, " call," " shout," " cry out" ] in the desert. Make straight the way for [tou', tou , " of" ] the Lord. John was God's word spoken, not God's word incarnate; indeed, he was like a nameless voicebox that announced God's call for people to prepare themselves by repentance and immersion in water for the appearance of the Lord. These were the techniques or methods used " to make the way straight" : people's living was straightened by repentance and baptism. By stressing the fact that John was a mere voice, he laid stress, not on his person but on his message. John was not the literal Elijah but the spiritual Elijah because he performed the work of Elijah.

The quotation from Isaiah 40:3 agrees with the Septuagint text, except for eujquvnate ( euthynate , " make straight" ); the LXX has eJtoimavsate ( hetoimasate , " prepare" ). It is possible that the Baptist made his own translation from the Hebrew wnp ( pannu ), " prepare."

1:24. Some students contend that this parenthetical verse containing the phrase Some Pharisees who had been sent casts doubt on the author's acquaintance with Judaism before A.D. 70, because the priests and Pharisees were enemies prior to A.D. 70. However, it should be noted that (1) at least some priests were Pharisees, and (2) of all the Jewish sects, the Pharisees gave most attention to rituals, such as baptism, and so were eager to learn why John was practicing such a ritual.

1:25. Since John denied being the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet, why did he dare to introduce immersion in water as a new ritual beyond anything contained in Mosaic law? The answer points to John's baptism as a new rite. Even if Jewish proselyte baptism existed in the first century (and this is not certain), it differed from John's practice in at least two ways: (1) John baptized his own converts while proselytes to Judaism practiced self-immersion, (2) John baptized Jews but no non-Jews. This is the first mention of baptism in the Fourth Gospel.

1:26-27. John replied that he baptized with water, but among the present company stood one whom they did not know. Why not introduce here and now the fact that this one who stood among them would baptize with Spirit? (cf. 1:33). It was because that truth was not revealed to the Baptist until he beheld the Spirit's coming down on Jesus at Jesus' own baptism.

Not even John knew Jesus for what he really was, namely, the Messiah of Israel. Jesus stood in their midst as the hidden Messiah. He is the one who comes after me , i.e., after the Baptist had prepared the way for Jesus.

1:28. This all happened at Bethany beyond the Jordan. There are several variant forms for Bethany in the manuscripts but they all boil down to only two: " Bethany" and " Betharbara." Origen could find no Bethany beyond Jordan, so he adopted Betharbara as the reading, because the name's meaning, he said, was " House of Preparation," which fit the meaning of the Baptist's work there - calling for baptism and repentance to prepare Israel for the Messiah. The meaning of the names, however, are probably Bethany = House of the poor man and Betharbara = House of the ford or ferry (of the Jordan). " Bethany" is surely the best reading here.

The Testimony of John to the Jewish People (1:29-34)

²⁹ The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, " Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' ³¹ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

³² Then John gave this testimony: " I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. ³³ I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' ³⁴ I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

1:29. Note the phrase The next day. Many commentators make little of the chronological notes in the Fourth Gospel, but in 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1 the writer clusters a group of events in days. The earthly Jesus actually appears here for the first time in the Gospel. He was approaching John, and John said, " Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus was not coming to John for baptism; this had already occurred. The scene has changed from the day before because the delegation has departed, and Jesus is now center stage. It is possible that verses 19ff refer to verses 6-8, and now verses 29f refer to verse 15.

Why did John call Jesus the Lamb of God ?" In the Old Testament, lambs were used for sin-offerings (Lev 4:32), in the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:10), in the daily morning and afternoon sacrifices in the temple (Exod 19:38), and at the Passover supper (Exod 12:3-4). There is also the lamb (ajmnov", amnos ) of Isaiah 53:7. The death of none of these lambs, however, was said to be an expiatory or atoning sacrifice, unless Leviticus 4:32 be so construed. The lambs of the Testament of Joseph 19:8 and of the Testament of Benjamin 3:8 also were not treated as offerings for forgiveness of sin; the same is true of the lamb mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 QH 3:10; 8:10f, because the Essenes of Qumran rejected animal sacrifice.

This Lamb of God " takes away the sin of the world." The death of this Lamb will remove the power and penalty of sin from individual human beings. Jesus is the Lamb who, by his death and resurrection, died and rose out from under sin's power and penalty and is now able to share his victory over sin, death, hell, and Satan by our becoming one with him in his death and resurrection.

Notice that " sin" is (a collective) singular, though no great weight should probably be placed on this fact (as does, e.g., Brown). Jesus as God's Lamb that " takes away" sin is a fulfillment of the imagery of the Passover lamb. Note that it is not Jesus' teaching that removed sin, nor his miracles. Lambs do not teach or perform signs; they each die as a sacrifice, so especially a paschal lamb. Sin is removed by sacrifice (Heb 9:22; Rev 5:9). The Jews who first heard these words from the Baptist must have had difficulty understanding them because they had thought little of the Old Testament sacrifices as being fulfilled in a human being. Jesus is God's only adequate sin offering (Heb 10:4-18; 1 Pet 1:19). If the Passover lamb was the background of this " Lamb of God" figure in verses 29 and 36, there was a difference between the paschal lamb and God's lamb: the Passover dealt only with Israel's sins, while the Lamb of God took away the world's sins.

Commentators shy away from the grammatical relationship of " God" and " the Lamb." Is " God's" (tou' qeou', tou theou ) a genitive of possession (" God's lamb" ) or a genitive of description (" a divine lamb" ) or an ablative of source (" the lamb from God" ), or some other possibility?

1:30. The greater does not precede but succeeds . See verses 15 and 27 for John's testimony.

1:31. I myself did not know him. It should not be concluded that John did not know Jesus at all (the two were kinsmen only six months apart in age), but only that John did not know Jesus as the Coming One or the Messiah. The Fourth Gospel goes on to say that the reason for John's baptism was not only to prepare the people for the Messiah, but to manifest (fanerwqh'/, phanerôthç) Jesus as the Messiah to Israel. Jesus was revealed at his baptism as Messiah - to John and to the rest of Israel. Elijah was to do this " manifesting," though this Gospel does not concur that the Baptist was identical to Elijah. Many Jews believed that the Messiah would be an obscure person until revealed to Israel (by Elijah). " Israel" is used four times in the Fourth Gospel and does not convey the bad connotations associated with the term " the Jews."

1:32-33. These verses repeat and elaborate the essence of 1:31; they are also the heart and climax of John's testimony about Jesus: John saw the Spirit come down as a dove from heaven and remain on Jesus. John then testified (ejmartuvrhsen, emartyrçsen) in verse 33 that he would not have recognized the Messiah had not God, who had sent John to baptize, told him that the man on whom he would see the Spirit come down and remain would be the one who was to baptize with the Holy Spirit. The Baptist added in 1:34, I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God. This Jesus thus both takes away sin and gives the Spirit - because he is God's Son (cf. Mark 1:10 and parallels).

1:34. The Fourth Gospel assumes knowledge of the story of the baptism of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels. John himself did not actually report the baptism of Jesus. It is possible, so some say, that this Gospel omitted the Baptist's baptizing of Jesus because the early church was embarrassed by the Baptist's followers who saw in this act a denigration of Jesus and an exaltation of the Baptist. This Gospel, however, stressed two things: (1) Jesus was the one who baptized in Spirit, not the Baptist, and (2) the Synoptics portray Jesus as the one primarily to see the Spirit descend as a dove, but John portrayed the Baptist (also) as seeing the Spirit's descent, and this prevents one's viewing the event as simply a private, subjective experience of Jesus with no external reality to it.

It has been observed that the Fourth Gospel never called John " the Baptist," as Mark 1:4 and Matthew 3:1 do. To whom is John speaking in verses 29-34? Probably (1) not the emissaries of verses 19-27, but possibly (2) John's own disciples, (3) possibly the readers of this Gospel, or most likely (4) a mixed audience of all kinds of persons who had come out to hear him in the wilderness.

These first paragraphs, devoted to John's ministry and witness, close with the straightforward testimony of John to Jesus: I have seen and I testify that this [one] is the Son of God (v. 34). This testimony was the main purpose and product of the Baptist's mission: to bear witness to Christ as more than a prophet or teacher; Jesus is the Son of God. Faith is the acceptance of testimony. People can now begin to believe - or disbelieve - as they begin to accept or reject - the testimony to Jesus in this Gospel. Both Jesus and John were prophets, but only Jesus was God's Son.

Alfred Plummer, in his commentary on Luke 3:21, insists, on the basis of the Greek, that Jesus was baptized after all the multitudes had been baptized and gone from the site; that is, Jesus' baptism was private and not public . This accounts, Plummer says, for the voice and dove's appearance not being experienced by the multitudes: the crowds were not present. The words in Luke 3:21 more likely mean that Jesus was baptized after the crowds on a particular day had dispersed, or more likely it means that Jesus came after the climax of John's ministry had been attained and hence not as many people were on hand. None of the Gospels presents Jesus' baptism as a private affair. Jesus was not ashamed of the humble moments of his career; he did not hide his incarnation at such times, as the coming of the Spirit upon him and the voice that spoke concerning him show. Jesus' baptism was quite like our own (and at the same time vastly different): it marked the close of one part of his life and career and the beginning of a greatly different part.

The title " Son of God" was encountered more often in Judaism than has sometimes been admitted. (1) The nation of Israel was called God's first-born son (Exod 4:22-23; cf. Hosea 11:1); (2) David's promised male descendant, who would sit on David's throne, would be acknowledged as God's son according to 2 Samuel 7:14, a passage that by the first century A.D. had come to be understood messianically. This means that the king had come to be spoken of as " God's Son" (cf. Ps 1:7; 89:26-27). In the Daniel Apocryphon of the Qumran Cave 4, therefore, reference is made to the king as the " Son of God." (3) In Sirach 4:10; Wisdom of Solomon 2:18; and Jubilees 1:24-25, " the righteous" were called God's sons. (4) Even so-called " miracle workers" were sometimes called " Sons of God." (5) Also the angels were called " God's sons" in the Septuagint Greek of Deut. 32:43.

It was, therefore, inevitable that (6) the Messiah should be called " the Son of God" (on the basis of Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14). The unbelieving Jews, of course, sought to reinterpret any application of the title " Son of God" to these passages, and to the Messiah at all. It is surprising to find Psalm 2:7 still interpreted of God's Son, the Messiah, in Midrashim on the Psalms (2:9) and in an even older passage in a Baraitha (an addition) to the Babylonian Talmudic tract called Sukka (52a), which relates Psalm 2:7 to the Messiah ben David.

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples (1:35-51)

John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus. (1:35-42)

³⁵ The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. ³⁶ When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, " Look, the Lamb of God!"

³⁷ When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. ³⁸ Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, " What do you want?"

They said, " Rabbi" (which means Teacher), " where are you staying?"

³⁹" Come," he replied, " and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

⁴⁰ Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. ⁴¹ The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, " We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). ⁴² And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, " You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter). ^a

^a 42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.

1:35-36. On the morrow John the Baptist was standing with two of his disciples and Jesus passed by; again, John said, " Look, the Lamb of God!" These two disciples of John are left unnamed, but the Synoptics name James and John as Jesus' first disciples; so, the second of these two was probably the writer of this Gospel.

1:37. Then these two began to follow Jesus (hjkolouvqhsan (çkolouthçsan) is probably an ingressive aorist, i.e., the use of a verb form that describes the beginning of an action). " To follow" (ajkolouqevw, akoloutheô) is a technical term in Hebrew and Greek for the reactions and relationships of a disciple to his teacher/ model/guide. This scene is more the call of the disciples than their actual following a leader . The text means primarily that the two disciples simply followed Jesus to the place where he was temporarily lodging because they wanted to talk with him. At the same time, they did begin to follow Jesus as disciples. The essence of Christianity lies in those words: to follow Jesus. Following is the expected result of the Baptist's testimony (marturiva, martyria ).

1:38. When Jesus saw the two disciples following, he turned and asked what they wanted. They replied that they wished to know where he was staying . The word for " staying" is mevnei" ( meneis ), which has a rich meaning in this Gospel, but here it probably was meant to be taken literally and with no profound theological implications, such as the suggestion of Bultmann that the question " What do you seek?" is always Jesus' question to every potential disciple.

Rabbi means literally " my great one," and John's translation of it as teacher (didavskalo", didaskalos ) is not literal but done according to usage. The absence of evidence for the title " Rabbi" before A.D. 70 has raised the question of the Gospels' possible anachronistic usage of the term. E.L. Sukenik, in a work published in 1931, reported his discovery of an ossuary (a jar for keeping the bones of a dead person) on the Mount of Olives, which bore the word didaskalos , the very word that John used for " Rabbi." The New Testament's usage of the title " Rabbi," therefore, is not anachronistic after all.

1:39. The two disciples visited with Jesus - and possibly spent the night with him, because John says it was the tenth hour; that is, it was about 4:00 P.M. when they left with Jesus. All of the Gospels use this method of reckoning time - the day of twelve hours from roughly 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.

1:40-41. Andrew was the name of the disciple of the Baptist who heard John's testimony to Jesus and came and visited Jesus. The identity of the unnamed disciple here is unknown, though Brown thinks that he is to be identified with the one whom this Gospel calls " the beloved disciple;" Boismard thinks that the unnamed disciple was Philip, since Philip and Andrew go together in this Gospel (6:5-9; 12:21-22) and came from the same village (1:44). Andrew " first, before he did anything else," or, " before the other unnamed disciple could find his brother," found Simon Peter, his very own (i[dion, idion ) brother (not simply a relative). Andrew then brought Simon to Jesus, and thus, in a sense, became the first Christian evangelist.

John explains here the Hebrew or Aramaic title used of Jesus (Messiah) and translates it as the Christ, i.e., " the one anointed" by God - anointed as a prophet, priest, and king (the persons usually anointed in the Old Testament) - who was intended to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and to inaugurate a new covenant.

1:42. When Jesus first saw Peter, he said, " You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter). The other Gospels locate this change of Simon's name about midway through each of the Synoptics. The fact that the future tense is used " You will be called" points to a later time of fulfillment at least of the meaning if not the giving of the new name. As Beasley-Murray writes, " . . . v. 42 (is) recording the source of Simon's new name, not the time when it was given."

What did Jesus intend here (v. 42) by changing Simon's name to Peter? He probably intended to point to Simon's character and stability: as Simon was now constituted, he was immature and unreliable, but in time, by sufferings and even defeats, he would become a stable Christian disciple, and even eventually a pioneer and leader in the church.

Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

⁴³ The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, " Follow me."

⁴⁴ Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. ⁴⁵ Philip found Nathanael and told him, " We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

⁴⁶" Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.

" Come and see," said Philip.

⁴⁷ When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, " Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

⁴⁸" How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, " I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

⁴⁹ Then Nathanael declared, " Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

⁵⁰ Jesus said, " You believe ^a because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." ⁵¹ He then added, " I tell you ^b the truth, you ^b shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

^a 50 Or Do you believe . . . ? ^b 51 The Greek is plural

1:43. On the next day , Philip was called by Jesus. Only in John's Gospel is much said of him (6:5-8; 12:21-22; 14:8-10). He is simply alluded to in the list of apostles in the other Gospels. His name is Greek (it means " Lover of horses" ) and was borne by Alexander the Great's father. This may not prove, however, that Philip was of Greek ancestry because the same name was worn by one of the Jewish Amora (famous rabbis of the late first and second centuries A.D.). It may point to some of the family's education in things Grecian as well as Jewish - somewhat like the apostle Paul's cultural situation. Philip was from the city of Bethsaida in Galilee, an area whose culture was quite mixed, and it was also the region of Andrew and Peter. Philip is the first one to be called personally by Jesus to discipleship.

1:44. The city of Bethsaida actually lay in Gaulanitis on the east side of the Jordan where the river empties into the Sea of Galilee. The city, however, (1) may have had a Jewish community or (2) it may have had a smaller part of its locale situated also on the western bank of the Jordan. At any rate, evidence exists that the common folk used " Galilee" to refer to some of the area east of the Jordan; for example, Josephus speaks of " Judas the Galilean" as from Gamala, which lay east of the lake. Moreover, Capernaum (the home of Peter and Andrew) was only a few miles west of Bethsaida. Edwin A. Abbott says that Philip, Andrew, and Peter were out of ( ek ) Bethsaida because they had been born there, but they were also from ( apo ) Capernaum, because they currently lived there.

1:45. Philip found Nathanael, who is not mentioned even in the lists of the apostles. His name does appear a second time in John 21:2, so commentators have been eager to supply him with a name from the apostolic lists. Bartholomew is the favorite choice. Unlike the NIV, there is no definite article with " son" ( huios ) in the oldest manuscripts: Jesus . . . son of Joseph. This is naturally the way that one who was uninformed would look upon Jesus - as Joseph's son.

1:46. Nathanael responded that nothing good could come from Nazareth. Why? Because it was a No place : it is never mentioned in the Old Testament, the Jewish Talmud and Midrash, nor in any extant pagan writing. Jesus' residence in Nazareth is like his birth in a stable, his crucifixion, or his burial in a borrowed tomb: aspects of the offense of the incarnation. In the long run, the best thing in the universe came out of Nazareth.

Philip requested that Nathanael come and see - the same request that Jesus made of the two disciples of the Baptist in verse 39.

1:47. Jesus greeted Nathanael as a true [the Greek uses an adverb " truly" ] Israelite in whom there is nothing false. The Greek says dovlo" oujk e[stin ( dolos ouk estin , " there is not deceit" ). Why the expression " not deceit" ? (1) The words were possibly drawn from Psalm 32:2, " And in whose spirit is no deceit" (NIV). More likely (2) Nathanael is thought of as being in the lineage of Jacob/Israel but who does not partake of the deceit of his forebearers; cf. Genesis 27:35, " your brother came and with deceit took your blessing."

1:48. Jesus' statement about Nathanael prompted Nathanael to ask how Jesus knew him. Jesus responded that he had seen Nathanael as the latter sat under a fig tree some distance away from Jesus. Many modern commentators associate such uncanny knowledge with what they call a " divine man" among pagans and even some Jews. Such knowledge was part of the divine man's magical powers. Jesus, however, never seems to have been viewed as such a " magician" in the Gospels. The Old Testament knew something of such a power among some of the prophets (cf. 2 Kgs 6:8-12; Ezek 8:1-18; 21:21-23). Jesus, however, was more than the Old Testament prophets, because he knew both the mind of God and the mind of mankind.

1:49. Nathanael sensed this truth and so exclaimed, " . . . you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel." In this context the titles may have been roughly synonymous for Nathanael. They are surely Messianic titles (cf. 1:34).

1:50. Jesus paused to note both the maturity and immaturity of Nathanael's faith, exhibited by the titles that he gave to Jesus (Son of God, King of Israel). Here was the beginnings of faith in Jesus by another new disciple, but Jesus pointed out that it is faith based on the supernatural (Jesus' knowledge of Nathanael's character and location at a distance). Jesus seemed to hint that the greater kind of faith rests on a less physical base, though the rest of the verse says that Nathanael will see greater things than this rather mild display of the supernatural in Jesus: You shall see greater things than that. What greater things? (1) Jesus' revelations; (2) Jesus' miracles; (3) Jesus' perfect life; (4) Jesus' death and resurrection; and (5) the gospel of Jesus and its winning of the world; (6) the Parousia and End - that is, the greatness of the Son of Man from the incarnation to the parousia.

1:51. I tell you the truth translates the " Truly, truly I say to you," which was much used (25 times) in this Gospel to introduce an important saying of Jesus. Jesus then proceeded to say that the disciples (the number is plural, so more than simply Nathanael seem to be addressed) would see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Commentators struggle with this saying. It is difficult! The saying surely has Jacob's dream in Genesis 28:12 in mind with the angels' ascending and descending, though notice that in this verse John reversed the order of these angelic actions, and also in John both Jacob and the ladder faded away and the angels ascend and descend on or to (ejpiv, epi ) the Son of Man. The saying seems to tell us that Jesus keeps in touch with both heaven and earth, that the highest creatures in all creation serve him, that he stands as the junction point that holds heaven and earth together, and that it is no longer patriarchs, angels, or anything else in all creation and beyond it that count but only the God who is in Jesus.

Jesus sees the angels in relation to " the Son of Man." This is the first occurrence in John of this title. In all instances (except one, Acts 7:56) the title was used by Jesus only, so it is the title that he preferred. Why? It referred only to him. It was an imprecise designation, unlike King of Israel or Son of God, which could be politically or theologically explosive among the Jews of the first century A.D. Jesus, therefore, could more easily pack new meaning into the title Son of Man than into probably any other. The expression appears 13 times in John. Other reasons why Jesus preferred to use the title " Son of Man" were: (1) it appeared in the Old Testament (cf. Dan 7:13-14) (2) often meant simply " I" on the lips of Jesus (John 6:20, 27), (3) held a prominent place with Jesus' several predictions of his death and resurrection (John 3:14; 8:28), (4) quite often was associated with the future end of the world and Jesus' parousia (5:27; 9:39), and (5) in John especially, was allied with divine revelation in and through Jesus (6:27, 53). While the title Son of Man surely pointed to Jesus' human nature, it also carried strong messianic overtones, uniting the divine and the human in Jesus.

In the first chapter of John, titles carry much of the testimony presented here to Jesus. In John chapter one, Jesus is called Word, teacher (Rabbi, 1:34), Lamb of God, Messiah, Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of Man. These epithets really say that Jesus is unique. John the Baptist was at most only a witness - important, but only as a servant, not as the Master.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Joh 1:1-18

II.
JOHN'S INTRODUCTION.
^dJOHN I. 1-18.

   ^d1 In the beginning was the Word [a title for Jesus peculiar to the apostle John], and the Word was with God [not going before nor coming after God, but with Him at the beginning], and the Word was God. [Not more, not less.]  2 The same was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made through him [the New Testament often speaks of Christ as the Creator -- see Joh 1:10, 1Co 8:6, Col 1:13, Heb 1:2]; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. [This shows that Jesus himself is not a creature.]  4 In his was life [As in the Father (Joh 5:26). As this life animates the living, so can it reanimate the dead -- Joh 11:25; and the life was the light of men. [The life of Jesus is the light of men, because from that life we get our intellect and understanding, and because that life formed and governs the creation around us by which we become enlightened as to the existence and power of God -- Rom 1:18-21, Act 14:16, Act 14:17.]  5 And the light shineth in the darkness [an ignorant, benighted world]; and the darkness apprehended it not. [Did not receive or admit it. Jesus, the Light of the world, was despised and rejected by men.]  6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light. [that he might tell men that Jesus was the Messiah], that all [who heard his testimony] might believe [in Jesus] through him.  8 He was not the light ["He was the lamp that burneth and shineth" (Joh 5:35); but not the Sun of righteousness -- [2] Mal 4:2], but came that he might bear witness of the light.  9 There was the true light [as opposed to the imperfect, incomplete, and transitory lights], even the light which lighteth every man [all men are enlightened in some degree and enlightened of Christ: some by nature, some by conscience, and some by Bible revelation], coming into the world.  10 He was in the world. [invisibly present, renewing and sustaining his creation], and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. [Though it might and should have known him -- Rom 1:18-21, Act 14:16, Act 14:17.]  11 He came [visibly in the flesh] unto his own [his own land or possessions -- Hos 9:3, Jer 2:7, Zec 2:12], and they that were his own [the children of Israel -- Exo 19:5, Deu 7:6, Deu 14:2] received him not.  12 But as many as received him [whether Jew or Gentile], to them gave he the right to become children of God [comp. Rom 3:14-17, Gal 3:26, Gal 4:6, Gal 4:7, 1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2], even to them that believe on his name:  13 who were born, not of blood [descent from Abraham, David or any other godly person does not make a man a child of God -- Luk 3:8, Mat 3:9, Joh 8:39, Joh 8:40, Gal 3:6, Gal 3:7, Gal 3:29], nor of the will of the flesh [the efforts and exertions of our own human hearts and natures may reform, but can not regenerate, the life -- Joh 3:6], nor of the will of man [we are not begotten of God by the acts and deeds of our fellow-men, however much they may aid us in leading right lives], but of God. [Joh 3:5, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 5:1.]  14 And the Word became flesh [by being born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary], and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory [in his miracles, and especially in his transfiguration -- Joh 2:11, 2Pe 1:16-18], glory as of the only begotten from the Father) [such glory as was suitable to the Son of God], full of grace and truth. [The glory of Christ was not in pomp and worldly grandeur, but in the holiness, grace, and truth of his daily life.]  15 John [the Baptist] beareth witness of him [the words of John the Baptist still witness to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles], and crieth, [3] saying, This was he of whom I said [John had preached about Jesus before Jesus appeared; he now points to Jesus as the one about whom he had preached], He that cometh after me [He for whom I as a forerunner have prepared the way -- Mat 3:3] is become before me [is worthy of more honor and reverence than am I]: for he was before me. [Though born into the world six months later than John, Jesus, as the Word, had existed from eternity. (In Joh 1:16 the words are the apostle John's, and not John the Baptist's.)]  16 For of his fulness [Jesus was full of grace and truth -- and all the attributes of God -- Eph 1:23, Eph 3:19, Eph 4:13, Col 1:19, Col 2:9] we all received [by union with him all his perfection and righteousness became ours -- Phi 1:10, Phi 1:11, Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9, 1Co 1:30], and grace for grace. [This may mean that we receive a grace kindred to or like each several grace that is in Christ (Rom 8:29, Rom 12:2, Eph 4:11-13). But it more probably means fullness of grace, or fresh grace daily added to the grace already bestowed.]  17 For the law [the Old Dispensation with its condemnation (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:21) and its types and shadows -- Col 2:16, Col 2:17, Heb 8:4, Heb 8:5, Heb 10:1] was given through Moses [by angels at Mt. Sinai -- Heb 2:2]; grace and truth [the New Dispensation with its justification (Rom 3:21-26) and its realities -- Heb 9:1-15] came through Jesus Christ. [Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2, Heb 2:3.]  18 No man hath seen God at any time [1Jo 4:12, 1Jo 4:20, Joh 1:18, 1Ti 4:16]; the only begotten Son [the word "only begotten" indicates that none other bears with Christ a like relationship to God], who is in the bosom of the Father [who bears the closest and tenderest relationship and fellowship as to the Father], he hath declared him. [Joh 3:2, Joh 15:9, Col 1:15.] [4]

[FFG 2-4]

McGarvey: Joh 1:19-34

XX.
JOHN'S FIRST TESTIMONY TO JESUS.
(Bethany beyond Jordan, February, A. D. 27.)
^dJOHN I. 19-34.

   ^d19 And this is the witness of John [John had been sent to testify, "and" this is the matter of his testimony], when the Jews [The term "Jews" is used seventy times by John to describe the ruling classes of Judæa] sent unto him [In thus sending an embassy they honored John more than they ever honored Christ. They looked upon John as a priest and Judæan, but upon Jesus as a carpenter and Galilæan. It is probable that the sending of this investigating committee marks the period when the feelings of the rulers toward John changed from friendliness to hostility. At the first, probably led on by the prophecies of Daniel, these Jews found joy in [101] John's coming (Joh 5:33-35). When they attended his ministry in person he denounced their wickedness and incurred their hatred] from Jerusalem priests and Levites [they were commissioned to teach (2Ch 15:3, Neh 8:7-9), and it was probably because of their wisdom as teachers that they were sent to question John about his baptism] to ask him, Who art thou?  20 And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed [The repetition here suggests John's firmness under repeated temptation. As the questioners ran down the scale from "Christ" to "that prophet," John felt himself diminishing in their estimation, but firmly declined to take honors which did not belong to him], I am not [in this entire section (Joh 1:20-24) John places emphasis upon the pronoun "I," that he may contrast himself with Christ] the Christ [When the apostle John wrote this Gospel it had become fashionable with many of the Baptist's disciples to assert that the Baptist was the Christ. (Recognitions of Clement 1. 50, 60; Olshausen, Hengstenberg, Godet.) In giving this testimony of the Baptist, John corrects this error; but his more direct purpose is to show forth John's full testimony, and give the basis for the words of Jesus found at Joh 5:33. The fact that the Jews were disposed to look upon John as the Messiah gave all the greater weight to his testimony; for the more exalted the person of the witness, the weightier are his words. John's own experience doubtless caused him to feel the influence of the Baptist's testimony.]  21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? [Malachi had declared that Elijah should precede the Messiah (Mal 4:5). The Jews interpreted this prophecy literally, and looked for the return of the veritable Elijah who was translated (Mat 17:10). This literal Elijah did return, and was seen upon the Mount of Transfiguration before the crucifixion of our Lord. But the prophecy of Malachi referred to a spiritual Elijah -- one who should come "in the spirit and power of Elijah," and in this sense John fulfilled Malachi's prediction -- Luk 1:17, Mat 11:14, Mat 17:12.] And he saith, I am not [He answered their question according to [102] the sense in which they had asked it. He was not the Elijah who had been translated about nine hundred years before this time.] Art thou the prophet? [Moses had foretold a prophet who should come (Deu 18:15-18), but the Jews appear to have had no fixed opinion concerning him, for some thought he would be a second Moses, others a second Elijah, others the Messiah. The Scriptures show us how uncertain they were about him (Mat 16:14, Joh 6:14, Joh 7:40, Joh 7:41). As to Jeremiah being that prophet, see II. Macc. ii. 7. Even Christians disagree as to whether Moses refers to Christ or to a line of prophets. Though divided in opinion as to who this prophet would be, the Jews were fairly unanimous as to what he would do. Finding in their Scriptures two pictures of the Christ, one representing him as a great Conqueror, and the other of his priesthood, setting him forth as a great Sufferer, they took the pictures to refer to two personages, one denoting a king -- the Messiah -- and the other a prophet. The Jews to this day thus divide the Christ of prophecy, and seek to make him two personages.] And he answered, No. [He was not the prophet, either as he or they understood that term. John gives us a beautiful example of humility. Like Paul, he would not be overvalued -- Act 14:13-15, 1Co 1:12, 1Co 1:13.]  22 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us What sayest thou of thyself? [Unable to guess his office, they asked him to state it plainly.]  23 He said, I am the voice [It is as though John answered, "You ask who I am. My personality is nothing; my message everything. I shall pass away as a sound passes into silence; but the truth which I have uttered shall abide." In his answer John shows himself to be the spiritual Elijah, for he declares that he came to do the work of Elijah; viz.: to prepare the people for the advent of Messiah. There are many echoes in the world; but few voices] of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord [prepare the minds and hearts of the people that Christ may freely enter in], as said Isaiah the prophet. [Isa 40:3.]  24 And they had been sent were from [103] The Pharisees. [Of all the Jewish sects the Pharisees were most attentive to external rites and ceremonies, and hence would notice John's baptism more than would others. It is interesting to notice that the Pharisees, who were Christ's most bitter opponents, were warned of John about the presence of Messiah from the very beginning.]  25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet? [If you are no more important personage, who do you presume to introduce any other ordinance than those provided for by the law of Moses? The question shows that to them John's baptism was a new rite. Even if proselyte baptism then existed at this time (of which there is certainly no sufficient evidence), it differed in two marked ways from John's baptism: 1. John baptized his converts, while proselytes baptized themselves. 2. John baptized Jews and not Gentiles.]  26 John answered them, saying, I baptize in water: but in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not,  27 even he that cometh after me [that is, follows in that way which I as forerunner am preparing for him], The latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. [The words "standeth" and "shoe" showed that the person of whom the Baptist spoke had a visible, bodily form. To loose the latchet was a peculiarly servile office. The Talmud says,"Every office a servant will do for his master, a scholar should perform for his teacher, except loosing his sandal-thong." The greatest prophet felt unworthy to render Christ this humble service, but unconverted sinners often presume to serve Christ according to their own will, and fully expect to have their service honored and rewarded. Taken as a whole, the answer of John appears indirect and insufficient. What was there in all this to authorize him to baptize? This appears to be his meaning: "You demand my authority for baptism. It rests in him for whom I prepare the way. It is a small matter to introduce baptism in water for one so worthy. If you accept him, my baptism will need no explanation; and if you reject him, my rite and its authority are both wholly [104] immaterial."]  28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan [Owing to variation in the manuscripts, we may read "Bethany" or "Bethabara," or even possibly "Bethabara in Bathania." Tradition fixes upon the Jericho ford, which is about five miles on an air line north of the Dead Sea, as the site of Jesus' baptism. But this spot is eighty miles from Cana of Galilee, and hence Jesus, leaving it on foot, could not well have attended the wedding in Cana on "the third day" (Joh 2:1). We must therefore look for Bethany or Bethabara farther up the river. John the Baptist was a roving preacher (Luk 3:3), and during the forty days of Jesus' temptation seems to have moved up the river Jordan. Fifty miles above the Jericho ford, and ten miles south of the Sea of Galilee, Lieutenant Conder found a ford named 'Abarah (meaning "ferry"), which answers to Bethabara (meaning "house of the ferry"). It was in the land of Bashan, which in the time of Christ was called Bathania (meaning "soft soil"). This spot is only twenty-two miles from Cana. Being beyond the Jordan, it is not in Galilee, as Dr. Thomson asserts. Conder says: "We have collected the names of over forty fords, and no other is called 'Abarah; nor does the word occur again in all nine thousand names collected by the survey party."] where John was baptizing.  29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him [Jesus had just returned from the temptation in the wilderness. This is his first appearance in John's Gospel. The fact that John leaves out all the early history of Jesus shows that he wrote many years after the other evangelists, when all these facts were so well known as to need no mention by him], and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God [Lambs were commonly used for sin-offerings (Lev 4:32), and three of them were sacrificed in the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:10). A lamb was also the victim of the morning (9 A. M.) and evening (3 P. M.) sacrifice (Exo 29:38) -- the hours when Jesus was nailed to the cross and when he expired. A lamb was also the victim at the paschal supper. The great prophecy of Isaiah, setting forth the vicarious sacrifice of Christ (Isa 53:1-12) depicts him as a lamb, and in [105] terms which answer closely to the words here used by John. The Jews to whom John spoke readily understood his allusion as being to sacrificial lambs; but they could not understand his meaning, for they had no thought of the sacrifice of a person. Jesus is called the Lamb of God because he is the lamb or sacrifice which God provided and accepted as the true and only sin-offering -- Heb 10:4-14, 1Pe 1:19], that taketh away the sin of the world! [The present tense, "taketh," is used because the expiatory effect of Christ's sacrifice is perpetual, and the fountain of his forgiveness never fails. Expiated sin is this spoken of as being taken away (Lev 10:17, Exo 34:7, Num 14:18). Some, seeking to avoid the vicarious nature of Christ's sacrifice, claim that the Baptist means that Jesus would gradually lift the world out of sin by his teaching. But lambs do not teach, and sin is not removed by teaching, but by sacrifice (Heb 9:22, Rev 5:9). Jesus was sacrificed for the world, that is, for the entire human family in all ages. All are bought, but all do not acknowledge the purchase (2Pe 2:1). He gives liberty to all, but all do not receive it, and some having received it return again to bondage (Gal 4:9). The Baptist had baptized for the remission of sins. He now points his converts to him who would make this promise good unto their souls. A Christian looks upon Christ as one who has taken away his past sin (1Pe 2:24), and who will forgive his present sin -- 1Jo 1:9.]  30 This is he of whom I said [for this saying see Joh 1:15, Joh 1:27], After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [As a man John was six months older than Jesus, but Jesus was the eternal Word. The Baptist therefore asserts here the pre-existence of our Lord.]  31 And I knew him not [had no such certain knowledge of him as would fit me to testify concerning him]; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water. [John baptized not only that he himself might know Christ by the spiritual sign, but also that through that knowledge duly published all Israel might know him.]  32 And John bare witness, [106] saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. [The descent of the Spirit served at least two purposes: 1. It enabled John to identify the Messiah. 2. It was, so to speak, an official recognition of Jesus as Messiah similar to the anointing or crowning of a king. It is asserted by some that it was of no benefit to Jesus, since his own divine powers permitted of no addition; but the language of Scripture indicates otherwise -- Isa 11:2, Isa 11:3, Luk 4:17-19, Joh 3:34.]  33 And I knew him not [John's assertions that he did not know Jesus are assertions that he did not know him to be the Messiah. He believed it, as appears from his reluctance to baptize him, but he did not know it. His language to the people shows this (Joh 1:26). Many of the people must have known Jesus, but none of them knew him to be the Messiah. Moreover, when John denied that he knew Jesus as Messiah we must not take it that he was ignorant of the past history of Jesus. No doubt he knew in a general way who Jesus was; but as the official forerunner and announcer of Jesus, and as the heaven-sent witness (Joh 1:6, Joh 1:7), it was necessary that the Baptist should receive, by personal revelation from God, as here stated, an indubitable, absolute knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus. Without this, John would not have been truly qualified as a witness. That Jesus is the Son of God must not rest on hearsay evidence. John kept silent till he could testify of his own knowledge]: but he that sent me [thus humbly does John claim his divine commission as a prophet] to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him [John seems to emphasize the abiding of the Spirit. The Spirit of God was also bestowed upon the prophets and the apostles, but in them his power was intermittent, and not constant; visions came to them intermittently, but with Christ the fellowship of the Spirit was continuous], the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. [Christ bestows the Spirit upon his own. If he himself received the Spirit at the time of his baptism, why should [107] it be thought strange that he bestows the Spirit upon his disciples at the time of their baptism? -- See Act 2:38, Act 19:1-7, Tit 3:5.]  34 And I have seen [that is, I have seen the promised sign], and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. [This is the climax of John's testimony. It was twofold, embracing the results of the two senses of sight and hearing. 1. John saw the dove-like apparition of the Spirit, which convinced him that Jesus was the one to baptize in the Spirit. 2. He heard the voice of the Father, which convinced him that Jesus was the Son of God. As to each of these two facts he had a separate revelation, appealing to a different sense, and each given by the personage of the Deity more nearly concerned in the matter revealed. John was not only to prepare the people to receive Christ by calling them to repentance, and baptizing them for the remission of their sins; there was another work equally great and important to be performed. Their heads as well as their hearts needed his preparatory services. His testimony ran counter to and corrected popular opinion concerning Christ. We see that John corrected four errors: 1. The Jews looked for a Messiah of no greater spiritual worthiness than John himself, but the Baptist disclaimed even the right to unlace the Lord's shoe, that he might emphasize the difference between himself and the Messiah in point of spiritual excellency. 2. The Jews looked for one who would come after Moses, David, and the prophets, and lost sight of the fact that he would be before them, both in point of time and of honor (Mat 22:41-46). 3. The Jews looked for a liberator from earthly bondage -- a glorious king; John pointed them to a liberator from spiritual bondage, a perfect sacrifice acceptable to God. 4. The Jews looked for a human Messiah, a son of David. John enlarged their idea, by pointing them to a Messiah who was also the Son of God. When the Jews accept John's guidance as a prophet, they will believe in the Messiahship of Jesus.] [108]

[FFG 101-108]

Lapide: Joh 1:1-51

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO JOHN.

T

 

HIS is the title in the Greek and Latin codices. In the Syriac it is as follows, The Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Jouchanon (John), which he spake and preached in Ionic (Greek) at Ephesus. The Arabic has, The Gospel of the holy and great disciple, the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, the beloved of our Lord Jesus Christ.

___________ 

CHAPTER 1.

 

In the beginning, &c. So the Persian, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, and Arabic, except that the last version has the article in the second and third clauses of the verse—"the Word was with God, the Word was God." The Ethiopic for Word has cal, answering to the Latin Verbum, which is better than Sermo, as Erasmus and the innovators translate the Greek λόγος.

John begins from the Godhead of the Word: first, because the right order and a full account of Christ require it; second, because in the time of S. John the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion had arisen, which denied Christ's Divinity.

After a similar manner did Moses begin his account of the genesis of the world, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Moses begins from the creation of the world, but John far higher, even from the eternity of the Word. Moses marks the beginning of time, in which God made all things. John marks a beginning which was from eternity, when the Word was, by which all things were made by God in time. John therefore takes up the exordium of Moses, and presupposes the beginning of the world, when he gives, so to say, an account of the long anterior beginning of the Word. Hence Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes, truly asserts that the Gospel is the supplement of the Old Testament.

S. John alludes to Ecclus. 24:5, "I (the Eternal Wisdom) came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first begotten before every creature." Also to Pro 8:22, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything, from the beginning." Where the Septuagint translates, "The Lord built, or founded (έκτισε ) me the beginning of His ways, in His work. Before the age He founded me in the beginning, before He made the earth, and appointed the great depths."

In the beginning, i.e., first, "in the Eternal Father," as Cyril says, and Origen. For by-and-by John says in the 14th verse, that the Word was in the bosom of the Father. Second, and more simply, Augustine, Bede, and Hilary, In the beginning, i.e., of the world, or of times, such as you can only imagine, which went on from all eternity before the foundation of the world. As much as to say, the Word was not made in the beginning of time, however ancient and imaginary; but He existed then, because He was not made, but was begotten from eternity. Third, and most simply, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Basil, In the beginning, i.e., before all things, even from the beginning of all eternity, long before all angels, or men, or things created, the Word was. For S. John is here speaking of a true and real beginning ( principium ), just as Moses does in the first verse of Genesis, and Solomon in Pro 8:22. Wherefore, all the Fathers from the passage prove the true Divinity and eternity of Christ. This beginning S. John sets in opposition to Ebion, who affirmed that Christ began to be after His birth of the Virgin, and that He had no previous existence. So Cyril. Hence Nonnus expounds the expression In the beginning, in a fivefold manner one following after another. He was in the beginning, saith he, first, as not subject to conditions of time; second , as coeternal with the Father; third, as equal to the Father by nature; fourth, as incomprehensible; fifth, as ineffable. The four last are consequences of the first.

You will say, Eternity is infinite duration, having neither beginning, nor end: why then is a beginning here spoken of? I answer, the reason is, because of the weakness of the human intellect, which is not able to comprehend eternity, nor to conceive of it definitely, except by a comparison with time. Therefore it conceives of eternity as duration which is coexistent with all time—past, present, and future, and that not only time actual, but which can be conceived of. Indeed, it precedes all time. The meaning therefore is this, In the beginning, that is, before all time, even that which can be, imagined in the mind, the Word was. Think of millions of millions of years, as much as ever thou canst conceive in thy mind; before all these, and whatsoever infinite number thou canst add, the Word was. This is why S. John repeats was four times, saying, In the beginning was the Word, &c., that thou mayest understand that whatsoever time thou thinkest of, the Word was then: that in all ages, however far back thou goest, the Word was in those ages . Beginning therefore is here used relatively, for it is spoken with reference to all time, even that which far precedes. For as the whole substance and immensity of God is in every place whatsoever, yes, in every point of space, and yet it encompasses all space and every place, even what we can think of above the heavens, so likewise God's eternity, which altogether in time present, or in one single instant of the duration of time, includes and embraces all time, past, present, and to come, and far exceeds and transcends it all. And this is what we mean when we say, following the words of S. John, that God's eternity was in the beginning.

Thus we are able to ascend with our minds to the idea of the antiquity, and as it were the origin of eternity, which is here called Principium, that is, the beginning of all duration and eternity.

Though indeed this beginning is without beginning, a commencement without commencement. Therefore when we would say of anything, that it did not have a beginning in time, we say that it was in the beginning of all duration and eternity. And by this we mean nothing else but that it always existed, that it was from all eternity. This is the meaning of S. John when he says, In the beginning was the Word. This is also why we say in ordinary discourse, that God has existed from the beginning of eternity, that is, that He is from all eternity.

Was : the expression was, says S. Basil upon these words of S. John, leads us to eternity, not as if the word was signified that the Word preceded the beginning, concerning which it is said, It was the beginning, and consequently the beginning of time and the world were here to be understood (because the Word preceded in computation ( ratione ) only, as it were, for as everything whatsoever precedes its own duration, so also God is before His duration and eternity: for duration is the continuance and measure of the thing which exists and endures), therefore, even before, from all eternity, was the Word. Here observe that the word employed is was ( erat ), not has been ( fuit ), for has been signifies that which has existed, and passed away; but was signifies that it is even now, or that it is perennial and eternal. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact. The Holy Ghost therefore suggested was to the mind and pen of S. John, as against the Arians, whom He foresaw would arise. They were wont to say, There was when there was no was ; meaning there was a time when the Son was not. From these words of S. John the Council of Nice condemns them; because, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., from eternity.

Moreover, S. Gregory Nazianzen observes that the substantive verbs is and was have a special application to God from the plentitude of His essence. Wherefore God in Hebrew is called Jehovah, i.e., He who is.

The Word, Gr. ό λόγος, That Word, eternal and divine, which is the Son of God, as even the Arians formerly allowed. For John soon after calls this Word the Only Begotten of the Father. So constantly in Scripture, the Son is called the Word of the Father. S. Basil thought that the Holy Spirit might also be called the Word; but S. Thomas rightly observes that this can only be said improperly (improperly being used in the logical sense).^*

You will ask why is the Son of God called the Word? I answer that the Greek λόγς ( Logos ) has many meanings, which are all applicable in this place. 1 . Logos may be translated reason, because, as reason proceeds from the mind, so does the Son from the Father. So SS. Chrysostom and Basil.

2. Logos may be translated definition, because the Word definitely expresses and unfolds the nature and attributes of the Father. Wherefore Nicetas ( in Orat. 42 Nazianz.) says, "The same relation that a definition bears to the thing defined does the Son bear to the Father. For He declares the Father as a definition declares that which is defined by it. Wherefore Christ said, 'Philip, he that seeth Me, seeth My Father also.' For the Son is a compendious demonstration of the Paternal nature; for every offspring is a sort of tacit account, or definition, of its parent."

3. Logos may be translated cause, because the Word is the cause of all things which have been created and produced by the Word of God.

4. Λόγος may be translated work, because the Word is the Work of the Father, coextensive with Him, coeternal and coequal.

5. Λόγος can be translated power, or virtue, because the Word is the strength and right hand of the Father.

6. Λόγος may be translated beauty, because the Word is the form, grace, and beauty of the Father.

7. And chiefly, Λόγος may be translated, with Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose, speech ( sermo ), or rather Word ( Verbum ). This Word, or speeeh, is not of the mouth, but of the mind; because as we by thinking form a conception to ourselves of the thing thought of, or understood, which is called the word of the mind, so the eternal Father, by comprehending and understanding His Essence, and all that belongs to It, has produced this Eternal Word, coequal with, and like to, Itself, by means of which it comes to pass that this Word is God, and the Son of God, begotten of the Father.

Hence also the Gentile philosophers, Trismegistus, Orpheus, Plato, and the rest of the Greeks, Chaldæans, and Egyptians called the Father νο̃υν i.e., mind ; and the Son Logos, as it were, the offspring of the mind. See S. Augustine ( lib. 7, Confess. c. 9). Whence that saying of Plato's, "A Monad begat a Monad, and in it reflected his ardour." He means, The Father begat the Son, and through Him breathed the Holy Spirit, which is the reciprocal Love of the Father and the Son. Many, however, are of opinion that Plato and the other Gentile philosophers mean by the Logos not the Son but the idea in the mind of God, according to which He created all things, and reflected His love back upon Himself, because He created the world on account of His love.

Here observe, the Word of God is twofold. First , essential, because it is the very Intelligence of the Father, which together with essence, understanding, and will, He shares with the Son and the Holy Ghost. The second is notional, which is the Word produced by the Father, and subsisting personally, that is, as the Son. So S. Thomas (1, dist. 27 q. 2. a. 2). This is the twofold meaning of the Word, taken in its widest sense.

I have written more upon the Word in 1 Epis. Joh 1:1. Let me add here what S. Augustine says ( Serm. 38 de Verb. Dom.) "The Word of God is, as it were, a Form, but not formed. It is the Form of all forms, over all things, and existing in all things. But some ask, How could the Son be begotten coeternal with the Father? As if fire were eternal, would not its brightness be coeternal with it? Is it not the same with the reflection in a mirror, or in water? As, for example, a shrub would always have its reflection in the water beside which it grew." And S. Chrysostom says, "He said not Word simply, but by the article distinguished it from all others. For it is an Hypostasis, proceeding forth impassibly from the Father. This is the meaning of was in the beginning, that it always existed, and with an infinite existence. For it is not said of the heaven and the earth, that they were in the beginning, but that they were made in the beginning.

And the Word was with God.  S. John meets an objection. Some one may say, "Where was the Word in the beginning, i.e., from eternity, when as yet there was no place, and no created nature of things?" He answers, "The Word had no need of place, because It is spiritual, and divine; but It was with the Father, as with that from which It derived Its origin." As it is said in the 18th verse, It was in the bosom of the Father. Or, as we might say, It was in the Father's House, which is God Himself, and His immensity.

The preposition with denotes—1. Distinction of person, because indeed the Son is a different Person from the Father, not one and the same, as the Sabellians say. "For how should that which is one numerically be understood to be with itself?" says S. Cyril. "Before all things," says Tertullian ( lib. 5 cons. Prax.) "God alone was Himself to Himself both universe and space and everything. But in this respect only was He alone, that He had nothing external to Himself, for not even then was He alone; for He had with Himself what he had in Himself, His Reason, or that which the Greeks call His Logos. "

2. With denotes the loving and perfect union of the Son with the Father, by which it comes to pass that it is impossible for Him to be separated from the Father. So Nonnus.

3. With denotes the equality of the Son with the Father. For to be with God, or near to ( juxta ) God, means to sit at the right hand of God, as it were God of the same substance as the Father. Wherefore Christ is said after His Ascension to have returned to the right hand of the Father (Mar 16:19) As Nonnus expounds, "the Son is sunthronos with the Father," a term which cannot be expressed by a single word in English, but which means an associate in the same throne, an assessor in the same seat.

And the Word was God. The order of the words in the Greek is, And God was the Word. Lest the Arians should bring forward the objection, "If the Word was with God, then the Word was not God, John confutes them by anticipation, saying The Word was God. For the Arians placed the interior and essential Word of God, that is, the Intelligence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as the orthodox faith is) in one Person of Godhead, coeternal with Himself. They said that God began to be a Father in time, when He produced the Word ( Verbum notionale ) distinct from Himself, as it were the first of creatures, and by him all other creatures. John refutes this by saying, And God was the Word, meaning that the Word already spoken of was God. He said this lest any one should suppose that the Word was not God, because he had said that He was with God. He means that the Word was with God in such sort that He Himself was God.

The Arians object that the Greek word θεὸν i.e., God, has not the article in this clause as it had in the preceding clause, and the Word was with God ( apud τὸν θεὸν ). Therefore, say they, the Word was not true God. I reply by denying the conclusion. For the reason of the difference is that the word God (θεὸν ) in the preceding clause, with God, denotes a distinct Person, namely, the Person of the Father with whom the Word was. But in this latter clause it denotes not a Person but the essence of the Godhead common to each Person. For the Word is one God with the Father, so far as relates to Essence and Godhead, but not as regards Person. And the article in this place signifies a distinct Person, not the nature common to both. Again, the Greeks prefix the article to the subject, not the predicate; and in this place God is the predicate, the Word is the subject.

Observe that John in this sentence with three clauses, by the first clause unfolds the when of the Word: it was eternity. Secondly, the where of the Word, and His distinction from the Father. In this third clause, the essence of the Word, and His identity in essence with the Father. S. John unfolded this threefold sentence of His Gospel in the Creed which, at the bidding of the Blessed Virgin, he delivered to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as S. Gregory of Nyssa relates in his life. For this symbol is as follows, "There is one Father of the living Word, the substantial Wisdom and Power, and eternal Image, the perfect Father of the perfect and only begotten Son. One Lord, alone from the Only One, God of God, the form and image of the Godhead, the efficacious Word, the comprehensive Wisdom by which all things were made, and the effectual power of the whole creation. True Son that cannot be seen, of the true Father that cannot be seen, incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Son of the incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Father."

The same was in the beginning with God. He compendiously repeats and confirms this proposition of this clause by a sentence of a single clause. Thus, "This Word, which I have said is God, was in the beginning, that is, from eternity, with God." For it is difficult to understand how the Word can be with God, and yet the same be God. Therefore John writes and inculcates both together, that he may signify at one and the same time the unity of essence and the diversity of persons, and that he may teach that in the Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For this is the deepest and most obscure mystery of our faith, and the most difficult to be believed.

Maldonatus gives a second reason for this repetition, derived from the third clause, the Word was God, that is to say, forasmuch as the Word was God, therefore it follows that He was in the beginning with God the Father, that is, coeternal and of one substance with the Father.

S. Hilary gives a third reason ( lib. 1 de Trin.), lest any one should suppose because he said the Word was God, and the same was in the beginning with God, there were therefore two Gods, one which was the Word, and the other with whom the Word was, as the Manichæans held two Principles, or Gods, one of which was the Creator of all things corporeal, the other the Creator of angels and things spiritual, John declares that the Word was so with God the Father as to be the same God with Him.

All things were made by Him, that is, by the Word. All things which were not God were created by the Word. "All things, from an angel to a worm," says S. Augustine; who adds, "between God who speaks, and the creature which was made, what is there by which it was made, but the Word, by whom God said, Let it be made, and it was made. As the Apostle says, "By Him," i.e., the Word, "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Col 1:16).

From these words of S. John the Macedonians falsely denied that the Holy Ghost is God, arguing that He was made by the Word, and therefore that He was a creature, and not the Creator. But it is plain that the words refer to things created, not things uncreated, such as the Spirit, who is One God with the Father and the Son, and the Creator of all things. For if you were to take the word all absolutely, you might infer that the Father also had been created by the Word, which would be ridiculous, as S. Gregory Nazianzen learnedly teaches against the Macedonians ( Orat. de Sp. Sanct. ) S. John does not in this place make mention of the Holy Ghost, because he is only treating of the generation and incarnation of the Word. Wherefore, after he had said that the Word was Himself God, that is, coeternal, and of one substance with the Father, he now in this third verse describes the relation of the same Word to all created things, asserting that they were made by Him. Then in the ninth and following verses he comes down to man, showing the relation of the Word to man. He asserts that He took upon Him the nature of man, that He might illuminate and save him. This is the scope and object of the whole passage.

Observe that when it is said by Him, the preposition by does not signify an instrumental cause, or a minister, as though the Word were the instrument, or minister of God, by which He created all things, as Origen supposed, and also the Arians, but it signifies an original, or chief ( principalem ) cause, as in Pro 8:15, "By me kings reign," and 1Co 1:9, "Faithful is God, by whom ye have been called" (Vulg.) The preposition by in this and other places is referred to God the Father, who is the First Cause of all things. And by here means that the Word with the Father is the original Cause of the creation of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius on this passage, and SS. Athanasius, Basil, and others against the Arians. Wherefore also S. Paul (Heb 1:10) interprets Psa 102:26, "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands," of the Word, or Son. "Never, certainly, would he have said this," says S. Chrysostom, "unless he had believed the Son to be the Founder, not a minister, and that the Father and the Son were equal in dignity."

You will ask, Why then does S. John use the preposition διὰ ( per, or through ) instead of ύπὸ by, when he says that all things were made through (διὰ ) Him? 1. That he might signify that the Word proceeds from the Father, and is begotten of Him. "Lest any one should suppose," says S. Chrysostom, "that the Word was unbegotten."

2. That he might signify that the Word is the Idea of created things, according to which the Father with the Son created all things. For an artificer makes all the works of his art by an ideal, or conception, or mental word, or plan. All these similitudes are transferred to the Divine Word, who is the Begotten but Uncreated Wisdom.

And without Him was made nothing ( Vulg.) Nothing : i.e., evil, as corruptible things, whose constant tendency is to nothingness, from whence they came forth, as the Manichæans say. For they thought that things corporeal and corruptible were not created by God, but by a demon, or evil god. But that this interpretation of the words is false and foolish is shown by the Greek for nothing (ου̉δε έν ), nor even one thing, meaning that everything, without one single exception, was created by the Word. So the Arabic clearly translates, All things were made by Him, and without Him was there not made anything of the things which were made.

3. By nothing, S. Augustine understands sin: that all things were made by the Word, nothing, i.e., sin being excepted, the author of which is the devil and an evil will not God. But this idea is shown to he untenable in this place by the Greek, ου̉δ έν, not even one thing.

Which was made. Here there are three ways of pointing, and in consequence a threefold interpretation and meaning. The first is without Him was nothing made, which was made in Him : then the stop, after which begins a new sentence, There was life, &c. So read and punctuate SS. Hilary, and Epiphanius, and some others.

But this reading is generally rejected as containing a manifest tautology.

A second reading is, without Him was made nothing: then a full stop, after which a new sentence is commenced, That which was made in Him was life. This is the pointing and reading of S. Austin, Tertullian ( cond. Hermog. ) S. Ambrose ( lib. 3 de fide, c. 3), and the Latin Fathers passim. And among the Greeks are Clement of Alexandria ( lib. 1 Pæ. c. 6.) and S. Cyril in loc.  S. Augustine expounds as follows, "Everything mad and created by the Word was in the same Word vitally and intellectually, before it was made and created." It was in the ideas and eternal plans which exist in the Word. It was therefore life, i.e., it lived in the mind and idea of the Word. S. Cyril explains differently, "Everything was made life in the Word, that is, it received, and continues to receive life, i.e., vigour and the preservation of its being, as long as it exists, from the Word."

The third reading is that of the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek texts of S. Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, and Tertius ( in cantena ): without Him was nothing made that was made ; then the stop, and then a fresh sentence, In Him was life. This is by far the best reading, and in conformity with it the Bible has been corrected at Rome, and most of the other Latin copies.

S. John adds this sentence against the Macedonians, who argued as we have seen above. As if he said, "When I say that all things were made by the Word, I mean, not the Holy Spirit, but only such things as were created and made."

In Him was life, &c . Life is the thing which is most excellent, as death is the worst. S. John also ascribes to the Word the Fountain of life: for in Him "we live, and move and have our being" (Acts xvii.) Hence the Greeks call their God Zeus, from ξη̃ν, to live, because he breathes life into all living things. S. John's meaning therefore is, "Our true life of grace and glory was in the Word as its origin and fountain. And that He might communicate, Himself as this life and light to men, He came down to them, and became man. That as by the Word this macrocosm or great universe was created, so also by the same might the microcosm, or little world of man, be re-created, and called back from the death of sin to the life of grace and righteousness."  S. John explains himself by adding, And the life was the light of men. In his first Epistle he speaks thus of the Word of Life (1Jo 1:2). "For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." And in chap. v., the last verse, "that we may know the true God, and may be in His true Son. This is the true God, and life eternal" (Vulg.) And this is why S. John. constantly calls Christ The Life.

The Fathers expound this Life of the Word in various ways.

1 . Of Formal Life. In Him was Life : that is, life is the very substance of the Word. The Word Himself is substantial Life. So says Œcumenius on 1 John i. The Word Himself is essentially Life. For Life and to live are His very essence.

2. In the Word is Life ideal, or exemplar, because in the Word, as in Idea, the eternal plans of all things exist, as S. Austin says. For the Word is the Idea of all creatures, but the Idea is itself the essence and life of God. Thus therefore the Word is the life of all creatures, even of things inanimate, for all live in the Word, inasmuch as He is all Life.

3. In the Word is efficient natural Life, because the Word is the efficient Cause of all living things, and He gives them their life. To plants He gives vegetable life, to animals animal life, to men rational life, to angels angelic life. Jansen expounds thus, "The natural life of living things depends upon the Word."

4. and last. You may here take life to mean, supernatural efficient Life, and explain as follows, "In the Word, as in a Fount and prime Cause, was our supernatural life, that is to say, of grace and glory; and therefore that He might impart this life to us, He became Incarnate, as I have before said. For supernatural life is twofold. It is begun by grace, by which a just man serves God in faith, hope, and charity, and lives the supernatural life, believing in , hoping in, and loving God above all things, supernaturally. The other supernatural life is that which is consummated in glory, wherein the blessed enjoy God, and are eternally beatified. There is an allusion to Psalm xlvi., "With Thee is the Well of Life, and in Thy light shall we see life." "This is," says Theodoret, "'With Thee is the Word Eternal, the fountain of life; and in the light of the Holy Spirit shall we behold the light of Thy Only Begotten Son.'"

The light of man, by which men are spiritually illuminated through faith and grace. For he is speaking, not of natural and corporeal, but of spiritual and supernatural light, as is plain from what follows. The meaning is, Our life, which I have just said was in the Word, was this illumination of the Word, by which He has illuminated men with the knowledge of God and His salvation—externally, by words and holy examples; internally, by heavenly light infused into the soul. This was why the Word was made flesh. So Clement of Alexandria ( Exhort. ad. Gent.) says , "The Word which was with God appeared as a Teacher—the Word by which all things were made, and which, with Him who made them, gave them at the same time life as their Maker, and taught them to live well when He appeared as their Teacher, that He might hereafter, for the time to come , supply them with the means of living for ever."

And the light shineth in darkness, &c. The meaning is, As the natural light by its illumination dispels the darkness, so likewise has Christ, forasmuch as He is light, done His part; but the darkness, at is, men by reason of their ignorance and unbelief, have closed the eyes of their soul, that they should not admit this light.

Observe, that Christ, as He is God, is the uncreated, efficient light: as man also He is the efficient light, because He is to men the Author of all wisdom, grace, and glory, not only giving them the natural light of reason, as Origen and Cyril explain, but still more as giving them the supernatural light of faith and wisdom. Wherefore Christ is called in Mal 4:2, "The Sun of righteousness."

Observe Christ as man is here called light, because He chiefly gave light after His Incarnation. He was indeed light before, even from the first beginning of the universe. For as the sun, before it ascends above the horizon, sends forth some rays of its dawning, with which it gives light to the world, so likewise does Christ. This is what the Father says to Christ: "I have given Thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be My salvation unto the ends of the earth."

Admirably does S. Augustine say ( Hom. 43), "Christ therefore came to give light to the eyes, because the devil had blinded them." And the same saint says ( Epist. 120, ad. Honor ), "The Son of God is not absent even from the minds of the wicked, although they see Him not, just as no light is seen when it is presented to the eyes of the blind." The light of the Word shines in the darkness of wicked men by the light of reason, by the voices of creatures, which all cry aloud that there is a Creator, and that He ought to be worshipped and loved. It shines by the law of nature written in the soul, by the New Law, by the Scriptures, by doctors and preachers, by holy inspirations, and by many such things. Wherefore, the same Augustine says ( Tract. 2 . in Joan ), "Fall not into sin, and this sun shall not go down upon thee. If thou shalt fall into sin, it will set, and darkness will fall upon thee." "If thou wilt see light, be thou also thyself light. But if thou lovest darkness, and the lusts of darkness, then will they overshadow thee, yea, make thee blind."

Observe in holy Scripture, and especially in S. John, both in his Gospel and his Epistles, the faith and grace of Christ are compared to light, and sin to darkness, on account of many apposite analogies between them. For light is heavenly, and is the most noble, the swiftest and most pure of natural things. It is impassible and most active. It cannot be defiled by any impurities, even though they be commingled with it. It brings warmth, glory, and joy. It causes all things to be seen, and brings life and power to every living thing. Such also is God, and His grace. The contrary to all this is found in sin, whose symbol is darkness. Besides all this, grace leads to everlasting light and glory, sin to the lowest and most extreme darkness.

Comprehended it not. Greek, ου̉ κατέλαβεν i.e., as Vatablus translates, did not receive it. The meaning is, so great was the blindness and depravity of unbelieving and wicked men, that when the Light offered itself to them of its own accord, they would not embrace, nor receive it; for they closed their eyes that they might not admit it; for "their works were evil," as S. John says (Joh 3:19).

The was a man sent from God, &c. He was sent, as Luke says, (Luk 3:1), "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar: and the Word of God came to him in the wilderness." "Thou, then," Chrysostom, "when thou understandest that he was sent from God, do not think that anything merely human is being announced, but that all is Divine. He does not declare anything of his own, but the secrets of Him who sends him. Therefore he, John, is called an angel, that is, a messenger. It is the office of a messenger to know nothing of himself."

The same came for a witness, &c. Namely, that he might bear witness that Jesus is the true Light of the world, and that we must look for, and ask of Him all the light of faith, and all the knowledge of salvation.

Observe that in Greek the article is prefixed to light, as it were that light meaning the spiritual and Divine light, that which shineth of itself, and is essentially light, and the source of all enlightenment, which is as it were a Divine Sun, in respect of which John the Baptist was but as the moon, or the day-star. For as the morning star goes before the sun, so did John precede Christ the Sun of righteousness. The meaning is as follows—Inasmuch as the light the Godhead was hidden in the humanity of Christ, as in a lantern dark and shaded, so that men discerned it not, therefore did God send John, that he might uncover and make this light manifest, and testify that Jesus was the very Son of God, the Teacher and Redeemer of the world. For, as Paul saith (1Ti 6:16), God "inhabiteth the unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen, nor can see." And again, the Son "is the splendour of His glory, and the form of the substance" of God the Father (Heb 1:3, vulg.)

And again, the same is "the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of His goodness" (Wisd. 7:26).

That all men through him might believe : that is, believe in the Light, and so be justified and saved. Through him, namely, John, who as it were with his finger pointed out Christ, saying. "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world."

He was not that Light, &c. The Jews and the Scribes thought, because of the preaching and heavenly life of John in the wilderness, that he was himself the Light, i.e., Christ. John the Evangelist by these words destroys such an idea. He was not that Light. That is, he was not the Saviour of the world, but only His witness, who received all his own light of knowledge and prophecy and grace from Christ. Wherefore in v. 35, he is called "a burning and a shining lamp." "But," says Origen, "he did not burn by h

Lapide: Joh 1:14-51

Was made : not that the Word was changed into flesh, or flesh into the Word, for, as S. Chrysostom says, "far from that immortal nature is transmutation." For how could flesh become God, that is, how could the creature become the Creator? Neither does it mean that the Word was made flesh, that is, became a man, in such a sense that He assumed not only human nature, but a human person, as Nestorius thought. "It is not as if," says Theophylact, "the Word had found a man endued with virtues, and united him to Himself," as the Holy Ghost united Himself to the prophets, the angel Raphael to Tobias. But it is that He united the nature of man to His own Hypostasis, and caused that the man Jesus should subsist in- the same Hypostasis as God the Word, God the Son. Moreover, the Word was made flesh, not in imagination, nor appearance, nor fancy, as the Manichæans maintained, but in the very truth and reality of actual fact. The Word was made man, I say, not by Himself alone, but by the whole Trinity. For all the Holy Trinity way the efficient cause of the Incarnation of the Word, but still in such a manner that the Hypostatic Union was with the sole Person of the Word, not with that of the Father, or the Holy Ghost: and the Son alone became man. "For the Trinity itself made the Word only to be flesh," says S. Fulgentius ( lib. de fide ad Petr. )

The Word therefore clothed with flesh was as the sun vested with a cloud, or as fire burning iron, or as a burning coal, as S. Cyril says. Wherefore its type and symbol is a carbuncle, as I have said on Rev 21:29. Again, it was like unto a pearl in a shell, or as lightning in a cloud, or as gold in a furnace, or an angel in a body. Moreover S. Augustine says ( lib. 15. de Trin. c. 11), "As our speech becomes a voice, and yet is not changed into a voice, so the Word of God being made flesh was not changed into flesh."

I have said more on the subject of the Incarnation in the first chapter of S. John's Epistle. Among other things I have shown that it was with this end and object in view, that the Word which before, as God, was our Father, might become, as it were, our Mother, through the Humanity which He assumed. And I added from Damascene, that God assumed human nature, that He might unite the whole world to Himself by it, and, as it were, make it godlike.

And dwelt among us : Greek, ε̉σκήνωσεν, i.e., tabernacled amongst us for a short time, like a guest and a foreigner in a strange land. For He was a citizen and an inhabitant, and the Lord of Heaven and Paradise. As it is said in Jeremiah (xiv. 8), "Wherefore wilt thou be as a sojourner in the land, and as a wayfarer turning aside to lodge?" Christ therefore wished to teach us by His own example that this world is, as it were, a guest-house, but that heaven is our country, which we ought to strive to attain, despising earthly things.

SS. Chrysostom and Cyril explain a little differently. Among us, i.e., in us, in our nature, namely, in the Humanity which He assumed, that He might redeem us. S. Chrysostom gives the reason. "The Word constructed a holy temple for Himself, and by means of it introduced from heaven a way in which we should spend our life."

And we have seen His glory : Greek, ε̉θεασάμεθα, we have gazed upon, as on a new and wonderful spectacle in a theatre, that the Word veiled in flesh might indeed show us the glory of His Godhead by means of miracles and Divine wisdom. Thus the Apostle says (1Co 4:9), "We were made a spectacle (Greek, a theatre ) to the world, to angels and to men." Listen to S. Austin, "By that His nativity He made an eye-salve, whereby the eyes of our heart might be cleansed. No man could see His glory unless he would be healed by the humility of the flesh. Flesh had blinded thee: flesh healeth thee. Thus cometh the physician that by the flesh He may heal the vices of the flesh."

The glory as of the only Begotten. The meaning is, we have seen the glory of Christ, being such and so great as became the Only Begotten Son: or that it was such as might manifest Him to be the Only Begotten Son of God. For to Him, as S. Basil says, hath God the Father given all His glory, all His substance, as parents are wont to leave all their inheritance to an only begotten son. This glory of Christ did S. John with his fellows behold in the Transfiguration upon Mount Tabor, in His glorious Resurrection, in His Ascension, and in His Divine life and miracles. Therefore the word as here denotes not similitude, but reality. So S. Chrysostom says, "The word as in this place is an expression not of similarity, but of confirmation, and certain definition." And Theophylact says, "We behold His glory, not such as that which Moses had, nor glory such as that with which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet, but glory such as that which became the Only Begotten of the Father, the glory which appertains to Him by His nature."

Moreover, the glory of the Godhead of Christ shone through the flesh which He assumed, as through a veil, as Euthymius says, who further adds, "What was that grace of the Word? Surely it was the performance of miracles such as had never been beheld before: it was His bright and supernatural Transfiguration, the preternatural darkening of the sun at the time of His Passion, the fearful rending of the veil, the terrible earthquake, the rending of the rocks, the opening of the graves, the raising of the dead, and that which is the chief of all, wonderful beyond speech or thought, the Resurrection of the Lord."

Of the Father. This is added, saith S. Bernard, "because Christ hath brought to us from the Father's heart everything that is paternal, that fear itself might perceive nothing in the Son of God but what is sweet and fatherly towards the human race." More loftily, and more literally, says St. Cyril, "That supernatural grace is ever firm and immutable, ever the same, ever equally full of its own dignity. Wherefore, although the Word was made flesh, He was not overcome by the infirmity of the flesh, nor did He fall from His ancient majesty and omnipotence, because He became man. For we saw, he says, the glory of Christ from God, more lofty than the glory of creatures, that every one who is in possession of his senses might confess that it could belong to no other than to the Only Begotten Son of God."

Full of grace and truth. Erasmus and Cajetan join these words to what follows, and refer them to John the Baptist. They connect and translate as follows, John being full of grace and truth bears witness of Him, namely, of Jesus, that He is the Christ. They support their view by saying that the Greek for full is πληζης in the nominative masculine. But this pointing and translation is opposed to all the Fathers, and the perpetual consent of the Church, contrary, too, to the pointing of the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic versions, which place a full stop after truth. It is moreover inconsistent with what follows, for John, explaining how Christ was full of grace and truth, subjoins, of His fulness have all we received. The Greek for full being in the nominative, is inconclusive, as well because many MSS. have πλήζη in the accusative, and others have πλήζη in the margin, as also because the preceding words, And we have seen His glory, the glory &c., should be read as in a parenthesis. For πλήζης, the nominative refers to λόγος, meaning, the Word was made flesh, being full of grace and truth. Thee is a reference to human speech, the greatest commendation of which is, when it is gracious and true. So also the Divine Word, not merely as He is in Himself, but also as He became flesh, carried with Him most excellent grace, as it were in a fountainhead, and was most abundantly endowed by God with every gift of grace, both in word and deed, according as it was said, "And all marvelled at the words of grace which proceeded out of His mouth" (Luk 4:22.). The same Word made flesh was full of truth also, because He was exposed all errors, and banished the shadows of tie Old Law, and brought to light the very truth itself which was promised by the prophets. "In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:5).

Full of grace : "For we have not see the glory of power or splendour," says S. Bernard, "but the glory of paternal kindness," the glory of grace, of which the Apostle saith, "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6). Wherefore the Apostle exclaims, (1Ti 3:16), "Great is the mystery of piety" (namely, the Word made flesh ), "which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." For how full and altogether perfect was the grace of Christ, see the teaching of S. Thomas (3 p. q. 7. art. 9 et seq. )

And truth. A symbol of the union of grace and truth is found in the breastplate of the high priest Aaron, which bore the inscription of Urim and Thummim, that is, doctrines and truth, or, literally, illumination and perfection, that is, truth and grace. These two superabounded in Christ, and are especially needful for every priest that he may be like Christ.

Therefore although the Blessed Virgin, S. Stephen, and other saints are said to be full of grace above other men, yet in respect of Christ were they not full. For Christ is, as it were, an ocean flowing out in rivers of grace to all the faithful, to apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins. As the Apostle says (Col 2:9), "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." And again, "To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (Eph 4:7), and "To the Son God hath not given the Spirit by measure."

Ver. 15.— John bears witness, &c. He proves what he had said concerning the Word Incarnate, and that He was full of grace and truth, by the irrefragable testimony of John the Baptist. For him the Jews accounted as a prophet and divine. It is as if he said, "Not only have we seen Jesus Christ full of grace and truth, but John, who was sent from God, openly and plainly has testified the same concerning Him."

And crieth : the Greek is, έκζαγε, i.e., cried out. For he himself was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isa 40:23). "Whom not I myself alone have heard," says S. Cyril, "but far and wide among all hath his cry come. For it was not in secret, nor with low and stammering accents, but louder than a trumpet." As S. Chrysostom says, "Freely and confidently, casting away fear, he preached the advent of God."

This was He of whom I spake : see verses 27 and 30. It means, "Before John had seen and known Christ, he said, that He was about to come to save man. And when he had seen Him, he repeated and confirmed it." As Theophylact says, "Lest he should seem to please merely the person of Jesus, in speaking in too much praise of Him, he saith, of whom I spake, that is, even before I had seen Him."

He who cometh, i.e., who is about to preach, says S. Chrysostom, after me, was before me. That is, He is preferred in honour before me, because He was the destined Redeemer of the world. As Bede says, "not in order of time, but of dignity." And S. Augustine, "He was not made before I was made" (for John was born six months before Christ), but He was placed before me."

For He was before me : for since Jesus is true God, He was from eternity. So SS. Augustine and Chrysostom. Again, before means, greater by nature, more worthy in majesty. S. Chrysostom remarks, "John does not say, Christ, by making advance in grace and virtue, hath surpassed me; but He was before me, i.e., 'He was always my superior, always more glorious than I,'" as Cyril adds, because He was very God."

And of His fulness, &c. He follows up and unfolds what he had said in the fourteenth verse that the Word Incarnate was full of grace and truth : for of this plenitude of grace and truth have all we, apostles and Christians, yea, all the faithful before Christ, received. For Enoch, Noab, Moses, and all the rest of the prophets and patriarchs, have been sanctified and saved by the aforeseen merits of Christ. Origen and Theophylact think that these are a continuation of the words of John the Baptist; but SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others better take them as the words of S. John the Evangelist, confirming the preceding words of the Baptist.

Of His fulness : i.e., of Him who is most full. For Christ as the Head of the Church sheds abroad upon all the faithful, who are His members, not the whole fulness of His grace, but a portion thereof according to His will. "The saints," says Bede, "receive not the fulness of His Spirit, but of His fulness what He giveth." "For from the fulness of the Son," says S. Cyril, "as a perpetual fountain, the gifts of grace flow out abroad to each soul that is worthy of them." This is what the Apostle says, "He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places," i.e., by "Christ," (Eph 1:3) "For He is the fountain and the root of all good," says S. Chrysostom; "He is life, He is light, He is truth, not keeping in Himself the riches of His goodness, but diffusing them to all, and when He bath diffused them remaining full. Neither is there any diminution in Him of that which He supplies to others, but He ever bestows His riches yet more abundantly; and when He has imparted to all He still abides in the same perfectness."

And grace for grace : Greek, χάζιν α̉ντὶ χάζιτος, where α̉ντὶ, for, is the same as instead of. First some expound thus, grace for grace, i.e., grace upon grace, or, all grace have we received from Christ. As it might be said in Hebrew, chen al chen. But this would require ε̉πί instead of α̉ντὶ in the Greek. Johannes Alba, however, defends this interpretation. Grace for grace, he says, means copious and superabundant grace. He quotes the Hebrew expressions in the Prophets, stroke upon stroke, for a very great stroke, or plague: and Job's skin for skin, i.e., skin upon skin, meaning all a man's flocks and herds, skin after skin, will he give for his life. Suarez takes the same view: Grace for grace, i.e., second grace instead of first grace. That is to say, we all, not men only, but angels, have received increasing grace.

2. Maldonatus, grace for grace ; i.e., one man has received one grace or favour; another, instead of it, another grace. But this does not suit the meaning of the Greek α̉ντὶ, which signifies succession, not distribution.

3. S. Austin says, we receive the grace of life eternal, that is, beatific glory, here in hope, and after death in reality, instead of the grace of this life. For, on the one hand, grace is the seed of glory; and on the other hand, glory is the consummation of grace.

4. Others say, we have received from Christ the evangelical instead of the ancient Law. For each is grace, because given gratis by God. So S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Jansen, &c.

5. Others expound, In the grace of Christ we have all received grace, and by Him have been made pleasing to God. Wherefore Paul declares constantly that we are justified and sanctified in Christ. This is a useful, but not an exact meaning, for the Greek άντὶ means instead of, not in.

6. And exactly: The Greek άντὶ has two meanings; chiefly and precisely it denotes vicarious succession, answering to the Hebrew tachath, in the place, or room of. "For the grace of Christ we, as it were, His sons and successors, have received like grace with Him. For as the grace of Christ made Him well-pleasing unto God, so likewise does the same grace make us pleasing unto God, and sons of God by adoption." So SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. Secondly, άντὶ is often used, though improperly, for on account of : " on account of, or, through the grace of Christ as a fountain, we have received grace." It is explanatory of what precedes—and of His fulness have all we received—by means of what follows, even grace for grace. For grace flows down from God through Christ as our Head unto us, who are, as it were, His members, as the Apostle teaches (Eph. i.) For God has willed to appoint Christ to be, as it were, the universal fountain of grace, from whence every grace should flow down to the faithful, that we may owe everything to Christ, and render unto Him endless and infinite thanks. For the sake of Christ, who is well-pleasing and most beloved in His sight, who is also the Mediator, God has reconciled us unto Himself, and enriched us with His grace and friendship, according to the words in S. Mat 3:7, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" and no man pleases Me except through Him. From hence it is plain that we receive from Christ the same grace which He has in Himself—the same, I say, in kind, not in degree, which would be, ordinarily speaking, unbecoming and impossible, though some have even maintained this. Thirdly, the word " for " (άντὶ ) might denote a certain equality. For this is the meaning of the Greek compound άντίθεος, that is to say, the equal of God, or he who makes himself a god, as Lucifer did, and Antichrist will do. So also antitype (ὶντίτυπος ), is that which is set over against and corresponds, that which is equal, and of the same form. And the antipodes are properly those who walk with their feet planted exactly opposite to our own. The meaning then would be—Through Christ we have received grace as it were equal to the grace of Christ, because by it we have been lifted up, and made to belong to the Divine order of things, that is to say, sons of God, and "partakers of the Divine nature" (2Pe 1:4). Thus the Apostles were in some sense the fellows and peers of Christ, for He calls them His brethren. Thus the Pope calls the cardinals brethren, and so, in some sort, equals them to himself. Let a believer then, more especially a priest, or a religious, think with himself how he ought to live like Christ and lead the heavenly life which Christ led, that whosoever shall see him, or hear him, may say he has seen and heard Christ in his lively image.

Under the word grace here include truth also. For Christ is spoken of as full of grace and truth. And of His fulness of both have we all received. For through Christ have we received truth, that is, knowledge of God, faith, wisdom, understanding of salvation and things Divine: also remission of sins, reconciliation with God, the adoption of sons, charity, humility and all other virtues and gifts. All are here comprehended under the word grace.

Ver. 16.— For the law was given by Moses, &c. He gives the reason why through Christ we have received grace for grace. It is because Moses, who was the Jews' greatest prophet and lawgiver, could only give a law which taught and commanded the precepts of God, but could not bestow grace to keep those commandments. Hence the need of Christ to give grace to fulfil the law. Wherefore the Arabic translates, grace the and truth were needful through Jesus Christ. The Evangelist therefore opposes, and prefers Christ to Moses, grace to law.  1. Because Moses in the law only taught directly what God willed the Jews to do, namely the precepts of the Decalogue, under the promise of temporal blessings, such as abundance of corn, wine and oil. But the way of salvation, remission of sins, justification, and holiness, by which we arrive at life eternal, he did not teach, much less bestow that life. But Christ hath both taught it, and hath also bestowed it, through that grace and truth which He hath brought from heaven. That is what Zacharias sings of in the first chapter of Luke, "To give knowledge of salvation unto His people for the remission of sins." Thus too S. Chrysostom, "Grace came by Christ because with authority He forgave sins, and bestowed regeneration. Truth came by Him because He fulfilled the types and figures."

2. In the law was a threefold commandment, the moral law, or the Decalogue; the judicial, and the ceremonial law. To the two first the Evangelist opposes grace, without which they could not be observed. And the effect of grace is that a believer fulfilling the same law from love of God, deserves eternal life. To the ceremonial law he opposes truth, because those ceremonies were types and shadows of Christ and His sacraments, which shadows Christ fulfilled, and so brought in truth. Wherefore S. Austin saith, "When the Law itself was fulfilled" (through Christ), "grace and truth came in. Grace pertains to the fulness of charity, truth to accomplishment of prophecy" ( cont. Faust. c. 6).

3. Because Moses gave only an obscure and slight knowledge of God and the Holy Trinity, but Christ a knowledge that was clear and full. Wherefore Bede thus comprises the whole of what we have been saying. "Christ being made man hath declared what we ought to think concerning the truth of the Trinity, in what manner we ought to hasten to the contemplation of It, by what acts we ought to arrive at It."

Symbolically, S. Austin ( lib. de. Trin. 13, cap. 19) by grace understands the Word Himself, incarnate in time; by truth the eternal vision of God, to which He leads us. This is what he says: "In things that have their origin in time, the highest grace is, that man is united to God by unity of person; but in things eternal the highest truth is rightly attributed to the Word of God. Now in that He is the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, it is brought to pass that He should be the same in the things which are done for us in time, for whom we are cleansed by the like faith, so that we may steadfastly contemplate Him in the things eternal."

Ver. 18.— No man hath seen God, &c. He gives the reason why neither Moses, nor any one else, but Christ alone, hath taught us the perfect truth concerning God and Divine things—because He alone hath seen God. It is as though he said, those things of which thus far I have been speaking, concerning God and the Word, are so sublime, that inasmuch as no mortal man (and therefore not Moses), except the Son of God, hath seen God, therefore that Incarnate Son alone is able perfectly to declare these things. Thus the Fathers passim ; who teach from this passage that Moses saw not the essence of God, but only a certain luminous substance assumed by an angel, in some manner representing to the eyes of Moses the glory of God. Thus S. Gregory says in the Catena : "So long as we live here in mortal flesh, God may be seen by certain manifestations or images of Him, but as He is in His own nature He cannot be seen."

Tropologically, & Gregory teaches ( lib. 18 , Mor. cap. ult. et. penult. ), that no one can behold God and Divine things, unless he first die to this world and its pleasures. For thus he expounds the words in the 18th chapter of Job, It is hid from the eyes of the living : "Because whoever seeth wisdom, which is God Himself, dieth wholly to this life, lest he should be holden of its love. For no man seeth It who still liveth to the flesh, because no man can at the same time embrace God and the world. For he who seeth God dieth in this respect, either in will, or in reality, for with his whole soul he is separated from the pleasures of this life."

The Only Begotten who is in the bosom : Syriac, in the lap : S. Cyril, in the womb, for this is one meaning of the Greek κὸλπος. It is a figure of speech. For by bosom is signified the highest possible union of the Son with the Father. It means that the Son, who is most closely united, and consubstantial with the Father, is partaker of the wisdom of the Father, and conscious of His most secret counsels. And because He knoweth them most perfectly and intimately, therefore He alone is able most fully and plainly to declare them. And so in fact He has declared them. Thus SS. Chryostom, Cyril, and Augustine. S. Athanasius observes ( lib. 3 de Unica Trin. substant.) that this expression, the Only Begotten, which is in the bosom of the Father, is made use of lest when it is said that He was made flesh, it should be supposed that He was divided from the Father. For in truth He abideth, and is with the Father, even as He was in the beginning, and everlasting.

Listen to S. Chrysostom, who by this word bosom thinks it is signified that the Son not only sees, but comprehends the Father. "Many," saith he, "know God, yet none but the Only Begotten Son know of what nature His substance is. He has certain knowledge, sight, and comprehension, such as it is befitting a son to have of his father. For as the Father knoweth Me, He said, so also know I the Father, (John x. 15). Observe therefore with what fulness of language the Evangelist speaks; for when he says, no man hath seen God at any time, he does not go on to say, the Son who hath seen, hath declared Him, but He who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared Him. For he who only seeth hath not certain knowledge of the thing seen: but he who dwelleth in the bosom, to him are all things plain and certain. Lest therefore when you hear, no man knoweth the Father save the Son (Matt. xi. 27), you should say that though He hath greater knowledge of the Father than others have, and yet knows not what His nature is, therefore the Evangelist says, 'He is in the bosom of the Father.'"

There is an allusion to the words of David concerning, Christ in the 110th Psalm (Psa 110:3), "From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee" (Vulg.) That is, "From my fruitful understanding I have, as it were, as a Word spoken this, and as a Son have I begotten thee."  S. Jerome says, " From the womb, i.e., of My substance, of My nature, of the very essence of My substance, have I begotten Thee." So also Theodoret says, " From the womb," that is, "of My substance. For as human beings produce from the womb, and that which they bring forth hath the same nature as those who bring it forth, so art Thou begotten of Me, and Thou showest forth in Thyself the substance of Him who begat." Moreover, Jerome himself translates this verse of the 110th Psalm thus, "The dew of Thy youth shall arise to Thee as it were from the womb;" Aquila, "The dew of Thy childhood arising to Thee early from the womb." It means, "Of My Deity have I begotten Thee God:" as it is in the Creed, "God of God." So SS. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, and others against the Arians. For dew means in Hebrew the same as flower in English. "Dew," says R. Solomon, "means sweetness, joyfulness, purity of heavenly generation, as it were dew born of the heavenly dayspring."

He hath declared : that is, He hath clearly explained and set forth to His disciples, and through them to the whole world. The Greek is ε̉ξηγήσατο, which S. Chrysostom says means clearly to explain secret and hidden things, as Christ has explained to us the secrets of the Father concerning the Trinity and the Word, concerning the vocation of man, grace, resurrection, heavenly glory, and such like. "This word," says S. Chrysostom, "sets forth more express and certain doctrine: wherefore also Christ is called the Word, and (the Angel) of great counsel."

Ver. 19 . — And this is the witness of John, &c. John the Baptist often bare witness to Jesus, that He was the Messias, or the Christ, both before and after His baptism. John the Evangelist therefore, omitting in this place the testimony which the Baptist bore to Jesus before His baptism, which had been related by the three other Evangelists, gives his testimony concerning Him after he had baptised Him. For this testimony was public, judicial, and most celebrated. It had been judicially demanded by the chief priests and magistrates, and had been received by them through the ambassadors whom they sent to John. The reason of this embassy was because the chief priests saw John leading in the desert an angelic life, preaching with great power, baptising, and moving men to repentance, as none of the other prophets had done. The chief priests thought therefore that it was their duty to ask him who he was, especially because they knew that the sceptre had passed from Judah to Herod, and the seventy weeks of Daniel being completed, the coming of Messias must be nigh at hand. Wherefore, suspecting that John was the Messias, they ask him, Who art thou?

S. Chrysostom gives another reason—that they asked out of envy and hatred of Jesus, in order that they might show that Jesus was not the Messiah. They would have preferred to bestow the title upon John. They disliked John's preferring Jesus to himself, and calling Him the Messias or Christ. But although there might be some envy mingled with it, the true reason was, as I have said, that it was the counsel of God so to exalt John, that the chief priests might be driven to ask him whether he were the Christ or not, that being asked he might authoritatively answer that which was the truth, namely, that not he, but Jesus, was the Messias, and that, being convicted by this testimony of John, they might be compelled either to receive Jesus as the Messias or to be without excuse.

Who art thou? The chief priests appear tacitly at least to have inquired of John, whether he were the Christ or not; for John replies, I am not the Christ.

Moreover, they were aware that John was the son of the priest Zacharias, and therefore a priest himself. When therefore they say, Who art thou? they ask virtually, What office hast thou received from God? With what object has God sent thee to preach and baptize? For God was wont to commit greater offices to priests.

Tropologically, let every one often ask himself, Who art Thou? Firstly, as regards our substance. Listen to thy conscience making answer to thyself—the name of God my Creator is, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14) My name therefore as a creature is "I am that am not," because I am nothing of myself, but out of my nothingness have been brought forth by God, and made a man. Wherefore my body and soul are not my own, but God's, who has given them, or rather lent them, to me. As S. Francis was wont to say, "Who art Thou, Lord? Who am I? Thou art an abyss of wisdom and long-suffering, and all goodness. I am an abyss of ignorance, weakness, of all evil and wretchedness. Thou art an abyss of being, I of nothingness." So when Christ appeared to S. Catherine of Sienna, He said, "Blessed art thou if thou knowest who I am, and who thou art. I am He who is, thou art she who is not."

Secondly, as to quality. Who? that is, of what sort art thou? Answer, As regards my body, I am weak, miserable, and wretched. As to my soul, as regards my reason, I am like unto the angels. As regards my sensual appetite, and concupiscence, I am like the brutes. Therefore I will follow my reason, and so become assimilated to the angels.

Thirdly, as regards relation. Who? that is, whose son art thou? Reply, I am the son of Adam, the first sinner, and therefore being born in sin, I am living in sin, and must die in sin, unless the grace of Christ rescue me from my sins, and sanctify and save me.

Fourthly, as regards employment. Who art thou? what trade or profession art thou? I am a carpenter, a baker, a governor, a shepherd, a lawyer. See then that thou exercise thyself in thy calling, whatsoever it be, as the law of God requires, namely, in such wise that thou live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God, that thou mayest so pass through things temporal, that thou lose not, but gain the things eternal. Work, study, live for eternity. As S. Bernard was wont often to say to himself, "Bernard, tell me, wherefore art thou here?" And with this goad, as it were, he stirred himself up to zeal for all virtues.

Fifthly, as regards suffering. Who art thou? that is to say, what dost thou suffer? Reply, In the body I suffer hunger, thirst, disease, continual afflictions, so that there is scarcely the smallest space of time: in which I have not many things to bear. As regards my soul, I have far greater and more bitter afflictions, griefs, and anguish, anxieties, sorrows, angers, indignation, darkness, fear, &c., so that I seem to be, as it were, a mark at which all afflictions hurl their darts, and thrust me through with their arrows. Be thou therefore a very adamant of patience, that thou mayest patiently and generously endure all things, and win the everlasting crown of patience in heaven.

Sixthly, as regards place. Who? that is, where art thou? Answer, I am on earth, placed between heaven and hell, in such wise, that if I live holily, I may pass to heaven, if wickedly, to hell. Live therefore carefully, warily, and holily, that not hell, but heaven may receive thee, when this short mortal life is over.

Seventhly, as regards time. Who art thou? When wast thou born? How long hast thou lived? When shalt thou die? Answer, Born yesterday, today I live, to-morrow I die. "For we are of yesterday, and know nothing; all our days upon the earth are but a shadow" (Job viii. 9). Therefore despise all things temporal, which fly past as a bird doth. Love and covet heavenly things, which endure forever with God and the angels. So shalt thou, being eternal, be happy eternally, and abide in everlasting delights. For as S. Gregory says, "That we may be eternal, and happy eternally, let us imitate eternity. And this is to us a great eternity, even the imitation of eternity."

Lastly, as regards posture and clothing. Who art thou? that is, what posture, or clothing hast thou? Reply, I stand, I sit, I lie. I wear the habit of a Christian, a priest, a bishop, a religious. Take heed then that thou live conformably to thy habit. For it is not the habit which makes the Christian, or the monk, but purity of life, humility, charity.

Ver. 20.— And he confessed, &c. That is, publicly, plainly, and fully that he was not the Christ. For when the Hebrews wished very strongly to assert anything, they doubled the affirmative, and trebled the negative. Observe the great humility of S. John: how firmly he refused the name of Christ when it was offered to him. For he loved the truth, and Jesus, to whom this name belonged. Men of the world love to boast, and say, I am a nobleman, a governor, a canon, a bishop. But John teaches us to say, "I am nothing," because if I am anything, I have it from God.

Ver. 21.— And they asked him, &c. When John denied that he was the Christ, the messengers asked him if he were Elias. For him God took away, that he might be the forerunner of Christ. And of him they were then in expectation, according to the words of Malachi (Mal 4:5), "Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come," meaning the day of judgment, when Christ shall return to be the judge of all. But the Scribes did not understand this. They thought that there would be but one advent of Christ, and that a glorious one, the precursor of which would be Elias. Thus the Jews think even now that Christ has not yet come, but is about to come with Elias. And yet they ought to have known from the same Malachi (Mal 3:1) that there would be another precursor of Christ's first coming in the flesh, even John the Baptist. "For I," saith the Lord, "do send My messenger, and he shall prepare My way before My face."

Art thou that prophet? Greek, ό πζοφήτης, the prophet par excellence. "Art thou a new and great prophet, such an one as we think will come with Messiah, to be His herald?" So SS. Chrysostom and Cyril. But they (the Jews) were in error. For Christ needed not a prophet, as Moses, who was not eloquent, needed Aaron. But Christ was His own prophet, herald, priest, and lawgiver. Moreover John was not a prophet in the sense that he foretold things to come. But he pointed out with his finger, as it were, Christ present. Therefore was he more than a prophet, as Christ says in the 11th of Matthew.

Ver. 23.— I am the Voice, &c. (Isa 40:3), where I have expounded the meaning. Listen to what the Fathers say about it. "I am a servant, and prepare paths, your hearts, for the Lord," says Theophylact. "I come, he says, to say that He is at the doors who is expected, that you may be prepared to go whithersoever He may bid you," says Cyril.

Ver. 24.— And they that were sent, &c. John adds this, to suggest the occasion why they examined John the Baptist concerning baptism. These messengers who were sent to John were Pharisees, and therefore were well versed in the Scriptures. Consequently they knew that Messiah would baptize for the remission of sins, because Ezekiel (Eze 36:25) and Zechariah (Zec 13:1) had predicted that He would do so. But concerning other prophets and saints they had not read in Scripture that they would baptize. They ask John therefore to tell them by what authority he baptized, especially since he not only asserted that he was not Christ, but not even a prophet.

Ver. 25.— And they asked him, &c. "These Pharisees," says S. Cyril, in their arrogancy insult John, as though they said, Neither Elias, nor Eliseus, nor any of the other prophets dared to take upon themselves the office of baptizing. With what face then, or boldness, dost thou, who art not a prophet, arrogate this office to thyself?"

Ver. 26.— John answered them, &c. As though he had said, "God hath sent me to baptize with water, that I might stir you up to repentance and tears, so as to fit you for Christ's baptism. For He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins," as the remaining three Evangelists declare. Therefore John is silent about this.

There standeth one, &c. That is, Christ is living in the midst of you, and yet ye know Him not. That is, you do not recognise Him as Messiah, but look upon Him as a mere man, as vile and abject.

Ver. 27.— He it is who, coming after me, &c. After me Christ shall come to baptize you, that by His baptism He may perfect mine, and may wash and justify them that are penitent. As S. Cyril paraphrases, "I in preparation wash with water those who are polluted with sins as a beginning of repentance, and by this means leading you from what is lower I prepare you for more lofty things. For He who is the giver of greater things, and of the highest perfection, is about to come after me." Or, as S. Chrysostom says,

"My baptism is only a disposition and preparation for the baptism of Christ. Mine is of water and corporeal, Christ's is of fire and spiritual."

Whose shoe's latchet, &c. As though he said, "I am not worthy to be reckoned amongst the last of the servants of Christ, on account of the greatness of the Deity which is in Him."

Ver 28. — These things were done in, &c. Bethany is the reading of the Latin, Syriac, Arabic versions, of many codices, including the Vatican, of Bede, Alcuin, the Gloss, &c. But instead of Bethany, Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Epiphanius, and S. Jerome ( in loc. Heb. ) read Bethabara, where Gideon slew the Midianites. I observe with Toletus that Bethany and Bethabara were one and the same place, or at least that one was nigh the other, or on opposite banks of the Jordan. This was the place in which the Hebrews, when they came out of Egypt first crossed the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua, to enter the promised land. For Bethabara means in Hebrew a house of passage ; Bethany, a house of ships. For vessels were waiting here to carry passengers over Jordan. This Bethany is derived from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with alpha, a ship. The Bethany of Martha and Lazarus was a different place, and spelt differently in Hebrew. That Bethany means the house of humility, from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with ain, humility.

John, then, chose this place wherein to baptize for several reasons, because of the abundance of water, also in memory of the ancient passage of the Israelites. S. Jerome says ( loc. Hebræis ), "Even at this present time many of our brethren who believe, desiring there to be born again, are baptized in the life-giving flood." They did this in memory of Christ, who was there baptized by John. This place is distant about four leagues from the Dead Sea.

Observe, Christ was baptized on the 6th of January. It was fifty-five days afterwards that John bore this witness to Christ, or about the 1st of March, when Jesus was absent. On the day following Jesus presented Himself before John, when John renewed his testimony, saying, Behold the Lamb of God. ( See Epiphan. Hæres. 51.)

Whence there follows (Ver. 29), The next day again John saw, &c. Observe that after Jesus was baptized He went into the desert, where He fasted for forty days, as is plain from S. Mat 4:2. Then He came down from the Mount of Temptation, and returned to John, to visit and hear him; but especially that John might in His presence confirm the testimony which in His absence he had given to the messengers of the Jews; that he might point Him out with his very finger, and leave no place for hesitation to any.

Behold the Lamb of God. Nonnus paraphrases, "He lifted up his finger, and pointed Him out as He drew near to the people who beheld Him." "The word Behold," says S. Chrysostom, "is used because many were inquiring for Him: therefore he pointed Him out being present, saying, "This is He of whom I have been speaking."

Lamb, Greek, ό α̉μνος, the Lamb divinely prefigured and predicted by Moses and Isaiah. "He is led as a lamb to the slaughter," &c. (Isa 40:7).

Christ is thus called the Lamb by S. John the Baptist, and by His Apostle, S. John the Evangelist, in the Apocalypse. 1. Because He was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb, and by the daily morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb to God in the Temple, and by the other lambs which were offered for sin, according to the Law, and yet they could not take away sins. Wherefore they represented Christ, who was to take away sin by His Blood. So Origen, &c.

2. Because Christ was called a Lamb by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jer 11:19), who was to be offered for the redemption of the world.

3. He is called a Lamb because of his lamb-like innocence, meekness, patience, and obedience, even unto death, which, like a lamb, He bore in silence. As S. Peter says, "Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously" (1Pe 2:23).

Christ truly is called the Lamb of God, i.e., the offspring, not of sheep, but of God, who by the will of God was offered for man's redemption. Thus the sacrifice which Abraham offered is called Abraham's sacrifice, as Theophylact says. Or because He was offered up to God Himself. Or the Lamb of God is the Divine Lamb, because of the Deity which was in Him. Or as S. Clement of Alexandria says, because He was made for us the child and babe of the Father. So we call children, lambs. These are the words of Clement, Since the Scripture calls boys and infants lambs, he called God who is the Word, who for us was made man, who wished in all things to be made like unto us, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Infant of the Father" ( Pædag. lib. 1 c. 5).

Moreover, Christ for His strength and His victory is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah." He was a Lamb in His Passion, a Lion in His Resurrection.

Who taketh away the sins : taketh away, both as regards the stain which sin in act imprints upon the soul, and as regards the guilt of sin, which makes the sinner liable to hell. This He takes away by making expiation, and bearing the punishment in Himself, thus in justice and equity satisfying for sin by His death upon the cross. John said this, that no one might think Christ came to his baptism to wash away His own sins, as others did; for He had no sin, but was most innocent and most holy. Therefore God made Him the victim for the sins of the whole world, that He might sanctify all who repent and believe in Him. As S. Augustine says, "He who had no participation in our sinfulness is He who takes away our sin."

Sin : this is the reading of the Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The Arabic reads sins ; but the sense is the same. By sin here is to be understood the first and universal sin of Adam, that is, original sin, which he by generation transmitted to all his posterity, and out of which all actual sins, whether venial or mortal, spring. Christ therefore, in taking away sin, takes away its source as well as its filth. So Bede, S. Thomas, Jansen, &c. As Isaiah saith, "The Lord laid upon Him the iniquities of us all." And, "He shall bear their iniquities;" and 1Jo 2:2, "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

As S. Cyril says, "One is slain for all, that the whole human race may be won to God the Father." For there is in Christ a perpetual power of making expiation for sin in all ages and all nations, and in all men who are willing to receive His faith, His baptism, His repentance.

Ver. 31.— And I knew Him not, &c. As though he said, "Think not, 0 ye Jews, that I affirm Jesus to be the Messiah for the sake of friendship, or relationship, as though I were His friend and companion; for I declare unto you that I knew Him not, that I never saw Him, or spoke to Him, before His baptism. But as soon as I saw Him I recognised Him by the inspiration of God." "What wonder," says S. Chrysostom, "that he who from a child dwelt in the desert away from his father's house knew not Christ?"

But that He should be manifested, &c. That is, to the Jews, to whom the Messiah was promised, "that they all might be brought to believe in Him." Wherefore Nonnus paraphrases, "But that He whose face was unknown might be manifested to all the children of Israel, who have no ruler, I am come a precursor of the way not declared, baptizing an unlearned, ignorant, erring people."

Ver. 33.— And I knew Him not, &c With water. Nonnus, "in the laver without fire and the Holy Ghost." A second time S. John declares that he knew not Jesus was the Christ by sight and converse, but by revelation from God, that no one might dare to dispute his testimony. So S. Cyril.

Note the expression abiding. From this it is clear that it is peculiar to Christ to have all the graces of the Holy Spirit, and prophecy, by way of habit ; but that in others only those gifts abide which are necessary for holiness of life: according to the words in chap. xiv., "He shall abide with you." (See Suarez, Tract. de fide. disp. 8, sect. 6, n. 6.)

Ver. 35.— The next day, &c. The Evangelist says that John bare witness to Jesus in three consecutive days that He was the Christ. He did this to make his witness the more sure and solid. The first testimony that he gave was judicial, when he was asked by the messengers of the Jews. This was in the first day. The second he gave on the day following, which was the 2d of March. The third time was here on the 3d of March, before his own disciples, that he might cause them to pass from himself to Jesus.

Ver. 36.— And seeing Jesus as he walked, &c. As though he said, "Behold Christ like a spotless Lamb, destined for a victim, that He may be offered to God upon the cross, for the sins of the whole world." When John spoke thus it was as though he said to his disciples, "Why do you follow me? follow Him who is the Lamb of God, the ransom of the world."

Here observe the prudence and modesty of John. He does not compel or urge his disciples to follow Christ, but only points Him out to them, that they might the more ardently pursue after so great a good when it was discovered by themselves. Like a man who, when a jewel is being sold for a small price, points out to merchants how great is its worth, and causes them of their own accord to long to purchase it.

Ver. 37.— And two of his disciples, &c. S. Chrysostom says, "There were indeed others of S. John's disciples, but they not only did not follow Christ, but were jealous of John's, their master's, honour, and preferred him to Christ, as is plain from Joh 3:26.

Two : one of those was Andrew, as appears from verse 40; who the other was is not known.  S. Chrysostom asks, "Why is not the name of the other given? Either because it was the writer himself, S. John the Apostle, or because it was a person of no note." The first idea is the more probable. And what favours the conjecture is that John and James were companions in fishing with Peter and Andrew (Mat 4:18-21), when, shortly after Andrew and Peter, Christ calls John and James. Lastly, the great purity, the virginity, and holiness of S. John the Evangelist seem to have been the result of the teaching, the purity, and holiness of S. John the Baptist.

They followed Jesus : that they might know Him more fully, says Euthymius, and contract a friendship with Him: and if they should experience that advantage, they would follow Him wholly, and be altogether His disciples. For from what follows it is plain they had not given themselves up entirely to Christ, but only desired to make trial of Him.

Ver. 38.— Jesus turning, &c. What seek ye? It is the voice not of one who is ignorant, but of one who invites, and deals gently with their bashfulness. As S. Cyril says, "He asks what they sought, not as ignorant, for He knew all things as God, but that His question might afford the beginning of conversation."

Rabbi : Syriac , Rabboni, i.e., our master ; Arabic, Rabban, or master. By this expression the disciples honoured Christ, and sought His favour, and intimated that they wished to become His disciples. As Bede saith, "The question itself is an indication of faith: for when they say Rabbi, which means master, they follow and call Him their Master." And S. Cyril says, "They called Him Master from whom they desired to learn."

Where dwellest thou? Greek, που̃ μένεις, i.e., where remainest thou? For Christ had but a hospice on earth, and no proper habitation or house, according to the words in Matthew: "Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." The disciples ask this question, that they may be able to converse privately with Christ in the house, and be instructed by Him in Divine things, and those which pertain to the more perfect life. They show that they wish to become His friends and servants.

Ver. 39.— He said unto them, Come and see, &c. The tenth hour, i.e., four o'clock in the afternoon, or about two hours before sunset.  S. John adds these words, to show both the zeal of Christ, who though night was nigh, would not put them off to the following day, but entered immediately upon the things pertaining to salvation; as also to show the ardent devotion of the disciples to Christ, who, careless about their night's lodging, had rather spend the night in listening to Christ, than at home in their beds. So Euthymius. For they remained with Him not merely the two hours which were left of daylight, as some suppose, but the whole night. For those two hours were not sufficient to speak about their affairs, and to know Christ. Neither could they have returned to John before nightfall. For, as Cyril says, "It is not fitting that we should speedily be satisfied with Divine things, and leave them."

Moreover, what great things they heard from Christ, what draughts of piety they drank, what flames of love they felt kindled by Christ those only know who have had experience of them. Wherefore S. Austin exclaims, "How blessed they accounted the day! how blessed the night! Who can tell us the things which they heard from the Lord?" Certainly we may gather what was said from the effect produced: for Andrew was so inflamed with love for Christ that he forthwith strove to gain his brother Peter to Christ, and inflame him with love for Him.

Ver. 40.— Now one of the two, &c. John inserts this to show in what way Peter, who was to be the prince of the Apostles, and the head of the whole Church, was led to Christ. It was because Andrew, being glad at finding and hearing Christ, brought his own brother Peter, for whom he had a singular love, to Him, that he might make him partaker in so great a good. For this zeal, which burns to make others, especially those nearest to us, partakers with us, and to draw them to God, is a mark and an effect of the Divine Vocation. For as fire kindles fire, so does zeal kindle zeal. Moreover, Peter, as well as Andrew, seems to have been a disciple, or at least a diligent hearer of John the Baptist. Which of the two was the elder is not known. The conversion of Peter is the glory and praise of Andrew.

Ver. 41.— He first findeth, &c. . . . the Christ, that is, the Anointed, not indued with corporeal anointing, but with spiritual grace, both that of the Hypostatic Union, as well as that grace which was habitual and specially excellent. This last was the grace by which as man He was created by God, and, as it were, Consecrated, first a priest, secondly, a teacher, thirdly, a prophet, fourthly, a king, fifthly, a lawgiver, sixthly, the Redeemer of the world. The Greek is τόν Μεσσίαν, i.e., that Christ, that Anointed One : the one, only, special Prophet, predicted by the rest, whom all were eagerly expecting as the Restorer of Israel. So Euthymius.

We have found the Messiah, whom I and thou are most eagerly expecting. It would seem that both Andrew and Peter, partly from the prophetic oracles, and partly from the testimony of John, were inflamed with the desire of seeing Christ. For, as Bede says, "No one finds but he who seeks: he who saith that he hath found shows that he had been a long while seeking." Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, as he is wont, saith, "This is the speech of one who is very glad; We have found Him whom we sought, whom we hoped should come, whom the Scriptures announced." Andrew, therefore, that he might communicate his great joy at finding Christ, to his brother Peter exclaims, " We have found the Messiah. " Wherefore "they no more returned to S. John," as S. Chrysostom says, "but were so closely united to Christ, that they undertook John's office, and themselves preached Christ."

Hence we learn, morally, that God by His grace meets the longing soul, and so fills it that it may the more desire and thirst for Him. Yea, God is wont first to put this desire of Himself into the soul, that He may thereby prepare the soul for Himself and His gifts, and make it capable of receiving them.

Ver. 42.— And he brought him to Jesus. "It is probable," says S. Chrysostom, "that Andrew related many other things calculated to persuade. The other disciple was also present to confirm what he said. But Andrew, since it was not his office, and because he was not sufficient to tell of so great a light, brings him to that very fountain which he had discovered." Moreover, the mind of Peter, like a straw in presence of the fire, was inflamed with the desire of seeing and hearing Christ. Wherefore S. Chrysostom proceeds, "Consider the obedient mind of Peter from the beginning, and how full of good will. He brought him to Jesus; but let no one find fault with his too great readiness in believing. For it is not said that he immediately persuaded him, but only that he brought him to Jesus, there to learn all."

Jesus beholding him (as it were a fitting subject to preach and make known His glory, and therefore designing him to be His successor and vicar, that is, the Pontiff of the Church) said, &c. Simon Peter's father was called Johanan or John, by contraction Jona, as Jehoshua is contracted into Joshua and Jesus. Christ says this that He may reveal secrets, and show him that He is the Searcher of hearts and his God.

Thou shall be called Cephas. Christ promises to Simon the name of Cephas, or Peter, as much as to say, I will give thee, Simon, another name. I will call thee Cephas, i.e., a rock or Peter, for I will make thee the rock of the Church, so that on thee and thy faith, and thy government the fabric of My Church may rest securely as upon a most solid foundation of rock. (See what is said on S. Mat 16:18)

Ver. 43.— On the morrow, &c. That out of Galilee He might call untutored fishermen, to create them His Apostles, and the preachers of His Gospel, lest the Christian faith should be supposed to be the work of man, not of God. For the Apostles were Galileans. For the Galileans were poor and ignoble in comparison with the Jews who were sprung from Judah, which was the royal tribe.

He findeth Philip, not by chance, but going of set purpose to the place where He knew Philip was. There He found him whom He carefully sought, and whom He destined to be an Apostle.

And Jesus saith unto him. This is the first exterior calling by Christ. For Peter and Andrew were first called by an inward inspiration, not outwardly by Christ's external voice, but by hearing the voice of John the Baptist their master saying of Christ, Behold the Lamb of God! They were not called by Him, but of their own accord they came to Jesus, in order to find out His doctrine and life, but not, as it were, about to become His sure and firm disciples. Thus Toletus. To Philip therefore this praise and glory is due that he was the first of all to hear Christ say, follow Me, and to experience an outward call at the same time that the Holy Ghost influenced his mind inwardly; and obedient to this vocation he straightway followed Christ, for he was himself a student of the Mosaic law, and anxious about the coming of Christ, as Theophylact says. Theophylact gives as the cause of his following the attractive voice of Christ, "The voice of the Lord seems to have touched his mind as it were with a goad of love." For it was not merely the Saviour's voice which spoke, but He forthwith made those to whom He spoke worthy to be inflamed with His love, even as Cleophas said, "Did not our heart burn within us, whilst He talked with us by the way?"

Ver. 44.— Now Philip was of Bethsaida, &c. John adds this, says Theophylact, to intimate that Andrew and Peter had previously

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Joh 1:19

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously "No, I am not Elijah."

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John "he is the Elijah who was to come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.

Contradiction: Joh 1:20

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously "No, I am not Elijah."

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John "he is the Elijah who was to come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.

Contradiction: Joh 1:21

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously "No, I am not Elijah."

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John "he is the Elijah who was to come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.

Critics Ask: Joh 1:1

JOHN 1:1 —Is Jesus God or just a god?

PROBLEM: Orthodox Christians believe Jesus is God and often appeal to this passage to prove it. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this verse “and the Word (Christ) was a god” because there is no definite article (“the”) in the Greek of this verse.

SOLUTION: In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted. Thus, the verse can be rendered, “and the Word was of the nature of God.” The full deity of Christ is supported not only by general usage of the same construction, but by other references in John to Jesus being God (cf. 8:58 ; 10:30 ; 20:28 ) and the rest of the NT (cf. Col. 1:15-16 ; 2:9 ; Titus 2:13 ).

Furthermore, some NT texts use the definite article and speak of Christ as “the God.” So it does not matter whether John did or did not use the definite article here— the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God, not just a god (cf. Heb. 1:8 ).

That Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) is clear from the fact that the NT attributes to Jesus characteristics which in the OT apply only to God (cf. John 19:37 and Zech. 12:10 ).   

Critics Ask: Joh 1:18

JOHN 1:18 —Why does John say no one has seen God when other verses declare we will see God?

PROBLEM: On the one hand the Bible claims no one can see God, but on the other hand it says “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” ( Matt. 5:8 ) and His servants “shall see His face” ( Rev. 22:4 ) and “we shall see Him as He is” ( 1 John 3:2 ).

SOLUTION: The verses which teach that no man can see God are referring to no mortal man in this life. Even Moses was refused this honor ( Ex. 33:23 ). Mortal man is not suited for that exposure. However, what mortal man cannot see in this life, immortal man will see in the next life ( 1 Cor. 13:12 ; Rev. 22:4 ). This is known as the beatific (blessed) vision and will be the spiritual climax of the believer to see God face-to- face, to know Him directly in His essence and not merely indirectly as reflected through created things ( Rom. 1:18-20 ).   

JOHN 1:18 —Was Jesus alone the Son of God?

PROBLEM: Jesus is called “the only begotten Son” in this verse. Yet only a few verses earlier John informs us that we can by faith “become children of God” ( 1:12 ). If then we are sons of God, how can Jesus be the only Son of God?

SOLUTION: There is a gigantic difference between the senses in which Jesus is the “Son of God” and we are “sons of God.” First, He is the unique Son of God; I am only a son of God. He is the Son of God with a capital “S”; human beings can become sons of God only with a small “s.” Jesus was the Son of God by eternal right of inheritance ( Col. 1:15 ); we are only the sons of God by adoption ( Rom. 8:15 ). He is the Son of God because He is God by His very nature ( John 1:1 ), whereas we are only made in the image of God ( Gen. 1:27 ) and remade in “the image of Him” by redemption ( Col. 3:10 ). Jesus is of God by His very nature; we are onlyfrom God. He is divine in nature, but we only participate in it by salvation ( 2 Peter 1:4 ). And we can participate only in God’s moral attributes (like holiness and love), not in His non-moral attributes (like infinity and eternality). To summarize the differences:

JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD HUMANS AS SONS OF GOD   

Natural Son Adopted sons   

No beginning Beginning   

Creator Creature   

God by nature Not God by nature   

Evidence: Joh 1:3

Rejection of the Bible’s account of creation as given in the Book of Genesis could rightly be called " Genecide," because it eradicated man’s purpose of existence and left a whole generation with no certainty as to its beginning. Consequently, theories and tales of our origin have crept like primeval slime from the minds of those who don’t know God. This intellectual genocide has given the godless a temporary license to labor to the extremes of their imagination, giving birth to painful conjecture of human beginnings. They speak in speculation, the uncertain language of those who drift aimlessly across the endless sea of secular philosophy.

The Scriptures, on the other hand, deal only with truth and certainty. They talk of fact, reality, and purpose for man’s existence. The darkness of the raging sea of futility retreats where the lighthouse of Genesis begins.

Evidence: Joh 1:9

On the Day of Judgment no one can plead ignorance. God has given light to every man. (See also 2Co 4:6 )

Evidence: Joh 1:11

Messianic prophecy fulfilled : " He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not" ( Isa 53:3 ). See Joh 1:32 footnote.

Evidence: Joh 1:13

New birth—its necessity for salvation : See Joh 3:7 .

The " Sinner’s Prayer"—To Pray or Not To Pray?

The question often arises about what a Christian should do if someone is repentant. Should we lead him in what’s commonly called a " sinner’s prayer" or simply instruct him to seek after God? Perhaps the answer comes by looking to the natural realm. As long as there are no complications when a child is born, all the doctor needs to do is guide the head. The same applies spiritually. When someone is " born of God," all we need to do is guide the head—make sure that they understand what they are doing.

Philip the evangelist did this with the Ethiopian eunuch. He asked him, " Do you understand what you read?" ( Act 8:30 ). In the parable of the sower, the true convert (the " good soil" hearer) is he who hears " and understands." This understanding comes by the Law in the hand of the Spirit ( Rom 7:7 ). If a sinner is ready for the Savior, it is because he has been drawn by the Holy Spirit ( Joh 6:44 ). This is why we must be careful to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work and not rush in where angels fear to tread. Praying a sinner’s prayer with someone who isn’t genuinely repentant may leave you with a stillborn in your hands. Therefore, rather than lead him in a prayer of repentance, it is wise to encourage him to pray himself.

When Nathan confronted David about his sin, he didn’t lead the king in a prayer of repentance. If a man committed adultery, and his wife is willing to take him back, should you have to write out an apology for him to read to her? No. Sorrow for his betrayal of her trust should spill from his lips. She doesn’t want eloquent words, but simply sorrow of heart. The same applies to a prayer of repentance. The words aren’t as important as the presence of " godly sorrow." The sinner should be told to repent—to confess and forsake his sins. He could do this as a whispered prayer, then you could pray for him. If he’s not sure what to say, perhaps David’s prayer of repentance ( Psa 51:1-19 ) could be used as a model, but his own words are more desirable.

How to get false converts . Our aim should be to ensure that sinners are born of the Spirit—of the will of God and not of the will of man. Too many of our " decisions" are not a work of the Spirit, but a work of our sincere but manipulative practices. It is simple to secure a decision for Jesus by using this popular method: " Do you know whether you are going to heaven when you die? God wants you to have that assurance. All you need to do is: 1) realize that you are a sinner (‘All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’), and 2) believe that Jesus died on the cross for you. Would you like me to pray with you right now so that you can give your heart to Jesus? Then you will have the assurance that you are going to heaven when you die." For the biblical way to present the gospel, see Joh 4:7–26 footnote. For more on false converts, see Mat 25:12 footnote.

Evidence: Joh 1:17

" A wrong understanding of the harmony between Law and grace would produce ‘error on the left and the right hand.’" John Newton

Evidence: Joh 1:18

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" I will believe if God will appear to me."

A proud and ignorant sinner who says this has no understanding of the nature of His Creator. No man has ever seen the essence of God. (When God " appeared" to certain men in the Old Testament, He manifested Himself in other forms, such as a burning bush or " the Angel of the Lord." ) When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God told him, " I will make all my goodness pass before you,...[but] you cannot see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live" ( Exo 33:18–23 ). If all of God’s " goodness" were shown to a sinner, he would instantly die. God’s " goodness" would just spill wrath upon evil man.

However, the Lord told Moses, " It shall come to pass, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by." The only way a sinner can live in the presence of a holy God is to be hidden in the Rock of Jesus Christ ( 1Co 10:4 ).

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: John (Book Introduction)

THE Fourth Gospel

By Way of Introduction

Greatest of Books

The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke’s Gospel is the most beautiful, John’s Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters John 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

The Beloved Disciple

The book claims to be written by " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh_21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: " This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh_21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh_20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh_21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).

A Personal Witness

It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh_1:14 he plainly says that " the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh_21:25 he employs the singular " I suppose" ( oimai ) in sharp distinction from the plural " we know" ( oidamen ) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness ( marturě , marturia ) so common in this Gospel (Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:19; Joh_3:11, Joh_3:26, Joh_3:33; Joh_5:31; Joh_12:17; Joh_21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luk_1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark’s Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John’s Gospel claims to be the personal witness of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eyewitness in the vivid details.

With a Home in Jerusalem

It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus " to his own home" ( eis ta idia , Joh_19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh_18:15.). Delff ( Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt , 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh_7:45-52; Joh_11:47-53; Joh_12:10.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh_13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh_21:1.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the " Beloved Disciple" (Joh_21:20).

Only One John of Ephesus

It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa a.d. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase " the Elder John " ( ho presbuteros Iōannēs ) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by " the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. " Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord’s Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh. , p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist , p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

No Early Martyrdom for the Apostle John

In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus , Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews ( hupo Ioudaiōn anēirethē ) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace ( en eirēnēi anepausato ). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mar_10:39; Mat_20:23) and realized by James first of all (Act_12:1.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh_21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

The Author the Apostle John

Loisy ( Le Quatr. Evangile , p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it " literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume . Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author’s name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter John 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Act_12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

Early and Clear Witness to the Apostle John

Ignatius ( ad Philad . vii. 1) about a.d. 110 says of the Spirit that " he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh_3:8. Polycarp ( ad Phil . S 7) quotes 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell " of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch ( ad Autol . ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about a.d. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

The Use of the Synoptic Gospels

As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4) and another (Joh_5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord’s public ministry (" the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God’s eternal purpose as in Col_1:14-20 and Heb_1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time ( Logos - Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

A Different Style of Teaching

So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon’s Memorabilia and of Plato’s Dialogues . There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters John 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mat_11:25-30; Luk_10:21-24). The use of " the Father" and " the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

The Same Style in the Discourses

It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh_3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with Joh_3:15, Joh_3:16, or Joh_3:21? So in Joh_12:44-50. Does John give here a resumé of Christ’s teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John’s Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel

It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron , the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter John 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke’s account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Matt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter John 21 with that in Luke 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter John 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Luke 7, making John’s Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter John 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).

Like the Johannine Epistles

Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as " the Elder" ( ho presbuteros ), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical " Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself " the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe_5:1) he calls himself " your fellow-elder" ( ho sunpresbuteros ). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo_1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo_2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

But Different from the Apocalypse

It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a " Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: " If its date was 95 a.d., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Act_4:13 where Peter and John are described as agrammatoi kai idiōtai (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John’s friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan’s Greek Papyri , for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton’s dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

The Unity of the Gospel

This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, John 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, John 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, John 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh_20:31 and then added John 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh_21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

Original Language of the Book

The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koiné Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

The Purpose of the Book

He tells us himself in Joh_20:30. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: " But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

John’s Portrait of Christ

No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: " And the Word was God" (Joh_1:1) and in the correct text of Joh_1:18, " God only begotten" ( theos monogenēs ). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: " This is the Son of God" (Joh_1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh_5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh_5:20-23; Joh_6:48; Joh_8:12, Joh_8:58; Joh_11:25; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh_20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term theos applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ’s crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly ( Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah , 1900; St. John’s Portrait of Christ , 1910).

Vincent: John (Book Introduction)

The Gospel According to John

Introduction

The life of John covers a period from near the beginning of the first century to the beginning of the second. He was a native of Galilee, and, according to tradition, of the town of Bethsaida, which was on the western shore of the Lake, not far from Capernaum and Chorazin. His father was Zebedee. His mother, Salome (Mar 16:1; Mat 20:20), was among the women who supported the Lord with their substance (Luk 8:3), and attended Him to His crucifixion (Mar 15:40). The family was not without worldly means. Zebedee was a fisherman, and had hired servants in his employ (Mar 1:20). Salome ministered to Jesus, and John seems to have had his own house (Joh 19:27). He was, apparently, one of the disciples of John the Baptist; and while engaged in his father's craft, was found and called by Jesus (Mat 4:21; Mar 1:19). Of the two mentioned in Joh 1:35, only one, Andrew, is named (Joh 1:40); the other is commonly supposed to have been John, who suppresses his own name, as in other instances where he refers to himself (Joh 14:23; Joh 18:15; Joh 19:26; Joh 20:2, Joh 20:4, Joh 20:8; Joh 21:20).

As soon as Jesus was made known to him, he became His enthusiastic disciple. His peculiar intimacy with our Lord is marked by the phrase " the disciple whom Jesus loved," and also by the fact that he was one of the three chosen to be with Him at certain special and momentous crises. He was admitted to the death-chamber of the ruler's daughter (Mar 5:37) and witnessed her restoration to life; he was present at the Transfiguration (Luk 9:28), and with Peter and James was chosen by the Master to bear Him company during His agony in Gethsemane (Mar 14:33). He accompanied Jesus, after His arrest, into the palace of the High Priest, and secured entrance for Peter (Joh 18:15, Joh 18:16). He stood by the cross with the mother of Jesus, and to his care Jesus committed her (Joh 19:25-27). With Peter he ran to the sepulchre on the morning of the Resurrection at the summons of Mary Magdalene, entered the empty tomb, and saw and believed (Joh 20:2-8). After the Resurrection he appears engaged in his former employment on the Lake of Galilee. He is the first to recognize the risen Lord standing upon the shore (Joh 21:7), and is the subject of Peter's inquiry, " Lord, what shall this man do?" when he is seen by Peter to be following Jesus (Joh 21:20).

His apostolic activity was in the first thirty years after the Ascension. In Jerusalem his position among the apostles was not exceptionally prominent. At the time of the Stephanic persecution he remained with the other apostles at Jerusalem (Act 8:1); but when Paul, three years after his conversion, came to that city (Gal 1:18), he met there only Peter, and James the Lord's brother. From this, however, it does not follow that the remaining apostles had permanently departed from Jerusalem and settled elsewhere. In Gal 2:9, Paul alludes to John as having been present in Jerusalem at the time of the council (Acts 15). The narrative in Acts does not mention him in connection with the council, but Paul, in the Galatian letter, refers to him as one of the pillars of the church with James and Cephas.

The commonly received tradition represents him as closing his apostolic career in Asia and at Ephesus. An old tradition affirms that he left Jerusalem twelve years after the death of Christ. In no case, therefore, did he go immediately to Ephesus. Definite notices as to his abode in the interval are wholly wanting. It is a noteworthy fact that the lives of so many of the world's leaders include spaces which remain a blank to the most careful biographer, and into which the world's curiosity can never penetrate. Such is the period of Paul's retirement in Arabia, of Dante's exile, and, to some extent, of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Some later traditions assert that he visited Parthia, and Jerome groundlessly conjectures that he had preached in Judaea. There is some plausibility in the supposition that he may have betaken himself to Antioch at the time of Paul's first missionary journey. It is certain that, much later, John was a successor of Paul at Ephesus. Neither at the departure of Paul to Miletus (Acts 20) nor during the composition of the Ephesian letter is there a trace of John's presence at Ephesus.

Tradition is also agreed that John was banished to the isle of Patmos by the Roman authority. Irenaeus says that he was banished in the reign of Domitian: another tradition assigns the exile to the reign of Nero. From this exile he was permitted to return, it is said, under Nerva (a.d. 96-98). The date of his death is unknown. Jerome places it sixty-eight years after the death of Christ.

The dominant characteristic of John's nature is contemplative receptivity. Every word of his Lord is taken into his deepest heart, held fast and pondered. " He does not ask, 'What shall I do?' but 'What does he do?'" Hence it is clear why the finest and subtlest flavor of Jesus' personality has been caught by him. With this receptiveness goes a power of impartation. " Every man," says Ebrard, " can see the sunset-glow on an Alp, but not everyone can paint it." John, like a mirror, not only received but reflected. While the other Evangelists perceived that element of Jesus' teaching and work which produced the most immediate and striking outward results, as the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, John discerned the meaning and the bearing of less prominent incidents, such as the conversation at Jacob's well. Paul, like John, has the quality of inwardness, but Paul reasons where John contemplates. John is tenacious and intense; Paul equally so, but more deft than John. John broods over his thought; Paul thrusts and parries with it.

Yet John is no sentimentalist. He is not the lovely, effeminate youth of picture. His mental and moral fiber is strong. He received the title " Son of Thunder" from One who never misread character. Not irascible, as some have too hastily inferred from Luk 9:54, he illustrates the peculiarity of many affectionate and contemplative natures, which flash into a startling impetuosity on occasions which appeal to their more radical view of truth and to their longer range of vision. John was incapable of half-enthusiasms and of suspended faith. To whatever he addressed himself, he was totus in illis . In his own way, he is no less plain-spoken and severe than Paul. He is direct where Paul is sometimes ironical. He is neither gentle nor vague in his language concerning those who deny that Jesus is the Christ (1Jo 2:22), nor concerning the lineage of him that committeth sin (1Jo 3:8) and the moral quality of him that hateth his brother (1Jo 3:15; 1Jo 4:20). In the Apocalypse he enters with profoundest sympathy into the divine indignation against evil, and contemplates with unfeigned joy its wholesale and crushing defeat and punishment. He seems to cheer the progress of the Conqueror upon the white horse. The issues between truth and falsehood, life and death, light and darkness, love and hatred are stated by him with a stern and decisive sharpness, and as absolute finalities. The quality of sin is conceived according to the scale of his adoring love for Christ. He deals with it as wickedness rather than as weakness, though not overlooking the latter. For him the victory of the Gospel is not a prophecy, but an accomplished fact. Faith overcometh the world. The overcoming Christ is already present in every believer.

Such a character would not have been adapted to Paul's work. It was not sufficiently versatile and many-sided. John had not Paul's pioneer instinct, his pushing activity, and his executive power. He was fitted to raise the superstructure rather than to lay foundations; to be a teacher rather than an evangelist. It was his to complete the teaching of the other apostles by unfolding the speculative mystery of the incarnation and the secret of the inward union of the believer with Christ; to purge the Church from speculative error, and to hold up, over against the Gnostic caricature, the true image of the Son of Man.

The writings ascribed to John are the Gospel, three Epistles, and the Apocalypse or Revelation.

The Gospel

The nearly unanimous tradition of the Church assigns the fourth Gospel to John. It is unquestionably the work of a Jew, an eyewitness, and a disciple of Jesus. It was probably written toward the close of the first century, and therefore later than the other three Gospels. According to the earliest evidence, it was composed at Ephesus, at the request of John's intimate friends, who desired to have his oral teaching recorded for the permanent use of the Church.

There are three theories as to the motive of its composition. According to the first, known as the " supplementary" theory, John wrote the fourth Gospel as a supplement to its predecessors, in order to supply what was wanting in the synoptic narrative. This Gospel is indeed supplementary in fact, but not in motive. It is supplementary in that the writer constantly assumes that certain facts are already known to his readers, and adds other facts from his own special information. But the Gospel itself expressly disclaims all intention to be complete (Joh 21:25), and is an original conception, both in form and substance, having a distinct plan of its own, and presenting a fresh aspect of the person and teaching of our Lord. " It is the picture of one who paints, not because others have failed to catch the ideal he would represent, but because his heart is full and he must speak."

The second theory is that the Gospel is " polemical" or controversial, designed to oppose the errors of the Nicolaitanes and of Cerinthus. But the Gospel is polemical only incidentally, as the presentation of the positive truth suggests particular points of error. The point of view is not controversial. The writer is moved by the pressure of his great theme to set it forth in its positive aspects, and not with special reference to the errors of his time.

The third theory, known as the " irenic" or conciliatory, maintains that the Gospel was intended to reconcile divergent religious views, and to bring into their right relation truths which heresy perverted. The Gospel is conciliatory in fact, not from definite intent, but from the very nature of the subject - the Word made flesh, in which all religious controversies are reconciled. " Just as it rises above controversy while it condemns error, it preserves the characteristic truths which heresy isolated and misused. The fourth Gospel is the most complete answer to the manifold forms of Gnosticism, yet it was the writing most used by the Gnostics. It contains no formal narrative of the institution of sacraments, and yet it presents most fully the idea of sacraments. It sets forth with the strongest emphasis the failure of the ancient people, and yet it points out most clearly the significance of the dispensation which was committed to them. It brings the many oppositions - antitheses - of life and thought, and leaves them in the light of the one supreme fact which reconciles all, the Word became flesh; and we feel from first to last that this light is shining over the record of sorrow and triumph, of defeat and hope" (Westcott).

The object is distinctly stated in the Gospel itself. " These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye may have life in His name" (Joh 20:30, Joh 20:31). The last of these three - life in Christ through faith - is the key to the two others. The readers were already disciples; and in vindicating the two propositions that Jesus is the Christ and that Jesus is the Son of God, the object was not to lead to the acknowledgment of His divine mission, but to exhibit these as the ground of a living communion of believers with God, and of a richer spiritual life. The character of the Gospel is predominantly historic. Even the doctrinal portions have a historic background and a historic embodiment. The doctrine, for instance, of the essential antagonism between light and darkness, it set forth in the narrative of the hostile attitude of the Jews toward Christ; and the discussions with them have their root and material in this same antagonism. The historical material is carefully selected with a view to its bearing on the particular conception of Christ's person and work which is announced in the Prologue. The history is the practical exhibition of the Logos-doctrine in the person and earthly life of the Man Jesus. The miracles are invariably termed signs , and are regarded as expressions and evidences of the divine personality of the worker.

The Gospel is characterized by the profuse employment of symbolism. This accords with its Hebrew fiber, and also, largely, with the nature of its subject. For not only was John a Jew, familiar with the symbolic economy and prophecy of the Old Testament, but Jesus, the central figure of his Gospel was, pre-eminently the fulfiller of the Law and of the Prophecies. Christ's own teaching, too, was largely symbolic; and John's peculiar, profound spiritual insight detected in His ordinary acts that larger meaning which belonged to them in virtue of Jesus' position as the representative of humanity; and that unity of the natural and spiritual worlds which was assumed in the utterances of our Lord in which the visible was used as the type of the invisible. " John," says Lange, " gives us not only a symbolism of the Old Testament word, of Old Testament institutions, histories, and persons; he gives also the symbolism of nature, of antiquity, of history and of personal life; hence the absolute symbolism, or the ideal import of all real existence, in significant outlines."

The relation of the Gospel to the Old Testament is pronounced. The center of the Old Testament system is the manifestation of the glory of God - the Shekinah. John declares that this glory appears essentially in Christ. He recognizes the divine preparation among the nations for Christ's coming, and the special discipline of Israel with a view to the advent of the Messiah. In the Jews he discerns the special subjects of the Messianic economy. Nathanael is an Israelite indeed: the temple is the Father's house: salvation is from the Jews: the Jewish Scriptures testify of Christ: the testimonies to Christ are drawn from the three successive periods of the people's training - the patriarchal, the theocratic, and the monarchical: the Serpent in the wilderness prefigures Christ's " lifting up," and the Passover His own sacrifice as the Lamb of God.

The fourth Gospel is the only one of the four which is developed according to a prearranged and systematic plan. This plan may be generally described as the exhibition of " the parallel development of faith and unbelief through the historical presence of Christ." The Gospel accordingly falls into two general divisions: the Prologue (1:1-18); the Narrative (1:19-21:23). The narrative consists of two parts: the self-revelation of Christ to the world (1:19-12:50); the self-revelation of Christ to the disciples (13-21). In the development of this plan the author dwells upon three pairs of ideas: witness and truth; glory and light; judgment and life. " There is the manifold attestation of the divine mission; there is the progressive manifestation of the inherent majesty of the Son; there is the continuous and necessary effect which this manifestation produces on those to whom it is made; and the narrative may be fairly described as the simultaneous unfolding of these three themes, into which the great theme of faith and unbelief is divided" (Westcott). The plan is foreshadowed in the Prologue. He who was the Word, in the beginning with God, by whom all things came into being, was life and light - the light of men. To Him witness was born by John, who was sent to testify of Him that all men might believe on Him. But though He was made flesh and dwelt among men, though He came unto His own home, though He was full of grace and truth, the world knew Him not, and His own people refused to receive him. There were, however, those who did receive Him; and to such He gave power to become sons of God through faith in His name. They became such, not in a physical sense, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God. They received of his fullness.

Accordingly the Gospel treats of the nature of Christ, and of the witness born to Christ by John, by the disciples, and by miracles. It goes on to describe the conflict between the eternal Light and the darkness as embodied historically in the persistent opposition of the Jews to Jesus. He came to them and they received Him not. Then the other aspect is presented - the blessing of those who did receive Him, the impartation of sonship and the consequent privilege of communion with the divine nature. From the thirteenth to the end of the seventeenth chapter is described Christ's revelation of Himself to His disciples in ministries of love and in confidential discourse. The darkness did not overcome the light. The apparent defeat through death was converted into victory through resurrection. This victory of the light is unfolded from the eighteenth to the end of the twentieth chapter, in the story of the betrayal, the passion, and the resurrection. The twenty-first chapter forms an Epilogue in which the divine light again shines forth in miracle, ministry, and counsel, before the final departure to the Father.

Relation to the Synoptic Gospels

The fourth Gospel exhibits marked differences from the others both in chronological arrangement and in the selection of material. As regards the latter, it contains much that is peculiar to itself, and falls in with the Synoptists only in a few sections.

But, while independent, it is not contradictory of the Synoptic Gospels. All the four Gospels are consciously based upon the same great facts; and the author of the fourth owns and confirms the first three. The incidents common to the fourth Gospel and all the Synoptists are, the baptism of John; the feeding of the five thousand; the triumphal entry into Jerusalem; the last supper and the passion and resurrection. John, with Matthew and Mark, relates the walking on the sea and the anointing at Bethany.

John's Gospel also implies acquaintance with incidents which he does not relate. Such are the circumstances of Christ's baptism; the position and character of Simon Peter; Christ's early home at Nazareth and later residence at Capernaum; the number of the disciples; the date of the Baptist's imprisonment; the Ascension, etc. The same imagery appears, in the figures of the bride and the bridegroom, the harvest, the servant, the vine. The same sayings occur, and verbal and other coincidences are frequent.

The inner coincidences are still more striking. John's portrait of Jesus, for instance, is, in many particulars, unique. It is fuller, more subtle, and indicates a closer intimacy. John deals with His person, where Matthew and Luke deal with His offices. In Matthew He is the fulfiller of the law; in John He foreshadows the grander and richer economy of the Spirit. Nevertheless, John's Christ is the same figure which appears in the lines of the Synoptists. In both He is the teacher, the meek and lowly one, the worker of miracles of power and mercy. In both He is plain of speech toward those who would become his disciples, the hater of hypocrisy, the reader of men's hearts.

Similar coincidences appear in the portraits of prominent disciples, notably of Peter. Though appearing in some scenes not noted by the Synoptists, the Peter of their Gospels is easily recognized in the portrait by his fellow disciple. He is the same combination of impulsive boldness and cowardice; of affectionateness and brusqueness; as quickly responsive to love as to anger; as prompt to leap into the lake at the sight of his Lord, as to smite Malchus.

The inner coincidences are also to be discerned in John's assumption of facts recorded by the other evangelists, so that the coincidence sometimes appears in what he does not record. Giving no details of the birth of Christ, like Matthew and Luke, he tells us that the Word became flesh. The childhood, with its subjection to parental authority appears in the story of the wedding at Cana. While the Synoptists dwell upon the event of the incarnation, he dwells upon the doctrine. The sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist, the institution of which he does not relate, are assumed as familiar in the conversation with Nicodemus and in the discourse at Capernaum. The ascension is not described, but is predicted in Christ's words to Mary. Similarly, the work of Jesus in Galilee, which John does not narrate, is presupposed in the sixth and seventh chapters. The anointing at Bethany is assumed to be known, as is the hearing of Jesus before Caiaphas.

With these coincidences marked differences appear. Setting aside the omission by Mark of the Gospel of the infancy, the Synoptic narrative falls into three parts: 1, The ministry of the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus. 2, The return of Jesus to Galilee, followed by a series of connected narratives concerning His teaching and miracles in this and surrounding districts, without any intimation that, during this time, He also visited Judaea and Jerusalem. 3, Hereupon all the three pass at once from the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem to the Passover, at which He was crucified. Hence, as Dean Alford remarks, " had we only their accounts, we could never, with any certainty, have asserted that He went to Jerusalem during His public life, until His time was come to be delivered up. They do not, it is true, exclude such a supposition, but rather, perhaps, imply it. It would not, however, have been gathered from their narrative with any historical precision."

Turning now to John's Gospel, we find Christ's ministry in Galilee between the Baptism and the Passion interrupted by journeys to Jerusalem. He goes up to the Passover, on which occasion occur the cleansing of the temple and the visit of Nicodemus (Joh 2:13; 3:1-21). A second visit is made to an unnamed feast of the Jews (Joh 5:1), during which He heals the impotent man at Bethesda, excites thereby the hostility of the Jews, and delivers the discourse in 5:17-47. He goes up again at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh 7:10), and, ten months later, appears at the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22). An interval is spent on the other side of the Jordan (Joh 10:40), at Ephraim in the wilderness of Judaea (Joh 11:53-54), and at Bethany (11, Joh 12:1), after which He makes His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Joh 12:12 sqq.). According to John, therefore, between Christ's last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and His triumphal entry, there is an interval of several months, spent partly in Jerusalem and partly in the neighboring districts; while according to the Synoptists it seems that He went from Galilee to Jerusalem to the last Passover only a short time before it began; and that He had previously remained continuously in Galilee or in the neighborhood, having taken up His abode there at the beginning of His public ministry.

In the Synoptists the scene of Christ's work is almost exclusively Galilee, while John mentions only five events connected with the Galilaean ministry. On the other hand, the fourth Gospel assumes a knowledge of Jesus' activity in Galilee and Peraea (Joh 6:1; Joh 7:1, Joh 7:11, Joh 7:52; Joh 10:40).

The difference between John and the Synoptists also appears in the form of the narrative. The latter represent Jesus' teaching as dealing mainly with the humble peasantry. It is proverbial, popular, abounding in parable, and the discourses are brief. John represents Christ as speaking in long and profoundly thoughtful discourses. While John has nothing answering to the Sermon on the Mount and the groups of parables, the other evangelists have nothing answering to the interviews with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and the disciples before the Passover. In John the discourses are more dramatic and dialectic; in the Synoptists, proverbial, parabolic, and prophetic. Yet John's account of Jesus' teaching is not wanting in short paradoxical sayings, such as abound in the Synoptists (see Joh 2:19; Joh 4:32, Joh 4:34, Joh 4:35; Joh 7:33; Joh 5:17; Joh 6:27, Joh 6:33, Joh 6:62); nor, though no parable is worked out by John, are parabolic sayings wanting, such as the Good Shepherd, the Vine, the Living Water, and the Bread of Heaven.

In another and deeper aspect his Gospel stands related to the others as completing . He alone has seized and preserved certain sides of the life and teaching of the Lord, such as His utterances as to His eternal relation to the Father and His eternal unity with Him (Joh 3:13 sqq.; Joh 5:17 sqq.; Joh 6:33, Joh 6:51; Joh 7:16, Joh 7:28 sqq.; Joh 8:58, and elsewhere). It is to John, in short, that we owe the view of the speculative side of Christ's work; while as regards the relation of believers to their Lord, John gives us those deep and comforting words concerning the mystical unity and community of life between Himself and His disciples, into which they will enter through the Holy Spirit.

Yet these deeper and more mystical views were not altogether the outcome of John's characteristic personality. They were also toned and shaped by the peculiar conditions of the Church and of the religious thought of his time. The conflict of Christianity was no longer with Judaistic error; no longer between the Gospel and the Law; between circumcision and uncircumcision; but with an essentially heathen Gnosticism which appealed to the Church with the claim of a profound insight into Christianity, and sought to wrest the Gospel to its own service. It has already been remarked that the aim of the fourth Gospel was not distinctively polemic. John was impelled to write by the pressure upon his own soul of the truth " God manifest in the flesh," rather than by the aggressions of heresy; but none the less the utterances of a Cerinthus lent sharpness to the lines of the Apostle's portrait of the Son of Man, and no more impressive answer to such teaching could have been given than John furnished in the words of the Lord himself concerning His own pre-existence and eternal Godhead, and in His testimony that the Father has created all things through the Word. (See Joh 1:3, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:33, Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49; Joh 3:13, Joh 3:14; Joh 5:23, Joh 5:26; Joh 6:51, Joh 6:62; Joh 8:58; Joh 13:23 sqq.; Joh 17:1, Joh 17:2, Joh 17:16, Joh 17:19; Joh 18:6, Joh 18:11, Joh 18:37).

Style and Diction of John

John's style in the Gospel and Epistles is marked by simplicity and ease. It is plain without elegance, and the diction is comparatively pure so far as words and grammar are concerned, but animated with a Hebrew genius. Godet describes the style as characterized by " a childlike simplicity and transparent depth, a holy melancholy, and a vivacity not less holy; above all, the sweetness of a pure and gentle love."

The vocabulary is meager. The same expressions continually recur. Thus we find φῶς (light), 23 times; δόξα, δοξάζεσθαι (glory, to be glorified), 42; ζωή, ζῆν (life, to live), 52; μαρτυρεῖν, μαρτυρία (to witness, testimony), 47; γανώσκειν (to know), 55; κόσμος (world), 78; πιστεύειν (to believe), 98; ἔργον (work), 23; ὄνομα (name), and ἀληθεία (truth), each 25; σημεῖον (sign), 17.

The meagerness of the vocabulary, however, is compensated by its richness. The few constantly recurring words are symbols of fundamental and eternal ideas. " They are not purely abstract notions, but powerful spiritual realities, which may be studied under a multitude of aspects. If the author has only a few terms in his vocabulary, these terms may be compared to pieces of gold with which great lords make payment" (Godet).

A similar sameness is apparent in the constructions. These are usually simple, plain, and direct. The sentences are short and are coordinated, following each other by a kind of parallelism as in Hebrew poetry. Thus where other writers would employ particles of logical connection, he uses the simple connective καὶ (and). For example in Joh 1:10, John means to say that though Jesus was in the world, yet the world knew Him not; but he states the fact in two distinct and independent propositions: " He was in the world, and the world knew Him not." So in Joh 8:20. Jesus spake in the treasury, teaching in the temple, and yet , though He appeared and taught thus publicly, no one laid hands on Him. John writes: " These words spake Jesus as He taught in the temple, and no man laid hands on Him." He uses and , where the antithetic but might be expected (Joh 1:5; Joh 3:11; Joh 15:24). There is also a frequent absence of connecting particles. There is not, for instance, a single one in the first seventeen verses of chapter 15. Out of the wealth of Greek particles, John uses only five. He abounds in contrasts or antithetic parallelisms without connecting links. Thus, " the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Joh 17:17): " No one ever saw God: the only-begotten Son revealed Him" (Joh 1:18). Compare Joh 8:23; Joh 15:5, etc. This simple coordination of clauses is assisted by the repetition of a marked word or phrase, so that a connection between two statements is established and the idea carried forward in a new direction (see Joh 10:11; Joh 15:13 sqq.; Joh 15:1, Joh 15:5; Joh 17:14 sqq.; Joh 6:39, Joh 6:40, Joh 6:44).

The narrative is direct. Even the words of others are given directly and not obliquely. Instead of saying " This is the witness of John when the Jews sent to ask him who he was, and he confessed that he was not the Christ" - John says, " This is the witness of John when the Jews sent to ask him Who art thou? and he confessed I am not the Christ " (Joh 1:19). Compare Joh 7:40 sqq.; Joh 2:3 sqq.; Joh 4:24 sqq.; Joh 5:10 sqq.; Joh 6:14; Joh 8:22; Joh 10:2 sqq. Illustrative details are not wrought into the texture of the narrative, but are interjected as parentheses or distinct statements (see Joh 6:10; Joh 4:6; Joh 10:22; Joh 13:30; Joh 18:40). John's style is circumstantial. An action which, by other writers, is stated as complex, is analyzed by him and its components stated separately. Thus, instead of the usual Greek idiom, " Jesus answering said," John writes, " Jesus answered and said," thus making both factors of the act equally prominent (see Joh 12:44; Joh 7:28; Joh 1:15, Joh 1:25). This peculiarity is further illustrated by the combination of the positive and negative expression of the same truth (see Joh 1:3, Joh 1:20; Joh 2:24; Joh 3:16; Joh 5:5; Joh 18:20; 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:6; 1Jo 2:4, 1Jo 2:27). The detachment, however, is only superficial. The inner connection is closely held in the writer's mind, and is impressed upon the reader by that constant iteration which, upon a hasty view, savors of monotony, but which serves to represent the central thought in its manysidedness, and to place it in its commanding relation to subordinate thoughts. His frequent use of the particle οὐν (therefore) directs attention to the sequence of events or ideas (Joh 2:22, Joh 3:25, Joh 3:29; Joh 4:1, Joh 4:6, Joh 4:46; Joh 6:5; Joh 7:25; Joh 8:12, Joh 8:21, Joh 8:31, Joh 8:38; Joh 10:7; Joh 12:1, Joh 12:3, Joh 12:9, Joh 12:17, Joh 12:21). The phrase in order that (ἵνα ), marking an object or purpose, is of frequent occurrence, and exhibits the characteristic of John's mind to regard things in their moral and providential relations. Thus Joh 4:34 : " My meat is in order that I may do the will of Him that sent me;" the emphasis lying not on the process, but on the end. Compare Joh 5:36; Joh 6:29; Joh 8:56; Joh 12:23; Joh 13:34; Joh 17:3.

The subject or the significant word of a sentence is often repeated, especially in dialogues (which are characteristic of John's Gospel), where, by the constant repetition of the names of the parties they are kept clearly before the reader's mind (see Joh 2:18; Joh 4:7 sqq.; Joh 8:48 sqq.; Joh 10:23 sqq. Also Joh 1:1, Joh 1:7, Joh 1:10; Joh 4:22; Joh 5:31; Joh 6:27; Joh 11:33).

The demonstrative pronoun is habitually introduced to recall the subject, when a clause has intervened between the subject and the verb (see Joh 15:5; Joh 7:18; Joh 10:1; Joh 12:48; Joh 14:21, Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26). The personal pronoun is frequently employed, especially that of the first person. " In this respect," says Westcott, " much of the teaching of the Lord's discourses depends upon the careful recognition of the emphatic reference to His undivided personality" (see Joh 8:14, Joh 8:16; Joh 5:31).

The quotations are commonly from the Septuagint, and never immediately from the Hebrew.

List of Greek Words and Phrases Used by John Only

Ἅλφα Alpha Rev 1:8, Rev 1:11 τὸ Α καὶ το Ω Alpha and Omega Rev 21:6; Rev 22:13 Ἀβαδδών Abaddon Rev 9:11 ἀγγελία message 1Jo 3:11 ἀγγέλλω to announce Joh 20:18 αἰχμαλωσία captivity Rev 13:10 ἀκμάζω to be fully ripe Rev 14:18 ἁλιεύω to go fishing Joh 21:3 ἀλλαχόθεν some other way Joh 10:1 ἀλληλούΐ́α hallelujah Rev 19:1, Rev 19:3, Rev 19:4, Rev 19:6 ἀλόη aloe Joh 19:39 ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν to have sin Joh 9:41; Joh 15:22, Joh 15:24; Joh 19:11. 1Jo 1:8 ἀμεθυστος amethyst Rev 21:20 ὁ Ἀμὴν the Amen Rev 3:14 ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν verily, verily Joh 1:51; Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5; Joh 5:19, etc. ἄν (contracted from ἐὰν ) if Joh 13:20; Joh 16:23; Joh 20:23 ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος every several one, Rev 21:21 ἀναμάρτητος without sin Joh 8:7 (passage rejected) ἀνάστασις ζωῆς ressurection of life Joh 5:29 ἀνάστασις κρίσεως ressurection of judgment Joh 5:29 ἀνθρακιά heap of burning coals John 18;18; Joh 21:9 ἀνθρωποκτόνος manslayer, murderer Joh 8:44. 1Jo 3:15 ἀντιχρίστος antichrist 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:22; 1Jo 4:3. 2Jo 1:7 ἀντλέω to draw (water or wine) Joh 2:8, Joh 2:9; Joh 4:7, Joh 4:15 ἄντλημα a thing to draw with Joh 4:11 ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπε he answered and said Joh 2:19; Joh 3:3; Joh 4:10, etc. ἀπέρχομαι εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω to go or follow after Joh 12:19 Ἀπολλύων Apollyon Rev 9:11 ἀποσυνάγωγος out of the synagogue Joh 9:22; Joh 12:42; Joh 16:2 ἄραφος without seam Joh 19:23 ἄρκος a bear Rev 13:2 Ἀρμαγεδών Armagedon Rev 16:16 ἀρξιτρίκλινος ruler of the feast Joh 2:8, Joh 2:9 ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου (τούτου ) prince of this world Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30; Joh 16:11 ἄψινθος wormwood Rev 8:11 βάλλειν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον to cast a stumbling block before Rev 2:14 βαΐ́ον branch Joh 12:13 βασανισμός torment Rev 9:5; Rev 14:11; Rev 18:7, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:15 βάτραχος frog Rev 16:13 βήρυλλος beryl Rev 21:20 βιβλαρίδιον little book Rev 10:2, Rev 10:8, Rev 10:9, Rev 10:10 βιβρώσκω eat Joh 6:13 βότρυς cluster (of grapes) Rev 14:18 βροντή thunder Joh 12:29. Rev 4:5; Rev 6:1, etc. In Mar 3:17, as a translation βύσσινος fine linen Rev 18:16; Rev 19:8, Rev 19:14 Γαββαθᾶ Gabbatha Joh 19:13 γεγετή birth Joh 9:1 γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν to be born again, or from above Joh 3:3 γεννηθῆναι ἐκ (τοῦ ) Θεοῦ to be born of God Joh 1:13. 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 4:7; 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:18 γεννηθῆναι ἐκ (τοῦ ) πνεύματος to be born of the Spirit Joh 3:5, Joh 3:6, Joh 3:8 γέρων old man Joh 3:4 γλωσσόκομον bag Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29 δακρύω to weep Joh 11:35 δειλιάω to be afraid Joh 14:27 δέκατος tenth Joh 1:39. Rev 21:20 τὸ δέκατον the tenth part Rev 11:13 διάδημα crown Rev 12:3; Rev 13:1; Rev 19:12 διαζωννύω to gird Joh 13:4, Joh 13:5; Joh 21:7 διαυγής transparent Rev 21:21 Δίδυμος Didymus (twin) Joh 11:16; Joh 20:24; Joh 21:2 διπλόω to double Rev 18:6 δράκων dragon Rev 12:3, Rev 12:4, Rev 12:7; Rev 13:2 δωδέκατος twelfth Rev 21:20 ἐγκαίνια feast of the dedication Joh 10:22 ἐγχρίω anoint Rev 3:18 εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου to be of the world Joh 8:23; Joh 15:19; Joh 17:14, Joh 17:16; Joh 18:36. 1Jo 2:16; 1Jo 4:5 εἶναι ἐκ τῶν ἄνω to be from above Joh 8:23 εἶναι ἐκ τῶν κάτω to be from beneath, Joh 8:23 ἐκκεντέω to pierce Joh 19:37. Rev 1:7 ἐκνεύω to withdraw Joh 5:13 ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος since the world began Joh 9:32 ἐλεφάντινος of ivory Rev 18:12 Ἑλληνικός Greek Rev 9:11 ἐμέω to spue Rev 3:16 ἐμπόριον merchandise Joh 2:16 ἐμφυσάω to breathe upon Joh 20:22 ἐνδώμησις building Rev 21:18 ἐξακόσιον six hundred Rev 18:18, Rev 19:20 ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπὸ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ to come forth from God Joh 8:42; Joh 13:3; Joh 16:27, Joh 16:30 ἐξυπνίζω to awake one out of sleep Joh 11:11 ἐπάρατος accursed Joh 7:49 ἐπενδύτης upper garment Joh 21:7 ἐπιδέχομαι to receive 3Jo 1:9, 3Jo 1:10 ἐπιχρίω to anoint Joh 9:6, Joh 9:11 τὰ ἐρχόμενα things that are coming Joh 16:13 (ἡ ) ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα the last day Joh 6:39, Joh 6:40, Joh 6:44, Joh 6:54; Joh 7:37; Joh 11:24; Joh 12:48 ζηλεύω to be zealous Rev 3:19 ζεστός hot Rev 3:15, Rev 3:16 ἡμίωρον half an hour Joh 20:25 ὁ ἦν which was (epithet of God) Rev 1:4, Rev 1:8; Rev 4:8 ἤπερ than at all Joh 12:43 ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος the second death Rev 2:11; Rev 20:14; Rev 21:8 θαῦμα (μέγα ) θαυμάζειν to wonder with with great wonder Rev 17:6 θειώδης brimstone Rev 9:17 θεοσεβής worshipper of God Joh 9:31 θεωρεῖν θάνατον to see death Joh 8:51 θήκη sheath Joh 18:11 θρέμμα cattle Joh 4:12 θύΐ́νος thyine (wood) Rev 18:12 ἴασπις jasper Rev 4:3; Rev 21:11, Rev 21:18, Rev 21:19 ἱλασμός propitiation 1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 4:10 τὸ ἱππικόν cavalry Rev 9:16 ἶρις rainbow Rev 4:3; Rev 10:1 καθαίρω to purge Joh 15:2 κατάθεμα curse Rev 22:3 κατασφραγίζω to seal Rev 5:1 κατήγωρ accuser Rev 12:10 καῦμα heat Rev 7:16; Rev 16:9 κέδρος cedar Joh 18:1 κειρία swathing for a corpse Joh 11:44 κεραννυμι to mix, mingle Rev 14:10; Rev 18:6 κέρμα small coin Joh 2:15 κερματιστής money-changer Joh 2:14 κηπουρός gardener Joh 20:15 κιθαρῳδός harper Rev 14:2; Rev 18:22 κιννάμωμον cinnamon Rev 18:13 κλέμμα theft Rev 9:21 κλῆμα branch Joh 15:2, Joh 15:4, Joh 15:5, Joh 15:6 κοίμησις taking rest Joh 11:13 κολλούριον eye-salve Rev 3:18 κολυμβήθρα pool Joh 5:2, Joh 5:4, Joh 5:7; Joh 9:7, Joh 9:11 κομψότερον ἔχειν to ammend Joh 4:52 κριθή barley Rev 6:6 κρίθινος made or consisting of barley Joh 6:9, Joh 6:13 κρυσταλλίζω to be as crystal Rev 21:11 κρύσταλλος crystal Rev 4:6; Rev 22:1 κεκλεύω to encircle Rev 20:9 κυκλόθεν round about Rev 4:3, Rev 4:4, Rev 4:8; Rev 5:11 ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα The Lord's day Rev 1:10 λέντιον towel Joh 13:4, Joh 13:5 λιβανωτός censer Rev 8:3, Rev 8:5 λιθόστρωτος pavement Joh 19:13 λιπαρός dainty Rev 18:14 λίτρα pound Joh 12:3; Joh 19:39 λόγχη spear Joh 19:34 μάρμαρος marble Rev 18:12 μασσάομαι to gnaw Rev 16:10 μεσουράνημα mid-heaven Rev 8:13; Rev 14:6; Rev 19:17 μεσόω to be midway Joh 7:14 Μεσσίας Messiah Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25 μετρητής firkin Joh 2:6 μέτωπον forehead Rev 7:3; Rev 9:4; Rev 13:16, etc. μηρός thigh Rev 19:16 μίγμα mixture Joh 19:39 μονή mansion, abode Joh 14:2, Joh 14:23 μουσικός musician Rev 18:22 μυκάομαι to roar Rev 10:3 μύλινος made of milestones Rev 18:21 νίκη victory 1Jo 5:4 Νικολαΐ́της Nicolaitan Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15 νιπτήρ basin Joh 13:5 νύσσω to pierce Joh 19:34 ὄζω to stink Joh 11:39 ὀθόνιον linen bandage Joh 19:40; Joh 20:5, Joh 20:6, Joh 20:7 ὄλυνθος untimely fig Rev 6:13 ὀνάριον young ass Joh 12:14 ὅπου ἐκεῖ where there Rev 12:6, Rev 12:14 ὀπώρα fruits Rev 18:14 ὅρασις vision, sight Rev 4:3; Rev 9:17 ὅρμημα violence Rev 18:21 ὄρνεον bird Rev 18:2; Rev 19:17, Rev 19:21 ἡ οὐαί the woe Rev 9:12; Rev 11:14 οὐαὶ (with accus. of person) woe Rev 8:13; Rev 12:12 οὐκοῦν not then (interrogative) Joh 18:37 οὐρά tail Rev 9:10, Rev 9:19; Rev 12:4 ὀψάριον fish Joh 6:9, Joh 6:11; Joh 21:9, Joh 21:10, Joh 21:13 ὄψις appearance Joh 7:24; Joh 11:44. Rev 1:16 παιδάριον lad Joh 6:9 παράκλητος Comforter, Advocate Joh 14:16, Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7. 1Jo 2:1 πάρδαλις leopard Rev 13:2 πελεκίζω kill with an axe, behead Rev 20:4 πέμπτος fifth Rev 6:9; Rev 9:1; Rev 16:10; Rev 21:20 πενθερός father-in-law Joh 18:13 περιδέω to bind about Joh 11:44 περιπατεῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ to walk in the truth 2Jo 1:4. 3Jo 1:3, 3Jo 1:4 περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ or σκότει to walk in darkness Joh 8:12; Joh 12:35. 1Jo 1:6; 1Jo 2:11 περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί to walk in the light 1Jo 1:7 πέτομαι to fly Rev 12:14 πλήσσω to smite Rev 8:12 πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης spirit of error 1Jo 4:6 ποδήρης reaching to the feet Rev 1:13 ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν to do the truth Joh 3:21. 1Jo 1:6 πορφυροῦς purple Joh 19:2, Joh 19:5. Rev 18:16 ποταμοφόρητος carried away of the flood Rev 12:15 πότερος whether Joh 7:17 προβατική pertaining to sheep Joh 5:2 προβάτιον little sheep Joh 21:17 προσαιτέω to beg Joh 9:8 προσκυνητής worshipper Joh 4:23 προσφάγιον food Joh 21:5 πρωΐ́νός pertaining to morning, early Rev 2:28 ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, the first and last Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17; Rev 22:13 πτέρνα heel Joh 13:18 πτύσμα spittle Joh 9:6 πύρινος of fire Rev 9:17 πυῤῥός red Rev 6:4; Rev 12:3 ῥέδη (ῥέδα ) chariot Rev 18:13 ὁέω to flow Joh 7:38 ῥυπαίνω to defile Rev 22:11 ῥυπόω to be filthy Rev 22:11 Ῥωμαΐ́στί in Latin Joh 19:20 σαλπιστής trumpeter Rev 18:22 σάπφειρος sapphire Rev 21:19 σάρδιον sardius (stone) Rev 21:20 σαρδόνυξ sardonyx Rev 21:20 σεμίδαλις fine flour Rev 18:13 σηρικός (σιρικός ) silk Rev 18:12 σίδηρος iron Rev 18:12 σκέλας leg Joh 19:31, Joh 19:32, Joh 19:33 σκηνοπηγία feast of tabernacles Joh 7:2 σκηνόω to dwell Joh 1:14. Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3 σμαράγδινος of emerald Rev 4:3 σμάραγδος emerald Rev 21:19 στρηνιάω to live deliciously Rev 18:7, Rev 18:9 στρῆνος revelry, voluptuousness Rev 18:3 συμμαθητής fellow-discipline Joh 11:16 συνεισέρχομαι to accompany into Joh 6:22; Joh 18:15 σώματα slaves (lit. bodies) Rev 18:13 ταλαντιαῖος of a talent's weight Rev 16:21 τεκνίον little child Joh 13:33. 1Jo 2:12, 1Jo 2:28; 1Jo 3:18; 1Jo 4:4; 1Jo 5:21 τεταρταῖος of the fourth day Joh 11:39 τετράγωνος four-square Rev 21:16 τετράμηνος of four months Joh 4:35 τιθέναι ψυχήν to lay down the life Joh 10:11, Joh 10:15, Joh 10:17, Joh 10:18; Joh 13:37, Joh 13:38; Joh 15:13. 1Jo 3:16 τιμιότης costliness Rev 18:19 τίτλος title Joh 19:19, Joh 19:20 τόξον bow Rev 6:2 τοπάζιον topaz Rev 21:20 τρίχινος of hair Rev 6:12 ὑακίνθινος of jacinth Rev 9:17 ὑάκινθος jacinth Rev 21:20 ὐάλινος of glass Rev 4:6; Rev 15:2 ὕαλος glass Rev. 21;18, 21 ὑδρία water-pot Joh 2:6, Joh 2:7; Joh 4:28 ὑφαντός woven Joh 19:23 φανός lantern Joh 18:3 φάρμακον drug, enchantment Rev 9:21 φαρμακός sorcerer Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15 φιάλη bowl or saucer Rev 5:8; Rev 15:7; Rev 16:1, Rev 16:2, etc. φιλοπρωτεύω to love pre-eminence 3Jo 1:9 φλυαρέω to prate 3Jo 1:10 φοῖνιξ palm-tree Joh 12:13, Rev 7:9 φραγέλλιον scourge Joh 2:15 χάλαζα hail Rev 8:7; Rev 11:19; Rev 16:21 χάλκεος of brass Rev 9:20 χαλκηδών chalcedony Rev 21:19 χαλκολίβανον fine brass Rev 1:15; Rev 2:18 χαμαί on the ground Joh 9:6; Joh 18:6 χάρτης paper 2Jo 1:12 χείμαῤῥος brook Joh 18:1 χλιαρός lukewarm Rev 3:16 χοῖνιξ measure, a choenix Rev 6:6 χολάω to be angry Joh 7:23 χρίσμα anointing, unction 1Jo 2:20, 1Jo 2:27 χρυσόλιθος chrysolite Rev 21:20 χρυσόπρασος chrysoprasus Rev 21:20 χρυσόω to make golden Rev 17:4; Rev 18:16 ψωμίον sop Joh 13:26, Joh 13:27, Joh 13:30

JFB: John (Book Introduction)

THE author of the Fourth Gospel was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who resided at Bethsaida, where were born Peter and Andrew his brother, and Philip also. His mother's name was Salome, who, though not without her imperfections (Mat 20:20-28), was one of those dear and honored women who accompanied the Lord on one of His preaching circuits through Galilee, ministering to His bodily wants; who followed Him to the cross, and bought sweet spices to anoint Him after His burial, but, on bringing them to the grave, on the morning of the First Day of the week, found their loving services gloriously superseded by His resurrection ere they arrived. His father, Zebedee, appears to have been in good circumstances, owning a vessel of his own and having hired servants (Mar 1:20). Our Evangelist, whose occupation was that of a fisherman with his father, was beyond doubt a disciple of the Baptist, and one of the two who had the first interview with Jesus. He was called while engaged at his secular occupation (Mat 4:21-22), and again on a memorable occasion (Luk 5:1-11), and finally chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles (Mat 10:2). He was the youngest of the Twelve--the "Benjamin," as DA COSTA calls him--and he and James his brother were named in the native tongue by Him who knew the heart, "Boanerges," which the Evangelist Mark (Mar 3:17) explains to mean "Sons of thunder"; no doubt from their natural vehemence of character. They and Peter constituted that select triumvirate of whom see on Luk 9:28. But the highest honor bestowed on this disciple was his being admitted to the bosom place with his Lord at the table, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 20:24), and to have committed to him by the dying Redeemer the care of His mother (Joh 19:26-27). There can be no reasonable doubt that this distinction was due to a sympathy with His own spirit and mind on the part of John which the all-penetrating Eye of their common Master beheld in none of the rest; and although this was probably never seen either in his life or in his ministry by his fellow apostles, it is brought out wonderfully in his writings, which, in Christ-like spirituality, heavenliness, and love, surpass, we may freely say, all the other inspired writings.

After the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we find him in constant but silent company with Peter, the great spokesman and actor in the infant Church until the accession of Paul. While his love to the Lord Jesus drew him spontaneously to the side of His eminent servant, and his chastened vehemence made him ready to stand courageously by him, and suffer with him, in all that his testimony to Jesus might cost him, his modest humility, as the youngest of all the apostles, made him an admiring listener and faithful supporter of his brother apostle rather than a speaker or separate actor. Ecclesiastical history is uniform in testifying that John went to Asia Minor; but it is next to certain that this could not have been till after the death both of Peter and Paul; that he resided at Ephesus, whence, as from a center, he superintended the churches of that region, paying them occasional visits; and that he long survived the other apostles. Whether the mother of Jesus died before this, or went with John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried, is not agreed. One or two anecdotes of his later days have been handed down by tradition, one at least bearing marks of reasonable probability. But it is not necessary to give them here. In the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos" (a small rocky and then almost uninhabited island in the Ægean Sea), "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9). IRENÆUS and EUSEBIUS say that this took place about the end of Domitian's reign. That he was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, and miraculously delivered, is one of those legends which, though reported by TERTULLIAN and JEROME, is entitled to no credit. His return from exile took place during the brief but tolerant reign of Nerva; he died at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23], at an age above ninety, according to some; according to others, one hundred; and even one hundred twenty, according to others still. The intermediate number is generally regarded as probably the nearest to the truth.

As to the date of this Gospel, the arguments for its having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (though relied on by some superior critics) are of the slenderest nature; such as the expression in Joh 5:2, "there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool," &c.; there being no allusion to Peter's martyrdom as having occurred according to the prediction in Joh 21:18 --a thing too well known to require mention. That it was composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the decease of all the other apostles, is next to certain, though the precise time cannot be determined. Probably it was before his banishment, however; and if we date it between the years 90 and 94, we shall probably be close to the truth.

As to the readers for whom it was more immediately designed, that they were Gentiles we might naturally presume from the lateness of the date; but the multitude of explanations of things familiar to every Jew puts this beyond all question.

No doubt was ever thrown upon the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel till about the close of the eighteenth century; nor were these embodied in any formal attack upon it till BRETSCHNEIDER, in 1820, issued his famous treatise [Probabilia], the conclusions of which he afterwards was candid enough to admit had been satisfactorily disproved. To advert to these would be as painful as unnecessary; consisting as they mostly do of assertions regarding the Discourses of our Lord recorded in this Gospel which are revolting to every spiritual mind. The Tubingen school did their best, on their peculiar mode of reasoning, to galvanize into fresh life this theory of the post-Joannean date of the Fourth Gospel; and some Unitarian critics still cling to it. But to use the striking language of VAN OOSTERZEE regarding similar speculations on the Third Gospel, "Behold, the feet of them that shall carry it out dead are already at the door" (Act 5:9). Is there one mind of the least elevation of spiritual discernment that does not see in this Gospel marks of historical truth and a surpassing glory such as none of the other Gospels possess, brightly as they too attest their own verity; and who will not be ready to say that if not historically true, and true just as it stands, it never could have been by mortal man composed or conceived?

Of the peculiarities of this Gospel, we note here only two. The one is its reflective character. While the others are purely narrative, the Fourth Evangelist, "pauses, as it were, at every turn," as DA COSTA says [Four Witnesses, p. 234], "at one time to give a reason, at another to fix the attention, to deduce consequences, or make applications, or to give utterance to the language of praise." See Joh 2:20-21, Joh 2:23-25; Joh 4:1-2; Joh 7:37-39; Joh 11:12-13, Joh 11:49-52; Joh 21:18-19, Joh 21:22-23. The other peculiarity of this Gospel is its supplementary character. By this, in the present instance, we mean something more than the studiousness with which he omits many most important particulars in our Lord's history, for no conceivable reason but that they were already familiar as household words to all his readers, through the three preceding Gospels, and his substituting in place of these an immense quantity of the richest matter not found in the other Gospels. We refer here more particularly to the nature of the additions which distinguish this Gospel; particularly the notices of the different Passovers which occurred during our Lord's public ministry, and the record of His teaching at Jerusalem, without which it is not too much to say that we could have had but a most imperfect conception either of the duration of His ministry or of the plan of it. But another feature of these additions is quite as noticeable and not less important. "We find," to use again the words of DA COSTA [Four Witnesses, pp. 238, 239], slightly abridged, "only six of our Lord's miracles recorded in this Gospel, but these are all of the most remarkable kind, and surpass the rest in depth, specialty of application, and fulness of meaning. Of these six we find only one in the other three Gospels--the multiplication of the loaves. That miracle chiefly, it would seem, on account of the important instructions of which it furnished the occasion (John 6:1-71), is here recorded anew. The five other tokens of divine power are distinguished from among the many recorded in the three other Gospels by their furnishing a still higher display of power and command over the ordinary laws and course of nature. Thus we find recorded here the first of all the miracles that Jesus wrought--the changing of water into wine (Joh 2:1-11), the cure of the nobleman's son at a distance (Joh 4:43-54); of the numerous cures of the lame and the paralytic by the word of Jesus, only one--of the man impotent for thirty and eight years (Joh 5:1-9); of the many cures of the blind, one only--of the man born blind (Joh 9:1-12); the restoration of Lazarus, not from a deathbed, like Jairus' daughter, nor from a bier, like the widow of Nain's son, but from the grave, and after lying there four days, and there sinking into corruption (John 11:1-44); and lastly, after His resurrection, the miraculous draught of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (Joh 21:5-11). But these are all recorded chiefly to give occasion for the record of those astonishing discourses and conversations, alike with friends and with foes, with His disciples and with the multitude which they drew forth."

Other illustrations of the peculiarities of this Gospel will occur, and other points connected with it be adverted to, in the course of the Commentary.

JFB: John (Outline)

• THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14)
• A SAYING OF THE BAPTIST CONFIRMATORY OF THIS. (Joh 1:15)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Joh 1:16-18)
• THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. (John 1:19-36)
• FIRST GATHERING OF DISCIPLES--JOHN ANDREW, SIMON, PHILIP, NATHANAEL. (Joh 1:37-51)
• FIRST MIRACLE, WATER MADE WINE--BRIEF VISIT TO CAPERNAUM. (Joh 2:1-12)
• CHRIST'S FIRST PASSOVER--FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (Joh 2:13-25)
• NIGHT INTERVIEW OF NICODEMUS WITH JESUS. (John 3:1-21)
• JESUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE BAPTIST--HIS NOBLE TESTIMONY TO HIS MASTER. (John 3:22-36)
• CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA--THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR. (John 4:1-42)
• SECOND GALILEAN MIRACLE--HEALING OF THE COURTIER'S SON. (Joh 4:43-54)
• THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47)
• FIVE THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED. (Joh 6:1-13)
• JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA. (Joh 6:14-21)
• JESUS FOLLOWED BY THE MULTITUDES TO CAPERNAUM, DISCOURSES TO THEM IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE BREAD OF LIFE--EFFECT OF THIS ON TWO CLASSES OF THE DISCIPLES. (John 6:22-71) These verses are a little involved, from the Evangelist's desire to mention every circumstance, however minute, that might call up the scene as vividly to the reader as it stood before his own view.
• CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53)
• THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY. (Joh 8:1-11)
• FURTHER DISCOURSES OF JESUS--ATTEMPT TO STONE HIM. (John 8:12-59)
• THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21)
• DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42)
• LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD--THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS. (John 11:1-46)
• THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. (Joh 12:1-11)
• CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (Joh 12:12-19)
• SOME GREEKS DESIRE TO SEE JESUS--THE DISCOURSE AND SCENE THEREUPON. (John 12:20-36)
• AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20)
• THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30)
• DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRAITOR'S DEPARTURE--PETER'S SELF-CONFIDENCE--HIS FALL PREDICTED. (Joh 13:31-38)
• DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31)
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONTINUED. (John 15:1-27) The spiritual oneness of Christ and His people, and His relation to them as the Source of all their spiritual life and fruitfulness, are here beautifully set forth by a figure familiar to Jewish ears (Isa 5:1, &c.).
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONCLUDED. (John 16:1-33)
• THE INTERCESSORY PRAYER. (John 17:1-26)
• BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE. (Joh 18:28-40)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE--SCOURGED--TREATED WITH OTHER SEVERITIES AND INSULTS--DELIVERED UP, AND LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (John 19:1-16)
• CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS. (Joh 19:17-30)
• BURIAL OF CHRIST. (Joh 19:31-42)
• MARY'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE, AND RETURN TO IT WITH PETER AND JOHN--HER RISEN LORD APPEARS TO HER. (John 20:1-18)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:19-23)
• JESUS AGAIN APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:24-29)
• FIRST CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 20:30-31)
• SUPPLEMENTARY PARTICULARS. (John 21:1-23)
• FINAL CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 21:24-25)
• JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)

TSK: John (Book Introduction)

John, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife (compare Mat 10:2, with Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40), and brother of James the elder, whom " Herod killed with the sword," (Act 12:2). Theophylact says that Salome was the daughter of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20, Luk 5:1-10), which is supposed to have been when he was about twenty five years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle. After the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about ad 49 or 50 (Acts 15), at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the emperor Domitian, in the fifteenth year of his reign, ad 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Agean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9). On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about ad 100, and in the third year of the emperor Trajan. It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on Gal VI., says that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another. The general current of ancient writers declares that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Lev. Clerc, and others, to the year 97. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or according to others, to refute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians. But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel: " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name" (Joh 20:31). Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek. This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments, and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. The style of this Gospel indicates a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths. One thing very remarkable is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of his readers, by employing in the expression of them both an affirmative proposition and a negative. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord’s history and teaching which had been treated at large by other Evangelists, or if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly, whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of His mission, and the blessings of His purchase.

TSK: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Joh 1:1, The divinity, humanity, office, and incarnation of Jesus Christ; Joh 1:15, The testimony of John; Joh 1:39, The calling of Andrew, Peter, etc.

Poole: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

The penman of this Gospel is generally taken to have been John the son of Zebedee, Mat 10:2 , not either John the Baptist, or John surnamed Mark, Act 15:37 . He was a person mightily honoured by Christ’ s personal favours, and therefore often called the beloved disciple; you may read of these favours in these scriptures following, Mat 17:1 Luk 9:28 22:8 Joh 13:23 19:26,27 20:2 Act 3:3 Act 4:13 Gal 2:9 . Thus far the Scripture guides us. He is thought to have gone to and continued in Asia till the third of the ten persecutions in the time of Trajan. He was by Domitian banished into Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.

The time when he wrote this Gospel is uncertain; some think about the latter part of his life: he died the last of all the apostles, judged about a hundred years after the birth of Christ. It is said that the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ’ s Divinity, and of the Nicolaitanes, who held many absurd things about his person, gave occasion to the writing of this Gospel; himself mentions the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, Rev 2:6 ; and Ebion and Cerinthus are thought to be those antichrists which he in his Epistles reflects upon.

Two things are observed of him:

1. That he insists more on the proof of Christ’ s Divinity, than any of the evangelists; producing his miracles most evidently to prove it.

2. That he mentions very little reported by the other evangelists:

to which I think may be added, that he delivereth the history of the gospel after Christ’ s resurrection more fully than any of them; he gives us also a more distinct account of the four passovers happening after Christ’ s baptism; the necessity of faith in Christ, and regeneration; the doctrine of our mystical union with Christ; the sending of the Holy Spirit, and end of his mission, and the advantage that the apostles and others should receive from it. His Gospel is most particularly remarkable for the sublimeness and mysteriousness of the matter, and sweetness of the phrase.

JOHN CHAPTER 1

Joh 1:1-5 The Divinity of Christ.

Joh 1:6-13 The mission of John, and end of Christ’ s coming.

Joh 1:14 The incarnation of the Word.

Joh 1:15-18 Christ’ s superior dignity witnessed by John, and

evinced by his gracious dispensation.

Joh 1:19-28 John’ s record of himself to the messengers of the

Jews.

Joh 1:29-34 His public testimony to the person of Christ.

Joh 1:35-42 Two of his disciples, hearing it, follow Jesus: Simon

is brought to Christ, and surnamed Cephas.

Joh 1:43-51 Philip is called, who bringeth Nathanael to Jesus.

In the beginning in that beginning which Moses mentions, Gen 1:1 , the beginning of all things, when the foundations of the world were laid, Pro 8:27,28 ; the beginning of time; for before that was no measure of time, all was eternity.

Was the Word that is, the eternal Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom more is spoken afterward. Nor is Christ in this text alone called the Word, but 1Jo 1:1 , the Word of life; so Rev 19:13 : and there are some who think he is so called, Luk 1:2 , comparing that text with 2Pe 1:16 , as also Psa 33:6 . Nor is it an improper term by which to express the Son of God; for it both expresses something of his ineffable generation, as the word is begotten in our thoughts, and is the express image of them; and also his office in the revelation of his Father’ s will unto the sons of men, and revealing his Father to us, Mat 11:27 : and there are some (if they be not too curious in their notion) who think by that phrase of David, 2Sa 7:21 , For thy word’ s sake, ( expounded for thy servant’ s sake, 1Ch 17:19 , which is the title of Christ, Isa 42:1 ), that Christ is meant. Besides, it is observed, that this term was more acceptable both to the Jews and the heathens, than the term of Christ, or the Son of God, would have been; for there was nothing more abhorred by the Jews than the latter; and the heathen writers made (as is noted by divers) a great use of this term, to express the name and the power of God. Nor is any thing more ordinary with the Chaldee paraphrast than this expression: Isa 45:12 , I have made the earth; Chald. I in my word have made the earth. So Isa 48:13 , Mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth; Chald. By my word I have laid the foundations of the earth: this is taken from Moses’ s describing the creation by God’ s word of command, Let there be light, and there was light; the manner of expressing it by the word command, is significative that all things were made by his eternal Word; for would any Jew deny, that God by his word created the world? The evangelist therefore calleth Christ, to whom he was about to attribute the creation, the Word; not the word of God (so the Scriptures are called); to distinguish Christ in this notion from the revelation of the Divine will to the prophets, he is only called the Word, though he was the Son of God. Nor is it said, that in the beginning was the Word created, (as is said of the heavens and the earth, Gen 1:1 ), but was the Word: this proveth the eternal existence of the Second Person in the Trinity; for what was in the beginning did not then begin to be: the term the Word, without the addition of God, speaketh him a subsistence; and it being said, that in the beginning he was, speaks his eternal existence; for what had a being in the beginning of time must needs be eternal, nothing being when time began but what was eternal. To this purpose are those texts, Psa 90:2 Pro 8:22-31 Joh 17:5 Eph 1:4 2Th 2:13 , which two texts compared show, In the beginning, here used, to be the same with before the foundation of the world: so 2Ti 1:9 .

The Word was with God: lest any should say, Where was this Word before the foundations of the earth were laid? The evangelist saith, with God, which agreeth with Pro 8:27,30 . This both distinguishes Christ from all creatures, (none of which were with God in the beginning), and also showeth the vanity of Sabellius, and those we call quakers, who will not allow Christ to be a distinct subsistence, or person, from his Father: it also denotes the Son’ s co-existence and his equality with his Father; and yet his filial relation; for God is not said to have been with the Word, but the Word was with God, which also speaks a perfect unity and consent between them.

And the Word was God : lest any should say, What but God can be eternal, or be said to have been and had an existence in the beginning of the world? The evangelist addeth, that the Word was God: that is, the person or subsistence spoken of and intended by him was the Divine Being, which is but one; though in it there be three distinct subsistences, all make but one and the same Divine Being. The first thing spoken here of Christ attributes to him eternity; the second speaks his relation to the Father; this speaks the oneness and sameness of his essence with that of the Father. The term God which in the foregoing words is to be taken personally for God the Father, is here to be taken essentially, as it signifieth the Divine Being.

MHCC: John (Book Introduction)

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, Joh 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. On the accession of Nerva, he was set at liberty, and returned to Ephesus, where it is thought he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, about A. D. 97, and died soon after. The design of this Gospel appears to be to convey to the Christian world, just notions of the real nature, office, and character of that Divine Teacher, who came to instruct and to redeem mankind. For this purpose, John was directed to select for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his Divine power and authority; and those of his discourses, in which he spake most plainly of his own nature, and of the power of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. By omitting, or only briefly mentioning, the events recorded by the other evangelists, John gave testimony that their narratives are true, and left room for the doctrinal statements already mentioned, and for particulars omitted in the other Gospels, many of which are exceedingly important.

MHCC: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Joh 1:1-5) The Divinity of Christ.

(Joh 1:6-14) His Divine and human nature.

(Joh 1:15-18) John the Baptist's testimony to Christ.

(Joh 1:19-28) John's public testimony concerning Christ.

(Joh 1:29-36) Other testimonies of John concerning Christ.

(Joh 1:37-42) Andrew and another disciple follow Jesus.

(Joh 1:43-51) Philip and Nathanael called.

Matthew Henry: John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. John

It is not material to enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given by inspiration of God to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved, one of the first three of the worthies of the Son of David, whom he took to be the witnesses of his retirements, particularly of his transfiguration and his agony. The ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was the only one of them that died a natural death, all the rest suffering martyrdom; and some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus, at the request of the ministers of the several churches of Asia, in opposition to the heresy of Corinthus and the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It seems most probable that he wrote it before his banishment into the isle of Patmos, for there he wrote his Apocalypse, the close of which seems designed for the closing up of the canon of scripture; and, if so, this gospel was not written after. I cannot therefore give credit to those later fathers, who say that he wrote it in his banishment, or after his return from it, many years after the destruction of Jerusalem; when he was ninety years old, saith one of them; when he was a hundred, saith another of them. However, it is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, and his gospel is as the rearward or gathering host; it gleans up what they has passed by. Thus there was a later collection of Solomon's wise sayings (Pro 25:1), and yet far short of what he delivered, 1Ki 4:32. 2. That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history. It was necessary that the matters of fact should be first settled, which was done in their declarations of those things which Jesus began both to do and teach, Luk 1:1; Act 1:1. But, this being done out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, John goes on to perfection (Heb 6:1), not laying again the foundation, but building upon it, leading us more within the veil. Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of the ta sōmatika - the bodily things of Christ; but John writes of the ta pneumatika - the spiritual things of the gospel, the life and soul of it; therefore some have called this gospel the key of the evangelists. Here is it that a door is opened in heaven, and the first voice we hear is, Come up hither, come up higher. Some of the ancients, that supposed the four living creatures in John's vision to represent the for evangelists, make John himself to be the flying eagle, so high does he soar, and so clearly does he see into divine and heavenly things.

Matthew Henry: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The scope and design of this chapter is to confirm our faith in Christ as the eternal Son of God, and the true Messiah and Saviour of the world, that we may be brought to receive him, and rely upon him, as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and to give up ourselves to be ruled, and taught, and saved by him. In order to this, we have here, I. An account given of him by the inspired penman himself, fairly laying down, in the beginning, what he designed his whole book should be the proof of (Joh 1:1-5); and again (Joh 1:10-14); and again, (Joh 1:16-18). II. The testimony of John Baptist concerning him (Joh 1:6-9, and Joh 1:15); but most fully and particularly (v. 19-37). III. His own manifestation of himself to Andrew and Peter (Joh 1:38-42), to Philip and Nathanael (Joh 1:43-51).

Barclay: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN

The Gospel Of The EagleEye

For many Christian people the Gospel according to St. John is the most precious book in the New Testament. It is the book on which above all they feed their minds and nourish their hearts, and in which they rest their souls. Very often on stained glass windows and the like the gospel writers are represented in symbol by the figures of the four beasts whom the writer of the Revelation saw around the throne (Rev_4:7 ). The emblems are variously distributed among the gospel writers, but a common allocation is that the man stands for Mark, which is the plainest, the most straightforward and the most human of the gospels; the lion stands for Matthew, for he specially saw Jesus as the Messiah and the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, because it is the animal of service and sacrifice, and Luke saw Jesus as the great servant of men and the universal sacrifice for all mankind; the eagle stands for John, because it alone of all living creatures can look straight into the sun and not be dazzled, and John has the most penetrating gaze of all the New Testament writers into the eternal mysteries and the eternal truths and the very mind of God. Many people find themselves closer to God and to Jesus Christ in John than in any other book in the world.

The Gospel That Is Different

But we have only to read the Fourth Gospel in the most cursory way to see that it is quite different from the other three. It omits so many things that they include. The Fourth Gospel has no account of the Birth of Jesus, of his baptism, of his temptations; it tells us nothing of the Last Supper, nothing of Gethsemane, and nothing of the Ascension. It has no word of the healing of any people possessed by devils and evil spirits. And, perhaps most surprising of all, it has none of the parable stories Jesus told which are so priceless a part of the other three gospels. In these other three gospels Jesus speaks either in these wonderful stories or in short, epigrammatic, vivid sentences which stick in the memory. But in the Fourth Gospel the speeches of Jesus are often a whole chapter long; and are often involved, argumentative pronouncements quite unlike the pithy, unforgettable sayings of the other three.

Even more surprising, the account in the Fourth Gospel of the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus is often different from that in the other three.

(i) John has a different account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In the other three gospels it is quite definitely stated that Jesus did not emerge as a preacher until after John the Baptist had been imprisoned. "Now after John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God" (Mar_1:14 ; Luk_3:18 , Luk_3:20 ; Mat_4:12 ). But in John there is a quite considerable period during which the ministry of Jesus over-lapped with the activity of John the Baptist (Joh_3:22-30 ; Joh_4:1-2 ).

(ii) John has a different account of the scene of Jesusinistry. In the other three gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee and Jesus does not reach Jerusalem until the last week of his life. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judaea, with only occasional withdrawals to Galilee (Joh_2:1-13 ; Joh_4:35 through Joh_5:1 ; Joh_6:1 through Joh_7:14 ). In John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a Passover which occurred at the same time as the cleansing of the Temple, as John tells the story (Joh_2:13 ); he is in Jerusalem at the time of an unnamed feast (Joh_5:1 ); he is there for the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2 , Joh_7:10 ); he is there at the Feast of Dedication in the winter-time (Joh_10:22 ). In fact according to the Fourth Gospel Jesus never left Jerusalem after that feast; after Jn 10 he is in Jerusalem all the time, which would mean a stay of months, from the winter-time of the Feast of the Dedication to the spring-time of the Passover at which he was crucified.

In point of fact in this particular matter John is surely right. The other gospels show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem as the last week came on. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Mat_23:37 ; Luk_13:34 ). It is clear that Jesus could not have said that unless he had paid repeated visits to Jerusalem and made repeated appeals to it. It was impossible for him to say that on a first visit. In this John is unquestionably right.

It was in fact this difference of scene which provided Eusebius with one of the earliest explanations of the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. He said that in his day (about A.D. 300) many people who were scholars held the following view. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrew people. The day came when he had to leave them and to go to other nations. Before he went he set down his story of the life of Jesus in Hebrew, "and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence." After Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John was still preaching the story of Jesus orally. "Finally he proceeded to write for the following reason. The three gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his hands too, they say that he fully accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.... They therefore say that John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of the deeds done before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.... John therefore records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.... The Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life." (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 5: 24.)

So then according to Eusebius there is no contradiction at all between the Fourth Gospel and the other three; the difference is due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel is describing a ministry in Jerusalem, at least in its earlier chapters, which preceded the ministry in Galilee, and which took place while John the Baptist was still at liberty. It may well be that this explanation of Eusebius is at least in part correct.

(iii) John has a different account of the duration of Jesusinistry. The other three gospels, on the face of it, imply that it lasted only one year. Within the ministry there is only one Passover Feast. In John there are three Passovers, one at the Cleansing of the Temple (Joh_2:13 ); one near the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Joh_6:4 ); and the final Passover at which Jesus went to the Cross. According to John the ministry of Jesus would take a minimum of two years, and probably a period nearer three years, to cover its events. Again John is unquestionably right. If we read the other three gospels closely and carefully we can see that he is right. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn (Mar_2:23 ) it must have been spring-time. When the five thousand were fed, they sat down on the green grass (Mar_6:39 ); therefore it was spring-time again, and there must have been a year between the two events. There follows the tour through Tyre and Sidon, and the Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration Peter wished to build three booths and to stay there. It is most natural to think that it was the time of the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths and that that is why Peter made the suggestion (Mar_9:5 ). That would make the date early in October. There follows the space between that and the last Passover in April. Therefore, behind the narrative of the other three gospels lies the fact that Jesusinistry actually did last for at least three years, as John represents it.

(iv) It sometimes even happens that John differs in matters of fact from the other three. There are two outstanding examples. First, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesusinistry (Joh_2:13-22 ), the others put it at the end (Mar_11:15-17 ; Mat_21:12-13 ; Luk_19:45-46 ). Second, when we come to study the narratives in detail, we will see that John dates the crucifixion of Jesus on the day before the Passover, while the other gospels date it on the day of the Passover.

We can never shut our eyes to the obvious differences between John and the other gospels.

JohnSpecial Knowledge

One thing is certain--if John differs from the other three gospels, it is not because of ignorance and lack of information. The plain fact is that, if he omits much that they tell us, he also tells us much that they do not mention. John alone tells of the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1-11 ); of the coming of Nicodemus to Jesus (Joh_3:1-15 ); of the woman of Samaria Jn 4 ; of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11 ); of the way in which Jesus washed his discipleseet (Joh_13:1-17 ); of Jesusonderful teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which is scattered through Jn 14 Jn 15 Jn 16 and Jn 17 . It is only in John that some of the disciples really come alive. It is in John alone that Thomas speaks (Joh_11:16 ; Joh_14:5 ; Joh_20:24-29 ); that Andrew becomes a real personality (Joh_1:40-41 ; Joh_6:8-9 ; Joh_12:22 ); that we get a glimpse of the character of Philip (Joh_6:5-7 ; Joh_14:8-9 ); that we hear the carping protest of Judas at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:4-5 ). And the strange thing is that these little extra touches are intensely revealing. Johnpictures of Thomas and Andrew and Philip are like little cameos or vignettes in which the character of each man is etched in a way we cannot forget.

Further, again and again John has little extra details which read like the memories of one who was there. The loaves which the lad brought to Jesus were barley loaves (Joh_6:9 ); when Jesus came to the disciples as they crossed the lake in the storm they had rowed between three and four miles (Joh_6:19 ); there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:6 ); it is only John who tells of the four soldiers gambling for the seamless robe as Jesus died (Joh_19:23 ); he knows the exact weight of the myrrh and aloes which were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (Joh_19:39 ); he remembers how the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:3 ). Many of these things are such apparently unimportant details that they are inexplicable unless they are the memories of a man who was there.

However much John may differ from the other three gospels, that difference is not to be explained by ignorance but rather by the fact that he had more knowledge or better sources or a more vivid memory than the others.

Further evidence of the specialised information of the writer of the Fourth Gospel is his detailed knowledge of Palestine and of Jerusalem. He knows how long it took to build the Temple (Joh_2:20 ); that the Jews and the Samaritans had a permanent quarrel (Joh_4:9 ); the low Jewish view of women (Joh_4:9 ); the way in which the Jews regard the Sabbath (Joh_5:10 ; Joh_7:21-23 ; Joh_9:14 ). His knowledge of the geography of Palestine is intimate. He knows of two Bethanys, one of which is beyond Jordan (Joh_1:28 ; Joh_12:1 ); he knows that Bethsaida was the home of some of the disciples (Joh_1:44 ; Joh_12:21 ); that Cana is in Galilee (Joh_2:1 ; Joh_4:46 ; Joh_21:2 ); that Sychar is near Shechem (Joh_4:5 ). He has what one might call a street by street knowledge of Jerusalem. He knows the sheep-gate and the pool near it (Joh_5:2 ); the pool of Siloam (Joh_9:7 ); SolomonPorch (Joh_10:23 ); the brook Kidron (Joh_18:1 ); the pavement which is called Gabbatha (Joh_19:13 ); Golgotha, which is like a skull (Joh_19:17 ). It must be remembered that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and that John did not write until A.D. 100 or thereby; and yet from his memory he knows Jerusalem like the back of his hand.

The Circumstances In Which John Wrote

We have seen that there are very real differences between the Fourth and the other three gospels; and we have seen that, whatever the reason, it was not lack of knowledge on Johnpart. We must now go on to ask, What was the aim with which John wrote? If we can discover this we will discover why he selected and treated his facts as he did.

The Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus about the year A.D. 100. By that time two special features had emerged in the situation of the Christian church. First, Christianity had gone out into the Gentile world. By that time the Christian church was no longer predominantly Jewish; it was in fact overwhelmingly gentile. The vast majority of its members now came, not from a Jewish, but an Hellenistic background. That being so, Christianity had to be restated. It was not that the truth of Christianity had changed; but the terms and the categories in which it found expression had to be changed.

Take but one instance. A Greek might take up the Gospel according to St. Matthew. No sooner had he opened it than he was confronted with a long genealogy. Genealogies were familiar enough to the Jew but quite unintelligible to the Greek. He would read on. He would be confronted with a Jesus who was the Son of David, a king of whom the Greeks had never heard, and the symbol of a racial and nationalist ambition which was nothing to the Greek. He would be faced with the picture of Jesus as Messiah, a term of which the Greek had never heard. Must the Greek who wished to become a Christian be compelled to reorganize his whole thinking into Jewish categories? Must he learn a good deal about Jewish history and Jewish apocalyptic literature (which told about the coming of the Messiah) before he could become a Christian? As E. J. Goodspeed phrased it: "Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of Christian salvation without being for ever routed, we might even say, detoured, through Judaism?" The Greek was one of the worldgreat thinkers. Had he to abandon all his own great intellectual heritage in order to think entirely in Jewish terms and categories of thought?

John faced that problem fairly and squarely. And he found one of the greatest solutions which ever entered the mind of man. Later on, in the commentary, we shall deal much more fully with Johngreat solution. At the moment we touch on it briefly. The Greeks had two great conceptions.

(a) They had the conception of the Logos. In Greek logos (G3056) means two things--it means word and it means reason. The Jew was entirely familiar with the all-powerful word of God. "God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen_1:3 ). The Greek was entirely familiar with the thought of reason. He looked at this world; he saw a magnificent and dependable order. Night and day came with unfailing regularity; the year kept its seasons in unvarying course; the stars and the planets moved in their unaltering path; nature had her unvarying laws. What produced this order? The Greek answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world. He went on, What is it that gives man power to think, to reason and to know? Again he answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being.

John seized on this. It was in this way that he thought of Jesus. He said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like." John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man.

(b) They had the conception of two worlds. The Greek always conceived of two worlds. The one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.

Plato systematized this way of thinking in his doctrine of forms or ideas. He held that in the unseen world there was the perfect pattern of everything, and the things of this world were shadowy copies of these eternal patterns. To put it simply, Plato held that somewhere there was a perfect pattern of a table of which all earthly tables are inadequate copies; somewhere there was the perfect pattern of the good and the beautiful of which all earthly goodness and earthly beauty are imperfect copies. And the great reality, the supreme idea, the pattern of all patterns and the form of all forms was God. The great problem was how to get into this world of reality, how to get out of our shadows into the eternal truths.

John declares that that is what Jesus enables us to do. He is reality come to earth. The Greek word for real in this sense is alethinos (G228); it is very closely connected with the word alethes (G227), which means true, and aletheia (G225), which means "the truth." The King James and Revised Standard Versions translate alethinos (G228) true; they would be far better to translate it "real." Jesus is the real light (Joh_1:9 ); Jesus is the real bread (Joh_6:32 ); Jesus is the real vine (Joh_15:1 ); to Jesus belongs the real judgment (Joh_8:16 ). Jesus alone has reality in our world of shadows and imperfections.

Something follows from that. Every action that Jesus did was, therefore, not only an act in time but a window which allows us to see into reality. That is what John means when he talks of Jesusiracles as signs (semeia - G4592). The wonderful works of Jesus were not simply wonderful; they were windows opening onto the reality which is God. This explains why John tells the miracle stories in a quite different way from the other three gospel writers. There are two differences.

(a) In the Fourth Gospel we miss the note of compassion which is in the miracle stories of the others. In the others Jesus is moved with compassion for the leper (Mar_1:41 ); his sympathy goes out to Jairus (Mar_5:22 ); he is sorry for the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:14 ); when he raises to life the son of the widow of Nain, Luke says with an infinite tenderness, "He gave him to his mother" (Luk_7:15 ). But in John the miracles are not so much deeds of compassion as deeds which demonstrate the glory of Christ. After the miracle at Cana of Galilee, John comments: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory" (Joh_2:11 ). The raising of Lazarus happens "for the glory of God" (Joh_11:4 ). The blind manblindness existed to allow a demonstration of the glory of the works of God (Joh_9:3 ). To John it was not that there was no love and compassion in the miracles; but in every one of them he saw the glory of the reality of God breaking into time and into human affairs.

(b) Often the miracles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are accompanied by a long discourse. The feeding of the five thousand is followed by the long discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6 ); the healing of the blind man springs from the saying that Jesus is the light of the world (Jn 9 ); the raising of Lazarus leads up to the saying that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (Jn 11 ). To John the miracles were not simply single events in time; they were insights into what God is always doing and what Jesus always is; they were windows into the reality of God. Jesus did not merely once feed five thousand people; that was an illustration that he is for ever the real bread of life. Jesus did not merely once open the eyes of a blind man; he is for ever the light of the world. Jesus did not merely once raise Lazarus from the dead; he is for ever and for all men the resurrection and the life. To John a miracle was never an isolated act; it was always a window into the reality of what Jesus always was and always is and always did and always does.

It was with this in mind that that great scholar Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 230) arrived at one of the most famous and true of all verdicts about the origin and aim of the Fourth Gospel. It was his view that the gospels containing the genealogies had been written first--that is, Luke and Matthew; that then Mark at the request of many who had heard Peter preach composed his gospel, which embodied the preaching material of Peter; and that then "last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesusinistry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel" (quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 6 : 14). What Clement meant was that John was not so much interested in the mere facts as in the meaning of the facts, that it was not facts he was after but truth. John did not see the events of Jesusife simply as events in time; he saw them as windows looking into eternity, and he pressed towards the spiritual meaning of the events and the words of Jesusife in a way that the other three gospels did not attempt.

That is still one of the truest verdicts on the Fourth Gospel ever reached. John did write, not an historical, but a spiritual gospel.

So then, first of all, John presented Jesus as the mind of God in a person come to earth, and as the one person who possesses reality instead of shadows and able to lead men out of the shadows into the real world of which Plato and the great Greeks had dreamed. The Christianity which had once been clothed in Jewish categories had taken to itself the greatness of the thought of the Greeks.

The Rise Of The Heresies

The second of the great facts confronting the church when the Fourth Gospel was written was the rise of heresy. It was now seventy years since Jesus had been crucified. By this time the church was an organisation and an institution. Theologies and creeds were being thought out and stated; and inevitably the thoughts of some people went down mistaken ways and heresies resulted. A heresy is seldom a complete untruth; it usually results when one facet of the truth is unduly emphasised. We can see at least two of the heresies which the writer of the Fourth Gospel sought to combat.

(a) There were certain Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who gave too high a place to John the Baptist. There was something about him which had an inevitable appeal to the Jews. He walked in the prophetic succession and talked with the prophetic voice. We know that in later times there was an accepted sect of John the Baptist within the orthodox Jewish faith. In Act_19:1-7 we come upon a little group of twelve men on the fringe of the Christian church who had never gotten beyond the baptism of John.

Over and over again the Fourth Gospel quietly, but definitely, relegates John to his proper place. Over and over again John himself denies that he has ever claimed or possessed the highest place, and without qualification yields that place to Jesus. We have already seen that in the other gospels the ministry of Jesus did not begin until John the Baptist had been put into prison, but that in the Fourth Gospel their ministries overlap. The writer of the Fourth Gospel may well have used that arrangement to show John and Jesus in actual meeting and to show that John used these meetings to admit, and to urge others to admit, the supremacy of Jesus. It is carefully pointed out that John is not that light (Joh_1:8 ). He is shown as quite definitely disclaiming all Messianic aspirations (Joh_1:20 ; Joh_3:28 ; Joh_4:1 ; Joh_10:41 ). It is not even permissible to think of him as the highest witness (Joh_5:36 ). There is no criticism at all of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel; but there is a rebuke to those who would give him a place which ought to belong to Jesus and to Jesus alone.

(b) A certain type of heresy which was very widely spread in the days when the Fourth Gospel was written is called by the general name of Gnosticism. Without some understanding of it much of Johngreatness and much of his aim will be missed. The basic doctrine of Gnosticism was that matter is essentially evil and spirit is essentially good. The Gnostics went on to argue that on that basis God himself cannot touch matter and therefore did not create the world. What he did was to put out a series of emanations. Each of these emanations was further from him, until at last there was one so distant from him that it could touch matter. That emanation was the creator of the world.

By itself that idea is bad enough, but it was made worse by an addition. The Gnostics held that each emanation knew less and less about God, until there was a stage when the emanations were not only ignorant of God but actually hostile to him. So they finally came to the conclusion that the creator god was not only different from the real God, but was also quite ignorant of and actively hostile to him. Cerinthus, one of the leaders of the Gnostics, said that "the world was created, not by God, but by a certain power far separate from him, and far distant from that Power who is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all."

The Gnostics believed that God had nothing to do with the creating of the world. That is why John begins his gospel with the ringing statement: "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh_1:3 ). That is why John insists that "God so loved the world" (Joh_3:16 ). In face of the Gnostics who so mistakenly spiritualized God into a being who could not possibly have anything to do with the world, John presented the Christian doctrine of the God who made the world and whose presence fills the world that he has made.

The beliefs of the Gnostics impinged on their ideas of Jesus.

(a) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus was one of the emanations which had proceeded from God. They held that he was not in any real sense divine; that he was only a kind of demigod who was more or less distant from the real God; that he was simply one of a chain of lesser beings between God and the world.

(b) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus had no real body. A body is matter and God could not touch matter; therefore Jesus was a kind of phantom without real flesh and blood. They held, for instance, that when he stepped on the ground he left no footprint, for his body had neither weight nor substance. They could never have said: "The Word became flesh" (Joh_1:14 ). Augustine tells how he had read much in the work of the philosophers of his day; he had found much that was very like what was in the New Testament, but, he said: "e Word was made flesh and dwelt among us did not read there." That is why John in his First Letter insists that Jesus came in the flesh, and declares that any one who denies that fact is moved by the spirit of antichrist (1Jo_4:3 ). This particular heresy is known as Docetism. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokein (G1380) which means to seem ; and the heresy is so called because it held that Jesus only seemed to be a man.

(c) Some Gnostics held a variation of that heresy. They held that Jesus was a man into whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism; that Spirit remained with him throughout his life until the end; but since the Spirit of God could never suffer and die, it left him before he was crucified. They gave Jesusry on the Cross as : "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" And in their books they told of people talking on the Mount of Olives to a form which looked exactly like Jesus while the man Jesus died on the Cross.

So then the Gnostic heresies issued in one of two beliefs. They believed either that Jesus was not really divine but simply one of a series of emanations from God, or that he was not in any sense human but a kind of phantom in the shape of a man. The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus.

The Humanity Of Jesus

The fact that John is out to correct both these Gnostic tendencies explains a curious paradoxical double emphasis in his gospel. On the one hand, there is no gospel which so uncompromisingly stresses the real humanity of Jesus. Jesus was angry with those who bought and sold in the Temple courts (Joh_2:15 ); he was physically tired as he sat by the well which was near Sychar in Samaria (Joh_4:6 ); his disciples offered him food in the way in which they would offer it to any hungry man (Joh_4:31 ); he had sympathy with those who were hungry and with those who were afraid (Joh_6:5 , Joh_6:20 ); he knew grief and he wept tears as any mourner might do (Joh_11:33 , Joh_11:35 , Joh_11:38 ); in the agony of the Cross the cry of his parched lips was: "I thirst" (Joh_19:28 ). The Fourth Gospel shows us a Jesus who was no shadowy, docetic figure; it shows us one who knew the weariness of an exhausted body and the wounds of a distressed mind and heart. It is the truly human Jesus whom the Fourth Gospel sets before us.

The Deity Of Jesus

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.

(a) John stresses the preexistence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (Joh_8:58 ). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (Joh_17:5 ). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (Joh_6:33-38 ). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.

(b) The Fourth Gospel stresses more than any of the others the omniscience of Jesus. It is Johnview that apparently miraculously Jesus knew the past record of the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:16-17 ); apparently without anyone telling him he knew how long the man beside the healing pool had been ill (Joh_5:6 ); before he asked it, he knew the answer to the question he put to Philip (Joh_6:6 ); he knew that Judas would betray him (Joh_6:61-64 ); he knew of the death of Lazarus before anyone told him of it (Joh_11:14 ). John saw in Jesus one who had a special and miraculous knowledge independent of anything which any man might tell him. He needed to ask no questions because he knew all the answers.

(c) The Fourth Gospel stresses the fact, as John saw it, that Jesus always acted entirely on his own initiative and uninfluenced by anyone else. It was not his motherrequest which moved him to the miracle at Cana of Galilee; it was his own personal decision (Joh_2:4 ); the urging of his brothers had nothing to do with the visit which he paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:10 ); no man took his life from him--no man could; he laid it down purely voluntarily (Joh_10:18 ; Joh_19:11 ). As John saw it, Jesus had a divine independence from all human influence. He was self-determined.

To meet the Gnostics and their strange beliefs John presents us with a Jesus who was undeniably human and who yet was undeniably divine.

The Author Of The Fourth Gospel

We have seen that the aim of the writer of the Fourth Gospel was to present the Christian faith in such a way that it would commend itself to the Greek world to which Christianity had gone out, and also to combat the heresies and mistaken ideas which had arisen within the church. We go on to ask, Who is that writer? Tradition answers unanimously that the author was John the apostle. We shall see that beyond doubt the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that its actual form and penmanship did not come from his hand. Let us, then, collect what we know about him.

He was the younger son of Zebedee, who possessed a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee and was well enough off to be able to employ hired servants to help him with his work (Mar_1:19-20 ). His mother was Salome, and it seems likely that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mat_27:56 ; Mar_16:1 ). With his brother James he obeyed the call of Jesus (Mar_1:20 ). It would seem that James and John were in partnership with Peter in the fishing trade (Luk_5:7-10 ). He was one of the inner circle of the disciples, for the lists of the disciples always begin with the names of Peter, James and John, and there were certain great occasions when Jesus took these three specially with him (Mar_3:17 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_14:33 ).

In character he was clearly a turbulent and ambitious man. Jesus gave to him and to his brother the name Boanerges, which the gospel writers take to mean Sons of Thunder. John and his brother James were completely exclusive and intolerant (Mar_9:38 ; Luk_9:49 ). So violent was their temper that they were prepared to blast a Samaritan village out of existence because it would not give them hospitality when they were on their journey to Jerusalem (Luk_9:54 ). Either they or their mother Salome had the ambition that when Jesus came into his kingdom, they might be his principal ministers of state (Mar_10:35 ; Mat_20:20 ). In the other three gospels John appears as a leader of the apostolic band, one of the inner circle, and yet a turbulent ambitious and intolerant character.

In the Book of Acts John always appears as the companion of Peter, and he himself never speaks at all. His name is still one of the three names at the head of the apostolic list (Acts 1:13). He is with Peter when the lame man is healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Act_3:1 ). With Peter he is brought before the Sanhedrin and faces the Jewish leaders with a courage and a boldness that astonished them (Act_4:1-13 ). With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria to survey the work done by Philip (Act_8:14 ).

In Paulletters he appears only once. In Galatians 2:9 he is named as one of the pillars of the church along with Peter and James, and with them is depicted as giving his approval to the work of Paul.

John was a strange mixture. He was one of the leaders of the Twelve; he was one of the inner circle of Jesuslosest friends; at the same time he was a man of temper and ambition and intolerance, and yet of courage.

We may follow John into the stories told of him in the early church. Eusebius tells us that he was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3 : 23). In the same passage Eusebius tells a characteristic story about John, a story which he received from Clement of Alexandria. John became a kind of bishop of Asia Minor and was visiting one of his churches near Ephesus. In the congregation he saw a tall and exceptionally fine-looking young man. He turned to the elder in charge of the congregation and said to him: "I commit that young man into your charge and into your care, and I call this congregation to witness that I do so." The elder took the young man into his own house and cared for him and instructed him, and the day came when he was baptized and received into the church. But very soon afterwards he fell in with evil friends and embarked on such a career of crime that he ended up by becoming the leader of a band of murdering and pillaging brigands. Some time afterwards John returned to the congregation. He said to the elder: "Restore to me the trust which I and the Lord committed to you and to the church of which you are in charge." At first the elder did not understand of what John was speaking. "I mean," said John, "that I am asking you for the soul of the young man whom I entrusted to you." "Alas!" said the elder, "he is dead." "Dead?" said John. "He is dead to God," said the elder. "He fell from grace; he was forced to flee from the city for his crimes and now he is a brigand in the mountains." Straightway John went to the mountains. Deliberately he allowed himself to be captured by the robber band. They brought him before the young man who was now the chief of the band and, in his shame, the young man tried to run away from him. John, though an old man, pursued him. "My son," he cried, "are you running away from your father? I am feeble and far advanced in age; have pity on me, my son; fear not; there is yet hope of salvation for you. I will stand for you before the Lord Christ. If need be I will gladly die for you as he died for me. Stop, stay, believe! It is Christ who has sent me to you." The appeal broke the heart of the young man. He stopped, threw away his weapons, and wept. Together he and John came down the mountainside and he was brought back into the church and into the Christian way. There we see the love and the courage of John still in operation.

Eusebius (3 : 28) tells another story of John which he got from the works of Irenaeus. We have seen that one of the leaders of the Gnostic heresy was a man called Cerinthus. "The apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, when he learned that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from his place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. He advised those who were with him to do the same. t us flee,e said, st the bath fall, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."here we have another glimpse of the temper of John. Boanerges was not quite dead.

Cassian tells another famous story about John. One day he was found playing with a tame partridge. A narrower and more rigid brother rebuked him for thus wasting his time, and John answered: "The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight."

It is Jerome who tells the story of the last words of John. When he was dying, his disciples asked him if he had any last message to leave them. "Little children," he said, "love one another." Again and again he repeated it; and they asked him if that was all he had to say. "It is enough," he said, "for it is the Lordcommand."

Such then is our information about John; and he emerges a figure of fiery temper, of wide ambition, of undoubted courage, and, in the end, of gentle love.

The Beloved Disciple

If we have been following our references closely we will have noticed one thing. All our information about John comes from the first three gospels. It is the astonishing fact that the Fourth Gospel never mentions the apostle John from beginning to end. But it does mention two other people.

First, it speaks of the disciple whom Jesus loved. There are four mentions of him. He was leaning on Jesusreast at the Last Supper (Joh_13:23-25 ); it is into his care that Jesus committed Mary as he died upon his Cross (Joh_19:25-27 ); it was Peter and he whom Mary Magdalene met on her return from the empty tomb on the first Easter morning (Joh_20:2 ); he was present at the last resurrection appearance of Jesus by the lake-side (Joh_21:20 ).

Second, the Fourth Gospel has a kind of character whom we might call the witness. As the Fourth Gospel tells of the spear thrust into the side of Jesus and the issue of the water and the blood, there comes the comment: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe" (Joh_19:35 ). At the end of the gospel comes the statement that it was the beloved disciple who testified of these things "and we know that his testimony is true" (Joh_21:24 ).

Here we are faced with rather a strange thing. In the Fourth Gospel John is never mentioned, but the beloved disciple is and in addition there is a witness of some kind to the whole story. It has never really been doubted in tradition that the beloved disciple is John. A few have tried to identify him with Lazarus, for Jesus is said to have loved Lazarus (Joh_11:3 , Joh_11:5 ), or with the Rich Young Ruler, of whom it is said that Jesus, looking on him, loved him (Mar_10:21 ). But although the gospel never says so in so many words, tradition has always identified the beloved disciple with John, and there is no real need to doubt the identification.

But a very real point arises--suppose John himself actually did the writing of the gospel, would he really be likely to speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Would he really be likely to pick himself out like this, and, as it were, to say: "I was his favourite; he loved me best of all"? It is surely very unlikely that John would confer such a title on himself. If it was conferred by others, it is a lovely title; if it was conferred by himself, it comes perilously near to an almost incredible self-conceit.

Is there any way then that the gospel can be Johnown eye-witness story, and yet at the same time have been actually written down by someone else?

The Production Of The Church

In our search for the truth we begin by noting one of the outstanding and unique features of the Fourth Gospel. The most remarkable thing about it is the long speeches of Jesus. Often they are whole chapters long, and are entirely unlike the way in which Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the other three gospels. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, was written about the year A.D. 100, that is, about seventy years after the crucifixion. Is it possible after these seventy years to look on these speeches as word for word reports of what Jesus said? Or can we explain them in some way that is perhaps even greater than that? We must begin by holding in our minds the fact of the speeches and the question which they inevitably raise.

And we have something to add to that. It so happens that in the writings of the early church we have a whole series of accounts of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written. The earliest is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; and Irenaeus was himself a pupil of Polycarp, who in turn had actually been a pupil of John. There is therefore a direct link between Irenaeus and John. Irenaeus writes:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast,

himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living

in Asia."

The suggestive thing there is that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) it in Ephesus. The word that Irenaeus uses makes it sound, not like the private publication of some personal memoir, but like the public issue of some almost official document.

The next account is that of Clement who was head of the great school of Alexandria about A.D. 230. He writes:

"Last of all, John perceiving that the bodily facts had been made

plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, composed a

spiritual gospel."

The important thing here is the phrase being urged by his friends. It begins to become clear that the Fourth Gospel is far more than one manpersonal production and that there is a group, a community, a church behind it. On the same lines, a tenth-century manuscript called the Codex Toletanus, which prefaces the New Testament books with short descriptions, prefaces the Fourth Gospel thus:

The apostle John, whom the Lord Jesus loved most, last of all

wrote this gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against

Cerinthus and other heretics."

Again we have the idea that behind the Fourth Gospel there is the authority of a group and of a church.

We now turn to a very important document, known as the Muratorian Canon. It is so called after a scholar Muratori who discovered it. It is the first list of New Testament books which the church ever issued and was compiled in Rome about A.D. 170. Not only does it list the New Testament books, it also gives short accounts of the origin and nature and contents of each of them. Its account of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written is extremely important and illuminating.

"At the request of his fellow-disciples and of his bishops, John,

one of the disciples, said: úst with me for three days from

this time and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us, whether

it be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate it to one

another.n the same night it was revealed to Andrew that John

should relate all things, aided by the revision of all."

We cannot accept all that statement, because it is not possible that Andrew, the apostle, was in Ephesus in A.D. 100; but the point is that it is stated as clearly as possible that, while the authority and the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel are that of John, it is clearly and definitely the product, not of one man, but of a group and a community.

Now we can see something of what happened. About the year A.D. 100 there was a group of men in Ephesus whose leader was John. They revered him as a saint and they loved him as a father. He must have been almost a hundred years old. Before he died, they thought most wisely that it would be a great thing if the aged apostle set down his memories of the years when he had been with Jesus. But in the end they did far more than that. We can think of them sitting down and reliving the old days. One would say: "Do you remember how Jesus said ... ?" And John would say: "Yes, and now we know that he meant..."

In other words this group was not only writing down what Jesus said; that would have been a mere feat of memory. They were writing down what Jesus meant; that was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. John had thought about every word that Jesus had said; and he had thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was so real to him. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled: "What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long." That is a perfect description of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. A. H. N. Green Armytage puts the thing perfectly in his book John who saw. Mark, he says, suits the missionary with his clear-cut account of the facts of Jesusife; Matthew suits the teacher with his systematic account of the teaching of Jesus; Luke suits the parish minister or priest with his wide sympathy and his picture of Jesus as the friend of all; but John is the gospel of the contemplative.

He goes on to speak of the apparent contrast between Mark and John. "The two gospels are in a sense the same gospel. Only, where Mark saw things plainly, bluntly, literally, John saw them subtly, profoundly, spiritually. We might say that John lit Markpages by the lantern of a lifetimemeditation." Wordsworth defined poetry as "Emotion recollected in tranquillity ". That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit. It was not John of Ephesus who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it was the Holy Spirit who wrote it through John.

The Penman Of The Gospel

We have one question still to ask. We can be quite sure that the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel is that of John the apostle; but we have also seen that behind it is a witness who was the writer, in the sense that he was the actual penman. Can we find out who he was? We know from what the early church writers tell us that there were actually two Johns in Ephesus at the same time. There was John the apostle, but there was another John, who was known as John the elder.

Papias, who loved to collect all that he could find about the history of the New Testament and the story of Jesus, gives us some very interesting information. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is quite near Ephesus, and his dates are from about A.D. 70 to about A.D. 145. That is to say, he was actually a contemporary of John. He writes how he tried to find out "what Andrew said or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." In Ephesus there was the apostle John, and the elder John; and the elder John was so well-loved a figure that he was actually known as The Elder. He clearly had a unique place in the church. Both Eusebius and Dionysius the Great tell us that even to their own days in Ephesus there were two famous tombs, the one of John the apostle, and the other of John the elder.

Now let us turn to the two little letters, Second John and Third John. The letters come from the same hand as the gospel, and how do they begin? The second letter begins: "The elder unto the elect lady and her children" (2Jo_1:1 ). The third letter begins: "The elder unto the beloved Gaius" (3Jo_1:1 ). Here we have our solution. The actual penman of the letters was John the elder; the mind and memory behind them was the aged John the apostle, the master whom John the elder always described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The Precious Gospel

The more we know about the Fourth Gospel the more precious it becomes. For seventy years John had thought of Jesus. Day by day the Holy Spirit had opened out to him the meaning of what Jesus said. So when John was near the century of life and his days were numbered, he and his friends sat down to remember. John the elder held the pen to write for his master, John the apostle; and the last of the apostles set down, not only what he had heard Jesus say, but also what he now knew Jesus had meant. He remembered how Jesus had said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Joh_16:12-13 ). There were many things which seventy years ago he had not understood; there were many things which in these seventy years the Spirit of Truth had revealed to him. These things John set down even as the eternal glory was dawning upon him. When we read this gospel let us remember that we are reading the gospel which of all the gospels is most the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking to us of the things which Jesus meant, speaking through the mind and memory of John the apostle and by the pen of John the elder. Behind this gospel is the whole church at Ephesus, the whole company of the saints, the last of the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the Risen Christ himself.

FURTHER READING

John

C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (G)

J. H. Bernahrd, St. John (ICC; G)

E. C. Hoskyns (ed. F. M. Davey), The Fourth Gospel (E)

R. H. Lightfoot, St. JohnGospel: A Commentary (E)

G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MC; E)

J. N. Saunders (ed. B. A. Mastin), The Gospel According to Saint John (ACB; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to Saint John (TC; E)

B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to Saint John (E)

The SpeakerCommentary (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Word (Joh_1:1-18)

1:1-18 When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. This Word was in the beginning with God. He was the agent through whom all things were made; and there is not a single thing which exists in this world which came into being without him. In him was life and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, because the darkness has never been able to conquer it. There emerged a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, in order to bear witness to the light, that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; his function was to bear witness to the light. He was the real light, who, in his coming into the world, gives light to every man. He was in the world, and, although the world was made by him, the world did not recognize him. It was into his own home that he came, and yet his own people did not receive him. To all those who did receive him, to those who believe in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God. These were born, not of blood, nor of any human impulse, nor of any man's will, but their birth was of God. So the Word became a person, and took up his abode in our being, full of grace and truth; and we beheld his glory, glory such as an only son receives from his father. John was his witness, for he cried: "This is he of whom I said to you, he who comes after me has been advanced before me, because he was before me. On his fullness we all of us have drawn, and we have received grace upon grace, because it was the law which was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God."

We shall go on to study this passage in short sections and in detail; but, before we do so, we must try to understand what John was seeking to say when he described Jesus as the Word.

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:1-18 Continued)

The first chapter of the Fourth Gospel is one of the greatest adventures of religious thought ever achieved by the mind of man. It was not long before the Christian church was confronted with a very basic problem. It had begun in Judaism. In the beginning all its members had been Jews. By human descent Jesus was a Jew, and, to all intents and purposes, except for brief visits to the districts of Tyre and Sidon, and to the Decapolis, he was never outside Palestine. Christianity began amongst the Jews; and therefore inevitably it spoke in the Jewish language and used Jewish categories of thought. But although it was cradled in Judaism it very soon went out into the wider world. Within thirty years of Jesus' death it had travelled all over Asia Minor and Greece and had arrived in Rome. By A.D. 60 there must have been a hundred thousand Greeks in the church for every Jew who was a Christian. Jewish ideas were completely strange to the Greeks. To take but one outstanding example, the Greeks had never heard of the Messiah. The very centre of Jewish expectation, the coming of the Messiah, was an idea that was quite alien to the Greeks. The very category in which the Jewish Christians conceived and presented Jesus meant nothing to them. Here then was the problem--how was Christianity to be presented to the Greek world? Lecky, the historian, once said that the progress and spread of any idea depends, not only on its strength and force but on the predisposition to receive it of the age to which it is presented. The task of the Christian church was to create in the Greek world a predisposition to receive the Christian message. As E. J. Goodspeed put it, the question was, "Must a Greek who was interested in Christianity be routed through Jewish Messianic ideas and through Jewish ways of thinking, or could some new approach be found which would speak out of his background to his mind and heart?" The problem was how to present Christianity in such a way that a Greek would understand. Round about the year A.D. 100 there was a man in Ephesus who was fascinated by that problem. His name was John. He lived in a Greek city. He dealt with Greeks to whom Jewish ideas were strange and unintelligible and even uncouth. How could he find a way to present Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they would welcome and understand? Suddenly the solution flashed upon him. In both Greek and Jewish thought there existed the conception of the word. Here was something which could be worked out to meet the double world of Greek Jew. Here was something which belonged to the heritage of both races and that both could understand. Let us then begin by looking at the two backgrounds of the conception of the word.

The Jewish Background

In the Jewish background four strands contributed something to the idea of the word. (i) To the Jew a word was far more than a mere sound; it was something which had an independent existence and which actually did things. As Professor John Paterson has put it: "The spoken word to the Hebrew was fearfully alive.... It was a unit of energy charged with power. It flies like a bullet to its billet." For that very reason the Hebrew was sparing of words. Hebrew speech has fewer than 10,000; Greek speech has 200,000. A modern poet tells how once the doer of an heroic deed was unable to tell it to his fellow-tribesmen for lack of words. Whereupon there arose a man "afflicted with the necessary magic of words," and he told the story in terms so vivid and so moving that "the words became alive and walked up and down in the hearts of his hearers." The words of the poet became a power. History has many an example of that kind of thing. When John Knox preached in the days of the Reformation in Scotland it was said that the voice of that one man put more courage into the hearts of his hearers than ten thousand trumpets braying in their ears. His words did things to people. In the days of the French Revolution Rouget de Lisle wrote the Marseillaise and that song sent men marching to revolution. The words did things. In the days of the Second World War, when Britain was bereft alike of allies and of weapons, the words of the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, as he broadcast to the nation, did things to people. It was even more so in the East, and still is. To the eastern people a word is not merely a sound; it is a power which does things. Once when Sir George Adam Smith was travelling in the desert in the East, a group of Moslems gave his party the customary greeting: "Peace be upon you." At the moment they failed to notice that he was a Christian. When they discovered that they had spoken a blessing to an infidel, they hurried back to ask for the blessing back again. The word was like a thing which could be sent out to do things and which could be brought back again. Will Carleton, the poet, expresses something like that:

"Boys flying kites haul in their white-winged birds; You can't do that way when you're flying words: 'Careful with fire,' is good advice we know, 'Careful with words,' is ten times doubly so. Thoughts unexpressed may sometimes fall back dead, But God himself can't kill them when they're said."

We can well understand how to the eastern peoples words had an independent, power-filled existence. (ii) Of that general idea of the power of words, the Old Testament is full. Once Isaac had been deceived into blessing Jacob instead of Esau, nothing he could do could take that word of blessing back again (Gen 27). The word had gone out and had begun to act and nothing could stop it. In particular we see the word of God in action in the Creation story. At every stage of it we read: "And God said..." (Gen_1:3; Gen_1:6; Gen_1:11). The word of God is the creating power. Again and again we get this idea of the creative, acting, dynamic word of God. "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made" (Psa_33:6). "He sent forth his word and healed them" (Psa_107:20). "He sent forth his commands to the earth; his word runs swiftly" (Psa_147:15). "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa_55:11). "Is not my word like fire, and, says the Lord, like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer_23:29). "Thou spakest from the beginning of creation, even the first day, and saidst thus: ' Let heaven and earth be made.' And thy word was a perfect work" (2Esdr 6:38). The writer of the Book of Wisdom addresses God as the one, "who hast made an things with thy word" (Wis 9:1). Everywhere in the Old Testament there is this idea of the powerful, creative word. Even men's words have a kind of dynamic activity; how much more must it be so with God? (iii) There came into Hebrew religious life something which greatly accentuated the development of this idea of the word of God. For a hundred years and more before the coming of Jesus Hebrew was a forgotten language. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew but the Jews no longer knew the language. The scholars knew it, but not the ordinary people. They spoke a development of Hebrew called Aramaic which is to Hebrew somewhat as modern English is to Anglo-Saxon. Since that was so the Scriptures of the Old Testament had to be translated into this language that the people could understand, and these translations were called the Targums. In the synagogue the scriptures were read in the original Hebrew, but then they were translated into Aramaic and Targums were used as translations. The Targums were produced in a time when men were fascinated by the transcendence of God and could think of nothing but the distance and the difference of God. Because of that the men who made the Targums were very much afraid of attributing human thoughts and feelings and actions to God. To put it in technical language, they made every effort to avoid anthropomorphism in speaking of him. Now the Old Testament regularly speaks of God in a human way; and wherever they met a thing like that the Targums substituted the word of God for the name of God. Let us see how this custom worked. In Exo_19:17 we read that "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God." The Targums thought that was too human a way to speak of God, so they said that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the word of God. In Exo_31:13 we read that God said to the people that the Sabbath "is a sign between me and you throughout your generations." That was far too human a way to speak for the Targums, and so they said that the Sabbath is a sign "between my word and you." Deu_9:3 says that God is a consuming fire, but the Targums translated it that the word of God is a consuming fire. Isa_48:13 has a great picture of creation: "My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens." That was much too human a picture of God for the Targums and they made God say: "By my word I have founded the earth; and by my strength I have hung up the heavens." Even so wonderful a passage as Deu_33:27 which speaks of God's "everlasting arms" was changed, and became: "The eternal God is thy refuge, and by his word the world was created." In the Jonathan Targum the phrase the word of God occurs no fewer than about 320 times. It is quite true that it is simply a periphrasis for the name of God; but the fact remains that the word of God became one of the commonest forms of Jewish expression. It was a phrase which any devout Jew would recognize because he heard it so often in the synagogue when scripture was read. Every Jew was used to speaking of the Memra, the word of God. (iv) At this stage we must look more fully at something we already began to look at in the introduction. The Greek term for word is Logos (G3056); but Logos (G3056) does not only mean word; it also means reason. For John, and for all the great thinkers who made use of this idea, these two meanings were always closely intertwined. Whenever they used Logos (G3056) the twin ideas of the Word of God and the Reason of God were in their minds. The Jews had a type of literature called The Wisdom Literature which was the concentrated wisdom of sages. It is not usually speculative and philosophical, but practical wisdom for the living and management of life. In the Old Testament the great example of Wisdom Literature is the Book of Proverbs. In this book there are certain passages which give a mysterious life-giving and eternal power to Wisdom (Sophia). In these passages Wisdom has been, as it were, personified, and is thought of as the eternal agent and co-worker of God. There are three main passages. The first is Pro_3:13-26 . Out of that passage we may specially note: "She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke forth, and the clouds drop down the dew" (Pro_3:18-20). We remember that Logos (G3056) means Word and also means Reason. We have already seen how the Jews thought of the powerful and creative word of God. Here we see the other side beginning to emerge. Wisdom is God's agent in enlightenment and in creation; and Wisdom and Reason are very much the same thing. We have seen how important Logos (G3056) was in the sense of Word; now we see it beginning to be important in the sense of Wisdom or Reason. The second important passage is Pro_4:5-13 . In it we may notice: "Keep hold of instruction, do not let go; guard her, for she is your life." The Word is the light of men and Wisdom is the light of men. The two ideas are amalgamating with each other rapidly now. The most important passage of all is in Pro_8:1-9; Prov 2 . In it we may specially note: "The Lord created me (Wisdom is speaking) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep; when he made firm the skies above; when he established the fountains of the deep; when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command; when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always" (Pro_8:22-30). When we read that passage there is echo after echo of what John says of the word in the Jn 1 . Wisdom had that eternal existence, that light-giving function, that creative power which John attributed to the word, the Logos (G3056), with which he identified Jesus Christ. The development of this idea of wisdom did not stop here. Between the Old and the New Testament, men went on producing this kind of writing called Wisdom Literature. It had so much concentrated wisdom in it and drew so much from the experience of wise men that it was a priceless guide for life. In particular two very great books were written, which are included in the Apocrypha and which it will do any man's soul good to read. (a) The first is called The Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, or, as it is better known, Ecclesiasticus. It too makes much of this great conception of the creative and eternal wisdom of God.

"The sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting" (Sir 1:1-10). "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss" (Sir 24:3-5). "He created me from the beginning of the world, And to the end I shall not fail" (Sir 24:9).

Here again we find wisdom as the eternal, creative power which was at God's side in the days of creation and the beginning of time. (b) Ecclesiasticus was written in Palestine about the year 100 B.C.; and at almost the same time an equally great book was written in Alexandria in Egypt, called The Wisdom of Solomon. In it there is the greatest of all pictures of wisdom. Wisdom is the treasure which men use to become the friends of God (Wis 7:14). Wisdom is the artificer of all things (Wis 7:22). She is the breath of the power of God and a pure effluence flowing from the Almighty (Wis 7:25). She can do all things and makes all things new (Wis 7:27). But the writer does more than talk about wisdom; he equates wisdom and the word. To him the two ideas are the same. He can talk of the wisdom of God and the word of God in the same sentence and with the same meaning. When he prays to God, his address is: O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom (Wis 9:2). He can speak of the word almost as John was to speak: "For while all things were in quiet silence, and that night was in the midst of her swift course, thine Almighty word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven but it stood upon the earth (Wis 18:14-16). To the writer of the Book of Wisdom, wisdom was God's eternal, creative, illuminating power; wisdom and the word were one and the same. It was wisdom and the word who were God's instruments and agents in creation and who ever bring the will of God to the mind and heart of man. So when John was searching for a way in which he could commend Christianity he found in his own faith and in the record of his own people the idea of the word, the ordinary word which is in itself not merely a sound, but a dynamic thing, the word of God by which God created the world, the word of the Targums which expressed the very idea of the action of God, the wisdom of the Wisdom Literature which was the eternal creative and illuminating power of God. So John said: "If you wish to see that word of God, if you wish to see the creative power of God, if you wish to see that word which brought the world into existence and which gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him the word of God came among you."

The Greek Background

We began by seeing that John's problem was not that of presenting Christianity to the Jewish world, but of presenting it to the Greek world. How then did this idea of the word fit into Greek thought? It was already there waiting to be used. In Greek thought the idea of the word began away back about 560 B.C., and, strangely enough, in Ephesus where the Fourth Gospel was written. In 560 B.C. there was an Ephesian philosopher called Heraclitus whose basic idea was that everything is in a state of flux. Everything was changing from day to day and from moment to moment. His famous illustration was that it was impossible to step twice into the same river. You step into a river; you step out; you step in again; but you do not step into the same river, for the water has flowed on and it is a different river. To Heraclitus everything was like that, everything was in a constantly changing state of flux. But if that be so, why was life not complete chaos? How can there be any sense in a world where there was constant flux and change? The answer of Heraclitus was: all this change and flux was not haphazard; it was controlled and ordered, following a continuous pattern all the time; and that which controlled the pattern was the Logos (G3056), the word, the reason of God. To Heraclitus, the Logos (G3056) was the principle of order under which the universe continued to exist. Heraclitus went further. He held that not only was there a pattern in the physical world; there was also a pattern in the world of events. He held that nothing moved with aimless feet; in all life and in all the events of life there was a purpose, a plan and a design. And what was it that controlled events? Once again, the answer was Logos (G3056). Heraclitus took the matter even nearer home. What was it that in us individually told us the difference between right and wrong? What made us able to think and to reason? What enabled us to choose aright and to recognize the truth when we saw it? Once again Heraclitus gave the same answer. What gave a man reason and knowledge of the truth and the ability to judge between right and wrong was the Logos (G3056) of God dwelling within him. Heraclitus held that in the world of nature and events "all things happen according to the Logos (G3056)," and that in the individual man "the Logos (G3056) is the judge of truth." The Logos (G3056) was nothing less than the mind of God controlling the world and every man in it. Once the Greeks had discovered this idea they never let it go. It fascinated them, especially the Stoics. The Stoics were always left in wondering amazement at the order of the world. Order always implies a mind. The Stoics asked: "What keeps the stars in their courses? What makes the tides ebb and flow? What makes day and night come in unalterable order? What brings the seasons round at their appointed times?" And they answered; "All things are controlled by the Logos (G3056) of God." The Logos (G3056) is the power which puts sense into the world, the power which makes the world an order instead of a chaos, the power which set the world going and keeps it going in its perfect order. "The Logos (G3056)," said the Stoics, "pervades all things." There is still another name in the Greek world at which we must look. In Alexandria there was a Jew called Philo who had made it the business of his life to study the wisdom of two worlds, the Jewish and the Greek. No man ever knew the Jewish scriptures as he knew them; and no Jew ever knew the greatness of Greek thought as he knew it. He too knew and used and loved this idea of the Logos (G3056), the word, the reason of God. He held that the Logos (G3056) was the oldest thing in the world and the instrument through which God had made the world. He said that the Logos (G3056) was the thought of God stamped upon the universe; he talked about the Logos (G3056) by which God made the world and all things; he said that God, the pilot of the universe, held the Logos (G3056) as a tiller and with it steered all things. He said that man's mind was stamped also with the Logos (G3056), that the Logos (G3056) was what gave a man reason, the power to think and the power to know. He said that the Logos (G3056) was the intermediary between the world and God and that the Logos (G3056) was the priest who set the soul before God. Greek thought knew all about the Logos (G3056); it saw in the Logos (G3056) the creating and guiding and directing power of God, the power which made the universe and kept it going. So John came to the Greeks and said: "For centuries you have been thinking and writing and dreaming about the Logos (G3056), the power which made the world, the power which keeps the order of the world, the power by which men think and reason and know, the power by which men come into contact with God. Jesus is that Logos (G3056) come down to earth." "The word," said John, "became flesh." We could put it another way--"The Mind of God became a person."

Both Jew And Greek

Slowly the Jews and Greeks had thought their way to the conception of the Logos (G3056), the Mind of God which made the world and makes sense of it. So John went out to Jews and Greeks to tell them that in Jesus Christ this creating, illuminating, controlling, sustaining mind of God had come to earth. He came to tell them that men need no longer guess and grope; all that they had to do was to look at Jesus and see the Mind of God.

The Eternal Word (Joh_1:1-2)

The Creator Of All Things (Joh_1:3)

Life And Light (Joh_1:4)

Life And Light (Joh_1:4 Continued)

The Hostile Dark (Joh_1:5)

The Witness To Jesus Christ (Joh_1:6-8)

The Light Of Every Man (Joh_1:9)

Unrecognized (Joh_1:10-11)

Unrecognized (Joh_1:10-11 Continued)

Children Of God (Joh_1:12-13)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14 Continued)

The Word Became Flesh (Joh_1:14 Continued)

The Inexhaustible Fullness (Joh_1:15-17)

The Revelation Of God (Joh_1:18)

The Witness Of John (Joh_1:19-28)

The Witness Of John (Joh_1:19-28 Continued)

The Lamb Of God (Joh_1:29-31)

The Coming Of The Spirit (Joh_1:32-34)

The First Disciples (Joh_1:35-39)

Sharing The Glory (Joh_1:40-42)

The Surrender Of Nathanael (Joh_1:43-51)

Constable: John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel as well as in the writings of the church fathers that the writer was the Apostle John.

The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24 the writer of "these things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve since only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The disciple whom Jesus loved was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10). James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory (1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the New Testament. This one was one of Zebedee's sons who was a fisherman before Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.

"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality manifested than in John."¹

The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 A.D.), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (c. 69-155 A.D.), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."² Other later church fathers supported this tradition including Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.³ Eusebius (fourth century) also specifically mentioned that Matthew and John among the apostles wrote the Gospels that bear their names.⁴

Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept Johannine authorship. This criticism comes from those who hold a lower view of Scripture generally. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.⁵

Place of Writing

Eusebius wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.⁶ The Isle of Patmos where John spent some time in exile is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). As previously noted, Eusebius wrote that John composed his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.⁷ During the first century, that city was one of the largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world.⁸

Date

A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as 45 A.D., the date when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-4).⁹ There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some doubt about this since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis of content, that John selected his material to supplement material in the Synoptics. This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died about 67 A.D. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other reasons.

Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before 70 A.D. because John described Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).¹⁰ This may be a weak argument since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe things in the past.¹¹ Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to Jerusalem's destruction in John. However there could have been many reasons John chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.

Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between 85 and 95 A.D.¹² Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older man. Moreover even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel and believed that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own Gospel suggests that he probably read them and chose to include other material from Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.¹³

The latest possible date would be about 100 A.D. Some liberal scholars date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus that dates from early in the second century contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.¹⁴ This seems to rule out a second century date.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing very exactly, as evidenced by the difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. A date sometime between 65 and 95 A.D. is probable.

Characteristic features and purpose

John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament studies.¹⁵ Compared to the Synoptics that present Jesus as a historical figure, John stressed the deity of Jesus. Obviously the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, were Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity. It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life.

The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times. The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon shows that John wanted to stress the importance of active vital trust in Jesus. Other key words are witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life, darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.¹⁶ These words identify important themes in the Gospel.

John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane, and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus' private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples (chs. 13-17). John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah (chs. 2-12). He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that explained their significance. Moreover he stressed Jesus' claims that occur in the unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).

About 93% of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.¹⁷ This fact indicates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared with the other three and explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. All four Gospels are quite similar, though each of them has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different from the others. Specifically it stresses Jesus' deity stronger than the others do. It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew of the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁸ I suspect that he did.

Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However the Synoptic writers stressed the future aspects of eschatology more than John who put more emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not. He did stress, however, the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as benefits of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified by His death. These include especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists. By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers' interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf. chs. 13-17).

"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became incarnate; everything was seeming.'¹⁹ That the docetic heresy did not appear in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."²⁰

"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God, and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii; also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine; and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic outlook), that Jesus was truly human."²¹

The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan than the others.

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and questioning believer."²²

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played, they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but which appears in the progress of the composition."²³

Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most profound of the Christian Gospels."²⁴

Original recipients

The preceding quotation implies that John wrote primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God and to give Christians who faced persecution confidence in their Savior. The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense implying that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense suggesting that pagan readers should believe initially. An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed all 66 books of the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that we might experience abundant eternal life (10:10).

John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites. These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers outside Palestine. Furthermore the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek categories. John's inclusion of the Greeks who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22) may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes it seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and Gentile unbelievers.²⁵

"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to whom he seemed patriarchal."²⁶

The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal. Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia the capital of which was Ephesus.

Summary of Gospel Introductions
Gospel	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Date	40-70probably 40s	63-70probably 60s	57-59probably 50s	65-95probably 90s
Origin	Palestine	Rome	Caesarea	Ephesus
Audience	Jews	Romans	Greeks	Gentiles
Emphasis	King	Servant	Man	God

Message²⁷

In one sense the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and to teach for reasons that will become evident as we study it. In another sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.²⁸ It is both simple and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.

What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John does.

The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave hidden. It is therefore an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of John plays that part among the Gospels. It is a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it would be this in his prologue (1:1-18).

The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. This book then stresses the revelation of the truth about God.

Mankind has constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself, however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach. This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of what one would expect.

John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see what God hates.

What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by revealing two things about Him: His grace and His truth (1:14). All that Jesus revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.

The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in gracious action in this book. Let us note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs that John chose to record.

The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical restoration. The feeding of the 5000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's grace in providing new life. All these miracles are revelations of God's love manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward us in our various needs. These are only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.

This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel. That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament too. The principle of God's holiness governs the passion of His love.

Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth. Let us select seven of the great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All these claims point to God as the source and to Jesus as the mediator of things having to do with truth.

The bread of life claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The light of the world claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The door claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The good shepherd claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The resurrection and the life claim (ch. 11) points to God as the source of true life. The way, the truth, and the life claim (ch. 14) points to God as the source of true authority. The vine claim (ch. 15) points to God as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of the truth concerning God.

These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3 where God began to reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel? First, such a revelation calls for worship.

In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship Him in response. The Son of God is the person through whom God has now given the greatest and fullest revelation of Himself and around whom we now bow in worship.

Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is as we study this Gospel, our reaction should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself. Even in heaven we will serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).

As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives. Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness. Jesus illustrated the balance.

This Gospel has a strong appeal to the unsaved as well. John wrote it specifically to bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness (20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is is the key to the knowledge of who God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain characteristics, namely grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content: who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31). Use it as an evangelistic tool.

Constable: John (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-18

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19-12:50

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42

4. The witness of Philip and Andrew 1:43-51

B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12

1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12

C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13-3:36

1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22

2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42

1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38

3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42

E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54

1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45

2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54

F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5

1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18

3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29

4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1-7:9

1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15

2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21

3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60-7:9

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13

2. Jesus' ministry at the feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59

6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11-12

1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8

4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11

5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19

6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36

7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13-17

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30

B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31-16:33

1. The new commandment 13:31-35

2. Peter's profession of loyalty 13:36-38

3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

4. The promise of future understanding 14:25-31

5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16

6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27

7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33

C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17

1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5

2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18-20

A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11

B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests' courtyard and Peter's first denial 18:15-18

3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27

C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28-19:16

1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32

2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16

D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30

1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17

2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18

3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22

4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24

5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30

E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42

1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37

2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42

F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29

1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9

2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18

3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23

4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29

G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31

V. Epilogue ch. 21

A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14

B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23

C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25

Constable: John

John

Bibliography

Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.

Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-71.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.

Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.

_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.

_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.

_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):34-52.

_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53.

_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.

Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Ark, 1984.

Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.

Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.

Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction." ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.

Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part 2:145-82.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gundry, Robert H. "In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.

Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar." Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):190-202.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962

Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):66-75.

Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-54.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865-71.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):200-9.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Angel at Bethesda--John 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):25-39.

_____. "Coming to the Light--John 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):314-22.

_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. "Grace after Grace--John 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45.

_____. "Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):239-48.

_____. "Those Who Have Done Good--John 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):158-66.

_____. "Untrustworthy Believers--John 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):139-52.

_____. "Water and Spirit--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "Water and Wind--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:544 (October-December 1979):318-32.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1982 ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; et al. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and Overstreet, R. Larry. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.

Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-66.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange. Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.

Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants, 1972.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.

McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1982.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel Studies--Etudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1968.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):333-45.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3 vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.

Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.

Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 1941.

Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):214-23.

_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.

_____. "John." In John--Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8.

_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-25.

_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41; 528 (October-December 1975):343-57.

Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):435-48.

_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):428-39.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. elencho, by F. Büchsel.

_____. S.v., lithos, by Joachim Jeremias.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):313-23.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1915.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.

_____. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-56.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden.

_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-4@

Haydock: John (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

INTRODUCTION

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John iv. 3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, &c. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians xi. 19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Lælius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts v. 36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; i.e. Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to the very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians ii. 13. and James i. 21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Chap. xv.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Chap. lv. 8, 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions to reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible for Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God. [1] --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians iv. 14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Greek: Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein.

====================

Gill: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

The author of this Gospel is John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James the greater; he outlived the rest of the disciples, and wrote this Gospel after the other evangelists; and in it many things are recorded, which are not in the other Gospels; as various discourses of Christ, and miracles done by him; several incidents in his life, and circumstances that attended his sufferings and death: the occasion of it is generally thought to be the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, asserted he was a mere man, and that he did not exist before his incarnation; and the design of it is to confute them: and it is easy to observe, that he begins his Gospel with the divinity of Christ; asserts him to be God, and proves him to be truly and properly so, by the works of creation, which were wrought by him, as well as shows that he was really man. Clemens ^a calls this Gospel of John, pneumatikon euaggelion "a spiritual Gospel", as indeed it is; consisting of the spiritual discourses of our Lord, on various occasions, both at the beginning, and in the course of his ministry, and especially a little before his sufferings and death: and the same writer observes, that John, the last of the evangelists, considering that in the other Gospels were declared the things relating to the body of Christ, that is, to him, as he was after the flesh; to his genealogy and birth as man; to what was done to him, or by him, in his infancy; to his baptism, temptations, journeys, &c. at the request of his familiar friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, composed this Gospel. Moreover, it is observed by some ^b, that the other three evangelists only record what was done by Christ, in one year after John the Baptist was cast into prison, as appears from Mat 4:12 wherefore John, at the entreaty of his friends, put these things into his Gospel, which were done or said by Christ, before John was cast into prison. He was called very early by Christ, though young; and was with him throughout the whole of his ministry, and was an eye and ear witness of what he here relates, and his testimony is to be received; he was the beloved disciple, he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, and had great intimacy with him; and might be privy to some things, which others were not acquainted with; and though he was a Galilean, and an unlearned man, Act 4:13 yet being endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, he was abundantly qualified to write this book: for what some ancient writers ^c say of him, that he was a priest, and wore a plate, that is, of gold upon his forehead, cannot be true, since he was not of the tribe of Levi; and besides, only the high priest wore that upon his mitre; unless they mean, as seems most likely, that he was a Christian bishop: perhaps the mistake may arise from John the Baptist, who was of the priestly order, and is called by some Jewish writers ^d, John the high priest. When and where this Gospel was written, is not certain; some say in ^e Asia, after he had wrote his Revelation in Patmos; and others say particularly, that it was wrote at Ephesus; the title of it in the Syriac version, signifies much, which runs thus;

"the holy Gospel, the preaching of John, which he spoke and published in Greek at Ephesus.''

And to the same purpose is the title of it in the Persic version;

"the Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the city of Ephesus, in the Greek Roman tongue.''

College: John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will notice that the first three accounts of Jesus' life are generally similar in their overall story line, whereas the fourth Gospel (John) is quite different. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels (Synoptic = "seen together" or "as parallel") because of their similarities, but John is called, well . . . John (no special name). It is part of the New Testament collection known as the Johannine Writings (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation).

The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are readily apparent to the alert reader. For example the Synoptics all present one major trip of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, whereas John portrays Jesus as being in Judea and Jerusalem often. Indeed, for John the primary ministry of Jesus seems to be in Judea rather than the Galilean setting of the Synoptics. Another difference is seen in John's lack of true parables in his recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Synoptics, parables are the characteristic form of Jesus' teaching, with the often repeated introduction, "Jesus told them a parable, saying, 'the kingdom of God is like this . . . .'" John is also loaded with characters we do not find in the Synoptics: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and Lazarus, just to name a few. Furthermore, some of our most memorable Gospel phrases are not found in the Synoptics, but only in John: "In the beginning was the Word." "Behold the Lamb of God!" "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." "I am the way, the truth, and the life." "I am the vine." "What is truth?" "It is finished!" "So send I you." By some estimates about 90% of the material found in John is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars have noticed these differences from ancient times. Clement of Alexandria, writing approximately AD 185, called John the "spiritual Gospel." By this, Clement did not mean that John was nonhistorical, but that John was more concerned with internal, spiritual matters. In the more recent past overly critical scholars have pronounced the differences between John and the Synoptics to be irreconcilable and concluded that John is, in effect, the first commentary on the Gospels. This assumption (that John is historical fiction) exists in many commentaries of previous generations and is still held by some today. In general, though, current scholarship is much less certain about the nonhistorical character of John. In this commentary we assume that John relates a historically reliable version of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, albeit quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. These differences are part of what makes the study of this book so fascinating and will be discussed at the appropriate places through the commentary.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

We have been writing as if we knew for sure that John was the author of this Gospel. But this begs the question, how do we know for sure that John wrote it, and if so, which John was this? To answer the first question in complete honesty, we do not know for sure who wrote this book, for it was published anonymously in line with the publishing standards of the ancient world. We do have some very early witnesses to John as the author, however. The so-called "Muratorian Canon" (date disputed, but probably AD 150-200) says, "John, one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the Gospel." An early church leader by the name of Irenaeus (AD 185) is also an important witness. Tradition claims that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, and that Polycarp was a student of John himself. This means that Irenaeus is only one generation of believers removed from John, which gives added weight to what he writes. Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel (in his book Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Some scholars have suggested, however, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed a man named John, but not John the Apostle. It is true that there were other early Christian leaders named John, and it is possible that one of them is the true author of the Fourth Gospel. This issue may be addressed by determining the identity of the so-called "beloved disciple" within the book of John.

In John 21:20-24 the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the author of the book. If we work backwards through the book, we encounter the beloved disciple in other places. He is the one who recognizes Jesus after the resurrection during the miraculous catch of fish (21:7). Jesus entrusts the care for his mother, Mary, to this disciple while hanging on the cross (19:26-27). This disciple reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23, 25). The beloved disciple is intended to be seen in some places where he is simply called the "other disciple." He is the one who races Peter to the tomb on Easter morning, and arrives first (20:3-5, probably indicating that he was younger than Peter). It is the "other disciple" who gains entrance for Peter and himself into the high priest's courtyard during the interrogation of Jesus (18:15-16). The "other disciple" may also be the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who, along with Andrew, is pointed to Jesus by the Baptist himself (1:35-40).

The intimacy the beloved disciple has with Jesus points to one of the inner circle of disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, this "inner circle" is pictured as Peter, James, and John. Peter is clearly not the author of the Fourth Gospel, because he is often portrayed as being with the "beloved disciple." James is an unlikely candidate, because he suffers early martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This leaves only John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James. This case is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Apostle John is named nowhere in the Fourth Gospel (nor is James, the only reference being to the "sons of Zebedee" at 21:2). It is not easy to understand why any other early Christian writer would have omitted the name of such a prominent Apostle. The solution to the mystery is that we are intended to see John himself as the author, and that he does not mention himself except as the "beloved disciple" or the "other disciple." We should also note that this is not an expression of pride (he "loved me best"). It is an expression of deep humility, wonderment, and thankfulness on the part of the author: Jesus loved me, even me?!

WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Many locations have been suggested as the place of composition for the Gospel of John, but the traditional site is the city of Ephesus. The ruins of Ephesus are in southwestern Turkey, near the modern city of Kusadasi. Ephesus was one of the largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire in the first century. Ephesus was the site of the Temple of Artemis (sometimes incorrectly called the Temple of Diana, see Acts 19:28). This temple was recognized as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world according to the Greek geographer, Strabo. This large city (perhaps as many as 500,000 inhabitants) had a very mixed population. There was a strong Christian community in Ephesus, for Paul had a three-year ministry there in the AD 50s. The presence of the Temple of Artemis shows that there was also a strong pagan community, dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek gods. Overall it was a large, cosmopolitan city, with a well-developed Greek culture. The common language of the city would have been Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Although it cannot be proven, there is strong tradition that the Apostle John, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, made his way to Ephesus sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. John, at least, was probably in Ephesus during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). After a few years, Domitian seems to have actively persecuted the Christian community, and this atmosphere of persecution probably forms the background for the Fourth Gospel, written sometime between AD 85-95. Also, by this time, the Jewish synagogue community had solidified in its opposition to the Christians, and Jews had to make a choice between the two. Jews who chose to believe in Jesus were "thrown out of the synagogue," a circumstance mentioned by John (9:22; 16:2).

This makes John one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, and certainly the last of the Gospels. If we theorize that John was about 20 when Jesus was crucified (AD 30), then he would have been 75-85 years old when this book was written, a very old man in the ancient world. For this and other reasons, it is likely that John had quite a bit of help in writing this book. Some scholars want to speak of the "Johannine community" or the "community of the beloved disciple" as the author, and there is some merit to this (cf. 21:24, "we know his testimony in true"). For our purposes, however, we will assume that the Apostle John, an eyewitness to many of the Gospel events, is the primary author of this book.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN?

First, we would say that the style of John's writing is simple, but its thought is profound. John is written in some of the simplest Greek in the New Testament, although this does not mean it is "bad" Greek. It uses many common words, many monosyllabic words, and relatively short sentences. Yet the message of the book is profound. Fred Craddock notes that this is a Gospel in which "a child can wade and an elephant can swim."

A second characteristic of John is that he has laid out the bulk of the book as a series of lengthy accounts of works followed by words. We can characterize these combinations as miraculous signs followed by discourses or sermons of Jesus. John has only seven miracles, five of which are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of each of these miracles is told at some length, and the material of the sermon that follows is primarily material not found in the Synoptics.

A third characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis upon the personal ministry of Jesus. John relates several one-on-one situations (e.g., Jesus with Nicodemus, chapter 3), which teach us that Jesus had an active private ministry. It was not all public preaching, although this was important, too. In John we see a Jesus who cares for people and has time for them. This has another side, however. Sometimes it emphasizes the aloneness of Jesus. He often seems to be by himself without the support of the disciples or anyone else, a solitary figure.

Fourthly, John has a highly developed theological interest. He is particularly concerned with the matter of Christology, explaining who Jesus is in relation to God. John lays stress on the divinity of Jesus, often referring to him as the Son or the Son of God. He also stresses the humanity of Jesus: he is thirsty at Sychar and weeps at the tomb of Lazarus. John develops the theme of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the one God sent to his people.

John also explores the nature of God the Father, particularly through the Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God. John emphasizes that faith for the Christian must be in both the Father and in the Son. And John also has a great deal of discussion about the Holy Spirit. This is found throughout the book, but particularly in the Farewell Discourses of chapters 13-17. Here the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the coming Paraclete or Advocate for the community of believers.

A fifth characteristic might also be called the purpose of John. This purpose is strongly evangelistic, to bring the readers to faith. There is a constant contrast in the Fourth Gospel between believers and unbelievers, between faith and unfaith. Toward the end of the book John lays out his purpose in very straightforward language, "These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31).

HOW WILL THE STUDY OF JOHN

BE APPROACHED?

There are many possible ways to study John, but it is helpful to know what the primary emphasis will be in this commentary. Our main focus will be to listen carefully to what John is saying to us, to understand his intended message. This is not as easy as it may seem at first glance, for John is far removed from twentieth century English speakers. We want to know the general story, to pick up on the nuances, to be sensitive to the theological implications John is drawing out. For the most part we will not be concerned with evaluating the historical nature of John's account. When we bring historical data into the mix, it will be to help the reader understand the background of John's story, not to judge his accuracy. This is a modified narrative approach, an attempt to understand John's story as it is intended to be understood. While some may find this intolerably naïve, it is certainly the first and necessary step to a full appreciation of this marvelous book. If we can get you to listen to John carefully and hear his message, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: There are many, many commentaries and other books related to the study of John. Dr. Bryant's favorites were the ones by Rudolf Bultmann, Barnabas Lindars, and Raymond Brown (even though he had sharp disagreements with all of them). Bultmann has a great deal of excellent material, although his theological bent makes him difficult for less advanced students. Lindars is excellent in technical discussion, but spiritually dry. Brown is wordy, but often gives great insights. I think the finest commentary on John is that of D.A. Carson. While Carson may be too conservative for some, he never avoids the hard questions and takes the time necessary to do thorough exegesis. Other outstanding choices for the more advanced student include the commentary of C.K. Barrett and George Beasley-Murray's commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series. For the less advanced student the commentary by Paul Butler contains a wealth of accessible material, although written for an earlier generation.

Abbot, Ezra, Andrew P. Peabody, and J.B. Lightfoot. The Fourth Gospel: Evidences External and Internal of Its Johannean Authorship . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John . New York: Moffatt, 1910.

. The Gospel of the Hellenists . New York: Holt, n.d., c.1933.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John . The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John . Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

. The Gospel of John and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium . Tübingen: Mohr, 1925.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John . Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word, 1987.

Bernard, John H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 volumes. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

Boice, James M. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1-11 . The New American Commentary 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Bowman, John. The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975.

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.

. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave . 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

. The Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. The Anchor Bible 29A-B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.

Butler, Paul. The Gospel of John . 2 volumes in 1. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.

Carpenter, Joseph E. The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. London: Constable, 1927.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H., editor. John and Qumran . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.

Colwell, Ernest C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, n.d., c. 1931.

Craddock, Fred B. John . Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. The Gospel and Letters of John . Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Drummond, James. An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1904.

Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel . London: Methuen, 1938.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1917.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Reprint, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Gardner-Smith, Percival. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gnilka, J. Johannesevangelium . Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983.

Godet, Frederic. Commentary on the Gospel of John . Translated by Timothy Dwight. 2 volumes. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1886.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John . Hermeneia Series. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. (German ed., 1980.)

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Higgins, A.J.B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel . London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. 2 volumes. London: Faber, 1940. Revised. ed. in one vol., 1947.

Howard, Wilbert F. Christianity According to St. John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.

. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation . London: Epworth, 1931.

Howard, Wilbert F., and Arthur J. Gossip. "The Gospel According to St. John." In Interpreter's Bible 7:437-811. Nashville: Abingdon/ Cokesbury, 1952.

Hunter, Archibald M. According to John . The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1968.

. The Gospel According to John . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Jauncey, James H. The Compelling Indwelling [Studies on John 15]. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Scribners Reference, 1977.

Jervell, Jacob. Jesus in the Gospel of John . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

. John . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

. John's Story of Jesus . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

. John, the Maverick Gospel . Atlanta: John Knox, 1976. Reprinted Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Lee, Edwin Kenneth. The Religious Thought of St. John . London: S.P.C.K., 1950.

Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of John's Gospel . Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament . New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Lightfoot, Robert H. St. John's Gospel . Edited by C.F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

MacGregor, George H.C. The Gospel of John . The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928.

MacGregor, George H.C., and A.Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961.

Maier G. Johannes-Evangelium . BKNT 6. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1984.

Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John . Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel . New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters . New York: Paulist, 1979.

McGarvey, J.W., and P.Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels . Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.

Michaels, J.R. John . San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montefiore, C.G., and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

. Reflections on the Gospel of John . 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

. Studies in the Fourth Gospel . Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969.

Murray, John O.F. Jesus according to St. John . London: Longmans, 1936.

Nicol, W. Semeia in the Fourth Gospel . Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Nolloth, Charles F. The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought. London: J. Murray, 1925.

O'Neill, J.C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1968.

Pack, Frank. The Gospel according to John . Living Word Commentaries. Austin: Sweet, 1975.

Palmer, Earl F. The Intimate Gospel . Waco: Word, 1978.

Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays: Thoughts on John XVII . London: 1873; reprint Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Redlich, Edwin B. An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel . London: Longmans, 1939.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Rigg, William Harrison. The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today . London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Robinson, John A.T. The Priority of John . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel . London: Macmillan, 1872.

. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel . New York: Scribner, 1905.

Sanders, J.N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin. The Gospel according to St. John . Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A.& C. Black, 1968.

Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes . Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John . 3 volumes. Translated by Cecily Hastings, et al. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sidebottom, E.M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel . London: SPCK, 1961.

Sloyan, Gerard S. John . Interpretation Commentary Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.

Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.

. John . Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Smith, D. Moody, C. Clifton Black, and R. Alan Culpepper, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Smith, Jonathan R. The Teaching of the Gospel of John . New York: Revell, 1903.

Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John . New York: Scribner, 1894.

Strachan, Robert H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925.

. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment . 3rd Revised Edition. London, S.C.M. Press, 1941.

Tasker, Randolph V.G. The Gospel according to St. John . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1960.

Temple, William. Readings in St. John's Gospel . 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1939-40; one volume edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Gospel of John." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 93-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

. John: the Gospel of Belief . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1948), 1954.

Turner, George A., and Julius R. Mantey. The Gospel according to John . The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Wead, David. The Literary Devices in John's Gospel . Basel: Komm. Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970.

Weber, Gerard P. and Robert Miller. Breaking Open the Gospel of John . Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1995.

Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel according to St .John . London: John Murray, 1882.

. The Gospel according to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes . 2 volumes. London: John Murray, 1908. Reprinted in 1 volume, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Witherington, Ben, III. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs

BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Blass, Debrunner and Funk

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DNT Dictionary of the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LSJ Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott and Jones

NASB New American Standard Bible

LXX Septuagint

NIV New International Version

NLT New Living Translation

NovT Novum Testamentum

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: John (Outline)

OUTLINE

A good outline is more than half the battle in one's understanding and remembering the contents of any book. There is more than one way to break up and organize the materials in the Gospel according to John. Most students have observed two large divisions in its structure: (1) chapters 1-12 and (2) chapters 13-21. These larger units include a prologue (1:1-18) and an epilogue (chapter 21). Perhaps the easiest way to organize the materials of the book for commentary purposes might be to number the larger units of thought in the book (over fifty such units) and comment successively on these from the beginning of the book to the end. One may endeavor, however, to organize the materials of the Fourth Gospel in some kind of elaborate outline, structured under the two large divisions noted above. We follow this latter procedure below:

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD - 1:1-12:50

A. The Prologue - 1:1-18

1. The Logos before Time - 1:1-4

a. His Relationship to Deity - 1:1-2

b. His Relationship to the World - 1:3-4

2. The Logos Manifested in History - 1:5-18

a. John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos - 1:5-13

b. The Logos in Flesh - 1:14-18

B. The Testimony of John the Baptist and of Jesus' First Disciples - 1:19-51

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist - 1:19-34

a. The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders - 1:19-28

b. The Testimony of John to the Jewish People - 1:29-34

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples - 1:35-51

a. John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus - 1:35-42

b. Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael - 1:43-51

C. Jesus' First Signs - 2:1-25

1. Jesus Changes Water into Wine - 2:1-12

2. Jesus Cleanses the Temple - 2:13-22

3. Summary of Response to Jesus - 2:23-25

D. Jesus and Nicodemus - 3:1-36

1. The New Birth - 3:1-10

2. The Son of Man - 3:11-21

3. The Further Testimony of John the Baptist - 3:22-30

4. The Son's Testimony - 3:31-36

E. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:1-42

1. Introduction - 4:1-4

2. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria - 4:5-30

a. The Setting - 4:5-6

b. Jesus' Request for Water - 4:7-9

c. Living Water - 4:10-15

d. The Woman Revealed - 4:16-19

e. Jesus Reveals Himself - 4:20-26

f. Reactions to Jesus - 4:27-30

3. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:31-42

a. Jesus and the Testifying of His disciples - 4:31-38

b. Firsthand and Secondhand Testimony - 4:39-42

F. Jesus' Healing of the Nobleman's Son, the Second Sign at Cana - 4:43-54

1. Introduction - 4:43-45

2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son - 4:46-54

G. Jesus and the Major Jewish Festivals - 5:1-12:50

1. A Feast, the Sabbath, and Jesus' Healing at the Pool in Jerusalem - 5:1-47

a. The Healing on the Sabbath - 5:1-9a

b. Violations of the Sabbath and the Healed Man's Defense - 5:9b-15

c. Violations of the Sabbath and Jesus' Defense - 5:16-18

d. Jesus' Discourse on the Sabbath and His Work - 5:19-29

e. Jesus' Defense and the Four Witnesses - 5:30-47

2. The Passover and Jesus' Explanation of the Exodus - 6:1-71

a. The Background - 6:1-4

b. Jesus' Feeding of the Five Thousand - 6:5-13

c. Jesus, Not That Kind of King - 6:14-15

d. Jesus' Walking on the Sea of Galilee - 6:16-21

e. The Crowds' Search for Jesus - 6:22-25

f. Two Discourses on the Bread of Life - 6:26-34, 35-40

g. Conflict Concerning Bread from Heaven and Flesh and Blood - 6:41-59

h. Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus - 6:60-71

3. Jesus at Tabernacles - 7:1-52

a. Introduction: Question If Jesus Would Go to This Feast - 7:1-13

b. Jesus' Discourses Spoken during the Feast - 7:14-36

c. Jesus' Discourses Spoken on the Last Day of the Feast and the Audience's Response to it - 7:37-52

d. Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery - 7:53-8:11

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews - 8:12-59

a. Jesus Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself - 8:12-20

b. Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is - 8:21-30

c. Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham - 8:31-59

5. Healing of the Man Born Blind - 9:1-41

a. The Setting - 9:1-5

b. The Healing - 9:6-7

c. Interrogations of the Man - 9:8-34

(1) Questions Posed by the Neighbors and Friends - 9:8-12

(2) Preliminary Quizzing by Some Pharisees - 9:13-17

(3) The Man's Parents Questioned by the Jews - 9:18-23

(4) The Man Questioned a Second Time by the Jews, and Excommunicated - 9:24-34

d. Who Sees and Who Is Blind? Jesus' Answer - 9:35-41

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy - 10:1-42

a. Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd - 10:1-21

(1) Figures from Shepherd Life - 10:1-6

(2) Explaining the Figure - 10:7-18

(a) Jesus is the Sheepgate - 10:7-10

(b) Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd - 10:11-18

(3) Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews - 10:19-21

b. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication - 10:22-39

(1) Jesus the Messiah - 10:22-31

(a) Setting and Questions: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" - 10:22-24

(b) Jesus' Reply - 10:25-30

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Stone Jesus - 10:31

(2) Jesus the Son of God - 10:32-39

(a) The Question: Is Jesus Making Himself Equal with God - 10:32-33

(b) Jesus' Response - 10:34-38

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Arrest Jesus - 10:39

c. Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously - 10:40-42

7. Lazarus and the Passover Plot - 11:1-57

a. Lazarus - 11:1-44

(1) Setting - 11:1-6

(2) Jesus' Discussion with the Disciples - 11:7-16

(3) Jesus and Martha: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life - 11:17-27

(4) Jesus and Mary and the Grieved - 11:28-37

(5) Jesus' Raising of Lazarus - 11:38-44

b. The Passover Plot to Kill Jesus - 11:45-53

c. Retreat of Jesus - 11:54-57

8. Preparation for Passover and Death - 12:1-50

a. Mary's Anointing of Jesus - 12:1-11

b. Jesus' Triumphal Entry - 12:12-19

c. Gentiles Prompt Jesus' Announcement of His Hour - 12:20-36

d. The Tragedy of Unbelief, Past and Present - 12:37-43

e. The Call to Faith Still Stands - 12:44-50

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - 13:1-21:25

A. Jesus' Manifestation of Himself to His Disciples in His Farewell Discourses - 13:1-17:26

1. At the Last Supper - 13:1-38

a. Jesus' Washing of His Disciples' Feet - 13:1-17

b. Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal - 13:18-30

c. Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:34) - 13:31-38

2. Promises of Jesus - 14:1-31

a. Promises of an Abode where Jesus Is Going - 14:1-4

b. Jesus the Way to the Father - 14:5-12

c. Doing Greater Works than Jesus; Asking in Jesus' Name - 14:13-14

d. Jesus' Departure and the Spirit's Coming - 14:15-31

3. More Commands and Promises of Jesus - 15:1-27

a. Jesus, the Vine; the Disciples, the Branches; The New Commandment Given (15:13) - 15:1-17

b. Hatred from the World - 15:18-25

c. The Spirit's Mission Like That of the Disciples: to Bear Witness to Jesus - 15:26-27

4. Still More Promises and Commands - 16:1-33

a. The Works of Disbelief - 16:1-4

b. The Works of the Spirit - 16:5-15

c. Joy Greater than Trouble - 16:16-33

5. Jesus' Prayer - 17:1-26

a. For His Glorification - 17:1-5

b. For His Disciples - 17:6-19

c. For Those Who Will Believe - 17:20-26

(1) For Unity - 17:20-23

(2) For Seeing Jesus' Glory - 17:24-26

B. Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion - 18:1-19:42

1. Jesus' Arrest - 18:1-11

2. Jesus' Trial before Annas - 18:12-14

3. Peter's First Denial of Jesus - 18:15-18

4. Jesus Interrogated before Annas - 18:19-24

5. Peter's Second and Third Denials of Jesus - 18:25-27

6. Jesus' Trial before Pilate - 18:28-19:16

a. Pilate Doubtful of the Prosecution - 18:28-32

b. Pilate Examines Jesus - 18:33-38a

c. Barabbas - 18:38b-40

d. The Flogging of Jesus and Delivering Over of Him to the Jews by Pilate - 19:1-16

7. The Crucifixion of Jesus - 19:17-30

8. Piercing Jesus' Side - 19:31-37

9. Jesus' Burial - 19:38-42

C. The Resurrection of Jesus - 20:1-21:25

1. Peter and John at the Empty Tomb - 20:1-9

2. Jesus' Appearance to Mary - 20:10-18

3. Jesus' Appearance to the Disciples with Thomas Absent - 20:19-23

4. Jesus' Appearance to his Disciples with Thomas Present - 20:24-29

5. The Purpose of this Gospel - 20:30-31

6. Jesus' Appearance to Seven Disciples and the Great Haul of Fish - 21:1-14

7. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about Peter - 21:15-19

8. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about John - 21:20-23

9. Testimony to the Truthfulness of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:24

10. The Selective Nature of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: John (Book Introduction)

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Gospel of John Intro

——o——

AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.

It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.

The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.

In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.

Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.

T. W. Mossman.

THE PREFACE

TO

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

——o——

S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.

His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.

Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,'^* as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "

Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)

Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.

First, his matter and scope.  S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.

The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.

The third is the author.  S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian ( Lib. de monogam .) and S. Jerome ( Lib. 1 contra. Jovin .). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.

The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.

See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom ( Præm. in Joan .). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.

CANONS THROWING LIGHT

upon the

INTERPRETATION OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

——o——

JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.

2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages—Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as ( sicut ) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and .   And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as ( sicut ). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance ( forsitan ) for surely . In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen , when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.

3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.

4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.

5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."

6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they might be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.

7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.

8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.

9. The particles that , wherefore , on account of which , and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him , that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled : and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe , because Isaias said again , He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe ( non credituros ), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.

10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.

11. By a He braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, or power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans .) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.

12. The particles as if , so as , and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph , do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory , as of the Only Begotten , means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.

13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord , dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11 , where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him : that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes , that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not . That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20 , when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed , and denied not , but confessed , I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him , and without Him was not anything made that was made.

15. John delights in calling Christ the Life , and the Light , for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food , or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.

16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.

17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.

COMMENTATORS

Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense.  S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.

A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.

A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.

A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.

Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.

The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.

A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb—

"If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,

  Our theologians had not danced in choir."

However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.

In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.

Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.

^* (Cf. Exod. xix. 21, Trans.) Return to the place.