|
THE chief object the Evangelist had in view, as he himself expressly assures us, in writing this Gospel was to prove our Lord's Divinity and beget faith in this fundamental article of Christian truth, as a necessary means for securing eternal life (c. xx., v. 31). He, therefore, enters on his sublime Preface to his Gospel by proclaiming our Lord's Divinity, His distinct, Divine Personality, His consubstantiality with the Father together with His Omnipotence shown in His having educed out of nothing every thing created (vv. 1-3). Whether, in doing this, the Evangelist had also in view to confound the false notions of the Pagan Philosophers and the blasphemous errors regarding our Lord's Divinity broached by Heretics, of whom some, such as Ebion and Cerinthus, etc., appeared in his own day to trouble the peace of the Church, others, in the near future, -bearing the imposing title of Gnostics, of whose errors he may possibly have been divinely gifted with a clear foresight, is a subject of dispute among the learned. One thing, however, is quite certain, that all these errors, past, present, or future on the subject of our Lord's Divinity and Attributes are completely refuted in the sublime Preface of this Gospel (v. 1-1-8). How unfathomable, how far transcending all human understanding is 'this fundamental truth of our Lord's eternal existence. It is hard to see, with what consistency some men, glorying in the name of Christian, reject mysteries, while they admit our Lord's Divinity and Eternity, the foundation of all Christian belief. Will they explain how God existed from Eternity? ____________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS. In the sublime Preface of this Gospel (v. 1-18), St. John declares the Eternity, Personality, and Divinity of the Son of God (1-2). His Omnipotence, as Creator of all things, visible and invisible, material and spiritual (3-5). He adduces in confirmation the testimony of the Baptist (6-7). He removes the erroneous opinions entertained of the Baptist himself (8). The advent of the WORD among men—the cause and success of His advent, His incarnation (9-14). He adduces as witnesses, those, who like himself, beheld His glory (14), the Baptist. (15). He points out the blessings we derived from the Word (16). How far superior to those of preceding dispensations (v. 17). He corroborates all, by the testimony of the Word Himself, the Source of all truth (v. 18). 19—In this and the following verses is fully described in detail the splendid testimony rendered by the Baptist to our Lord's Divinity, when in reply to the solemn embassy sent from Jerusalem to question him on the subject, he proclaims his own nothingness and our Lord's infinite superiority over himself (1-9-29). Further testimony of the Baptist addressed to This own disciples in favour of our Lord's Divinity (29-35). Repetition, for greater emphasis sake, of the same testimony by John (35-38). The call by our Lord of His first disciples, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael (38-48). Our Lord proves Himself to be the searcher of hearts, and displays a knowledge of future events (48-51). ___________________________________________________________ Commentary. Verse 1. "In the beginning was the Word." St. Cyril, by, beginning, understands, the Principle of the Word, God the Father, -of whom the Son was begotten by an eternal generation. The meaning, according to him, would be ; the Word abode in the Father, as the Principle, of whom He was begotten, just as it is said of Him "fa is in the bosom of the Father" (v. 18). This, although quite orthodox is, however, a very improbable interpretation. For, the term, "BEGINNING," has here the same signification as in 2, which is but a summary of the three clauses of this v. i, and n v. 2 it could not designate any of the Divine Persons without a manifest absurdity. The term, then, denotes duration thus; In the beginning of every thing else that had a beginning—thus are excluded the Father and Holy Ghost, who had no beginning ; or, when every thing else began to be ; before any time, actual or imaginary " the Word WAS." He must, therefore, have no beginning ; since, He was, when everything else began ; and, consequently, must be Eternal. The existence of the Word before all creation is here directly proved. His Eternity, indirectly, in accordance with Scriptural usage (Isai. xlii. 13 : John xviii. 5 ; Ephes. i. 4 ; Col. i.7). Jansenius and others found the proof of the Eternity of the Son of God in this passage on the two words taken conjointly, v. 2 ("erat" "he was") and, (in principle, "in the beginning'"}. The Word WAS already in existence in the beginning of all things created, before everything else began ; and so, if He had a beginning or began to exist, He would have been before Himself—a manifest absurdity. Unlike the commencement of the Genesis of creation (Genesis i.) to which this is allusive, described by Moses, who denotes the first dawn of creation thus, "In the beginning, God created the heavens" etc.; here, in the eternal Genesis of the Word described by St. John, there is no allusion whatever to the act or process of creation. He was before the beginning—" before the world was " (John xvii. 5). continued up to the beginning; and continues to the present and all future periods. The imperfect erat [was] is used preferably to suit, as this latter might be taken to denote a cessation of existence; while, erat, denotes, unceasing, endless continuity. Some commentators say the "beginning" directly denotes eternity, which was a beginning without a beginning. Hence, St. John (i Ep. i. i) says, "that which was from the beginning" or eternity, termed "beginning" to suit the weak conceptions of our limited understandings. " The Word" (ο λογος). The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The term clearly refers not to any Attribute or Attributes of God; but, to a person, personal actions being ascribed to Him, throughout the entire chapter. Moreover, He is here called " God." He is distinguished from God, " with God" and in v. 14, he is identified with the Person of our Lord Himself, assuming human nature here on earth. WHY called λογος? The reason generally given by theologians, apart from the revelation of the term by the Holy Ghost to St. John, who alone of all the sacred writers of the New Testament employs it in a personal sense, if we except St. Paul to the Hebrews (c. iv. 12, 13), is, that as our thought or the internal word of our mind generated in our intellect remains in the mind, even after it is externally expressed by the voice; so, as far as human and Divine things admit of comparison, the Son of God begotten of the Father by an eternal generation through the Divine intellect, the substantial expression of the Divine mind, is one, consubstantial with Him, yet still existing in Him, as a distinct Divine Person. This and other comparisons whereby it is attempted to illustrate the eternal generation of the Son of God, His identity of nature and distinction of Person with the Father, His birth in the flesh, are so imperfect and obscure, that it is for us to believe and adore, rather than too curiously investigate, lest we be "overwhelmed by the Majesty of Glory " (Proverbs xxv. 27). It is rendered in the Vulgate, verbum, which implies unity and identity with the mind that produces it, preferably to Sermo, which would seem to imply composition, multiplicity and distinction. WHENCE, did St. John derive this term, as expressive of his doctrine regarding the Personality and Divine attributes of the Son of God ? Not from Plato, who never ascribes to the λογος θεου either in his Timeus or de Republica (c. vii.), where he treats of this subject, distinct personality or supreme creative power, or the other attributes predicated of him here by the Evangelist. Not from Philo, whose notions concerning the " Word of God" to which he frequently refers, are so contradictory, con fused and unintelligible; and, as far as they are intelligible, clearly erroneous on the Attributes of the Word. For, among other points, Philo maintained the Eternity of matter. Nor, from the Alexandrian schools, whose notions on these subjects are clearly conjectural. Patrizzi observes, that one could hold, without censure of any kind, that St. John might have derived the term λογος, abstracting from false doctrines, from the Oriental Philosophy, in which it denotes some Divine reason or Emanation, just as the word, foes, whereby the Pagans denoted a false Divinity, was employed by the Apostles and the Jews before them, to designate the only true God. Nay, the same author observes that the Evangelist may have been divinely inspired to use the word in opposition to the ETERNAL SILENCE propounded by the Gnostics. It is most likely, the Apostle derived the term itself and the full doctrinal truths it conveys from the Old Testament, as well as from Jewish tradition; from the teachings of our Lord and the full insight into the meaning of the SS. Scripture, which He was pleased to impart to him (Luke xxiv. 45). In the Old Testament, we have clear and frequent allusions to the Creative Power of the " Word of God'' 1 (Psa. xxxii. 6). "By THE WORD of God the heavens -were established" (v. 9). " For He spoke and they were made " (Wisdom xviii. 15), etc. In these and several other passages of SS. Scripture, a creative power is attributed to the Word of God. The same idea is expressed here by St. John (v. 3), " Omnia per ipsumfacta sunt." " And the Word was with God." This is a reply to the latent question suggested in the first clause, viz. :—If the Word was before everything created, before time, place, heaven, earth, from Eternity, where was He ? He u was with God " the Father. IIpos (apud) conveys, that the " Word" was not a mere accident subsisting in God; that He had a peculiar, individual subsis tence, a Personality of His own, distinct from the Father, with whom He always was, never divided or separated from Him. No one could be said to be with himself. " And the Word was God" και θεος ην ο λογος.—The term Word," having the definite article prefixed is the subject of this, as of the two preceding propositions. The sense is, that Word, already spoken of, is God. The preceding propositions, while declaring the Eternity of the Word, His Personality, distinct from the Father, do not enunciate the nature or essence of the Word itself. In this clause is declared His essence, viz., identity of nature with the Father. This was necessary to prevent men from fancying that because God was one, and the Word distinct from Him, the Word could not, therefore, be God. Here, is declared His identity of Divine Nature with the Father. The article is prefixed to " God " in the words " with God," προς τον θεον—and denotes a Person, the Person of God the Father. Here, it is omitted before " God," και θεος ην ο λογος— "and the Word was God," because having, in the preceding clause, denoted the Person of God the Father, if repeated here, it would refer to the same Person and denote that the "Word" was the Person of God the Father, as if to say, " and the Word was God," ο θεος, or the Person above referred to, which St. John could not mean. The word, 0eos, without the article, far from denoting a Divine Person inferior to God, as the Arians would have it, denotes one possessing the nature of the Supreme Being, as in vv. 6-12, 13-18 of this chapter. Whenever in SS. Scriptures, it is employed to denote creatures; then, there is always some qualifying epithet or circumstance to determine this latter meaning, as in Exodus vii. " Te constitui Deum Pharaonis." Psa. "Ego dixi, dii estis" etc. The Socinians, by placing a comma after erat, in the sentence, " Deus erat verbum" and joining "verbum" with the following, thus: "Verbum hoc erat in principio? etc., v. 2, employ an arbitrary and erroneous punctuation, opposed to all MSS. and copies of the Gospel, and fall into a manifest absurdity, as if St. John only meant to tell us, Deus erat. God existed.
Verse 2. The words of this verse are a mere emphatic summary of the three clauses of the preceding. "This " Word who was God, was all that has been stated regarding Him, viz: "He was in the beginning'" from Eternity, enjoying Co-eternity "with God" the Father; distinct from Him, while possessing the same Divine nature with Him. “This" is almost universally understood of the Word or λογος, who is manifestly the subject, having the definite article prefixed, of whom all that is said in the preceding clauses is predicated. Whether St. John had in view, besides directly affirming our Lord's Divinity (c. xxi. 31), to refute the blasphemous teachings of Ebion and Cerinthus, as is asserted by many ancient writers, and to guard against the errors of the Gnostics, which he may have foreseen in the near future; one thing is quite certain, viz., that his teachings regarding our Lord's Eternity, His distinct, Divine Personality, identity with the Father, as in vv. i, 2 ; His omnipotence, as displayed in the educing out of nothing every thing created, as in v. 3, completely refutes all the errors of the Pagan philosophers before his time, and, by anticipation, all the blasphemous doctrines regarding our Blessed Lord, that were to spring forth afterwards. He refutes the absurd notions or systems of the Gnostics relative to their eons or inferior Divinities, to whom, according to their absurd notions, the Supreme Deity confided the work of creation. The system regarding these fabulous eons was chiefly formulated by Valentinus, who gives a long and imaginary history of their number, their genealogy, and other frivolous unmeaning accounts of them.
Verse 3. Having described the eternal relations of the Word with the other Persons of the Godhead, the Evangelist now proceeds to point out the works of the Word, his external relations in time with creatures. He describes, in the briefest form, the great work of creation, the different parts of which embracing times, days and seasons, are so circumstantially described by Moses (Genesis i). These he divides into the Natural, as in this verse, and the Supernatural, as in the following verse :— The truth regarding creation is announced affirmatively in the clause, “All things were made by Him," time among the rest; therefore, He preceded all times and was eternal. If the Word Himself were made, He should have been made by Himself and preceded Himself; and negatively, in the clause, "and without Him," etc. Hence, if the Word were made, He could not have been made without His own active agency, in His own creation—a manifest absurdity. The negative clause is very emphatic in the Greek, " without him was made not ONE THING (ουδε εν) that was made." The creative power of the Word being confined to things that were created, could not extend to the Father or the Holy Ghost, who were not created. The words of this verse, combined with the following verse, are differently punctuated in different versions. (a) As in our Vulgate and most Greek copies, " et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est" (b) The Vulgate of Sixtus V. (A.D. 1590), runs thus, " et sine ipso factum est nihil; quod factum est, in ipso vita eraz," signifying either, that all things had their principle of life in Him; or, that they LIVED and existed, from Eternity, in the Divine mind. (c) The Bibles of Clement VIII. (1592-1598;, place no full stop at all, and we are free to connect the words, " quod factum est,"' with either the preceding words, factum est nihil quod factum est; or with the following, thus " quod factum est, in ipso vita erat" The first reading, as in our Vulgate, is the one commonly followed.
Verse 4. "In Him was life" etc. Having referred in the preceding verse to the Natural order, and affirmed that all created beings, whether in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible (Col. i. 16,17), whether merely existing, sentient, or rational were brought into existence by the power of the Word,—for, by Him, God created all things, and their very providential conservation in existence (Col. i. 17), is implied here—the Evangelist in this verse proceeds to the Supernatural order, and refers, in a special way, to the work of Redemption, the second creation, whereby He gave back to man, dead in his sins, the spiritual life of grace (Ephes. ii. i). In this sense, St. John often refers to our Lord as life (v. 21: vi. 33 ; xi. 25, etc.). "In Him" essentially, of Himself, as effect in its cause, and not by mere external delegation. "Was life'' of which He was the EXEMPLARY cause; also the EFFICIENT cause, being the source of life which He gave to all, ''In Te est sons vita" (Ps. xxxv. 10); the MERITORIOUS cause. From Eternity He might be said to be the MERITORIOUS cause, since, the fall and reparation of man were foreseen from Eternity (Ephes. i. 4, 5), and the word to be incarnated in time was, from Eternity, the meritorious cause of spiritual and eternal life, "Agnus occisus ab origine Mundi" (Apoc. xiii. 8). "And the life was the light of men" It was, inasmuch as He enlightens men through revelation with the supernatural light of faith enlivened by charity, here, and by His Divine essence with the life of glory, hereafter, that He is the source of life to them. "Light " means the illumination communicated by God to man. At all times, even before His Incarnation, He "was the light? etc. For, it was in view of the future merits of Christ, that men from the beginning of time, enjoyed the light of faith, the super natural life, by which the just man lives (Rom. i.). In the preceding clause, " in Him was life" the term "life" denotes the effect produced in us by the " WORD." In the latter, "and the life was the light of men" "life" having the definite article prefixed, η ζωη, means the Word Himself, or cause of light in men. Hence, in several passages of SS. Scriptures, especially in the writings of St. John, it is said, " He is life" " the way of life," etc. If many, after His coming, remain in darkness; this, is owing to their own perversity, as in v. 5.
Verse 5. ''And the light shineth in darkness" "Light" refers to the Word, which was the light of men unto life. "Shineth" without intermission, both through the light of faith and the light of reason. This same light, which heretofore was invisible, has now, in the flesh, become visible to our corporal senses by His words and the external works of His power enlightening mankind with the supernatural light of faith (i John, i. 2), "qua erat et pud Pair em et apparuit nobis" "Darkness" is taken in a metaphorical and moral sense, to denote men sunk in spiritual misery, shut up in the prison of infidelity and sunk in depravity. To this, the Apostle refers (Ephes. v. 8), "but you were heretofore darkness" He uses "shineth" in the present tense, to convey, that even now after His Ascension, our Lord does not cease through His Church to enlighten the world. As our Lord, "the light," existed from Eternity, and, at all times from creation, shone through the light of reason to men, it is not unlikely, that " shineth " denotes also the light of reason through which man from the beginning received the knowledge of God and of His leading attributes. "Because, that which is known of God is manifest in them. For, God manifested it to them . . . His eternal power also and divinity" (Rom. i. 19, 20). This is "the light shining" to them. This knowledge they abused, having transferred the worship of God to senseless idols (Rom. i. 23). " And the darkness" that is to say, most of those whom He found in unbelief and sin. For, that there were exceptions is clear from v. 12, " but as many as received Him" " Comprehended it not" believed not in Him. There is question here of faith in the light (v. 7). They received it not, admitted it not. They continued voluntarily in a state of incredulity. The light shone. They obstinately refused to open their eyes, and would not admit it (Rom. ix). When the sun shines on the earth, those who close their eyes cannot perceive it. The shades of darkness in which they voluntarily shut themselves up, are so thick, that the light could not penetrate them. So ignorant, so debased were men, that far from valuing His teachings, they, as a body, rejected them. Some Commentators not taking into account, that here, there is question of moral darkness, or rather men enclosed in darkness, seem perplexed as to how the light could shine in darkness without enlightening and dissipating it, understand the word "shineth" to mean, is capable of producing the effect of en lightening, even when through the fault of -others, that effect, as here, may not follow. It is to be borne in mind, that "darkness" here denotes men, free agents, who are at liberty to receive or reject the light of reason or faith offered to them.
Verse 6. "There was," etc. The object of the Evangelist here maybe to correct an error which seemed to prevail, that the Baptist was the Messiah (Luke iii. 15; John i. 19). While correcting this to be a Prophet (Matthew xxi. 26), as an important witness to prove that JESUS was the Christ, " the Son of God" which was the chief design of this gospel (John xx. 31). The Evangelist may also have in view to show that, while: obstinate unbelievers rejected our Lord, God had employed, on His part, the most effectual means to dispose men to receive Him; among the rest, He employed the ministry and testimony of the Baptist, so much prized and valued by the Jews. The Evangelist commends his ministry and testimony by saying he " was sent 'from God" divinely commissioned.
Verse 7. "He came for a witness" etc. In preceding verse, he points out John's Divine mission ; in this, the object of that Divine mission, which was to give testimony regarding our Lord ("of the light") as the long expected Messiah, thus to prepare the people to receive Him (Matthew iii). He also pointed Him out after He had come. "Ecce agnus Dei" etc. (John i. 31). He extols John's character and Divine mission, beyond others who were not selected by God for so high an office. "Light" refers to the person of our Lord, "through Him" through John's testimony and preaching. While extolling John in the preceding verse, he here lowers him in comparison with the Word, whose herald he was.
Verse 8. "He was not the light." Although, in some finite respect, a light, the Baptist was not the immense, uncreated light of which we speak, but the herald and witness of the light, not the sun, but the precursor of the Sun of Justice, "a burning and shining light" enkindled by the great uncreated light and true lamp of creation. The Evangelist thus removes any false opinions which the people or the disciples might entertain regarding John as the long expected promised Messiah.
Verse 9. After stating that John was not the true light, the Evangelist now states who was the light, viz., the Word Himself, who was different from John; and he enumerates the works of this true light, that is, of the Word, hereafter. "True light" may metaphorically signify, that He really produces the same effects spiritually in our minds, that the sun produces in enlightening our corporal senses, just as He is termed true food" (vi. 32), "the true vine" (xvi.), or " true " may mean essential light. Others have all their enlightening powers communicated from without; but He is essential, unchangeable, permanent light, such as John or any other creature could not be. John's light was temporary and precursory. " Which enlighteneth" as far as he is concerned, " every man" of whatever nationality, without distinction of Jew or Gentile. " Enlightens " may refer to the light of reason ; but, more probably, to the light of grace and faith. All who are enlightened are enlightened by Him, and if any man is not enlightened, it is his own fault, since the light is offered to all and provided for all. " That cometh into this world. 1 ' In the Greek, the construction is doubtful. According to it " coming" — ερχομενον — may be joined to " light" thus: He was. the light, that coming into this world enlighteneth every one, or, to " every man," as in our Vulgate. The former construction seems more in accordance with Scriptural usage, which represents our Lord as the light that enlightens mankind (John iii. 19 ; xii. 46). The expression, in this connexion, would imply our Lord's pre-existence before His Incarnation. The word too may have a future or past signification. It is in favour of the Vulgate reading which connects " coming " with " every man," " omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum" that, whether we understand, " enlightens " of the light of reason, or the light of faith, or both, our Lord, before He came in the flesh, enlightened mankind with the light of reason and of faith. Moreover, the position of "coming? ερχομενον, in the sentence, is such as to connect it with "every man " "cometh into this world" is same as, every man born of woman.
Verse 10. "He? the λογος or "Verbum" not "lux" as is clear from the Greek ουκ εγνω αυτον—" was in the world " from its very foundation, upholding it by His conservative providence, " omnia portans verbo virtutis sucz " (Heb. i.), " and the world was made by Him " (v. 3), "and the world knew Him not." From the visible works of creation, man might have known God, and thus be stimulated to glorify and worship Him as the fountain of all good. "But, the world" meaning wicked and perverse men, "knew Him not" They altogether rejected Him, and transferred the worship due to Him, to dumb, senseless idols (Rom. i.) The term, ""world? has a two-fold signification in this verse. In the words, "was in the world" it denotes visible creation. The words "the world knew Him not," mankind. There is question here, of the period before our Lord's Incarnation, when in virtue of His Divine omnipresence, He filled all creation, and unceasingly bestowed benefits on mankind (v. 3) erat, at all times. In the next verse there is allusion, by anticipation, to His Incarnation among His own people. St. John, as disciple of love, burning with love for his Divine Master, indignantly notes the ungrateful treatment our Lord met with at the hands of men, who received so many signal benefits from Him. This world that "was made by Him,"" " knew Him not" rejected and despised Him. Could there be greater ingratitude?
Verse 11. In the preceding verse there is question of His Divinity at all times filling the universe; here there is question of His assumed humanity in time; "into His own"—εις τα ιδια—His own country, His own house, and "His own" (οι ιδιοι). The change in the original Greek is deserving of observation. He came into His own land, and His own chosen people, specially beloved by Him, to whom He was sent to preach, in the first place, among whom and of whom He was born, " received Him not" as their long expected Messiah, their future deliverer. Far from it, they rejected, repudiated Him, " ncc reputavimus cum " (Isaias liii. 1-6), nay, persecuted Him, and subjected Him to the ignominious death of the cross. Our Lord reproaches the Jews for having, as a body, rejected Him, although some few among them received Him, and believed in Him.
Verse 12. The Evangelist in this verse conveys that our Lord was not rejected by all; and he shows the benefits conferred on such as received Him. It may also be intended to convey that His rejection by His own people did not cause Him to change His beneficent designs, "as many as received Him? whether from among the Jews or Gentiles. The phrase is explained in the words, " that believed in His name? believed in Him, as their God, Creator, and Author of their salvation. " Name" often signifies the Person Himself. To them, He transferred the Divine Sonship, taken from the Jews, who, as a body, rejected Him. "He gave power to become sons of God" (εξουσιαν) ; "power" may mean, He gave them the privilege lo become His adopted children, or the actual right to become sons of God in His own Kingdom of Glory, if they believe in Him and obey Him in this life.
Verse 13. He points out that the exalted Sonship of God referred to does not come from carnal generation or human descent, thus correcting the erroneous ideas which the Jews attached to their carnal descent from Abraham. " Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh" whether sinful, which this phrase means ; " nor of the will of man" or lawful. The above words express the natural mode of human carnal generation. " But of God" by a spiritual generation, opposed to the carnal generation referred to. This spiritual generation, by which we become sons of God, is effected in Baptism, whereby we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and as sons of God fitted for His kingdom. This is accomplished through grace and faith. Sanctifying grace conferred on us in Baptism, the laver of regeneration and renovation (Titus iii. 5), makes us partakers of the Divine nature" (2 Peter i. 4).
Verse 14. "And the Word," etc. Some understand " and " to mean for, as if the Evangelist were assigning a reason, why they were made sons of God. It arose from this, that the Word assumed human nature and merited this great privilege for us. The term, " Word" has the definite article before it to show it refers to the same " Word" mentioned in v. i. Some Commentators connect this with v. 4, These regard the intervening portion as parenthetical. " Flesh " denotes man, human nature, a signification it has in several passages of SS. Scripture. The term, "soul," too, is employed to designate the same. The word "flesh " is used preferably to the word, man, to show more clearly the great contrast between Infinite Power,—the " Word" being the creator of the universe—and the greatest weakness and debasement—flesh being the weaker part of human nature. It may also be that " 'flesh " is used to confound the error of the Docetae, and such others as denied that our Lord assumed human flesh. " Was made." Not by any change in the Divine nature, which could not be; but by assuming human nature, under the Personality of the Word, the human nature of the " WORD " being full and entire, composed of a created soul and body without any distinct human Personality of its own, having for Per son, the Divine Person of the Word. The Word had two distinct natures, the Divine and human ; and only one Person, the Person of the Son of God. Some Expositors say that St. John's object here is to show that we need not be surprised at men becoming by adoption and through a spiritual birth, sons of God, when the Eternal Son of God Himself became, what is more surprising still, man, and really assumed human nature so intimately that Christ-man could be truly termed the Son of God. The real union of the two natures was so perfect, that God is man and man is God. "And dwelt amongst us," conversed familiarly, sojourned with men, as a member of a family, as a friend, He ate, drank, slept, etc. (i John i.) They had full opportunity of a familiar acquaintance with Him, so as not to be mistaken, that He was really man. " He came in and went out among them " (Acts i. 21). ''After wards He was seen upon earth and conversed with men" (Baruch iii. 38). The Greek word for " dwelt" εσκηνωσεν(Tabernacled) denotes temporary dwelling, not making this earth His permanent habitation ; dwelt for a time, like those who dwell in tents, which are not their permanent home. " And we saw His glory" etc. The Evangelist said, in proof of the Word becoming flesh, that so far as His humanity was concerned, they had ample opportunity of witnessing it since He sojourned as man among them for a time, and he says, as to His Divinity, they had several proofs of it in "seeing His glory" the splendor of His majesty, at His Transfiguration, of which St. John was one of the witnesses—to this St. Peter also refers—(i. 16), at His Resurrection, His Ascension, and in the splendid miracles wrought by Him. " The glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father? a glory suited to the only begotten Son of God. They did not see the Word in Himself. But, from His glory; they saw it was He, just as one seeing the splendor of the sun knows it is over the horizon. " As it were," signifies reality, here, as in many other passages of SS. Scripture, " the glory as it were," suited to or becoming Him alone and no other, who was " the only begotten of the Father" the Eternal, consubstantial Son of the Father, equal with Him in all things. These words are read within a parenthesis, and the following words spoken of the Word made flesh, are to be joined immediately with the words, " and the Word was made flesh (. . .) full of grace and truth.'' The words, "of the Father" may also be joined, according to some, with "glory" as if to say, the glory which He received from the Father, such glory as the Father would bestow on the beloved object of His eternal complacency. "Full of grace and truth'' While dwelling amongst us, the WORD, as man, had not His hands empty. He was distinguished for two qualities, "grace and truth; " of these He was "full" not only in Himself, in whom " dwelt the whole plenitude of the Divinity " (Col. ii. 9), but also, since He went about doing good, "full" in reference to us, so that we could communicate from this inexhaustible fullness to others ; and we did so, for we received of it. The Evangelist wishes to show what the Word did while dwelling with us. He communicated to us the abundance of grace and truth. Grace and truth correspond with life and light. Grace gave life; light, the knowledge of truth. " Full of grace? in bestowing all the blessings of Redemption, and liberation from the slavery of the devil, opposed to the weak and needy elements of the Old Law ; " and truth'" as the true teacher of mankind. Everything He revealed and taught was free from error of any sort. " Truth " may be understood not only as opposed to error and falsehood, but also to the types and figures of the Old Law, He being their fulfillment— "finis legis, Christus" (Rom. x. 4). He verified all the promises made regarding Him. The Law, from Moses ; truth, from Jesus Christ.
Verse 15. The Evangelist adduces in corroboration of his own testimony regarding the " Word" having become man, "full of grace and truth" etc., the testimony of the Baptist, which was of the greatest weight, among the Jews, "John beareth witness of Him" as the Word made flesh, " and crieth out, saying," publicly, fearlessly, acting the part of herald as well as of witness. The Evangelist having already referred, in general terms, to the testimony of John (vv. 7, 8), now specifically states what that testimony was. " Crieth out" in allusion to the words of Isaias regarding the Baptist, "vox clamant is in deserto" "This was He " (or, is He) " of whom I spoke " before I saw Him in person. The Evangelist mentions by anticipation what he describes (v. 29, etc.) when John pointed out our Lord as present. "He that shall come after me," in the public exercise of his ministry, of whom I am the mere precursor, " is preferred before me," shall be regarded as far superior to me in dignity and excellence. The past is used, in prophetic style, for the future, or, it may mean, has been preferred, in the predestination of God. If these words were spoken after our Lord's Baptism, then, the past form, " has been preferred before me" " ante me factus est" would be verified in the preference shown our Lord in the words of the Heavenly Father, " This is my beloved Son" etc., or, if spoken before His Baptism, before the words were uttered by the Heavenly Father, they would be verified in His miraculous birth, the adoration of the Magi, His sanctity of life, and even these signs, apart, in the designs of the Eternal Father in His regard. Hence, He was made preferable by repeated and successive manifestations on the part of God and man. "Because He was," in existence, " before me" being from eternity; and He was essentially, of His own nature, more exalted in dignity. The phrase chiefly signifies the pre-existence of the Word before John, having been from the beginning, from Eternity.
Verse 16. "And of His fullness we all," etc. This is said of Christ as man God, " in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead corporally " (Coll. ii. 9). By some, these are understood to be the
|