Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 1:14 - 1:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Incarnation of the Logos, the Appearance of the real Shekinah among the Faithful
Joh_1:14-18
14And the Word was made [became, ἐãÝíåôï ] flesh, and dwelt [sojourned, tabernacled, ἐó÷Þíùóåí ] among us, (and we beheld his glory [the real Shekinah], the glory as of the [an] only-begotten of [from, ðáñÜ the Father,) [omit parenthesis] full of 15grace and truth. John bare [beareth] witness of him, and cried [crieth], saying, This was he of whom I spake [said], He that cometh after me [behind me] is preferred 16[hath come to be] before me; for he was before me [lit. first of me]. And [For] of his fulness have all we received [did we all receive], and [even] grace for grace. 17For the law was given by [through] Moses, (but) grace and truth came [came to pass] by [through] Jesus Christ. 18No man hath seen God at any time [No one hath ever seen God]; the only begotten Son [God], which [who] is in [toward] the bosom of the Father [of the nature of the Father and in his full confidence and service] he hath declared him [hath interpreted all).
The Word became flesh.—In this finishing sentence the subject is again named. Not a life only, or a light, from the Logos, was made flesh, but the whole Logos as Life and Light (see Col_1:19; Col_2:9). He became óÜñî ; the strongest expression for becoming veritable man.
[This grand sentence: ὁëüãïòóὰñîἐãÝíåôï , stands alone in the Bible; but the same idea in somewhat different forms of expression occurs repeatedly, viz.: 1Jn_4:2 ( ἐí óáñêὶ ἐëçëõèþò , Christ having come in the flesh); 1Ti_3:16 ( ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêß , God was manifested in the flesh); Rom_1:3 ( ãåíüìåíïò ἐê óðÝñìáôïò Äáõåὶä êáôὰ óÜñêá , born from the seed of David according to the flesh); Joh_8:3 ( ἐí ὁìïéþìáôé óáñêὸò ἁìáñôßáò , in the likeness of sinful flesh); Php_2:7 ( ἑí ὁìïéþìáôé ἀíèñþðùí ãåíüìåíïò , being made in the likeness of men); Heb_2:14 (where it is said that Christ, like other men, partook of áἵìáôïò êáὶ óáñêüò , of blood and flesh). Flesh ( óÜñî ) is a strong Hebraizing term ( áָּùָׂø ) for human nature in its weakness, frailty and mortality. Comp. the English, mortal (the German, der Sterbliche), for man. When used of man, the idea of moral weakness or sinfulness is also often implied, but not necessarily. In the passages where it is ascribed to Christ, sin must be excluded in view of the unanimous testimony of the Apostles to the sinlessness of Jesus. The term is more, comprehensive than body ( óῶìá ), which is used in distinction from soul ( øõ÷Þ ) and spirit íïῦò or ðíåῦìá ), while flesh sometimes includes both; it is more concrete and emphatic than man ( ἄíèñùðïò ), and expresses more strongly the infinite condescension of the Logos, the identity of His human nature with our own, and the universalness of His manhood. Yet it is as correct to speak of Christ’s becoming man ( ἐíáíèñþðçóéò , Menschwerdung) as of His becoming flesh ( ἐíóÜñêùóéò , incarnatio, incarnation, Fleischwerdung). The Logos assumed, not an individual man or a single human personality, but human nature into union with His præ-existent divine personality. He moreover assumed human nature, not apparently and transiently (according to the Gnostic Docetic view), but really and permanently; nor partially (as Apollinaris taught), but totally, with all its essential constituents as created by God, body, soul and spirit. For Christ everywhere appears as a full man (comp. Joh_8:40 : “Ye seek to kill me, a man who,” etc.), and He is emphatically called “the Son of Man;” John speaks expressly of the soul ( øõ÷Þ ) of Christ, Joh_12:27, and of His spirit ( ðíåῦìá ), Joh_11:33; Joh_13:21; Joh_19:30; comp. Mat_27:50. In the O. T., too, flesh often includes the moral or spiritual nature of man, comp. Lev_17:11; Deu_12:15; Job_12:10. It is not the flesh as opposed to the spirit, that is here intended, but human nature, as distinct from the divine. The flesh is the outward tabernacle and the visible representative of the whole man to our senses. Finally Christ assumed human nature, not in its primitive state of innocence, but in its fallen, suffering, mortal state, yet without sin (which, does not originally and necessarily belong to man); for He came to save this fallen nature. He was subject to temptation, or temptable, and was perfected through suffering (Heb_2:14-18; Heb_4:15), but He was neither óáñêéêüò (Rom_7:14), nor øõêéêüò (1Co_2:14). He appeared not “in the flesh of sin,” but only “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom_8:2). He bore all the consequences of sin without a share of personal sin and guilt. This amazing miracle of His love is best expressed by the term: The Logos became flesh. Comp. 2Co_8:9 : “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye by His poverty might become rich.” At His second advent Christ will appear as man indeed, yet no more in the likeness of sinful flesh, nor in weakness and poverty, but in glory and immortality (comp, Heb_9:28, ÷ùñὶò ἁìáñôßáò ). P. S.]
It imputes a Judaistic [and Apollinarian] nonsense to the Evangelist, to represent him as saying that the Logos took only the human óÜñî , and not a reasonable human soul (Praxeas, Köstlin, Zeller). The evidence of the contrary lies not only in the impossibility of conceiving a human óÜñî without øõ÷Þ and such a øõ÷Þ without ðíåῦìá (see Meyer, p. 65), but especially in the Old Testament usage of the term flesh to denote human nature (Isaiah 40); to say nothing of John’s express designation of the øõ÷Þ of Christ in Joh_12:27, and the ðíåῦìá in Joh_11:33; Joh_13:21; Joh_19:30. But while the half-Baur school thus construes John’s statement of the incarnation Judaistically, Hilgenfeld construes it Gnostically: giving Christ (according to the Valentinian system) a real óÜñî , indeed, but such as was exalted above material limitations. Meyer (against Frommann and others) contests without good reason the anti-Docetic force of this expression; though certainly the main force of it is rather anti-Gnostic; for the incipient Gnosticism first asserted an external connection of óÜñî and ëüãïò , against which the verb ἐãÝíåôï would be more emphatic than the substantive óÜñî .
With the idea of the óÜñî comes also the idea of passibility, but by no means the idea of any weakness of the flesh arising from sin; for Scripture recognizes the flesh in three stages: (1) pure in paradise; (2) weakened by sin; (3) sanctified by the Spirit; and the Logos could become flesh only in the latter sense.
All this carries in it the antithesis between His incarnation and His eternal, immaterial existence; yet neither in the sense of Pantheism, which makes His incarnation an accident (Baur), nor in the sense of the mediæval scholasticism, which sees in it, even as incarnation, a humiliation of the Logos even into an incongruous, heterogeneous nature. The historical humiliation of Christ coincides indeed with His historical incarnation; yet the two are to be distinguished.
The supernatural birth of Christ is unquestionably implied in this passage, in that the origin of Christ as God-Man stands in opposition to the natural births previously described, all which, as such, needed to be completed by the birth from God (contra Meyer).
[Became, ἐãÝíåôï .—Not was, ἦí , as in Joh_1:1, nor ἐãÝíåôï ἄíèñùðïò , as is said of John, Joh_1:6, who had no existence before his birth, but the præ-existent, personal Logos became flesh. Comp. LXX., Gen_2:7 : ἐãÝíåôïὁ ἄíèñùðïò åἰò øõ÷ὴò æῶóáí . The word denotes a single and completed act. The Logos was not converted or changed into flesh, nor simply associated with flesh, but endued with human nature, which He assumed once for all into personal and perpetual union with Him. The Logos was henceforth Christ Jesus, the God-Man ( èåÜíèñùðïò ), and this not only for a transient purpose, but He continues so forever.—P. S.]
Tabernacled among us.—God dwelt as Jehovah in Israel, hidden in the most holy place of the tabernacle ( óêçíÞ ); now in the Logos He has tabernacles ( ἐóêÞíùóåí ) among the disciples in the midst of the people, thus making the disciples themselves His tabernacle. (On among us, ἐí ἡìῖí , see Joh_1:16. The disciples and witnesses of Christ are meant, but as the central point of the people, and of all mankind). The expression evidently alludes to the Old Testament dwelling of God in Israel. The idea of that dwelling of Jehovah in the holy tabernacle (Exo_25:8; Exo_29:45) is enlarged even in the prophets (Isa_4:5; Isa_57:15). Now the Lord has taken His dwelling among His own people themselves. This reference is confirmed by what follows. “The Targums likewise represent the Word ( îéîøà ) as the Shekinah ( ùּׁáéðà ), and the Messiah as the manifestation of the latter” (Meyer).
And we beheld his glory.—Meyer rightly maintains, against Lücke, De Wette and Tholuck, that this main thought cannot be read as a parenthesis. Such reading has been occasioned by the nominative ðëÞñçò ÷Üñéôïò , at the close of the verse, referring to ëüãïò . According to Baumgarten-Crusius and Meyer [Brückner, Alford], this nominative refers, by a solecism, to áὐôïῦ , and serves to give more independent prominence to the descriptive clause. But the clause may also be read as a declaration prompted by the contemplation; ἦí being understood.
We beheld.—The beholding has faith for its organ; it is not a merely outward vision, still less merely inward; nor does it perceive the glory of Christ only in single miracles or in a transfiguration, but in His whole life (comp. 1Jn_1:1). [ èåÜïìáé moreover is richer than ὁñÜù , and means properly to behold or contemplate with admiration and delight. John speaks here in the name of all the Apostles and eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. The plural adds force to the statement, as in Joh_21:24; 1Jn_1:1; 2Pe_1:16. Faith lifts the veil of Christ’s humanity and worships His divine glory, while to unbelief He is a mere man. Hengstenberg refers to several passages from Isaiah (Isa_40:5; Isa_66:2; Isa_66:18), in which the beholding of the glory of Jehovah is promised. John recognized Jehovah in the incarnate Logos (Joh_12:41).—P. S.]
His glory, äüîá , ëָּáåֹã .—The real appearances of the divine glory in the Old Testament must be distinguished from its symbolical signs. Its signs are the cloud and tempest on Sinai, the pillar of smoke and the pillar of fire, the cherubim over the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. Its real manifestations are, from the nature of the Old Testament, transient, and given in visions: manifestations of the Angel of the Lord (see above), or of the Lord Himself attended by a host of angels, Daniel 7. The manifestation of the Angel of the Lord is, in its nature, connected with the manifestation of His glory. The later Jewish theology has designated these manifestations as the Shekinah. In Christ the Shekinah appears in full reality.
[We must distinguish four stages of this glory: 1) the præ-existent divine glory of the Logos with the Father, Joh_17:5; John 2) the preparatory shadowy manifestation of His glory in the Old Testament, as seen by the prophetic eye of Isaiah 12:41; Isaiah 3) its visible revelation in human form in the life and work of the incarnate Word, which shone from every miracle, Joh_2:11; John 4) the final and perfect manifestation of His divine-human glory in eternity in which the believers will share, Joh_17:24.—P. S.]
When Meyer, with Hofmann (Schriftbew. II.1, p. 21), makes the incarnation of Christ itself equivalent to His humiliation, and so conceives even theanthropic existence as distinct from simple divine, he has no Scripture for it, either in Joh_12:41; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:22; Joh_17:24, or in Php_2:6. Unquestionably the human äüîá of Christ in His earthly life was to be relatively conceived; but only (1) in that He entered into the historical conditions of humanity, especially into subjection to the law, (2) in that the life of the first man waited in Him for its completion in the higher, imperishable manifestation of the second.
The glory [emphatically repeated] as of an only begotten [ äüîáíὡòìïõïãåíïῦòðáñὰðáôñüò ].—A closer description of the äüîá . It was alone in its kind, and could be characterized only thus: as of the only begotten. The ὡò expresses literally not the reality (Euthym. Zigabenus: ὄíôùò ), but in similitude, the idea of the only begotten, to which the appearance of Christ corresponded, while assuredly it first awakened that idea and brought it to view. Only the ìïíïãåíÞò could manifest Himself so (Joh_1:18; Joh_3:6; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9). That John has the term from Christ Himself, is shown by Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18. Paul’s ðñùôüôïêïò , first begotten [Col_1:15; Heb_1:6], is a parallel. Both terms denote not only the trinitarian relation, of the Son of God, but also His theanthropic relation. In the expression of John, however, the incommunicable relation of Christ to God predominates; in that of Paul, His incommunicable relation to the world. In the one, the ontological idea of the Trinity rules; in the other, the economic and soteriological. The notion of the only begotten is closely akin to that of the beloved ( ἀãáðçôüò ), not identical with it as Kuinoel holds. The word denotes indeed, according to Meyer, the only begotten; but it thereby makes Christ also the peculiarly begotten (Tholuck), who is the principle of all other births and regenerations. The reference of ìïíïãåíïῦò to äüîá (Erasmus and others) is wholly without support.
From the Father [belongs to ìïíïãåíïῦò , not to äüîáí .—Origen: ἐê ôῆò ïὐóßáò ôïῦ ðáôñüò . His origin and issue is from the essence of the Father. His coming forth from the Father (Joh_6:46; Joh_7:29; Joh_16:27) does not exclude, however, His continuance in the heaven of the Father (Joh_3:13; comp. Joh_1:18). His human relations do not supersede His divine.
Full of grace and truth.—Comp. Joh_1:17. The result of the beholding, uttered in an exclamation of astonishment, expressing the main forms in which the äüîá was seen in Him. He was full of grace and truth. Not only did He seem all grace and truth, but grace and truth seemed concentrated in Him. And this was His glory, for grace and truth are the main attributes of Jehovah in the Old Testament, since the Messianic spirit recognized Him as pre-eminently the God of redemption ( çֶñֶã åֶàֱîֶú [in the LXX.: ðïëõÝëåïò êáὶ ἀëìèéíüò ], Exo_34:6; Psa_25:10; Psa_36:6). This reference to the Old Testament is groundlessly doubted by Meyer; for though àֱîֶú denotes also faithfulness, yet faithfulness and truth are one in the divine nature; and the rendering of çֶñֶã by ἔëåïò in the Septuagint decides nothing, since ἔëåïò finds its more precise equivalent in øַçֲîִéí . But Meyer well observes that ἀëÞèåéá answers to the light-nature ( öῶò ), ÷Üñéò to the life-nature ( æùÞ ) of the Logos. Of course the life is as much concerned in the truth of Christ, as the light in the grace; the latter notions are more soteriologically concrete, than the former. Christ, as absolute redemption, was pure grace; as absolute revelation, pure truth. [Christ is the personal Truth, Joh_14:6, and is in the Apoc. called the ἀëçèéíüò , Joh_3:7; Joh_19:11, is whom there is a perfect harmony between appearance and reality, claim and being, promise and fulfilment.—P. S.]
Joh_1:15. John beareth witness of him.—Having described the advent of Christ to its consummation in the incarnation, the Evangelist comes to the testimony of John concerning Christ. He first introduced John’s mission to bear witness of Christ, Joh_1:6; now he comes to his actual testimony concerning Christ, and that as a testimony even to His præ-existence and His higher nature. Afterwards follows the testimony of the Baptist concerning the Messianic (Joh_1:19) and the soteriological (Joh_1:29 sqq.) character of Jesus.
Beareth witness.—Present. John’s testimony is perpetually living, active and valid. Its continued validity in the present rests upon the past fact that he cried only in Israel, and uttered what he had to say of Christ ( êÝêñáãå ëÝãùí ). Hence Christ could appeal to his testimony, Joh_5:33; Mat_21:24. ÊñÜæåéí , elsewhere also, Joh_7:28; Joh_7:37, etc., for loud public proclamation. There is no reason for taking the perfect in a present sense. [Comp. Text. Notes 3 and 4.—P. S.]
This was he of whom I said.— Ïὖôïòἦí . He it was. Not because John is conceived as speaking in the present. In the testimony of John two periods must be distinguished: before and after the baptism of Jesus. Before the baptism, he preached the Messiah in His higher characters, as approaching, but knew not yet the Messianic individual; after the baptism he could point to Jesus and say: This was He, of whom I declared that præ-existence. Thus this second stage of his testimony is here in hand.
He that cometh after me.—[ ὁ ὀðßóù ìïõἐñ÷üìåíï ò , ἔìðñïóèÝíìïõãÝãïíåí . A pithy oxymoron exciting attention and reflection, repeated Joh_1:27; Joh_1:30, and probably suggested by the prophetic passage, Mal_3:2 : “Lo, I am sending My messenger, and he hath prepared a way before Me.” The following words, ὅôé ðñῶôüò ìïõ ἦí , which must be referred to the præ-existence of Christ (comp. ἦí , Joh_1:1; Joh_1:9-10), not to the superiority of rank (which would require ἐóôß ), contain the clue to the enigmatic and paradoxical sentence. The meaning may be thus explained: My successor (in time) has become (or has come to be) my predecessor (in rank); for He is before me (even in time), being absolutely the first, viz.: the eternal Son of God; while I am only a man born in time and sent to prepare the way for Him.—P. S.]
“He that comes after me, has come before me.” Meyer. But it means: was made, has become( ãÝãïíå ) before me. John appeared before Christ as His fore-runner and herald; as to his progressive approach in His Old Testament advent, Christ was before him. His coming forth pervaded the Old Testament, and was the impelling power and cause of all prophecy, even the prophecy of John. And this earlier coming had its ground in His earlier (absolutely early, eternal) existence; hence ὅôéðñῶôüòìïõἦí . These are, indeed, primarily antitheses of time. But the designation of the one coming after, as being before, implies at the same time a deeper and higher principle of life. According to Aristotle, the posterius in the real development is the prius in the idea or the value of the life. This is true of man in relation to the animal world, of the New Testament in relation to the Old, of Christ in relation to the Baptist. The ἐíôéìüôåñüò ìïõ ἐóôß of Chrysostom, therefore, is involved in the clause; while Meyer is right, against Lücke, Tholuck and others, in not taking this for its primary sense. The ἔìðñïóèÝíìïõã Ýãïíåí , of course, means not was before me (Luther and others), but: has become [or come to be] before me (against Meyer). Commentators have not been able to reconcile themselves to this ãÝãïíåí , because they have not yet fairly reconciled themselves to the Old Testament incarnation of Christ. Hence Meyer: it is equal to ðñïÝñ÷åóèáé ; Luthardt: He who at first came after me, as if He were my disciple, is since come before me, that is, become my master. Baumgarten-Crusius: of the ideal præ-existence of Christ in the divine counsels. This interpretation lies in the right direction, but misses the fact that the præ-existence of the Logos was personal and real, and that the ideal præ-existence of the God-Man was from the first dynamically real, the power of the creation, the central force and the core of the Old Testament (the “roct” of Isaiah), and in Israel was in a continual process of incarnation, which was objectively represented beforehand in the Angel of the Lord.
For he was before me [ ὅôéð ñῶôüòìïõἦí ].—The eternal præ-existence of Christ is the ground of His theocratic manifestation. Here again Meyer [on account of the ἦí ] emphasizes the temporal sense, against the reference of the ðñῶôïò to rank [which would require ἐóôßí ], contrary to Chrysostom, Erasmus [Beza, Calvin, Grotius] and many others. He would take the merely temporal conception (i.e., the præ-existence of the Logos); hence ðñῶôïò in the sense of ðñüôåñïò . The comparative, however, could hardly stand here. Such præ-existence itself involves the higher, even divine dignity.
Meyer justly holds, against Strauss [De Wette, Scholten] and others, that the Baptist could certainly have from Mal_3:1; Isa_6:1 ff. and Dan_7:13 ff., the idea of the præ-existence of Christ, which even the Rabbins attested. [Besides, we must assume a special revelation given to John at the baptism of Christ, Joh_1:33.—P. S.]
Joh_1:16. For [text, rec.: And] of his fulness did we all receive.—Undoubtedly the testimony of the Baptist continued, as Origen, Chrysostom [Erasmus, Luther, Mel.] and others take it. We adjust the ἡìåῖò ðÜíôåò by referring it to the Old Testament saints (Joh_1:12), and particularly to the prophets, whose line John closed.
From the fullness of Christ have we all drawn our supply, says the last of the prophets, and (even) grace for grace. The last, best, highest, which each one in the end received from His fulness, was grace. Thus the Old Testament experience of salvation looked to its completion in the New Testament. Comp. 1Pe_1:11-12.
Of his fulness.—See Joh_1:14, ðëÞñçò [also Col_1:19; Col_2:9, according to which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelled in Christ bodily; Eph_1:23, where the church as the body of Christ is called “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.”—P. S.].—That the idea of the ðëÞñùìá does not necessarily originate in Gnostic soil (as Schwegler and others [of the Tübingen School] hold), to pass thence into a pseudo-Johannean Gospel, a more thorough knowledge of the history of religion might abundantly teach. The heathen philosophy knows only an ideal pleroma as the basis of things; in the actual world all proceeds in broken emanations in infinitum, upon the premises of pantheism. But the idea of the real pleroma was an essential principle of the Old Testament religion and promise. In the Messiah the old piece-work was to become a whole,
shadows were to become reality, revelation was to be finished. See Isa_11:1; [comp. Heb_1:1-2] Hence even Matthew, at the outset, speaks repeatedly of positive fulfilment, John 2, etc. Likewise all the Evangelists and Apostles in their way; Eph_1:10; Col_2:9; Col_2:17; Col_1:19. The pleroma of Christ in the world corresponds with the pleroma of the Trinity in heaven; it is absolute revelation and religion concluded and consummated in His personality; and it is patent that this idea could be only borrowed by the Gnostics, to be altered and corrupted. The ðëÞñùìá of Christ is His fullness of being in its revelation, ontologically present, actively demonstrating itself. He had already partially opened Himself in the Old Testament, so that all the prophets might draw from Him. Comp. Joh_10:6 sqq.; 1Pe_1:11-12.
And (even) grace for grace.—And even; not: and that, or: to wit.—Grace for grace[ çֵï òַì çֵï gratiam super gratiam]. Variously interpreted: (1) Starke: The grace of restoration, for the grace lost in paradise. (2) Chrysostom, Lampe, Paulus and others: The grace of the New Testament instead of or after that of the Old. (3) Augustine: First justification, then eternal life. (4) Bengel and most moderns: One grace after another [ever growing supplies of grace] from the fullness of Christ.—At the same time, however, the Baptist doubtless thought of the different developments of religious experience in the course of the Old Testament prophecy. Grace was continually assuming new forms. [This remark loses its force if Joh_1:16 gives the words of the Evangelist, not of the Baptist.—P. S.]
Joh_1:17. For the law, etc.—[Antithetic demonstration of Joh_1:16] The antithesis of the Old and New Testaments, as in Paul (Rom_6:14; Rom_7:3; Gal_4:4, etc.]. It must be remembered that both Apostles (and all the Apostles) recognize likewise the unity of the Old and New Testaments. This unity, even according to our text, is Christ Himself, and it is elsewhere in John [ch. Joh_8:56], as well as in Paul (Rom_4:4), represented by Abraham, or by promise and prophecy, also by the prophetic, typical side of the Mosaic law itself. The law, however, as law, constitutes the opposition of the Old Testament to the New. But the law is here placed in a twofold opposition to the New Testament. (1) As against grace, it is the binding commandment, which cannot give life, but by its demand of righteousness works the death of the sinner, either unto life in repentance, or unto death in the judgment, while it is incapable of giving life, expiating, justifying, sanctifying. Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 5; Galatians 3. (2) As against truth or the reality of salvation and of the kingdom of God, it is first only type, prefiguration, symbol; and then, when the reality is come, shadow, Col_3:17; Heb_10:1. Notice also the further antithesis, that the law was given, set forth, laid down ( ἐñüèç ), as a lifeless statute; grace and truth came, became ( ἐãÝíåôï ), unfolded themselves as life.
Grace and truth.—Grace as the complete New Testament grace of redemption, “in the distinct and solemn sense” [Meyer, p. 93], yet according to its historical progress, which began with Abraham’s righteousness of faith, Gen_15:6.—Truth, as the full truth of life and the full life of truth, the reality and substance of salvation, in contrast with the shadow. [Redeeming grace is opposed to the condemnation, truth to the typical and shadowy character, of the law, of which Bengel says: iram parans et umbram habens.]
Came through Jesus Christ.—In the historical synthesis: Jesus Christ, who is here for the first time called by His full [historical] name [in harmony with the instinctively artistic arrangement of the Prologue], the development of the grace also culminates in the absolutely efficient grace of redemption, But as Christ the Logos was from eternity, so also was the grace, as the power of the love and righteousness of God over the foreseen guilt of the world. Development is therefore no more to be ascribed to the grace in itself, than to the Logos in Himself; but the eternal grace, with the eternal Logos, entered into historical development towards incarnation, and the consummation: Christ in Jesus, was also the consummation of the grace. The thing here expressed, therefore, is the historical completion and operation of grace, not as a mere work of Christ (Clement of Alex.), or of God (Origen), but rather as the vital action of God in Christ. Dorschäus: “ ἐäüèç et ἐãÝíåôï eleganter distinguuntur, Ebr. III., prius enim organicam causam, posterius, principalem notat,” Yet leaving the Father the first principle.
Joh_1:18. No man hath seen God at any time.—That these words also might have been spoken by John the Baptist, appears from Joh_3:31-32; and that they are to be actually attributed to him, from the fact that the Evangelist evidently distinguishes the testimony concerning Christ which, from Joh_1:15, the Baptist gave in general, and particularly among His disciples, from his next following testimony, Joh_1:19, before the rulers of the Jews. Our verse, however, not only particularizes respecting the ἀëÞèåéá , Joh_1:17 (Meyer), but at the same time enlarges the preceding thoughts. Christ is so truly the fulfiller of grace and truth, that He stands in contrast not only to Moses, but also to the prophets and to the Baptist himself (see Joh_3:31). No man hitherto has seen and revealed God in the sense in which He has seen and revealed Him. Christ, therefore, as fulfilment, is the first veritable revelation.—God is emphatically put first. God, in His interior essence, and in His fulness and full glory, no man hitherto hath seen.—No man—i.e., not only: not even Moses, but also: none of all the prophets, not even the Baptist.—Seen ( ἐþñáêå ). Not merely perfecte cognovit (Kuinoel); nor does the term refer to intuition without visions (Meyer); still less to such a seeing on the part of the Logos, as was suspended by His incarnation. For as to Christ’s seeing of God, this was in its nature at once internal, intuitive beholding and external seeing. When the prophets beheld, they saw not with the outward eye; when they saw, they beheld not in the prophetic way; and all that they in their prophetic moments beheld, was piece-work, which they beheld in its symbolical image. In Christ the prophetic vision became one with the ordinary external vision. He saw in all the outward works of God His Spirit, His personal love; and what He saw in the Spirit, He saw not merely as idea, but as actual divine operation. To Him all sensible seeing was permanently a sublime seeing of the majesty of God, a blissful seeing of the love of the Father. And of this vision of Christ, though it was grounded in the eternity of the Logos, Brückner justly observes that it was not interrupted by the incarnation. See John 3. [The same perfect knowledge of God, Christ claims for Himself alone, Mat_11:27,—a passage which strongly proves the essential harmony of the Christ of the Synoptists with the Christ of John.—P. S.]
The only begotten Son [God] who is on (or toward) the bosom of the Father.—With the præ-existence of the Logos before His incarnation, His co-existence during His incarnation, is so simply put, that we can find in these words nothing too high for the theology of the Baptist. [?] If the Baptist elsewhere called Him the One who baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matthew 3), the Bridegroom of the church (Joh_3:29), the One who cometh from heaven, in contrast with all prophets, he thereby designated Him also as the only begotten Son. We may then leave it entirely undecided, how far he actually understood the Sonship of Christ from Psalms 110 and other passages, and whether the term ìïíïãåíÞò does not belong rather to our Evangelist.—Who is on the bosom of the Father [ ὁ ὤí åἰò ôὸí êὸëðïí —not ἐí ôῷ êüëðῳ — ôïῦðáôñüò . The preposition åἰò expresses a leaning on, or direction towards, the bosom of the Father, the union of motion and rest in the love of the Only Begotten to the Father. Comp. the notes on ðñὸò ôὸí èåüí , Joh_1:1. The phrase to be (leaning) on the bosom, like the Latin, in sinu or gremio esse, sedere, and the German, Schoosskind, bosom-child, expresses a relation of the closest intimacy and tenderest affection. Compare what is said of the Wisdom (the Logos) in Pro_8:30 : “Then I was near Him as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Bengel remarks: “The bosom here is divine, paternal, fruitful, mild, sweet, spiritual. Men are said to be in the loins (in lumbis) who are yet to be born; they are in the bosom (in sinu) who have been born. The Son was in the bosom of the Father, because He was never-not born (non natus, ἀãÝííçôïò ). The highest unity, and the most intimate knowledge from immediate sight, is here signified.”—P. S.].—Acccording to Hofmann and Meyer, the Evangelist is speaking here, and speaking of Christ exalted. From this the åἰò ôὸí êüëðïí is supposed to explain itself as expressing the exaltation. But this would deprive the clause of all force, and reduce it to a pointless, self-neutralizing announcement. If it means: The only begotten Son, who has now ascended to the bosom of the Father, who once preached to us when He was with us,—the relative clause, besides being unmeaning, would be inaccurate; it should read: Who is again in the bosom of the Father. The passage Joh_1:50 does not prove that during the earthly life of Christ such an åἶíáé åἰò ôὸí êüëðïí ôïῦ ðáôñüò did not belong to Him. The antithesis between His being on earth (Joh_1:51) and His being in heaven (Joh_3:13), between His being with the Father (Joh_8:35), representing the Father (Joh_14:9), and being one with the Father (Joh_10:30), and His coming forth from the Father (Joh_16:28), His being alone with the Father in His passion (Joh_16:32), and His being forsaken by God (Mat_27:46), as well as between His glory (c. Joh_1:14) and His being not yet glorified (Joh_7:39),—is to be explained neither by a dualistic separation between the consciousness of the Logos and the consciousness of Jesus, nor by a pantheistic admission of human limitations into the Logos (Thomasius), but by the alternation of Christ’s moods between His self-subsistent relation to God and His self imposed compassionate relation to the world, or between the predominance of self-limiting grace and that of heaven-embracing omnipotence; between the states of humiliation and exaltation in their essential principle and positive spirit. We therefore, with De Wette, take ὤí as a time- less present, and åἰò , after the analogy of the ðñὸò ôὸí èåüí in Joh_1:1, as expressing the eternal direction of the Son towards the Father, Lücke rightly refers the being in the bosom of the Father, or for the Father, to the incarnate Logos, as He here appears in the definite character of the only begotten Son. Following the common acceptation, Tholuck considers the figure as borrowed from the place of fellowship at table, at the right hand, Joh_13:23 [ ἦí ἀíáêåßìåíïò …. ἐí ôῶ êüëðῳ ôïῦ Ἰçóïῦ ]. Meyer thinks this unsuitable, but refers the expression to the paternal embrace, Luk_16:22 [ ἐí ôïῖò êüëðïéò ]. But the common acceptation is supported by the kindred expression of Christ, that He will come with the Father to His own, to make His abode with them, Joh_14:23; comp. Rev_3:20; Rev_19:9.
He hath, etc.— Ἐêåῖíïò [“an epithet of excellency and of distance,” as Bengel observes] is certainly very emphatic [He, and none else]; yet not as looking to the local superiority of heaven, but to the majesty of the Son of God.
Interpreted.— ἘîçãÞóáôï is hard to explain. Lücke refers it to the grace and truth which Christ has seen in God; Meyer, to the substance of His view of God; [the E. V. (which supplies: Him), Alford, Owen, Godet, to God Himself in the beginning of the verse.—P. S.] Lücke translates: He hath revealed it; De Wette: He hath proclaimed (declared) it, told it; Meyer: He hath explained, interpreted [viz.: the contents of His intuitions of God]. The New Testament parallels, Luk_24:35; Act_15:12; Act_15:14, etc., admit both renderings, but favor that of De Wette; the passage Lev_14:57 (LXX.) seems rather to favor Meyer, especially since the word, in classic usage, is applied particularly to the explaining of divine things. As we attribute the word to the Baptist, we conceive that it contains an allusion to the obscure beginnings of revelation in the Old Testament. The Baptist has not understood the historical predictions of Jesus, but has no doubt recognized in Christ the key of the ancient time, the perfect interpretation of the rudiments of revelation. We therefore take ἐîçãÞóáôï absolutely, with respect to the old covenant. In virtue of His seeing of God He has cleared up the law in grace and truth, brought the Old Testament gloriously to light in the New. He has brought and made solution.
[This very verb argues against Dr. Lange’s view of the authorship of Joh_1:18, which must be as cribed to the Evangelist. The Baptist never came into close personal intimacy with Christ, and died before He had fully revealed the counsel of God and the meaning of the Old Testament. But the Evangelist, in full view of the atoning death and glorious resurrection, could use this term in its most comprehensive sense. With it the Prologue returns to the beginning, and ἐîçãÞóáôï suggests the best reason why Christ is called the Logos, since He is the Revealer and Interpreter of the hidden being of the Godhead in all that relates to our salvation.—John puts the supreme dignity of Christ, as the eternal Word, the Author of the world, the Giver of life and light, the Fountain of grace and truth, the only and perfect Expounder of God, at the head of his Gospel, because without this dignity Christianity would sink to a position of merely relative superiority above other religions, instead of being the absolute and therefore final religion for all mankind. Luther observes on the Prologue: “These are indeed brief words, but they contain the whole Christian doctrine and life.”—P. S.]
2. The Word was made flesh. He was God, He became flesh. What He was, He was not merely in idea (Hegel), but in personal divine subsistency; what He became ( ἐãÝíåôï ), He became not merely in appearance (Gnosticism), nor in a partial way (joining Himself to the flesh, or veiling Himself in it, according to Nestorianism, or depriving the flesh of its genuineness, and transforming it into a divine manifestation, according to Eutyches), nor only for a particular need and purpose (Anselm), but perfectly and forever. As Word, He was the full expression of the essence of the Godhead, and therefore was also pure eternal being and personal life; in His coming forth, He entered into veritable, integral human nature in its pure essence. The Word could not be changed by the flesh (contrary to modern attempts to carry change into the essence of God), but the flesh was to be perfected by the Word in His coming in it, carried from conditional potentiality to determinate actuality, made the glorified organ of the eternal Spirit. The prosecution of the doctrine of the Communicatio idiomatum lies not on the side of the divine nature, but on the side of the human.
As regards the doctrine of the incarnation, the Logos, as eternal Logos, became man, without change in Himself; that is to say, the incarnation was not occasioned by the sin of man. The doctrine of the flesh must, according to our passage, be so constructed that the flesh shall be as penetrable (and more) to the Spirit as to sin. The union between the divine and human natures is the great mystery of life, and to think of it rightly we must keep the distinction, that the divine being unfolds itself in a conscious way, like a work of art from a human mind, while the human becoming effects itself in an unconscious way, after the manner of the development of a plant. The pure contra-distinction appears in the work of art, which unfolds itself synthetically, subjecting to its service the material originally belonging to it, and the metamorphosis of the plant, which reveals spirit analytically, without attaining any power over itself. In the life of the natural man (in the pure sense of the term) nature predominates, but the spirit comes more and more to power (1Co_15:45); in the life of the spiritual man, who is from heaven, spirittual consciousness predominates, appropriating, pervading, and ruling the human organism. So the Logos, with the absolute master power of His essence as Logos, entered into human nature. He is not only voluntary in His incarnation in general; He is voluntary in each act of His human nature, i.e., of His human self-limitation for the sake of a higher spontaneity. He is voluntarily born (Luk_1:26 sqq.), voluntarily a child (Luk_2:51), voluntarily sleeps (Mar_4:38), is voluntarily ignorant as to the day of judgment (Mar_13:32-33), voluntarily suffers (Mat_26:53), voluntarily dies (Joh_10:18); but all in order that He may truly live (Joh_5:17; Joh_9:4), truly unfold Himself (Joh_10:15-16; Joh_12:24), truly watch (Mat_26:38), truly know (Mar_3:12), truly act and triumph (Joh_12:12), and eternally live (John 17).
In other words, Christ entered into the entire life of man, sin excepted, to raise it to the second, higher life of glorified humanity. This opposition is illustrated by the suspensions of consciousness in our natural life itself; and before we decide respecting the divine mystery of the Logos entering into sleep, we must be clear respecting the human mystery of our own mind’s sleeping. He goes to sleep. Weakness must be transfigured by freedom into rhythm, or determination of power. In the ideal incarnation of Christ, His historical incarnation, His subjection to law, is actually involved.
3. And we beheld His glory. The humiliation of Christ in the form of a servant did not hinder the Evangelist from seeing His glory. The omnipotence which, in the strength of love, puts limits upon itself (Mat_26:53-54), is not entered into an absolute humiliation, but into a humiliation to our human vision, in order to reveal Himself in a higher glory. It remained êñýøéò , inasmuch as it remained at every point free; it became êÝíùóéò , inasmuch as it made earnest of the self-humiliation. But it did not leave its riches of power and honor behind in heaven; it yielded them up to the world, 2Co_8:9. The world had the honor of judging the universal Judge; it had the power to put omnipotence to death; the wisdom to judge concerning him; the omnipresence of the Roman empire to bring him down to Golgotha, the grave and Sheol; but it thereby only gained the power to judge itself, that it might be the medium of that revelation of omnipotence in the impotence of Christ whereby it was overcome, judged and reconciled. Full faith in the cross must feel that Christ has humbled Himself by surrender of Himself to the world, not in heavenly reservation towards the world, and that here has taken place on the full scale what occurs elsewhere on smaller scales, or here in one central fact what appears otherwise every where in history: God makes Himself weak, and stands, as bound, in His government, over against the freedom of the sinner, to let him feel in the judgment that physical power is nothing of itself, and that truth, righteousness and love are all.
4. Christ is the Only Begotten ( ìïíïãåíÞò ), inasmuch as He is the one Word, in whom all things were ideally and virtually included, in distinction from the universe in its development; He is the First Born ( ðñùôüôïêï&