Vv. 1–18. “The Prologue is summed up in
three thoughts, which also determine its plan:
The Logos:
the Logos disowned; the Logos acknowledged and regained.
These three fundamental aspects correspond with the three
principal aspects of the history as related in this gospel:
the revelation of the Logos; the unbelief of the Jewish
people; the faith of the disciples. Between the first part
(vv. 1–5) and the second (vv. 6–11), ver. 5 forms a
transition, as vv. 12, 13 connect the second part with the
third (vv. 12–18), which, in its turn, is in close
connection with the first. The relation of this last part to
the first, indicated by the similarity of thought and
expression which may be observed between ver. 18 and ver. 1,
may be expressed thus: The Person whom the Apostles beheld,
who was proclaimed by John the Baptist, and in whom the
Church believed (vv. 12–18), is none other than He whose
existence and supreme greatness have been indicated by the
title Logos. The Church possesses, therefore, in its
Redeemer the Creator of all things, the Essential Light, the
Principle of Life, God himself. The original link between
man and God, which sin had impaired (ver. 5), and which
unbelief completely broke (ver. 11), is for the believer
perfectly restored; and, by means of faith, the law of
Paradise (ver. 4) becomes once more the law of human history
(vv. 16–18). Thus the Prologue forms a compact, organic
whole, of which the germinal thought is this: by the
Incarnation believers are restored to that communion with
the Word, and that living relation with God, of which man
had been deprived by sin.”
*
I give the arrangement of the
Prologue according to Godet.
1.
In
the beginning was (ἐν
ἀρχ͂ῃ 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 ver. 3. This beginning had no beginning (compare
ver. 3; 17:5; 1 Ep. 1:1; Eph. 4:4; Prov. 8:23; Ps. 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,
John 8:58) instead of
ἐγένετο,
came into being,
or began to be,
which is used in vv. 3, 14, of the coming into being of creation
and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between
ἐν ἀρχῇ,
in
the beginning, and the expression
ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς,
from
the beginning, which is common in John’s writings (8:44; 1 Ep.
2:7, 24; 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).
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, Matt. 22:46; 1 Cor. 14:9, 19. Hence it signifies
a saying,
of God, or of man (Matt. 19:21, 22; Mark 5:35, 36): a
decree, a
precept
(Rom. 9:28; Mark 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the
Septuagint,
οἱ δέκα λόγοι,
“the ten words”
(Exod. 34:28), and hence the familiar term
decalogue.
It is further used of discourse:
either of the act
of speaking (Acts 14:12), of skill
and practice in speaking (Eph.
6:19), or of continuous speaking
(Luke 4:39, 36). Also of doctrine
(Acts 18:15; 2 Tim. 4:15), specifically the doctrine of
salvation through Christ (Matt. 13:20–23; Philip. 1:14); of
narrative,
both the relation and the thing related (Acts 1:1; John 21:23;
Mark 1:45); of matter under
discussion, an affair, a case in
law (Acts 15:6; 19:38).
As signifying
the inward thought, it denotes
the faculty of thinking and
reasoning (Heb. 4:12);
regard or
consideration
(Acts 20:24); reckoning, account
(Philip. 4:15, 17; Heb. 4:13);
cause or
reason (Acts
10:29).
John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here,
and in ver. 14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only.
The nearest approach to it is in Apoc. 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
(1 John 1:1, 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 Gen. 1,
where the act of creation is effected by God speaking (compare
Ps. 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 (Ps. 33:4; Is.
40:8; Ps. 119:105). The Word is a
healer in Ps. 107:20;
a messenger in
Ps. 147:15; the agent of the divine
decrees in Isa. 55:11.
(2) The
personified wisdom (Job 28:12
sq.; Prov. 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 (ver. 22). It is only God who knows its way
and its place (ver. 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 (vv. 25, 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 (Prov. 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” (Prov. 8:2, 3). She
builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general
invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding
(Prov. 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; 32:24–28; Hos. 12:4, 5; Exod. 23:20, 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 ch. 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” (ch. 9). In ch. 16:12, it
is said, “Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things” (compare Ps.
107:20); and in ch. 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, chs. 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 Targums, or
Aramæan 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 Ps. 110 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 JUDÆO-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 modelled.
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 (1:18); His
essence is love (3:16; 1 John 4:8, 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 (1:2), and it is He who creates all
things, matter included (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 Saviour. 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
speech,
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
(1:1), the Word, who was
originally before the creation with God, and
was God, one in
essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 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 (1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus
Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare
Philip. 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 Saviour; for it expresses His
nature in one, more than in any others. Therefore St. John, when
he names the Person in the Trinity (1 John 5:7),*
chooses rather to call Him Word
than Son;
for word
is a phrase more communicable than
son. Son hath only teference 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
(Luke 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.”
And the Word. A repetition of the
great subject, with solemn emphasis.
Was with God (ἦ
πρὸς 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 (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:56). “How long shall I be
with you” (πρὸς
ὑμᾶς, Mark 9:16). “I sat daily
with you”
(Matt. 26:55). “To be present with
the Lord” (πρὸς
τὸν Κύριον, 2 Cor. 5:8). “Abide and
winter with you”
(1 Cor. 16:6). “The eternal life which was
with the Father”
(πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα, 1 John 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.
And the Word was God (καὶ
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). In the Greek order,
and God was the Word,
which is followed by Ang.-Sax., Wyc., and
Tynd. But
Θεὸς,
God,
is the predicate
and not the subject
of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is
not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that
Θεὸς
is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he
had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event,
Θεὸς
would have been ambiguous; perhaps
a God. Moreover, if he had said
God was the Word,
he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he
had distinguished (hypostatically)
*
God from the word, and
λόγος
(Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God.
The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before
the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being
the third and highest statement respecting the Word — the climax
of the two preceding propositions. The word
God, used
attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God
and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to
follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all
the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something
majestic in the way in which the description of the Loges, in
the three brief but great propositions of ver. 1, is unfolded
with increasing
fulness” (Meyer).
*
Of course not anticipating the
criticism which has eliminated this passage from the
text.
**
Austin used the Latin
vox, and
of course has in mind the secondary meaning as a
word
or saying.
Wyc.
Wycliffe’s Version of the New Testament.
Tynd.
Tyndale’s Version of the New Testament.
*
The word
hypostasis
is equivalent to substance.
In theological language it is used in the sense of
person
as distinguished from
essence. Hence the adverb
hypostatically
signifies personally
in the theological sense, which recognizes three
persons
in the Godhead with one
essence.
Vincent, Marvin
Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament.
Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S.
2:23-35
Against the eternal being, light and life of
the divine Word, a contrary principle emerges in the world —
darkness.
The purpose and work of God in creation having been set forth,
we are now shown man’s attitude toward these.
5.
Shineth (φαίνει).
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 ver. 9. The shining does not always illuminate. Compare 1
John 2:8.
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 Matt. 10:27, and
once in Luke 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 (2 Pet. 2:4:, 17; Jude 6, 13). See
on 2 Pet. 2:4. The two words are combined in the phrase
blackness of darkness
(2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 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 ver.
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 1 John 1:9–11. Rom. 1:21, 22.
Comprehended (κατέλαβεν).
Rev.,
apprehended.
Wyc.,
took not it.
See on Mark 9:18; Acts 4:13.
Comprehended, in the sense of the
A. V.,
understood, is
inadmissible. This meaning would require the middle voice of the
verb (see Acts 4:13; 10:34; 25:25). The Rev.,
apprehended,
i.e., grasped
or seized,
gives the correct idea, which appears in John 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 (1 Cor. 9:24); of
attaining righteousness (Rom. 9:30); of a demon taking
possession of a man (Mark 9:18); of the day of the Lord
overtaking
one as a thief (1 Thess. 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).
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 3:1, there was a man
(ἦνἄνθρωπος),
where the mere fact that there was such a man as Nicodemus is
stated. See remarks on
ἦν,
ver. 1. A distinction is also intimated between
the eternal being
(ἦν)
of the Word and the coming into
being of his messenger.
Sent (ἀπεσταλμένος).
See on Matt. 10:2, 16; Mark 4:29; Luke 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 20:21, and 1 John 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.
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
(15:26).
Whose name was John (ὄνομα
αὐτῷ Ἰωάνης).
Lit.,
the name unto him John.
The first mention of John the Baptist. The last occurs, Acts
19:3. On the name, see on Matt. 3:1; Luke 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.
7.
The same (οὗτος).
Compare ver. 2, and the pronoun
ἐκεῖνος,
he,
in ver. 8.
For a witness (εἰς
μαρτυρίαν). Rev., more correctly,
for witness: a
witness would be
μάρτυρα
as Acts 1:8. The sense is for
witness-bearing or
to bear witness.
On the word, see Acts 1:22; 1 Pet. 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 Apocalypse. 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 (5:31, 34,
37); the witness of Christ himself (8:14; 18:37); the witness of
works (5:17, 36; 10:25; 14:11; 15; 24); the witness of Scripture
(5:39, 40, 46; 1:46); the witness of the forerunner (1:7; 5:33,
35); the witness of the disciples (15:27; 19:35; 21:24; 1 John
1:2; 4:14); the witness of the Spirit (15:26; 16:13, 14; 1 John
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.
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.
Through him. John the Baptist.
8.
He
(ἐκεῖνος).
Emphatic, “It was not he
who was the light.” Compare 2:21, “He
(ἐκεῖνος)
spake,” bringing out the difference between Jesus’ conception of
destroying and rebuilding the temple, and that of his hearers.
That light (τὸ
φῶς). Rev.,
the light. The
emphatic that
of the A. V. is unnecessary.
Was sent. Rev.,
came. Neither
in the original text. Lit., “He was not the light, but
in order that
(ἵνα)
he might bear witness.” So in 9:3. “Neither hath this man
sinned, nor his parents, but (he was born blind)
that the
works,” etc. Compare 15:25.
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 3:19; 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37. In
3:19 and 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 divers 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.”
True (ἀληθινὸν).
Wyc., very
light (compare the Nicene creed, “very
God of very
God”). This epithet is applied to light only here and 1 John
2:8, and is almost confined to the writings of John. A different
word,
ἀληθής, also rendered
true, occurs at
3:33; 5:31; 8:13, and elsewhere. The difference is that
ἀληθής
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
(John 3:33)in that He cannot lie. He is
ἀληθινός
(1 Thess. 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.
Lighteth (φωτίζει).
See on shineth,
ver. 5, and compare Luke 11:35, 36.
Every man (πάντα
ἄνθρωπον). Not
collectively,
as in ver. 7, but individually
and personally.
The world (τὸν
κόσμον). As in ver. 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 Acts 17:24; Jas. 3:6.
Four words are used in the New Testament for
world:
(1) γῆ,
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 Matt. 24:14; Luke 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; 2 Cor. 4:4. (4)
κόσμος,
which follows a similar line of development from the physical to
the ethical sense; meaning (a)
ornament, arrangement, order (1
Pet. 3:3); (b) the sum-total of the
material universe considered as a system
(Matt. 13:35; John 17:5; Acts 17:24; Philip. 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 (John
16:21; 1 John 3:17). (d) The
sum-total of humanity in the world; the human race
(John 1:29; 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
(John 7:7; 15:18; 17:9, 14; 1 Cor. 1:20, 21; 2 Cor. 7:10; Jas.
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.
10.
He
was in the world. Not merely at
His advent, but before His incarnation no less than after it.
See on vv. 4, 5.
Was made (ἐγένετο).
Came into being. See on ver. 3.
By
Him. Or
through Him (διά).
See on ver. 3.
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 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.”
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 ver. 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 vii., 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 ver.
5, with it,
the Word, as a principle of light,
κατέλαβεν,
apprehended.
Here, with Him,
the Word, as a person,
ἔγνω,
recognized.
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 ver. 10 the Word is
described as in the world invisibly.
Now He appears.
Unto His own (εἰς
τὰ ἴδια). Lit.,
his own things:
see on Acts 1:7. The Rev. follows the A. V. Wyc.,
into his own things.
Render his own home,
and compare 16:32; 19:27; Acts 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; Hosea 9:3; Zech. 2:12; Deut. 7:6. Not a
repetition of ver. 10. There is a progress in the narrative. He
was
in the world
at large: then he came
unto His own home.
His own (οἱ
ἴδιοι). 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.
Received (παρέλαβον).
Most commonly in the New Testament of taking one along with
another. See on Matt. 4:5; 17:1; Acts 16:33. But also of
accepting or acknowledging one to be what he professes to be,
and of receiving something transmitted, as 1 Cor. 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.
Rev.
Revised Version of the New Testament.
Wyc.
Wycliffe’s Version of the New Testament.
A. V.
Authorized Version.
12.
As many as (ὅσοι).
Denoting individuals,
as
οἱ
ἴδιοι (ver. 11) signified
the nation at large.
Received (ἔλαβον).
The simple verb of the compound
παρέλαβον in ver. 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 5:43; 13:20; 19:6.
Power (ἐξουσίαν).
Rev.,
the right.
Six words are used for
power in the New
Testament:
βία,
force,
often oppressive, exhibiting itself in violence
(Acts 5:26; 27:41. Compare the kindred verb
βιάζεται, Matt, 11:12;
“the kingdom of heaven is
taken by violence):
δύναμις,
natural ability
(see on 2 Pet. 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; 3:7;
Col. 2:12. Compare the kindred verb
ἐνεργέω,
to put forth power,
and see on Mark 6:14; Jas. 5:16):
ἰσχύς,
strength
(see on 2 Pet. 2:11. Compare the kindred verb
ἰσχύω,
to be strong,
and see on Luke 14:30; 16:3:
κράτος,
might,
only of God, relative
and manifested
power, dominion
(Eph. 1:19; 6:10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Pet. 4:11. Compare
the kindred verb
κρατέω,
to have power, to be
master of, and see on
Mark 7:3; Acts 3:11):
ἐξουσία,
liberty of action
(ἔξεστι,
it is lawful),
authority,
delegated or arbitrary (John 5:27; 10:18; 17:2;
19:10, 11. See on Mark 2:10; Luke 20:20). Here,
therefore,
ἐξουσία is not merely
possibility
or ability,
but legitimate right
derived from a competent source — the Word.
To become (γενέσθαι)
As those who are born
(ver. 13. Compare 3:3, and Matt. 5:45).
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 Apoc. 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, 6). See
also Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23, where the point of
view is John’s rather than Paul’s.
Τέκνον,
indicating the relationship of man to God, occurs in
John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2, and always
in the plural.
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 (2:22);
believe me
(4:21); believe Moses,
his writings, my words
(5:46). At other times with a preposition,
εἰς,
into,
which is rendered
believe in, or
believe on.
So here, 6:29; 8:30; 1 John 5:10. See the two
contrasted in 6:29, 30; 8:30, 31; 1 John 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 Saviour, 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.
Name (ὄνομα).
See on Matt. 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 20:31.
13.
Which (οἳ).
Referring to children
of God.
Were born (ἐγεννήθησαν).
Lit.,
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).
Of blood (ἐξ
αἱμάτων). Lit.,
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.
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.
Was made flesh (σὰρξ
ἐγένετο). Rev., “became
flesh.” The same verb as in ver. 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 corporeal 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 12:27; 11:33:
13:21; 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, 1 John
4:2; 2 John 7.
Dwelt (ἐσκήνωσεν).
Lit., 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 Apoc. 7:15; 12:12; 13:6; 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 που 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; 2
Sam. 7:6; Ps. 78:67
sqq.;
Ezek. 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”
(1 John 1:1–3. Compare Philip. 2:7, 8).
Some find in the word
tabernacle,
a temporary
structure (see the contrast between
σκῆνος,
tabernacle,
and
οἰκοδομή,
building,
in 2 Cor. 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 Apoc. 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 “Paradise:”
—— “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.”
Among us (ἐν
ἡμῖν). In the midst of us.
Compare Gen. 24:3,
Sept.,
“the Canaanites, with
whom I dwell (μεθ̓
ὧν ἐγὼ οἰκῶ ἐν αὐτοῖς).”
The reference is to the eye-witnesses 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.”
We beheld (ἐθεασάμεθα).
Compare Luke 9:32; 2 Pet. 2:16; 1 John 1:1; 4:14.
See on Matt. 11:7; 23:5. The word denotes calm,
continuous contemplation of an object which remains
before the spectator.
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 (Exod. 16:10; 24:16, etc.); in the temple
(1 Kings 8:11); to the prophets (Isa. 6:3; Ezek.
1:28). The divine glory flashed out in Christ from
time to time, in His transfiguration (Luke 9:31;
compare 2 Pet. 1:16, 17) and His miracles (John
2:11; 11:4, 40), but appeared also in His perfect
life and character, in His fulfilment of the
absolute idea of manhood.
Glory. Without the
article. This repetition of the word is explanatory.
The nature of the glory is defined by what follows.
As (ὡς).
A particle of comparison. Compare Apoc. 5:6, “a lamb
as though
it had been slain;” also Apoc. 13:3.
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
(Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). In the Septuagint it
answers to darling,
Heb., only one,
in Ps. 21,
A. V. 22:20; and to
desolate
in Ps. 24, A. V. 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, 18), which occurs but once in
John (Apoc. 1:5), and in Heb. 1:6; 11:28; 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,
ver. 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 6:46; 7:29;
16:27; 17:8). The correlative of this is ver. 18,
“who is in the bosom
(εἰς
τὸν κόλπον) of the
Father;” lit., “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 ver. 18).
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, 49; 32:10; Exod. 34:6; Ps. 40:10, 11; 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 (1 John 4:8,
16) by Him who is Life; and Truth with that of the
revelation of God as Light (1 John 1:5) by Him who
is Himself Light” (Westcott). Compare ver. 17. On
Grace,
see on Luke 1:30.
15. As ver. 14: is parallel to
vv. 1–5, so this verse is parallel to vv. 6–8, but
with an advance of thought. Vv. 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 established by his testimony.
Cried (κέκραγεν).
See on Mark 5:5; 9:24; Luke 18:39. The verb denotes
an inarticulate utterance as distinguished from
words. When used in connection with articulate
speech, it is joined with
λέγειν
or
εἰπεῖν,
to say,
as 7:28, cried, saying.
Compare 7:37; 12:44. The crying corresponds with the
Baptist’s description of himself as
a voice
(φωνή,
sound
or tone),
Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23. The verb is in the
perfect tense, but with the usual classical sense of
the present.
Was He (ἦν).
The imperfect tense, pointing back to a testimony
historically past.
After me (ὀπίσω
μου). Lit.,
behind
me: in His human manifestation.
Is preferred before me
(ἔμπροσθέν
μου γέγονεν). Lit., “is
become, ” so Rev., “or
is here
(compare 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
coining 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.
For (ὅτι).
Or because.
The reason for the preceding statement: the key to
the enigma.
He was before me (πρῶτός
μου ἦν). Lit.,
first in regard of me
(Rev., in margin). The reference to dignity would
require
ἐστίν,
is
(see Matt. 3:11, “is
mightier”). A similar expression occurs in 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 8:58.*
16.
And (καὶ).
But the correct reading is
ὅτι,
because,
thus connecting the following sentence with “full
of grace and truth” in ver. 14. We know Him as
full
of grace and truth, because we have received of His
fulness.
Of His fulness (ἐκ
τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ).
These and the succeeding words are the Evangelist’s,
not the Baptist’s. The word
fulness
(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
(ver. 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
(3:22) 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
Ephesians 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 fulness 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 fulness
(τὸ
ιλήρωμα, note the article)
dwell;” and 2:9, 10, “In Him dwelleth all
the pleroma
of the Godhead bodily
(i.e., corporeally,
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
fulness
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 John 15:15; 17:22).*
Have — received (ἐλάβομεν).
Rev., we received:
rendering the aorist tense more literally.
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 Matt. 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 (2 Pet. 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.”
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 fulness of grace and truth which was in Him
(ver. 14:). Compare Rom. 4:15; 10:4; Gal. 3:10.
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.”
By Moses (διά).
Lit., through.
See on by Him,
ver. 3.
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 1 Cor. 1:30,
where it is said of Christ, He
was made
(properly, became,
ἐγενήθη) 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
(2 John 3; Apoc. 1:4; 22:21).
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 ver. 10).
18.
No man hath soon 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 3:11; Exod. 33:20; 1 John 4:12.
Manifestations of God to Old Testament saints were
only partial and approximate (Exod. 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 1 John
1:1; 4:12, 14,
θεάομαι is used, denoting
calm
and deliberate
contemplation (see on
ver. 14). In 12:45, we have
θεωρέω,
to behold
(see on Mark 5:15; Luke 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).
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
(ver. 1), only begotten
(ver. 14); the sense being
one who was both God and only
begotten.
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,
lit., 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 (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 (Deut. 13:6); of a father to an infant child
(Num. 11:12), and of the affectionate protection and
rest afforded to Lazarus in Paradise (Luke 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 ver. 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).
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” (John 9:37). So here, “the
only-be-gotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father
— He
hath declared Him.”
Hath declared (ἐξηγήσατο).
Or, rendering the aorist strictly,
He declared.
From
ἐκ,
forth,
and
ἡγέομαι,
to lead the way.
Orig., to lead or
govern. Hence, like
the Lat. 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 Acts 15:14, and on Luke 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
Crœsus, 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, 24), and the kindred verb of
teaching
or interpreting
concerning leprosy (Levit. 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.
Rev.
Revised Version of the
New Testament.
Sept.
Septuagint Version of the
Old Testament.
A. V.
Authorized Version.
*
i.e.,
attributing human form and human modes of
activity to God, as when we speak of the
hand,
the face,
the eye
of God, or of God
begetting
as here.
*
I follow Meyer and Godet.
De Wette, Alford, Milligan and Moulton adopt
the other interpretation, referring
ἔμπροσθεν, to
rank
or dignity.
So Westcott, who, however, does not state
the issue between the two explanations with
his usual sharpness.
*
It is hardly necessary to
refer the critical student to the admirable
note of Bishop Lightfoot, in his Commentary
on Colossians, p. 323 sq.
*
Dr. Scrivener,
“Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament, ” remarks: “Those who will resort
to ancient evidence exclusively for the
recension of the text, may well be perplexed
in dealing with this passage. The oldest
manuscripts, versions, and writers are
hopelessly divided.” He decides, however,
for the reading
υἱὸς. So
Tischendorf’s text, and of commentators,
Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Godet, Schaff (in
Lange). Westcott and Hort’s text gives
Θεὸς, with
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς
in margin. So Westcott (Commentary),
Milligan and Moulton, and Tregelles. See
Schaff’s note on the passage in Lange;
Scrivener, p. 525; and “Two Dissertations, ”
by F. J. A. Hort, Cambridge, 1877.
Wyc.
Wycliffe’s Version of the
New Testament.
Vincent,
Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the
New Testament. Bellingham, WA : Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S. 2:48-61