John 1:1-18

PROLOGUE: 1:1-18.

EACH evangelist begins his book in a manner appropriate to the aim of his narrative. Matthew proposes to prove the right of Jesus to the Messianic throne. He opens his story with His genealogy. Mark desires quite simply to collect memorials fitted to give a comprehension of the greatness of the personage whose active work he describes; he throws himself in mediam rem, by relating, without an exordium, the beginning of the public ministry of John and of Jesus. Luke proposes to write a history in the proper sense of the word: he introduces his narrative, after the manner of the Greek historians, by a preface in which he gives an account of his sources, his method, and his aim. The prologue of John is likewise in close connection with the aim of his narrative. We shall be brought to the understanding of this fact by the study of this remarkable passage which has exercised so decisive an influence on the conception of Christianity even to our own day.

How far does this prologue extend? Only to John 1:5, answers Reuss. The words: There was a man called John, in John 1:6, are the beginning of the narrative; this is continued in John 1:14, by the mention of the incarnation of the Word; in John 1:19 by the account of the ministry of the Baptist, and finally with John 1:35 it reaches the ministry of Jesus.

But a glance at the whole passage John 1:6-18 shows that this arrangement does not correspond with the thought of the evangelist. The appearance of the Messiah is already mentioned before John 1:14; since John 1:11-13 directly relate to it; then, if the narrative had really commenced with the mention of John the Baptist in John 1:6, why should his testimony be placed much later (in John 1:15)? The quotation made in John 1:15 comes either too early, if it should be placed in its historical situation which will be exactly described in John 1:27; John 1:30, or too late, if the author wishes to connect it with the mentioning of the appearance of the forerunner in John 1:6. No more can we understand, on Reuss' view, the appropriateness of the religious reflections contained in John 1:16-18, which would strangely interrupt the narrative already begun. It is evident that John 1:18 forms the pendant of John 1:1, and thus closes the cycle which is opened by that verse. The narrative, then, does not begin till John 1:19, and John 1:1-18 form a whole of a peculiar character.

What is the course of the ideas expressed in this preamble? For it is clear that we do not have here a mere pious effusion without any fixed plan.

Lucke supposes two parts: The first, John 1:1-5, describing the primordial existence of the Logos; the second, John 1:6-18, tracing summarily His historical appearance. This division does not explain the two-fold mention of the historical appearance of the Word John 1:11 (came) and John 1:14 (was made flesh). It is alleged, no doubt, that the fact is taken up, the second time, more profoundly than the first. But if the progress is to be historical, this does not solve the difficulty.

Olshausen and Lange suppose three sections: 1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:1-5, The primordial activity of the Logos; 2 John 1:6; 2 John 1:6-13, His activity during the course of the Old Covenant; 3. John 1:14-18, His incarnation; then, His activity in the Church. There would be here an historical plan which is complete and rigorously followed. But the question is whether the idea of this progress is truly derived from the text, or whether it is not imported into it. In John 1:6-8 John the Baptist is named alone; there is no indication that he is intended to represent all the prophets, and still less the Old Covenant in general. Besides it would be necessary, according to this plan, to refer the coming of the Logos, described in John 1:11, to the revelations of the Old Covenant, and its regenerating effects which are spoken of in John 1:12-13, to the spiritual blessings bestowed upon faithful Jews before the coming of Christ. Now it is manifest that the terms employed by John reach far beyond any such application.

Luthardt and Hengstenberg, rejecting the idea of an historical progress, suppose a series of cycles which have each of them reference to the totality of the Gospel-history, but reproducing it under different aspects. The first, John 1:1-5, embodies in a summary way, the activity of the Logos up to His coming in the flesh, comprehending therein the general unsuccessfulness of His ministry here on earth. The second cycle, John 1:6-13, takes up the same history again, calling to mind especially the part of the forerunner, with the purpose of coming thereby to the fact of the Jewish unbelief. The third, finally, John 1:14-18, decribes a third time the work of Jesus Christ, and that from the point of view of the extraordinary blessings which it has brought to believers. This plan certainly approaches more nearly to the truth than the preceding ones. Nevertheless, it would be a quite strange procedure to open a narrative by making a threefold summation of it. Moreover, if these three cycles are really intended to present each time the same subject, how does it happen that they have points of departure and ending-points which are altogether different. The starting point of the first is the eternal existence of the Logos; that of the second, the appearance of John the Baptist (John 1:6); that of the third, the incarnation of the Logos (John 1:14). The first ends in the unbelief of the world (John 1:5); the second, in the Israelitish unbelief (John 1:11); the third, in the perfect revelation of God in the person of the Son (John 1:18). Three paragraphs beginning and ending so differently can scarcely be three summaries of the same history.

Westcott divides into two parts: I. The Logos in His eternal existence (John 1:1); II. The Logos in His relation to the creation (John 1:2-18). This second part contains three subdivisions: 1. The fundamental facts (John 1:2-5); 2. The historical manifestation of the Word in general (John 1:6-13); 3. The incarnation as the object of individual experience (John 1:14-18). This subdivision presents a fair progress, but the great disproportion between the two principal parts does not prepossess one in favor of this outline. And its chief difficulty is that of not sufficiently setting in relief the central idea, the fact of the incarnation of the Logos, and of establishing between the coming of Christ in general and His coming as the object of individual experience, a distinction which is scarcely natural and is not sufficiently indicated in the text.

The Commentary of Milligan and Moulton proposes the following plan:

1. The Word in Himself and in His general manifestations (John 1:1-5);

2. The Word appearing in the world (John 1:6-13);

3. The Word fully revealed by His incarnation (John 1:14-18). But the difference between the last two parts does not distinctly appear.

Gess supposes four parts: 1. The primordial relation of the Logos to God and to the creation (John 1:1-4); 2. The behavior of the darkness towards Him (John 1:5-13); 3. His dwelling as Logos incarnate among men (John 1:14-15). 4. The happiness which faith in Him procures (John 1:16-18). There would be, according to this view, a correspondence between the first and the third part (the Logos before and after the incarnation) and in the same way also between the second and the fourth (unbelief and faith). This arrangement is ingenious. But does it correspond well with the divisions which are marked in the text itself, especially so far as the last part is concerned? It seems not. Besides, it would appear that the Logos before His incarnation met nothing but unbelief, and as incarnate nothing but faith, which is certainly not the evangelist's thought.

Let us mention finally the arrangement presented by Dusterdieck; 1. The Logos and the critical nature of His appearance (John 1:1-5); 2. The Logos from His divine existence down to His historical appearance (John 1:6-13); 3. The Logos since His historical appearance, as the object of experience and of the testimony of the Church. This plan is broad and simple. But where do we find in the prologue the mentioning of the Old Covenant which answers to the second part? The person of John the Baptist is mentioned on account of his personal role, and not as the representative of the entire Israelitish epoch. Besides, no account is given, according to this course, either of the double mention of the appearance of the Logos (John 1:11; John 1:14), or of the quotation of the testimony of John the Baptist, in John 1:15.

In spite of the criticism of which the arrangement of the prologue which I have proposed has been the object, I can do no otherwise than reproduce it here, as that which, according to my view, corresponds most exactly with the thought of the evangelist. It is summed up in these three words: the Logos, unbelief, faith. The first part presents to us the eternal and creative Logos, as the person who is to become in Jesus Christ the subject of the Gospel-history (John 1:1-4). The second describes human unbelief with reference to Him, as it was realized in the most tragic manner in the midst of the people best prepared to receive Him (John 1:5-11). Finally, the third glorifies faith, by describing the blessedness of those who have recognized in Christ the Word made flesh, and have thus gained reentrance into the communion with the Logos and recovery of the life and the truth which man derived from Him before he separated himself from Him (John 1:12-18).

We shall see, by studying the Gospel, that these three fundamental ideas of the prologue are precisely those which preside over the arrangement of the entire narrative, and which determine its grand divisions.

It is undoubtedly difficult, to tell whether we must assign to John 1:5 its place in the first or in the second passage. This verse is the transition from the one to the other, and, at the foundation, it appertains to both. The twelfth and thirteenth verses occupy an analogous position between the second and the third passage. Let us notice, however, that at the beginning of John 1:12 a δέ (but) is found, the only adversative particle of the prologue. The apostle seems to have wished, by this means, to mark clearly the opposition between the picture of unbelief and that of faith. This is a point which seems to me not to be taken into account by the numerous interpreters who, like Weiss and Gess, connect John 1:12-13, with the second part, in order to begin the third at John 1:14; this circumstance induces us rather to begin the third part (that of faith) at John 1:12.

As the overture of an oratorio causes all the principal themes to be sounded which will be developed in the sequel of the work, and forms a prelude thus to the entire piece, so John in this preamble has brought out at the outset the three essential factors of the history which he is going to trace: the Logos, then the unbelief and the faith of which his appearance has been the object.

The general questions to which this passage gives rise will be treated in an appendix following upon the exegesis.