John 1 - Introduction

THE TITLE OF THE GOSPEL.

This title appears in the MSS. in different forms. The simplest is that which we find in א B D: κατὰ᾿Ιωάννην (according to John). The majority of the Mjj. and א (at the end of the book): εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ᾿Ιωάννην, Gospel according to John. T. R., with a large number of Mnn.: τὸ κατὰ᾿Ι. εὐαγγ., The Gospel according to John. Stephen's third edition adds ἅγιον (holy) before εὐαγγ., with several Mnn. Some Mnn. read: ἐκ τοῦ κ. ᾿Ι. εὐαγγ. The Vss. vary also: evang. Johannis (Syr.); ev. per Joh. (Goth.); ev. secundum Joh. (Cop.); ev. sanctum praedicationis Joh. praeconis (according to certain edd. of the Syriac).

All these variations seem to prove that this title did not proceed from the hand of the author or the editors of the Gospel. Had it belonged originally to the body of the work, it would be the same, or nearly the same, in all the documents. It was doubtless added when the collection of the Gospels was made in the churches, which formation of a collection was brought about more or less spontaneously in each locality, as is shown by the different order of our four Gospels and of the New Testament writings in general in the canons of the churches. The differences in the titles are, doubtless, explained by the same cause.

But what is the exact sense of this formula: “ according to John? ” From the time of the Manichean Faustus (Augustine, contra Faustum, 32.2) even to our day, scholars have been found who have given to κατά, according to, a very broad sense: Gospel drawn up according to the type of preaching of Matthew, John, etc. It is thus that Reuss (Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T., § 177) and Renan (Vie de Jesus,, p. xvi.), appear to understand the word. The result of this would be that these four formulas, instead of attesting the fact of the composition of our Gospels by the four men designated in the titles, would, on the contrary, exclude it. But no one in the primitive church ever dreamed of assigning other authors to these four writings than those who are named in the titles; the thought of those who formulated these titles cannot therefore, have been that which is thus ascribed to them. Moreover, this sense of according to cannot be at all suitable to the second or the third Gospel; since Mark and Luke have never been regarded as the founders of an independent personal tradition, but only as the redactors of narrations proceeding from Peter and Paul. The title of these two writings should therefore have been: Gospels according to Peter and according to Paul, if the word according to had really had in the thought of the authors of the titles, the meaning which the learned authorities whom we are opposing give to it. The error of these authorities arises from the fact that they give to the term Gospel a sense which it did not have in the primitive Christian language. In that language, in fact, this word did not at all designate a book, a writing relating the coming of the Saviour, but the good-tidings of God to mankind, that is to say, that coming itself; comp. e.g., Mark 1:1; Romans 1:1. The meaning of our four titles, then, is not: “Book compiled according to the tradition of,” but: “The blessed coming of Jesus Christ, related by the care or the pen of...” We find the preposition κατά frequently employed as it is here, to designate an author himself; so in Diodorus Siculus, when he calls the work of Herodotus “The history according to Herodotus (ἡ καθ᾿῾Ηρ. ἱστορία)” or in Epiphanius (Haer. John 8:4), when he says “The Pentateuch according to Moses (ἡ κατὰ Μωϋσέα πεντάτευχος).” Reuss presents by way of objection the title of the apocryphal Gospel, εὐαγγ. κατὰ Πέτρον. But it is very evident that the one who wished to make this Gospel pass under the name of Peter intended to attribute the redaction to this apostle, and so gave to the word according to the same sense which we give. As for the well-known phrases εὐαγγ. κατὰ τοὺς δώδ. ἀποστόλους, καθ᾿῾Εβραίους, κατ᾿ Αἰγυπτίους (according to the twelve Apostles, the Hebrews, the Egyptians), it is clear that κατά designates, in these cases, the ecclesiastical circle from which these writings were supposed to proceed, or that in the midst of which they were current.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

CHAPTER I.

THE leading thoughts respecting the Logos which are presented in the Prologue are those of John 1:1 and John 1:14. The former verse sets forth what He was antecedent to the time of His incarnation, and in the beginning; the latter declares that He became flesh.

A. With reference to the first verse the following points may be noticed:

1. The object of the whole Prologue being to make certain declarations respecting the Logos, there can be no doubt that ὁ λόγος is the subject in all the three clauses of which the verse is composed in the third, no less than in the other two. This is indicated also by the parallelism, with slight variation, which seems to belong to the rhetorical style of this author. The clauses are parallel, but the predicate stands first in two of them, while in the intermediate one the subject has its natural position.

2. In the third clause, the predicate θεός, being different from that in the second, ὁ θεός, must be intended to suggest to the reader a different idea. This different idea, however, being expressed by the same substantive, cannot reasonably be held to be of an entirely different order. The word without the article must move in the same sphere with that which has it. The Logos, according to the statement of the writer, must be God in a similar sense to that in which the one with whom He is is God, and yet not in precisely the same sense. So far as the book may properly be regarded as an unfolding, in any degree, of the thoughts of the Prologue, we may naturally expect to find in the Chapter s which follow, the answer to the question thus presented: in what sense are the words to be understood, when it is said that the Logos is θεός and not θεός ?

3. In the verses (John 1:2-4), which are immediately connected with John 1:1, the last of the three clauses of that verse does not appear, but the other two are repeated. The explanation of this fact is, doubtless, to be found in the purpose of these verses. The author is moving, in these verses, along the line of revelation. This line is presented in the three terms: creation, life and light. The Logos was the instrumental agent through whom all created things were brought into being. To that portion of creation which is animate or rational, as contrasted with the inanimate or irrational part, He is the life-principle, which gives it life. To that part which has the higher element, the πνεῦμα, and thus has the capacity for the action of the life-principle in the higher region, He is the light. What the idea of light is may best be understood by the use of the word in 1 John 1:5, where it is said that God is light, and it is added, with the same contrast of φῶς and σκοτία which we have here, that in Him is no darkness at all. The divine Spiritual illumination for man comes in and through the Logos.

4. As the world of beings capable of receiving spiritual light failed, by reason of their moral darkness, to see and take to themselves the enlightening revelation, which the Logos was ever making to all even from the hour of creation, some clearer mode of making the light known to them was necessary, and for this purpose the Logos became incarnate (John 1:14).

5. The person in whom He became incarnate is Jesus Christ, John 1:17. Such is the development of the thought connected with the Logos as the revealer of God. The Logos was in the beginning with God. Thus He is the one by means of whom God gives the true light to men. That they may have it as fully as is needful in order to their possessing it in the soul's life, He enters into a human mode of existence and appears in Jesus. The first and second clauses of John 1:1, repeated in John 1:2, are the starting-point of this development, and are all that are essential to its beginning.

6. It cannot be doubted, however, that the statement of the third clause, which is added to the other two, and which must have a deeper meaning than the others because it declares what the Logos was, while they only, as it were, tell where and when He was, is intended by the writer to hold even a more prominent place than they. They are repeated, and the thought for which they open the way is unfolded, because the discussions and questionings which occasioned the writing of the book required the idea of revealing God to be presented. But that this revelation of which the book is to speak is and must be the true one, the only true one, is a point of greatest importance to the end which the author has in view. For thus only can it exclude every other and become the undoubted answer to the question which all were raising. To the completeness of His power to reveal, He must be, not only πρὸς τὸν θεόν, but θεός. Since He is θεός, He must, in some sense, become ἄνθρωπος in order that the revelation may be perfectly apprehended by men. He must be the θεὸς ἄνθρωπος. In this view of the author's thought, the third clause of John 1:1 unites itself with the suggestion of John 1:14, and then these two leading ideas pass on to John 1:17; and, joining that verse with themselves, they find their full expression in the words: Jesus Christ is the θεὸς - ἄνθρωπος. Hence it is, as we may believe, that the Prologue closes with the last statement of the 18th verse: The only-begotten Son (or if that be the true reading God only begotten) who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

7. While, therefore, in one view of the Prologue and the whole Gospel, this final proposition of John 1:1 may hold only a secondary place in the plan, or even, perhaps, be unessential to it, in another and a most important sense, these words are the primary words of the entire book, to which everything else is subordinate. That he may prove that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus that that life which is the living of the human soul in the light of God, having in it no darkness at all, may be realized by every reader through faith in Him, is the object and purpose of his writing his story of Jesus. 8. It is on this third clause, not on the first two only, that the expressions in the Gospel which have the deepest meaning rest. As being θεός and in the bosom of the Father, He has life in Himself, even as the Father has life in Himself; He is the living bread and the life-giving bread; He and His Father are one; to know Him is to know God and to have the eternal life of the soul. This deepest meaning must be gathered from all the words of the book which have any teaching in them with reference to it, and they must all be centered in this word θεός, if we are in any true sense to comprehend its significance.

B. With respect to John 1:14, it may be said:

I.

That the word σάρξ must be interpreted in connection, not only with its use in the writings of this author, and, as would also seem probable, with that of the other authors of the New Testament, but with the words or clauses in the context which evidently belong in the same circle of thought. The Logos, as He became flesh, is said to have tabernacled among us; to have been beheld by the writer and others; to have imparted from His own fullness that grace which came through Jesus Christ; apparently, in some true conception of the words, to have become Jesus Christ (see John 1:17 in its relation to John 1:14 and John 1:16, on the one hand, and to John 1:18 on the other). Σάρξ must, therefore, in some sense, be the equivalent of ἄνθρωπος; and, as in the case of θεός of John 1:1, already alluded to, every indication which the book presents before us points to the end that we should make our attempt to determine in what sense it is thus equivalent, by means of the representation given in subsequent Chapter s respecting Jesus.

The term Logos is laid aside by the author immediately at the close of the Prologue, but we cannot fail to see that he never loses sight of the two statements as to what the Logos was and became. Jesus the friend and master of whom he writes is not merely a messenger of God to the world to bring to it a revelation, but he is the one in whom the Logos, who was θεός, has become ἄνθρωπος, the one who is able perfectly to reveal because of the θεός side or relation of His being, and to make His revelation understood by those around Him because of the ἄνθρωπος side or relation. Thus, and thus only, is He the true light of the world, bringing it into the actual experience of the eternal life.

II.

In what relation to the leading ideas of the Prologue do the statements respecting grace and truth stand? The answer to this question may be sought in connection with John 1:17 and the contrast with the law which is there presented. It will be noticed that these words are first introduced at the end of John 1:14, that immediately after them follows the second reference to the testimony of John the Baptist, and that then they are taken up again as if for further explanation. From these peculiar characteristics of the passage, it would seem not improbable that the writer was thinking of John the Baptist, who, as the last of the prophets, was also, in a certain sense, the one who brought the Old Testament legal system to its end, and, by turning the minds of the people to the righteousness which the true idea of the law required, as opposed to that which its Pharisaic expounders preached, prepared them for the new system which was about to be introduced. The office of John the Baptist, as he proclaimed the advent of the Messiah, was to set forth the necessity of a radical change of character (μετάνοια), to make known with a new power and impressiveness the vital importance of being, not merely externally, but internally right, to demand on behalf of the kingdom of God a new life. Repentance and reformation were the burden of his message. This message, as we may say, was the final word of the legal system, as it passed away and opened the door for the faith-system. The work of Jesus was to make this reformation and new life possible, through the proclamation of the fullness of Divine truth, the revealing and imparting of Divine grace, the teaching of the way of salvation through forgiveness and that righteousness which grows up in the pardoned soul by means of faith. This revelation made by Jesus Christ was that which justifies the expression used in John 1:18. The law, even in its spiritual application to the inner life, might be revealed through a man, like Moses or John the Baptist. But, in order to reveal the fullness of God's grace and truth, the appearance of a greater than man was needed. To this end one must have seen God, in the highest sense of that word as no man has ever seen Him. The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, the Logos who was with God in the beginning and was God, and who, by becoming flesh, brings God into closest communion with men, can alone make this revelation.

III.

Why is the testimony of John the Baptist referred to and made so prominent in the Prologue? We find it alluded to not only after the verse (14) in which the incarnation is set forth, but even in John 1:5 f. immediately following the statements respecting the Logos in His pre-existent state. The distinct presentation of its contents, however, is evidently deferred until the beginning of the historical introduction (John 1:19 ff.). The true explanation of this peculiar fact may, not improbably, be suggested by the plan of the book, as already indicated in the Introductory Remarks on the internal evidence for the fourth Gospel. As the earliest disciples, according to the representation of the book, were brought to Jesus by the testimony of John the Baptist, and the object of the book is to induce the readers to believe on the same grounds on which these disciples believed, it was natural to give a peculiar prominence to John's testimony at the beginning. His testimony was, in a certain sense, the foundation of all that followed, and hence it was not unsuitable it was, on the other hand, especially impressive to place it in connection with the great fundamental propositions which were designed to arrest the attention of those for whom the book was primarily written. That the testimony of John is regarded by the author as having a very prominent place, in its direct bearing upon Jesus' position and His relation to God, is shown by the reference to it in John 5:33-34. In the author's selection, in that chapter, of the expressions of Jesus which set forth the evidence for His claims respecting Himself, he chooses for his narrative this one which points to John. And though Jesus in the surrounding words declares that He has a higher and greater testimony, the witness of John is pressed upon the thought of the hearers.

John's testimony, as it is introduced in John 1:6 f., has immediate reference to the Logos as the light, and thus to the last point in the statements of John 1:1-4. We may believe, however, that, though not directly, yet in an indirect way, it is mentioned in just this place in order to carry the mind of the reader back to the first great propositions of John 1:1, which lie at the foundation of the declaration that He is the light.

The second mention of John's testimony (after John 1:14) evidently bears upon that verse. As it includes the words “He was before me,” and as these words are even the ones which have special emphasis, so far at least as relates to the depth of the meaning of the sentence, the suggestion just made with regard to the previous allusion, in John 1:6 ff., may also be applicable here. That John the Baptist comprehended fully, when He bore witness to Jesus, all that John the Apostle knew of His Divine nature, we need not affirm. But that the witness which he gave was a significant element in the proof that Jesus Christ is the Logos, of whom what is said in John 1:1 and what is said in John 1:14 are both true, we alike believe; and this is the reason for including what John had testified in the Prologue.

IV.

The reference of John 1:5, by reason of the position which the verse holds in immediate connection with John 1:1-4 and before the allusion to the testimony of John is probably to the general and permanent illuminating power of the light before the incarnation. The Logos was with God and was God; as being thus, He was the source of existence to the creation, of life to creatures endowed with life, of light to those having the spiritual faculty. So far John 1:1-4. It is now declared that this light permanently shines from the beginning ever onward but that the darkness did not apprehend it in the earlier times, and hence the necessity is suggested of a clearer shining or revelation (that of John 1:14). The past tense of the verb apprehended seems to show that the permanent present (which would hold true of all time) is limited, so far as the thought of this verse is concerned, to the time indicated by its associate verb. We may hold, therefore, with reasonable confidence, that the entire passage John 1:1-5 has reference to the Logos before His incarnation, as John 1:14-16 relate to Him as incarnate. But what shall we say of John 1:6-13 ? The intermediate position of this passage suggests a pointing in both directions. The antecedent probabilities, also, as to what the writer would do in moving from John 1:5 to John 1:14 indicate the same thing. Finally, the proper interpretation of different individual verses in the passage may, not improbably, confirm us in the conclusion. Certainly, John 1:11 must be taken as referring to the period following the incarnation, as of course the actual witness-bearing of John must be located in this period. But John 1:9, by reason of the emphatic ἦν and also by reason of the correspondence in the permanent present φωτίζει of this verse with φαίνει of John 1:5, is most naturally interpreted as preceding the ἐγένετο of John 1:14. There seems, also, to be a natural progress in John 1:10-12, of such a nature that, within the sphere of the general present φωτίζει, John 1:10 points to what was before the earthly appearance of the Logos, and John 1:11-12 point to what followed after that appearance. John was not the light, but He came to testify of it. The true light was always in the early ages, bearing witness for itself and shining through and in the creation, physical and spiritual, which He had brought into existence; and in the later time, through His manifestation of Himself as a man of the Jewish race. In both periods alike, however, the darkness in which men were, because of evil, prevented His being known and received. The presence of faith was needed in order to the receptivity of the soul for the light, and that it might be secured, so far as to bring men to look to Jesus as the revealer of God in the highest sense, John the Baptist had appeared as a divinely-appointed witness-bearer. He came, that all might believe through him.

V.

Following upon this intermediate passage, which has thus a progressive movement from the pre-existent to the incarnate period, the second great idea of the entire Prologue is distinctly stated, in a proposition standing in a parallelism with those in John 1:1. The Word became flesh. The Logos entered into human life. The light which had previously been shining in creation and, in some sense, in the soul of every man, but which had not been apprehended, is now revealed in the clearest possible manner by means of the indwelling of the Logos in a man, and by thus bringing God and man into immediate communication. The word light now passes away, but it gives place to the expressions: We beheld His glory; full of grace and truth. The idea is therefore preserved, though the mode of presenting it changes. The change, however, is in sympathy with the advance movement of the thought. The revelation of the Logos is now so perfect that those who see it behold His glory. The darkness has passed, and He is looked upon face to face. And, moreover, the revelation is of grace and truth it is of that deepest part of God's nature which He alone who was with Him in the beginning, and who is in His bosom as the Son with the Father, can make known. The light thus shines from the beginning to the end, only more clearly at last than at first. It is apprehended, as it shines, by the souls that are susceptible to it. But the susceptibility comes always through faith, and only through faith. And at the end the believers behold, with undimmed vision, the glory of the light. To this more glorious manifestation John the Baptist bears testimony, and, pointing to the man in whom the Logos is revealed, he says “He that cometh after me is become before me, for He was before me.” This man is Jesus Christ.

VI.

If this view of the Prologue, which has been set forth in the preceding notes, is correct, the plan of the author, so far from presenting serious difficulties, becomes a thoroughly artistic one the different lines of thought being most carefully interwoven with one another; the progress is plain, not only from John 1:1 to John 1:14, but from John 1:1 to John 1:4 and John 1:5, from John 1:6 to John 1:13, from John 1:6-13 to John 1:14, and from John 1:14 to what follows; and finally the insertion of the testimony of John is accounted for in a way which most naturally and satisfactorily explains what seems, at first sight, so peculiar, and yet in a way which shows that it, in no proper sense, breaks the line of development of the ideas of light and revelation.

With reference to the individual words and phrases of the Prologue the following points may be briefly noticed:

1. The idea of the author in connection with several of the leading words is, undoubtedly, to be discovered from the main portion of the Gospel, rather than from the introductory passage alone. We may infer, however, from the statements of the Prologue itself, and from the origin of some of them, or their use elsewhere, what their significance as here employed is. This is true of λόγος, ἐν ἀρχῇ, ζωή, φῶς, σάρξ, et sec.

2. That the word λόγος was derived from the Old Testament a growth of the idea which is indicated even in the first chapter of Genesis, and which is developed gradually, as Godet shows, in the later times is very widely admitted by the best scholars. That it was suggested to the writer, partly, if not wholly, by its use in the discussions of the time and region in which he wrote, seems altogether probable. In any case, the idea fundamental to it is that of God as revealing Himself. The Logos is the one through whom (or that by means of which), God is revealed. Introduced, as it is, as connected with the discussions alluded to and for the purpose of answering the question which was the central one in them, it is natural that its precise meaning should be left for the reader to determine from the propositions of which it is made the subject, and from the story of the one who is declared to be the Logos. Of these propositions, the first two which appear in John 1:1, affirm, in the first place, that the Logos was in the beginning which, from the relation of the words to John 1:3, must, at least, mean that He existed before the creation, so that all things created have their origin through Him; and secondly, that He was with God which expression is further explained by the words of John 1:18: who is in the bosom of the Father. They show that the revealing one existed antecedently to all revelation of God in or to the world, and that what He reveals comes from the inmost heart and being of God. But the third proposition goes beyond these, and declares that He was θεός. Of this word it may be said: (a) That it is not used elsewhere in this Gospel or in the other writings of this author, or indeed in any case in the New Testament, which can be compared with this, to indicate a being inferior to God; (b) That the absence of the article does not indicate any such inferiority, because, in the first place, as the writer desired to throw especial emphasis on this predicate by placing it at the beginning of the clause, it became necessary to omit it in order that the reader might not, by any means, misapprehend the meaning, and in the second place, because he evidently did not mean to say that the Logos was God in precisely the same sense in which that word is used in the phrase: He was with God. He was not the one with whom He was. He was θεός, but not, as the term is here used, ὁ θεός. If he desired to express what in theological language is set forth in such a sentence as: He was of the essence of God, but not the same person with the Father, and if he desired to do this by the use of the word θεός, there would seem to have been no more simple or better way of formulating his thought than by saying: He was πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and was θεός. But it is the declarations of Jesus Himself, and His miraculous signs which are given in the following Chapter s, which are intended by the writer to determine the full significance of both of these sentences.

3. It is worthy of notice that, while the word Logos disappears, so far as this special use of it is concerned, as soon as the Prologue reaches its end, the words ζωή and φῶς occur many times in the subsequent Chapter s. These words also draw closely together and intermingle with one another, as it were, in their idea. This fact, which at the first glance seems remarkable, is easy of explanation when the plan and purpose of the book are understood. To prove that Jesus is the Logos, in the mere sense that He answers to that which was a matter of philosophical inquiry to those around him, is a thing of little consequence to the writer. But that, as being the true Logos, He is the revealer and source of life and light, is the message which He has to give to the world, the εὐαγγέλιον of God. The satisfying of philosophical questioning is nothing to his view, we may say; the bringing of the human soul into union with God is everything. The close connection of the ideas of life and light is also very natural, for, as we learn from the author's first epistle, the life of God represents itself to him under the figure of light that pure and perfect light which has no intermingling of darkness and the ζωή or ζωὴ αἰώνιος of man is the participation in this same light-life. These words, accordingly, are not merely terms of philosophy and, as such, appropriate only to the Prologue, but living expressions of experience. The life is that of the soul illuminated by pure spiritual light. Its atmosphere in which it lives is light. The form of expression in the closing sentences of the Gospel (John 20:30-31) is thus explained where the term Son of God takes the place of Logos, but the term life remains.

So also in the First Epistle John 1:2, we have the words, “And the life was manifested...the eternal life which was with the Father.” The word life in John 1:4, occurring as it does in the progressive development of thought from John 1:1 to John 1:5, probably has a more general meaning. But in its use afterwards it moves into the sphere of the spiritual, which is the only sphere in which the writer would have his own and his readers' minds abide. 4. That the verb κατέλαβεν of John 1:5 means apprehended, and not overcame, is rendered probable by the following considerations:

(a) The former meaning lies nearer to the fundamental signification of the word to lay hold of, seize upon. The thought here moves in the spiritual region, and to lay hold of spiritually is to apprehend.

(b) The other explanation of the word would indicate that the darkness is here looked upon as a hostile power contending with the light for the mastery. This is the sense perhaps in John 12:35, where darkness is viewed as seizing upon the man, as a power hostile to him. But such a conception does not seem to be in the writer's mind in this passage. The whole movement of thought is in the line of the revelation of God, which needs to become clearer because it had not before been laid hold of. The darkness is not a hostile force struggling with the light, but a blinding power for the human mind, preventing it from seeing the light. This verse corresponds, in this regard, with John 1:10, “the world knew him not.”

(c) The prevailing sense of σκοτία as used by John is that of darkness as preventing men from seeing the light, rather than that of a hostile power contending with the light; comp. the First Epistle John 1:6; John 2:9; John 2:11, Gosp. John 8:12. Indeed, the use of the word in John 12:35 a seems only a sort of passing figure, for in John 12:35 b the common meaning returns: “he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.” 5. The construction of ἐρχόμενον in John 1:9 is quite uncertain. The following considerations favor the connection of the word with πάντα ἄνθρωπον :

(a) The position which it has in the sentence points to its union as an adjective-word with this noun.

(b) This connection gives to this verse its most natural meaning, as descriptive of the permanent work of the light in all ages the following verses dividing this work with reference to the time before and the time after the incarnation.

(c) The emphatic position of ἦν at the beginning of the sentence is better accounted for if it is an independent verb; John was not the light, yet the light was.

(d) If the author's intention had been to connect the participle with ἦν, the form of the sentence would probably have been different.

If his idea was was coming as equivalent to came, no satisfactory reason can be given for his not using the word came. If it was was about to come, some more clear expression of the idea and one less liable to misapprehension would have been chosen. In either case, the participle, as we may believe, would have been placed nearer to the verb. On the other hand, the principal objection to connecting the participle with ἄνθρωπον does not seem to be well-founded. This objection, which urges that the expression every man coming into the world is the same in meaning with every man, and therefore the participle is superfluous, might be of force as bearing against such a phrase in a book of the present day. But such modes of expression belong to the simple, primitive style of the narrative writers of the Bible and have a sort of emphasis peculiar to that style. Moreover, it is not necessary to regard the two expressions as equivalent to each other, for the participle may convey the idea: as he was coming, or, on his coming. 6. In John 1:14, the words full of grace and truth are to be connected with the subject of the main proposition, the Logos.

The intervening words, and we beheld his glory, etc., are thus to be taken, as by R. V. and many commentators, including Godet, as a parenthesis. This is rendered probable not only by the fact that the adjective πλήρης is in the nominative case, but also by the evident immediate connection of the similar words in John 1:16-17 with the Logos and Jesus Christ. The 15th verse, again, is with relation to the idea expressed by these words, a parenthetical passage, so that the thought moves directly on from John 1:14 to John 1:16. In relation to the matter of testimony, however, John 1:15 is parallel with John 1:6 f., and has a similar emphasis and importance. 7. There is apparently somewhat of the same carefulness and accuracy of expression, within the limits of popular language, in the use of σάρξ, which we have noticed in the use of θεός as distinguished from ὁ θεός in John 1:1.

The writer did not wish to say that the Logos became a man (ἄνθρωπος), which might be understood as indicating more than could be affirmed. The Logos did not lay aside the essence, but the μορφή, of God. He did not pass from the Divine state into that of a mere man. But He entered into human nature, taking upon Himself the μορφὴ δούλου. He did not, on the other hand, merely assume the σχῆμα ἀνθρώπου, but He became flesh, ἐγένετο σάρξ. Precisely what this involved is suggested by the peculiar expression used; but the fullness of the author's idea must, here again, be sought in the subsequent Chapter s. 8. Not improbably Godet's view of the words μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός : that they mean (as rendered in A. V. and R. V.) the only begotten from the Father, is correct. But his argument against Weiss, who understands the words as meaning an only begotten from a father, and as referring to the only son as inheriting the rank and fortune of his father, namely, that this explanation would suppose that every father who has an only son has also a great fortune to give him, can hardly be regarded as having any considerable force. We do not measure our thought in such phrases by the lower cases, but by the higher. The glory belonging to our idea of an only son is not affected by the fact that there are many individual instances in which there is no glory for him. 9. The fact that John 1:18 is added at the end of the Prologue, and immediately after John 1:17 (which declares that the revelation of grace and truth, of which in John 1:14 the Logos was said to be full as He became flesh, was made through Jesus Christ), plainly connects the end with the beginning and shows that, in the view of the writer, Jesus is more than a man that He is the one who is in the bosom of the Father, and who both was with God and was God. 10. It does not seem to the writer of this note that Godet's view of the plan and thought of the Prologue is the true one that the three ideas are, The Logos, unbelief, faith, the first being presented in John 1:1-4, the second in John 1:5-11, and the third in John 1:12-18.

On the other hand, the true view seems rather to be that which has been already suggested. The great doctrine of the book is, that Jesus is what is represented by the word Logos the Divine revealer of God having entered into our humanity. The Prologue presents as its chief point the two propositions, John 1:1; John 1:14, which contain the statements respecting the Logos, and John 1:17 which adds that concerning Jesus. From John 1:1 to John 1:14 there is a passage subordinate to the two main propositions, which shows the necessity of what is stated in John 1:14. The other two leading ideas of the book are testimony and believing, the former to the end of the latter (see John 20:30-31) and these two ideas are suggested in the Prologue, though only in a secondary way. They are both mentioned; but the former is made more prominent (John 1:6 f., John 1:15, John 1:14 we beheld, comp. 1 John 1:1 ff.), because testimony belongs rather to the beginning, and faith reaches its fullness of believing only at the end. Yet the testimony is always to the end of believing on the part of those who hear it as truly in the case of John the Baptist at the first, as in that of John the evangelist at the last (comp. John 1:7 with John 20:31).

VII.

The passage from John 1:19 to John 2:11 is the Historical Introduction, as it may be called. The object which it has in view is to bring before the readers the personages who are to act the principal part in the story. The σημὲῖα are done (ἐποίησεν) in the presence of the disciples (John 20:30). In this passage the disciples are introduced on the scene.

As to the disciples here mentioned, they were, not improbably, all of them disciples of John the Baptist. Of the first two who are mentioned this fact is distinctly recorded. Were these two persons present with John on the day preceding that on which they went to see Jesus? This question is not a vital one to our determination of the plan and object of this latter portion of the first chapter. But, if it is answered in the affirmative, it proves the connection between the testimonies of John to which reference has been made on page 497 above. That it should be thus answered is shown by the improbability that they would have taken the course they did if they had heard nothing more from John than the words of John 1:36. The additional unfolding of the idea here suggested, which was given on the preceding day, accounts for the impression produced by the mere pointing to Jesus when He appears again. But without this, there is a blank which needs to be filled. Moreover, as these disciples were temporarily absent from their homes for the purpose of hearing John the Baptist and following him, there is every reason to believe that they were present with him on each day of the time at their command. For this reason also, as well as because of the apparent close connection between the several testimonies of John, we may believe that these two persons had, in like manner, heard his conversation with the deputation of the Sanhedrim. Their going to Jesus, accordingly, is the first instance of πιστεύειν which answers to the μαρτυρία.

In the verses which contain the first two testimonies of John, 19-34, the following points may be noticed:

1. The record of John the Baptist here is quite different, and for quite a different purpose, from that of the other Gospels. The story of John's preaching as given by the Synoptics, is a representation of the character and substance of that preaching. This is true of the passing allusion to it in Mark, and also of the longer accounts in Matthew and Luke. But to this writer, John is of importance only as related to his testimony, and in the plan of this introductory passage this testimony only bears towards one result. We have not here, therefore, the general utterances of John, but only a few words which he said on three successive days. The circumstances of these occasions, however, called him to explain his peculiar mission and his relation to the Messiah. Hence it is not strange that he should have used some of the expressions which he used in addressing the people, and the presence here of the quotation from Isaiah, or the allusion to the baptism with water and to the mightier one who was to follow, cannot be urged as, in any measure, inconsistent with the other Gospels, which represent these words as used at a different time. These words must have been often on the Baptist's lips and have been spoken to various hearers.

2. In the second testimony (John 1:30), we find the words already mentioned in the Prologue (John 1:15) alluded to as having been spoken on a former occasion. This was not on the preceding day apparently, for no such words are introduced in the account of that day. We must conclude, therefore, that the hearers present on this occasion, and probably the two disciples, had been also present when John preached before the beginning of what is here narrated. These disciples had been, for a brief period at least, under the educating influence of the forerunner in a certain kind of preparation for belief in Jesus.

3. That the baptism of Jesus must be placed before John 1:19, is clear from the fact that it must have occurred at an earlier time than the day indicated in John 1:29, because of the allusion to it (John 1:33-34) as already past. But if it preceded John 1:29, it must also have preceded John 1:19, because the forty days of the temptation followed the baptism and during this period Jesus could not have been accessible to others as he was here. Moreover, if He had been baptized on the day mentioned in John 1:19, that is, only a single day before John 1:29, it is scarcely possible that the words used by John the Baptist respecting the event should be only what we have here.

4. As to the meaning of the words I knew him not (John 1:31; John 1:33), Godet holds that they declare that John did not know Jesus a man, for if he had known Him thus, he must have known Him also as the Messiah. Meyer, on the other hand, says that this expression leaves it quite uncertain whether he had any personal acquaintance with Jesus. Westcott regards the story in Luke as leaving it doubtful whether any such personal acquaintance existed. But, if the narrative in Luke is to be accepted, it seems almost impossible that John should not have had some such knowledge of Jesus as would prevent his saying so absolutely, I did not know him. The circumstances of Jesus' birth, and of John's own birth as related to that of Jesus, were so remarkable, that John could hardly have lost sight of Him altogether. Moreover, the words addressed to Jesus by John in Matthew 3:14 are very difficult to be accounted for, if Jesus was altogether unknown personally to him. Weiss attempts to explain the difficulty by supposing that the ᾔδειν does not refer to the time of the baptism, but to the time of the verb ἦλθον which follows, that is to say, the time when John entered upon his public office. But this seems wholly improbable in the case of ᾔδειν of John 1:33, which occurs in the midst of the account of what he saw at the baptism, and appears to be contrasted with the knowledge which he gained by seeing the fulfillment of the sign he was without this knowledge even at the baptismal scene, until the moment when he saw the dove descending. It would seem, therefore, that the explanation must be sought for in connection with the idea of the Baptist's testimony, for which the whole matter is introduced. He did not know Jesus, in such a sense that he could go forth as the witness sent from God (John 1:6), and testify that Jesus was the Son of God, until the divinely promised proof had been given. However much the friends, or even the mother of Jesus herself, may have thought of a glorious mission as awaiting Him in life, they could not have felt sure that He was to hold the Messianic office, until they saw the evidences which came with His entrance upon His public career. But John to be the great witness, giving the assurance of a Divine word must certainly have waited for the sign, before he could feel that he knew as he ought to know. In this connection, also, it may be noticed that John's testimony seems to take hold, in some measure, upon the thoughts which the writer brings out in the Prologue (comp. John 1:30, he was before me, John 1:34, the Son of God), and surely, for the knowledge of these things, he needed a divine communication. He may have believed in Jesus' exaltation above himself (Matthew 3:14) by reason of what he had heard of the story of His birth or the years that followed. He may, thus, have felt that he might rather be baptized by Jesus than baptize Him. He may even have had little doubt that He was the Messiah. But he could not know Him as such, until the word of God which had come to him was fulfilled.

VIII.

In connection with the third testimony of John, the result in believing is given; the two disciples go to Jesus. With respect to the one of them who is not named, we may notice:

1. That he is, beyond any reasonable doubt, one of the apostolic company as afterwards constituted. This is proved by his connection with Andrew; by the fact that he is undoubtedly to be included among those disciples who went to Cana (John 2:2), and to Capernaum (John 2:12), and so, also, among those who are referred to as being present with Jesus at Jerusalem (John 2:17; John 2:22); and by the fact that in the subsequent history the “disciples,” who are made thus especially prominent, are clearly the apostles.

2. That he is particularly connected with Andrew and Peter. He must, therefore, have been one of the apostolic company who had this relation to those two brothers before their discipleship to Jesus began. It appears probable, also, that he is the same unnamed person who has similar intimacy with Peter after their entrance upon their apostolic office.

3. That the only persons whom the Synoptic Gospels present to us as thus united with Andrew and Peter are the two sons of Zebedee.

4. That there is, to say the least, a possible and not improbable allusion to his having a brother whom he introduced to Jesus. If so, the evidence that the two were James and John is strengthened, but this point is not essential to the proof.

5. That, if the companion of Andrew was either James or John, and if he is the one who is alluded to, but not named, in subsequent Chapter s, there can be no question as to which of the two he was. If he was the author, he could not be James, who was dead long before the book was written.

Whether he was the author or not, James had died too early, as Godet has remarked, for any such report to spread abroad as that which is referred to in John 21:23. Weiss, in his edition of Meyer's Commentary (as also Westcott and Hort), holds that πρῶτον, and not πρῶτος, is the true reading in John 1:41, and Weiss maintains, that, with either reading, the word does not suggest the finding of the brother of Andrew's companion, but that, on the other hand, it simply marks the finding of Peter as the first instance to which John 1:43; John 1:45, answer as a second and third. Meyer, however, reads πρῶτος, and agrees with Godet, that there is here a reference to James. Westcott, also, who adopts πρῶτον as the text, agrees with these writers in the opinion that James is probably alluded to. It is observed that the indication of the verse is found not only in this word, but also in the emphatic ἴδιον, and in the fact that the verse follows and is apparently connected with John 1:40 (one of the two he first findeth his own), and that the specifying of the finding of Peter as the first case of finding seems wholly unnecessary, and, considering the separation of the verses which give the account of the other findings from this one, antecedently improbable. Weiss also holds, that the finding of Peter took place on a different day from that of the visit of the two disciples to Jesus. But, while this is possible, it seems more probable that it occurred on the same day at evening, the days being reckoned by the daylight hours. In so carefully marked a narrative, we can hardly suppose a new day to be inserted with no designation of it. The result in faith of this first day was a conviction on the part of these disciples that they had found in Jesus the Messiah. Even this conviction could not, probably, in so short an interview, have reached its highest point. On the other hand, as related to the full belief of the later days with respect to all that Jesus was, this must have been only the earliest beginning of the development of years.

IX.

In connection with John 1:43-51 the following points may be noticed:

1. The impression produced upon the mind of Nathanael is occasioned (at least, so far as the record goes), by something beyond what occurred in the other cases. There is an exhibition of what seemed to him miraculous knowledge on Jesus' part. As to what this was precisely, there is a difference of opinion among commentators, as Godet states in his note. That Godet is right here, as against Meyer and others, is rendered probable by the very deep impression which evidently was made on Nathanael, and by the fact that the recording of what Jesus says of him, in John 1:47, can scarcely be explained unless we hold that these words, as well as those of John 1:48, affected his mind.

2. The answer of Nathanael, also, expresses more than what we find in the other cases. He says, indeed, what they say: Thou art the king of Israel (the Messiah). But he also says: Thou art the Son of God. We may believe that this second expression answers to the second element in the manifestation which Jesus made to him: namely, the miraculous insight into his character. Jesus awakened, by this means, a conviction in Nathanael's mind, that He had a peculiar relation to God; in some sense, at least, a divine side in His nature or character. The view that the title Son of God here is simply equivalent to Messiah is improbable, when we consider the peculiarities of this story, as compared with the others. But we cannot hold that Nathanael grasped at once the fullness of the significance of this term, as it is used in John 20:31.

3. The words of John 1:51 are evidently spoken with reference, not only to Nathanael, but to all the disciples who were now with Jesus. It is quite probable that, in the plan of the book, they are inserted here as looking forward to all the σημεῖα which are to be recorded afterwards, and which, beginning with the one at Cana, proved to the disciples the union between Jesus and God.

4. That this gathering of disciples about Jesus is quite independent of any story in the Synoptics, and is antecedent to the call of which the account is given in Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20 and Luke 5:1-11, is evident from the fact that the Synoptic narratives begin the history at a later date. Moreover, the readiness with which the four disciples (Andrew, Peter, James and John) left their business and their homes immediately upon the (Synoptic) call, is almost inexplicable unless there was some previous acquaintance and impression such as we discover here. Meyer affirms that John and the Synoptics are irreconcilable with each other in respect to this matter, because these five or six disciples are with Jesus in John 2:2 and remain with Him. Weiss, in his edition of Meyer, takes the opposite ground. He, however, maintains that we cannot assert that the μαθηταί, who are spoken in John 2:17 to John 4:54, are the same with these five or six or that they include all of these. He even goes so far as to say that there is no indication in this chapter that Simon joined Jesus, and calls attention to the fact that in Luke 5:1 ff. the story of the call is centered upon Peter. Both of these writers have taken wrong positions; Meyer, in insisting that no place can be found for the call in John's narrative after the first chapter, and Weiss, in supposing that Peter may not have acted at this time as the others did, and that μαθηταί of John 2:17, etc., is not intended by the author to designate the same persons or, at least, to give them a prominence who are mentioned in ch. 1. As Keil remarks, the statements with regard to the disciples in the second chapter, if we suppose them to be the same with those mentioned in ch. 1, do not exclude the possibility of intervals of separation from Jesus, after their first meeting with Him, and of return to their former employments. It must be borne in mind that John's narrative is a selection of stories made for the purpose of setting forth proofs and the growth of faith, and not a complete or altogether continuous record of Jesus' life.