CHAPTER I.

1 In[23] the beginning was the Word,[24] and the Word was with[25] God, and the Word was[26] God.

[23] Prov. 8:22, 31; Col. 1:16, 17; 1 John 1:1.

[24] Rev. 19:13.

[25] ch. 17:5.

[26] Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8-13; 1 John 5:7.

=1. In the beginning.= John begins the Gospel where Moses began the Law. The employment of and the reference to the language of the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis is unmistakable. In that beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God and was the One through whom the act of creation was consummated. So in Prov., chap. 8, Wisdom personified is represented as with God in the creation and from the beginning (see especially verses 23-29). For parallel passages teaching the pre-existence of Christ, see John 8:58; 17:5; Phil. 2:5, 6; 1 John 1:1. In Rev. 3:14 he is described as “the beginning of the creation of God,” but this does not necessarily imply that he was a created Being. See notes there.--=Was the Word.= There are several Greek words meaning _word_; (1 and 2) ῥῆμα and ἔπος, word in the grammatical sense, _i. e._, that which is spoken; (3) μῦθος, word in the rhetorical sense, that which is delivered by words, the subject expressed; (4) ὄνομα, word in a technical sense, strictly a _name_, and only because words are names or appellations; (5) λόγος, word in the philosophical sense, the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed. The latter term is employed here. As the thoughts or experiences of the soul are completely hidden from us till they are uttered, so God is the Unknown and the Unknowable, save as he utters himself, discloses his nature to us, which he does chiefly if not solely through him who is for that reason called the Word, _i. e._, the utterance of God. The metaphor which underlies this phraseology is in part interpreted by the saying of Wordsworth that language is the incarnation of ideas. (2) In the Old Testament we have a partial employment of the same symbolism. In Moses’ account of the creation, God is represented as calling the various powers of nature into being by a _word_. “God said Light be! Light was!” (Gen. 1:3, see also 6, 9, 11, etc.) In the later Hebrew poetry this symbol is made more prominent in the distinct declaration that “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made.” (Ps. 33:6; comp. 107:20; Isaiah 55:10, 11; see also Heb. 11:3.) The same symbol, in a slightly different form, reappears in Prov., chap. 8, which is connected with that employed here by the language of certain of the apocryphal books, _e. g._, “I (Wisdom) came out of the mouth of the Most High and covered the earth as a cloud” (Ecclesiasticus 24:3). “She (Wisdom) is the breath of the power of God” (Wisdom of Solomon 1:25). (3) The same symbolism was employed as we have seen (Prel. Note above) in the mystical philosophy of Alexandria and of later Gnosticism, with which John was familiar, and of which, Ephesus, his city, was a centre, to represent an eon or emanation for the deity. That the Word here does not mean the Bible or the Gospel is evident both from the connection, since it cannot be said that the Bible became flesh (ver. 14), and also from John’s usage, who never employs the phrase Word of God to designate the Bible, but usually the term Scriptures or writings (John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 19:24, 28, 36, 37, etc.). Moreover he does employ this phraseology elsewhere to designate Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). It cannot mean _the Speaking One_ nor _the Promised One_. Though both these meanings have been attributed to it, it is not grammatically capable of either interpretation. There is classical authority for rendering it _Reason_ or _Order_, and this meaning it still retains in words ending with _ology_, such as _ge-ology_ (ge-logos), the order, _i. e._, science of the earth; _path-ology_ (pathos-logos), the order, _i. e._, science of disease. But it is never used with this signification by John, and is never but once so used in the N. T. (1 Peter 3:15), if even there the translation is strictly accurate, which is doubtful. Seeking, then, to understand John as he would have been understood by his contemporaries, I think it clear that he declares, not that Reason or Wisdom was in the beginning with God, nor Speech, nor the Promised Messiah, but _the Word_, _i. e._, _the One by and through whom he was chiefly to be manifested to the world_, as one soul is to another by utterance.--=And the Word was with God and the Word was God.= Grammatically the last clause of the sentence may be read, _and God was the Word_. But the obvious connection calls for the rendering of our English version, and it is the rendering adopted by the best scholars. There is a difference in the language of the first and last clause of this sentence in the original which is significant, but difficult, if not impossible, to render in the English. In the first clause, “_the Word was with God_,” the article accompanies the word God; in the second clause, “_the Word was God_,” it is wanting. We should measurably reflect the meaning by reading the passage, “the Word was with God and the Word was divine;” or “the Word was with the Father and the Word was God.”

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

=2. The same was in the beginning with God.= John recurs to his first statement and reiterates it, not merely for the sake of emphasis, but also to mark a real distinction between the Word and the unknown Father. For he labors to express two conflicting and even apparently contradictory ideas, the identity of the Word with God and the individuality of the Word, as distinct from the infinite and invisible deity. This contradiction subsequent theology has endeavored in vain to eliminate by drawing distinctions between essence and substance, person and being, etc., in such phraseologies as three in substance and one in essence, or three persons in one God. This _philosophy_ of the Trinity is extra-Scriptural, framed to harmonize teachings respecting the divine nature, which are best harmonized by the frank confession that the knowledge of the divine nature is too wonderful for us, we cannot attain unto it (Ps. 139:6; Job 11:7). So Chalmers, “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. God is one. If you ask me to reconcile the four (propositions), I answer, I cannot. We require no one to reconcile the personality of each with the unity of God.” So Calvin, “I could wish them (the extra-Scriptural phrases, person, hypostasis, etc.) to be buried in oblivion, provided this truth were universally received, that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar properties.”

3 All[27] things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

[27] Ps. 33:6; Eph. 3:9.

=3. All things were made by him.= To interpret this language “All things” as meaning simply the moral creation, is to distort plain language in order to conform it to preconceived ideas, a fault in exegesis of which no school of theology is entirely innocent. The reference to Genesis, ch. 1, is unmistakable. The declaration is parallel to and interpreted by such passages as Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2. The Greek student will observe, however, and the English student should know, that the language here implies that the Word was the _instrument_ by which God created the “all things,” not the _original source of creative power_. There are two Greek prepositions translated in English “_by_,” one (ἐκ) signifying the source or origin from which anything proceeds, or the power by which it is produced; the other (διά) signifying the means or instrument through which it is produced. One indicates the original, the other the proximate cause. The preposition here used is the latter, and the exact meaning of the sentence will be imparted by the rendering All things were made _by means of him_ or _through him_. With this interpretation corresponds the general teaching of the New Testament, which represents Christ, both in his earthly life and in his heavenly administration, as always the executor of his Father’s will. This is in some sense especially prominent in John’s Gospel (see for example John 5:22, 23, 27; 6:37, 44, 57; 8:28, 42; 10:29; 14:10; 17:18, 24); but it is equally clearly taught elsewhere (Luke 2:49; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1:19; comp. Mark 10:40, note and references there).--=And without him was not anything made that was made.= Simply an emphatic and exhaustive reiteration, such as is not infrequent in fervid writing. For analogous rhetorical repetition in John see verse 20; 1 John 2:4, 27. Some manuscripts and some few scholars put a period at the close of the first clause of the sentence, and connect the last clause with the following verse, so that the passage reads: _And without him was not anything made. And what originated in him was life._ But while this reading is grammatically possible, it is generally repudiated by the best scholars, who accept the punctuation and rendering of our English version as correct.

4 In him[28] was life; and the life was the light[29] of men.

[28] ch. 5:26; 1 John 5:11.

[29] ch. 8:12.

=4. In him was life.= There is probably a reference here again to the language of Gnostic philosophy (See Prel. Note), which supposed other eons or emanations from God, besides the Word, prominent among which was Light and Life. Here, as throughout this introduction, John employs the language of the Gnostics to correct their errors. The general and practical teaching for us of the declaration is that Christ is the source of both physical or external life (Col. 1:17), and of intellectual and spiritual life (ch. 10:10). It is admirably interpreted by Kaulbach’s famous cartoon of the Reformation, in which Luther with the open Bible in his hand is represented as the centre of the intellectual and moral awakening which characterized that century. Observe, since Christ is Life and Light, that any religion which dwarfs man, represses their life, belittles them, and any which shuts them up in darkness and denies them intellectual freedom and progress in any direction, is so far anti-Christ. The cause of Christ has nothing to fear from any intellectual life or any light of scientific discovery.--=And the life was the light of men.= Not merely _shall be_, not merely _is_, but _was_. The intimation is that all the light of Old Testament prophecy and instruction, if not all that dim religious light which has illuminated even heathen nations, through special instructors such as Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, came through the Word, _i. e._, through the Mediator by whom the invisible God reveals himself to man, of which revelation the incarnation (ver. 14) is only a part, though a most important part. Compare with the language here 1 John 1:5.

5 And the light shineth in[30] darkness; and the darkness comprehended[31] it not.

[30] ch. 3:19.

[31] 1 Cor. 2:14.

=5. And the light shineth in the darkness.= _Shines_, not merely appears; a real illumination is indicated; _shines_, not shone; a present and continuous illumination is indicated; _the_ darkness, not merely darkness; as, before God said “Let there be light,” the earth is reported as enveloped in darkness (Gen. 1:2), so, before and apart from this spiritual illumination, through the Light of the world, the nations of the earth were in gross darkness. Comp. Isaiah 42:6, 7; Matt. 4:16, note; Ephes. 5:7, 8; John 12:46.--=And the darkness comprehended it not.= This has been universally true in the world’s history; the dim light of conscience has never been apprehended, taken hold of by heathen nations. The light afforded by special and signal moral geniuses has never been comprehended aright by the people, as witness the deterioration of Buddhism and Confucianism; the teachings of the Jewish prophets were not comprehended; they shone in darkness which was not dispelled by their instructors; and the clearer light of Christ has never, even in the best ages, been more than very imperfectly apprehended, even in the church. Here the primary reference is certainly to the constant closing of their eyes by the Jews to the light of the Old Testament teachings, concerning the spirit of true religion, the nature of the kingdom of God, and the character and appearance of the promised Messiah. For the reason why the darkness does not comprehend the light, see chap. 3:19; comp. Matt. 13:15, note.

6 There was a man[32] sent from God, whose name _was_ John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all _men_ through him might believe.

[32] Luke 3:2, 3.

=6, 7. There was a man sent from God.= From a characterization of the light, John passes to a description of the incarnation and its object, and to a discrimination between the incarnate Light and the prophet who foretold its coming. From the Greek word here rendered _sent_ (ἀποστέλλω, _apostello_) comes our word _apostle_. The apostle is a man sent from God; Christ is the word or utterance, or manifestation of God. Comp. Heb. 1:1-3.--=John.= The Baptist.--=The same came for a witness.= As one who enters the witness-stand to testify what he knows, so John the Baptist came to declare what had been revealed to him concerning the coming Messiah. Comp. John 5:32-35.--=To bear witness of the Light.= Simply a repetition and amplification of the previous clause of the sentence. He was not a mere preacher of the law, nor of the duty of repentance, though this is the phase of his ministry most prominent in the reports of Matt. (3:1-12), and Luke (3:1-18). He was a forerunner of the great King, sent to bear witness of his approach. And this phase of his ministry, though indicated in the other Gospels (Matt. 3:11; 11:9, Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17), is most clearly brought out in John (verses 23, 29-36).--=That all through him might believe.= That is, through John might believe in the Light. The other construction, through the Light might believe, _i. e._, in God, is forced and unnatural, even if grammatically admissible. The true office of the Christian ministry is so to bear witness to the Light which the preacher _knows_ by his own experience (Rom. 7:14; 8:28; 2 Tim. 1:12), that men may believe in and accept that Light (2 Cor. 4:5; Col. 1:28.)

8 He[33] was not that Light, but _was sent_ to bear witness of that Light.

9 _That_ was the true Light,[34] which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

[33] Acts 19:4.

[34] Isa. 49:6.

=8, 9.= An early Gnostic sect (second century) believed that John was the Messiah. The primary reference here appears to be to this error, which, in common with other Gnostic errors (see Prel. Note), John aims to correct in this introduction to his Gospel. Compare, with the declaration here, Christ’s characterization of John, “He was a burning and a shining light” (ch. 5:35). The Greek scholar will observe that the English word “_light_” represents different Greek words in the two passages. Here the word is one signifying original light (φῶς), there rather a borrowed or reflected light (λύχνοσ), though the latter word is once applied to Christ (Rev. 21:23). We are to be in a true sense the former kind of light (φῶς, Matt. 5:14), because Christ _in us_ is our light, and by his indwelling we are made partakers of his nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and men seeing this light glorify, not us, but Him who shines in and through us.--=The true Light was that which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.= There is some difficulty about the construction of this sentence; this appears to me to be the best. For other constructions, see Alford and Meyer. On the meaning of the declaration observe, (1) That John’s use of the word _true_ here is interpreted by his use of the same word in other and analogous passages, _e. g._, “true worshippers” (John 4:23); “true bread” (ch. 6:32); “true vine” (ch. 15:1). The light, the bread, the vine of earth are regarded only as symbols of the spiritual truths which they parabolically represent. Christ is the original pattern, or source of light; all prophets and teachers are only reflections from him; all material light is a symbol or parable of his illuminating grace. (2) The phrase, “_lighteth every man that cometh into the world_,” is not to be taken as an hyperbole. The latter clause is added, not merely, as Meyer, “as a solemn redundance,” “an epic fullness of words,” but to emphasize and make clear the declaration, and to show that “every man” means not merely (_a_) the Jews, nor (_b_) those who accept Christ as their light, nor (_c_) the Christian nations, but literally _all men_. The _every_ (πᾶς) here is thus distinguished from the _all_ (πᾶς) of verse 7 above. Christ is the universal light; all intellectual and political as well as moral illumination has come through him; and this, not only in Christendom, but also in heathendom. Such light as struggles through the thick darkness, in a partial disclosure of divine truth afforded by a Buddha or a Confucius, or dimly recognized by a Cornelius, comes from Him who, in larger or smaller measure, lighteth _every_ man that cometh into the world. By this declaration we are to interpret such passages as Matt. 8:11; Acts 10:35; Rev. 5:9; whoever accepts even this imperfect and dim light, mistakenly called the light of Nature, in so far accepts Christ.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and[35] the world knew him not.

[35] verse 5.

11 He[36] came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[36] Acts 3:26; 13:46.

=10, 11.= Notice the rhetorical climax in these verses; he _was in_ the world; he _came_ unto his own; the world _knew_ him not; his own _received_ him not. The _world_ is here humanity in general, Jew and Gentile, both of whom united in Christ’s crucifixion; the Jew, represented in the high-priest who deliberately rejected him (John 11:47-50), the Gentile, represented in Pilate and the soldiers, who simply did not know him. _His own_ are the Jewish people, Jehovah’s peculiar possession (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; Psalm 135:4; Isaiah 31:9), to whom he first came and by whom he was rejected before he was preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:16). It was only the world of _men_ that knew him not; nature knew and obeyed him whenever he commanded her obedience, as in the turning of water into wine, the stilling of the tempest, etc. The verbs in this sentence are in the imperfect tense, and the reference is to the incarnation of Christ and his earthly life. Observe that the Jewish nation which rejected the Messiah is rejected by God (Matt. 8:12), and that the disciples of Christ are not to know the world which knew not their Lord and Master (1 John 2:15-17).

12 But as many[37] as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, _even_ to them[38] that believe on his name:

[37] Isa. 56:4, 5; Rom. 8:14, 15; 1 John 3:1.

[38] Gal. 3:26.

=12. But as many as received him.= Not merely, as Alford, “recognized him as that which he was--the Word of God and Light of men,” but _received him_ as the Word to be implicitly obeyed (ch. 14:21; 15:10, 15), and the Light in which to walk (1 John 1:6).--=To them gave he power= (ἐξουσίαν). Not _capability_, nor _privilege_, nor _claim_, but _power and right_; the original word combines the two ideas. He confers the _power_ to become the sons of God, and confers the _right_ to claim that privilege. Ryle is certainly correct in saying that this verse “does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God’s children.” He is as certainly wrong in saying, with Calvin and the marginal reading, that the original Greek word means “right or privilege.” The reader will best get its meaning by comparing John’s use of it in other passages, in no one of which could it be rendered either “right” or “privilege.” See ch. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10, 11. Comp. Matt. 28:18, note. The plain implication here is that the _power_ to become a son of God is not natural and inherent, but acquired, and is the especial gift of God. See Phil. 2:12, 13; Titus 3:4, 5.--=To become the sons of God.= Sons and therefore (1) partakers of the divine nature (Ephes. 4:13; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4); (2) entitled to and walking in freedom as children, not in bondage as servants (ch. 15:15; Gal. 4:1-7); (3) heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, his only-begotten Son (Rom. 8:16, 17). But the full conception of the meaning of this sonship we cannot know, till in the other world we see the Father as he is (1 John 3:1, 2).--=Even to them that have faith in his name.= His name is _Jesus_, _i. e._, Saviour, given to him because he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To have faith in that name is to have faith in him as a personal Saviour from sin. Observe, then, that this verse comprises the whole Gospel in a sentence. It declares (1) the object of the Gospel: that we who are by nature the children of disobedience and of wrath (Ephes. 2:2, 3) may become the sons of God; (2) the source to which we are to look for this prerogative of sonship: _power_ conferred by God; (3) the means by which we are to attain it: personal faith in a personal Saviour from sin. Observe too that John follows his description of the rejection of Christ, not by threatening punishment to them, but by depicting the infinite gain of those that accept Christ.

13 Which were born,[39] not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[39] James 1:18.

=13. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.= That is, not by inheritance (Luke 3:8); nor by resolution (Rom. 8:5-8); nor by human teaching (1 Cor. 3:6, 7); but by the direct personal influence and contact of the Spirit of God on the heart (Titus 3:5, 6). Thus, John emphasizes the declaration of the preceding verse, that _God gives the power to become the sons of God_, by declaring that Christian character is not the product of either good parentage, a strong will, or a good education, but directly of a divine recreative act. (Gal. 6:15.) The Greek student will observe that the preposition used is _of_ (ἐκ), not _through_ (διά); the writer is speaking of the _origin_ or _source_ of Christian character, not of the _instruments_ by which it is developed. Good parentage, will power, and education, are all _means_ for the development of divine sonship; the original cause, without which a true son of God is never produced, is the creative act of God himself.

14 And the Word[40] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and[41] we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full[42] of grace and truth.

[40] Luke 1:35; 1 Tim. 3:16.

[41] 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 John 1:1, 2.

[42] Ps. 45:2; Col. 2:3, 9.

=14. And the Word.= The self-manifesting God, as described in the first verse.--=Became flesh.= Not _a man_ (ἄνθρωπος) nor _a body_ (σῶμα), but _flesh_ (σάρξ). The word is one whose signification would probably be best rendered to the English reader by the phrase _human nature_. Though occasionally used in the N. T. of the literal and material flesh (Acts 2:31), it almost always indicates man in his corporeal or earthly nature, sometimes signifying the predominance of that over the higher or spiritual nature, sometimes simply signifying this aspect of his nature, without any indication of its corrupt tendencies. Here, then, the declaration is that the Word became human nature; _how_ is not indicated. The language gives no sanction to either of the two principal theories of the incarnation; the first, that Christ _took on_ human nature as something superadded to the divine, so carrying through life a double nature, both divine and human; the second, that he simply entered a human body and became subject to the limitations which it imposed on him. _How the divine became human_ we must learn elsewhere in the N. T., if the N. T. reveals it at all; but the declaration here is explicit that the divine Word became human.--=And tabernacled among us.= _Pitched his tent with us._ As God in the wilderness dwelt for a time in the transitory tabernacle, so the Word dwelt in the flesh, which is elsewhere in the N. T. compared to a tabernacle (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; 2 Pet. 1:13, 14). As God dwelt subsequently in the permanent Temple at Jerusalem, so the Word makes its permanent abode in the soul of the believer, which is the _Temple_, not the Tabernacle of God (ch. 15:6, 7; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). That the reference here is to the incarnation, not to the spiritual presence of Christ with the believer, is evident from the fact that the verb (ἐσκίνωσεν) is in the historical tense. John says he _tabernacled_, not he _tabernacles_, among us.--=And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.= We are made sons of God; but Christ alone is the _only begotten Son_. For the meaning of this phrase, see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. John uses it only of Jesus Christ. The Greek student should observe the use of the preposition _from_ (παρά). It designates the source from which anything is derived, and here indicates that in a peculiar sense Christ is from the Father, directly and immediately; we are from him only through Christ. Comp. ch. 7:29. In a peculiar sense the Apostles beheld Christ’s glory (ch. 2:11; Matt. 17:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1). But in Christ’s life and character, and in their influence on the world, we are all beholders of the true divine glory, manifested in him (Heb. 1:3); and his earthly life is the brightness and glory of heaven (Rev. 21:23; 5:9, 10). The language, _as of the only begotten_, distinguishes the glory of Christ from that of all previous revealers of the divine will and nature. Since many of the prophets too were glorified, as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, the one encircled by the fiery chariot, the other taken up by it; and after them Daniel and the three children, and the many others who showed forth wonders; and angels who have appeared among men, and partly disclosed to beholders the flashing light of their proper nature; and since not angels only, but even the cherubim were seen by the prophet in great glory and the seraphim also; the Evangelist, leading us away from all these, and removing our thoughts from created things, and from the brightness of our fellow-servants, sets us at the very summit of good. For, “not of prophets,” says he, “nor angel, nor archangel, nor of the higher powers, nor of any other created nature, if other there be, but of the Master himself, the King himself, the true only begotten Son himself, of the very Lord of all, did we _behold the glory_.”--(_Chrysostom._)--=Full of grace and truth.= There is some doubt whether this is said of the _glory_ beheld, or of the _only begotten Son_ whose glory was beheld. The question is not very important; the latter construction is grammatically preferable. Thus rendered, the clause “And we beheld, etc.,” is parenthetical, John’s statement being: “The Word tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth.” Observe (1) that the _grace_ here answers to the _Life_ in verse 4, and the _truth_ to the _Light_ in verse 9. Because of his grace Christ is Life to all who accept him; because of his truth he is Light to all who follow him; (2) that the declaration here is explained by, and is possibly partially derived from Exodus 33:18, 19, where Moses asks to see God’s glory, and is promised a disclosure of the divine _goodness_; in the goodness of God in Christ Jesus we behold the divine glory; (3) that the Christian is to be, like his Master, full of grace _and_ truth, and that to be at once perfectly truthful and also gracious is one of the most difficult practical problems of the Christian life (Rom. 12:9). It seems to me clear that John has in mind throughout this verse the manifestation of the glory of God, through the Shechinah, in the Tabernacle, and subsequently in the Temple (Exod. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10; see Matt. 17:5, note). As the Shechinah made luminous and glorious these earthly dwelling-places, so the Word, by his indwelling, made glorious the flesh.

15 John[43] bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

[43] Matt. 3:11, etc.

=15. John is testifying concerning him.= John the Baptist was long since dead when these words were written; but his testimony was not dead; it was an ever-living testimony. The verb is therefore put in the present tense, not, as in our English version, in the past.--=And he cried, saying,= It is the echo of this cry which still resounds and witnesses to Jesus Christ. The language used implies a public testimony, and one borne with confidence and joy. On seeing the Christ of whom he had prophesied, John the Baptist _cries out_, “This is he of whom I spoke.” For illustration of John’s prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah, previous to the baptism of Jesus, see Matt. 3:11, 12; Mark 1:7, 8.--=He that cometh after me.= Christ did not begin his public ministry till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). Thus as a public teacher he came after John the Baptist.--=Came forth before me.= Not, _was before me_ (γίγνομαι has not the force of εἰμί), for then the sentence would be tautological-- that Jesus _was_ before John is in the next clause given as the _reason_ for the statement in this, that he came forth before him; nor can the meaning be _was preferred before me_, in the sense of esteemed above me, for the mere fact of Christ’s pre-existence would be no reason for esteeming him more highly than John--the devil _existed_ before John the Baptist; nor, _was preferred before me_, in the sense of, was exalted in rank above me, though some excellent scholars, _e. g._, Alford, Olshausen, De Wette, so interpret it; but, as I have rendered it above, _came forth_, or, _was set before me_. The reference is to the previous manifestations of the Word, in the partial revelations of God in the O. T. All the disclosures of the divine nature in the O. T. were made through the Word or utterance of God, through whom alone he speaks to the human race. See ver. 4, note, and ch. 8:56-58. John then says “He who is coming after me is the One who has already come forth before me; for he existed before me.” Christ’s pre-existence would not explain the preference, either in the divine love or in rank, but it does in part explain precedence in appearance or manifestation. So Hengstenberg, “My successor is my predecessor.”

16 And of his fulness[44] have all we received, and grace for grace.

[44] ch. 3:34.

=16. And of his fullness have we all received.= The _fullness_ is that of the divine nature, of which we are made partakers through faith in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9, 10; Ephes. 3:19). The _all_ are those who receive him and thus become the sons of God (verse 12). This and the two following verses are the addition of the Evangelist, not the continuance of John the Baptist’s discourse; this is evident both from their style, which better accords with that of the Evangelist, and because the _fullness_ of Christ’s nature was not received by John the Baptist and his disciples, for it was not disclosed till after the Baptist’s death. Observe, (1) How inexhaustible the fountain. From Christ’s fullness all spiritual life is supplied. Chrysostom compares Christ to a fire from which ten thousand lamps are kindled, but which burns as brightly thereafter as before. “The sea is diminished if you take a drop from it, though the diminution be imperceptible; but how much soever a man draw from the divine Fountain, it continues undiminished.” (2) How free the supply; we have _all_ received. “None went empty away.”--(_Meyer._) (3) The nature of Christian experience. It is not a mere trust in a crucified Saviour for pardon for the past; it is also a personal and continuous receiving of divine life from the fullness of a living Saviour.--=And grace for grace.= Of this expression there are two interpretations. The ancient expositors understood it to mean, For the lesser grace of the O. T. we have received the greater grace of the N. T. So Chrysostom: “There was a righteousness and there is a righteousness (Rom. 1:17); there was a glory and there is a glory (2 Cor. 3:11); there was a law and there is a law (Rom. 8:2); there was a service and there is a service (Rom. 9:4; 12:11); there was a covenant and there is a covenant (Jer. 31:31, 32); there was a sanctification and there is a sanctification; there was a baptism and there is a baptism; there was a sacrifice and there is a sacrifice; there was a temple and there is a temple; there was a circumcision and there is a circumcision; and so too there was a grace and there is a grace.” The modern commentators, Alford, Meyer, Lange, etc., understand it to mean, “For each new accessory of grace we receive a still larger gift. Each grace, though, when given large enough, is, as it were, overwhelmed by the accumulation and fullness of that which follows.”--(_Bengel._) “Grace for grace, grace _in the place_ of that which preceded--therefore grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed.”--(_Winer._) The spiritual signification of the passage is substantially the same on either interpretation. We have nothing to give in exchange for the divine grace; our only virtue is to receive. It is given to us in exchange for the grace already imparted. “Unto every one that hath shall be given;” but what he already hath is God’s gift, which bestows both the good and the purchase money, each new gift superseding the old, as the N. T. gift of grace and truth through Jesus Christ superseded the lesser gift of law through Moses. With this accords the teaching of both O. T. and N. T. See, for example, Deut. 7:7; Ps. 6:4; 23:3; 25:7; 31:16; 79:9; 115:1; Isaiah 55:1; Ephes. 2:4; 1 John 4:8, 10.

17 For the law was given by Moses, _but_ grace[45] and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[45] Ps. 85:10; Rom. 5:21.

=17. For the law was given by Moses.= _Through_ (διὰ) Moses as the instrument or mediator of the old covenant.--=Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.= _Through_ (διὰ) Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new covenant. The _grace_ is the favor of God (see below), the _truth_ is the clear revelation of the divine character and will, seen only dimly under the old covenant. (2 Cor. 3:13, 14.) Observe the contrast between Christ and Moses (comp. Heb. 3:5, 6); and between the gifts brought by the two. The law _was given_, a completed thing, once for all; _grace and truth_ came and continually come, grace for grace, out of the inexhaustible fullness of the giver.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD “GRACE.” The word here translated _grace_ (χάρις) is also variously translated in the N. T. _acceptable_, _benefit_, _favor_, _gift_, _joy_, _liberality_, _pleasure_, _thanks_, and _thankworthy_. This fact will of itself sufficiently indicate that the word possesses various shades of meaning. They are all, however, etymologically derived from the same root idea. The noun is derived from a verb meaning to rejoice, and primarily signifies that which gives joy to another. With the Greeks, beauty was one of the chief joys; hence the first meaning of the word--grace of external form, manner, or language, a meaning which it but rarely bears in the N. T. (see Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6). Thence it derived a deeper meaning, viz., beauty in character, and this, according to the N. T. teaching, is good-will, the disposition to do a kindness to another, to make another rejoice; hence the word is used to signify that quality in God which leads him to confer freely happiness on men, either on special individuals (Luke 2:40; 1 Cor. 3:10), or on the whole human race (Rom. 3:24; Ephes. 1:6; Tit. 2:11). Thence it was employed to designate the kindness actually flowing from and conferred by this disposition, hence an alms, and in the N. T. the spiritual gifts conferred by the divine love on the soul (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:1; 2 Pet. 3:18); in which sense it is employed in the apostolic benediction (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3, etc.). Finally it was used to designate the feeling awakened by favors shown, the reflection in the human heart of the divine grace imparted, and hence gratitude and even its expression in thanks (Luke 6:32-34; 17:9; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3). Underlying its meaning in all these uses is the radical idea that the gift is conferred freely and finds its only motive in the bounty and love of the giver, an idea which finds expression in the Latin word _gratis_ (for nothing), now thoroughly Anglicized, a word which comes from the same root as grace (_gratia_). By the doctrine of grace, then, as it is variously expounded in the N. T., is meant that our own spiritual life is the free gift of God, bestowed on us without merit or desert on our part, purely from the love and good-will of God. Our _graces_ are God’s _free gifts_. John here marks the contrast between the law which _requires_ obedience of man, and grace and truth which _confers_ spiritual power on man. The one says, Do this and live; the other says, Live, so that you can do this (Rom. 8:3). Nowhere in the N. T. is the doctrine of grace more clearly set forth than in these 16th and 17th verses, which may be paraphrased thus: From the divine fullness in Jesus Christ we have all received; the only condition which God attaches to the free impartation of his spiritual gifts is that we should have received willingly those already proffered to us; by Moses it was revealed to us what God would have us do and be; by Christ it is clearly disclosed to us what God is, and there is freely imparted to us power to become, like him, sons of God.

18 No man hath seen God[46] at any time; the[47] only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared _him_.

[46] Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16.

[47] 1 John 4:9.

=18. No one hath seen God at any time.= Not merely _no man_; no _one_--man, angel, archangel. The phrase here, _seen God_, is equivalent to the phrase _knowing God perfectly_, in Matt. 11:27 (see note there). We know him but in part, shall see him only when we awake in his likeness (Ps. 17:15); Christ sees him because he is one with him.--=The only begotten Son.= Some manuscripts have here, _The only begotten God_, and this reading is adopted by Tregelles, but rejected by Alford, Meyer, and Tischendorf. For examination of the authorities on both sides, see Alford (sixth edition) and Lange, critical note by Dr. Schaff. The external authorities are not conclusive; internal authority strongly favors the ordinary reading. The only begotten God is a phrase occurring nowhere else in the N. T., and is unnatural if not unmeaning. The change of a single letter in the early copies would account for the corruption of the text (Ψ to Θ).--=Which is in the bosom of the Father.= A metaphorical expression, indicating the closeness of intimacy, and drawn more probably from the relation of a child with its parents, than from the not infrequent reclining of one on the bosom of his friend, at meal-time (John 13:25).--=He hath declared him.= Comp. ch. 6:46; 14:6, 9, 10; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3. These and other kindred passages indicate clearly _how_ Christ declares the Father, viz., not merely by what he teaches concerning the divine nature, but yet more by his personal manifestation of the divine nature in his own life and character. This verse thus interprets the word _truth_ in the preceding verse, as the word grace has already been interpreted by verses 11 and 12. Christ is the _truth_ of God, because he reveals the divine nature; he is the _grace_ of God because he imparts the divine nature to such as trust in him.

NOTE ON THE INCARNATION. A correct apprehension of the character and place in history of Jesus Christ is essential to a correct apprehension of Christianity. Our conception of the system will depend upon our conception of the Founder. The other Evangelists give simply the story of his life, leaving the readers to draw their own deductions respecting him. John, writing at a later date, and in a more philosophical atmosphere, begins his Gospel with a characterization of the One the story of whose earthly life he is about to narrate. It is evident on even a cursory examination of this preface that John believed and intended to teach, (1) That Christ existed prior to his earthly birth. He was the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; was before John the Baptist, whom in his earthly history and mission he succeeded; and he was in the beginning with God (vers. 1, 4, 15). (2) That he possessed a superhuman character. He is carefully distinguished from and placed above John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and more than a prophet (Matt. 11:9), and from Moses the lawgiver and politically the founder of the Jewish nation; and he is emphatically declared not only to have been with God in the beginning, but to have partaken of the divine nature (vers. 1, 6-8, 17). (3) This superhuman character is further illustrated by what is declared of his office or work. He is the Creator, the Light and Life of men, the regenerating power through whom men are brought into divine sonship, the daily support of the spiritual life of the children of God, the disclosure of the divine nature to men (vers. 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18). (4) This truth is incidentally, but all the more effectively, enforced by John’s peculiar language in describing Christ’s earthly state: he “tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (ver. 14). (5) Finally, it is illustrated in the various titles conferred upon him throughout this chapter, which are ten in number: the Word; the Light; the Life; the only begotten of the Father; Jesus Christ, _i. e._, the Saviour, the Messiah; the only begotten Son; the Lamb of God; the Son of God; Master; the Son of Man. It is not the province of the commentator to construct a systematic theology. But it is certain that these elements must enter into any conception of Jesus Christ which is founded on and accords with the N. T. There is probably no other single passage of equal length in the N. T. which contains so much respecting the character and office of Jesus Christ as this preface to John’s Gospel; with it, however, should be examined Paul’s Christology (e. g., Phil. 2:5-11), and that of the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb., chaps. 1, 2).

* * * * *

Ch. 1:19-51. INTRODUCTION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD. BY JOHN THE BAPTIST (vers. 19-37); BY HIMSELF (vers. 38-51). CHRIST THE SIN-BEARER OF THE WORLD.--THE POWER OF CHRIST; THE ABIDING OF GOD’S SPIRIT ON HIM.-- CHRIST OUR PATTERN IN FISHING FOR MEN.--THE VALUE OF PERSONAL AND PRIVATE WORK.--THE POWER OF PREJUDICE IN GOOD MEN.--THE BEST ANSWER TO SKEPTICISM, “COME AND SEE.”--CHRIST REVEALS HIMSELF WHEN HE REVEALS US TO OURSELVES.--CHRIST’S FIRST COMING A PROPHECY AND FORETASTE OF HIS SECOND COMING.

The historical portion of the Fourth Gospel begins here. The interview between the deputation from the Sanhedrim and John the Baptist here described probably took place after the baptism of Jesus, and during the temptation, of which latter event this Gospel makes no mention. With the account of the Baptist’s ministry given here the reader should compare Matt., chap. 3, and Luke, chap. 3.

19 And this[48] is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

[48] Luke 3:15, etc.

20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

=19, 20. And this is the witness of John.= The writer goes back and gives a detailed history of John’s first explicit testimony to the Messiah, connecting it with his previous reference to that testimony in verse 15.--=When the Jews sent priests and Levites.= In John’s Gospel, the term Jews generally signifies, not the residents of Palestine, but those of Judea, and sometimes the official heads of the people. This appears to be the meaning here. It is clear from verse 22 that this was an official deputation, probably sent by the Sanhedrim. The Baptist’s preaching had produced a profound sensation throughout that part of Palestine; great crowds flocked to his ministry; he was universally regarded as a prophet, and by some as perhaps the Messiah; some of the Pharisees themselves came to his baptism, though his severe denunciation of their formalism, and their own opposition to such a personal reform as his preaching demanded, made them, as a class, bitterly opposed to him (Matt. 3:5, 7; 21:25, 26; Luke 3:15). It was therefore natural and fit that the Sanhedrim should send to inquire officially respecting his ministry. There is nothing to indicate whether this inquiry was conducted in a hostile spirit or otherwise.--=Who art thou?= Observe, throughout this interview, the difference in the spirit of the inquirers and of John. They persist in demanding to know _who_ he is; he replies only by pointing out _what_ he does. “They ever ask about his _person_; he ever refers them to his _office_. He is no one--a _voice_ merely; it is the work of God, the testimony to Christ, which is everything. So the formalist ever in the church asks, _Who_ is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares for Christ’s work.”--(_Alford._)--=And he publicly acknowledged, and denied not.= We know from Luke 3:15 that some thought he _might_ be the Messiah; and later, a Gnostic sect maintained that he was the Messiah. This testimony, amplifying the brief reference to it in verses 7, 8, is probably inserted in part to refute this error.

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

=21. Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not.= Mal. 4:5 declares that Elijah should precede the Messiah. John the Baptist’s character, and even his appearance (comp. Matt. 3:4 with 2 Kings 1:8), resembled that of Elijah. Christ distinctly declares that John the Baptist is the Elijah foretold by the prophet and expected by the people (Matt. 17:12, 13; comp. Luke 1:17). Here John says he is not. The true explanation is, not that the people were expecting a literal resurrection of Elijah from the dead, and John denied that he fulfilled that expectation, but that, like many another great but humble messenger of God, he did not comprehend his own character and mission and relation to ancient prophecy. He was more than he knew.--=Art thou that prophet?= From Deut., 8:15 the Jews expected a prophet to precede the Messiah (John 6:14; 7:40). Not till later was this prophecy correctly interpreted by the Apostles as referring to Christ himself (Acts 3:22; 7:37).

22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He[49] said, I _am_ the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet[50] Esaias.

[49] ch. 3:28; Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4.

[50] Isa. 40:3.

=22, 23.= See Matt. 3:3 and Mark 1:3, and notes. It is evident that the characterization of John the Baptist there and the application to him of the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 was derived from John himself.

24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizeth thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one[51] among you, whom ye know not;

[51] Mal. 3:1.

27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

=24-27. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.= The Pharisees were scrupulous ceremonialists, and ablutions were an important part of their ceremonial. See Matt. 15:1-7; Mark 7:2-5, notes. To them John’s employment of baptism appeared irregular and unauthorized if he were not invested with some special divine authority.--=John answered them.= This answer is only indirectly responsive to their interrogatory. He passes at once from his own authority, which he disdains to defend, to testify to the Messiah, whose forerunner he is. The synoptical Evangelists (Matt. 3:11, 12, note; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17) report more fully John’s characterization of his own baptism and its contrast with that which the Messiah would inaugurate; one in water, the other in fire and the Holy Ghost; one a symbol, the other the thing symbolized; one a prophecy, the other its fulfillment.--=There standeth one among you whom ye know not.= That is, do not recognize as what he really is, the Messiah. It is not necessarily implied that Jesus Christ was present at this interview, and verse 29 implies that he was not. The language simply points to one apparently of the common people and unknown.--=Who cometh after me, whose shoe-latchet I am unworthy to unloose.= This is the true reading; the words _is preferred before me_ have been added by some copyist from verse 15. On the significance of the expression, see notes on Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16. The latchet of the shoe is the leather thong with which the sandal was bound on to the foot or the shoe was laced. For illustration, see Mark 6:7-13, Vol. 1, p. 362.

28 These things were done in Bethabara[52] beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

[52] Judges 7:24.

=28. Bethabara.= The best reading here is Bethany; the common reading, Bethabara, is derived from Origen, who found such a place about opposite Jericho. The Bethany intended is certainly not the well-known town of that name on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, for this one was beyond Jordan. The site is unknown; it has been fixed by Origen as far south as Jericho; by Stanley, 30 miles north of Jericho, near Succoth; by Lightfoot, north of the Sea of Galilee. We can only say that it was probably at one of the fords of the Jordan, in the great eastern line of travel, and certainly at some point between the sea of Galilee and the neighborhood of Jericho. There are two traditional sites, one Greek, the other Latin, and both historically worthless.

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb[53] of God, which taketh[54] away the sin of the world.

[53] Ex. 12:3; Isa. 53:7, 11; Rev. 5:6.

[54] Acts 13:39; 1 Pet. 2:24; Rev. 1:5.

=29. The next day.= Not merely, _some following day_, for the original Greek word (ἐπαύριον) never has this meaning in the N. T. It has been so rendered by some commentators here, in order to introduce the Temptation between the testimony of the Baptist to the delegation from Jerusalem and his testimony here uttered to his own disciples.--=He seeth Jesus.= The word _John_ has been inserted by some copyists to make the meaning clearer.--=Coming toward him.= Not, as in our English version, _unto him_. The preposition employed (πρός) signifies simply direction. Why he was coming toward him is not a matter for profitable conjecture. Not, as some suppose, for baptism, for the temptation followed the baptism, and the order of events in John’s narrative follow each other so closely up to and after the marriage at Cana (vers. 35, 43; ch. 2:1), that no time is afforded for the temptation, which was forty days in duration, and which must have occurred prior to the interview between the Baptist and the Jewish delegation.--=And said.= Publicly, probably to his own disciples, perhaps to the multitude. This first preaching of Christ produced no observable effect. It was not till John repeated it on the following day (ver. 37) that any of his auditors followed Jesus.--=Behold the Lamb of God.= Not _a_ lamb of God. The meaning cannot therefore be, Behold a pure and innocent man; an interpretation which would probably never have been conceived, but for the purpose of escaping the doctrine of atonement for sin, which can be escaped only by rejecting both the Old and the New Testaments in their entirety.--=Which taketh away.= This exactly represents the significance of the original verb (αἴρω), which means, not bears, or suffers, or releases from the penalty of, but _takes away_. For its non-metaphorical use, see Matt. 13:12, _shall be taken away_; 21:21, _be removed_; Luke 6:30, _that taketh away_ thy goods; John 11:39, _take away_ the stone; 11:48, the Romans shall _take away_ both our place, etc. It thus corresponds almost exactly with the word (ἁφίηγι) ordinarily translated forgive. See Matt. 6:12, note. Observe that the verb is in the present tense, _is taking away_. The sacrifice has been offered once for all; but its effect is a continuous one. Christ is ever engaged in lifting up and taking away the sin of the world.--=The sin of the world.= Not _sins from the world_, which would be a very different matter. The sin is represented as _one burden_, which Christ _as a whole_ lifts up and carries away. His redemption is not a limited redemption; it provides a finished salvation for the entire human race. See ch. 16:22, note.

Very unnecessary difficulty has been made respecting the interpretation of the Baptist’s simple metaphor here. The lamb was throughout the O. T. times commonly used for sacrifice as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32); in cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:10); at the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. 29:38); at all the great feasts (Numb. 28:11; 29:2, 13, 37; Lev. 23:19); and in large numbers on special occasions (1 Chron. 29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32; 35:7). The sacrifice of the paschal lamb at the Passover connected the lamb as a sacrifice with the greatest feast day of the nation, and with the national redemption from bondage and deliverance from death (Exod. 12:21-27). The ceremony with the scape-goat on the day of atonement, the only fast-day in the Jewish calendar, interpreted clearly, and by an annual symbol, the meaning of these sacrifices. On that day two kids of goats were chosen, closely resembling each other; one was slain as a sin-offering; over the other the high-priest confessed the sins of the people, “putting them on the head of the goat,” who was then led away into the wilderness, “to bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:5-10, 20-22). Isaiah, with unmistakable reference to these typical sacrifices, declared that the Messiah should bear the sins and sorrows of the world as a lamb slaughtered (Isaiah 53:1-7); and the Baptist, speaking to a people whose national education had led them to regard the lamb as the type of sacrifice, through the shedding of whose blood there was a redemption, a carrying away of sins, points to Jesus with the declaration, Behold _the_ Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that is, the true Sin-bearer, of whom all that went before were but types and prophecies. _How_ he was to take away this load of sin the Baptist does not say, and probably did not know. That he did not realize that Christ was to be a true sacrifice for sin is indicated by his subsequent perplexity and message to Jesus (Matt. 11:2-6, note). Observe the analogy and the contrast between the O. T. and the N. T. Under the O. T. there were provided by the sinner lambs, whose sacrifice took sin away from the individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice needed to be continually repeated; under the N. T. _one_ Lamb is provided, the Lamb of God, _i. e._, proceeding from and _provided by God_, as intimated by Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 22:8), whose sacrifice _once for all_ (Heb. 10:10-12) takes away the sin of the _whole world_ (1 John 2:2), and therefore never needs to be repeated. It is worthy of note that the word _lamb_ is never used in the N. T. except in reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.). The word _lambs_ in the plural form occurs twice, but both times refer to the disciples of Christ (Luke 10:3; John 21:15).

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

=30, 31. After me cometh=, etc. See on verse 15.--=But that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come=, etc. The object of the Baptist’s ministry was not then merely to preach repentance, but to preach repentance _as a preparation for the coming of the kingdom of God in the incarnation of the King_. And with this agrees his own definition of his mission (verse 23) and the other Evangelists’ epitome of his ministry (Matt. 3:2). The true office of the minister is always that Christ may be made manifest.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining[55] on him, the same is he which baptizeth[56] with the Holy Ghost.

[55] chap. 3:34.

[56] Acts 1:5; 2:4.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

=32-34. And John witnessed.= Evidently the Evangelist here speaks of his witness at some period subsequent to the baptism, and therefore subsequent to the temptation which immediately succeeded the baptism.--=I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove.= That is, in the form of a dove. The vision was seen only by Jesus and John. On it see Matt. 3:16, note.--=And it abode upon him.= The Spirit of God, not the dove, abode. That John in some way recognized the abiding as a part of the sign of Christ’s Messiahship, is evident from the next verse; how he recognized it is not indicated.--=I also knew him not.= He connects himself with the people who knew him not (verse 26). =I=, as well as you, knew him not, till this sign was vouchsafed me. Why then did he at first object to baptizing Jesus, if he did not recognize in him the Christ (Matt. 3:14). He was second cousin of Jesus; knew him, probably, as a pure and holy man; perhaps knew the facts respecting Jesus’ birth, which were certainly known to John’s mother; may even have _suspected_ that he was the promised Messiah; and at all events may have believed that he needed no baptism of repentance. He did not, however, know him to be the Messiah, and did not recognize him _as such_, till after the promised sign, and this followed the baptism of Jesus.--=Saw and bare witness.= That is, at that time. He refers the people to his witness-bearing at the time of the baptism, a testimony which was still fresh in their memory.

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples:

36 And looking upon Jesus as he walketh, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

=35-37. Again the next day.= That is, the day following the apparent public discourse, so briefly reported in the preceding verses (29-34).--=And two of his disciples.= See on their names verse 40 and note. As they were disciples of the Baptist it is to be presumed that they had been baptized, but by John’s baptism which was unto repentance and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. See Acts 19:3-5.--=As he walked.= Or, as we should say, _As he was taking a walk_. One of the numerous indications in the Gospels that Christ was a lover of nature, and accustomed to meditate and study in communion with nature.--=Saith, Behold the Lamb of God.= See on verse 29. Observe the practical value of line upon line. John’s private message recalls and repeats his public testimony. See Phil. 3:1.--=And the two disciples heard him speak.= He spoke possibly in soliloquy, more probably to them. It is clear that it was not a public discourse which is here reported. There is no ground for the hypothesis that the two disciples had not heard the discourse of the previous day. Rather the implication is that they had heard it, and these words uttered to them in private by their teacher, enforced the public lesson, and led them to seek further knowledge concerning the one who was pointed out to them as the Messiah. Observe how this passage teaches the value of personal work and personal influence. The first disciples are led to seek Christ, not by the public discourse, but by the private words of the Baptist; by private influence they bring Peter (41); by private invitation Philip is added to the disciples (43); and by his personal solicitation Nathanael is brought to Christ (45).--=And they followed Jesus.= Not, in the religious sense of the words, became followers of Jesus; not till later did they leave all to follow him (Luke, ch. 5). The simplest is also the truest interpretation of these words. They literally followed him; drawn partly by curiosity, partly, perhaps, by a real spiritual desire for closer acquaintance with the one whom their teacher designated as the Lamb of God.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

=38, 39. Jesus * * * saith unto them, What seek ye?= Not because he was ignorant of their purpose, for he knew what was in man (ch. 2:25; comp. Mark 2:8, etc.); but because he would draw them out. In a similar manner he opens conversation with the woman at the well (ch. 4:10, 16), with the disciples fishing at the sea of Galilee (ch. 21:5), and with the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17). Christ _as a conversationalist_ is a study for the Christian. Observe how he opens the way and leads on to familiar acquaintance, first by his question, then by his invitation, finally by his hospitality.--=Rabbi * * * Master.= Rather, _teacher_, or _doctor_. Rabbi is a Hebrew word; _teacher_ (διδάσκαλος) is its Greek equivalent. John, writing for the Gentile world, habitually translates the Hebrew phrases into their Greek equivalents.--=Where dwellest thou?= They are timid and dare not, or at least do not, express their whole desire. Often in the spiritual reticence, so common to the first experiences of the awakened soul, its real aspirations after truth are concealed beneath an assumed curiosity respecting some indifferent matter. Christ meets this non-pertinent if not impertinent curiosity with an invitation which attaches the two inquirers to him for life.--=Come and see.= Rather, _Come and ye shall see_. This is the best reading, and is given by Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc. (ὄψεσθε not ἴδετε).--=And abode with him that day.= For the rest of the day.--=For it was about the tenth hour.= Reckoning from 6 A. M., according to Jewish fashion, this would make it 4 P. M. Observe, as indicative of the Evangelist John’s character, and of the force of the impression made on him from the outset by Christ, that he remembered not only the day, _but the very hour_, of his first interview with his subsequent Lord. This, too, is one of those minute touches which would not be found in either a mythical tradition or an ecclesiastical forgery.

40 One of the two which heard John _speak_, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou[57] shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[57] Matt. 16:18.

=40-42. One of the two * * * was Andrew.= It is the almost universal belief of scholars that the other was John the Evangelist, an opinion which rests on the following considerations: (1) John never mentions himself in his Gospel; if he refers to himself at all it is never by name (ch. 13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:3; 21:20). (2) The name of the other disciple would have been mentioned if there had not been some special reason for not mentioning it, and John’s habit of suppressing his own name constitutes a sufficient reason; no other plausible reason has been suggested. (3) The minute accuracy of detail in this narrative, extending to the specification of the day and of the hour, justifies the belief that it is the narrative of an eye and ear witness. On the life and character of Andrew see note at close of Matt. ch. 10, Vol. 1.--=He first findeth his own brother.= Our English version is ambiguous if not misleading. The meaning is not, Before going to Jesus’ residence he found his own brother, but of the two he was the first to find Simon. The implication is that both went in search of him; all three, John, Andrew, and Simon were probably at the baptism of John the Baptist, and were his disciples. There is no evidence to sustain the hypothesis that John brought his brother James to Jesus at this time, or even that James was with John at the Jordan.--=The Messiah * * * the Christ.= One is a Hebrew, the other a Greek word. The meaning is the Anointed One. On the spiritual meaning of the names of Jesus, see note at close of Matt. ch. 1, Vol. I. Andrew’s exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah, _eureka_ (εὐρήκαμεν, _we have found_), is the same attributed to Archimedes on his discovery of the adulteration of Hiero’s crown. He detected the mixture of silver in a crown which Hiero had ordered to be made of gold, and determined the proportions of the two metals by a method suggested to him by the overflow of the water when he stepped into a bath. When the thought struck him, he is said to have been so pleased that, forgetting to put on his clothes, he ran home shouting _Eureka, Eureka, I have found it, I have found it_. What is the grandest discovery compared with that which the soul makes when it finds its Messiah?--=Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter.= Cephas is Hebrew; Peter is Greek; both words mean a stone. On the significance of this change of name, see Matt. 16:18, note. At the interview there reported Christ refers to the name here given, and confirms and interprets it; at least this is the view of the best Evangelical scholars, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Schaff; and it is more reasonable, on the whole, than the supposition that the Evangelist John anticipates and reports the change of name out of its place. The careful student will observe that here Christ’s language is that of prophecy: Thou _shalt be_ called Peter; there it is the language of fulfillment. Thou _art_ Peter. The apostle did not become Peter till he made the inspired confession of Christ as the divine Messiah, which is recorded in Matthew.

43 The day following. Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses[58] in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

[58] Luke 24:27, 44.

=43-45. The day following.= That is, the day following the bringing of Peter to Jesus, which Meyer thinks occurred on the same day in which Andrew and John accompanied Jesus to his home, but which it appears to me, from verse 39, must have occurred on the following day; and this is the view of the ancient and of many of the modern expositors. In that case the order would be as follows: first day, John’s conference with the delegation from Jerusalem (19-28); second day, John’s public testimony to Jesus (29-34); third day, John’s private testimony to Jesus (35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40-42); fifth day, Nathanael brought to Jesus (43-51); seventh day, one day intervening, the marriage at Cana in Galilee (ch. 2:1, etc.).--=Findeth Philip and saith unto him, Follow me.= This is Christ’s first personal call of a disciple to follow him. There is no evidence that Philip ever withdrew from this personal following of Christ as did John and Peter and Andrew; they did not permanently attach themselves to Jesus till his subsequent call to them by the sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-11). On Philip’s life, see note at close of Matt. 10, Vol. I. He is not to be confounded with Philip the deacon, mentioned in Acts 6:5; 8:5-12, etc.--=Bethsaida.= There is no good ground for the hypothesis that there were two towns of this name on or near the sea of Galilee. The city was on the northern shore, near the entrance of the Jordan into the sea. See Mark 6:45, note; and for illustration of site, John ch. 6.--=Philip findeth Nathanael.= Observe that the young disciple does not wait, but as soon as he has found Christ begins to declare his discovery to others. So with Andrew above (41), with the woman of Samaria (ch. 4:28, 29), with Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:20). Nathanael’s name occurs in the N. T. only here and in John 21:2. It is not among the list of apostles furnished by Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; and Acts 1:13. But they all mention, in close connection with Philip, a Bartholomew, which is not properly a name but only a patronymic, its meaning being Son of Tholmai. These facts have led most scholars to adopt, as a reasonable hypothesis, the opinion that Nathanael and Bartholomew are different names for the same person. The name Nathanael, like our Theodore, means _gift of God_.--=We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write.= The reference is unmistakably to the Messiah. For references in the books of Moses to the promised Messiah, see Gen. 3:15 and 17:7, with Gal. 3:16, and Deut. 18:15-19.--=Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.= This is the language, not of the Evangelist, but of Philip. Unquestionably at that time Philip knew nothing of the supposed birth of Jesus; to him Jesus was, as to the Nazarenes subsequently (Matt. 13:54-56), simply the son of Joseph. The supposed inconsistency of this language and the account of Christ’s supernatural birth as given by Matthew, is therefore purely imaginary.

46 And Nathanael said unto him,[59] Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

[59] chap. 7:41.

=46. Out of Nazareth is it possible that anything good can come!= There is a scornful emphasis on the word Nazareth not preserved in our English version. That Nazareth was an unimportant and insignificant town is indicated by the fact that it is neither mentioned in the O. T. nor in Josephus; that the moral condition of its inhabitants was below that of the rest of Galilee is indicated by the declaration of Mark 6:5, 6, and by the mob which threatened the life of Christ at a time when he was just growing into popularity elsewhere in Galilee (Luke 4:28-30). No other definite reason is known for the evident odium which attached to Nazareth even in the minds of Galileans. Comp. Matt. 2:23, note. The question of Nathanael furnishes a striking illustration of the spirit of prejudice in even good men. To Nathanael it seems impossible that the promised Prophet can appear elsewhere than in or near the city of the Great King.--=Come and see.= This is the best answer to make to unbelief. Christ is his own best witness (ch. 5:34). It is not merely true that “personal experience is the best test of the truth of Christianity, which, like the sun in heaven, can only be seen in its own light” (_Schaff_), but it is also true that Christ is a greater miracle than any he ever wrought; and that the supreme character of Christ carries in itself a moral conviction to hearts which resist all arguments drawn from nature. Of this truth John Stuart Mill, in his Three Essays on Religion, affords a striking illustration. After considering all the arguments for the existence and perfection of the Divine Being derived from nature, and declaring that Natural Religion points to a Being “of great but limited power,” “who desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for,” he comes to the character of Christ, and not only pays a tribute to it, eloquent and reverent, but adds his conviction that it would not “even now be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.” Chrysostom notices the gentleness and candor of Philip’s reply; he furnishes a model to all disputants in dealing with religious prejudice. See 2 Tim. 2:24.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold[60] an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

[60] Ps. 32:2; Rom. 2:28, 29.

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw[61] thee.

[61] Ps. 139:1, 2.

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou[62] art the Son of God; thou art the King[63] of Israel.

[62] chap. 20:28, 29; Matt. 14:33.

[63] Matt. 21:5; 27:11.

=47-49. An Israelite indeed.= Because in faith and love a true child of God. Comp. Luke 19:9; Romans 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:29; 6:15, 16. For O. T. description of such an Israelite, see Psalm 15.--=In whom is no guile.= Therefore, characteristically unlike the Pharisees, whose pride it was that they were children of Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:33), and who were full of hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:14-33).--=Whence knowest thou me?= As Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5, 6, notes), so Nathanael is surprised by the Lord’s reading of his character and inward experience.--=When thou wast under the fig-tree.= The whole course of the narrative indicates in this response a supernatural sight, as in the previous characterization of Nathanael a supernatural insight. If Christ had merely chanced to see Nathanael without being seen by him, this fact would afford, surely, no basis for Nathanael’s faith, or Christ’s commendation of it. It seems also clear that something more is implied than the mere fact that Christ saw Nathanael under a fig-tree, since that would neither explain Christ’s commendation of him as an Israelite without guile, nor Nathanael’s astonishment. Hence the surmise of the commentators that he had retired there for purposes of prayer, and that Christ had seen him there, like the Israel from whom he descended (Gen. 32:24-23) wrestling with God, for the bestowal of the long-promised blessing to his realm, in the gift of the Messiah. It was probably this revelation of the secret of his soul which caused Christ to characterize him as a true Israelite, and Nathanael to recognize in the One who read his inmost life so perfectly, the King of Israel.--=The Son of God * * * the King of Israel.= The Messiah. See Ps. 2:7; Matt. 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; 11:27. Observe that Christ recognizes and accepts this characterization of himself at the outset of his ministry, a quite sufficient refutation of the theory of Renan, that it was the outgrowth of his followers’ later admiration, and tacitly accepted by Christ at or near the close of his earthly life. That Nathanael fully comprehended the meaning of his own confession is not, however, probable.

50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven[64] open, and the angels[65] of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

[64] Ezek. 1:1.

[65] Gen. 28:12; Dan. 7:9, 10; Acts 1:10, 11.

=50, 51.= There is some difficulty respecting the proper interpretation of Christ’s promise here. The word _hereafter_ is rather _henceforth_; but it is omitted by the best critics, _e. g._, Alford, Tischendorf, Lachmann. The figure is undoubtedly drawn from the vision of Jacob (Israel) of the ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12). Some suppose the reference to the angelic appearances to Christ, and the divine signs given in attestation of his mission (ver. 32; Matt. 4:11; Luke 2:13; 9:29-31; 22:43), but the earlier of these had already taken place, and Nathanael was neither present at the temptation, at the transfiguration, nor at the garden of Gethsemane. Chrysostom refers in addition to the angelic appearances at the resurrection, but they by no means furnish a literal fulfillment of the promise. Some interpret it spiritually, of the manifest opening of the heavens and the intercommunication between earth and heaven, through Jesus Christ. So Maurice: “Faithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor who first bore that name, shall be substantiated for thee, and for those who trust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as thou hast done. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven--the ladder upon which the angels of God ascended and descended--is a ladder for thee and for all. For the Son of man, who joins earth to heaven, the seen to the unseen, God and man in one, He is with you; through Him your spirits may arise to God; through Him God’s Spirit shall come down upon you.” Similarly Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Alford, and others. But this interpretation is not wholly satisfactory, since it converts Christ’s words into an allegory, and deprives them of all literal meaning. According to this view the angels are but spiritual blessings, the open heavens are not seen, and the angelic appearances are not upon the Messiah, but through him to mankind. A third interpretation connects Christ’s words here with his analogous declarations in Matt. 25:31; 26:64, etc., and refers it to his Second Coming. So Ryle: “When He comes the second time to take his great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth--the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.” I believe that these three views are congruous and consistent, and are all embraced in the promise. Christ opened the communication between earth and heaven; manifested that fact by the angelic appearances which accompanied his coming, his presence, and his departure; still manifests it, by the spiritual blessings which he constantly confers in answer to the prayers of his people; and will finally manifest it yet more gloriously when he comes to take possession of his established kingdom, with his holy angels with him. The past and present fulfillments of this prophecy are but fragmentary and imperfect. The final and perfect fulfillment awaits us in the future.

[Illustration: AN ORIENTAL WEDDING.

“_And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee_”]