John 1

IN a letter written to his son at Oxford (1899), Archbishop Temple refers to Coleridge’s speculations on the Holy Trinity. He says: “I am obliged to confess that from seventeen to five-and-twenty I indulged largely in such speculations. But I felt all along like a swimmer who sees no shore before him after long swimming, and at last allows himself to be picked up by a ship that seems to be going his way. . . . My passing ship was St. John” (Life, vol. ii., p. 690).

There are many who have similarly found this Gospel lay hold of them as no other portion of the New Testament has done. From the words in the first chapter, “we beheld His glory,” on through the great conversations with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria (iii., iv.), the Saviour’s profound statement of His relations to the Father (v. 19-36), His words to His disciples about His relation to men as their spiritual Bread of Life (vi. 32-58, 63), His claim to be the Light of the World (viii. 12), His tender picture of Himself as the Good Shepherd (x. 8-18), His tears at the grave of Lazarus (xi. 36), His rapture when they told Him of the Greeks who said, “We want to see Jesus” (xii. 20-24), and His confidence as to the redemptive power of His own death (xii. 31-33; xvi. 33), His practical message of the Vine and its branches (xv. 1-10), His words that point the mourner upwards to the Father’s house (xiv. 1-3), the intercessory prayer that reveals the very depths of His heart (xvii.), on to the Prætorium, the scourging and the Cross (xviii. 28-xix. 30), the conviction grows upon us that “never man spake like this Man.” “Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ.”

Before such a conviction questions of date and authorship are of very secondary importance. Those who desire to study the subject in detail may be referred to Angus and Green’s Bible Handbook, Buckland’s Universal Bible Dictionary, the books on St. John’s Gospel by Sanday, Luthardt, and Westcott, and a booklet by Dean Armitage Robinson on The Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel. It is enough to say here that the evidence seems overwhelming that the book was written by John “the beloved disciple,” and that its date was probably the last decade of the first century.

“The Synoptic Gospels contain the Gospel of the infant Church; that of St. John the Gospel of its maturity. . . . It is possible, in a more limited sense, to describe the first as historical, and the last as ideal. . . . It is an Epic, because it is the divine reflection of the Life of the Son of God, not taken in a special aspect, but as the Word manifested to men” (Westcott: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Chap. V.).

I in the beginning. A manifest reference to Gen. i. 1; meaning that before anything was made, the Word already “was.” The reference to the creation seems to be kept up in vers. 4, 5.

the Word. John alone employs this term to designate the Son of God; but he employs it without explanation, as one which had already come into use in such a sense as to make it the most suitable word which he could adopt. The term (Greek, Logos) is found in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish Platonist (about 20 B.C.-A.D. 40), whose writings were exercising a powerful influence in Egypt and throughout the East. Its equivalent in the Aramaic language (Memra) was familiar to the Jewish theologians, being constantly employed in the Targums, or paraphrases of the Old Testament, as equivalent to God Himself. Thus the covenant of Jacob at Bethel, according to the Jewish paraphrast, is that “the Word of Jehovah should be his God” (Gen. xxviii. 21). A “word” is the expression, the revelation of thought. So Christ reveals the Father. The Logos of Philo was impersonal; the Memra of the Jewish divines was a personification only; the Word of the evangelist is essentially personal.

with God. “The Word” is closely united with the Divine nature, and is partaker of the Godhead absolutely, without restriction or qualification. Yet in this union there is a distinction (2), not in offices and actions only, but subsisting “in the beginning,” before any external Divine act—an eternal intercommunion. The words here used are opposed at once to the denial of our Lord’s proper Deity (Socinianism), and to the confusion of “Persons” in the Godhead (Sabellianism).

3 by Him. Rather, “through Him”; i.e., by His agency; and so in ver. 17.

4 in Him was life. Life was in Him as in its source, whence all life is derived; and especially man’s life. And this life is also light; for without knowledge, purity, and joy (of which light is the symbol) man does not really live.

5 the darkness comprehended it not. Another rendering of the passage substitutes the word “overcame” for “apprehended”: in which case it would refer to the impotence of darkness to quench the light (Westcott).

6. There was. R.V., “There came”; or “there arose, became”; contrasted with was in ver. 1. The “man” sent, is further contrasted with “the Word” who was in the world.

John. Never called “the Baptist” in this Gospel. On the other hand, the evangelist never speaks of himself by name.

7 for a witness. “For witness” R.V.; “for the purpose of witnessing” (Moffatt).

through him. That is, through John.

9 [That] was the true Light, etc. The phrase, “that cometh (coming) into the world” may grammatically refer either to “light,” or to “every man.” R.V. marg. renders, “The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” “True,” here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel, means original, real, and therefore also permanent and universal. John “was the burning and shining lamp” (v. 35); but neither his origin nor his powers fitted him to be “the true Light” of “every man.”

10. He was in the world. Contrasted with “He came,” in the next verse. In “the world,” He was from the beginning, yet unrecognised. Luther translates: “Es war” (“it was”) connecting “it” with “light” (v. 9), which is a neuter noun in the Greek.

11. He came unto His own (house or inheritance), and His own (people), etc. Referring to His incarnation. His own chosen people of Israel failed to acknowledge Him. Some, however, in all ages and in different nations, not by virtue of human will or human parentage, but under a Divine power, were led to receive Him, and thus obtained the privilege of being “sons of God” (12, 13).

12 power. Or, “the right” (R.V.).

the sons. Rather, “children.” The Incarnate Word was the “firstborn among many brethren.”

His name. His nature as revealed; the expression of which is in the name, “the Christ.”

13 born. Lit. “begotten,” R.V. marg.

14 was made flesh. Or, “became flesh” (R.V.). Flesh here stands for the human nature generally, including soul as well as body. The words, “dwelt (lit., ’tabernacled’) among us,” seem to refer to the dwelling of God among men, symbolised by the Shekinah, or visible “glory,” in the holy of holies. The glory beheld in Christ Jesus (1 John i. 2) was spiritual, “full of grace and truth.”

His glory. For particular instances see ii. 11; xi. 4, 40; and ep. Luke ix. 28-36, but His whole life was a revelation of His glory. This is one of the evangelist’s constant references to what he and his colleagues had “seen and heard,” as affording indisputable evidence of the truth of his testimony.

as of the only begotten, etc. Lit. (see R.V. marg.), “as of an only begotten from a Father.”

grace and truth. Cp. ver. 17, where “grace and truth” are opposed to the Mosaic Law.

15 is preferred before me. Or, “hath come to be before me.” Though He was after me in His ministry on earth, He was before me in dignity and pre-existence; and therefore now takes precedence of me.

16. And of His fulness, etc. This and the next two verses are the words, not of the Baptist, but of the evangelist.

grace for grace. “Grace in the place of grace”; one grace after another. This expression beautifully represents the inexhaustible “fulness” of Christ.

17 grace and truth. Truth: “the reality and substance of salvation, in contrast with the shadow” (Lange).

18 the only begotten Son. Although there is a variation in the reading here (“one who is God only begotten” or “the only begotten Son”), the sense, as Westcott (Speaker’s Commentary) sanely points out, is really not affected.

which is in the bosom. Indicating the eternal union between the Son and the Father: see note on Luke xvi. 22; also xiii. 23

19 the Jews. The term, “the Jews,” is often used by John for the stricter portion of the Jewish people, as distinguished from “the multitude,” the mass of the community. The “Jews” were accordingly in general Pharisees, and opponents of Christ.

21. I am not. In the sense in which the Jews used the word, he was not Elijah, whom they expected to return in person (see Matt. xvii. 10). John came, indeed, in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke i. 17, and note); ep. Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 11; Malachi iv. 5.

that prophet (“the prophet”). See Deut. xviii. 15-18; from which some of the Jews inferred that one of their prophets would return, either as the Messiah or as His attendant: see Matt. xvi. 14; and note.

27 whose shoe’s latchet, etc. See note on Matt. iii. 11.

28. Bethabara. All the best manuscripts have “Bethany,” instead of Bethabara. The words, “beyond Jordan,” distinguish it from the Bethany near Jerusalem.

29 the Lamb. Isaiah (liii. 7) had likened the Messiah in His death to a lamb, with which the people were already familiar as a Divinely appointed sacrificial victim, both in the daily offering (Exod. xxix. 38, 39), and also in the Passover (Exod. xii.), which the evangelist distinctly connects with our Lord’s death (xix. 36). John

taketh away. Or, “beareth”; probably including both ideas: “taketh away, by Himself bearing”: see Isa. liii. 5.

the sin of the world. “Sin” collectively “regarded in its unity, as the common corruption of humanity” (Westcott).

31. I knew him not.** I is emphatic. Even I, although His forerunner, did not know Him. Whether John, living in the hill-country of Judæa, was personally acquainted with Jesus in Nazareth previously to His baptism, is quite uncertain; in any case, it was not until he saw the appointed sign that he was assured that Jesus was the Messiah.

manifest. Partly by the descent of the Spirit upon Him in baptism, partly by John’s consequent testimony.

32. It abode upon Him.** Implying permanence.

34 the Son of God. Referring to the voice which accompanied the descent of the Holy Spirit (Matt. iii. 17).

35 two of his disciples. One was Andrew (40), the other undoubtedly John himself, who avoids the mention of his own name throughout his Gospel. The whole narrative bears the marks of an eye-witness.

37 followed Jesus. Apparently walking after Him (38), as if they wished to overtake and converse with Him.

38. Master.** “Master” is the old English for Teacher. Jesus had asked, What seek ye? The answer of the disciples makes the object of the quest to be personai: “We are seeking Thee!”

39. Come and see.** A better reading has, “Come, and ye shall see.”

the tenth hour. An apparent discrepancy between Mark xv. 25 and John xix. 14 suggests that John reckons the hours from midnight and noon, according to one of the Roman methods, so as to make this ten o’clock a.m.: see notes on iv. 6, 52, and xix. 14. The two disciples seem to have remained with Jesus the greater part of the day. What they then saw and heard confirmed their belief that He was the Messiah (41). Before the day was over, Andrew had found Simon and brought him to Christ.

41. He first findeth.** Or, “He is the first to find”; i.e., probably, before John found his own brother James. It is an emphatic statement, that Simon was brought to Jesus originally through his brother’s efforts. Andrew is thrice mentioned as bringing others to Christ (see vi. 8; xii. 22); and hardly in any other connexion.

42 when Jesus beheld him. The Greek verb is the same as that which is used in ver. 36, and suggests an intense or penetrating look.

Cephas. The Aramaic name “Cephas,” like the Greek name “Peter,” means a rock. This new name indicated our Lord’s Divine knowledge of Simon’s character and future service: see note on Matt. xvi. 18.

43. Follow me.** That is, Become my disciple. This did not yet involve constant attendance upon Jesus, to which the disciples were afterwards called. The whole foregoing section relates to an earlier call than Matt. iv. 18-22 and parallel passages.

44. Bethsaida.** See note on Matt. xi. 21. Peter was shortly afterwards living in Capernaum (Matt. viii. 5, 14).

45. Nathanael.** Nathanael is described in xxi. 2 as “of Cana in Galilee”; where Jesus was two days afterwards (ii. 1), and perhaps at this time. Nathanael is generally supposed to have been the same as Bartholomew: see note on Matt. x. 3.

46. Nazareth.** See notes on Matt. ii. 23. From the speaker’s point of view, the question was not unreasonable.

47 an Israelite indeed. One of the true Israel—a real, faithful, prayerful servant of God.

48 under the fig tree. The suggestion is that of quiet meditation. Cp. 1 Kings iv. 25, and similar passages.

49. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, etc.** Nathanael’s admiring confession shows his certain conviction that no human eye could have witnessed his retirement (50).

51. Verily, verily.** The phrase, “Verily, verily” or “truly, truly” (Gr. “Amen, amen”) is peculiar to John. “The ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you’ of the Lord, answers to the ‘Thus saith the LORD’ of the prophets” (Stier).

I say unto you. “You” is plural, meaning all the disciples.

Hereafter. The best authorities omit this word. heaven open (the heaven opened), etc. These words manifestly allude to Jacob’s vision (see Gen. xxviii. 12). You shall behold such a communication opened between heaven and me, the representative of man, the true Israel, as may be illustrated by that supernatural vision; angels “ascending” as though charged with the prayers of the faithful, and “descending” with the answers. On the title, “Son of man,” as applied by our Lord to Himself, see note on Matt. viii. 20.

purifying. See Mark vii. 2, 3, and notes.

firkins. The “firkin” probably contained nearly nine gallons; so that each vessel held at least twenty gallons, and their total contents would not be less than 120 gallons. Some have supposed that the “drawing out,” i.e., from the well, as the word used appears to signify, was subsequent to the vessels being filled.