John 1

WKelly

‹ Chapter 0 John — All Chapters Chapter 2 ›

John 1:1-51

JOHN - THE FIRST CHAPTER John 1:1-5. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word, the expression of the Godhead, has eternal being, distinct personality and proper Deity, not merely Θειότης (Romans 1:20), but Θεότης (Colossians 2:9). We see One Who was before time began. It is not even the beginning of creation, but before then, when the Word was with God before all things were made by Him. Look back as we may before creation, the Word was-not ἐγένετο, existed, as One that had commenced to be, but ἦν, was, the Word increase-yea, the Creator. Further, He “was with God,” not exactly here with the Father as such; for Scripture never speaks with such correlation. “The Word was with God.” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were there; but the Word was with God, “and the Word was God.” He was no creature, but essentially Divine, though not He alone Divine. Other Persons there were in the Godhead.9 “The same was in the beginning with God” (verse 2); not at a subsequent date, but “in the beginning,” when no creature had commenced its existence. For this truth we are entirely indebted to God. Who could speak of such things but God? It is He Who uses John to write, and all He says is worthy of implicit faith. The Word “was in the beginning with God.” His personality was eternal, no less than His nature or being. He was no mere emanation, as the Indo-Aryans dreamed in the earliest form of their thoughts known to us.

For God thus was not really supreme and free, but subject to restraint necessarily incompatible with sovereignty, and ever tending to that pantheism which, making the universe to be God, denies the only true God. Thus, He was merely Tad (That), an abstract energy, yet not in self-sufficiency, but in longing for others to emanate-Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer. In the Hindu system developed later, as the Divinity was thus imaginatively resolved into emanations, so is the universe itself pantheistically to be an emanation rather than a creation formed by Divine will, power, and design. All is flux and illusion. What a contrast is its Triad with the Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God! And its Avataras, even that of Krishna, late as the legend rose, how remote from the Incarnation!

Thereby God and man stand for ever united in one Person, by His death the Reconciler of all creation, heavenly and earthly, and of those who by grace are to reign with Him over all things to the glory of God the Father.* “I cannot but regard John 1:2 as a striking and complete setting aside of the Alexandrian and Patristic distinction of λόγοςἐνδίαθετος and λόγοςπροφορικός. Some of the earlier Greek fathers, who were infected with Platonism, held that the λόγος was conceived in God’s mind from eternity, and only uttered, as it were, in time. This has given a handle to Arians, who, like other unbelievers, greedily seek the traditions of men. The apostle here asserts, in the Holy Ghost, the eternal personality of the Word with God” (“Lectures on the Gospels,” p. 409, note). Then as an added and after communication we are told that “all things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made which hath been made” (verse 3). The Word was not made, but Himself made all. The Word is the Creator of all that has had a derived being. He created all. No creature received being apart from Him. The Word was the agent. Had He not been God, this must have been a work impossible to Him.

Had He not been “in the beginning with God,” it could not have been in any special way attributed to Him, the eternal Word. But creation is here affirmed as His work, not in a positive way only, but without exception for every creature. So in Colossians 1:16-17 we are told that “by ( ἐν, in virtue of) Him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities; all things have been created through Him, and for Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist (or, are held together).” What repeated and irrefutable proofs of Deity!† *I think the remark not only unhappy but worthy of reprobation, wherein it is said that evil itself implicitly (and not all matter only) was made by the Word. This is false philosophy, the Hegelianism even of many who oppose Hegel. Evil has nothing to do with creation, save as it is an inconsistency with it. The question now is not of evil in the sense of physical punishment; for this is pre-eminently sent of God. But moral evil in any being is a contradiction of the relationship in which God set that being. It is therefore neither in God nor of God, being failure relative to what previously existed as the fruit of God’s pleasure, Who nevertheless permits it in view of government and redemption.

Thus the angels left their first estate. Satan stood (or stands) not in the truth, and Adam fell from his original innocence. This is in no way a limitation of Divine power; but, contrariwise, the error I am combating does limit His goodness or His truth. Impossible that there can be in or from God the contrary of what He is, and He is good, He only; in the creature it can easily be, and it is, where creation is not sustained by God, or delivered by His grace. †Cf. “Notes on Colossians,” pp. 19-21. Each of these scriptures gives us precise instruction of the highest kind. Even Gen. 1, though it points in verses 1 and 2 to states of creation indefinitely anterior to Adam, only begins with John 1:3. But of the details that followed in time no scripture gives us such complete information. What was before creation is wholly omitted by Moses. John 1:1-2 shows us eternity before creation, as well as creation itself (verse 3), in the most precise terms.9a But there is much more than the power of an eternal Being. For we come now to a thing higher and more intimate: not to what was brought into being 9b through Him, but to what was in Him. “This is the true God and eternal life” (John 5:20). “In him was life.”* The only life here noticed is that which, being eternal, is capable of knowing, enjoying, serving, and worshipping God, suited to His presence, and to be there for ever. Believers have life; but it is in the Son, not in them, but in Him. Here, however, it is not pursued beyond its source in Him; its communication will soon follow in due course. The Spirit is occupied with the character of His person. Only He adds at this point the deeply interesting announcement, “and the life was the light of men” (verse 4).11 Not angels but men were the object.

He does not say life, but light of men. The life was only for those that believe in His name: the light goes far beyond. That which makes manifest is light. So in Prov. 8, the beautiful introduction of Wisdom, Whom Jehovah possessed in the beginning of His way before His works of old, not more His delight than Wisdom’s delights were with the sons of men. The arrangement of verses 3, 4, which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westeott and Hort [“Notes on Select Readings,” p. 73 f.] prefer (partly because of the absence of interpunction in some very ancient MSS., partly because some copies, versions, and fathers, expressly so take it), is ὃγέγονενἐναὐτῳζωὴἦν . So ACpmDGpmL, Vulg. Syrcu Sahid. But with Tischendorf and others [as Weiss and Blass]10 I unqualifiedly decide for a colon or full-stop after γέγονεν , and begin a new sentence with ἐναὐτῳζωὴἦν . [So Weiss after CcorrEGHKM Syrpesch hcl.] There is an intended contradistinction between what was made or brought into being through the Word with life in Him, which is lost when the new sentence begins with ὃγέγ . Is it not false doctrine so to reduce life in the Word? Further it is not Johannean, if grammatical, to take γέγονενἐναὐτῳ as “made by him.” Again, this life, which would mean the living universe (in itself a strange, unscriptural, and senseless phrase), must then be the light of men, contrary to the express teaching, just after, that the Word exclusively was the light. On the other hand, the phrase, as it usually stands, is in the fullest harmony with the style of the evangelist elsewhere, as Dean Alford has pointed out. But men, in fact, were in a fallen condition, and at a distance from God; and so it is intimated here that a worse darkness reigned than the gloom which covered the deep before the six days’ work began. “And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended [that is, apprehended] it not” (verse 5). Darkness is neither the mother of all, as the heathen said, nor a malignant Demiurge, the never-ceasing opponent of the good Lord of light. It is really the moral condition of man, fallen as he is, a negation of the light, differing wholly from the physical reality, inasmuch as it is of itself unaffected by light. Grace only, as we shall see by and by, can deal effectually with the difficulty. See footnote on verse 16. Here it may be noticed that John does not discourse of life absolutely, but of life in the Word, which life is affirmed to be the Light of men. It is exclusive of other objects-at least, the proposition goes not beyond men. So in Col. 1 Christ is said to be the image of the invisible God, Who is here only revealed to perfection in man and to men. He is the light of men, and there is no other: for if man has what scripture calls light, he has it only in the Word, Who is the life. Beyond controversy God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all; but He dwells in unapproachable light, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. Not so with the Word of Whom we are reading. “The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” Observe the striking precision of the phrases. It appears in darkness-such is its nature; “it shines,” not “it shone”; whereas the abstract form is changed for the historical, when we are told that the darkness apprehended it not. Thus we have had the Spirit’s statement of the Word, as related first to God, next to creation, lastly to men, with a solemn sentence on their moral state in relation to the light, and not merely to life. John 1:6-8. We are next presented with John sent from God to testify of the light. “There was a man sent from God-his name John. The same came for witness that he might witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but that he might witness about the Light.” God, Who is Love, was active in His goodness to draw attention to the Light; for deep was man’s need. Hence there was a man sent from Him-his name John.12 He, as we are told elsewhere, was the burning and shining lamp ( ὁλυχνος); but the Word was the Light concerning Whom he came to bear witness. For his mission is here viewed in relation, not to the law or any legal purpose, but to the Light (and hence its scope is far beyond Israel), that he might witness concerning the Light, that all 12a might believe through him. It is a question of personal faith in the Saviour, not merely of moral exhortation to the multitude, tax-gatherers, soldiers, or any others, as in the Gospel of Luke. Every scripture is perfect, and perfectly adapted to the Divine purpose of glorifying Jesus. John 1:9-13. The Light is here the object of God’s gracious purpose. John is but an instrument and witness; he was not the Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light. “The true Light was that (or, He was the true Light) which, coming into the world, lighteth every man,” in exclusion of Philonism and Platonism, as we have seen before of eternal matter and Manicheism. The law dealt with those under it-that is, with Israel; the Light, on coming into the world-a cardinal point in the teaching of our Apostle -casts its light on every man. Coming, or a comer, into the world is used by the Rabbis for birth as man; but for this very reason it would be the merest tautology if viewed in apposition with π. ἄνθρ. “every man.” It qualifies the relative, and affirms that as incarnate the true Light lights every man-that is, sheds light on him. *There seems to be no force in taking ἦν with ἐρχόμενον as equivalent to an imperfect “came,” even if an independent clause such as ὃφ. π. ἆνθρ. might legitimately come between the verb and the participle; which, as far as I know, has not yet been produced, Mark 2:18 (which Lόcke advances and Alford approves) being in no way parallel. But were it so, where is the propriety of telling us in this wondrous prologue, where each brief clause-yea, word-is brimful of the profoundest truth, that the true Light which lights every man was in process of coming (not of manifesting Himself, which is quite another thought) into the world? On the other hand, the construction given in the Authorised Version, though vouched by ancient translations, Western and Eastern, and even by Greek fathers, seems not really admissible. It would require the article with ἐρχόμενον . The anarthrous participle does not mean “that cometh,” but “as” or “on coming,” which could have no proper meaning in connection with ἄνθρωπον . For how strange the doctrine resulting, that every man on coming into the world of darkness has or receives the light of Christ!

With ὃ it teaches a momentous truth, and this extinguishing, not suggesting, the Quaker idea. For it is the Word in His own nature, not an inward light, Who pours it on every man. He alone coming here is the true Light for man, and sheds it on all, high or low, Jew or Greek. It is like the sun’s light for all mankind, but in a spiritual way.13 The result, however, in itself is, and can only be, condemnation by reason of opposition of nature; for, as we are told, “He was in the world, and the world was made (or, brought into being) through Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; but as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those that believe on His name; who were born not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s ( ἀνδρὸς) will, but of God.” What infinite and loving condescension that He, the eternal Word, the true Light, should be in the world 14-the world which receiveth its being from Him! How dense its ignorance that the world knew Him not, its Creator! But He had one place on earth which He was pleased to regard as His own peculiar 15: there He came; and His own people (it is not said knew Him not, but) received Him not! It was rejection, not ignorance. This prepared the way for the manifestation of a new thing, men from out of the ruined world separated to a new and incomparably nearer relationship with God, to whom, as many as received Christ (for it is no question of “every man” here), He gave right or title to enter the place of God’s children, to those that believe on His name. Nor is this a mere external position of honour, into which sovereignty might choose, so as to maintain by adoption family name and grandeur. It is a real communication of life and nature, a living birth-tie.16 They were τέκναΘεοῦ , God’s children. It is not that they had been better than others. They had been once alienated, and enemies in mind by wicked works. They believed on Christ’s name; they were born of God.

It was a work of Divine grace through faith. Receiving the Word, they were begotten of God. Natural generation from either side, effort of one’s own, influence of another however exalted, had no place here. John nowhere describes believers as υἱοὶ but as τέκνα , for his point is life in Christ rather than the counsels of God by redemption. Paul, on the other hand (as in Rom. 8), calls us both υἱοὺς and τέκναΘεοῦ , because he is setting forth alike the high place given us now in contrast with bondage under the law, and also the intimacy of our relationship as children of God. On the other hand, it is notable that Jesus is never called τέκνον (though as Messiah He is styled παῖς , or Servant), but υἱός . He is the Son, the Only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, but not τέκνον as if He were born of God as we are. Thus it is the name of nearest but derived relationship. This is quite confirmed by the immediately following statement of John, “who were born . . . of God.” So indeed it will be seen invariably elsewhere, despite the Authorised Version, which wrongly represents τέκνα by “sons” in his First Epistle, (1 John 3).

They believe on His name, after the manifestation of what the Word is.17 Every creature source is shut out, as well as all previous relationship closed and done with; a new race is brought in. They were men of course, and cease not to be men as a fact; but they are born afresh spiritually, born of God most truly, partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1) in this sense, as deriving their new life from God. Life, as we may observe ever throughout the writings of John and Paul, is wholly distinct from simple existence. It is the possession of that Divine character of being, which in the Son never had a beginning, for He was the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. He is our life; because He lives, we also live. It is true in Him and in us: in Him essentially, in us derivatively through grace; yet this is not so as to be for a moment independent of Him, but in Him. Still we have the life now; nowhere is it taught that we shall be born of God, only that as believers we are. “Begotten” now, as distinct from “born,” is false, absurd, and without a shadow of scripture to support it. John 1:14-18. From the revelation of the Word in His own intrinsic nature, we now turn to His actual manifestation as man here below. The Incarnation is brought before us, the full revelation of God to man and in man. “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only-begotten from beside a father), full of grace and truth.” Here it is not what the Word was, but what He became. He was God; He became flesh18 and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. It was no transient vision, however momentous, as on the holy mount. It was a contemplation 19 of His glory vouchsafed to His witnesses, not of an earthly conqueror, nor Messianic even, but glory 20 as of an only-begotten from beside a father.21 No sword girds His thigh, no riding to victory, no terrible things in righteousness: the incarnate Word dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. Such is He that was in and from the beginning, and thus known. He was the King undoubtedly, but not so portrayed here. He is infinitely more than King, even God, yet God on earth, man dwelling among men, full of grace and truth. So only could God be displayed, unless in judgment which had left no hope, but only destroyed to the bitter end at once and unreservedly.

For infinitely different purposes had He come, as this passage itself declares in due season, perfectly knowing and feeling the universal evil of man. He tabernacled among us full of grace and truth. It was not a visit or a theophany, as in O.T. experiences. So He here manifested God, Who is love. But grace is more; it is love in the midst of evil, rising above it, going down under it, overcoming it with good. And such was Jesus, sojourning on earth, full of truth withal; for otherwise grace was no more grace, but a base imitation, and most ruinous both for God and to man. Not such was Jesus, but full of grace and truth, and in this order, too. For grace brings in the truth and enables souls to receive truth and to bear it, themselves as sinners judged by it. He, and He only, was full of grace and truth. To make it known, to make God Himself thus known, He came. For as grace is the activity of Divine love in the midst of evil,22 so truth is the revelation of all things as they really are, from God Himself and His ways and counsels down to man and every thought and feeling as well as word and work of man-yea, of every invisible agency for good or evil throughout all time, and throughout all eternity.* So He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. *See further, exposition below of Joh 14:6. Nor did God fail to render testimony to Him thus. “John witnesseth about Him, and hath cried, saying, This was He of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me, for He was before me” (verse 15). Most strikingly is John introduced with his testimony in each of the great divisions of the chapter. Before it was to the abstract revelation of the Light. Here it is to His actual presentation to the world, and as it is historical, so we have what John cries, not merely a description as before. He says, “This was He of whom I said,” etc. The coming of Jesus after John was no derogation from His glory, but the very contrary.

No greater prophet than John the Baptist had arisen among those born of women. But Jesus is God. If He was pleased therefore to come after John in time, He had become incomparably before him in place and title; nay, He was really before him, but this only because He is Divine. The last verse (15) appears to be a parenthesis, however full of instruction. But the direct line of truth runs, “full of grace and truth . . . and of His fulness all we received, and grace for grace” (verse 16). An astonishing truth! He is the gift and the giver-full of grace and truth; and of His fulness did we all receive.* Such is the portion of the least believer. The strongest is only the stronger, because he better appreciates Him. For there is no blessing outside Him, and consequently no lack for the soul that possesses Jesus. If the Colossian saints, if any others, seek to add any other thing to the Lord, it is a real loss, not gain. It is but to add what detracts from Him. For Christ is all ( τὰπ.), and in all. *Before our apostle died Gnosticism was sowing its baneful seeds, it would seem even before St. Paul’s death. Early in the second century we know that Basileides had developed the system so far as to separate Jesus from Christ, the latter an emanation [“AEon”] from God united to Jesus at His baptism, and returning to the Fulness on high before His death on the cross.23 Thus the Incarnation was annulled no less than the Atonement. But even Christ in this impious reverie was not the true God, but only an emanation, sent to make known the good God, and expose the Demiurge [Jehovah], who made the world, with all its evils, inseparable from matter. One readily sees how the doctrine of the apostles outs off by anticipation this irreverent and destructive falsehood by stating the simple truth of Christ’s Person and work, though only the germs may have then appeared. The expression “and grace for grace” has perplexed many, but without much reason; for an analogous phrase occurs, even in profane authors not infrequently, which ought to satisfy any inquirer that it simply means grace upon grace,24 one succeeding to another without stint or failure-superabundance of grace, and not a mere literal notion of grace in us answering to grace in Him. It will be noticed, further, that scripture speaks of grace upon grace, not truth upon truth, which last would be wholly unsuitable; for the truth is one, and cannot be so spoken of. The same apostle wrote even to the babes, not because they did not know the truth, but because they do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. The unction, which they, in fact, received from Him, teaches them as to all things, and is true, and is not a lie. But as grace brings the truth, so the truth exercises in grace. How blessed that of His fulness all we received, and grace for grace! Wholly different was seen at Sinai, “for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (verse 17). Not that the law is sin. Far be the thought. It is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. But it is altogether impotent to deliver man or to reveal God. It has neither life to give nor object to make known.

It requires from man what he ought to render both to God and to his fellows; but in vain is it required from man, already a sinner before the law was given. For sin entered the world through Adam no less surely than the law was given through Moses. Man fell and was lost; none could bring eternal life but Jesus Christ the Lord.25 Even this was wholly unavailable to man without His death in expiation of sin. Here, however, we have not yet reached the work of Christ, nor the message of grace that goes out to the world grounded on it in the gospel, but His Person in the world; and to this the testimony is “grace and truth came (ἐγένετο) through Jesus Christ.” There, and there only, was the Divine love superior to man’s evil; there, and there only, was everything revealed, and in its due relation to God, for such is the truth. Truly Jesus is a Divine Saviour. But there is yet more than this. God Himself must be known, not merely fulness of blessing come in Christ, or souls be brought into the blessing by redemption. Yet man as such is incapable of knowing God. How is this difficulty to be solved? “No one hath seen God at any time: the* only begotten Son† Who is in the bosom of the Father-He declared (Him)” (verse 18). Thus only can God be known as He is, for Christ is the truth, the revealer and revelation of God, as of everything in God’s sight. Nowhere does scripture say with rationalists and, one regrets to add, with theologians, that God is the truth.26a Not so: God is the “I AM,” the self-subsisting One; He is light, He is love.

But Christ is the truth objectively, as the Spirit is in power, working in man. And Christ has declared God, as One Who as the Son is in the bosom of the Father, not Who was, as if He had left it; as He left the glory and is now gone back into glory as man. He never left the Father’s bosom. It is His constant place, and His peculiar mode of relationship with the Father. Hence we by the Holy Ghost are in grace privileged to know God, even as the Son declared Him, Who perfectly, infinitely, enjoyed love in that relationship from everlasting and to everlasting. Into what a circle of Divine association does He not introduce us!

It is not the Light of men, not yet the Word acting, or becoming flesh, but the only begotten Son Who is in the Father’s bosom, declaring Him according to His own competency of nature and the fulness of His own intimacy with the Father. Even John Baptist, as having his origin in the earth, was of the earth and spoke as of it.26b Jesus alone of men could be said to come out of heaven and be above all, testifying what He had seen and heard, as the Holy Spirit also does. It was for Him to declare God, and this in His own proper relationship.

ὁ omitted by KpmBCpmL. †BCpmL, 33, Syrr. , not cu. AEth. Rom have the strange reading θεὸς, God, which Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt,the latter having written a learned monograph in its defence. [So Weiss and Zahn.] As the variant seems to be out of all correlation to “Father,” the weight of evidence is against it. [Blass reads “the only begotten, who,” etc., with corrA, etc. See further Note 26 in Appendix.] If the verses which precede comprise the Divine preface, the sections which follow may be viewed as an introduction. The Baptist, in answer to the inquiring deputation, gives an explicit, though in the first place negative, testimony to the Lord Jesus. A singularly fitted vessel of witness to the Messiah, as he was himself filled by the Spirit from his mother’s womb, he was sustained as scarce another had ever been in nothing but the function of making straight the way of Jehovah.27 John 1:19-28. “And this is the witness of John when the Jews28 sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites that they might ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not, and confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet?

And he answered, No. They said therefore to him, Who art thou, that we may give an answer to those that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I (am the) voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of Jehovah, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they were sent from among the Pharisees; and they asked him and said to him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with ( ἐν) water: in the midst of you standeth, Whom ye know not, He who cometh after me, of Whom I am not worthy to unloose the thong of His sandal.

These things took place in Bethany,* across the Jordan where John was baptizing.” *The best reading according to ancient authorities is Βηθανία (pm ABCpm ΓΛΠ pm more than a hundred and thirty cursives, and many ancient versions), not Βηθαβαρα or Βηθαραβᾶ. It was not the well-known village near Jerusalem, but another district of the same name beyond the Jordan.29 Thus did God take care to rouse a general expectancy of the Messiah in the minds of His people, and to send them the fullest witness. And never was there a more strictly independent witness than John, born and brought up and kept till the fit moment to testify of the Messiah. For while the minute questions of those sent by the Jews from Jerusalem show how men’s minds were then exercised, how they wished to ascertain the real character and aim of the mysterious Israelite, himself of priestly lineage, and thereby, as they ought to have known excluded from the Messianic title, there was no vagueness in the reply. John was not the Anointed. This was the main aim of their search; and our Gospel very simply and fully attests his reply. There is somewhat of difficulty in the next answer. For when asked, “Art thou Elijah?” he says, “I am not.” How is this denial from the lip of John himself to be reconciled with the Lord’s own testimony to His servant in Matthew 17:11-12? “Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say to you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.” And they were right. The key appears to lie in Matthew 11:14: “And if ye will receive it” (says the Lord in vindicating John at a time when, if ever, he seemed to waver in his testimony; for who but One is the Faithful Witness?) “this is Elijah which was [lit. is] to come.” Such a word, however, needed ears to hear.

Like the Lord (Son of man no less than Messiah), his testimony and his lot were to be in unison with an advent in shame and sorrow as well as in power and glory. The Jews naturally cared only for the latter; but, to avail not only for God, but for the true wants of man, first must Jesus suffer before He is glorified, and comes again in power. So Elijah came to faith (“if ye will receive it”) in the Baptist, who testified in humiliation and with results in man’s eyes scanty and evanescent. But Elijah will come in a manner consonant with the return of the Lord to deliver Israel and bless the world under His reign. To the Jew, who only looked at the external, he was not come. To point to the Baptist would have seemed mockery; for if they had no apprehension of God’s secrets or His ways, if they saw no beauty in the humbled Master, what would it avail to speak of the servant?

The disciples, feeble though they might be, enter into the truths hidden from men, and are given to see beneath the surface the true style of the servant and of the Master to faith. Nevertheless John does take his stand of witness to Jesus, to His personal and Divine glory; and to this end, when challenged who he was, applies to himself in every Gospel the prophetic oracle attached to him: “I (am the) voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of Jehovah.“30 Jesus was Jehovah, John no more than a voice in the desolation of the earth-yea, of Israel-to prepare the way before Him. They further inquire why he baptized if neither the Messiah, nor Elijah (that is, the immediate precursor of the kingdom in power and glory over the earth-Mal. 4), nor the prophet (that is, according to Deut. 18, which, however, the apostle Peter in Acts 3 as clearly applies to the Lord Jesus, as the Jews seem to have then alienated it from the Messiah).31 This gives John the occasion to render another testimony to Christ’s glory; for his answer is, that he himself baptized with water; but there stands 32 among them, yet unknown to them, One coming after, Whose sandal-thong he was not worthy to unloose. It is evident that John’s baptism had a serious import in men’s minds, since, without a single sign or other miracle, it awakened the question whether the Baptist were the Christ. It intimated the close of the old state of things and a new position, instead of being the familiar practice which traditionalists would make it. On the other hand, scripture is equally plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism: so much so that disciples previously baptized with John’s baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19). The Reformers and others are singularly unintelligent in denying this difference, which is not only important but plain and certain. Think of Calvin’s calling it a foolish mistake, into which some had been led, of supposing that John’s baptism was different from ours! The confession of a coming Messiah widely differs from that of His death and resurrection; and this is the root of differences which involve weighty consequences. From verses 19 to 28 John the Baptist does not rise beyond what was Jewish and dispensational. The next paragraph brings before us the testimony which he rendered when he saw Jesus approaching. And here we have Christ’s work viewed in all the extent of gracious power which might be expected in the Gospel devoted to showing out the glory of His Person. John 1:29-34. “On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” There was no image more familiar to a Jew’s mind than that of the lamb. It was the daily sacrifice of Israel, morning and evening. Besides, the paschal lamb was the pledge for the fundamental peace of the year; even as its first institution was coeval with the departure of the sons of Israel from the house of bondage. We can understand, therefore, what thoughts and feelings must have crowded on the heart of those who looked for a Saviour now, when Jesus was thus attested by His forerunner, “Behold the Lamb of God.” In the Book of Revelation He is frequently viewed as the Lamb, but there with a pointedly different word (ὰρνίον), the holy earth-rejected Sufferer, in contrast with the ravening wild beasts, civil or religious instruments of Satan’s power in the world (chapter 13). Here the idea seems to centre not so much in the slain One exalted on high as in the sacrifice: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” John does not say “that will take,” still less “that has taken”; nor does the notion seem at all tenable that He was then taking sin away.33 It is, as frequently in John and elsewhere, the abstract form of speech; and the meaning should be understood in its fullest extent, irrespective of the time of its accomplishment. There was the Person, and this His work. Thus the testimony looks onward to the effects of the death of Christ as a whole; but these were not to appear all at once. The first result was to be the gospel, the message of remission of sins to every believer. Instead of the sin of the world only being before God, the blood of the Lamb is set; and God could therefore meet the world in grace, not in judgment. Not only was love come in Christ’s Person as during His life, but now the blood also shed whereby God could cleanse the foulest; and the gospel is to every creature God’s proclamation of His readiness to receive all, and of His perfectly cleansing all who do receive Christ. In fact, only those that are His now, the Church, receive Him; but the testimony is sent forth to all the creation. When Christ comes again in His kingdom, there will be a further result; for all creation will then be delivered from the bondage of corruption, and Israel will at length look upon the Messiah Whom they pierced in their blind unbelief. The blessing resulting from the sacrifice of Christ will then be far and wide extended, but not complete. Only the new heavens and new earth (and this exceeds the limited scope of the Jewish prophets, but is the full meaning which the Christian apostles give the words) will behold the ultimate fulfilment; and then indeed it will be seen how truly Jesus was “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” For then, and not till then, will sin have disappeared absolutely and all its active consequences. The wicked having been judged and cast for ever into the lake of fire, as well as Satan and his angels, righteousness will then be the footing of God’s relationship with the world, not sinlessness as at first, nor dealings in Christ in view of sin as since and now, but all things made new. Observe, however, that the Baptist does not say the “sins” of the world. What a fatality of error haunts men when they venture to handle the truth of God after a human sort! It is not only in sermons or books that one finds this common and grave blunder. The solemn liturgies of Romanism and Protestantism are alike wrong here. They alter and unconsciously falsify the word of God when directly referring to this scripture. In speaking of believers both the apostles Paul and Peter show that the Lord Himself bore their sins upon the cross.

Without this, indeed, there could be neither peace secured for the conscience nor a righteous basis for worshipping God, according to the efficacy of the work of Christ. The Christian is exhorted to come boldly into the holies by the blood of Jesus, which has, at the same time, purged his sins and brought himself nigh; but this is only true of the believer. In total contrast is the state and condition of the unbeliever, of every man in nature. He is far off, in guilt, in darkness, in death. The language of the liturgies confounds all this, according indeed to the practice of their worship; for the world is treated as the Church, and the Church as the world. Were Christ the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, all men would stand absolved before God, and might well therefore boldly approach and worship; but it is not so.

The blood is now shed for the sin of the world, so that the evangelist can go forth and preach the gospel and assure all who believe of pardon from God; but all who refuse must die in their sins, and only the more terribly be judged because they refused the message of grace. But God never forgets the personal dignity of the Lord Jesus here. Hence John the Baptist adds, “This is He of Whom I said, After me cometh a Man who is become before (or, hath taken precedence of) me, for He was before me.* And I knew Him not, but that He might be manifested to Israel, therefore came I baptizing with (ἐν) water” (verses 30, 31). There is no reference here to His Messianic judgment, as in other Gospels, which, on the other hand, are silent as regards a testimony like this to His glory. Undoubtedly also John did call souls in Israel to repent in view of the kingdom as at hand; but here the one object is the manifestation of Jesus to Israel. It is an absorbing topic of this Gospel indeed. The previous unacquaintance of the Baptist 34 with Jesus made his testimony so much the more solemn and emphatically of God; and whatever the inward conviction he had as the Lord came for baptism, it did not hinder the external sign nor the witness he bears to His Person and His work as he had borne before it. It is interesting and instructive to note that to the Pharisees John is silent (verse 27) as to Christ’s pre-existent eternity as the ground of His taking precedence of himself, though born after him. Compare verses 15, 30. Hence we read, “And John bore witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with (ἐν) water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him, this is He that baptizeth with (ἐν, the) Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God.“35 Such was the suited sign for the Saviour. Ravens might have been employed in God’s wisdom to feed the famished prophet at another dark day; but not such was the appearance of the Spirit descending from heaven to abide on Jesus. The dove only could be the proper form, emblematic of the spotless purity of Him on Whom He came. Yet did He come upon Him as man, but Jesus was man without sin; as truly man as any other, but how different from all before or after! He was the second Man in bright contrast with the first. And He is the last Adam: in vain does unbelief look for a higher development, overlooking Him in Whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Observe, again, the Spirit came before the death of the Lord Jesus. If Christ died, He died for others. If He suffered and became a sacrifice, it was not for Himself. Jesus needed no blood in order that He might subsequently be anointed with the holy oil. He was Himself the Holy One of God in that very nature which in every other case had dishonoured God. But if the Spirit abode on Him as man, this is He that baptizes with the Holy Spirit. None could so baptize but God. It were blasphemy to say otherwise. It is the fullest prerogative of a Divine Person so to act; and hence John the Baptist utterly disclaimed it, and in every Gospel points to Jesus only as the Baptizer by (ἐν) the Holy Ghost, as himself had come baptizing with water. It is the mighty work of Jesus from heaven, as He was the Lamb of God on the cross. Thus, though the immediate aim of John’s mission with baptism attached to it was for the manifestation of Jesus to Israel, he testifies to Him as the Lamb of God in relation to the world, the Eternal at whatever time He came (and surely it was the right moment, “the fulness of the time,” as the great apostle assures us-Galatians 4:4), not merely as the object of the Holy Ghost’s descent to abide on Him, but as baptizing with the Holy Ghost. “And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God.” Such was His everlasting relationship: not the Son of man Who must be lifted up if we are to have life eternal, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God. On the other hand, it is not here the Father declared by, or revealing Himself in, His only begotten Son, but God in view of the broad fact of the world’s sin, and Jesus His Lamb to take its sin away. So the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not quickening, but that power of the Spirit which acts on the life already possessed by the believer, separates from all that is of flesh and world, and sets in communion with God’s nature and glory as revealed in Christ. He was as man on earth, not only Son of God, but always conscious of it; we becoming so by faith in Him are rendered conscious of our relationship through the Holy Ghost given to us. Nevertheless even Him, as the Gospels show, the descent of the Spirit Who anointed Him placed in a new position here below. All here is public announcement and reaches the world in result.

pm Syrsin have “chosen,” followed by Blass. John 1:35-39. We have had before us John’s testimony reaching out far beyond the Messiah in Israel; we see now the effect of his ministry. “Again, on the morrow, stood John and two of his disciples; and looking at Jesus as He walked, he saith, Behold, the Lamb of God! and the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus. But Jesus, having turned and beheld them following, saith to them, What seek ye? And they said to Him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abidest Thou? He saith to them, Come and see. They went therefore† and saw where He abode, and abode with Him that day. It was about the tenth hour.” It is not the fullest or clearest statement of the truth which most acts on others.

Nothing tells so powerfully as the expression of the heart’s joy and delight in an object that is worthy. So it was now. “Looking at Jesus as He walked, he saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!” The greatest of woman born acknowledges the Saviour with unaffected homage, and His own disciples that heard Him speak follow Jesus. “He must increase, but I must decrease.” And so it ought to be. Not John, but Jesus, is the centre: a man, but God, for none other could be a centre without derogation from the Divine glory. Jesus maintains that place, but this as man too. Wonderful truth, and for man how precious and cheering! John was the servant of God’s purpose, and his mission was thus best executed when his disciples followed Jesus.

The Spirit of God supplants human and earthly motives. How, indeed, could it be otherwise if one really believed that He in His Person was God on earth? He must be the one exclusive and attractive centre for all that know Him; and John’s work was to prepare the way before Him. So here his ministry gathers to Jesus, sending from himself to the Lord. †ABCLTbXΛ, 33, Memph. read οὖν, which inferior witnesses omit. But if in the Gospel of Matthew the Lord has a city if not a home, which we can name, here in that of John it is unnoticed where He abode. The disciples heard His voice, came and saw where He abode, and abode with Him that day; but for others it is unnamed and unknown. We can understand that so it should be with One Who was not only God in man on earth, but this wholly rejected of the world. And so Divine life effects in those that are His: “therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not” (1 John 3:1). John 1:40-42. Nor does the work stop there or then. “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter,36 was one of the two that heard (it) from John and followed Him. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith to him, We have found the Messiah (which is interpreted Christ),37 and he led him to Jesus. Jesus, looking at him, said, Thou art Simon,38 the son of Jonah (or John);* thou shalt be called Kephas, which is interpreted Peter (or, Stone).“39 Deeply interesting are the glimpses at the first introduction to Jesus of those souls who receiving Him found life eternal in Him, and were called afterwards to be foundations of that new building which would supersede the old, God’s habitation in the Spirit. But all here concentrates in the Person of Jesus, to Whom Simon is brought by his brother, one of the first two whose souls were drawn to Him, however little yet they appreciated His glory. Yet was it a Divine work, and Simon’s coming was answered with a knowledge of past and present and future that told out Who and What He was, Who now spoke to man on earth in grace. So Edd. as BpmL., 33, several Latt. Memph. Ζth. “Jonah” is read in ABconXΓΛΛΙΙ. Syrpesch pcl and Armen. ΖthH., and Epiph. Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Here the same principle reappears. Jesus, the image of the invisible God, the only perfect manifestation of God, is the acknowledged centre beyond all rivalry. He was to die, as this Gospel relates (John 11), to gather in one the scattered children of God; as He will by and by gather all things in heaven and all things on earth under His headship (Ephesians 1:10). But then His Person could not but be the one centre of attraction to every one who saw by faith what He is entitled to be for every creature. Only He was come not only to declare God and show us the Father in Himself the Son, but to take all on the ground of His death and resurrection, having perfectly glorified God in respect of the sin which had ruined all; and thereon to take His place in heaven, the glorified Head over all things to the Church His body on earth, as we know now. On this, however, as involving the revelation of God’s counsels and of the mystery hidden from ages and from generations, we do not enter, as it would carry us rather to the Epistles of the apostle Paul, the vessel chosen for disclosing these heavenly wonders. Our business now is with John, who lets us see the Lord on earth, a man but very God, and so drawing to Himself the hearts of all taught of God. Had He not been God, it would have been robbery not only from God but sometimes also from man. But not so: all the fulness dwelt in Him-dwelt in Him bodily. He was therefore from the beginning the Divine centre for saints on earth, as afterwards when the exalted Man the centre on high, to Whom as Head the Spirit united them as members of His body. This last could not be till redemption made it possible according to grace, but on the basis of righteousness. What we see in John attaches to the glory of His Divine Person: otherwise to bring to Jesus would have been to separate from God, not to Him, as it is. But, in truth, He was and is the sole revealed centre, as He was and is the only full revealer of God, and this because He is the true God and life eternal, though He Who was manifested in flesh, and so meeting and winning man to God by His death. John 1:43-51. “On the morrow He would go forth into Galilee, and Jesus findeth Philip and saith to him, Follow me. Now Philip was from Bethsaida,40 of the city of Andrew and Peter.” It is an immense thing to be delivered by Jesus from the waste of one’s own will or from the attachment of the heart to the will of a man stronger than ourselves; an immense thing to know that we have found in Him, not the Messiah merely, but the centre of all God’s revelations, plans, and counsels, so that we are gathering with Him because we are gathering to Him. All else, whatever the plea or pretension, is but scattering, and therefore labour in vain, or worse. *The best copies do not read “Jesus” here, but in the next clause. But we need more, and find more in Jesus, Who deigns to be not only our centre, but our “way,” on earth indeed, but not of the world, as He is not. For such He is, no less than the truth and the life. What a blessing in such a world! It is now a wilderness where is no way. He is the way. Do we fear where to walk, what step to take?

Here are snares to seduce, there dangers to affright. Above them says the voice of Jesus, “Follow Me.” None other is safe. The best of His servants may err, as all have. But even were it not so, He says “Follow Me.” Christian, hesitate no more. Follow Jesus. You will find a deeper and better fellowship with those that are His; but this by following Him Whom they follow.

Only look well to it that it be according to the word, not your own thoughts and feelings; for are they better than those of others? Search your motives according to the light where you walk. “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” (Matthew 6:22.) But singleness is secured by looking to Jesus, not to ourselves or others. We have seen enough of ourselves when we have judged ourselves before God. Let us follow Jesus: to Him only and absolutely, a Divine Person on earth, it is due. It is the true dignity of a saint; it is the only security for him who has still to watch against the sin that is in him; it is the path of genuine humility, and of real love, and of faith. In this shall we be sure of the guidance of the Spirit Who is here to glorify Him, taking of His and showing them to us. He that has found and follows Christ soon seeks and finds others. But they are not always prepared to follow at once. So Philip proves here with the son of Talmai, here called not Bartholomew, but Nathanael.41 And hence, too, we learn that a man otherwise excellent may be hindered by not a little prejudice. It is a wholesome lesson neither to be hasty in our expectations nor to be cast down if a good man be slow to listen, as we may often prove. “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus from Nazareth, the Son of Joseph” (verse 46). Nathanael was not at all prepared for this. Most surely did his heart look for Him of Whom Moses and the prophets wrote; but that the Christ was Jesus from Nazareth, the Son of Joseph, he had yet to learn. He believed in the glory of Messiah’s Person, as far as the Old Testament had revealed it beforehand: it had never occurred to him how Messiah could be “from Nazareth,” not to speak of “the Son of Joseph.” For that village was despicable in the eyes even of a despised Galilean, who doubtless felt the more its miserably low moral repute because of his own practical godliness. Had Philip said “from Bethlehem, the Son of David,” no such shock could have been given to the expecting Jew. But in truth, the Lord is here viewed as wholly above all earthly associations, and therefore He could come down to the lowest. For He was the Son of God Who came to Nazareth, and only so could be said to be “from Nazareth” any more than “the son of Joseph.” However this may be, Nathanael does not withhold his expression of hesitation. “And Nathanael said to him, Can there be any good thing out of Nazareth? Philip saith to him, Come and see” (verse 46). But there was another also to see. For Jesus, Who saw Nathanael coming to Him, gave him to hear words of grace about himself which might well surprise him in His greeting, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (verse 47). If the Spirit of prophecy wrought according to Ps. 32, soon was he to know the Spirit of adoption and the liberty wherewith the Son makes free. “Nathanael saith to Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee” (verse 48). He is God always and everywhere in this Gospel. Unseen, Jesus had seen Nathanael. He had seen him where evidently he thought himself seen by none; but He who heard the musings of his heart in that spot “under the fig-tree” saw him: the irresistible evidence of His own glory, of omniscience, and omnipresence. Yet was He Who saw him evidently a man in flesh and blood.

He could be none other than the promised Messiah-Emmanuel, Jehovah’s fellow, “Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2.) His prejudice instantly vanished away as mist before the sun in its strength. He might not be able to explain the connection with Nazareth, or with Joseph;42 but a good man would not, none but a bad one could, resist the positive light of One Who thus knew all things, and told it out in grace to win the heart of Nathanael and of every one who hears His word and fears God since that day to this. But there is more conveyed here. Surely the fig-tree is not a fact only, or an isolated circumstance, but clothed with the significance usually found in it, at least, in Scripture. In the great prophecy of our Lord, the fig-tree is employed as the symbol of the nation, and so one cannot doubt it is here. If Nathanael were there musing in his heart before God on the expected Messiah and the hopes of the elect people, as many, indeed all men, were at that time through the impulse of John the Baptist, nay, even whether he were the Christ or not (Luke 3:15), we may conceive the better with what amazing force the words of Jesus must have appealed to the heart and conscience of the guileless Israelite. This appears to be powerfully confirmed by the character of his own confession. “Nathanael answered (and saith to)* him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel” (verse 49). It was a confession precisely of the Messiah according to Ps. 2 He might be Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph; but He could be, He was, none other than “My (Jehovah’s) king,” “the Son” (verses 6, 12), though not yet anointed on Zion, the hill of Jehovah’s holiness.43 Nathanael was prompt and distinct now, as slow and cautious before. There is not a little variation here in the copies, even the more ancient. Nor did the Lord check the flow of grace and truth, and Nathanael must borrow vessels not a few, till there was not one more to receive the blessing that would still overflow. “Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And He saith to him, Verily, verily,44 I say to you, (Henceforth) ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (verses 50, 51). Was Messianic glory the horizon of that which Nathanael’s soul saw and confessed in Jesus? Not “hereafter,” but if any word here, “from the present,” should the disciples see, if earthly power were still delayed, the opened heaven, and the homage of its glorious denizens to the rejected Messiah, the Son of man.45 Him all peoples, nations, and languages should serve, when He should enter on His everlasting dominion which should not pass away, and His kingdom which should not be destroyed. Truly these are “greater things”; the pledge of which Nathanael saw thenceforth in the attendance of God’s angels on Him Whom man despised and the nation abhorred to their own shame and ruin, but to the working out of heavenly counsels and an incomparably larger sphere of blessing and glory than in Israel or the land. These the reader may see in Ps. 8, especially if he consult the use made of it in 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1, and Heb. 2. *The oldest copies [ BL and versions [some Latt. Memph., etc.] omit ἀπ᾽ἄρτι, which, if read, must be rendered “from now” or “henceforth,” not “hereafter.” [The words are rejected by Weiss and Blass.]

NOTES ON THE FIRST CHAPTER 9 John 1:1. - “In the beginning . . . WORD . . . GOD.” Cf., of course, Genesis 1:1, where, “to begin with” (as to absence of the article, cf. W. Kelly’s “In the Beginning,” p. 14), God is at once introduced, without the writer’s pausing to prove His existence. That was supposed to flow from Creation, attributed to Him (cf. Romans 1:20), which is spoken of here also. Some evidential treatises have probably helped on unbelief as much as they have confirmed belief in GOD. Of recent books appealing to a wide circle of readers, mention may be made of Turton (chapters 1 to 3), Kinnear (chapter 1) both of which are really helpful, as also Lotze’s work, of which there is an English edition As far back as research goes there has been , however we may choose to define it, as with Bousset, “personal relation to God” (p. 23, cf. Liddon, “Elements,” p. 19). As to the discussion whether it lies in conduct (Kant), or knowledge (Fichte), or feeling (Schleiermacher), see Achelis, “Sketch,” pp. 98-100. Surely it extends to the whole man (Mark 12:30 and parallels). For “Agnostics” (whose high priest was Herbert Spencer: see his “First Principles,” chapters 3, 5), not denying the existence of God, but saying that He is unknowable (cf. Exposition, p. 429), DUTY takes the place of God, and so Ethical Societies have sprung up with their “Ethical Religion” (Mill’s “Religion of Humanity”), a protagonist of which is Dr. Stanton Coit.* As to the relation of morality to religion, see Wentscher, pp. 146 f., and Achelis, “Ethics,” p. 42 ff
For the Christian, as for the Jew, belief in God goes without saying (Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 11:6), it is experienced through His Word (ibid., 4: 12 f.). A man like F. W. Newman, who affected to believe in God apart from this, is by such pure rationalists as Mr. Benn deemed a “mystic.” Even those who proclaim themselves without God feel the need of some equivalent, so ingrained in the human breast (as Comte knew) is the religious instinct, taking in the Far East the form of veneration of dead ancestors, as in the West of the memory of a wife (J. S. Mill), or of notable personages in the Positivist calendar. Scripture predicts general acquiescence in this last principle. A momentous question still remains. Is JESUS, who is accounted to have revealed Him, Himself GOD? The fourth Evangelist affirms this, and some who are not conventional Trinitarians, such as Mr. Boyd Kinnear (chapter 7), sustain his declaration. But it will be seen that this Gospel has much to say of the FATHER and also of the SPIRIT, the conjoint deity of whom is affirmed by the Nicene Creed so-called. The doctrines of the Godhead and of Redemption are closely knit together. See, further, note on 17: 3. The WORD, Logos. Some moderns have identified the Evangelist’s thought with that of his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, a mystical Jewish philosopher. So Weizsδcker, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Wernle, Scott. It may be readily granted that such as Apollos (Acts 18:24) would carry the Alexandrian phraseology with them to Ephesus. But Harnack and Drummond have abandoned the theory that the writer of the Gospel was indebted to Philo for his doctrine, one holding that “the Logos of John has little more in common with the Logos of Philo than the name” (“History of Dogma,” i., p. 97), while the other says that “nothing can be more unlike than Philo and John” (“Inquiry,” p. 24).

Our English writer has shown that, as far as his writings go, Philo never came to regard the Logos - an intermediate agent between God and man - as a personal agent. Meyer and others (including Bishop Gore, “Bampton Lectures,” p. 69) have traced the Logos to the Memra of the Targum, which is Philo’s ῤῆμα (cf.

Hebrews 11:2), used for God’s mouth, voice, spirit, and face - all His relations with the world made and maintained by means of this. But, as Luthardt says, these Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures (see note 22) in their present form belong to the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Some information about them could be derived from Edersheim “Life of Jesus the Messiah,” i., p. 476, and ii. 659-664 (Appendix on “Philo of Alexandria and Rabbinic Theology”). The only satisfactory view is that of looking for the roots of the idea in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament. so Luthardt, Godet, Liddon (Lecture II.), Weiss (“Theology of the New Testament,” ii. 325 347). The Evangelist’s Preface no more witnesses to his having received a philosophical education than does use of such a word as “evolution” tell us anything about the intellectual antecedents of any person of the present day in whose mouth it is (Drummond, “Inquiry,” p. 23 f.). Nowhere does the Evangelist put “Logos” onto the Lord’s mouth, as any romancer or literary dreamer would certainly have done.

Archdeacon Watkins, in a Bampton Lecture, has well remarked that the strain of the Prologue was as appropriate to an Ephesian as it would have been inappropriate to a Galilean circle of readers. Neither of these wanted nor would have eared for that which suited the other. In the latter half of the second, or early part of the third, century certain people whom Epiphanius (Hζr., LI., 3, 4) called Alogi (irrationalists), represented by one Caius of Rome, resisted the doctrine of the Logos, and “from the Evangelist’s use of the term” they held that he must have been, not an Apostle, but Cerinthus or other Gnostic. Reference might be wade to Stanton (pp. 198-212). Lightfoot remarks that their questioning the Johannine authorship of the Gospel is “just one of those exceptions which strengthen the rule” (p. 61). Large use was, of course, made of John’s Preface in the Arian controversy; as to which see Dorner’s standard work on “The History of the Person of Christ,” or Pullan’s small but valuable book, “Early Christian Doctrine.” That Christianity itself was at stake Thomas Carlyle owned in his later life, stating to Froude that he had come to see that if the Arians had won it would have dwindled away to a legend (“Life in London,” ii., p. 462). Harnack adds his testimony: “The opponents were right: thus doctrine leads back to heathenism.” See, further, Lightfoot’s note on Colossians 1:15, Jowett, essay on “St. Paul and Philo” (p. 272 of reprint), and Inge, essay in “Contentio Veritatis,” p. 67 f., which is a sequel to his Bampton Lectures, where the Logos is described as “the basis of Christian mysticism” (cf. note 278b.). 9a John 1:1 f. - “With God.” The force of the preposition Opts is well brought out by Sanday: “face to face with” (“Outlines,” p. 41). For the correspondence of the three great arguments for the existence of GOD to the three “Persons” of the Godhead, see Turton, p. 261, For the Biblical cosmogony, see, of course, Gen. 1. The geological accuracy of the first chapter of the Bible has been impeached of late, in the columns of the Guardian, by the clerical Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and his attitude upheld by another learned clergyman of the same University, who has written of “the utterly unscientific conception of the world presented in Gen. 1.” Contra, a well-known German Ideologist, Professor Quenstedt, who does not pretend to any familiarity with Hebrew, but takes the Genesaic record according to its “plain meaning,” in a lecture has been describing Moses as “a great geologist” (einen grosser Geologen), whose statements have “not yet been confuted” (noch nicht widerlegt). Will ‘‘conspicuous honesty” in Biblical interpretation, which Dr. Driver’s henchman, Mr. F. H.

Woods, claims that they represent, accept as an “ascertained fact” that algζ (see “Encyclopaedia Britannica”) - the marine plants used by Quenstedt as his illustration - were the primary organisms? That is, learn from Germans when these can really put English clergy right? Or are Germans to be followed only when they serve the cause of unbelieving criticism? Again, Darwinism, some twenty years ago, might have served these English Hebraists as a refuge, but at a German Natural History Congress of the present year (1907), the English scientist’s characteristic doctrine (struggle for existence and sexual selection) was declared, without a single dissentient voice, to be im Begriff abzusterben. May not the “Westminster Commentary” on Genesis within a few years’ time be obsolete, so far as regards its physical science? An Oxford First Classman in Science, holder of the University Scholarship in Geology, and at the same time a Hall-Houghton Greek Testament Prize, who was a firm believer in the accuracy of Genesis, thirty years ago to the present writer described Huxley’s “Elementary Lessons in Physiology” as “written in gold.” The same friend’s brother, himself a biologist, as the present century came in, spoke of that book as “entirely superseded.” We have now a Senior Wrangler publicly declaring that he declines to take his science from Canon Driver. The “ordinary man,” besides, as the Athenζum has just said, “believes the Mosaic incidents to be facts.” Apart from reasons other than these it is no wonder that churches are depleted of men. “Knowledge comes,” indeed, but what if “wisdom lingers”? As to alleged connection of evil with creation (Exposition, p. 10, note), cf. Rashdall in “Contentio Veritatis,” pp. 43 ff. In Isaiah 45:7, it should be observed, “evil” means adversity. 9b John 1:3. - The preposition διὰ is commonly taken as instrumental, and yet in 1 Corinthians 1:9 it certainly is used of the original source (Kenrick). On the concurrence of Aorist and Perfect (ἐγένετο, γέγονεν), see Lightfoot on Colossians 1:15. The punctuation by which γέγονεν is taken as part of this verse has had the approval of Meyer (as Alford), Luthardt, Godet and Zahn. Moulton went with Westcott and Hort. 10 John 1:4. - On the general question of the text of the Fourth Gospel, see Blass, “Philology of the Gospels,” chapter 12. This scholar, in his edition, has favoured more than most the “Western” text so-called, whilst Weiss differs from Westcott and Hort in always regarding the internal evidence. 11 Gnostics ascribed a distinct personality to both Life and Light. On such errors the standard English work is Mansel’s “Gnostic Heresies,” but reference might be made also to Green, “Handbook of Church History,” pp. 171-176. Mr. E. F. Scott, adopting the theory that the Evangelist made incursions into philosophy (p. 266), imagines that the Life and Light are “related to the Platonic doctrine of Ideas” or archetypes (p. 253). That could only be by way of contrast. Why travel outside Biblical passages, such as Psalms 36:9? God as Creator (Power or Force: cf. Mark 14:62) is the Hebrew EL, Semitic idea, whilst the new revelation exhibits Him also as Light, establishing the Aryan notion (see note 90 on θεός). These are combined by the Evangelist in his Preface. 12 Joh 1:6. - “John.” In this Gospel we have to distinguish (α) the Baptist, never so described by the Evangelist, to whom it does not occur that there could be any confusion of the son of Zacharias with himself; (β) the father of Andrew and Peter (verse 42). 12a John 1:7. - “All.” For the universalism of this Gospel, cf. John 3:16 and John 12:32, also note on verse 14 with regard to grace. “Believe.” In the fourth Gospel the verb only is used, not the noun “belief” or “faith.” On the various constructions employed of the verb, see Abbott, “Johannine Grammar,” § 1480 ff., in particular. On Faith as set forth by this Evangelist, see notes on John 5:46 f., John 6:69, and John 17:3. Reference may also be made to Sir R. Anderson’s “The Gospel and its Ministry,” chap. 4, and to Illingworth’s “Christian Character,” chapter 4. 13 Joh 1:9. - ὅ . . . ἐρχόμενον. This connection of the words, followed in the Exposition, agrees with the opmion of Grotius, and seems to have the approval of Plummer. Luther adopted it for the first edition of his version. “Come into the world” was a Messianic phrase: cf. John 2: 27 and John the Baptist’s “He that should come” from which Govett renders “was to come.” The English Authorised Version has the support of Meyer, Ryle, and McRory, whilst “the true light was coming” represents the construction favoured by Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Godet, Westcott (see also Revised Version) and Zahn (p. 66f.). That “the light lighteneth every man” remains certain. The words were quoted by the Gnostic Basilides exactly as they stand in this Gospel. Mr. Carr refers to the ancient use of “enlightened” for the baptised; but only the Fathers, never Scripture, so spoke of them. 14 John 1:10. - “He was in the world.” Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret agreed that these words speak of Christ pre-incarnate, or as Jehovah, so Milligan, Inge, etc. But cf. Zahn, pp. 57 f., 66-68. As to the specially Johannine sense of the world, see “Exposition of the Epistles of John,” pp. 137-142, and note on John 15:19 below. This verse bears on the philosophical doctrine of the Transcendence of God, exaggerated by Deists, and the scientific doctrine of His Immanence, exaggerated by Pantheists. As to the latter, see Wentscher, pp. 150-152, Mr.

J. R. Illingworth’s book, s. tit., and Bishop Gore’s Third Lecture on “The New Theology.” God is morally transcendent. And so Stevens: “The world is separate from God because of its sinfulness” (“Johannine Theology,” p. 97). Cf. T.

H. Green, iii. p. 248. The immanence of God should rather be described as that of nature in Him (Acts 7:28; Colossians 1:17). The two notions find their reconciliation in the person of Christ, and in Him alone. With this and the following verse, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:22 f., and, of course, 16: 8 of this Gospel. “He convicts them, not of mere unbelief in Messiah (as in Matthew), but of the common atheism of man” (Bellett, p. 10). As to difference between Apprehension and Comprehension of the Infinite, see I. Taylor, “The World of Mind,” p. 822, and Cf. Schofield, “The Knowledge of God,” p. 62. 15 John 1:11. - τὰἴδια, “His own door.” Segond’s French version (chez les siens for this as for οἱἴδιοι) falls short of the conventional idiom of that language, chez soi, used in the “Version Nouvelle” by Mr. J. N. Darby. 16 John 1:12. - The vexed question as to universal “Fatherhood of God” comes in here (see F. W. Robertson, “First Sermon on Baptism,” vol. ii., p. 59 ff., and Bishop Gore, “Creed of the Christian,” p. 9 i.). God is, of course, “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9; cf. Acts 17:29). But Romans 8:16 is very clear, for all not hampered by reluctance to own the Evangelist’s independence of Pauline doctrine (see general note on John 3) as a parallel to this passage, where “authority” (title) to become is so pronounced. “What is usually meant by the Fatherhood of God is really His Godhood (Sir B. Anderson, “The Gospel and its Ministry,” p. 182). Harnack writes (“The Essence of Christianity”): “God’s Fatherhood is the main article in Jesus’ message” (meaning the joint Synoptic record), as to which, however, see the English reply entitled “Christianized Rationalism”: “There was nothing new in the conception of the Divine Fatherhood so conceived” (p. 147). See, further, on John 3:16 and on John 16:27. 17 “Believe on (trust to) His name.” Origen, on 3: 18, regards “trusting to the name” as the initial form of faith (Abbott, op. cit., § 1,486. Cf. note below on John 2:23 ff., and see John 8:30-32). As to believing “His name” (without εἰς) in 1 John 3:23, see “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 340 f. Salvation by His name alone, as set forth by the Evangelist’s fellow-witness Peter in Acts 4:12, shatters the idea lately broached that an men are “potential Christs.” 18 John 1:14. - “Became flesh.” On the Incarnation, see such works as Bishop Gore’s “Bampton Lectures,” Professor Orr’s “Kerr Lectures,” No. 6, and Turton, p. 262 ff. It was either denied or undermined by Gnosticism, in its earliest form known as “Docetism,” one of the representatives of which was Cerinthus, contemporary with the Apostle John. His errors Irenζus (III., 11, 7) attributed to misuse of the Gospel of Mark. Cerinthus held that JESUS would rise again with the rest of mankind in the day of judgment, for which Ronan compares Qoran, iv. 156 (see Hansel, Lecture VIII.). The “Docetζ” derived their name from holding that our Lord had only an apparent body (see 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:2 f., 2 John 1:7). They made use of the Apostle’s own writings, as of the Gospel (3: 5 f.), in support of the evil of matter.

The Apocryphal “Gospel of Peter” issued from this school (see “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 251). Basilides (Mansel, Lecture 10) was an Alexandrian active between 117-138 A.D.; Valentinus (Lectures 11, 12) was doing his mischief from 140-155 A.D. He, too, quoted this Gospel. The error of Nicolas is referred to in Revelation 2:15 (see “Exposition of Revelation,” p. 51. 18a “Dwelt.” See below under “glory” (note 20). 19 “We beheld.” The writer was an eye-witness. There are many indications of this in the fourth Gospel. His use of the materials of others must not be mistaken for dependence, as by H. Holtzmann (“Manual Commentary,” p. 3). Cf. Von Soden: “What could have led him, the foremost of eye-witnesses, to depend upon an account second-hand such as the Gospel of Mark?” (p. 442). It were wiser to say that in all cases of such supposed reliance on existing written material the Apostle is confirming the narrative from his own knowledge (Hebrews 2:3). 20 “His glory” (cf. 12: 41). The Targumic Shekina, as at Exodus 25:8, where “dwell” (Hebrew: shaken) is represented by σκηνοῦν (John’s, ἐσκήνωσεν) in the Palestinian Greek version by Aquila. See also references to LXX. in Zahn, p. 79. Cf. the Targum at Isaiah 53:3, etc., and note 8 above. An allusion seems to be made to the Transfiguration. 21 “Only begotten from beside a father.” This striking form of expression is the Evangelist’s way of alluding to the Virgin Birth (see Zahn, ii. 505, and p. 72 of his “Exposition”; also Blass, p. xii f. of Preface to critical edition, showing that Tertullian’s text had “was born” (cf. old Lat. codex of Verona) without “who.” Blass attaches importance to the first and of v. 14. Cf. papers of Mr. Carr in the Expositor and the Expository Times, 1907). 22 “Grace.” It is only in the fourth of the Gospels that we meet with the revelation of grace. “It is not to be found in Mark or Matthew, although foreshadowed in Luke” (Sir R. Anderson, Twentieth Century Papers, p. 189). Cf. note 8 above, and, of course, Titus 2:11, one of the passages in Paul’s writings by which some writers now imagine the Evangelist was influenced. See, further, general note on John 3; also John 2 of Sir R. Anderson’s “The Gospel and its Ministry.” 23 Joh 1:16. - On Gnosticism, see note 18 above. and for references in the Pauline epistles to the system in the hands of Jews. see Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9, 1 Timothy 6:20. The distinction made between “Jesus” and “Christ” has reappeared in the recent work entitled “Science and Health,” text book of “Christian Science” (110th edition, p. 229). The same work reasserts the evil of matter (p. 258, etc.). 24 “Grace upon grace.” That is, grace taking the place of (ἀντὶ) old grace. The expositor here takes the same view as Bengel, Winer, Olshausen, Alford, Weiss and Zahn. The other view referred to in the text is that of Calvin which is followed by Govett. 25 John 1:17. - “Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 John 1:3; Revelation 1:1). “Christ” had now become a personal name, in distinction from “the Christ” (see also on John 17:3). 26 John 1:18. - There are four readings: (α) “The only begotten Son,” to which Luthardt, as Kelly, adheres; (β) “The only begotten” (Latin copy followed by Blass) (γ) “God only begotten” (Westcott and Hort, Weiss Zahn), (δ) “the only begotten God.” Westcott and Hort have in additional note: “The best attested reading has the advantage of combining the two great predicates of the word which have been previously indicated” (verses 1, 14) But the omission of the article before “God” tells against their reading. Carr (Expositor, April, 1907) avails himself of Dr. Hort’s reading, but what he says on John 1:14 needs no such questionable support. Irenζus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all quote “God” (see Tischendorf, 8th edition, or Tregelles), so that the alteration must have been made early, and would secure some recognition when seen to lend itself to Arian views. But it was probably, as Paley says, “an error of transcription” (Confusion of υσ and θσ). A recent commentator (Heitmόller) thinks υἱὸς the more probable reading. 26a Thus Mr. Ernest Scott writes: “Truth becomes another name for the Divine nature . . . God the only true” (p. 254). But in John 17:3 the word for true is ἀληθινὸς, “genuine.” Besides the remarks of Mr. Kelly on the present passage of John, reference should be made to his comment on John 14:6, and to his “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 365 f. 26b John 1:16-18. - Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, etc., suppose that these verses were spoken by the Baptist; but Cyril, Chrysostom, Grotius, Alford, Wordsworth and Zahn take them to be the Evangelist’s. John 1:19 clearly marks a resumption of the Baptist’s testimony. Moreover, “who is in the bosom” would be said of the ascended Christ (Zahn, p. 96). 27 Much has been made by recent writers of the different way in which the unfolding of the claims of JESUS to be Messiah is treated in the fourth from its presentation in the other Gospels. Thus H. Holtzmann represents that, according to the Synoptists, it dawns on John the Baptist only when he is in prison that JESUS is the Christ! (“Manual Commentary,” p. 4). So also for the reserve of our Lord on this subject characteristic of the second Gospel, as to which see note on Mark 8:29 (No. 82). But already, according to that Evangelist’s account in his first chapter (verse 44), the leper was told by the Lord to show himself to the priest “for a testimony to them.” See now Garvie, “Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus,” chapter 6: “Early self-disclosure.” 28 John 1:19. - “The Jews.” In verse 24 it is said that the Pharisees sent them. One of the fancies current criticism is that when “Pharisees” are spoken of in this Gospel you have an earlier, when “Jews,” as usually (John 2:6; John 2:13, etc.) a later, recension. Apart from a special application of the name “Jews” to the Lord’s opponents - those who were such only in name (Revelation 3:9) - distance of time and scene called for the designation even on the part of a writer himself a Jew by birth. 29 John 1:28. - “Bethany.” Perhaps the Betonim of Jos 13:26. The writer of “Supernatural Religion” impeached the Evangelist of ignorance of Palestinian topography, as though he confused the place here spoken of with the village by himself said to be near Jerusalem (2: 18). There are other place-names, each of which is applied to more than one position in the country (cf. note in G. A. Smith’s “Historical Geography of Palestine,” p. 496). For example, Emmaus in Luke 24:13 could not be the same as that spoken of in 1 Macc. 3: 40 (cf. note on Cana in John 2:1 here). Moreover, places are liable to change of name. Drummond gives several instances of such variation in the British Isles. And so this Bethany may have become “Bethabara.” 30 John 1:23. - One test of authorship of a New Testament book is the way in which the Old Testament is quoted by the writer. None of John’s citations are from the LXX. against the Hebrew, whilst some are from the Hebrew against the LXX. Such are John 12:14 f., 40, John 13:18 to John 19:37. In this last, as Bishop Lightfoot notes, “the LXX. has not a single word in common with St. John’s text.” This bears on the question of whether a Gentile Christian could have been the writer of the Gospel (cf. notes 18, 92 on Mark). 31 Joh 1:25. - The Greek article, here as in verse 21, excludes the idea some have had that behind the Jew’s inquiry was the superstitious notion (alluded to in Luke 9:19) that the old prophets would rise from the dead when Messiah came. 32 Joh 1:26. - “Standeth.” Not that the Lord was just then in the crowd before the Baptist (cf. verse 29). It is, literally, “there hath stood.” Bengel: “hath taken his stand.” 33 Joh 1:29. - “Taketh away.” So Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Weiss and Zahn. The word αἴρων was taken by Lόcke and De Wette in the sense of “bearing” as the margin of A.V. With his exposition of the present passage of. Mr. Kelly’s treatment of 1 John 2:2 (p. 65 i.). 34 John 1:31. - “Knew Him not.” Comparison with Matthew 3:14, which is cited as contradicting this, seems to show that ούκῃδειν here can scarcely mean absolutely unacquainted with our Lord, which in itself is very improbable although allowance has to be made for the fact that they were brought up in different parts of the land. John did not previously know Him as Messiah So Luthardt, Westcott, Milligan, Dods and Zahn, and see note 136 on Mark Cf. also Carr’s note. May we not also compare the last words of verse 26 in the Greek with the present passage? The Evangelist seems to speak of the same kind of knowledge here as there. 35 John 1:32 ff. - Several modern critics (e.g., Schmiedel, col. 2,538) treat this section of the first chapter as inconsistent with the Synoptists’ representation of the Baptist’s recognition of the Messiahship of JESUS. Such regard Matthew 11:2-6 (Luke 7:18-23) as indicating quite a different state of mind about this in John from what ordinary readers gather from those Gospels. The “critical” view is that the Baptist’s belief in our Lord as the Christ was then not retrograde but hopeful. It is only by assuming that Matthew’s account of the first official relations of the Baptist and JESUS was “doctored” that they can use the first Gospel in support of their theory (see last previous note). John 1:32 contradicts the Gnostic theory that the Being who descended on JESUS was “the Christ,” and declares that it was the “Spirit.” 36 John 1:40. - “Simon Peter.” The Evangelist assumes knowledge of this disciple from previous records (cf. his parenthetical note in John 3:24). 37 John 1:41. - “Messiah.” Peculiar to this Gospel (see also John 4:25). As to the bearing of this passage on Mark 8:29, see note 82 on that Gospel. “First” is taken with “he” by Tischendorf (eighth edition), Meyer, Godet and Zahn (πρῶτος); with “brother” by Tregelles, Alford, W. and H. (prw’ton; R.V.: “findeth first”). The Evangelist here intimates indirectly that he followed Andrew’s example in bringing his own brother to JESUS (Zahn, p. 9). 38 John 1:42. - Simon. Those bearing the name who come before us in the Gospels are (α) Simon Peter, (β) Simon the Cananζan, also described as Zealot (γ) Simon Iscariot, father of Judas the Betrayer, as here (δ) Simon one of the brethren of the Lord; (ε) Simon the leper; (ζ) Simon the Pharisee. 39 “Kephas.” This, his Aramaic surname, is peculiar to the fourth Gospel. 40 John 1:44. - “Bethsaida.” There is a question as to whether there were two places of this name, as Trench thought (so now Staerk), one on the western shore of the lake, in Galilee, another on the eastern shore, in Gaulonitis. Thomson considered that there was but one (“The Land and the Book,” p. 373 f.). We have the name again in John 12:21, where “Galilee” is added as if by way of distinction (cf. note 232). 41 Joh 1:45. - “Nathanael.” Nathanael is mentioned again in John 21:2, where he is said to have been of Cana, to which the Lord here proceeds. To imagine, as Mr. E. F. Scott does, that his name was used by the Evangelist symbolically, as a counterpart of Paul, is to carry the theory of the unhistorical character of the Gospel as far as the wildest of the Continental writers (see further in note 61). Others have, with no more reason, supposed that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. 42 “Joseph.” Under this name we have to distinguish (α) the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord, (β) one of the brethren of the Lord, introduced under the Greek form “Joses “, (γ) a brother of James the Little; (δ) the disciple from Arimathea. Trench notes “John’s veracity in recording Philip’s imperfect knowledge” (“Studies,” p. 68 f.). The Evangelist’s admission to his record of such descriptions of our Lord (cf. 6: 42) falls under what the late Dr. Salmon called John’s “irony,” as against the German suggestion that the Evangelist did not know of the Virgin Birth, or discredited it. This many-sidedness of John’s narrative does but confirm the conviction of its never departing from, still less correcting, the common “historical” setting of the Synoptic Gospels. O. Holtzmann, whilst one of those lightly esteeming the historical value of the fourth Gospel (p. 108), hesitates not to appraise it highly, as occasion serves, like the present passage, for the belittling of the Synoptic narrative; here to support the idea of a human paternity of the Lord (see, further, on John 6:42). 43 Joh 1:49. - “Son of God, King of Israel.” With Ps. 2 cf. Isaiah 44:16 Zephaniah 3:13-20. For many Christians the Son of God’s Kingship over Israel is a dead-letter. “To such Israel is a broken vessel never more to be used” (Govett, p. 50 f.). so they speak of His “reigning in the hearts of His spiritual people.” But His death was to attest that He is “the King of the Jews,” not “the King of the Church”; Scripture never so describes Him 44 John 1:50. - “Verily, verily.” This form of asseveration, characteristic of John’s Gospel, regularly introduces a statement of special solemnity - we may say revelation (see John 3:3; John 3:11, John 6:26; John 6:32; John 6:47; John 6:53, John 8:34; John 8:51; John 8:58, John 10:1; John 10:7, John 13:16; John 13:20-21; John 13:38, John 14:12, John 21:18). 45 John 1:51. - “Son of man.” In this first chapter of John’s Gospel we have had the Lord designated in about twenty different ways. For his title “Son of man,” see note 30 on Mark 2:10, and in this Gospel, John 3:13 f., John 6:27; John 6:53; John 6:62, John 8:28 (John 9:35, doubtful reading), John 12:23; John 12:34. To the references in the note on Mark may here be added Bousset, “Religion of Judaism,” pp. 248-251, which introduces the reader to the Jewish literary sources belonging to the period between the Old and the New Testament, an early English authority on which was Prideaux, and by general readers chiefly but imperfectly known from the “Apocrypha.” Staerk’s little work is the most recent.

The opening verses (John 1:1-18) introduce the most glorious subject which God Himself ever gave in employing the pen of man; not only the most glorious in point of theme, but in the profoundest point of view; for what the Holy Ghost here brings before us is the Word, the everlasting, Word, when He was with God, traced down from before all time, when there was no creature. It is not exactly the Word with the Father; for such a phrase would not be according to the exactness of the truth; but the Word with God. The term God comprehends not only the Father, but the Holy Ghost also. He who was the Son of the Father then, as I need not say always, is regarded here as the revealer of God; for God, as such, does not reveal Himself. He makes His, nature known by the Word. The Word, nevertheless, is here spoken of before there was any one for God to reveal Himself to.

He is, therefore, and in the strictest sense, eternal. “In the beginning was the Word,” when there was no reckoning of time; for the beginning of what we call time comes before us in the third verse. “All things,” it is said, “were made by Him.” This is clearly the origination of all creaturehood, wherever and whatever it be. Heavenly beings there were before the earthly; but whether — no matter of whom you speak, or of, what — angels or men, whether heaven or earth, all things were made by Him. Thus He, whom we know to be the Son of the Father, is here presented as the Word — who subsisted personally in the beginning (ἐνἀρχῆ) — who was with God, and was Himself God — of the same nature, yet a distinct personal being. To clench this matter specially against all reveries of Gnostics or others, it is added, that He was in the beginning with God.* Observe another thing: “The Word was with God” — not the Father. As the Word and God, so the Son and the Father are correlative. We are here in the exactest phrase, and at the same time in the briefest terms, brought into the presence of the deepest conceivable truths which God,. alone knowing, alone could communicate to man. Indeed, it is He alone who gives the truth; for this is not the bare knowledge of such or such facts, whatever the accuracy of the information. Were all things conveyed with the most admirable correctness, it would not amount to divine revelation.

Such a communication would still differ, not in degree only, but in kind. A revelation from God not only supposes true statements, but God’s mind made known so as to act morally on man, forming his thoughts and affections according to His own character. God makes Himself known in what He communicates by, of, and in Christ.

I cannot but regard John 1:2 as a striking and complete setting aside of the Alexandrian and Patristic distinction of λόγοςἐνδιάθετος and λόγοςπροφορικός. Some of the earlier Greek fathers, who were infected with Platonism, held that the λόγος was conceived in God’s mind from eternity, and only uttered, as it were, in time. This has given a handle to Arians, who, like other unbelievers, greedily seek the traditions of men. The apostle here asserts, in the Holy Ghost, the eternal personality of the Word with God. In the case before us, nothing can be more obvious than that the Holy Ghost, for the glory of God, is undertaking to make known that which touches the Godhead in the closest way, and is meant for infinite blessing to all in the person of the Lord Jesus. These verses accordingly begin with Christ our Lord; not from, but in the beginning, when nothing was yet created. It is the eternity of His being, in no point of which could it be said He was not, but, contrariwise, that He was. Yet was He not alone. God was there — not the Father only, but the Holy Ghost, beside the Word Himself, who was God, and had divine nature as they. Again, it is not said that in the beginning He was, in the sense of then coming into being (ἐγένετο), but He existed (ἦν). Thus before all time the Word was. When the great truth of the incarnation is noted in verse 14, it is said — not that the Word came into existence, but that He was made (ἐγένετο) flesh — began so to be. This, therefore, so much the more contrasts with verses 1 and 2. In the beginning, then, before there was any creature, was the Word, and the Word was with God. There was distinct personality in the Godhead, therefore, and the Word was a distinct person Himself (not, as men dreamt, an emanation in time, though eternal and divine in nature, proceeding from God as its source). The Word had a proper personality, and at the same time was God — “the Word was God.” Yea, as the next verse binds and sums up all together, He, the Word, was in the beginning with God. The personality was as eternal as the existence, not in (after some mystic sort) but with God. I can conceive no statement more admirably complete and luminous in the fewest and simplest words. Next comes the attributing of creation to the Word. This must be the work of God, if anything was; and here again the words are precision itself — “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Other words far less nervous are used elsewhere: unbelief might cavil and construe them into forming or fashioning. Here the Holy Ghost employs the most explicit language, that all things began to be, or received being, through the Word, to the exclusion of one single thing that ever did receive being apart from Him language which leaves the fullest room for Uncreate Beings, as we have already seen, subsisting eternally and distinctly, yet equally God. Thus the statement is positive that the Word is the source of all things which have received being (γενόμενα); that there is no creature which did not thus derive its being from Him. There cannot, therefore, be a more rigid, absolute shutting out of any creature from origination, save by the Word. It is true that in other parts of Scripture we hear God, as such, spoken of as Creator. We hear of His making the worlds by the Son. But there is and can be no contradiction in Scripture. The truth is, that whatever was made was made according to the Father’s sovereign will; but the Son, the Word of God, was the person who put forth the power, and never without the energy of the Holy Ghost, I may add, as the Bible carefully teaches us. Now this is of immense importance for that which the Holy Ghost has in view in the gospel of John, because the object is to attest the nature and light of God in the person of the Christ; and therefore we have here not merely what the Lord Jesus was as born of a woman, born under the law, which has its appropriate place in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but what He was and is as God. On the other hand, the gospel of Mark omits every thing of the kind.

A genealogy such as Matthew’s and Luke’s, we have seen, would be totally out of place there; and the reason is manifest. The subject of Mark is the testimony of Jesus as having taken, though a Son, the place of a servant in the earth.

Now, in a servant, no matter from what noble lineage he comes, there is no genealogy requisite. What is wanted in a servant is, that the work should be done well, no matter about the genealogy. Thus, even if it were the Son of God Himself, so perfectly did He condescend to the condition of a servant, and so mindful was the Spirit of it, that, accordingly, the genealogy which was demanded in Matthew, which is of such signal beauty and value in Luke, is necessarily excluded from the gospel of Mark. For higher reasons it could have no place in John. In Mark it is because of the lowly place of subjection which the Lord was pleased to take; it is excluded from John, on the contrary, because there He is presented as being above all genealogy . He is the source of other people’s genealogy — yea, of the genesis of all things.

We may say therefore boldly, that in the gospel of John such a descent could not be inserted in consistency with its character. If it admit any genealogy, it must be what is set forth in the preface of John — the very verses which are occupying us — which exhibit the divine nature and eternal personality of His being.

He was the Word, and He was God; and, if we may anticipate, let us add, the Son, the only begotten Son of the Father. This, if any thing, is His genealogy here. The ground is evident; because everywhere in John He is God. No doubt the Word became flesh, as we may see more of presently, even in this inspired introduction; and we have the reality of His becoming man insisted on. Still, manhood was a place that He entered. Godhead was the glory that He possessed from everlasting — His own eternal nature of being. It was not conferred upon Him. There is not, nor can be, any such thing as a derived subordinate Godhead; though men may be said to be gods, as commissioned of God, and representing Him in government.

He was God before creation began, before all time. He was God independently of any circumstances. Thus, as we have seen, for the Word the apostle John claims eternal existence, distinct personality, and divine nature; and withal asserts the eternal distinctness of that person. (Verses John 1:1-2) Such is the Word Godward (πρὸςτὸνΘεόν). We are next told of Him in relation to the creature. (Verses John 1:3-5) In the earlier verses it was exclusively His being. In verse 3 He acts, He creates, He causes all things to come into existence; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence which is existent (γέγονεν). Nothing more comprehensive, nothing more exclusive. The next verse (John 1:4) predicts of Him that which is yet more momentous: not creative power, as in verse 3, but life. “In him was life.” Blessed truth for those who know the spread of death over this lower scene of creation! and the rather as the Spirit adds, that “the life was the light of men.” Angels were not its sphere, nor was it restricted to a chosen nation: “the life was the light of men.” Life was not in man, even unfallen; at best, the first man, Adam, became a living soul when instinct with the breath of God. Nor is it ever said, even of a saint, that in him is or was life, though life he has; but he has it only in the Son. In Him, the Word, was life, and the life was the light of men. Such was its relationship. No doubt, whatever was revealed of old was of Him; whatever word came out from God was from Him, the Word, and light of men. But then God was not revealed; for He was not manifested. On the contrary, He dwelt in the thick darkness, behind the veil in the most holy place, or visiting men but angelically otherwise. But here, we are told, “the light shines in the darkness.” (Ver. John 1:5) Mark the abstractedness of the language — it “shines” (not shone). How solemn, that darkness is all the light finds! and what darkness! how impenetrable and hopeless!

All other darkness yields and fades away before light; but here “the darkness comprehended it not” (as the fact is stated, and not the abstract principle only). It was suited to man, even as it was the light expressly of men, so that man is without excuse. But was there adequate care that the light should be presented to men? What was the way taken to secure this? Unable God could not be: was He indifferent? God gave testimony; first, John the Baptist; then the Light itself. “There was (ἐγένετο) a man sent from God, whose name was John.” (v. John 1:6) He passes by all the prophets, the various preliminary dealings of the Lord, the shadows of the law: not even the promises are noticed here. We shall find some of these introduced or alluded to for a far different purpose later on.

John, then, came to bear witness about the Light, that all through him might believe. (Verse John 1:7) But the Holy Ghost is most careful to guard against all mistake. Could any run too close a parallel between the light of men in the Word, and him who is called the burning and shining lamp in a subsequent chapter?

Let them learn their error. He, John, “was not that light;” there is but one such: none was similar or second. God cannot be compared with man. John came “that he might bear witness about the light,” not to take its place or set himself up. The true Light was that which, coming into the world, lighteth every man.* Not only does He necessarily, as being God, deal with every man (for His glory could not be restricted to a part of mankind), but the weighty truth here announced is the connection with His incarnation of this universal light, or revelation of God in Him, to man as such. The law, as we know from elsewhere, had dealt with the Jewish people temporarily, and for partial purposes.

This was but a limited sphere. Now that the Word comes into the world, in one way or another light shines for every one: it may be, leaving some under condemnation, as we know it does for the great mass who believe not; it may be light not only on but in man, where there is faith through the action of divine grace.

It is certain that, whatever light in relation to God there may be, and wherever it is given in Him, there is not, there never was, spiritual light apart from Christ — all else is darkness. It could not be otherwise. This light in its own character must go out to all from God. So it is said elsewhere, “The grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared.” It is not that all men receive the blessing; but, in its proper scope and nature, it addresses itself to all. God sends it for all. Law may govern one nation; grace refuses to be limited in its appeal, however it may be in fact through man’s unbelief. *I cannot but think that this is the true version, and exhibits the intended aim of the clause. Most of the early writers took it as the authorized version, save Theodore of Mopsuestia, who understood it as here given: Εἰπὼντὸ ?· ἐρχόμενονεἰςτὸνκοσμον, περὶτοῦδεσπότουΧριστοῦκαλωςἐπήγαγεντὸ ?· ἐντῳκοσμῳἦν, ὥστεδεῖξαι, ὅτιτὸἐρχόμενονπρὸςτηνδιὰσαρκὸςεἶπενφανέρωσιν. (Ed. Fritzsche, p. 21) “He was in the world, and the world was made by him.” (Verse John 1:9) The world therefore surely ought to have known its Maker. Nay, “the world knew him not.” From the very first, man, being a sinner, was wholly lost. Here the unlimited scene is in view; not Israel, but the world. Nevertheless, Christ did come to His own things, His proper, peculiar possession; for there were special relationships. They should have understood more about Him — those that were specially favoured. It was not so. “He came unto his own [things], and his own [people] received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power [rather, authority, right, or title] to become children of God.” (Ver. John 1:11-12) It was not a question now of Jehovah and His servants. Neither does the Spirit say exactly as the English Bible says — “sons,” but children. His glorious person would have none now in relation to God but members of the family. Such was the grace that God was displaying in Him, the true and full expresser of His mind. He gave them title to take the place of children of God, even to those that believe on His name. Sons they might have been in bare title; but these had the right of children. All disciplinary action, every probationary process, disappears. The ignorance of the world has been proved, the rejection of Israel is complete: then only is it that we hear of this new place of children. It is now eternal reality, and the name of Jesus Christ is that which puts all things to a final test. There is difference of manner for the world and His own — ignorance and rejection. Do any believe on His name? Be they who they may now, as many as receive Him become children of God.

It is no question here of every man, but of such as believe. Do they receive Him not? For them, Israel, or the world, all is over. Flesh and world are judged morally. God the Father forms a new family in, by, and for Christ. All others prove not only that they are bad, but that they hate perfect goodness, and more than that, life and light — the true light in the Word.

How can such have relationship with God? Thus, manifestly, the whole question is terminated at the very starting-point of our gospel; and this is characteristic of John all through: manifestly all is decided. It is not merely a Messiah, who comes and offers Himself, as we find in other gospels, with most painstaking diligence, and presented to their responsibility; but here from the outset the question is viewed as closed. The Light, on coming into the world, lightens every man with the fulness of evidence which was in Him, and at once discovers the true state as truly as it will be revealed in the last day when He judges all, as we find it intimated in the gospel afterwards. (John 12:48) Before the manner of His manifestation comes before us in verse 14, we have the secret explained why some, and not all, received Christ. It was not that they were better than their neighbours. Natural birth had nothing to do with this new thing; it was a new nature altogether in those who received Him: “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It was an extraordinary birth; of God, not man in any sort, or measure, but a new and divine nature (2 Peter 1:1-21) imparted to the believer wholly of grace. All this, however, was abstract, whether as to the nature of the Word or as to the place of the Christian. But it is important we should know how He entered the world. We have seen already that thus light was shed on men. How was this? The Word, in order to accomplish these infinite things, “was made. (ἐγένετο) flesh, and dwelt among us.” It is here we learn in what condition of His person God was to be revealed and the work done; not what He was in nature, but what He became. The great fact of the incarnation is brought before us — “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father”). His aspect as thus tabernacling among the disciples was “full of grace and truth.” Observe, that blessed as the light is, being God’s moral nature, truth is more than this, and is introduced by grace.

It is the revelation of God — yea, of the Father and the Son, and not merely the detecter of man. The Son had not come to execute the judgments of the law they knew, nor even to promulgate a new and higher law. His was an errand incomparably deeper, more worthy of God, and suitable to One “full of grace and truth.” He wanted nothing; He came to give — yea, the very best, so to speak, that God has. What is there in God more truly divine than grace and truth? The incarnate Word was here full of grace and truth. Glory would be displayed in its day. Meanwhile there was a manifestation of goodness, active in love in the midst of evil, and toward such; active in the making known God and man, and every moral relation, and what He is toward man, through and in the Word made flesh. This is grace and truth. And such was Jesus. “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This is he of whom I spake: He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.” Coming after John as to date, He is necessarily preferred before him in dignity; for He was (ἦν) [not come into being (ἐγένετο)] before Him.

He was God. This statement (verse John 1:15) is a parenthesis, though confirmatory of verse John 1:14, and connects John’s testimony with this new section of Christ’s manifestation in flesh; as we saw John introduced in the earlier verses, which treated abstractly of Christ’s nature as the Word. Then, resuming the strain of verse John 1:14, we are told, in verse John 1:16, that “of his fulness have all we received.” So rich and transparently divine was the grace: not some souls, more meritorious than the rest, rewarded according to a graduated scale of honour, but “of his fulness have all we received.” What can be conceived more notably standing out in contrast with the governmental system God had set up, and man had known in times past? Here there could not be more, and He would not give less: even “grace upon grace.” Spite of the most express signs, and the manifest finger of God that wrote the ten words on tables of stone, the law sinks into comparative insignificance. “The law was given by Moses.” God does not here condescend to call it His, though, of course, it was His — and holy, just, and good, both in itself and in its use, if used lawfully. But if the Spirit speaks of the Son of God, the law dwindles at once into the smallest possible proportions: everything yields to the honour the Father puts oil the Son. “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came (ἐγένετο) by Jesus Christ.” (ver. John 1:17) The law, thus given, was in itself no giver, but an exacter; Jesus, full of grace and truth, gave, instead of requiring or receiving; and He Himself has said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. Truth and grace were not sought nor found in man, but began to subsist here below by Jesus Christ. We have now the Word made flesh, called Jesus Christ — this person, this complex person, that was manifest in the world; and it is He that brought it all in. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Lastly, closing this part, we have another most remarkable contrast. “No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son,” etc. Now, it is no longer a question of nature, but of relationship; and hence it is not said simply the Word, but the Son, and the Son in the highest possible character, the only-begotten Son, distinguishing Him thus from any other who might, in a subordinate sense, be son of God — “the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.” Observe: not which was, but “which is.” He is viewed as retaining the same perfect intimacy with the Father, entirely unimpaired by local or any other circumstances He had entered. Nothing in the slightest degree detracted from His own personal glory, and from the infinitely near relationship which He had had with the Father from all eternity. He entered this world, became flesh, as born of woman; but there was no diminution of His own glory, when He, born of the virgin, walked on earth, or when rejected of man, cut off as Messiah, He was forsaken of God for sin — our sin — on the cross. Under all changes, outwardly, He abode as from eternity the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father. Mark what, as such, He does declare Him.

No man hath seen God at any time. He could be declared only by One who was a divine person in the intimacy of the Godhead, yea, was the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father. Hence the Son, being in this ineffable nearness of love, has declared not God only, but the Father. Thus we all not only receive of His fulness, (and what fulness illimitable was there not in Him!) but He, who is the Word made flesh, is the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, and so competent to declare, as in fact He has. It is not only the nature, but the model and fulness of the blessing in the Son, who declared the Father. The distinctiveness of such a testimony to the Saviour’s glory need hardly be pointed out. One needs no more than to read, as believers, these wonderful expressions of the Holy Ghost, where we cannot but feel that we are on ground wholly different from that of the other gospels. Of course they are just as truly inspired as John’s; but for that very reason they were not inspired to give the same testimony. Each had his own; all are harmonious, all perfect, all divine; but not all so many repetitions of the same thing. He who inspired them to communicate His thoughts of Jesus in the particular line assigned to each, raised up John to impart the highest revelation, and thus complete the circle by the deepest views of the Son of God. After this we have, suitably to this gospel, John’s connection with the Lord Jesus. (ver. John 1:19-37) It is here presented historically. We have had his name introduced into each part of the preface of our evangelist. Here there is no John proclaiming Jesus as the One who was about to introduce the kingdom of heaven. Of this we learn nothing, here. Nothing is said about the fan in His hand; nothing of His burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. This is all perfectly true, of course; and we have it elsewhere. His earthly rights are just where they should be; but not here, where the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has His appropriate place.

It is not John’s business here to call attention to His Messiahship, not even when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask, Who art thou? Nor was it from any indistinctness in the record, or in him who gave it. For “he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (ver. John 1:20-25) John does not even speak of Him as one who, on His rejection as Messiah, would step into a larger glory.

To the Pharisees, indeed, his words as to the Lord are curt: nor does he tell them of the divine ground of His glory, as he had before and does after.* He says, One was among them of whom they had no conscious knowledge, “that cometh after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to loose.” (Ver. John 1:26-27) For himself he was not the Christ, but for Jesus he says no more.

How striking the omission! for he knew He was the Christ. But here it was not God’s purpose to record it.

The best text omits other expressions, evidently derived from verses John 1:15; John 1:30. Verse John 1:29 opens John’s testimony to his disciples. (Ver. John 1:29-34) How rich it is, and how marvellously in keeping with our gospel! Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, but withal, as he had said, the eternal One, yet in view of His manifestation to Israel (and, therefore, John was come baptizing with water — a reason here given, but not to the Pharisees in verses 25-27). Further, John attests that he saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and abiding on Him — the appointed token that He it is who baptizes with the Holy Ghost — even the Son of God. None else could do either work: for here we see His great work on earth, and His heavenly power. In these two points of view, more particularly, John gives testimony to Christ; He is the lamb as the taker away of the world’s sin; the same is He who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Both of them were in relation to man on the earth; the one while He was here, the other from above. His death on the cross included much more, clearly answering to the first; His baptizing with the Holy Ghost followed His going to heaven. Nevertheless, the heavenly part is little dwelt on, as John’s gospel displays our Lord more as the expression of God revealed on earth, than as Man ascended to heaven, which fell far more to the province of the apostle of the Gentiles. In John He is One who could be described as Son of man who is in heaven; but He belonged to heaven, because He was divine. His exaltation there is not without notice in the gospel, but exceptionally. Remark, too, the extent of the work involved in verse 29. As the Lamb of God (of the Father it is not said), He has to do with the world. Nor will the full force of this expression be witnessed till the glorious result of His blood — shedding sweep away the last trace of sin in the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. It finds, of course, a present application, and links itself with that activity of grace in which God is now sending out the gospel to any sinner and every sinner. Still the eternal day alone will show out the full virtue of that which belongs to Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the world’s sin. Observe, it is not (as is often very erroneously said or sung) a question of sins, but of the “sin” of the world.

The sacrificial death of Him who is God goes far beyond the thought of Israel. How, indeed, could it be stayed within narrow limits?

It passes over all question of dispensations, until it accomplishes, in all its extent, that purpose for which He thus died. No doubt there are intervening applications; but such is the ultimate result of His work as the Lamb of God. Even now faith knows, that instead of sin being the great object before God, ever since the cross He has had before His eyes that sacrifice which put away sin. Notably He is now applying it to the reconciliation of a people, who are also baptized by the Holy Ghost into one body. By and by He will apply it to “that nation,” the Jews, as to others also, and finally (always excepting the unbelieving and evil) to the entire system, the world. I do not mean by this all individuals, but creation; for nothing can be more certain, than that those who do not receive the Son of God are so much the worse for having heard the gospel.

The rejection of Christ is the contempt of God Himself, in that of which He is most jealous, the honour of the Saviour, His Son. The refusal of His precious blood will, on the contrary, make their case incomparably worse than that of the heathen who never heard the good news. What a witness all this to His person! None but a divine being could thus deal with the world. No doubt He must become a man, in order, amongst other reasons, to be a sufferer, and to die. None the less did the result of His death proclaim His Deity. So in the baptism with the Holy Ghost, who would pretend to such a power? No mere man, nor angel, not the highest, the archangel, but the Son. So we see in the attractive power, afterwards dealing with individual souls. For were it not God Himself in the person of Jesus, it had been no glory to God, but a wrong and a rival. For nothing can be more observable than the way in which He becomes the centre round whom those that belong to God are gathered. This is the marked effect on the third day (ver. John 1:29; John 1:34) of John Baptist’s testimony here named; the first day (ver. 29) on which, as it were, Jesus speaks and acts in His grace as here shown on the earth. It is evident, that were He not God, it would be an interference with His glory, a place taken inconsistent with His sole authority, no less than it must be also, and for that reason, altogether ruinous to man.

But He, being God, was manifesting and, on the contrary, maintaining the divine glory here below. John, therefore, who had been the honoured witness before of God’s call, “the voice,” etc., does now by the outpouring of his heart’s delight, as well as testimony, turn over, so to say, his disciples to Jesus. Beholding Him as He walked, he says, Behold the Lamb of God! and the two disciples leave John for Jesus. (ver. John 1:35-40) Our Lord acts as One fully conscious of His glory, as indeed He ever was. Bear in mind that one of the points of instruction in this first part of our gospel is the action of the Son of God before His regular Galilean ministry. The first four chapters of John precede in point of time the notices of His ministry in the other gospels. John was not yet cast into prison. Matthew, Mark, and Luke start, as far as regards the public labours of the Lord, with John cast into prison. But all that is historically related of the Lord Jesus in John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54. was before the imprisonment of the Baptist. Here, then, we have a remarkable display of that which preceded His Galilean ministry, or public manifestation.

Yet before a miracle, as well as in the working of those which set forth His glory, it is evident that so far from its being a gradual growth, as it were, in His mind, He had, all simple and lowly though He were, the deep, calm, constant consciousness that He was God. He acts as such. If He put forth His power, it was not only beyond man’s measure, but unequivocally divine, however also the humblest and most dependent of men. Here we see Him accepting, not as fellow-servant, but as Lord, those souls who had been under the training of the predicted messenger of Jehovah that was to prepare His way before, His face. Also one of the two thus drawn to Him first finds his own brother Simon (with the words, We have found the Messiah), and led him to Jesus, who forthwith gave him his new name in terms which surveyed, with equal ease and certainty, past, present, and future. Here again, apart from this divine insight, the change or gift of the name marks His glory. (Verses John 1:41-44) On the morrow Jesus begins, directly and indirectly, to call others to follow Himself. He tells Philip to follow Him. This leads Philip to Nathanael, in whose case, when he comes to Jesus, we see not divine power alone in sounding the souls of men, but over creation. Here was One on earth who knew all secrets. He saw him under the fig tree. He was God.

Nathanael’s call is just as clearly typical of Israel in the latter day. The allusion to the fig-tree confirms this. So does his confession: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God: thou art the King of Israel. (See Psalms 2:1-12) But the Lord tells him of greater things he, should see, and says to him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, henceforth (not “hereafter,” but henceforth) ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. It is the wider, universal glory of the Son of man (according to Psalms 8:1-9); but the most striking part of it verified from that actual moment because of the glory of His person, which needed not the day of glory to command the attendance of the angels of God — this mark, as Son of man. (Verses John 1:44-51) On the third day is the marriage in Cana of Galilee, where was His mother, Jesus also, and His disciples. (John 2:1-25) The change of water into wine manifested His glory as the beginning of signs; and He gave another in this early purging of the temple of Jerusalem. Thus we have traced, first, hearts not only attracted to Him, but fresh souls called to follow Him; then, in type, the call of Israel by-and-by; finally, the disappearance of the sign of moral purifying for the joy of the new covenant, when Messiah’s time comes to bless the needy earth; but along with this the execution of judgment in Jerusalem, and its long defiled temple. All this clearly goes down to millennial days. As a present fact, the Lord justifies the judicial act before their eyes by His relationship with God as His Father, and gives the Jews a sign in the temple of His body, as the witness of His resurrection power. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He is ever God; He is the Son; He quickens and raises from the dead. Later He was determined to be Son of God with power by resurrection of the dead. They had eyes, but they saw not; ears had they, but they heard not, nor did they understand His glory. Alas! not the Jews only; for, as far as intelligence went, it was little better with the disciples till He rose from the dead. The resurrection of the Lord is not more truly a demonstration of His power and glory, than the only deliverance for disciples from the thraldom of Jewish influence. Without it there is no divine understanding of Christ, or of His word, or of Scripture.

Further, it is connected intimately with the evidence of man’s ruin by sin. Thus it is a kind of transitional fact for a most important part of our gospel, though still introductory. Christ was the true sanctuary, not that on which man had laboured so long in Jerusalem. Man might pull Him down — destroy Him, as far as man could, and surely to be the basis in God’s hand of better blessing; but He was God, and in three days He would raise up this temple. Man was judged: another Man was there, the Lord from heaven, soon to stand in resurrection. It is not now the revelation of God meeting man either in essential nature, or as manifested in flesh; nor is it the course of dispensational dealing presented in a parenthetic as well as mysterious form, beginning with John the Baptist’s testimony, and going down to the millennium in the Son, full of grace and truth. It becomes a question of man’s own condition, and how he stands in relation to the kingdom of God. This question is raised, or rather settled, by the Lord in Jerusalem, at the passover feast, where many believed on His name, beholding the signs He wrought. The dreadful truth comes out: the Lord did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men. How withering the words! He had no need that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

It is not denunciation, but the most solemn sentence in the calmest manner. It was no longer a moot-point whether God could trust man; for, indeed, He could not. The question really is, whether man would trust God. Alas! he would not. John 3:1-36 follows this up. God orders matters so that a favoured teacher of men, favoured as none others were in Israel, should come to Jesus by night. The Lord meets him at once with the strongest assertion of the absolute necessity that a man should be born anew in order to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus, not understanding in the least such a want for himself, expresses his wonder, and hears our Lord increasing in the strength of the requirement. Except one were born of water and of the Spirit, he could not enter the kingdom of God. This was necessary for the kingdom of God; not for some special place of glory, but for any and every part of God’s kingdom.

Thus we have here the other side of the truth: not merely what God is in life and light, in grace and truth, as revealed in Christ coming down to man; but man is now judged in the very root of his nature, and proved to be entirely incapable, in his best state, of seeing or entering the kingdom of God. There is the need of another nature, and the only way in which this nature is communicated is by being born of water and the Spirit — the employment of the word of God in the quickening energy of the Holy Ghost. So only is man born of God. The Spirit of God uses that word; it is thus invariably in conversion. There is no other way in which the new nature is made good in a soul. Of course it is the revelation of Christ; but here He was simply revealing the sources of this indispensable new birth.

There is no changing or bettering the old man; and, thanks be to God, the new does not degenerate or pass away. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (Verses John 3:1-6) But the Lord goes farther, and bids Nicodemus not wonder at His insisting on this need. As there is an absolute necessity on God’s part that man should be thus born anew, so He lets him know there is an active grace of the Spirit, as the wind blows where it will, unknown and uncontrolled by man, for every one that is born of the Spirit, who is sovereign in operation. First, a new nature is insisted on — the Holy Ghost’s quickening of each soul who is vitally related to God’s kingdom; next, the Spirit of God takes an active part — not as source or character only, but acting sovereignly, which opens the way not only for a Jew, but for “every one.” (Verses John 3:7-8) It is hardly necessary to furnish detailed disproof of the crude, ill-considered notion (originated by the fathers), that baptism is in question. In truth, Christian baptism did not yet exist, but only such as the disciples used, like John the Baptist; it was not instituted of Christ till after His resurrection, as it sets forth His death. Had it been meant, it was no wonder that Nicodemus did not know how these things could be. But the Lord reproaches him, the master of Israel, with not knowing these things: that is, as a teacher, with Israel for his scholar, he ought to have known them objectively, at least, if not consciously. Isaiah 44:3, Isaiah 59:21, Ezekiel 36:25-27 ought to have made the Lord’s meaning plain to an intelligent Jew. (Verse John 3:10) The Lord, it is true, could and did go farther than the prophets: even if He taught on the same theme, He could speak with conscious divine dignity and knowledge (not merely what was assigned to an instrument or messenger). “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (Verses John 3:11-13) He (and He was not alone here) knew God, and the things of God, consciously in Himself, as surely as He knew all men, and what was in man objectively. He could, therefore, tell them of heavenly things as readily as of earthly things; but the incredulity about the latter, shown in the wondering ignorance of the new birth as a requisite for God’s kingdom, proved it was useless to tell of the former. For He who spoke was divine. Nobody had gone up to heaven: God had taken more than one; but no one had gone there as of right.

Jesus not only could go up, as He did later, but He had come down thence, and, even though man, He was the Son of man that is in heaven. He is a divine person; His manhood brought no attainder to His rights as God. Heavenly things, therefore, could not but be natural to Him, if one may so say. Here the Lord introduces the cross. (Ver. John 3:14-15) It is not a question simply of the Son of God, nor is He spoken of here as the Word made flesh. But “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must (δεῖ) the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” As the new birth for the kingdom of God, so the cross is absolutely necessary for eternal life. In the Word was life, and the life was the light of men. It was not intended for other beings — it was God’s free gift to man, to the believer, of course. Man, dead in sins, was the object of His grace; but then man’s state was such, that it would have been derogatory to God had that life been communicated without the cross of Christ: the Son of man lifted up on it was the One in whom God dealt judicially with the evil estate of man, for the, full consequences of which He made Himself responsible.

It would not suit God, if it would suit man, that He, seeing all, should just pronounce on man’s corruption, and then forthwith let him off with a bare pardon. One must be born again. But even this sufficed not: the Son of man must be lifted up. It was impossible that there should not be righteous dealing with human evil against God, in its sources and its streams. Accordingly, if the law raised the question of righteousness in man, the cross of the Lord Jesus, typifying Him made sin, is the answer; and there has all been settled to the glory of God, the Lord Jesus having suffered all the inevitable consequences. Hence, then, we have the Lord Jesus alluding to this fresh necessity, if man was to be blessed according to God. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” But this, however worthy of God, and indispensable for man, could not of itself give an adequate expression of what God is; because in this alone, neither His own love nor the glory of His Son finds due display. Hence, after having first unmistakably laid down the necessity of the cross, He next shows the grace that was manifested in the gift of Jesus. Here He is not portrayed as the Son of man who must be lifted up, but as the Son of God who was given. “For God,” He says, “so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The one, like the other, contributes to this great end, whether the Son of man necessarily lifted up, or the only begotten Son of God given in His love. (Verse John 3:16) Let it not be passed by, that while the new birth or regeneration is declared to be essential to a part in the kingdom of God, the Lord in urging this intimates that He had not gone beyond the earthly things of that kingdom. Heavenly things are set in evident contradistinction, and link themselves immediately here, as everywhere, with the cross as their correlative. (See Hebrews 12:2, Hebrews 13:11-13) Again, let me just remark in passing, that although, no doubt, we may in a general way speak of those who partake of the new nature as having that life, yet the Holy Ghost refrains from predicating of any saints the full character of eternal life as a present thing until we have the cross of Christ laid (at least doctrinally) as the ground of it. But when the Lord speaks of His cross, and not God’s judicial requirements only, but the gift of Himself in His true personal glory as the occasion for the grace of God to display itself to the utmost, then, and not till then, do we hear of eternal life, and this connected with both these points of view. The chapter pursues this subject, showing that it is not only God who thus deals — first, with the necessity of man before His own immutable nature; next, blessing according to the riches of His grace — but, further, that man’s state morally is detected yet more awfully in presence of such grace as well as holiness in Christ. “For God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” (Ver. John 3:17) This decides all before the execution of judgment, Every man’s lot is made manifest by his attitude toward God’s testimony concerning His Son. “He that believeth on him is not judged: but he that believeth not is judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Ver. John 3:19) Other things, the merest trifles, may serve to indicate a man’s condition; but a new responsibility is created by this infinite display of divine goodness in Christ, and the evidence is decisive and final, that the unbeliever is already judged before God. “And this is the judgment, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (Verses John 3:20-21) The Lord and the disciples are next seen in the country district, not far, it would seem, from John, who was baptizing as they were. The disciples of John dispute with a Jew about purification; but John himself renders a bright witness to the glory of the Lord Jesus. In vain did any come to the Baptist to report the widening circle around Christ. He bows to, as he explains, the sovereign will of God. He reminds them of his previous disclaimer of any place beyond one sent before Jesus. His joy was that of a friend of the Bridegroom (to whom, not to him, the bride belonged), and now fulfilled as he heard the Bridegroom’s voice. “He must, increase, but I decrease.” Blessed servant he of an infinitely blessed and blessing Master!

Then (ver. John 3:31-36) he speaks of His person in contrast with himself and all; of His testimony and of the result, both as to His own glory, and consequently also for the believer on, and the rejecter of, the Son.

He that comes from above — from heaven — is above all. Such was Jesus in person, contrasted with all who belong to the earth. Just as distinct and beyond comparison is His testimony who, coming from heaven and above all, testifies what He saw and heard, however it might be rejected. But see the blessed fruit of receiving it. “He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” I apprehend the words the Authorised Version gives in italics should disappear. The addition of “unto him” detracts, to my mind, from the exceeding preciousness of what seems to be, at least, left open.

For the astonishing thought is, not merely that Jesus receives the Holy Ghost without measure, but that God gives the Spirit also, and not by measure, through Him to others. In the beginning of the chapter it was rather an essential indispensable action of the Holy Ghost required; here it is the privilege of the Holy Ghost given.

No doubt Jesus Himself had the Holy Ghost given to Him, as it was meet that He in all things should have the pre-eminence; but it shows yet more both the personal glory of Christ and the efficacy of His work, that He now gives the same Spirit to those who receive His testimony, and set to their seal that God is true. How singularly is the glory of the Lord Jesus thus viewed, as invested with the testimony of God and its crown! What more glorious proof than that the Holy Ghost is given — not a certain defined power or gift, but the Holy Ghost Himself; for God gives not the Spirit by measure! All is fitly closed by the declaration, that “the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” It is not merely or most of all a great prophet or witness: He is the Son; and the Father has given all things to be in His hand. There is the nicest care to maintain His personal glory, no matter what the subject may be. The results for the believer or unbeliever are eternal in good or in evil. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that disobeys the Son, in the sense of not being subject to His person, “shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” Such is the issue of the Son of God present in this world — an everlasting one for every man, flowing from the glory of His person, the character of His testimony, and the Father’s counsels respecting Him. The effect is thus final, even as His person, witness, and glory are divine. The chapters we have had before us (John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36) are thus evidently an introduction: God revealed not in the Word alone, but in the Word made flesh, in the Son who declared the Father; His work, as God’s Lamb, for the world, and His power by the Holy Ghost in man; then viewed as the centre of gathering, as the path to follow, and as the object even for the attendance of God’s angels, the heaven being opened, and Jesus — not the Son of God and King of Israel only, but the Son of man — object of God’s counsels. This will be displayed in the millennium, when the marriage will be celebrated, as well as the judgment executed (Jerusalem and its temple being the central point then). This, of course, supposes the setting aside of Jerusalem, its people and house, as they now are, and is justified by the great fact of Christ’s death and resurrection, which is the key to all, though not yet intelligible even to the disciples. This brings in the great counterpart truth, that even God present on earth and made flesh is not enough. Man is morally judged. One must be born again for God’s kingdom — a Jew for what was promised him, like another.

But the Spirit would not confine His operations to such bounds, but go out freely like the wind. Nor would the rejected Christ, the Son of man; for if lifted up on the cross, instead of having the throne of David, the result would be not merely earthly blessing for His people according to prophecy, but eternal life for the believer, whoever. he might be; and this, too, as the expression of the true and full grace of God in His only-begotten Son given. John then declared his own waning before Christ, as we have seen, the issues of whose testimony, believed or not, are eternal; and this founded on the revelation of His glorious person as man and to man here below. John 4:1-54 presents the Lord Jesus outside Jerusalem — outside the people of promise — among Samaritans, with whom Jews had no intercourse. Pharisaic jealousy had wrought; and Jesus, wearied, sat thus at the fountain of Jacob’s well in Sychar. (Ver. John 4:1-6) What a picture of rejection and humiliation! Nor was it yet complete. For if, on the one side, God has taken care to let us see already the glory of the Son, and the grace of which He was full, on the other side, all shines out the more marvellously when we know how He dealt with a woman of Samaria, sinful and degraded. Here was a meeting, indeed, between such an one and Him, the Son, true God and eternal life.

Grace begins, glory descends; “Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.” (Verse John 4:1) It was strange to her that a Jew should thus humble himself: what would it have been, had she seen in Him Jesus the Son of God? “Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” (Verse John 4:10) Infinite grace! infinite truth! and the more manifest from His lips to one who was a real impersonation of sin, misery, blindness, degradation. But this is not the question of grace: not what she was, but what He is who was there to win and bless her, manifesting God and the Father withal, practically and in detail.

Surely He was there, a weary man outside Judaism; but God, the God of all grace, who humbled Himself to ask a drink of water of her, that He might give the richest and most enduring gift, even water which, once drank, leaves no thirst for ever and ever — yea, is in him who drinks a fountain of water springing up unto everlasting life. Thus the Holy Ghost, given by the Son in humiliation (according to God, not acting on law, but according to the gift of grace in the gospel), was fully set forth; but the woman, though interested, and asking, only apprehended a boon for this life to save herself trouble here below. This gives occasion to Jesus to teach us the lesson that conscience must be reached, and sense of sin produced, before grace is understood and brings forth fruit. This He does in verses 16-19. Her life is laid before her by His voice, and she confesses to Him that God Himself spoke to her in His words: “Sir [said she], I perceive that thou art a prophet.” If she turned aside to questions of religion, with a mixture of desire to learn what had concerned and perplexed her, and of willingness to escape such a searching of her ways and heart, He did not refrain graciously to vouchsafe the revelation of God, that earthly worship was doomed, that the Father was to be worshipped, not an Unknown. And while He does not hide the privilege of the Jews, He nevertheless proclaims that “the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” This brings all to a point; for the woman says, “I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” And Jesus answers, “I that speak unto thee am he.” The disciples come; the woman goes into the city, leaving her waterpot, but carrying with her the unspeakable gift of God. Her testimony bore the impress of what had penetrated her soul, and would make way for all the rest in due time. “Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” It was much, yet was it little of the glory that was His; but at least it was real; and to the one that has shall be given. (Verses John 4:20-30) The disciples marvelled that He spoke with the woman. How little they conceived of what was then said and done! “Master, eat,” said they. “But He said to them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” They entered not into His words more than His grace, but thought and spoke, like the Samaritan woman, about things of this life. Jesus explains: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And herein is that true saying, One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.” (Verses John 4:31-38) Thus a despised Christ is not merely a crucified Son of man, and given Son of God, as in John 3:1-36, but Himself a divine giver in communion with the Father, and in the power of the Holy Ghost who is given to the believer, the source of worship, as their God and Father is its object for the worshippers in spirit and truth (though surely not to the exclusion of the Son, Hebrews 1:1-14). So it must be now; for God is revealed; and the Father in grace seeks true worshippers (be they Samaritans or Jews) to worship Him. Here, accordingly, it is not so much the means by which life is communicated, as the revelation of the full blessing of grace and communion with the Father and His Son by the Holy Ghost, in whom we are blessed. Hence it is that here the Son, according to the grace of God the Father, gives the Holy Ghost — eternal life in the power of the Spirit. It is not simply the new birth such as a saint might, and always must, have had, in order to vital relations with God at any time. Here, in suited circumstances to render the thought and way of God unmistakable, pure and boundless grace takes its own sovereign course, suitable to the love and personal glory of Christ.

For if the Son (cast out, we may say, in principle from Judaism) visited Samaria, and deigned to talk with one of the most worthless of that worthless race, it could not be a mere rehearsal of what others did. Not Jacob was there, but the Son of God in nothing but grace; and thus to the Samaritan woman, not to the teachers of Israel, are made those wonderful communications which unfold to us with incomparable depth and beauty the real source, power, and character of that worship which supersedes, not merely schismatic and rebellious Samaria, but Judaism at its best.

For evidently it is the theme of worship in its Christian fulness, the fruit of the manifestation of God, and of the Father known in grace. And worship is viewed both in moral nature and in the joy of communion — doubly. First, we must worship, if at all, in spirit and in truth. This is indispensable; for God is a Spirit, and so it cannot but be. Besides this, goodness overflows, in that the Father is gathering children, and making worshippers. The Father seeks worshippers. What love! In short, the riches of God’s grace are here according to the glory of the Son, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.

Hence the Lord, while fully owning the labours of all preceding labourers, has before His eyes the whole boundless expanse of grace, the mighty harvest which His apostles were to reap in due time. It is thus strikingly an anticipation of the result in glory. Meanwhile, for Christian worship, the hour was coming and in principle come, because He was there; and He who vindicated salvation as of the Jews, proves that it is now for Samaritans, or any who believed on account of His word. Without sign, prodigy, or miracle, in this village of Samaria Jesus was heard, known, confessed as truly the Saviour of the world (“the Christ” being absent in the best authorities, ver. 42). The Jews, with all their privileges, were strangers here. They knew what they worshipped, but not the Father, nor were they “true.” No such sounds, no such realities were ever heard or known in Israel.

How were they not enjoyed in despised Samaria — those two days with the Son of God among them! It was meet that so it should be; for, as a question of right, none could claim; and grace surpasses all expectation or thought of man, most of all of men accustomed to a round of religious ceremonial.

Christ did not wait till the time was fully come for the old things to pass away, and all to be made new. His own love and person were warrant enough for the simple to lift the veil for a season, and fill the hearts which had received Himself into the conscious enjoyment of divine grace, and of Him who revealed it to them. It was but preliminary, of course; still it was a deep reality, the then present grace in the person of the Son, the Saviour of the world, who filled their once dark hearts with light and joy. The close of the chapter shows us the Lord in Galilee. But there was this difference from the former occasion, that, at the marriage in Cana (John 2:1-25), the change of the water into wine was clearly millennial in its typical aspect. The healing of the courtier’s son, sick and ready to die, is witness of what the Lord was actually doing among the despised of Israel. It is there that we found the Lord, in the other synoptic gospels, fulfilling His ordinary ministry. John gives us this point of contact with them, though in an incident peculiar to himself. It is our evangelist’s way of indicating His Galilean sojourn; and this miracle is the particular subject that John was led by the Holy Ghost to take up.

Thus, as in the former case the Lord’s dealing in Galilee was a type of the future, this appears to be significant of His then present path of grace in that despised quarter of the land. The looking for signs and wonders is rebuked; but mortality is arrested. His corporeal presence was not necessary; His word was enough. The contrasts are as strong, at least, as the resemblance with the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 13:1-58 and Luke 7:1-50, which some ancients and moderns have confounded with this, as they did Mary’s anointing of Jesus with the sinful woman’s in Luke 7:1-50. One of the peculiarities of our gospel is, that we see the Lord from time to time (and, indeed, chiefly) in or near Jerusalem. This is the more striking, because, as we have seen, the world and Israel, rejecting Him, are also themselves, as such, rejected from the first. The truth is, the design of manifesting His glory governs all; place or people was a matter of no consequence. Here (John 5:1-47) the first view given of Christ is His person in contrast with the law. Man, under law, proved powerless; and the greater the need, the less the ability to avail himself of such merciful intervention as God still, from time to time, kept up throughout the legal system. The same God who did not leave Himself without witness among the heathen, doing good, and giving from heaven rain and fruitful seasons, did not fail, in the low estate of the Jews, to work by providential power at intervals; and, by the troubled waters of Bethesda, invited the sick, and healed the first who stepped in of whatever disease he had. In the five porches, then, of this pool lay a great multitude of sick, blind, lame, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. But there was a man who had been infirm for thirty and eight years. Jesus saw the man, and knowing that he was long thus, prompts the desire of healing, but brings out the despondency of unbelief.

How truly it is man under law! Not only is there no healing to be extracted from the law by a sinner, but the law makes more evident the disease, if it does not also aggravate the symptoms. The law works no deliverance; it puts a man in chains, prison, darkness, and under condemnation; it renders him a patient, or a criminal incompetent to avail himself of the displays of God’s goodness. God never left Himself without witness; He did not even among the Gentiles, surely yet less in Israel. Still, such is the effect on man under law, that he could not take advantage of an adequate remedy. (Verses John 5:1-7) On the other hand, the Lord speaks but the word: “Rise, take up thy couch and walk.” The result immediately follows. It was sabbath-day. The Jews, then, who could not help, and pitied not their fellow in his long infirmity and disappointment, are scandalized to see him, safe and sound, carrying his couch on that day. But they learn that it was his divine Physician who had not only healed, but so directed him. At once their malice drops the beneficent power of God in the case, provoked at the fancied wrong done to the seventh day. (Verses John 5:8-12) But were the Jews mistaken after all in thinking that the seal of the first covenant was virtually broken in that deliberate word and warranty of Jesus? He could have healed the man without the smallest outward act to shock their zeal for the law. Expressly had He told the man to take up his couch and walk, as well as to rise. There was purpose in it. There was sentence of death pronounced on their system, and they felt accordingly. The man could not tell the Jews the name of his benefactor. But Jesus finds him in the temple, and said, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” The man went off, and told the Jews that it was Jesus: and for this they persecuted Him, because He had done these things on the sabbath. (Verses John 5:13-16) A graver issue, however, was to be tried; for Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. For this, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him; — because He added the greater offence of making Himself equal with God, by saying that God was His own Father. (Verses John 5:17-18) Thus, in His person, as well as in His work, they joined issue. Nor could any question be more momentous. If He spoke the truth, they were blasphemers. But how precious the grace, in presence of their hatred and proud self-complacency! “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” They had no common thoughts, feelings, or ways with the Father and the Son. Were the Jews zealously keeping the sabbath? The Father and the Son were at work. How could either light or love rest in a scene of sin, darkness, and misery? Did they charge Jesus with self-exaltation? No charge could be remoter from the truth. Though He could not, would not deny Himself (and He was the Son, and Word, and God), yet had He taken the place of a man, of a servant. Jesus, therefore, answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (Ver.

John 5:19-29) It is evident, then, that the Lord presents life in Himself as the true want of man, who was not merely infirm but dead. Law, means, ordinances, could not meet the need — no pool, nor angel — nothing but the Son working in grace, the Son quickening. Governmental healing even from Him might only end in “some worse thing” coming. through “sin.” Life out of death was wanted by man, such as he is; and this the Father is giving in the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. This is the truth; but the Jews had the law, and hated the truth. Could they, then, reject the Son, and merely miss this infinite blessing of life in Him? Nay, the Father has given all judgment to the Son. He will have all honour the Son, even as Himself And as life is in the person of the Son, so God in sending Him meant not that the smallest uncertainty should exist for aught so momentous. He would have every soul to know assuredly how he stands for eternity as well as now. There is but one unfailing test — the Son of God — God’s testimony to Him. Therefore, it seems to me, He adds verse 24. It is not a question of the law, but of hearing Christ’s word, and believing Him who sent Christ: he that does so has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life. The Word, God (and only begotten Son in the Father’s bosom), He was eternally — Son of God, too, as born into the world.

Was this false and blasphemous in their eyes? They could not deny Him to be man — Son of man. Nay, therefore it was they, reasoning, denied Him to be God. Let them learn, then, that as Son of man (for which nature they despised Him, and denied His essential personal glory) He will judge; and this judgment will be no passing visitation, such as God has accomplished by angels or men in times past. The judgment, all of it, whether for quick or dead, is consigned to Him, because He is Son of man. Such is God’s vindication of His outraged rights; and the judgment will be proportionate to the glory that has been set at nought. Thus solemnly does the meek Lord Jesus unfold these two truths. In Him was life for this scene of death; and it is of faith that it might be by grace. This only secures His honour in those that believe God’s testimony to Him, the Son of God; and to these He gives life, everlasting life now, and exemption from judgment, in this acting in communion with the Father. And in this He is sovereign. The Son gives life, as the Father does; and not merely to whom the Father will, but to whom He will. Nevertheless the Son had taken the place of being the sent One, the place of subordination in the earth, in which He would say, “My Father is greater than I.” And He did accept that place thoroughly, and in all its consequences.

But let them beware how they perverted it. Granted He was the Son of man; but as such, He had all judgment given Him, and would judge.

Thus in one way or the other all must honour the Son. The Father did not judge, but committed all judgment into the hands of the Son, because He is the Son of man. It was not the time now to demonstrate in public power these coming, yea, then present truths. The hour was one for faith, or unbelief. Did the dead (for so men are treated, not as alive under law) — did they hear the voice of the Son of God? Such shall live.

For though the Son (that eternal life who was with the Father) was a man, in that very position had the Father given Him to have life in Himself, and to execute judgment also, because He is Son of man. Judgment is the alternative for man: for God it is the resource to make good the glory of the Son, and in that nature, in and for which man — blind to his own highest dignity — dares to despise Him.

Two resurrections, one of life, and another of judgment, would be the manifestation of faith and unbelief, or rather, of those who believe, and of those who reject the Son. They were not to wonder then at what He says and does now; for an hour was coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those that have done good to resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to resurrection of judgment. This would make all manifest. Now it is that the great question is decided; now it is that a man receives or refuses Christ. If he receives Him, it is everlasting life, and Christ is thus honoured by him; if not, judgment remains which will compel the honour of Christ, but to his own ruin for ever. Resurrection will be the proof; the two-fold rising of the dead, not one, but two resurrections. Life — resurrection will display how little they had to be ashamed of, who believed the record given of His Son; the resurrection of judgment will make but too plain, to those who despised the Lord, both His honour and their sin and shame. As this chapter sets forth the Lord Jesus with singular fulness of glory, on the side both of His Godhead and of His manhood, so it closes with the most varied and remarkable testimonies God has given to us, that there may be no excuse. So bright was His glory, so concerned was the Father in maintaining it, so immense the blessing if received, so tremendous the stake involved in its loss, that God vouchsafed the amplest and clearest witnesses. If He judges, it is not without full warning. Accordingly there is a four-fold testimony to Jesus: the testimony of John the Baptist; the Lord’s own works; the voice of the Father from heaven; and finally, the written word which the Jews had in their own hands. To this last the Lord attaches the deepest importance. This testimony differs from the rest in having a more permanent character.

Scripture is, or may be, before man always. It is not a message or a sign, however significant at the moment, which passes away as soon as heard or seen. As a weapon of conviction, most justly had it in the mind of the Lord Jesus the weightiest place, little as man thinks now-a-days of it. The issue of all is, that the will of man is the real cause and spring of enmity. “Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” it was no lack of testimony; their will was for present honour, and hostile to the glory of the only God. They would fall a prey to Antichrist, and meanwhile are accused of Moses, in whom they trusted, without believing him; else they would have believed Christ, of whom he wrote. In John 6:1-71 our Lord sets aside Israel in another point of view. Not only man under law has no health, but he has no strength to avail himself of the blessing that God holds out. Nothing less than everlasting life in Christ can deliver: otherwise there remains judgment. Here the Lord was really owned by the multitudes as the great Prophet that should come; and this in consequence of His works, especially that one which Scripture itself had connected with the Son of David. (Psalms 132:1-18) Then they wanted to make Him a king. It seemed natural: He had fed the poor with bread, and why should not He take His place on the throne? This the Lord refuses, and goes up the mountain to pray, His disciples being meanwhile exposed to a storm on the lake, and straining after the desired haven till He rejoins them, when immediately the ship was at the land whither they went. (Verses John 6:1-21) The Lord, in the latter part of the chapter (verses John 6:27-58), contrasts the presentation of the truth of God in His person and work with all that pertained to the promises of Messiah. It is not that He denies the truth of what they were thus desiring and attached to. Indeed, He was the great Prophet, as He was the great King, and as He is now the great Priest on high. Still the Lord refused the crown then: it was not the time or state for His reign. Deeper questions demanded solution. A greater work was in hand; and this, as the rest of the chapter shows us, not a Messiah lifted up, but the true bread given — He who comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world; a dying, not a reigning, Son of man.

It is His person as incarnate first, then in redemption giving His flesh to be eaten and His blood to be drank. Thus former things pass away; the old man is judged, dead, and clean gone. A second and wholly new man appears — the bread of God, not of man, but for men. The character is wholly different from the position and glory of Messiah in Israel, according to promise and prophecy. Indeed, it is the total eclipse, not merely of law and remedial mercies, but even of promised Messianic glory, by everlasting life and resurrection at the last day. Christ here, it will be noticed, is not so much the quickening agent as Son of God (John 5:1-47), but the object of faith as Son of man — first incarnate, to be eaten; then dying and giving His flesh to be eaten, and His blood to be drank.

Thus we feed on Him and drink into Him, as man, unto life — everlasting life in Him. This last is the figure of a truth deeper than incarnation, and clearly means communion with His death. They had stumbled before, and the Lord brought in not alone His person, as the Word made flesh, presented for man now to receive and enjoy; but unless they ate the flesh, and drank the blood of the Son of man, they had no life in them. There He supposes His full rejection and death. He speaks of Himself as the Son of man in death; for there could be no eating of His flesh, no drinking of His blood, as a living man. Thus it is not only the person of our Lord viewed as divine, and coming down into the world. He who, living, was received for eternal life, is our meat and drink in dying, and gives us communion with His death.

Thus, in fact, we have the Lord setting aside what was merely Messianic by the grand truths of the incarnation, and, above all, of the atonement, with which man must have vital association: he must eat — yea, eat and drink. This language is said of both, but most strongly of the latter. And so, in fact, it was and is. He who owns the reality of Christ’s incarnation, receives most thankfully and adoringly from God the truth of redemption; he, on the contrary, who stumbles at redemption, has not really taken in the incarnation according to God’s mind. If a man looks at the Lord Jesus as One who entered the world in a general way, and calls this the incarnation, he will surely stumble over the cross. If, on the contrary, a soul has been taught of God the glory of the person of Him who was made flesh, he receives in all simplicity, and rejoices in, the glorious truth, that He who was made flesh was not made flesh only to this end, but rather as a step toward another and deeper work — the glorifying God, and becoming our food, in death.

Such are the grand emphatic points to which the Lord leads. But the chapter does not close without a further contrast. (Verses John 6:59-71) What and if they should see Him, who came down and died in this world, ascend up where He was before? All is in the character of the Son of man. The Lord Jesus did, without question, take humanity in His person into that glory which He so well knew as the Son of the Father. On this basis John 7:1-53 proceeds. The brethren of the Lord Jesus, who could see the astonishing power that was in Him, but whose hearts were carnal, at once discerned that it might be an uncommon good thing for them, as well as for Him, in this world. It was worldliness in its worst shape, even to the point of turning the glory of Christ to a present account. Why should He not show Himself to the world? (Verses John 7:3-5) The Lord intimates the impossibility of anticipating the time of God; but then He does it as connected with His own personal glory. Then He rebukes the carnality of His brethren. If His time was not yet come, their time was always ready. (Ver. John 7:6-8) They belonged to the world. They spoke of the world; the world might hear them.

As to Himself, He does not go at that time to the feast of tabernacles; but later on He goes up “not openly, but as it were in secret” (verse John 7:10), and taught. They wonder, as they had murmured before (John 7:12-15); but Jesus shows that the desire to do God’s will is the condition of spiritual understanding. (Verses John 7:16-18) , The Jews kept not the law) and wished to kill Him who healed man in divine love. (Verses John 7:19-23) What judgment could be less righteous? (Ver. John 7:24) They reason and are in utter uncertainty. (Ver. John 7:25-31) He is going where they cannot come, and never guessed (for unbelief thinks of the dispersed among the Greeks — of anything rather than of God). (Verses John 7:33-36) Jesus was returning to Him that sent Him, and the Holy Ghost would be given. So on the last day, that great day of the feast (the eighth day, which witnessed of a resurrection glory outside this creation, now to be made good in the power of the Spirit before anything appears to sight), the Lord stands and cries, saying, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” (Ver. John 7:37) It is not a question of eating the bread of God, or, when Christ died, of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Here, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” Just as in John 4:1-54, so here it is a question of power in the Holy Ghost, and not simply of Christ’s person. “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (Ver. John 7:38) And then we have the comment of the Holy Ghost: “(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)” There is, first, the thirsty soul coming to Jesus and drinking; then there is the power of the Spirit flowing forth from the inner man of the believer in refreshment to others. (Verse John 7:39) Nothing can be simpler than this. Details are not called for now, but just the outline of the truth. But what we learn is, that our Lord (viewed as having entered into heaven as man on the ground of redemption, i.e., ascended, after having passed through death, into glory) from that glory confers meanwhile the Holy Ghost on him that believes, instead of bringing in at once the final feast of gladness for the Jews and the world, as He will do by-and-by when the anti-typical harvest and vintage has been fulfilled. Thus it is not the Spirit of God simply giving a new nature; neither is it the Holy Ghost given as the power of worship and communion with His God and Father. This we have had fully before. Now, it is the Holy Ghost in the power that gives rivers of living water flowing out, and this bound up with, and consequent on, His being man in glory.

Till then the Holy Ghost could not be so given — only when Jesus was glorified, after redemption was a fact. What can be more evident, or more instructive?

It is the final setting aside of Judaism then, whose characteristic hope was the display of power and rest in the world. But here these streams of the Spirit are substituted for the feast of tabernacles, which cannot be accomplished till Christ come from heaven and show Himself to the world; for this time was not yet come. Rest is not the question now at all; but the flow of the Spirit’s power while Jesus is on high. In a certain sense, the principle of Joh 4:1-54 was made true in the woman of Samaria, and in others who received Christ then. The person of the Son was there the object of divine and overflowing joy even then, although, of course, in the full sense of the word, the Holy Ghost might not be given to be the power of it for some time later; but still the object of worship was there revealing the Father; but John 7:1-53 supposes Him to be gone up to heaven, before He from heaven communicates the Holy Ghost, who should be (not here, as Israel had a rock with water to drink of in the wilderness outside themselves, nor even as a fountain springing up within the believer, but) as rivers flowing out. How blessed the contrast with the people’s state depicted in this chapter, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, looking to “letters,” rulers, and Pharisees, perplexed about the Christ, but without righteous judgment, assurance, or enjoyment! Nicodemus remonstrates but is spurned; all retire to their home — Jesus, who had none, to the mount of Olives. (Verses John 7:40-53) This closes the various aspects of the Lord Jesus, completely blotting out Judaism, viewed as resting in a system of law and ordinances, as looking to a Messiah with present ease, and as hoping for the display of Messianic glory then in the world. The Lord Jesus presents Himself as putting an end to all this now for the Christian, though, of course, every word God has promised, as well as threatened, remains to be accomplished in Israel by-and-by; for Scripture cannot be broken; and what the mouth of the Lord has said awaits its fulfilment in its due sphere and season.

William Kelly's Commentary and Lectures

William Kelly (1821–1906) was an Irish-born Plymouth Brethren Bible teacher and editor who succeeded John Nelson Darby as the intellectual leader of the Exclusive Brethren. Extraordinarily prolific, Kelly produced commentaries, lectures, and introductory studies on nearly every book of the Bible. …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 0 John — All Chapters Chapter 2 ›