Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 1:14 - 1:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_1:14. Καὶ ] and; not assigning a reason for the sonship just mentioned (Chrys., Theophyl., Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and several others); nor even = οὖν (Bleek), nor in the sense of namely (Frommann), nor yea (Godet), but simply carrying forward the discourse, like every καὶ in the Prologue; and not therefore pointing back to Joh_1:4 (Maldonatus) or to Joh_1:9 (De Wette), nor joining on to Joh_1:11 (Lücke: “The Logos came not only to His own possession, but appeared visibly;” so, substantially, also Baur and Hilgenfeld), which would be a merely apparent advance in the exposition, because the visible manifestation is already intimated by φαίνει in Joh_1:5 and in Joh_1:9-13. No; after having in Joh_1:4-13 spoken of the Logos as the light, of the melancholy opposition of the darkness of unbelief to that true light which had been attested by the Baptist as divine, and of the exceedingly blessed effects which He exercised on believers through the bestowal of the gift of sonship, the evangelist, on arriving at this last point, which expresses his own deepest and most blessed experience, can no longer hesitate formally and solemnly again to proclaim the great event by which the visible manifestation of the Logos—previously so frequently presupposed and referred to—had, with all its saving power, been brought about; and thus by an outpouring of speech, which, prompted by the holiest recollections, soars involuntarily upwards until it reaches the highest height, to set forth and celebrate the How of that manifestation of the Logos which was attended with such blessed results (Joh_1:12-13), and which he had himself experienced. The transition, therefore, is from what is said in Joh_1:12-13 of the efficacy of the manifested Logos, to the nature and manner of that manifestation itself, i.e. consequently to the incarnation, as a result of which He, as Jesus Christ, exhibited the glory of the Only-begotten, and imparted the fulness of grace and truth,—that incarnation which historically determined what is recorded of Him in Joh_1:12-13. Accordingly καὶ is not definitive, “under such circumstances, with such consequences” (Brückner, who inappropriately compares Heb_3:19, where καὶ connects the answer with the question as in continuous narration), but it carries the discourse onwards, leading up to the highest summit, which even from Joh_1:5 showed itself as in the distance. We must interpret it: and—to advance now to the most momentous fact in the work of redemption, namely, how He who had come and wrought so much blessing was manifested and was able to accomplish such a work—the Word was made flesh, etc.
ὁ λόγος ] John does not simply say καὶ σὰρξ ἐγένετο , but he names the great subject as he had done in Joh_1:1, to complete the solemnity of the weighty statement, which he now felt himself constrained still to subjoin and to carry onwards, as if in joyful triumph, to the close of the Prologue.
σὰρξ ἐγένετο ] The word σάρξ is carefully chosen, not indeed in any sort of opposition to the divine idea of humanity, which in this place is very remote,[89] but as opposed to the purely divine, and hence also to the purely immaterial nature[90] of the Logos (Clem. ad Cor. II. 9, ὢν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα ἐγένετο σάρξ ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 197), whose transition, however, into this other form of existence necessarily presupposes that He is conceived of as a personality, not as a principle (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 169); as is, besides, required by the whole Prologue. The actual incarnation of a principle would be for John an unrealizable notion. Just as decidedly is ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο opposed to the representation that the Logos always became more and more completely σάρξ (Beyschlag) during the whole unfolding of His earthly life. The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e. a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1Jn_1:2), which He was not before,[91] and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus, and which was known to the reader, is intended. Ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλήλυθεν (1Jn_4:2; 2Jn_1:7; comp. 1Ti_3:16) is, in fact, the same thing, though expressed from the point of view of that modality of His coming which is conditioned by the σὰρξ ἐγένετο . As, however, ἐγένετο points out that He became what He was not before, the incarnation cannot be a mere accident of His substantial being (against Baur), but is the assumption of another real existence, whereby out of the purely divine Logos-Person, whose specific nature at the same time remained unaltered, and in order to accomplish the work of redemption (chap. 6; Rom_8:3; Heb_2:14-15), a really corporeal personality, i.e. the God-man Jesus Christ (Joh_1:17), came into existence. Comp. on the point, 1Jn_4:2; Php_2:7; 1Ti_3:16; Heb_2:14; Heb_5:7. Since σάρξ necessarily carries with it the idea only of the ψυχή (see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94 ff.; Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 256), it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian notion, that in Christ there was no human νοῦς , but that the λόγος took its place.[92] But it is not really so (see, on the other side, Mau, Progr. de Christolog. N. T., Kiel 1843, p. 13 ff.), because the human ψυχή does not exist by itself, but in necessary connection with the πνεῦμα (Beck, bibl. Seelenl. § 13; Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. § 154), and because the N. T. (comp. Joh_8:40) knows Jesus only as perfect man.[93] In fact, John in particular expressly speaks of the ΨΥΧΉ (Joh_12:27) and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ (Joh_11:33, Joh_13:21, Joh_19:30), which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates as the substratum of the human self-consciousness (Joh_11:38).[94] The transcendental character, however, of this self-consciousness, as necessarily given in the incarnation of the Logos, Weizsäcker has not succeeded, as is plain from his interpretation of the passages referred to, in explaining away by anything Jesus Himself says in this Gospel. The conception of weakness and susceptibility of suffering (see on Act_2:17), which Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others find in σάρξ , is quite remote from this verse (comp. 1Jn_4:2), where the point in question is simply the change in the divine mode of existence, while the σάρξ is that which bears the δόξα ; and so also is any anti-Docetic reference, such as Frommann and others, and even De Wette and Lechler, imagine.
The supernatural generation of Jesus is neither presupposed nor included (as even Godet maintains), nor excluded,[95] in John’s representation ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο , for the expression contains nothing as to the manner of the incarnation; it is an addition to the primitive apostolical Christology, of which we have no certain trace either in the oldest Gospel (Mark), or in the only one which is fully apostolic (John), or even anywhere in Paul: see on Mat_1:18; comp. Joh_5:27, Rom_1:3-4.
καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν ] and tabernacled, i.e. took up His abode, among us: ἐσκήνωσεν here is chosen merely to draw our attention to the manifestation of the incarnate Logos, whose holy σκήνωμα (2Pe_1:13) was in fact His human substance,[96] as the fulfilment of the promise of God’s dwelling with His people (Exo_25:8; Exo_29:45; Lev_26:11; Joe_3:21; Eze_37:27; Hag_2:8 : comp. Sir_24:8; Rev_21:3), and therefore as the Shekinah which formerly revealed itself in the tabernacle and in the temple (see on Rom_9:4); an assumption which the context justifies by the words: ἐθεασ . τ . δόξαν αὐτοῦ . The Targums, in like manner, represent the Word ( îéîøà ) as the ùÑáéðä , and the Messiah as the manifestation of this.
ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ ] refers to the ὍΣΟΙ ἜΛΑΒΟΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ , Joh_1:12-13, to whom John belongs, not simply to the Twelve (Tholuck), nor to the Christian consciousness (Hilgenfeld), nor to mankind generally; comp. Joh_1:16. The believers whom Jesus found are the fellowship who, as the holy people, surrounded the incarnate Word, and by whom His glory was beheld (comp. 1Jn_1:1).
ΚΑῚ ἘΘΕΑΣΆΜΕΘΑ , Κ . Τ . Λ .] We must not (as most expositors, even Lücke, Frommann, Maier, De Wette) take this clause as far as ΠΑΤΡΌς to be a lively insertion, interrupting the narrative; for the having beheld the δόξα is the essential element in the progress of the discourse. It is an independent part in the connection; so that ΠΛΉΡΗς ΧΆΡ . Κ . ἈΛ ., which is usually joined grammatically with Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς , is to be referred to ΑὐΤΟῦ in an irregular combination of cases, determined by the logical subject (B. Crusius, Brückner, Weiss, comp. Grotius), by which the nominative instead of the dependent case (Augustine read πλήρους ) sets forth the statement more emphatically without any governing word. See especially Bernhardy, p. 68; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. 89, Soph. 7; Winer, p. 524 [E. T. p. 705].
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ ] the Majesty ( ëáåã ) of the Logos, i.e. of necessity the divine glory (in the O. T. symbolically revealing itself as the brilliant light which surrounded the manifestation of Deity, Exo_24:17; Exo_40:34 ff.; Act_7:2), so far as the Logos from His nature (see what follows) essentially participated therein, and possessed it in His pre-human state and onwards.[97] It presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it[98] (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1Jn_1:1; comp. chap. Joh_2:11). The idea of an inner contemplation is opposed to the context (against Baur). The δόξα τοῦ λόγου , which before the incarnation could be represented to the prophet’s eye alone (Joh_12:41), but which otherwise was, in its essence, incapable of being beheld by man, became by means of the incarnation an object of external observation by those who were eye-witnesses (Luk_1:2; 1Jn_4:14) of His actual self-manifestation. We must, however, bear in mind that the manifestation of this divine glory of the Logos in His human state is conceived of relatively, though revealing beyond doubt the divine nature of the Logos, and nothing else than that, yet as limited and conditioned on the one hand by the imperfection of human intuition and knowledge, and on the other by the state of humiliation (Php_2:6 ff.) which was entered upon with the σὰρξ ἐγένετο . For the ΔΌΞΑ absolutely, which as such is also the adequate ΜΟΡΦῊ ΘΕΟῦ , was possessed by Him who became man—the Logos, who entered upon life in its human form—only in His pre-existent state (Joh_17:5), and was resumed only after His exaltation (Joh_12:41, Joh_17:5; Joh_17:22; Joh_17:24); while during His earthly life His δόξα as the manifestation of the ἼΣΑ ΕἾΝΑΙ ΘΕῷ was not the simply divine, but that of the God-man.[99] See on Php_2:8, note, and chap. Joh_17:5. No distinction is hereby made between God’s ΔΌΞΑ and the ΔΌΞΑ of the God-man (as objected by Weiss); the difference is simply in the degrees of manifestation and appearance. Still Weiss is quite right in refusing, as against Köstlin and Reuss, to say that there is in John no idea whatever of humiliation (comp. Joh_12:32; Joh_12:34, Joh_17:5).
ΔΌΞΑΝ ] more animated without ΔῈ . Comp. Hom. Od. A, 22 f.; Dem. de. Cor. 143 (p. 275, Reisk.): πόλεμον εἰς τ . Ἀττικὴν εἰσάγεις … πόλεμον Ἀμφικτυονικόν . See Krüger, § 59, 1. 3, 4.
Ὡς ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟῦς ] as of an only-begotten, i.e. as belongs to such an one,[100] corresponds to the nature of one who is μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός ; Chrysostom: οἵαν ἔπρεπε καὶ εἰκὸς ἔχειν μονογενῆ καὶ γνήσιον υἱὸν ὄντα , κ . τ . λ . The idea of reality (Euthymius Zigabenus: ὄντως ) lies as little in ὡς as in the erroneously so-called ëÀ veritatis (against Olshausen, Klee, and earlier writers); there is rather the supposition of a comparison, which approaches the meaning of quippe (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1002); see Kühner, § 330. 5.
ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς ] of Christ, and regarded, indeed, in His divine nature, is Johannean, expressing the apostle’s own idea of Christ’s unique relationship as the Son of God, Joh_1:18, Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18, 1Jn_4:9, though it is put into the mouth of Christ Himself in Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18. Comp. the Pauline ΠΡΩΤΟΤΌΚΟς , Col_1:15, Heb_1:6, which as to the thing certainly corresponds with the Johannean μονογενής , but presents the idea in the relation of time to the creation, and in Rom_8:29 to Christendom. Μονογ . designates the Logos as the only Son (Luk_7:12; Luk_8:42; Luk_9:38; Heb_11:17; Tob_8:17; Herod, vii. 221; Plato, Legg. III. p. 691 D; Aesch. Ag. 898; Hes. ἜΡΓ . 378), besides whom the Father has none, who moreover did not become such by any moral generation, as in the case of the ΤΈΚΝΑ ΘΕΟῦ , Joh_1:12-13, nor by adoption, but by the metaphysical relation of existence arising out of the divine essence, whereby He was ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ with God, being Himself divine in nature and person, Joh_1:1-2. He did not first become this by His incarnation, but He is this before all time as the Logos, and He manifests Himself as the μονογ . by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the ΜΟΝΟΓ . ΥἹῸς is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, “who may be also conceived of retrospectively” (Weizsäcker, 1862, p. 699). In other respects the designation corresponds to human relations, and is anthropomorphic, as is υἱὸς θεοῦ itself,—a circumstance which, however, necessarily limited its applicability as an expression of the metaphysical relation, in apprehending which we must also leave out of view the conception of birth as such, so far as it implies the idea of the maternal function. Origen well remarks: ΤῸ ΔῈ Ὡς ΜΟΝΟΓ . ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡ . ΝΟΕῖΝ ὙΠΟΒΆΛΛΕΙ , ἘΚ Τῆς ΟὐΣΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΕἾΝΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΥἹῸΝ … ΕἸ ΓᾺΡ ΚΑῚ ἌΛΛΑ ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἜΧΕΙ ΤῊΝ ὝΠΑΡΞΙΝ , ΜΑΤΑΊΩς Ἡ ΤΟῦ ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟῦς ἜΚΕΙΤΟ ΦΩΝΉ .
ΠΑΤΡΌς ] without the article (Winer, p. 116 [E. Tr. p. 151]). ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡ . must be joined to ΜΟΝΟΓ ., to which it adds the definite idea of having gone forth, i.e. of having come from the Father (Joh_6:46, Joh_7:29, Joh_16:27). Correlative with this is Joh_1:18, ὁ ὢν εἰς τ . κόλπον τοῦ πατρός , where the, only-begotten Son who came forth from the Father is viewed as having again returned to the Father. The conception of having been begotten, consequently of derivation from the essence, would be expressed by the simple genitive ( πατρός ) or by the dative, or by ἐκ or ἀπό , but lies in the word μονογενοῦς itself; since this expresses the very generation, and therefore the ἘΚ Τῆς ΟὐΣΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΕἾΝΑΙ (Origen). Its connection with ΔΌΞΑΝ (Erasmus, Grotius, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 120, Weiss; already Theophyl.?) is in itself grammatically admissible (Plut. Agis, 2; Plato, Phaedr. p. 232 A; Act_26:12), but is not favoured here either by the position of the words or by the connection, from which the idea of the origin of the ΔΌΞΑ lay far remote, the object being to designate the nature of the δόξα ; moreover, the anarthrous μονογ . requires a more precise definition, which is exactly what it has in παρὰ πατρός .
πλήρης χάρ κ . ἀληθ .] To be referred to the subject, though that ( αὐτοῦ ) stands in the genitive. See above. It explains how the Logos, having become incarnate, manifested Himself to those who beheld His glory. Grace and truth[101] are the two efficaciously saving and inseparable factors of His whole manifestation and ministry, not constituting His δόξα (Luthardt),—a notion opposed to Joh_2:11; Joh_2:17,—but displaying it and making it known to those who beheld that glory. Through God’s grace to sinful man He became man; and by His whole work on earth up to the time of His return to His Father, He has been the instrument of obtaining for believers the blessing of becoming the children of God. Truth, again, was what He revealed in the whole of His work, especially by His preaching, the theme of which was furnished by His intuition of God (Joh_1:18), and which therefore must necessarily reveal in an adequate manner God’s nature and counsel, and be the opposite of σκοτία and ψεῦδος . Comp. Mat_11:27. The ἀλήθεια corresponds formally to the nature of the Logos as light ( φῶς ); the χάρις , which bestows everlasting life (Joh_3:15), to His nature as life ( ζωή ), Joh_1:4-5. That the χάρις κ . ἀλήθεια with which He was filled are divine grace and truth, of which He was the possessor and bearer, so that in Him they attained their complete manifestation (comp. Joh_16:6), is self-evident from what has preceded, but is not specially indicated, as would necessarily have been done by the use of the article, which would have expressed the grace and truth (simply) κατʼ ἐξοχήν . Joh_1:16 f. is decisive against the construction of πληρής with what follows (Erasmus, Paulus). Whether John, moreover, used the words πλήρ . χάριτος κ . ἀληθ . with any reference to Exo_34:6 (Hengstenberg) is very doubtful, for àÁîÆú in that passage has a different meaning (truthfulness, fidelity). John is speaking independently, from his own full experience and authority as a witness. Through a profound living experience, he had come to feel, and here declares his conviction, that all salvation depends on the incarnation of the Logos.
[89] Against Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 459.
[90] Hence also σάρξ is selected for the purpose of expressing the full antithesis, and not σῶμα , because there might be a σῶμα without σάρξ (1Co_15:40; 1Co_15:44); and besides, the expression ὁ λόγος σῶμα ἐγένετο would not necessarily include the possession of a human soul. John might also have written ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο (Joh_5:27, Joh_8:40), but σάρξ presented the antithesis of both forms of existence most sharply and strikingly, and yet at the same time unquestionably designates the human personality (Joh_17:2). According to Baur, indeed, it is said to be impossible to understand by the incarnation any proper assumption of humanity.
[91] Comp. the well-known “Sum quod eram, nec eram quod sum, nunc dicor utrumque.” In Jesus Christ we have the absolute synthesis of the divine and the human.
[92] Of late, Zeller in particular (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1842, I. 74) has limited the Johannean doctrine of the human element in the person of Jesus simply to His corporeity, excluding any special human anima rationalis. Comp. also Köstlin, p. 148 ff., and Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 362. That σάρξ was the merely formal non-personal clothing of the Logos-subject (Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 260), does not correspond with the conception of ἄνθρωπος , under which Christ represents Himself (Joh_8:40). This is also in answer to Scholten, who in like manner comes to the conclusion that, in John’s view, Jesus was man as to His body only, but the Logos as to His spirit.
[93] So John in particular. See Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 234 ff., who, however, explains the σὰρξ ἐγένετο from the Valentinian system, and attributes to the evangelist the notion of a corporeity, real indeed, but not fettered by the limitation of a material body, appealing to Joh_6:16 ff., Joh_7:10; Joh_7:15, Joh_8:59, Joh_2:19 ff. Baur’s view is similar, though he does not go so far. Baur, p. 367.
[94] Rightly has the church held firmly to the perfection (perfectio) of the divine and human natures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be justified on exegetical grounds, and especially no such doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos became a human soul or a human spirit (comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 198 f.). This modification, which some apply to the κένωσις , is un-scriptural, and is particularly opposed to John’s testimony throughout his Gospel and First Epistle. How little does Gess succeed in reconciling his view with Joh_5:26, for example,—a passage which is always an obstacle in his way! Further, according to Wörner, Verhältn. d. Geistes zum Sohne Gott. p. 27, the Logos became a soul. Against Hahn, see Dorner in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1856, p. 393 ff.
[95] For assuredly the same Subject, which in His divine essence was pre-existent as the eternal Logos, may as a temporal human manifestation come into existence and begin to be, so that in and by itself the manner of this origination, natural or supernatural, makes no difference in the conceivableness of the fact (against Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 222).
[96] In this He tabernacled among us not merely as a divine principle (Beyschlag), but as πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος (Col_2:9), i.e. exactly what He was as the personal Logos. Thus His body was the temple of God (Joh_2:19), the true special dwelling of God’s gracious presence.
[97] Comp. Gess, Person Chr. p. 123.
[98] All limitations to individual points, as e.g. to the miracles, or even specially to the history of the transfiguration (Luk_9:32; Wetstein, Tittmann), are arbitrary.
[99] Which indeed, even after His exaltation, is and ever continues to be that of the God-man, though without limitation and perfect.—According to Weiss (Lehrbegr. p. 261), the δόξα of the Logos cannot he that of the originally divine essence itself, but one vouchsafed to Christ for the purpose of His works. This, however, is contrary to the express meaning of the word here, where by the τὴν δόξ . αὐτοῦ , κ . τ . λ ., we can only understand His proper glory brought with Him by the Logos into His incarnate life. As to Joh_17:22, see on that passage.
[100] Therefore μονογ . is without the article. The expression is qualitative.
[101] Where, according to Hilgenfeld, the author must have had in view the female Aeons of the two first Syzygies of the Valentinian system. John undoubtedly has the word χάρις only in the Prologue, but Matthew and Mark also do not use it; while Luke does not employ it in the sense of saving Christian grace, in which sense it first occurs in the Acts and in Paul.