JOHN 1:6-13 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light so that everyone may believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.
But to all who have received him--those who believe in his name--he has given the right to become God’s children--children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God. John, after beginning his gospel with a statement of our Lord's nature as God, proceeds to speak of His forerunner, John the Baptist. The contrast between the language used about the Savior, and that used about His forerunner, ought not to be overlooked. Of Christ we are told that He was the eternal God--the Creator of all things--the source of life and light.
Of John the Baptist we are told simply, that "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John." We see, firstly, in these verses, the true nature of a Christian minister's office. We have it in the description of John the Baptist--"He came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." Christian ministers are not priests, nor mediators between God and man. They are not agents into whose hands men may commit their souls, and carry on their religion by deputy. They are witnesses.
They are intended to bear testimony to God's truth, and specially to the great truth that Christ is the only Savior and light of the world. This was Peter's ministry on the day of Pentecost. "With many other words did he testify ." (Acts 2:40.) This was the whole tenor of Paul's ministry. "He testified both to the Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21.) Unless a Christian minister bears a full testimony to Christ, he is not faithful to his office.
So long as he does testify of Christ, he has done his part, and will receive his reward, although his hearers may not believe his testimony. Until a minister's hearers believe on that Christ of whom they are told, they receive no benefit from the ministry. They may be pleased and interested; but they are not profited until they believe. The great end of a minister's testimony is "that through him, men may believe." We see, secondly, in these verses, one principal position which our Lord Jesus Christ occupies towards mankind .
We have it in the words, "He was the true light which lights every man that comes into the world." Christ is to the souls of men what the sun is to the world. He is the center and source of all spiritual light, warmth, life, health, growth, beauty, and fertility. Like the sun, He shines for the common benefit of all mankind--for high and for low, for rich and for poor, for Jew and for Greek. Like the sun, He is free to all . All may look at Him, and drink health out of His light.
If millions of mankind were mad enough to dwell in caves underground, or to bandage their eyes, their darkness would be their own fault, and not the fault of the sun. So, likewise, if millions of men and women love spiritual "darkness rather than light," the blame must be laid on their blind hearts, and not on Christ. "Their foolish hearts are darkened." (John 3:19; Rom. 1:21.) But whether men will see or not, Christ is the true sun, and the light of the world. There is no light for sinners except in the Lord Jesus.
We see, thirdly, in these verses, the desperate wickedness of man's natural heart. We have it in the words, Christ "was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." Christ was in the world invisibly , long before He was born of the Virgin Mary. He was there from the very beginning, ruling, ordering, and governing the whole creation. By Him all things are held together. (Coloss. 1:17.) He gave to all life and breath, rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons.
By Him kings reigned, and nations were increased or diminished. Yet men knew Him not, and honored Him not. They "worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." (Rom. 1:25.) Well may the natural heart be called "wicked!" But Christ came visibly into the world, when He was born at Bethlehem, and fared no better. He came to the very people whom He had brought out from Egypt, and purchased for His own. He came to the Jews, whom He had separated from other nations, and to whom He had revealed Himself by the prophets.
He came to those very Jews who had read of Him in the Old Testament Scriptures--seen Him under types and figures in their temple services--and professed to be waiting for His coming. And yet, when He came, those very Jews received Him not. They even--rejected Him, despised Him, and slew Him. Well may the natural heart be called "desperately wicked!" We see, lastly, in these verses, the vast privileges of all who receive Christ, and believe on Him .
We are told that "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become you sons of God, even to those who believe on His name." Christ will never be without some servants. If the vast majority of the Jews did not receive Him as the Messiah, there were, at any rate, a few who did. To them He gave the privilege of being God's children. He adopted them as members of His Father's family. He reckoned them His own brethren and sisters, bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh. He conferred on them a dignity which was ample recompense for the cross which they had to carry for His sake.
He made them sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. Privileges like these, be it remembered, are the possession of all, in every age, who receive Christ by faith, and follow Him as their Savior. They are "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26.) They are born again by a new and heavenly birth, and adopted into the family of the King of kings. Few in number, and despised by the world as they are, they are cared for with infinite love by a Father in heaven, who, for His Son's sake, is well pleased with them. In time He provides them with everything that is for their good.
In eternity He will give them a crown of glory that fades not away. These are great things! But faith in Christ gives men an ample title to them. Good masters care for their servants, and Christ cares for His. Are we ourselves sons of God? Have we been born again? Have we the MARKS which always accompany the new birth--sense of sin, faith in Jesus, love of others, righteous living, separation from the world? Let us never be content until we can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. Do we desire to be sons of God?
Then let us "receive Christ" as our Savior, and believe on Him with the heart. To every one that so receives Him, He will give the privilege of becoming a son of God. Technical Notes: 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9. That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 6.--[ There was a man sent from God,...John. ] This is a short and striking description of John the Baptist. He was the messenger whom God promised to send before Messiah’s face. He was born when his parents were aged, by God’s miraculous interposition. He was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.
He received a special commission from God to preach the baptism of repentance, and to proclaim the immediate coming of Christ. In short, he was specially raised up by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. For all these reasons he is here called “a man sent from God.” It is, in one sense, the common mark of all true ministers of the Gospel. Ignorant, blind, and unconverted ministers may be ordained and sent by man.
But they are not “sent from God.” 7.--[ Came for a witness. ] This does not mean, as it might at first sight appear, “came to be a witness.” The Greek word which we translate “witness,” does not mean “a person,” but the testimony which a witness bears. [ To bear witness of the Light. ] This means, to testify concerning Jesus Christ the Light of the world, that He was the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Bridegroom, the Almighty Saviour, to whom all dark souls ought to apply. [ All men. ] This cannot of course signify “all mankind.” It means all who heard John’s testimony, and all Jews who were really looking for a Redeemer.
One end of John the Baptist’s testimony was, that all such should believe on Christ the true Light. [ Through him. ] This does not mean “through Christ” and Christ’s grace, but through John the Baptist and John’s testimony. It is one of those texts which show the immense importance of the ministerial office. It is a means and instrument through which the Holy Spirit is pleased to produce faith in man’s heart. “Faith cometh by hearing.” Through John the Baptist’s testimony, Andrew was led to believe in Jesus and become a disciple.
Just so now, through the preaching of ministers sinners learn to believe on Christ and are saved. 8.--[ He was not that Light. ] This expression would be more literally rendered, “He was not the Light,” the promised light of sinners, the light of the world. The Greek article “the,” is used in a similar emphatic manner, to denote eminence and distinction, in the following passages.
“That bread.” (John vi.32.) “That prophet.” (John i.21-25.) “That day.” (1 Thess. v.4.) “That way.” (Acts ix.2.) Let it be noted that our Lord himself calls John the Baptist at a later period, “the burning and shining light.” (John v.35.) But it is a curious fact that the Greek word there rendered “light,” is not the one used here. It is a word which is frequently translated “candle.” John the Baptist was a “candle,” but not the Light itself. Believers are called “the light of the world” (Matt. v.14), but only as members of Christ the Light, and borrowing light from Him.
Christ alone is the great sun and fountain of all light, the Light itself. 9.--[ That was the true Light. ] The force of the expression “true” in this sentence, is well brought out by Arrowsmith in his commentary on this verse. He says that Christ is “the true Light” in four respects. Firstly, He is undeceiving light, the true light in opposition to all the false lights of the Gentiles. Secondly, He is real light, true in opposition to ceremonial types and shadows. Thirdly, He is underived light, true in opposition to all light that is borrowed, communicated, or participated from another.
Fourthly, He is supereminent light, true in opposition to all that is ordinary and common. [Which lights every man...comes...world. ] This sentence has caused much difference of opinion among commentators, in respect to two points. ( a ) In the first place, men differ as to the application of the words, “that comes into the world.” Some connect these words with “the true Light,” and read the words, “this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man.” In favour of this view, the words “light is come into the world” (John iii.19), and “I am come a light into the world” (John xii.46), deserve notice.
Others connect the words with “every man,” and regard them as a sweeping description of every one naturally born of the seed of Adam. That “coming into the world” is a Hebrew phrase for being born, is shown by Nifanius. The construction of the whole verse in the original Greek, is such that either rendering is grammatical and correct. Opinions are so nicely balanced on this point, and so much may be said on either side, that I venture my own judgment with much hesitation.
But I am inclined to think on the whole, with Chemnitius and Glassius, that our translators are right, and that the clause “that comes into the world,” is better connected with “every man” than with “the true light.” If the verse is rendered “this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man,” it seems rather to narrow the blessing of the true light, and to confine His illumining benefits to the times after His incarnation. This, be it remembered, is precisely the view of the Socinian.
And yet it is unquestionably true that Christ’s incarnation increased greatly the spiritual light in the world. St. John says, “The darkness is past and the true light now shineth.” (1 John ii.8.) If, on the other hand, the verse is rendered as our version has it, the words “that comes into the world,” seem very suitably joined to “every man,” as expressing the universality of the blessings which Christ confers on man. He is not only the true light of the Jew, but of “every man that is born into the world,” of every name, and people, and tongue.
To suppose, as some have done, that this application of the words “come into the world,” involves the pre-existence of souls, is, to say the least, a foolish thought. The point is, happily, one on which men may agree to differ. Sound doctrine may be got out of either view. ( b ) The second difference of opinion respecting this verse arises from the words, “lights every man.” This expression has received widely different interpretations. All, except heretics, are agreed that the words cannot mean that all are converted, and cannot signify the final, universal salvation of all mankind.
What then do they mean? Some think, as Cyril, that Christ “the true light,” lights every man and woman on earth with the light of reason, intelligence, and consciousness of right and wrong. This view is partially true, and yet it seems weak and defective. Some think, as the Quakers are reported to do, that Christ lights every man and woman on earth with an inward light of grace, sufficient to save him, if he will only use it. This view is a dangerous one, and beside contradicting many texts of Scripture, leads on to downright Pelagianism.
Some think, as Augustine, that Christ lights all that are lighted by His grace, and that “every man” is practically the same as every believer. They quote in support of this view, the verse, “The Lord upholdeth all that fall” (Psalm cxlv.141), where “all” can only mean, “all those that are upheld are upheld by the Lord.” A favourite illustration of this view is the saying, that a schoolmaster “teaches all the boys in a town,” that is, “all who are taught are taught by him.” This interpretation, however, is not thoroughly satisfactory, and has an appearance of quibbling and unfairness about it.
Some think, as Chrysostom, and Brentius in his Homilies, and Lightfoot, that Christ is really given to be the light of all mankind. They think that when it is said, He “lights every man,” it means that He shines sufficiently for the salvation of all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles (like the sun shining upon all creation), though the majority of men are so blinded by sin that they do not see Him. Yet Christ is for every man.
“He lighteth all,” says Chrysostom, “as far as in Him lies.” “There is power and good will in the light,” says Chemnitius, “to illumine all; but some love darkness rather than light.” Arrowsmith says, “Christ doth dispense to every one light sufficient to leave him without excuse. But Christ doth not dispense to every one converting light sufficient to bring him to salvation.” I believe this last view to be the most probable one, though I confess that it is not unattended by difficulties.
But I rest in the conclusion that Christ is offered as a light to all the world, and that every one born into the world will prove at last to have been in some way indebted to Christ, even though not saved. Pearce says of the Greek word rendered “lighteth,” that, “in the Hebrew tongue that which is only intended to be done is often expressed as a thing actually done.” He regards this expression before us as a similar one.
He gives, as parallel instances, 1 Cor. x.33, “please,” for “intend to please;” Gal. v.4, “Justified,” for “intend to be justified;” and 1 John ii.26, “seduce,” for “intend to seduce.” The Greek word rendered “lights” is used eleven times in the New Testament, and is translated “to give light, to light, to bring to light, to enlighten, to illuminate.” 10.--[He was in the world, etc...knew Him not. ] This verse describes the unbelief of the whole world before Christ’s incarnation.
He “was in the world” invisibly, before He was born of the Virgin Mary, as in the days of Noah. (1 Pet. iii.19.) He was to be seen in His works and in His providential government of all things, if men had only had eyes to see Him. And yet the very world which He had made, the work of His hands, did not acknowledge, believe, or obey Him. It knew Him not.
At Athens, Paul found an altar “to the unknown God.” That the expression applies to Christ before His incarnation, and not after, is said by Lampe to be the unanimous opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Beda, Theophylact, and Euthymius. There is a striking similarity between the declaration of this verse and the contents of the latter part of the 1st chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. In fact the line of argument by which St.
Paul shows the Gentiles to be guilty, in the first chapter of that epistle, and the Jews to be equally guilty and excuseless in the second chapter, is only a full exposition of what St. John here states briefly in two verses. 11.--[He came unto His own,...received Him not. ] This verse describes the unbelief of the Jewish nation after the incarnation of Christ, and during His ministry among them.
He came to a people who were peculiarly His own, by their redemption from Egypt, by their introduction into the land of Canaan, and by their possession of the law of Moses, and the covenants, and yet they did not believe on Him, or receive Him, but actually rejected and slew Him. There is a peculiarity about the Greek words rendered “His own,” in this verse, which ought not to be overlooked.
The first “His own” is in the neuter gender, and means literally “His own things.” The second “His own” is in the masculine gender, and means “His own men, servants, or subjects.” It is probably meant to show that our Lord came to a people whose land, territory, cities, temple, were all His own property, and had been originally granted by Himself. The Jews, Palestine, Jerusalem, the temple, were all Christ’s peculiar possession.
Israel was “His inheritance.” (Psalm lxxviii.71.) This made the sin of those who “received Him not,” even more sinful. 12.--[ As many as received Him. ] This expression signifies, “as many as believed on Christ, and acknowledged Him as the Messiah.” It is only another form of the expression at the end of the verse, “believed on His name.” To receive Christ is to accept Him with a willing heart, and to take Him as our Saviour. It is one of many forms of speech, by which that justifying faith which unites the sinner’s soul to Christ is expressed in the Bible.
To believe on Christ with the heart, is to receive Him, and to receive Him is to believe on Him. St. Paul says to the Colossians, “As ye have received Christ, so walk ye in Him.” (Col. ii.6.) The Greek word rendered, “As many as,” is literally, “whosoever,” “whatsoever persons.” Glassius remarks that the expression denotes the universality of the benefits which Christ conferred.
“Whosoever” received Him, Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God. [ To them gave He power to become the sons of God. ] This expression means, “He gave them the privilege of adoption into God’s family.” They became the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. iii.26.) “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” (1 John v.1.) There is no sonship to God without living faith in Christ. Let this never be forgotten.
To talk of God being men’s Father, and men being God’s children, while they do not believe on the Son of God, is contrary to Scripture. Those are not children of God who have not faith in Jesus. The word “power” in this sentence requires careful guarding against misrepresentation. It means, as the marginal reading says, “right or privilege.” It does not mean strength or ability. It does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive Him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God’s children.
No doubt Christ gives to all His people all needful grace to supply all the wants of their hearts, and the necessities of their position. No doubt He gives them strength to carry the cross, fight the good fight, and overcome the world. But that is not the truth taught in the words before us, and must be sought in other places. The words before us only mean that Christ confers the privilege of adoption on all believers, and did so especially on His first disciples.
While their unbelieving fellow-countrymen were boasting of being children of Abraham, Christ gave His disciples the far higher privilege of being children of God. The Greek word rendered “power” is used 102 times in the New Testament, and never on one occasion in the sense of physical, moral, or spiritual strength to do a thing. It is generally translated, “authority, right, power, liberty, jurisdiction.” [ To them that believe on His name. ] These words are added to make clearer, if possible, the character of those who have the privilege of being sons of God.
They are they who receive Christ and believe on His name. Arrowsmith remarks, “The word ‘name,’ in the Scripture, is often put for person. The receivers of Christ are said to believe on His name, because the direct object of their faith is the person of Christ. It is not the believing that Christ died for all, or for me, or for the elect, or any such proposition, that saveth. It is believing on Christ. The person, or name of Christ, is the object of faith.” The expression, “believe on His name,” ought not to be overlooked.
Arrowsmith remarks that there is a known distinction amongst divines, between believing God, that there is such a Being,--believing God, that what He says is true,--and believing on God in the way of faith and confidence as our God. And he observes, most truly, that precisely the same distinction exists between faith that there is such a Saviour as Christ,--faith that what Christ says is true, and faith of reliance on Christ as our Saviour.
Believing on Christ’s name is exactly this faith of reliance, and is the faith that saves and justifies. 13.--[ Which were born, etc...of God. ] The birth here spoken of is the new birth, or regeneration, that complete change of heart and nature which takes place in a man when he becomes a real Christian. It is a change so great that no other figure but that of birth can fully express it. It is as when a new being, with new appetites, wants, and desires is brought into the world.
A person born of God is “a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor. v.17.) The persons who believe on Christ’s name are said to be born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” The interpretation of this expression which is usually given by commentators appears to me neither correct nor seemly. The true meaning of the words, I believe, is this. Believers did not become what they are “by blood,”—that is, by descent from Abraham or blood connection with godly people; grace does not descend from parent to child.
Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of the flesh,--that is, by the efforts and exertions of their own natural hearts; nature can never change itself. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of man,--that is, by the acts and deeds of others; neither ordained ministers nor anyone else can confer grace upon another. Man cannot regenerate hearts. Believers become what they are solely and entirely by the grace of God.
It is to God’s free grace, preventing, calling, converting, renewing and sanctifying, that they owe their new birth. They are born of God, or, as the third chapter says more distinctly, “born of the Spirit.” The word which we render “blood,” in the singular number, is, in the Greek, plural, “bloods.” This peculiarity has made some conjecture that the expression refers to the blood shed in circumcision and sacrifice, and teaches the inability of these things to regenerate man. But this idea seems far-fetched and improbable.
The use of the plural number appears to me intended to exclude all fleshly confidence in any descent or relationship. It was neither the blood of Abraham, nor of David, nor of Aaron, nor of Judah, nor of Levi, which would give grace or make anyone a child of God. This is the first time the new birth is spoken of by name in Scripture. Let us not fail to notice how carefully the doctrine is fenced against errors, and how emphatically we are told what this new birth does not come from, as well as what it does come from. It is a striking fact that when St.
Peter mentions the new birth, he fences it in like manner (1 Pet. i.23), and when he speaks of baptism “saving” us, he carefully adds that it is “not the putting away the filth of the flesh.” (1 Pet. iii.21.) In the face of all these cautions, it is curious to observe the pertinacity with which many overthrow the whole doctrine of the new birth by the assertion that all baptized persons are born again!
We must be careful that we do not interpret the words “which were born” as if the new birth was a change which takes place in a man after he has believed in Christ, and is the next step after faith. Saving faith and regeneration are inseparable. The moment that a man really believes in Christ, however feebly, he is born of God. The weakness of his faith may make him unconscious of the change, just as a new-born infant knows little or nothing about itself. But where there is faith there is always new birth, and where there is no faith there is no regeneration.
JOHN 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory--the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. The passage of Scripture now before us is very short, if we measure it by words. But it is very long, if we measure it by the nature of its contents. The substance of it is so immensely important that we shall do well to give it separate and distinct consideration. This single verse contains more than enough matter for a whole exposition.
The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation, or being made man . John tells us that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Savior really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born in a miraculous manner.
Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man's estate, both in wisdom and in stature. (Luke 2:52.) Like ourselves, he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marveled, was moved to anger and compassion. Having become flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body, He really suffered and shed His blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven.
And yet all this time He was God as well as man! This union of two natures in Christ's one Person is doubtless one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. It needs to be carefully stated. It is just one of those great truths which are not meant to be curiously pried into, but to be reverently believed. Nowhere, perhaps, shall we find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England.
"The Son, who is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance--so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, truly God and truly man." This is a most valuable declaration.
This is "sound speech, which cannot be condemned." But while we do not pretend to explain the union of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ's Person, we must not hesitate to fence the subject with well-defined cautions. While we state most carefully what we do believe, we must not shrink from declaring boldly what we do not believe. We must never forget, that though our Lord was God and man at the same time, the divine and human natures in Him were never confounded . One nature did not swallow up the other. The two natures remained perfect and distinct.
The divinity of Christ was never for a moment laid aside, although veiled. The manhood of Christ, during His life-time, was never for a moment unlike our own, though by union with the Godhead, greatly dignified. Though perfect God, Christ has always been perfect man from the first moment of His incarnation. He who is gone into heaven, and is sitting at the Father's right hand to intercede for sinners, is man as well as God. Though perfect man, Christ never ceased to be perfect God.
He that suffered for sin on the cross, and was made sin for us, was "God manifest in the flesh." The blood with which the Church was purchased, is called the blood "of God." (Acts 20:28.) Though He became "flesh" in the fullest sense, when He was born of the Virgin Mary, He never at any period ceased to be the Eternal Word. To say that He constantly manifested His divine nature during His earthly ministry, would, of course, be contrary to plain facts.
To attempt to explain why His Godhead was sometimes veiled and at other times unveiled, while He was on earth, would be venturing on ground which we had better leave alone. But to say that at any instant of His earthly ministry He was not fully and entirely God, is nothing less than heresy. The cautions just given may seem at first sight needless, wearisome, and hair-splitting. It is precisely the neglect of such cautions which ruins many souls.
This constant undivided union of two perfect natures in Christ's Person is exactly that which gives infinite value to His mediation, and qualifies Him to be the very Mediator that sinners need. Our Mediator is One who can sympathize with us, because He is very MAN. And yet, at the same time, He is One who can deal with the Father for us on equal terns, because He is very GOD. It is the same union which gives infinite value to His righteousness, when imputed to believers. It is the righteousness of One who was God as well as man.
It is the same union which gives infinite value to the atoning blood which He shed for sinners on the cross. It is the blood of One who was God as well as man. It is the same union which gives infinite value to His resurrection. When He rose again, as the Head of the body of believers, He rose not as a mere man, but as God. Let these things sink deeply into our hearts. The second Adam is far greater than the first Adam was. The first Adam was only man, and so he fell. The second Adam was God as well as man, and so He completely conquered.
Let us leave the subject with feelings of deep gratitude and thankfulness. It is full of abounding consolation for all who know Christ by faith, and believe on Him. Did the Word become flesh? Then He is One who can be touched with the feeling of His people's infirmities, because He has suffered Himself, being tempted. He is almighty because He is God, and yet He can sympathize with us, because He is man. Did the Word become flesh? Then He can supply us with a perfect pattern and example for our daily life. Had he walked among us as an angel or a spirit, we could never have copied Him.
But having dwelt among us as a man, we know that the true standard of holiness is to "walk even as He walked." (1 John 2:6.) He is a perfect pattern, because He is God. But He is also a pattern exactly suited to our needs, because He is man. Finally, did the Word become flesh? Then let us see in our mortal bodies a real, true dignity, and not defile them by sin. Vile and weak as our body may seem, it is a body which the Eternal Son of God was not ashamed to take upon Himself, and to take up to heaven.
That simple fact is a pledge that He will raise our bodies at the last day, and glorify them together with His own. Technical Notes: 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [ And the Word was made flesh. ] This sentence means that the eternal Word of God, the second Person in the Trinity, became a man, like one of ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. This He accomplished, by being born of the Virgin Mary, after a miraculous manner, through the operation of the Holy Ghost.
And the end for which He became flesh was that He might live and die for sinners. The expression “the Word,” shows clearly that “the Word” who “was with God and was God,” must be a Person. It could not reasonably be said of any one but a person, that He became “flesh and dwelt among us.” Whether St. John could have found any other name for the second Person of the Trinity equally proper, we need not trouble ourselves to inquire. It certainly would not have been accurately correct to say that “Jesus was made flesh,” because the name Jesus was not given to our Lord till after His incarnation.
Nor yet would it have been correct to say, “In the beginning was Christ,” because the name Christ belongs to the times after the fall of man. This is the last time that John uses this expression, “The Word,” about Christ in his Gospel.
From the time of His incarnation he generally speaks of Him as “Jesus,” or “the Lord.” [ Was made. ] This expression might perhaps have been better translated “became.” At any rate we must carefully remember that it does not signify “was created.” The Athanasian Creed says truly, “The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten.” [ Flesh. ] The use of this word, instead of “man,” ought not to be overlooked.
It is purposely used in order to show us that when our Lord became incarnate, He took upon Him nothing less than our whole nature, consisting of a true body and a reasonable soul. As Arrowsmith says, “That which was not taken could not be healed. If Christ had not taken the whole man, He could not have saved the soul.” It also implies that our Lord took upon Him a body liable to those weaknesses, fatigues, and pains, which are inseparable from the idea of flesh. He did not become a man like Adam before the fall, with a nature free from all infirmity.
He became a man like any one of Adam’s children, with a nature liable to everything that fallen humanity is liable to, except sin. He was made “flesh,” and “all flesh is grass.” Finally, it teaches that our Lord did not assume the human nature of any one family, or class, or people, but that nature which is common to all Adam’s children, whether Jews or Gentiles. He came to be a Saviour for “all flesh,” and so was made “flesh.” The subject of this sentence is a deeply mysterious one, but one about which it is most important to have clear views.
Next to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no doctrine on which fallen man has built so many deadly heresies as the incarnation of Christ. There is unquestionably much about this union of two natures in one person which we cannot explain, and must be content to believe. There is much that we cannot understand, be it remembered, in the union of body and soul in our own persons.
But there are some points in the subject of Christ’s incarnation which we must hold fast and never let go. ( a ) In the first place, let us carefully remember that when “the Word became flesh,” He became so by the union of two perfect and distinct natures in one Person. The manner of this union we cannot explain, but the fact we must firmly believe. “Christ,” says the Athanasian Creed, “is God and Man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man.
Who, although He be God and man, yet He is not two but one Christ; one not by conversion of the godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” These words are very important. The Word was not made flesh by changing one nature into another, or by laying aside one nature and taking up another. In all our thoughts about Christ, let us take care that we do not divide His Person, and that we maintain steadily that He has two distinct and perfect natures. The old Latin line on the subject, quoted by Gomarus, is worth remembering.
It represents “the Word made flesh,” as saying, “I am what I was, that is God: I was not what I am, that is man: I am now called both, that is both God and man.” ( b ) Secondly, when “the Word became flesh,” He did not cease for a moment to be God. No doubt He was pleased to veil His divinity and to hide His power, and more especially so at some seasons. He emptied Himself of external marks of glory and was called “the carpenter.” But He never laid His divinity aside. God cannot cease to be God. It was as God-man that He lived, suffered, died, and rose again.
It is written that God “has purchased the Church with His own blood.” It was the blood of one who was not man only, but God. ( c ) Thirdly, when “the Word became flesh,” He was made a man in the truth of our nature, like unto us in all things, and from that hour has never ceased to be man. His humanity was not a humanity different from our own, and though now glorified is our humanity still.
It was perfect man no less than perfect God who resisted temptation, fulfilled the law perfectly, endured the contradiction of sinners, spent nights in prayer, kept His will in subjection to the Father’s will, suffered, died, and at length ascended up to heaven with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to man’s nature. It is written, that “in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren. Moreover, He did not lay aside His humanity when He left the world.
He that ascended up on the mount of Olives and is sitting at the right hand of God to intercede for believers, is one who is still man as well as God. Our High Priest in heaven is not God only, but man. Christ’s humanity as well as divinity are both in heaven. One in our nature, our elder Brother has gone as our Forerunner to prepare a place for us. ( d ) Lastly, when “the Word became flesh,” He did not take on Him “peccable flesh.” It is written that He was made in “the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom. viii.3.) But we must not go beyond this.
Christ was “made sin for us.” (2 Cor. v.21.) But He “knew no sin,” and was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and without taint of corruption. Satan found nothing in Him. Christ’s human nature was liable to weakness, but not to sin. The words of the fifteenth Article must never be forgotten: Christ was “void from sin, both in His flesh and in His Spirit.” For want of a clear understanding of this union of two natures in Christ’s Person, the heresies which arose in the early Church were many and great.
And yet Arrowsmith points out that no less than four of these heresies are at once confuted by a right interpretation of the sentence now before us. “The Arians hold that Jesus Christ was not true God. This text calleth Him the Word, and maketh Him a Person in the Trinity. “The Apollinarians acknowledge Christ to be God, yea, and man too; but they hold that He took only the body of a man, not the soul of a man, while His divinity supplied the room of a soul. We interpret the word ‘flesh’ for the whole human nature, both soul and body.
“The Nestorians grant Christ to be both God and man; but then they say the Godhead made one person, and the manhood another person. We interpret the words ‘was made’ as implying a union in which Christ assumed not the person of man, but the nature of man. “The Eutychians held but one person in Christ; but then they confounded the natures. They say the Godhead and manhood made such a mixture as to produce a third thing.
Here they also are confuted by the right understanding of the union between the Word and flesh.” He then goes on to show how the ancient Church met all these heretics with four adverbs, which briefly and conveniently defined the union of two natures in Christ’s person. They said that the divine and human natures when “the Word was made flesh,” were united truly , to oppose the Arians,-- perfectly, to oppose the Appolinarians,-- undividedly , to oppose the Nestorians,--and unmixedly , to oppose the Eutychians.
Those who wish to examine this subject further will do well to consult Pearson on the Creed, Dods on the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, B. v., chap. 51,52,53,54. [ Dwelt among us. ] The Greek word rendered dwelt means literally “tabernacled,” or “dwelt in a tent.” The sentence does not mean that Christ dwelt in His human body as in a tabernacle, which He left when He ascended up to heaven. “Christ,” says Arrowsmith, “continueth now, and shall forever, as true man as when He was born of the Virgin Mary.
He so took human nature as never to lay it down again.” The sentence only means that Christ dwelt among men on earth for thirty-three years. He was on earth so long conversing among men, that there could be no doubt of the reality of His incarnation. He did not appear for a few minutes like a phantom or ghost. He did not come down for a brief visit of a few days, but was living among us in His human body for the duration of a whole generation of men. For thirty-three years He pitched His tent in Palestine, and was going to and fro among its inhabitants.
Arrowsmith remarks that three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents: shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. He thinks that the phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christ’s life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveler, and a soldier. But it may be doubted whether this is not a somewhat fanciful idea, however pleasing and true.
The Greek word rendered “dwelt” is only used in four other places in the New Testament (Rev. vii.15; xii.12; xiii.6; xxi.3), and in each of them is applied to a permanent, and not a temporary dwelling. [ We beheld His glory. ] St. John here declares that although “the Word was made flesh,” he and others beheld from time to time His glory, and saw manifest proof that He was not man only, but the “only-begotten Son of God.” There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to the right application of these words.
Some think that they apply to Christ’s ascension, which John witnessed, and to all His miraculous actions throughout His ministry, in all of which, as it is said of the miracle of Cana, He “manifested forth His glory,” and His disciples saw it. Others think that they apply especially to our Lord’s transfiguration, when He put on for a little season His glory, in the presence of John, James, and Peter.
I am on the whole inclined to think that this is the true view, and the more so because of Peter’s words in speaking of the transfiguration (2 Pet. i.16,18), and the words which immediately follow in the verse we are now considering. [ The glory as of the only begotten of the Father. ] This sentence means “such glory as became and was suitable to one who is the only begotten Son of God the Father.” These words will hardly apply to Christ’s miracles.
They seem to confine the glory which John says “we beheld,” to the vision of glory which he and his two companions saw when Christ was transfigured, and they heard the Father saying, “This is my beloved Son.” Lightfoot’s paraphrase of this expression is worth reading, though he does not apply the passage to the transfiguration. “We saw His glory as what was worthy, as became, the only begotten Son of God. He did not glisten in any worldly pomp or grandeur, according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do.
But He was dressed with the glory of holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.” We must carefully remember that the adverb “as” in this place does not imply comparison or similitude, as if John only meant that the Word’s glory was like that of the only begotten Son of God.
Chrysostom says, “The expression ‘as’ in this place does not belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition, as though he said, we beheld glory such as it was becoming and likely that He should possess, who is the only begotten and true Son of God and King of all.” He also remarks that it is a common manner of speaking, when people are describing the appearance of a king in state, to say that “he was like a king,” meaning only that he was a real king.
Glassius, in his Philologia, makes the same comment on the expression, and quotes as parallel cases of the use of the adverb “as,” 2 Pet. i.3; 1 Pet. i.19; Philemon 9; Rom. ix.32; Matt. xiv.5; 2 Cor. iii.18. He thinks it a Hebraism, denoting not the similitude but the reality and truth of a thing, and quotes Psalm cxxii.3 and Hosea iv.4 as Old Testament instances. [ The only begotten of the Father. ] This remarkable expression describes our Lord’s eternal generation, or Sonship.
He is that Person who alone has been begotten of the Father from all eternity, and from all eternity has been His beloved son. The phrase is only used five times in the New Testament, and only in St. John’s writings. That God always had a Son appears in the Old Testament. “What is his son’s name,” says Agur. (Prov. xxx.4.) So also the Father says to Messiah, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.” (Ps. ii.7.) But the Sonship now before us, we must carefully remember, is not to be dated from any “day.” It is the everlasting Sonship of which John speaks.
The subject is one of those which we must be content to believe and reverence, but must not attempt to define too narrowly. We are taught distinctly in Scripture that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons of one substance, power and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that “Sonship” describes the everlasting relation which exists between the First and Second Persons in the Trinity, and that Christ is the only begotten and eternal Son of God.
We are taught, with equal distinctness, that the Father loveth the Son, and loved Him before the foundation of the world. (John xvii.24.) But here we must be content to pause. Our feeble faculties could not comprehend more if more were told us. Let us however remember carefully, when we think of Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father, that we must not attach the least idea of inferiority to the idea of His Sonship. As the Athanasian creed says, “The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son.” And yet the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The argument of the ancient Arians, that if Christ is the Son of God, He must necessarily be inferior in dignity to God and subsequent in existence to God, is one that will not stand for a moment. The reply is simple. We are not talking of the relationship of mortal beings, but of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity, who are eternal. All analogies and illustrations drawn from human parents and children are necessarily defective.
As Augustine said, so must we say, “Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show you and explain to you an eternal Son.” We must believe and not try to explain. Christ’s generation, as God, is eternal—who shall declare it? He was begotten from everlasting of the Father. He was always the beloved son. And yet, “He is equal to the Father as touching His godhead, though inferior to Him as touching His manhood.” [ Full of grace and truth. ] These words do not belong to the Father, though they follow His name so closely.
They belong to “the Word.” The meaning of them is differently explained. Some think that they describe our Lord Jesus Christ’s character, during the time that He was upon the earth, in general terms. Full of grace were His lips, and full of grace was His life.
He was full of the grace of God, the Spirit dwelling in Him without measure; full of kindness, love, and favour to man; full of truth in His deeds and words, for in His lips were no guile; full of truth in His preaching concerning God the Father’s love to sinners and the way of salvation, for He was ever unfolding in rich abundance all truths that man can need to know for his soul’s good. Some think that the words describe especially the spiritual riches that Christ brought into the world, when He became incarnate and set up His kingdom.
He came full of the gospel of grace, in contradistinction to the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law. He came full of truth, of real, true, solid comfort, in contradistinction to the types, and figures, and shadows of the law of Moses. In short, the full grace of God and the full truth about the way of acceptance were never clearly seen until the Word became flesh, dwelt among us on earth, opened the treasure-house, and revealed grace and truth in His own person. I decidedly prefer the second of these two views. The first is truth, but not the truth of the passage.
The second appears to me to harmonize with the 17th verse, which follows almost immediately, where the law and the Gospel are contrasted, and we are told that “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” JOHN 1:15-18 John testified about him and cried out, "This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’" For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God.
The only one, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made God known. The passage before us contains three great declarations about our Lord Jesus Christ. Each of the three is among the foundation-principles of Christianity. We are taught, firstly, that it is Christ alone who supplies all the spiritual needs of all believers . It is written that "of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace." There is an infinite fullness in Jesus Christ.
As Paul says, "It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." "In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Coloss. 1:19; 2:3.) There is laid up in Him, as in a treasury, a boundless supply of all that any sinner can need, either in time or eternity. The Spirit of Life is His special gift to the Church, and conveys from Him, as from a great root, sap and vigor to all the believing branches. He is rich in mercy, grace, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Out of Christ's fullness, all believers in every age of the world, have been supplied.
They did not clearly understand the fountain from which their supplies flowed, in Old Testament times. The Old Testament saints only saw Christ afar off, and not face to face. But from Abel downwards, all saved souls have received all they have had from Jesus Christ alone. Every saint in glory will at last acknowledge that he is Christ's debtor for all he is. Jesus will prove to have been all in all. We are taught, secondly, the vast superiority of Christ to Moses, and of the Gospel to the Law .
It is written that "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Moses was employed by God "as a servant," to convey to Israel the moral and ceremonial law. (Heb. 3:5.) As a servant, he was faithful to Him who appointed him, but he was only a servant. The moral law, which he brought down from Mount Sinai, was holy, and just, and good. But it could not justify. It had no healing power. It could wound, but it could not bind up. It "worked wrath." (Rom. 4:15.) It pronounced a curse against any imperfect obedience.
The ceremonial law, which he was commanded to impose on Israel, was full of deep meaning and typical instruction. Its ordinances and ceremonies made it an excellent schoolmaster to guide men toward Christ. (Gal. 3:24.) But the ceremonial law was only a schoolmaster. It could not make him that kept it perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Heb. 9:9.) It laid a grievous yoke on men's hearts, which they were not able to bear. It was a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor. 3:7-9.) The light which men got from Moses and the law was at best only starlight compared to noon-day.
Christ, on the other hand, came into the world "as a Son," with the keys of God's treasury of grace and truth entirely in His hands, (Heb. 3:6.) Grace came by Him, when He made fully known God's gracious plan of salvation, by faith in His own blood, and opened the fountain of mercy to all the world. Truth came by Him, when He fulfilled in His own Person the types of the Old Testament, and revealed Himself as the true Sacrifice, the true mercy-seat, and the true Priest. No doubt there was much of "grace and truth" under the law of Moses.
But the whole of God's grace, and the whole truth about redemption, were never known until Jesus came into the world, and died for sinners. We are taught, thirdly, that it is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man . It is written that "no man has seen God at any time--the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." The eye of mortal man has never beheld God the Father. No man could bear the sight.
Even to Moses it was said, "You can not see my face--for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exod. 33:20.) Yet all that mortal man is capable of knowing about God the Father is fully revealed to us by God the Son. He, who was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, has been pleased to take our nature upon Him, and to exhibit to us in the form of man, all that our minds can comprehend of the Father's perfections. In Christ's words , and deeds , and life , and death , we learn as much concerning God the Father as our feeble minds can at present bear.
His perfect wisdom--His almighty power--His unspeakable love to sinners--His incomparable holiness--His hatred of sin, could never be represented to our eyes more clearly than we see them in Christ's life and death. In truth, "God was manifest in the flesh," when the Word took on Him a body. "He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person." He says Himself, "I and my Father are one." "He that has seen me has seen the Father." "In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Coloss. 2:9.) These are deep and mysterious things.
But they are true. (1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3; John 10:30; 14:9.) And now, after reading this passage, can we ever give too much honor to Christ? Can we ever think too highly of Him? Let us banish the unworthy thought from our minds forever. Let us learn to exalt Him more in our hearts, and to rest more confidingly the whole weight of our souls in His hands. Men may easily fall into error about the three Persons in the holy Trinity if they do not carefully adhere to the teaching of Scripture. But no man ever errs on the side of giving too much honor to God the Son.
Christ is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the sinner's soul. "He that honors not the Son, honors not the Father which sent Him." (John 5:23.) Technical Notes 15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him . 15.--[ John bare witness...cried. ] The time at which John the Baptist bore this testimony is not specified. We have not yet come to the historic part of John’s Gospel, properly speaking. We are still in the introductory preface. It seems therefore probable, as Lightfoot says, that the sentence before us describes the habitual character of John’s testimony to Christ.
He was, throughout his ministry, continually proclaiming Christ’s greatness and superiority to himself, both in nature and dignity. [ Cried. ] The Greek word so rendered, implies a very loud cry, like that of one making a proclamation. Parkhurst defines it in this place as “speaking out very openly.” [He that comes after me...preferred before...was before me. ] This sentence has caused much discussion and some difference of opinion.
The Greek words literally translated would be, “He that cometh after me has become, or been made, in front of me—for he was first of me.” I feel no doubt that our English version gives the correct meaning of the sentence. Hammond’s note on the text is very good. The first “before” signifies before in place, position, or dignity. The Greek adverb so rendered is used forty-nine times in the New Testament, but never once in the sense of “before in point of time or age.” The second “before” signifies before in point of time or existence.
“He was existing before me, at the time when I was not.” The expression is certainly remarkable and uncommon, but there is another exactly like it in this Gospel: “It hated me before it hated you,” where the literal rendering would be, “it hated me first of you.” The sentence “He was before me,” is a distinct statement of Christ’s preexistence. He was born at least six months after John the Baptist, and was therefore younger in age than John. Yet John says, “He was before me.
He was existing when I was born.” If he had meant only that our Lord was a more honourable person than himself, he would surely have said, “He is before me.” The greatness of John the Baptist’s spiritual knowledge appears in this expression. He understood the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence.
Christians are apt to think far too slightingly of John the Baptist’s attainments and the depths of his teaching. 16.--[ Of His fulness have all we received. ] This sentence means, “all we who believe on Jesus have received an abundant supply of all that our souls need, out of the full store that resides in Him for His people. It is from Christ and Christ alone that all our spiritual wants have been supplied.” Waterland, in his book on the Trinity, calls particular attention to this expression.
He thinks that it was specially used with a view to the strange doctrines of the Gnostics in general, and the Corinthians in particular, whose heresies arose before St. John’s Gospel was written. They seem to have held that there was a certain fulness or plenitude of the Deity, into which only certain spiritual men, including themselves, were to be received, and from which others who were less spiritual, though they had grace, were to be excluded. “St.
John,” says Waterland, “here asserts that all Christians, equally and indifferently, all believers at large, have received of the plenitude or fulness of the divine Word, and that not sparingly, but in the largest measure, even grace upon grace.” Melancthon on this verse calls particular attention to the word “all.” He observes that it embraces the whole Church of God from Adam downwards.
All who have been saved have received out of Christ’s fulness, and all other sources of fulness are distinctly excluded. [ Grace for grace. ] This expression is very peculiar, and has caused much difference of opinion among commentators. (1) Some think it means “the new grace of the Gospel in place of, or instead of, the old grace of the law.” This is the view of Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupertus, Lyranus, Bucer, Beza, Scaliger, DeDieu, Calovius, Jansenius, Lampe, and Quesnel. (2) Some think that it means “grace, on account of God’s grace or favour, and specially His favour towards His Son.” This is the view of Zwingle, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Flacius, Rollock, Grotius, Camerarius, Tornovius, Toletus, Barradius, Cartwright, and Cornelius àLapide. (3) Some think that it means “grace on account of, or in return for, the grace of faith that is in us.” This is the view of Augustine, Gomarus, and Beda. (4) Some think that it means “grace answering to, or proportioned to, the grace that is in Christ.” This is the view of Calvin, Leigh, and Bridge. (5) Some think that it means “grace for the propagation of grace.” This is the view of Lightfoot. (6) Some think that it means “accumulated grace, abundant grace, grace upon grace.” This is the view of Schleusner, Winer, Bucer, Pellican, Musculus, Gualter, Poole, Nifanius, Pearce, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bengel, A.
Clarke, Tittman, Olshausen, Barnes, and Alford. Brentius, Bullinger, Aretius, Jansenius, Hutcheson, Gill, Scott, and Henry give several views, but signify their adhesion to no one in particular. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the sixth and last is the correct view.
I admit fully that the Greek preposition, here rendered “for,” is only found in three senses in the Greek Testament: viz, “In the room or place of” (Matt. ii.22), “In return for” (Rom. xii.17), and “On account of” (Acts xii.23; Ephes. v.31.) In composition it also signifies “opposition;” but with that we have nothing to do here.
In the present case I think the meaning is “grace in the place of grace; constant, fresh abundant supplies of new grace, to take the place of old grace; and therefore unfailing, abundant grace, continually filling up and supplying all our need.” 17.--[ For the law was given, etc. ] This verse seems intended to show the inferiority of the Law to the Gospel. It does so by putting in strong contrast the leading characteristics of the Old and New dispensations—the religion which began with Moses, and the religion which began with Christ.
By Moses was given the law—the moral law, full of high and holy demands, and of stern threatenings against disobedience;--the ceremonial law, full of burdensome sacrifices, ordinances, and ceremonies, which never healed the worshipper’s conscience, and at best were only shadows of good things to come.
By Christ, on the other hand, came grace and truth—grace by the full manifestation of God’s plan of salvation, and the offer of complete pardon to every soul that believes on Jesus,--and truth, by the unveiled exhibition of Christ Himself, as the true sacrifice, the true Priest, and the true atonement for sin. Augustine, on this verse, says: “The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness.
But it made ready for the Physician who was to come with grace and truth.” 18.--[ No man hath seen God, etc. ] This verse seems intended to show the infinite personal superiority of Christ to Moses, or to any other saint that ever lived. No man hath ever seen God the Father; neither Abraham nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel. All these, however holy and good men, were still only men, and quite incapable of beholding God face to face, from very weakness.
What they knew of God the Father, they knew only by report, or by special revelation, vouchsafed to them from time to time. They were but servants, and “The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth.” (John xv.15.) Christ, on the other hand, is the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He is one who is most intimately united from all eternity to God the Father, and is equal to Him in all things. He, during the time of His earthly ministry here, fully showed to man all that man can bear to know concerning His Father.
He has revealed His Father’s wisdom, and holiness, and compassion, and power, and hatred of sin, and love of sinners, in the fullest possible way. He has brought into clear light the great mystery how God the Father can be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The knowledge of the Father which a man derived from the teaching of Moses, is as different from that derived from the teaching of Christ as twilight is different from noon-day. We must carefully remember that none of the appearances of God to man, described in the Old Testament, were the appearances of God the Father.
He whom Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and Joshua, and Isaiah, and Daniel saw, was not the First Person in the Trinity, but the Second. The speculations of some commentators on the sentence now before us, as to whether any created being, angel or spirit, has ever seen God the Father, are, to say the least, unprofitable. The sentence before us speaks of man, being written for man’s use. The expression, “Which is in the bosom of the Father,” is doubtless a figurative one, mercifully accommodated to man’s capacity.
As one who lies in the bosom of another is fairly supposed to be most intimate with him, to know all his secrets, and possess all his affections, so is it, we are to understand, in the union of the Father and the Son. It is more close than man’s mind can conceive.
The Greek word rendered “declared,” means literally, “hath expounded.” It is the root of the words which are well known among literary students of the Bible, “exegesis and exegetical.” The idea is that of giving a full and particular explanation. (Acts xv.14.) Whether the “declaring of God the Father,” here described, is to be confined to Christ’s oral teaching about the Father, or whether it means also that Christ has in His Person given a visible representation of many of the Father’s attributes, is a doubtful point. Perhaps both ideas are included in the expression.
In leaving this passage, I must say something about the disputed question— To whom do the three verses beginning “and of his fulness” belong? Are they the words of John the Baptist and a part of his testimony? Or are they the words of John the Gospel writer and an explanatory comment of his, such as we occasionally find in his Gospel?
There is something to be said on both sides. ( a ) Some think that these three verses were spoken by John the Baptist, because of the awkwardness and abruptness with which his testimony ends upon the other theory,--because they run on harmoniously with the fifteenth verse,--and because there is nothing in them which we might not reasonably expect John the Baptist to say.
This is the opinion of Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingle, Erasmus, Chemnitius, Gualter, Musculus, Bucer, Flacius, Bullinger, Pellican, Toletus, Gomarus, Nifanius, Rollock, Poole, Burkitt, Hutcheson, Bengel, and Cartwright. ( b ) Others think that the three verses are the comment of John the Gospel writer, arising out of John’s testimony about Christ’s pre-existence, and out of the expression, “grace and truth,” in the fourteenth verse.
They regard the verses as an exposition of the expression, “full of grace and truth.” They question whether the language is such as would have been used by John the Baptist,--whether he would have said “all we,” after just saying “me,”—whether he would have used the word “fulness,”—whether he would, at so early a period, have contrasted the religion of Moses and of Christ,--and whether he would have so openly declared Christ to be the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.
Finally, they think that if these were John the Baptist’s words, the Gospel would not have begun again the nineteenth verse, “This is the record of John.” This is the opinion of Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Beda, Lyranus, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Grotius, Aretius, Barradius, Maldonatus, Cornelius àLapide, Jansenius, Lightfoot, Arrowsmith, Gill, Doddridge, Lampe, Pearce, Henry, Tittman, A. Clarke, Barnes, Olshausen, Alford, and Wordsworth. Baxter and Scott decline any decided opinion on the point, and Whitby says nothing about it.
The arguments on either side are so nicely balanced, and the names on either side are so weighty, that I venture an opinion with much diffidence. But on the whole, I am inclined to think that the three verses are not the words of John the Baptist, but of John the Evangelist. The remarkable style of the first eighteen verses of this chapter makes the abruptness and brevity of the testimony which John the Baptist bears, upon this theory, appear to me not strange.
And the connection between the three verses and the words “full of grace and truth” in the fourteenth verse, appears to me much more marked and distinct than the connection between John’s testimony and the words “of His fulness all we have received.” Happily the point is one which involves no serious question, and is therefore one on which Christians may be content to differ, if they cannot convince one another.