THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

First Division, Second Division, Third Division

PROLOGUE.*
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).
sq. Following.
* 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
THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE PROLOGUE. THE WORD DISOWNED

<Back to Top>

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.
Lit. Literally.
 
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.
Lit. Literally.
sqq. Following.
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