E.The Word's Surpassing Excellence(1:15-18)

E.The Word's Surpassing Excellence(1:15-18)

John 1

I. THE PROLOGUE (1:1-18)

The first eighteen verses of this Gospel form a Prologue to the whole.¹ Some commentators have thought that this section was originally separate, perhaps being composed by someone other than the Evangelist.² They see it as having no real connection with the Gospel, but as being adapted more or less successfully to its present situation. It is more likely that it was written for this place, for it accords so well with what follows. These verses bring before us some of the great thoughts that will be developed as the narrative unfolds: the excellency of Christ, who is the Word of God, the eternal strife between light and darkness, and the witness borne by the Baptist, that greatest of the sons of Israel. But the principal topic in these verses is the incarnation, together with its astonishing sequel, the rejection of the Word by those who might have been expected to welcome him.

Of particular interest and importance is the use of the term Logos or Word, which is applied to Christ in these verses, and in these verses only, in this Gospel (for that matter the term is rare elsewhere, Rev. 19:13 being the only other place in the New Testament where there can be no doubt about it, and there it is not "the Word" simply, but "the Word of God"). But, though the term is not used in this way elsewhere in John, the idea that Christ stands to the Father in the relationship that it denotes permeates the whole. As E. F. Scott says, "it pervades the Gospel and supplies the key by which its teaching must be interpreted."³ This Gospel is a Gospel about the Word. The Prologue sounds the keynote. Where Mark begins with the gospel message and Matthew and Luke have their birth stories, John takes us back in his opening to the eternal purpose of God.

Some writers have thought that the Prologue should be understood as poetry.⁴ It is true that it is possible to arrange it to look like verse. Bernard, for example, has done this in Greek,⁵ and Rieu does it in his English translation. It is also undoubtedly true that some of the attributes of poetry are to be found in it. But, as Barrett justly remarks, those who regard it as verse differ markedly in their verse arrangements⁶ and in what they regard as prose insertions. It is also true that their methods, applied elsewhere, could make "poetry" of almost any part of the Gospel. It is better to regard the Prologue as elevated prose. It is written in a meditative strain (but then so is much of this Gospel). This lends a musing air to the passage. But that does not make it poetry.

A. THE WORD AND GOD (1:1-2)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

1 John's first words, "In the beginning," are probably a conscious reminiscence of the first words of the Bible. The first book of the Hebrew Bible was named "In the beginning" (from its opening words); therefore, the expression would be widely known. John is writing about a new beginning, a new creation, and he uses words that recall the first creation. He soon goes on to use other words that are important in Genesis 1, such as "life" (v. 4), "light'' (v. 4), and "darkness" (v. 5). Genesis 1 described God's first creation; John's theme is God's new creation. Like the first, the second is not carried out by some subordinate being. It is brought about through the agency of the Logos, the very Word of God. There is continuity with the old creation. The Word was "in the beginning," which means that he was before all else.⁷ But it probably means more. The term rendered "beginning" can also denote "origin" in the sense of basic cause.⁸ Temple is probably right in thinking that the phrase here combines two meanings, "in the beginning of history" and "at the root of the universe." John is fond of using expressions with more than one meaning. If it happened only occasionally we might regard it as coincidence and make a serious effort to decide between the two possibilities. But it happens so often that it must be seen as deliberate. It is John's way of bringing out the fuller meaning of whatever expression he is using. So here it seems that he has both possible meanings in mind and wants us to see both in his words. It is quite in his manner to begin his Gospel with an expression that is to be taken in two ways. Both are important. There never was a time when the Word was not. There never was a thing that did not depend on him for its existence. The verb "was" is most naturally understood of the eternal existence of the Word: "the Word continually was."⁹ We should not press the tense unduly, but certainly the verb denotes neither a completed state nor a coming into being. It is appropriate to eternal, unchanging being. John is affirming that the Word existed before creation, which makes it clear that the Word was not created. It is of the utmost importance to grasp this. Others, particularly among the Jews with their emphasis on the one God as the source of all things, had thought of the Word as of excellent dignity, but as subordinate, as a created being. It is fundamental to John that the Word is not to be included among created things. "In the beginning" (with all the fullness of meaning that these words can hold) the Word "was." "He is seen as greater than all things, greater than time, changeless as eternity" (Guthrie).

For "the Word" (Logos) see Additional Note A, pp. 102-13. The introduction of the term as something familiar in the very first line of the Gospel brings before us one of the difficulties that will remain with us throughout. It is not proven beyond doubt whether the term, as John uses it, is to be derived from Jewish or Greek or some other source.¹⁰ Nor is it plain precisely what he meant by it. John does not tell us, and we are left to work out for ourselves the precise allusion and its significance. Again and again we will find ourselves in this situation. I do not mean that John's thought is confused or that we cannot follow what he is saying. On the contrary, his thought is clear and his style lucid. But his combination of simplicity and profundity often leaves us wondering whether we have caught all his meaning.

This at any rate can be said: "the Word" points to the truth that it is of the very nature of God to reveal himself. A person's word is the means whereby he reveals what he is thinking. "The Word of God is His thought (if we may put it so) uttered so that men can understand it."¹¹ God is not to be thought of as aloof and indifferent. He reveals himself. But he reveals himself as he chooses.¹² He is sovereign in revelation as in all else. We must guard against two misinterpretations. The one is that of thinking of the revelation as static. It is more than the revelation of certain truths about God. To know God is life eternal (17:3). The knowledge of God that the Word brings is not merely information. It is life. The Word is creative.¹³ The other is that of thinking of the Word as nothing more than an attribute or even an activity of God. John thinks of the Word as coming to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (v. 14). At the same time he partakes of the innermost being of God, for "the Word was God." It is probably impossible for us to read the Prologue without thoughts of Jesus of Nazareth, but it is worth bearing in mind that there is nothing to link the two until we come to verse 14. Until that point the first readers of this Gospel would have thought of the Word in terms of a supremely great Being or Principle. If we are to evaluate the intended impact of these words we must bear this in mind.

"The Word was with God" is probably as good a translation as we can manage for a difficult Greek expression.¹⁴ If the preposition is to be taken literally, it means "the Word was toward God." John thinks of no opposition between the Word and the Father. The whole existence of the Word was oriented toward the Father. Probably we should understand from the preposition the two ideas of accompaniment and relationship. That the thought is of importance and is no casual expression is indicated by the fact that the statement is repeated in verse 2. It marks an advance on the previous statement (cf. also 1 John 1:2). There John established the personal existence of the Word. Now he goes on to the Word's personal character in relation to the Father. Not only did the Word exist "in the beginning," but he existed in the closest possible connection with the Father. The expression does differentiate between the two. Perhaps John is by implication refuting any idea that the Word is an emanation from God, quite distinct from the Godhead. The Word and God are not identical. But they are one.

The high point is reached in the third affirmation: "the Word was God." Nothing higher could be said: all that may be said about God may fitly be said about the Word. This statement should not be watered down. Moffatt renders, "the Logos was divine" (Goodspeed, Schonfield, and others are similar). While this English probably means much the same as does that of NIV, the emphasis is different, and such translations are no improvement.¹⁵ John is not merely saying that there is something divine about Jesus. He is affirming that he is God,¹⁶ and doing so emphatically as we see from the word order in the Greek.

If that is a staggering affirmation to us, there is no reason for thinking that it was any less so to the Jewish author of this Gospel. To the Jews of the day monotheism was more than a belief commonly held. It was a conviction to be clung to with fierce tenacity. The Jews might be ground down under the heel of the Roman conquerors, but they could do more than hate their military superiors. They could despise them. The Romans were no more than ignorant idolaters, and, crass folly, believed in many gods! The Jews knew with an unshakable certainty that there was, there could be, only one God. When John says, "the Word was God," his words must be understood in the light of Jewish pride in monotheism. Even though this writer regarded monotheism as a central tenet in his religion he yet could not withhold from the Word the designation "God."

He says "the Word was God, "not "God was the Word." The latter would have meant that God and the Word were the same; it would have pointed to an identity. But John is leaving open the possibility that there may be more to "God" than the "Word" (clearly he thought of the Father as God, and his later references indicate a similar status for the Spirit). But he lays it down unequivocally that nothing less than "God" will do for our understanding of the Word.¹⁷

We should perhaps notice that John refers to Jesus as God again in verse 18 and in 20:28. If the present passage refers to Jesus in his pre-incarnate state as God, verse 18 takes up the thought for the incarnate Word and 20:28 for the risen Christ. John thus asserts the deity of his Lord at three very important places in his narrative.¹⁸

2 Nothing new is added in this verse, but two points are repeated from verse 1 and thereby given emphasis.¹⁹ The Word was "in the beginning" and the Word was "with God." The eternity of the Word is not to be overlooked or minimized. The other point concerns the close relationship between the Father and the Word. These two are not the same, but they belong together. The fact that One may be said to be "with" the Other clearly differentiates them. Yet though they are distinct, there is no disharmony. John's expression points us to the perfect unity in which they are joined.

B. THE WORD AND CREATION (1:3-5)

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made, 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood^a it.

a. Or overcome

It is no accident that John goes straight from his statement about the relation between the Word and God to the phenomenon of creation. As Cullmann puts it, "The self-communication of God occurs first of all in creation. That is why creation and salvation are very closely connected in the New Testament. Both of them have to do with God's self-communication."²⁰ The development of the theme of the Logos leads naturally to the revelation made in creation.

3 From the relationship of the Word to the Father John turns to his relationship to creation. He makes the assertion that all created things²¹ were brought into being through him. The verb "were made" does not in itself mean specifically "were created" so much as "came into being." But in this context the difference is not significant. John is saying that everything owes its existence to the Word.²² He does not say that all was made "by" him, but "through" him. This way of putting it safeguards the truth that the Father is the source of all that is.²³ The relation of the first two Persons of the Trinity in the work of creation is of interest. There is a careful differentiation of the parts played by the Father and the Son (1 Cor. 8:6). Creation was not the solitary act of either. Both were at work (and, for that matter, still are; cf. 5:17, 19). The Father created, but he did it "through" the Word.

A feature of Johannine style is the enunciation of a proposition in positive form and then immediately its repetition in the negative. We find this here. The second expression is emphatic, and we could render, "without him there was not even one thing made."²⁴ The whole of creation is included in one broad sweep. Nothing is outside the range of his activity. There is a change of tense. "Were made" (aorist) pictures creation in its totality, as one act, but "has been made" is perfect, which conveys the thought of the continuing existence of created things. What we see around us did not come into existence apart from the Word, any more than what appeared on the first day of creation.

The emphatic assertion of the exclusive role of the Word in creation is probably to be understood against some contemporary idea. There are those who think that John was written in part to oppose Gnosticism. I do not think that this can be demonstrated, for on our present information Gnosticism, at least in its developed form, appeared later than any date that is feasible for the composition of this Gospel. But Gnosticism did not appear fully fashioned in a moment of time. It was an eclectic movement, gathering ideas from a variety of sources. It is not in the least unlikely that there were people putting out at this time some such view of creation as was later gathered into the various Gnostic systems (though we have no complete evidence for the point), which viewed matter as inherently evil. Therefore the good God could have had nothing to do with it. But it was held that there were various "emanations" of spirit beings from him, until at last there appeared one powerful enough to create and foolish enough not to see that this would be a mistake. John strongly repudiates all such ideas. The world is due to God himself²⁵ acting through his Word.²⁶ The universe is not eternal, nor is it due to some foolish inferior being. This world is God's world.²⁷

4 There is a punctuation problem here. It is possible to take the last words of the previous verse with the opening words of this one to give some such meaning as "What has been made was life in him," or, alternatively, "What has been made in him was life." In our earliest manuscripts there are, of course, few or no punctuation marks, so that either reading is possible. It is perhaps worth noting that the earliest manuscripts that do have punctuation seem usually to place the point before the disputed words, and thus put them in verse 4, not verse 3. So do most other ancient authorities, whether translations into other languages or quotations in the Fathers.²⁸ It was not until this way of understanding the text was used to support heretical views²⁹ that the Fathers tended to adopt the view that the words belong in verse 3. Despite this hesitation it seems that this is the better way to understand the text; the point should go after the words in question so that they are read as part of verse 3. To take the text in this way is to get a terse and forceful statement in verse 4, while the retention of the disputed words in the previous verse is natural and adds to the emphasis that is there built up. The other way of taking the words gives us an exceedingly complicated expression in verse 4, and I am not sure that those who adopt this view really face the difficulties. Barrett goes so far as to say that both ways of rendering the words with this verse division ("That which came into being — in it the Word was life," and "That which came into being--in the Word was its life") "are almost impossibly clumsy." Moreover, the sense is not easy to accept. That the Word is the source of life is a typically Johannine idea. That everything that has been made is life is not, even if we add, "in him."

Following the usual verse division, then, we move on from creation in general to the creation of life, the most significant element in creation. Life is one of John's characteristic concepts: he uses the word 36 times, whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than 17 times (Revelation; next come Romans with 14 times and 1 John with 13 times). Thus more than a quarter of all the New Testament references to life occur in this one writing. (135). "Life" in John characteristically refers to eternal life (see on 3:15), the gift of God through his Son. Here, however, the term must be taken in its broadest sense. It is only because there is life in the Logos that there is life in anything on earth at all. Life does not exist in its own right. It is not even spoken of as made "by" or "through" the Word, but as existing "in" him. There is probably a characteristic Johannine double meaning here. The life of which John writes is in the first instance the kind of life that we find throughout this earth, but this will call to mind that spiritual life which is so much the more significant that John can speak of it as "the (NIV, 'that') life." Neither will be out of mind here. This Gospel constantly associates life with the Word. He came that people might have life and have it more abundantly (10:10). He died so that people might have everlasting life (3:16). He gave his flesh for the life of the world (6:51). Only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have life (6:53-54), and similarly only those who come to him have life (5:40). When he gives life people perish no more (10:28). He said that he had power to lay down his life and to take it again (10:18), and he did just that. As Lord of life he raised Lazarus from the dead (ch. 11). Twice he said that he is "the life" (11:25; 14:6), a thought to which we are very close in the Prologue. The basic source of all life is the Father, who "has life in himself" (5:26, where see note). But the Father "granted the Son to have life in himself" (5:26), and it is this latter point to which attention is directed here.

What is the meaning of "that life was the light of men"?³⁰ Grimm-Thayer equates the light with "intelligence," and explains the verse in this way: "because the life of men is self-conscious, and thus a fountain of intelligence springs up."³¹ But this is to take the words in an unnatural way. There is no indication in the context that intelligence is in mind, and in any case there appears to be no reason for confining the words to any one part of humanity.³² It is more likely that we should think of Old Testament passages that refer to God as the source of light and life, for example: "For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light" (Ps. 36:9).³³ It is this kind of thing that the writer has in mind. But he is writing about the Word, so his meaning will be that the Word, himself the life, is also "the light of men,"³⁴ John is preparing the way for the thought that he will develop throughout his Gospel, that Jesus is the life-bringer and light-bearer.

Just as John links life with Christ, so he links light with him. Christ is "the light of the world" (8:12; 9:5). He has "come into the world as a light" (12:46). Anyone who follows him "will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). People can be urged to believe in the light (12:36), just as they are urged to believe in him. And just as he who is life gave life to dead Lazarus, so he who is the light of the world gave sight to the man born blind (ch. 9). The first recorded words of God are "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3), and in this chapter the Word is the source of light. All the light we have, whether we walk in it or turn our backs on it, we owe to the Word.³⁵

5 Over against light is darkness.³⁶ The antithesis is a natural one whether we are thinking of the physical world or the spiritual world. It is the function of light to shine precisely in the darkness, to oppose darkness, to dispel darkness. The opposition of light and darkness is a major theme of this Gospel, a feature it shares with the Qumran scrolls.³⁷ Not too much can be made of this since the antithesis is such a natural one, and very widespread in antiquity. Probably most religions express it in greater or lesser measure. But in both John and Qumran it is a prominent theme.

Notice that John changes his tense. Until now he has used the past exclusively, but the light, he says, "shines,"³⁸ The light is continually in action. Even as John writes it is shining. The light of the world, "the light of men," never ceases to shine. Discussions of whether John has in mind the preincarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ seem quite beside the point. He is not dealing here with the incarnation, but with the fact that it is of the very essence of light that it shines.³⁹

According to NIV the darkness "has not understood it."⁴⁰ The Greek verb⁴¹ is not easy to translate. It contains the idea of laying hold on something so as to make it one's own (cf. its translation as "gets" with reference to a prize, 1 Cor. 9:24). This can lead to meanings like "lay hold with the mind," and thus "comprehend" (KJV) or "apprehend." That the verb can bear such a meaning is not in dispute. Whether it is relevant to the present context is another matter. We do not usually talk of darkness as trying to "understand" light. To take this meaning is really to think of darkness as equivalent to certain people, or perhaps the human race at large. But in this Gospel darkness is not so much people as the evil environment in which people find them-selves.⁴² The theme of the perpetual conflict between darkness and light is found throughout the book. People's condemnation is that they loved darkness rather than light (3:19). Jesus calls on them to follow him so that they do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have the light, lest darkness "overtake" or "overcome" them (12:35, the same verb as here). Jesus came "into the world as a light" so that whoever believes on him should not "stay in darkness" (12:46). His whole mission was a conflict between the light and the darkness. The verb we are discussing has a rarer but sufficiently attested meaning, "overcome." It is that that is required here. The light is shining in the darkness. And⁴³ the darkness was unable to overcome the light. The aorist tense of the verb "overcame" is unexpected; we might have anticipated a present to give a timeless truth: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it."⁴⁴ The most natural way of taking the aorist, however, is as referring to a single occasion. It may be that we are to understand it of creation, the subject of the present passage, for there the light triumphed and not the darkness (and its attendant chaos). Some authors discern a reference to the fall (Gen. 3). Perhaps more likely is a reference to Calvary (so Murray). There the light and the darkness came into bitter and decisive conflict and the darkness could not prevail. Probably in his usual manner John is using an expression that should be taken as true on more than one level.⁴⁵

We have already noticed that the opposition of light and darkness is one of the great themes that John shares with Qumran. Like John the men of the desert community viewed the two as locked in mortal struggle. But we should not overlook the fact that for them there is no equivalent of John's past tense here. They looked and longed for the ultimate triumph of light. But they could not rest in a victory won as John could.⁴⁶

C. THE WORD AND JOHN THE BAPTIST (1:6-8)

6There came a man, who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

It is curious at first sight that there should be this mention of John the Baptist in the Prologue. There is no difficulty about his appearing in the narrative sections, but it is certainly perplexing to find him in this brief introduction to the Gospel as a whole. It may be that the answer is to be found in the prominence accorded the Baptist by some of his followers.⁴⁷ While the Gospels depict him as pointing people to Christ and as regarding his whole mission as that of a forerunner, it seems that some of his followers did not accept this assessment of their leader. From the beginning some wondered whether he was the Christ (Luke 3:15). And as time went by it seems that some of his followers preferred to keep themselves aloof from the Christian movement, regarding John as a more important figure than Jesus ("Just as a man, overcome at the sight of dawn, would not deign to look at the sun"⁴⁸). Some had baptized in John's name as far afield as Ephesus (Acts 19:3),⁴⁹ and they may have gone further. The great Apollos is first introduced as one who "knew only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:25). Our author does not enter directly into controversy with such people, but he insists more than any of the other Evangelists on the subordinate place of the Baptist. One of the aims of this Gospel plainly was to show how clearly and consistently John had pointed people to Jesus. Apparently the movement associated with the Baptist's name was particularly strong in the region where this Gospel was written. If, as seems probable, the author of the Gospel came from the group originally centered on John, his interest in his former teacher would be natural. This interest would not be lessened by the fact that John's was the witness borne to Christ by the last of the prophets of the old covenant.⁵⁰

6 The word rendered "came" is that translated "made" three times in verse 3. While in this verse there is no particular emphasis on the act of creation (we may well accept the translation "came"), yet the use of this word must be held to point a contrast between Jesus and John. Jesus "was" in the beginning; John "came into existence." The contrast is continued when John is described as "a man," for Jesus has already been spoken of as "the Word." But though John's place was subordinate, it was an important one. While the Evangelist is concerned that John should not be accorded the place that belongs to Jesus he is also concerned that John's true greatness should be seen. John was "sent from God" (cf. v. 33; 3:28).⁵¹ His mission was not of human but of divine origin. This bold assertion at the very first mention of the Baptist is clear evidence that the Evangelist is not engaging in a campaign of denigration. He fully recognizes the greatness of the forerunner.⁵²

7 From the divine commission we come to the actual work of the Baptist. He came "as a witness" (better, "for witness").⁵³ Witness is one of the key concepts of this Gospel,⁵⁴ and it is quite in accordance with this that right on the threshold John the Baptist is characterized in terms of witness. This is emphasized, first by drawing attention to the man ("this man," not simply "he," as ΝIV) and then by the twofold reference to witness ("witness" and "testify"); this Evangelist often emphasizes a concept by the simple device of repeating it. He speaks of John as a witness often and only. In the Synoptists John's preaching of repentance and his practice are noted. In this Gospel his one function is to bear witness to Jesus. We know him as "John the Baptist," but in this Gospel the references to his baptism are incidental. It is perhaps significant that there is no mention of his baptizing Jesus. But there is repeated reference to his witness; cf. 1:7, 8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26 (cf. 3:28), 5:33. For this Evangelist John's witness is what matters. It was for witness that John came, and nothing else that he did can be compared in importance to this.

In this Gospel there are seven who bear witness to Jesus. Each of the three Persons of the Trinity does this —the Father (5:31-32, 34, 37; 8:18), Christ himself (8:14, 18; cf. 3:11, 32; 8:37), and the Spirit (15:26; cf. 16:14). The works of Jesus bear witness (5:36; 10:25; cf. 14:11; 15:24), as does sacred Scripture (5:39; cf. 5:45-46). A sixth witness is John the Baptist, while seventh is the variety of human witness consequent on the ministry of Jesus, that of the disciples (15:27; cf. 19:35; 21:24), the Samaritan woman (4:39), and the multitude (12:17). This emphasis on testimony should not be minimized. Testimony is a serious matter and the means of substantiating the truth of a matter; there is a legal air about it. It is clear that our author wants his readers to take what he writes as reliable. He is insistent that there is good evidence for the things he sets down. Witness establishes the truth.

It does more. It commits. If I take my stand in the witness box and testify that such-and-such is the truth of the matter, I am no longer neutral. I have committed myself. John lets us see that there are those like John the Baptist who have committed themselves by their witness to Christ. But he is also bold enough to think that God has committed himself. He has borne witness in a variety of ways but he has especially committed himself in Jesus, in all that the Son was and did. People who have borne their witness have committed themselves, and that is not to be overlooked. But the important thing is the witness of God.⁵⁵

John's work was "to testify concerning that light."⁵⁶ This somewhat indefinite expression does not tell us what he said, nor how or when he said it. We might possibly understand "the light" to denote goodness in general were it not for the previous references to light (vv. 4-5), and for the subsequent avowal that John was not the light. This makes it certain that by "the light" the writer means Jesus. The verb "testify," incidentally, is in the aorist. The meaning is not that John continually witnessed (though that, too, was true), but that he accomplished a finished work. He bore his witness to the Word, and there was nothing more that he could do.

This bearing of witness was not an end in itself. Behind it was the purpose "that through him all men might believe." Grammatically "him" might refer either to "the light" or to the subject "he," but the sense of the passage requires the latter. People are said to believe "in" Christ, not "through" him. On the other hand, it was a great privilege for John to be the means of bringing people to the place of faith.⁵⁷ "Believe" is not in the continuous tense, and this is perhaps significant. John came to bring people to decide, to make the definitive act of faith.

8 The greatness of the Baptist had, as we have seen, caused some of his followers to entertain exaggerated ideas about him; they appear to have held him to be the Messiah. But the Evangelist vigorously repudiates this. He⁵⁸ "was not the light."⁵⁹ Just as he brings out the true greatness of John, so he makes clear his limitations. He goes on to repeat the truth that John came to bear witness. That was the whole reason for his appearance. That was why he was "sent from God." Those who did not understand this were misinterpreting his whole mission. There is nothing in the Greek corresponding to "came." This lends a note of abruptness, even eagerness to the words. Taken with the strong adversative, "but,''⁶⁰ it puts a little more emphasis on the words that follow.⁶¹ The writer cannot get to the words about "witness" quickly enough. There was a singleness of purpose about the Baptist (and about the Evangelist's description of him).

D. THE WORD INCARNATE (1:9-14)

9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world? 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,^b nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son,^c who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

a. 9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world

b. 13 Greek of bloods

c. 14 Or the Only Begotten

Attention is now fastened on the incarnation. Two points receive special emphasis: one is the astonishing fact that the Word of God, true God as he is, took upon him human nature, and the other is the even more astonishing fact that when he did this, people would have nothing to do with him. John is concerned that we should miss neither the good news of the incarnation of God, nor the tragedy of the human rejection of God.

9 The Greek of this verse is somewhat awkward, since the verb "was" appears to have no subject. NIV solves the problem by linking "was" with the participle "coming" later in the sentence, but there is a strong objection in that the two constituent parts of the verb "was coming" would then be separated by a relative clause, a difficult if not impossible construction.⁶² It is better to understand the subject from the preceding verses: "(That light) was the true light. ..." But there is another problem, namely whether we should take "coming into the world" with "man"⁶³ or with "light." In the former case the meaning might be "every man at the time of his birth." Or we could take the whole expression "every man that comes into the world" to mean simply "all men" (the rabbis used the expression with just this meaning)⁶⁴ But the sense of the whole passage is against such meanings. And they contradict John's practice. John does not normally speak of people in general as "coming into the world." This is a description he reserves for Christ. Moreover, this verse stands at the head of a section dealing with the incarnation, where a statement about the incarnation rather than one about people seems required. I take the words accordingly to apply to "the light."⁶⁵ The awkwardness of the verse appears to arise from the fact that John is saying two things and has run them together: "He was the true light," and further, he was "coming into the world." Fortunately our uncertainty about the construction does not extend to the sense. The Evangelist is speaking about the Word as "the true light," and going on from that, about the illumination he gives to people. Other lights "were flickers of the truth; some were faint glimpses of reality; some were will o' the wisps which men followed, and which led men out into the dark and left them there" (Barclay). But Christ is the genuine light. He is the light that brings real illumination. There is nothing unreal or shadowy about the light that is Christ.⁶⁶

His giving light "to every man"⁶⁷ is not closely defined. There is a sense in which the Word gives light only to those who believe, for those who do not believe in him are yet in darkness (3:19-20). But, as James tells us, "Every good and perfect gift is from above" (Jas. 1:17). There is a general illumination of the whole race, and it is the common teaching of the New Testament writers that God has revealed something of himself to all people (Rom. 1:20), sufficient at least for them to be blameworthy when they take the wrong way instead of the right way.⁶⁸ John attributes this general illumination to the activity of the Word. For "world" see Additional Note B, pp. 111-13.

10 John has a way of emphasizing a word by the simplest of all devices, repetition. He does this here. Three times he repeats the word "world," and each time it comes first in its clause. Clearly John wishes to fasten attention on it. He says three things. First, the Word (or the light)⁶⁹ was "in the world." The verb conveys the thought of continuity. He did not simply pay a fleeting visit, but was there continuously. The second point is the reminder that the world owes its very existence to the Word. "The world was made through him" employs the same vocabulary and construction as the similar words in verse 3 (where see note). The third point deals with the rejection of the Word by the world, and this rejection is heightened by the way John leads up to it. The Word was in the world continuously, the world that he had made, and yet the world did not know him.⁷⁰ There is a subtle shift of meaning in the word "world." On the first two occasions it refers to the earth with all that is in it (including, of course, the human race). But on this third occasion it signifies people, more particularly those who came into contact with Jesus of Nazareth. See further Additional Note B, pp. 111-13.

"Did not recognize⁷¹ him" refers to more than intellectual knowledge. There is also the thought of the failure to know intimately, to know and love as a friend, to be in right relation. The tense is aorist, which perhaps indicates a single action; the world missed its great opportunity. It did not come to know the Word when the Word was in its very midst. The world did not know him. The world never does. The world's characteristic reaction to the Word is one of indifference.

11 With some vivid touches John highlights the tragedy of the rejection.⁷² We might translate the opening words, "he came home."⁷³ It is the exact expression used of the beloved disciple when, in response to Jesus' word from the cross, he took Mary "into his home" (19:27; cf. 16:32). When the Word came to this world he did not come as an alien. He came home. Moreover, he came to Israel. Had he come to some other nation it would have been bad enough, but Israel was peculiarly God's own people. The Word did not go where he could not have expected to be known. He came home, where the people should have known him.

And it was the home folk, "his own,"⁷⁴ who "did not receive him." This brings the rejectors into special relation with the Rejected. They should have known better. We must see here a reference to the Jewish nation. They had enjoyed many advantages, more particularly the revelation made known to them "at many times and in various ways" (Heb. 1:1). This time John does not say that they did not know him, but that they did not receive him. The verb may be used of taking a person to oneself in intimate relationship. It is used of Joseph taking Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:20, 24) and of Christ taking believers to himself in heaven (14:3). This was the kind of welcome that his own people ought to have given him when he went home. But they "did not receive him." The aorist tense here, as in the previous verse, points to the decisive action of rejection.⁷⁵ It fastens our attention on the crisis rather than on the continuing result.

In passing we may notice that this is an excellent example of John's emphasis on the fact of the incarnation. He is not content with a series of "mythological" antagonisms, with setting "light" over against "darkness," and the rest. He writes in personal terms and in concrete terms.

12 John does not wish to leave the impression (which might be gained from v. 11) that nobody responded to the Word. The bulk of the people did not respond, but some did, and John now turns his attention to them. There is an unusual grammatical construction in the Greek where "all who received him" does not fit smoothly into the sentence.⁷⁶ This has the effect of setting them over against the rejectors of the last two verses and of putting a certain emphasis on those who received the Word. To them the Word gave "the right" or "the authority" to become God's children. There are three important words here. (1) "Gave." The end of the story is not the tragedy of rejection, but the grace of acceptance. There were people to whom he gave the gift that they should receive the Word and become children of God. (2) "The right."⁷⁷ John does not speak of power, as in the sense of power over sin (though in fact they receive that, too). His thought is that of status.⁷⁸ They have received full authority to this exalted title. He does not say "to be" but "to become." Not only is there a status, but there is a change of status. It is what Jesus speaks of as passing from death to life (5:24). (3) "Children." John refers to them as "children" rather than as "sons" of God. The term he uses is one that draws attention to community of nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4, "so that. . . you may participate in the divine nature") rather than one that would stress the rights and privileges of sonship.⁷⁹ While the New Testament portrays God as the Father of all, paradoxically it does not speak of all as sons of God. God's attitude to all people is that of a Father. All are his sons in the sense that he made them and that he provides for them. But people are his sons in the full sense only as they respond to what he does for them in Christ. When they receive the Word they are born again (ch. 3) into the heavenly family. It is only in this way that they are really God's "children."

The "children," then, are those who believe.⁸⁰ In the opening part of the verse John has spoken of receiving him, now as believing on his name.⁸¹ These are different ways of looking at the same spiritual change wherein one ceases to rely on one's own merits and achievements and comes to trust in Christ instead. Like the opening words of the verse, these are linked with the construction rather loosely. The effect is to give them a certain emphasis. That faith is the way is important. John does not wish his readers to miss it. Notice that they are to believe "in his name." The "name" meant much more to people of antiquity than it does to us. For us it is a mere appellative, a convenient label whereby we distinguish one person from another. We ask "What's in a name?" and answer (with Shakespeare) "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The name for us is a matter of indifference. Not so in the ancient world. There it stood for the whole personality. When, for example, the Psalmist spoke of loving the name of God (Ps. 5:11), or when he prayed, "may the name of the God of Jacob protect you" (Ps. 20:1), he did not have in mind simply the uttering of the name. He was speaking of all that "God" means. The name in some way expressed the whole person.⁸² To believe "in the name" of the Word, then, means to trust the person of the Word. It is to believe in him as he is.⁸³ It is to believe that God is the God revealed in the Word and to put our trust in that God. This is more than simple credence. It is not believing that what he says is true, but trusting him as a person. It is believing "in" or "on" him. The Greek expression used here is found in the papyri in connection with accounts and the like, and it seems to be linked with the idea of possession.⁸⁴ If the New Testament retains anything of this usage the expression will convey the additional thought that when we believe we yield ourselves up to be possessed by him in whom we believe.

13 John moves on to the way people are born into the heavenly family. Among the Latin MSS there is support for reading the singular "who was born," which takes the passage to refer to the Virgin Birth.⁸⁵ All the Greek MSS and the great majority of versions and citations read the plural, and this attestation is so overwhelming that there is no doubt that it must be accepted. Yet it is not at all unlikely that John of set purpose uses words that will conjure up associations of the Virgin Birth, as Temple and Hoskyns (to name no others) hold. He will thus remind his readers that their spiritual existence depends on what Christ has done for them.

The origin of the "children of God" is described three times negatively and once positively. They are born "not of natural descent," where the Greek means "not of bloods." The plural is curious, as is the use of "blood" at all in this connection. But there was an idea in antiquity that birth took place as the result of the action of blood. Thus in the Wisdom of Solomon we read, "in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of ten months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage" (Wis. 7:1-2). The plural here may point to the action of both parents,⁸⁶ or it may refer to blood as made up of many drops.⁸⁷ "Nor of human decision," more literally, "Nor of the will⁸⁸ of the flesh," points to sexual desire, though we should bear in mind that John does not use the term "flesh" with the evil sense it commonly has in Paul. For him it denotes our bodily nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. "The will of the flesh" refers to the desire that arises out of the human bodily constitution. "A husband's will" may have much the same sense, or it may be taken more generally with a meaning like "nor of any human volition whatever." The piling up of these expressions is to be understood in the light of Jewish pride of race. The Jews held that because of the "Fathers," that is their great ancestors, God would be favorable to them. John emphatically repudiates any such idea. Nothing human, however great or excellent, can bring about the birth of which he speaks.

Over against this⁸⁹ John sets the way people are born into the heavenly family. The new birth is always sheer miracle. All human initiative is ruled out.⁹⁰ People are born "of God"; they can be born into the heavenly family in no other way. John uses bold imagery here, for his word "are born" is the verb commonly used of the male parent in begetting children (see further on 3:3).⁹¹

14 Now comes the most concise statement of the incarnation. "The Word" (see on v. 1 and Additional Note A, pp. 102-11) refers to him who is nothing less than God. "Became" is in the aorist tense, and indicates action at a point of time.⁹² "Flesh" is a strong, almost crude way of referring to human nature (cf. its use in Rom. 1:3; 8:3; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2; NIV tends to paraphrase). John does not say, "the Word became man," nor "the Word took a body." He chooses that form of expression which puts what he wants to say most bluntly. It seems probable that he was confronted by opponents of a docetic type, people who were ready to think of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God but who denied the reality of his humanity. They thought of him as only appearing to live a human life. Since God could not, on their premises, defile himself by real contact with humankind, the whole life of Jesus must be appearance only, John's strong term leaves no room for such fancies. He is clear on the deity of the Word. But he is just as clear on the genuineness of his humanity.⁹³

Notice that this is the first time that John indicates that the Word and Jesus are to be taken as the same. Up to this point it would have been quite possible for the reader to take "the Word" to refer to some supreme cosmic principle or the like. But in one short, shattering expression John unveils the great idea at the heart of Christianity — that the very Word of God took flesh for our salvation.

The Word "lived for a while among us." Properly the verb signifies "to pitch one's tent;" it may thus denote a temporary visit (Moffatt, "tarried among us"). But this cannot be insisted upon, and any exegesis that deduces a limited incarnation from the fact that the Word "tabernacled" among us is in error. The term had come to be used in a conventional fashion of settling down permanently in a place (e.g., Rev. 12:12; there can be no more permanent dwelling than in heaven!). But in Jewish ears the word might arouse other associations. The place of worship during the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness, the place where God had vouchsafed his presence, was "the Tabernacle," and that noun corresponds to the verb used here. That John wants us to recall God's presence in the tabernacle in the wilderness seems clear from the immediate reference to "glory,"⁹⁴ for glory was associated with the tabernacle. When, for example, it was first set up, "the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:34). It is possible that we should see other symbolism here also. There seems to be no doubt but that John saw Jesus as a new and greater Moses, and a number of students have seen evidence for this here.⁹⁵ It is possible that the Sinai theophany or some other Old Testament incident may be in mind. But certainly the glory associated with the tabernacle is part of John's meaning. The glory resulting from the immediate presence of the Lord is referred to quite often in Jewish writings. It came to be linked with the Shekinah, a word that means "dwelling" and is used of God's dwelling among his people (in the Targums this term was sometimes substituted for the divine name). There were various ways in which the Jews used the term, and it is likely that John has more than one of them in mind. As A. M. Ramsey says, "We are reminded both of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and of the prophetic imagery of Yahweh tabernacling in the midst of His people, and of the Shekinah which He causes to dwell among them. . . . The place of His dwelling is the flesh of Jesus." He goes on to bring out the force of the present passage by saying, "All the ways of tabernacling of God in Israel had been transitory or incomplete; all are fulfilled and superseded by the Word-made-flesh and dwelling among us."⁹⁶ That is the great point. What had been hinted at and even realized in a dim, imperfect fashion earlier was perfectly fulfilled in the Word made flesh.

That John had in mind the Shekinah and the glory that was associated with it seems further indicated by the express statement that the glory was "the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father."⁹⁷ The verb "beheld" is invariably used in John (as, for that matter, in the whole New Testament) of seeing with the bodily eye. It is not used of visions.⁹⁸ John is speaking of that glory which was seen in the literal, physical Jesus of Nazareth. Since he came in lowliness we have an example of the paradox that John uses so forcefully later in the Gospel, that true glory is to be seen, not in outward splendor, but in the lowliness with which the Son of God lived among us and suffered for us. John holds, it is true, that the miracles showed the glory of Christ (2:11; 11:4, 40). But in a deeper sense it is the cross of shame that manifests the true glory (12:23-24; 13:31). The repetition of the word "glory" emphasizes its reality. The true glory was there, in the earthly life of the Word.⁹⁹ And it was seen.¹⁰⁰

We should not read too much into "only begotten" (see mg.) To English ears this sounds like a metaphysical relationship, but the Greek term means no more than "only," "unique."¹⁰¹ It is used, for example, of the widow of Nain's "only" son (Luke 7:12; cf. also Luke 9:38). It is used also of Jairus's "only" daughter (Luke 8:42). Perhaps even more instructive is the use of the term with reference to Isaac (Heb. 11:17), for Isaac was not Abraham's only son. But he was "unique." He was the only son given to Abraham by God's promise. Used here, though the word does not necessarily denote a metaphysical relationship, it does at the least show that Jesus is God's Son in a unique way. No other is or can be the Son of God as he is. The unique character of the relationship between the Father¹⁰² and the Son is one of the great themes of this Gospel. What John here briefly indicates in one word he subsequently develops powerfully. From this point on, as R. H. Lightfoot notes, "St. John leaves behind him the use of the word Logos, in order henceforth, throughout the book, to use not only the historical name 'Jesus', but also the more personal terms of 'Father' and 'Son'."

There is a small problem, that of knowing with what we should connect the expression "full of grace and truth." ARV puts "and we beheld ... the Father" in parentheses and takes it with "the Word"; RSV with "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth" makes sure of the same interpretation. REB reads "we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth," which seems to attach it to "glory," a view found also in NRSV, "the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth." Many of the early Fathers took this view, as do some modern commentators (e.g., MacGregor). Another view is that the expression qualifies "the only begotten."¹⁰³ There is probably most to be said for the first view, but in any case it is a problem of Greek grammar rather than of meaning, for on any showing it is the incarnate Word who is full of grace and truth.

"Grace" is one of the great Christian words, and it is a minor mystery that John uses it three times in his Prologue and not again throughout his Gospel. The word basically means "that which causes joy," and so means "winsomeness." It comes to signify "goodwill," "kindness," and the like, often with the notion that the favor shown is undeserved. In the Christian understanding of things grace is especially seen in God's provision for our spiritual need by sending his Son to be our Savior. From this we get the thought of the good gifts that God bestows on those who are saved, and finally that of the attitude of thankfulness that people ought to have toward God for all his goodness to them. Nowhere do we see more clearly what the grace of God means than in the Word made flesh.

With this John links "truth." This is another important Johannine word. It is found twenty-five times in this Gospel, so that it is clearly a topic in which John is deeply interested. We usually understand truth simply as the opposite of falsehood, and John may use the term in much this way (e.g., 8:45). But for him the term has a much wider meaning. Like "life" and "light," with which we were dealing earlier, truth is closely linked with Jesus. He could even say, "I am . . . the truth" (14:6). For the richness of this Johannine concept see Additional Note D (pp. 259-62). It is plain that for John truth is many-sided and many-splendored. When he speaks of the incarnate Word as full of grace and truth he is pointing us to the fact that truth and the complete reliability of God are bound up with one another.¹⁰⁴ Truth as he sees it is not basically something that can be known apart from God. The Word is the revelation of truth as well as of grace. Grace taken by itself may have given people an unbalanced picture. Not only is God the God of grace. He is that, but he is also the God who demands of his people "truth in the inner parts" (Ps. 51:6). They must "do" the truth (3:21).¹⁰⁵

E. THE WORD'S SURPASSING EXCELLENCE (1:15-18)

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the only^a Son,^b who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

a. 18 Or but God the only begotten

b. 18 Some manuscripts but the only Son (or but the only begotten Son)

The Prologue concludes with a little section underlining the uniqueness of Christ. First we are reminded of his superiority to the Baptist, then of the great truth that he supplies all the need of his people. He is shown to surpass Moses by supplying grace and truth instead of the Law. The Prologue concludes with the point that he is the one revealer of the God whom no human eye has seen.

15 The use of the present tense indicates the continuance of the witness of John: the Evangelist still hears his voice!¹⁰⁶ The report of John's words is not without its difficulties. We would have expected "This is he" (as in v. 30, and as Rieu actually renders here). The use of "was" may indicate that the Baptist had spoken of Jesus before and was now pointing back to that occasion. More probably it is a way of referring to the continuing existence of the Word. Throughout the Prologue the present tense is never used of the Word, with but one exception, "shines" in verse 5.¹⁰⁷ The continuous imperfect is used of him again and again (vv. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10), a way of speaking that puts some stress on his continuing existence.

In the second half of the verse there is a change in the sphere of reference of the prepositions from that of time to that of importance. "He who comes after me" refers to the fact that John's ministry preceded that of Jesus in point of time.¹⁰⁸ "Has surpassed me" indicates that notwithstanding this, Jesus' ministry was first in point of importance. This was a noteworthy statement, for in antiquity it was widely held that chronological priority meant superiority.¹⁰⁹ People were humble about their own generation and really thought that their fathers were wiser than they — incredible as this may sound to our generation! They really believed in "the good old days." But John indicates a reversal in the case of the Baptist and Jesus. Till Jesus came John the Baptist occupied the center of the stage, but he who was later in time "has surpassed" his forerunner. We should probably think of a reversion to priority in time in the expression at the end of the verse.¹¹⁰ Though Jesus appeared on the earthly scene after John the Baptist he was really before him. As verse 1 has made clear, he preexisted from eternity. So he actually was before John even though his earthly birth was later. The Greek is, however, somewhat unusual, and literally means "first of me."¹¹¹ Some scholars take "first" to mean not "first in time," "before," but "first in importance," which would give a meaning like "he was my Chief."¹¹² This, however, seems to be an unnatural meaning for the expression. Most authors agree that it should be taken to refer to time: "He existed before me." But it is an unusual and emphatic expression.¹¹³ As Westcott points out, it denotes not merely relative priority but absolute priority. The Word was not only "former" but "first." The preexistence of Jesus shows his superiority¹¹⁴ (cf. Moffatt, "my successor has taken precedence of me, for he preceded me").

16 Verse 15 shows that John thought of Jesus as far surpassing him. The point of the "for" that links that verse and this is perhaps that Christians in general can support this verdict, "for" they have experienced the good gifts that he gives.¹¹⁵ "Fullness" will have here the active meaning, "that which fills."¹¹⁶ Christ is the source of all our blessings. There is a hint at the infinite extent of his resources, for "all" receive from him.¹¹⁷ We might have thought that the receiving of Christ's fullness would be described as continuous. But John uses the same verb and the same tense as he has used of the single act of receiving Christ in verse 12. He prefers to concentrate on our becoming participators in the fullness when we first received Christ.¹¹⁸ "Grace for grace" (NIV paraphrases) is an unusual expression.¹¹⁹ Literally it means "grace instead of grace." Clearly John intends to put some emphasis on the thought of grace. Probably also he means that as one piece of divine grace (so to speak) recedes it is replaced by another. God's grace to his people is continuous and is never exhausted. Grace knows no interruption and no limit. In contrast with the Law grace stresses the dynamic character of the Christian life. Law can be mastered. A person may acquire merit by conforming to the Law. Anyone may know the precise requirements the Law demands. But grace is always an adventure. No one can say where grace will lead, what blessing it will bring, or what challenge it will make. Grace means an ever deepening experience of the presence and the blessing of God.

17 "The law" strictly stands for the first five books of the Old Testament. These books were sacred Scripture par excellence to the Jews of that day (and for that matter, of this). But because they were so eminent the title came to be used simply to mean Scripture, that is the entire Old Testament. From that it could mean the whole of Judaism considered as a system based on Scripture. In this verse there is probably a mingling of the first and last meanings. The Jews thought of Moses as the author of the first five books of the Bible, but not of the whole of the Old Testament, so the second meaning is excluded. But John is not concentrating on the first five books of the Bible; he is contrasting the old with the new, Judaism with Christianity. All that Moses could produce was "law." And he did not even originate that, for it was "given through" him; it came from God. Over against the idea of law is that of "grace and truth" (see on v. 14).¹²⁰ A good deal of Jewish thought regards these two divine attributes as revealed through Moses (see SBk on v. 14). John may well be claiming accordingly that God's revelation of these attributes was wrongly ascribed to Moses. They were not revealed through him, but they came through Jesus. The association of truth with the gospel revelation in Jesus Christ is clear in this verse, for in its more usual sense truth certainly came by Moses. But John's concern is with the whole way of salvation by grace as it was revealed and established in the ministry of Christ. This was God's way, and his more excellent way at that. Since it "came" through Christ it points to his surpassing excellence. The verb is somewhat curious, and not what we would have expected.¹²¹ It associates grace and truth more closely with Christ than the law with Moses, though the retention of the preposition "through" ensures that the divine origin is not overlooked. This is John's first use of the human name Jesus (though the idea of the Word made flesh came earlier). He is fond of this name, using it 237 times in all (Matthew has it 150 times, Mark 81 times, and Luke 89 times). This is more than a quarter of the total New Testament occurrences of the word (905 times). But it is otherwise with the compound title Jesus Christ, found elsewhere in this Gospel only in 17:3 (though cf. 20:31). John uses the term "Christ," however, more often than the other Evangelists (19 times; Matthew has it 17 times, Mark 7 times, and Luke 12 times). This will accord with his aim of writing so that people may believe that Jesus is the Christ (20:31). This title depicts him as the Messiah of Israel (see on v. 20). There is point in using the full name Jesus Christ with all solemnity in this passage where his superiority to Moses is being brought out. The contrast of the Christian way with the Jewish and the function of Moses as subordinate to and pointing forward to the Christ is a recurring theme in this Gospel (see 5:39, 46; 6:32; 8:32ff.; 9:28ff.). We have already seen that John depicts Jesus as a second Moses. T. F. Glasson has written a book to show that the contrast of Moses and Christ is one of John's major themes.¹²²

18 At first sight this verse may seem to be very loosely connected with the preceding if in fact it is connected at all. But in reality it forms the climax to the entire Prologue, stressing as it does that Christ is in the closest possible relationship to the Father. There is also the thought that, though Moses was highly esteemed by all Jews, yet in the system he inaugurated nobody could "see" God. By contrast, Jesus Christ has revealed him.

The emphatic declaration, "No one¹²³ has ever seen¹²⁴ God" (notice that the word "God" is in an emphatic position) is in line with the words of the Lord, "no one may see me and live" (Exod. 33:20; cf. John 5:37; 6:46). Yet there are other passages that explicitly affirm that some people have seen God (e.g., Exod. 24:9-11). What then does John mean? Surely that in his essential being God has never yet been seen by people. Some had had their visions of God, but these were all partial. The theophanies of the Old Testament did not and could not reveal God's essential being. But Christ has now made such a revelation. As Calvin puts it, "When he says that none has seen God, it is not to be understood of the outward seeing of the physical eye. He means generally that, since God dwells in inaccessible light, He cannot be known except in Christ, His lively image."

Instead of "God the only Son" some very good manuscripts read "God the only begotten" (mg.)¹²⁵ The second reading seems to have both better attestation and transcriptional probability on its side. It is objected that "only begotten God" is not a usual Johannine expression, and that the following mention of "Father" makes "Son" more natural. But these very reasons would incline scribes to alter "God" to "Son," all the more so since "only begotten God" is a startling expression. It is not easy to understand what would cause anyone who had "Son" before him to alter this to "God." It seems that we should accept as the correct reading "only begotten God." But in any case the sense is scarcely affected. Christ is elsewhere called both "Son" and "God," so there is no point of doctrine involved. For "only begotten" see on verse 14. It is possible that we should punctuate with a comma after "begot-ten," thus giving three titles of Christ: "Only begotten, God, he who is in the bosom of the Father." This final expression¹²⁶ brings out the closeness of the Father and the Son. It also carries overtones of affection (cf. our "the wife of his bosom"). The copula "is" expresses a continuing union.¹²⁷ The only begotten is continually in the bosom¹²⁸ of the Father. When the Word became flesh his cosmic activities did not remain in abeyance until the end of his earthly life. There are mysteries here that we cannot plumb, but we must surely hold that the incarnation meant the adding of something to what the Word was doing, rather than the cessation of most of his activities.¹²⁹ The verb "declared"¹³⁰ (here only in John) is used of setting forth a narrative (cf. Luke 24:35, where it is rendered "told"). It indicates that Jesus has now given a full account of the Father. This does not mean that there is nothing more to be learned of him. The term is not precise enough for that. But it does point to the adequacy of the revelation made in Christ. We may have confidence that God is as Christ revealed him. The word is used in the mystery religions and elsewhere as a technical expression for the revelation of divine secrets. Often it is used of the gods themselves making a disclosure. Such associations fitted the word to be used of a full and authoritative revelation of the divine Being. Such a revelation could, of course, be made only by One uniquely qualified in the manner made clear by the references to him in the earlier part of the verse.¹³¹

ADDITIONAL NOTE A: THE LOGOS (THE WORD)

The term Logos was in frequent use among the Greeks.¹³² The word might be thought of as remaining within a person, when it denoted thought or reason. Or it might refer to the word going forth from the person, when it denotes the expression of the person's thought, that is speech.¹³³ The Logos, as a philosophical term, depended on the former use. It denoted something like the world-soul, the soul of the universe. It was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense all things came from it, in another people derived their wisdom from it.¹³⁴ The concept is as old as Heraclitus (sixth century B.C.). This philosopher declared that the Logos "is always existent," and again that "all things happen through this Logos."¹³⁵ He thought of the ultimate reality sometimes as Fire, some-times as God, sometimes as Logos. "In Heraclitus the three conceptions, Logos, Fire, and God, are fundamentally the same. Regarded as the Logos, God is the omnipresent Wisdom by which all things are steered."¹³⁶ Heraclitus found people conceiving of the universe in physical terms. He introduced the idea of the Logos to account for the order he saw in the kosmos. It was the stabilizing principle of the universe.¹³⁷

Later thinkers for the most part failed to follow this thought up. For example, though Plato occasionally mentions the Logos, he is more concerned with his distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of "ideas." It was the Stoics who really developed the concept of the Logos. They abandoned Plato's heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (more akin to Heraclitus) that the universe is pervaded by the Logos, the eternal Reason. The term Logos gave expression to their deep conviction of the rationality of the universe. They did not think of the Logos as personal, so they did not understand it as we would God. For them it was essentially a principle or force. But the important thing is that if it was a principle it was the supreme principle of the universe. It was the force that originated and permeated and directed all things.

When John used the term Logos, then, he used a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks.¹³⁸ The average person would not know its precise significance to the philosophers (any more than his modern counter-part knows what the scientist understands by, say, "nuclear fission"). But he would know that it meant something important. John could scarcely have used the Greek term without arousing in the minds of those who used the Greek language thoughts of something supremely great in the universe. But, though he would not have been unmindful of the associations aroused by the term, his essential thought does not derive from the Greek background.¹³⁹ His Gospel shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy and less of dependence on it.¹⁴⁰ And the really important thing is that John in his use of Logos is cutting clean across one of the fundamental Greek ideas. The Greeks thought of the gods as detached from the world, as regarding its struggles and heartaches and joys and fears with serene divine lack of feeling. John's idea of the Logos conveys exactly the opposite idea. John's Logos does not show us a God who is serenely detached, but a God who is passionately involved. The Logos speaks of God's coming where we are, taking our nature upon himself, entering the world's struggle, and out of this agony winning our salvation.¹⁴¹

More important for our understanding of this Gospel in general and of its use of this term in particular is its Jewish background. The opening words, "In the beginning," compel a comparison with Genesis 1:1, while "the Word" irresistibly turns our attention to the repeated "and God said" of the opening chapter of the Bible. The Word is God's creative Word (v. 3). The atmosphere is unmistakably Hebraic.

A feature of Old Testament teaching that was receiving attention in the first century was its use of concepts like "the Word," and "Wisdom." While nothing was said to compromise the basic monotheism of Judaism, attention was increasingly directed to passages where such entities are given an almost independent existence. Thus throughout the Old Testament the Word of the Lord is thought of as an effective agent for accomplishing the divine will. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. 33:6). When God speaks he does something. His word is a divine action.¹⁴² God's revelatory act is often described by saying that the word of the Lord "came" to the prophet. In keeping with this a prophet may ascribe a more or less independent existence to the Word, as when he reports God as saying, "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:11). And in Psalm 29 "the voice" of the Lord is regarded in much the same way.

There are also semipersonalizations of Wisdom or the Law. Thus Wisdom can be spoken of very much like a divine person: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. ... I was there when he set the heavens in place. . . . Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind" (Prov. 8:22-31). Parallelism can show that "the law" and "the word" can mean very much the same thing (Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2). In such passages "Wisdom" or "the Law'' or "the Word" is in some sense divine, yet not quite the same as God.¹⁴³

There is another use of some importance, namely that in the Targums. When Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language Scripture was still read in that language in the services in the synagogue. As a concession to the weakness of the flesh there arose the custom of giving a running translation, which was called a Targum. At first the Targums were oral only, but in later times they were written down. Those that have survived enable us to see that they were somewhat free paraphrases rather than exact translations. The Targumists tried to give the sense of the passage being read, and not simply to translate mechanically. These Targums were produced at a time when, from motives of reverence and from a fear of breaking the third commandment, Jews had ceased to pronounce the divine name. When they came to this name in the original the readers and translators substituted some other expression they thought more reverent, such as "the Holy One" or "the Name." Sometimes they said, "the Word (Memra)."¹⁴⁴ For example, where our Bible says, "Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God" (Exod. 19:17), the Targum reads "to meet the Word of God." This kind of thing is quite common. Barclay says that in the Targum of Jonathan¹⁴⁵ alone the expression is used in this way about 320 times. It is often said that this Jewish use is not relevant because it does not denote a being in any way distinct from God. It is just a reverent way of referring to God himself.¹⁴⁶ But this is hardly the point. The point is that wherever people were familiar with the Targums they were familiar with "the Word" as a designation of the divine.¹⁴⁷ The Johannine use is not that of the Targums, but to those familiar with the Targums it must necessarily arouse these associations.

In the period between the two Testaments there was a marked extension of the usages we have been discussing. There are some striking statements about Wisdom.¹⁴⁸ Thus Wisdom is reported as saying: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I have made the circuit, of the vault of heaven and have walked in the depths of the abyss" (Sir. 24:3-5). Clearly Wisdom stands in close relationship to God, though the writer is careful to speak of her as a created being: "From eternity, in the beginning, he created me" (Sir. 24:9). In the Wisdom of Solomon we find that Wisdom "glorifies her noble birth by living with God" (Wis. 8:3), and that she "is an initiate in the knowledge of God, and an associate in his works" (Wis. 8:4). The writer can pray, "O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom hast formed man" (Wis. 9:1-2, a passage that incidentally shows that the author made little distinction between Wisdom and the Word). There is an even bolder personification of the Word: "For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone, thy all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne ... a stern warrior . . . and touched heaven while standing on the earth" (Wis. 18:14-16).¹⁴⁹ While it would be too much to say that these writers thought of Wisdom or the Word as having any distinct existence of their own, yet their bold imagery was certainly preparing the way for John's idea of the Logos.

It is difficult to know whether Philo should be thought of as a Jewish or Greek thinker. The great Alexandrian Jew really effected a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Old Testament thought. He spoke much about the Word,¹⁵⁰ and his various sayings do not readily harmonize. Sometimes he speaks of the Logos as a "second God," sometimes as the one God in action (is it too much to see in this his Greek philosophy and his Hebrew religion respectively?). If we might venture on a generalization, he saw the Logos as a philosophically respectable bridge between a transcendent God and this material universe.¹⁵¹ He had no intention of abandoning the Old Testament. But he accepted the philosophical ideas of the day, and interpreted the Old Testament in terms of those ideas.¹⁵² Thus his view of the Logos is rather that of current philosophy, somewhat modified, than the religious conception of the Old Testament.¹⁵³

C. H. Dodd takes very seriously the idea that the Philonic understanding of the Logos is part of the background of the Johannine Prologue.¹⁵⁴ He thinks that Philo helps us to understand expressions very difficult to explain in terms of a merely Jewish background, for example, "the Word was God." His conclusion is that the opening words of the Prologue "are clearly intelligible only when we admit that λόγος, though it carries with it the associations of the Old Testament Word of the Lord, has also a meaning similar to that which it bears in Stoicism as modified by Philo, and parallel to the idea of Wisdom in other Jewish writers."¹⁵⁵ This, however, seems to assume that the whole of the Johannine concept of the Word must be explicable in terms of some part of its background, be it Jewish, Hellenistic, or whatever you will. This I would strongly contest. John's thought is his own. He uses a term that would be full of meaning to his readers whatever their background. But whatever their background they would not find John's thought identical with their own. His idea of the Logos is essentially new.

We may sum up this part of the discussion in the words of William Temple. The Logos, he says, "alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that 'by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made'; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting-point of all things."¹⁵⁶ John was using a term that, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could count on all his readers catching his essential meaning.¹⁵⁷

Such, then, is the background to John's thought. But it is not his thought itself.¹⁵⁸ He had a richer, deeper, fuller idea than that of any of his predecessors. For him the Word is not a principle but a living Being and the source of life; not a personification but a Person,¹⁵⁹ and that Person divine.¹⁶⁰ The Word is nothing less than God. John gave full expression to this, but it is important to notice that this was but the culmination of a tendency inherent in Christianity from the first.¹⁶¹ The "word" stands for the whole Christian gospel in such passages as Mark 2:2 (where it applies to the preaching of Jesus) and Mark 8:32 (where it has special reference to the death of the Son of man).¹⁶² Allan D. Galloway can regard Logos as referring to the work of Christ rather than to his Person.¹⁶³ That is to say, it is a term that gathers up into itself the universal saving significance of Christ. He, the Word, is no tribal savior, but the one hope of all the human race. The Word and the gospel are intimately connected. When Luke speaks of those who were "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2), it is difficult to escape the impression that by "the word" he means more than teaching. He is thinking of the intimate relationship between Christ and the gospel, and is coming very close to calling Jesus "the Word." Again, he does not seem to make much distinction between preaching the word (Acts 8:4) and preaching Jesus (Acts 11:20). A number of times Paul speaks of preaching Christ (1 Cor. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:5; Gal. 3:1). He can explain "the word of God" as "the mystery," and this in turn as "Christ in you" (Col. 1:25-27). Though the step of calling Christ "the Word" is not often taken (but cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13), it is clear that the way had been prepared.

There is a preparation also in the realm of ideas, for in some passages, though the terminology is different, Paul ascribes to Christ qualities and activities akin to those postulated of Wisdom in the Old Testament and else-where (see Phil. 2:5ff.; Col. l:15ff.).¹⁶⁴ The conclusion seems inescapable that, while John uses a term that was widely familiar and would convey a meaning to people of very diverse backgrounds, his thought is essentially Christian.¹⁶⁵ When he speaks of Jesus as the Logos he does but put the coping stone on an edifice that was being erected throughout the New Testament.¹⁶⁶

After the Prologue John does not apply the specific term Logos to Jesus, but it should not be overlooked that he puts a great deal of stress on "the word(s)" of Jesus or of God.¹⁶⁷ He makes it clear that Jesus' words are God's words (3:34; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14), which makes it very important to believe them (5:47). Indeed, to abide in Jesus' "word" is the same as to be his disciple (8:31). Jesus' words bring life (5:24; 6:68; 8:51), and in fact are life (6:63). They bring cleansing (15:3) and power in prayer (15:7). The reverse side of the coin is that the refusal to heed Jesus' word or words brings judgment (12:47-48). Those who refuse to hear belong to the devil (8:47; cf. 44). It is important to "keep" Jesus' word (14:23; 15:20; 17:6). There is a good deal more. It is quite plain that the use of Logos on the threshold of this Gospel is not a casual expression. It is meaningful, and leads us into an important concept for the understanding of the Gospel.¹⁶⁸

ADDITIONAL NOTE B: THE WORLD

The word χόσμος has a Johannine ring about it in the New Testament. Altogether it occurs 185 times, of which 78 are in this Gospel, 24 in the Johannine Epistles, and 3 in Revelation. It is not frequent in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 8 times, Mark 3 times, Luke 3 times); in the Pauline Epistles it occurs 47 times. It is thus a word of some importance for John and to a lesser extent for Paul, but it is not used much by other New Testament writers.

Basically the word denotes order and is used for "ornament," a use we may still see in the New Testament (1 Pet. 3:3; this use has given us our word "cosmetic"). The universe with all its harmonious relationships is the outstanding ornament, and the term is used for the universe at large. It is probably this use that we find in John 1:10, "the world was made through him" (cf. 1:3, "Through him all things were made"). When Christ is called "the light of the world" (8:12; 9:5) or when it is said that he came or was sent "into the world" (3:17; 11:27, etc.) the universe at large may be meant, though, of course, it is possible that it is this world that is in mind. For the human race this earth is the most significant part of the universe, so it is not surprising that the term came to be used for this world in which we live.¹⁶⁹ We see this in such a passage as "In this world you will have trouble" (16:33).

It is a natural transition to using the word for the majority of people or a large number of people, for example, when the Pharisees said despairingly, "Look how the whole world has gone after him!" (12:19). But the majority has not usually been conspicuous for its zealous service of God. When Jesus came, the world at large opposed him, rejected him, and in the end crucified him. So it is not surprising that "the world" is used for people in opposition to Christ. H. Sasse can speak of the world as "the sum of the divine creation which has been shattered by the fall, which stands under the judgment of God, and in which Jesus Christ appears as the Redeemer."¹⁷⁰ The world "is in some sense personified as the great opponent of the Redeemer in salvation history."¹⁷¹ It is this use of "the world" as hostile to Christ and all that he stands for which is the significantly new use the term acquires in the New Testament. It does not appear to have such a meaning in Greek writings at large; there it is rather something attractive, the order and the beauty of the universe. But for John and for Paul the shattering thing was that those who live in this beautiful and ordered universe acted in an ugly and unreasonable way when they came face to face with Christ.¹⁷² The world hates his followers, and he could say, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" (15:18). Long before this he said to his brothers, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). In line with this several passages speak of the evil one as "the prince of this world" or the like (12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The world rejoices when the disciples are lamenting (16:20). There is a blindness about the world. When the Word came into the world, the world he had made, "the world did not recognize him" (1:10). Nor does it know the Father (17:25). Neither can it receive nor does it know the Spirit.¹⁷³

But John does not leave us with a picture of unremitting hostility between God and the world. It is true that the world is not interested in the things of God, but it is not true that God reciprocates. On the contrary, God loves the world (3:16). Christ speaks to the world the things he has heard from God (8:26). The whole work of salvation that God accomplishes in Christ is directed to the world. Thus he takes away the sin of the world (1:29). He is the Savior of the world (4:42). He gives life to the world (6:33). This is at, cost for he gives his flesh for the life of the world (6:51). Christ came specifically to save the world, not to judge it (3:17; 12:47). His success is shown by the references to the overthrow of Satan, the prince of this world (12:31; 14:30; 15:11). The victory remains with Christ (16:33), but this does not alter the fact that the world basically opposed him. This will perhaps account for the fact that the term "world" does not appear, either in John or elsewhere in the New Testament, for the eschatological sphere of blessing. For that some other term is used.

The word thus has many shades of meaning. This diversity must be kept in mind in studying this Gospel, because the boundaries between the classifications are not hard-and-fast. John moves freely from one to another, or even uses the term in ways that may evoke more than one of its possible meanings.¹⁷⁴

———————————————

1. Morgan points out that we should not understand the term "Prologue" merely in the sense "Preface." "It is far more than a preface. In these eighteen verses we have an explanation of everything that follows from the nineteenth verse of chapter one, to the twenty-ninth verse of chapter twenty. All that follows is intended to prove the accuracy of the things declared in the first eighteen verses ... it is a summation; everything is found in those first eighteen verses." Similarly Godet sees it as "the summary of the testimonies which Jesus bore to Himself in the course of His ministry ... it is at once the most normal and the richest expression of the consciousness which Jesus had of His own person" (I, p. 291). R. H. Lightfoot is emphatic: "These verses give the key to the understanding of this gospel, and make clear how the evangelist wishes his readers to approach his presentation of the Lord's work and Person."

2. Brown, for example, describes it as "An early Christian hymn, probably stemming from Johannine circles, which has been adapted to serve as an overture to the Gospel narrative of the career of the incarnate Word" (p. 1).

3. The Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh, 1906), p. 146.

4. Schonfield, for example, maintains that "The Prologue consists of a hymn interspersed with brief remarks. The hymn is antiphonal, the alternate lines being chanted as a response" (Schonfield, p. 451, η. 1). This is, of course, pure assertion. Schonfield may be right, but there is no evidence.

5. Bernard, I, pp. cxliv-cxlv.

6. Brown cites eight different reconstructions, and adds his own (Brown, I, p. 22). But the only parts all agree belong to the original poem are vv. 1, 3-4, and 10-11.

7. Knox renders, "At the beginning of time," but John's έν άρχῇ is at once more concise, more far-reaching, and more impressive. We might get something of its force by considering the slightly different άπ' άρχῆς that is used in 1 John 1:1. This draws attention to what took place from the beginning on, whereas our present passage tells us that in the beginning "the Word was already there" (Barclay's translation). Barth says finely, "this Word was not, like all other words, a created human word, merely relating to God, merely speaking from God and about God. As the Word it is spoken in the place where God is, namely, έν άρχῇ, in principio of all that is" (Church Dogmatics, I/1 [Edinburgh, 1955], p. 459).

8. Thus BAGD gives the first meaning of the word as "beginning" and the second as "the first cause." Tertullian makes a great deal of the double meaning of the term άρχή in Gen. 1:1 (LXX) in his argument against Hermogenes (XIX; ANF, III, p. 488).

9. "Was" is ήν, not έγένετο, which is used in vv. 3, 6, and 14 (see 8:58 for a good illustration of the difference between γίνομαι and ειμί). It is relevant to notice that ήν occurs again in the next clause, where Knox brings out the continuous force by rendering, "God had the Word abiding with him." Westcott draws attention to the fact that, whereas the opening of Genesis takes us back to the beginning and that which starts from that point, "St. John lifts our thoughts beyond the beginning and dwells on that which 'was' when time, and with time finite being, began its course." Calvin thinks little of any argument drawn from the tense of the verb and looks for "weightier reasons ... the Evangelist sends us to the eternal sanctuary of God and teaches us that the Word was, as it were, hidden there before He revealed Himself in the outward workmanship of the world."

10. Cf. R. P. Casey, who says that the Prologue's "principal difficulty lies neither in its style nor in its terminology but in the fact that its author has his feet planted firmly in two worlds: that of the O.T. and that of Hellenistic philosophy and allows his gaze to wander easily from one to the other. At every important point he has not only two thoughts instead of one, but two sets of allusions in mind" (JThS, n.s. IX [1958], p. 270).

11. C. H. Dodd, How to Read the Gospels (London, 1944), p. 29. Cf. also Bailey, "Self-revelation in active expression of His will and in rational order is part of God's nature."

12. Cf. Karl Heim: "The word distinguishes itself only from the dark foil of silence. If there is no silence the speaker cannot make himself understood at all. His words then are drowned in noise. Therefore there is no understanding of the word of God in all those philosophies which do not acknowledge the distinction between these two forms of God's presence, silence and speech, which hold the opinion either that God is equally beyond reach everywhere, or that He can be experienced everywhere in the same way and is always equally near" (Jesus the Lord [Edinburgh and London, 1959], p. 154).

13. Cf. Barrett: "the term Logos is seen to describe God in the process of self-communication — not the communication of knowledge only, but in a self-communication which inevitably includes the imparting of true knowledge. The Logos is a Word of God which at the same time declares his nature and calls into being a created life in which a divine power circulates" (p. 61).

14. ό Λόγος ήν πρòς τòν θεόν. Many commentators (e.g. Bernard, Boismard) deny that πρός with the accusative differs from παρά with the dative. J. Rendel Harris says bluntly that the construction used here is due to "the writer's or the translator's Greek, or if we prefer it, want of Greek" (The Origin of the Prologue to St John's Gospel [Cambridge, 1917], p. 5). But the Greek of this Gospel is not slipshod. Dods maintains that the preposition "implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another." For its use with persons cf. Matt. 13:56; Mark 6:3. According to A.T. Robertson, "the literal idea comes out well, 'face to face with God' " (Robertson, p. 623). He also says, "face-to-face converse" is in mind (p. 625). MacGregor thinks that the preposition "expresses nearness combined with the sense of movement towards God, and so indicates an active relationship. The Logos and God do not simply exist side by side, but are on terms of living intercourse, and such fellowship implies separate personality." It is hard to see less. B. F. C. Atkinson feels a sense of intimacy, and finds in the construction "the sense of home." He cites as examples of this use, "I will arise and go home to my father.. . . And he arose and went home to his father" (Luke 15:18, 20). This passage he takes to mean, "The word was in God's home" (The Theology of Prepositions [London, n.d.], p. 19). For BDF the construction signifies "with, in the company of" (239 [1]). MiM discovers in it "not merely being beside, but maintaining communion and intercourse with," and cites Mark 6:3; 1 John 1:2: 2:1.

15. The Greek is Θεός ήν ό Λόγος. The adjective "divine" would be θεĩος, a word that was available and is found in the New Testament (Acts 17:29; 2 Pet. 1:3, 4). Godet thinks that if this word been used of the Logos it would have denoted "a quasi-divinity, a condition intermediate between God and the creature." John is not saying this but affirming the full deity of the Logos. Abbott points out that it is more common to have an adjective than a noun in this position (1994a; he cites 6:60), which makes John's use of the noun all the more significant. The difficulty about the construction is the absence of the article with Θεός. Strachan says dogmatically, "the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective." But this is too simple. How else in Greek would one say, "The Word was God"? And, as Westcott says, an article would equate Θεός and Λόγος, and would be "pure Sabellianism." Had' this been John's meaning he could not have said "the Word was with God."

The true explanation of the article appears to be given by E. C, Colwell, who has shown that in the New Testament definite nouns that precede the verb regularly lack the article (JBL, LII [1933], pp. 12-21). On this verse he comments: "The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John" (p. 21). See further Β. M. Metzger's comments on Colwell's view (ExT, LXIII [1951-52], pp. 125-26), and the discussion by J. Gwyn Griffiths (ExT, LXII [1950-51], pp. 314-16). Strachan's statement ignores the usage of the New Testament, as do translations like that of Moffatt. N. Turner comments on Moffatt's rendering, "Once again dilution of the high Christology of a New Testament author is seen to be based on a fallacious appeal to unfounded grammatical principles" (Grammatical Insights, p. 17). B. A. Mastin has some reservations about Colwell's approach, but he firmly rejects the idea that the passage means no more than that the Word was divine. He concludes that it is "overwhelmingly probable that John i.l describes the pre-existent Logos as God" (NTS, 22 [1975-76], p. 37). NEB renders, "what God was, the Word was," and J. A. T. Robinson makes a good deal of this rendering in his objection to the conventional understanding of the words (Honest to God [London, 1963], p. 71). E. D. Freed, however, in an article entitled "Honest to John" (ExT, LXXV [1963-64], pp. 61-63), maintains that Robinson's treatment of this and other Johannine passages can scarcely be accepted. He argues for the rendering "the Word was God." This is the way NRSV takes it (as also Knox, Weymouth, etc.).

16. Cf. Ε. M. Sidebottom: "One cannot help feeling that the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for θεός ήν ό λόγος springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John. It will not do to say that the meaning is that the Word 'belongs to the same sphere of being as God'; Philo could have accepted some such formula as that. . . . But Philo was a Jew. He could not have accepted what the Church taught about Christ" (The Christ of the Fourth Gospel [London, 1961], pp. 48-49).

17. D. M. Baillie finely brings out the importance of this: "when Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen set themselves to grapple with the question as to whether the Logos was of the very being of God Himself from all eternity, the discussion was not on some remote point of ancient metaphysics. The question was: Is the redeeming purpose which we find in Jesus part of the very being and essence of God? Is that what God is? Is it His very nature to create, and to reveal Himself, and to redeem His creation? Is it therefore not some subordinate or intermediate being, but the Eternal God Himself, that reveals Himself to us and became incarnate in Jesus for our salvation?" (God Was in Christ [London, 1955], p. 70).

18. B. A. Mastin brings this out in his very important article, "A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel" (NTS. 22 [1975-76], pp. 32-51). He says, for example, "In both John i.l and 1.18 θεός is also used of the Father, and presumably in this case it conveys that he is God; it is difficult to suppose that the word bears an entirely different meaning when it is used later in these verses of the Logos" (p. 50). G. Reim endorses Mastin's argument and shows that there is a fulfillment of Ps. 45 behind what John writes (NTS, 30 [1984], pp. 158-60).

19. The use of the pronoun ούτος also serves to add a measure of emphasis to the statement. John is very fond of using this pronoun in this way. The absence of a connecting particle is to be noted. Both Burney (AO, pp. 49-56) and Black (AA, pp. 38-43) note that this construction is especially frequent in this Gospel and find in it evidence for a Semitic background. Burney thinks that it gives evidence that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. Black maintains that the construction is especially typical of the sayings of Jesus and finds evidence of this in the sayings in the Synoptics. He concludes, "John may not be as a whole a translation of an Aramaic original, but, in the sayings and speeches of Jesus, as in the Synoptics, may contain translations of an Aramaic tradition, edited and rewritten by the author of the Gospel in Greek" (AA, p. 43). This is part of the evidence that we have reliable information in this Gospel.

20. The Christology of the. New Testament (London, 1959), p. 267.

21. He says πάντα, not τά πάντα nor ό χόσμος. This perhaps points to all things taken individually rather than to the universe considered as a totality.

22. C. H. Dodd says, "the whole creation is a revelation of the thought or purpose of God" (How to Read the Gospels, p. 29). This, however, is not quite the thought. John is not here speaking of revelation at all. J. D. McCaughey in a private communication says, "What John is doing is making an affirmation of faith: πάντα δι' αύτοϋ έγένετο. It is quite arbitrary to go on from there to assert that πάντα, the whole creation, is a revelation of God's thought and purpose. The Prologue asserts that all things were made through the Word; it does not assert that the Word can be recognized through all things,"

23. Yet it should be noted that the preposition διά is used also of the Father (Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10).

24. ούδέ έν, "not even one," is stronger than ούδέν, "nothing."

25. Temple finds in the thought of creation by the Word the expression of the conviction "that all things are in their measure an expression of that Will which sustains but also moulds and guides all things, so that the unity of the world, its principle of rational coherence, is the Divine Personality in self-expression" (Nature, Man and God [London, 1940], p. 302). But see n. 29 above.

26. Luther makes this verse the occasion of a strong statement of the divinity of Christ: "If Christ is not true and natural God, born of the Father in eternity and Creator of all creatures, we are doomed ... we must have a Savior who is true God and Lord over sin, death, devil, and hell. If we permit the devil to topple this stronghold for us, so that we disbelieve His divinity, then His suffering, death, and resurrection profit us nothing" (vol. 22, pp. 21-22).

27. Some scholars a connection with the concluding psalm in the Qumran Manual of Discipline: "By his knowledge everything comes to pass; and everything that is he establishes by his purpose; and without him it is not done" (DSS, p. 388). But, though this last expression could be rendered "without him it is not made," Burrows's translation is preferable. The psalmist is not thinking about creation but about providence. More apposite is 1QS 3:15, "From the God of knowledge is all that is and that is to be" (DSS, p. 374). Perhaps there are closer parallels in the Apocrypha, such as "O God . . . who hast made all things by thy word" (Wis. 9:1, and cf. Sir. 42:15). Perhaps we should also note the Odes of Solomon 16:20, "the worlds were made by His word." This, however, may be of Christian rather than Jewish origin (see J. Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon [Cambridge, 1911], pp. 112-13).

28. Westcott has a long note in which he cites the principal authorities and accepts  this division of the sentences (pp. 59-63). He takes the meaning to be, "Creation has not 'life in itself' (v. 26), but it had and has life in the Word" (p. 61). I doubt whether this is the meaning of δ γέγονεν έν αύτῷ ζωή ήν. Though an impressive list of modern commentators supports this verse division (and for a long list of Fathers in support see Μ. E. Boismard, St. John's Prologue [London, 1957], p. 14), I do not find their reasons convincing. C. K. Barrett finds that " inclines slightly" to the division I have supported by reason of its punctuation marks (ExT, LXVIII [1956-57], p. 175).

29. The words were understood by some to signify that the Spirit was created by the Son.

30. John moves easily between the thoughts of life and light; see 3:16-19; 8:12; 12:46-50, etc.

31. Sub ζωή.

32. Marcus Dods thinks that the words mean "that the life which appears in the variety, harmony, and progress of inanimate nature, and in the wonderfully manifold yet related forms of animate existence, appears in man as 'light,' intellectual and moral light, reason and conscience."

33. For this thought in later Judaism, cf. 1 Banich 4:2-3: "All they that hold it (the Torah) fast are appointed to life; but such as leave it shall die. Turn thee, Ο Jacob, and take hold of it; walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof."

34. McClymont stresses the definite article before "light," which, he thinks, "brings out its universality as it exists in the Word." Similarly Plummer, "the one true Light."

35. The imagery of light was very widespread in the ancient world. Dodd cites evidence to show that such expressions as this verse "would be entirely in place in a Hermetic writing" (IFG, p. 18). John's words would have a widespread appeal. He is very interested in light, and he uses the term φῶς 23 times, almost a third of its New Testament occurrences (more than a third if we add the 6 occurrences in 1 John). The term is used next most frequently in Acts (10 times).

36. John's word is σχοτία, which he uses 8 times, and again 6 times in 1 John. This total of 14 out of 17 New Testament occurrences makes it a characteristic Johannine word. The other writers prefer σχότος, which occurs only once in this Gospel and once in 1 John, but 30 times in the New Testament. There appears to be no difference in meaning.

37. So prominent is this theme in the Scrolls that a complete writing is given over to it, The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. And, of course, the idea is found in many other places in the Scrolls.

38. Beasley-Murray finds the present "unexpected; it embraces history and the present time of the Evangelist. The light of the Logos shone in the primal darkness at creation, and continued amidst the darkness of fallen mankind; it shone with greater brilliance in the glory of the Incarnate One; and it shines on in the era of the Resurrection, which is the time of the Paraclete."

39. φαίνει points to the essential action of light in itself (so Westcott), rather than to the effect of light in illuminating people, which we observe in φωτίζει in v. 9.

40. The negative ού (ούχ) is unusually common in John, where it occurs 286 times, which is more often than in any other book of the New Testament. Matthew uses it 204 times, Mark 117 times, and Luke 174 times. Similarly John uses ουδείς 52 times (Matthew 19 times, Mark 26 times, and Luke 33 times). This is not the case with μή, which John uses 117 times, whereas Mark has it 129 times and Luke 142 times. He never employs μηδείς, though it is found in each of the other three Gospels. Again, John's use of the emphatic ούχί (5 times) is well below that of Luke (17 times), or even of the much shorter 1 Corinthians (12 times). We are perhaps to connect John's preference for ού partly with the simplicity of his style, which favors the use of the objective negative, and partly with the subject matter. John has a good deal to say about the conflict between Jesus and his enemies, light and darkness, good and evil. This calls for some resounding negations.

41.χατέλαβεν.

42. Cf. D. W. Baldensperger: "By the term darkness we must not understand unbelieving men, but the Satanic world, set against God. This is an allusion to an accepted theological tenet in Judaism: the struggle of the Messiah (Logos) against Satan" (cited in Boismard, St. John's Prologue, p. 21).

43.χαί is sometimes used, as here, in the sense, "and yet" (which is more properly expressed by χαίτοι, a word found only three times in the New Testament). It joins two affirmative clauses, but the sense conveyed is adversative.

44. The aorist could, of course, be a gnomic aorist with much this meaning. Or it could be constative, regarding a prolonged conflict as a completed whole. But a single action seems more probable.

45. Morton Smith argues for the translation "master" as preserving some of the ambiguity of χατέλαβεν (JBL, 64 [1945], pp. 510-11). Temple makes the point that John is "most modern" in that "The evil which for him presents the problem is not only in men's hearts; it 'lieth in the evil one' (1 John v,19). St. John might have had all the modern problem of the callousness and cruelty of nature before his mind. Anyhow, his approach is the modern approach. He does not conceive of Nature as characterised by a Wordsworthian perfection, which is only spoilt by fallen mankind."

46. Cf. F. F. Bruce: "the affinities in vocabulary should not make us overlook the new element in John's use of these terms. When he speaks of the true light, he is not thinking in abstractions; he is not primarily concerned with a body of teaching or a holy community; to him the true light is identical with Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh" (,Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls [London and Grand Rapids, 1956], p. 134).

47. J. A. T. Robinson scouts the idea that the followers of the Baptist ever formed a distinct sect: "I cannot find a shred of reliable historical evidence for them at the time — that is for the mere existence of disciples of John after his death who were not in some way Christians, let alone for those who were actively anti-Christian" (NTS, 4 [1957-58], p. 278; on p. 279, n. 2 he traverses the evidence and finds it unconvincing, though he does not mention the passage from the Clementine Homilies, cited in the following note). But quite apart from the evidence of the Clementines, there is the existence of the followers of John mentioned in Acts 18:25; 19:3. Granted that these were in some sense Christian, their existence at all is inexplicable if there was no Baptist "sect." And if there was one, nothing in Robinson's treatment tells against the view that by the time of the Clementines they were hostile to Christians. But with his contention that in the New Testament period there was no such sect actively opposed to Christians we have no quarrel. That is exactly the position taken up by the Evangelists.

48. Calvin. J. B. Lightfoot speaks of a new attitude towards Christianity developed by the followers of John the Baptist: "His name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus" (St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [London, 1876], p. 403). That some people came to regard John as the Messiah is attested by the Clementine Recognitions (1.54, 60). This aroused such hostility from the Christian side that John was even called a false prophet (such appears to be the meaning of Clementine Homilies 2.17). Our Evangelist is more balanced. He recognizes both the greatness of John and the superiority of Jesus.

49. It is, of course, just possible that some were baptized in Palestine and later moved to Ephesus. But it is unlikely that the whole company would have done this.

50. Morna Hooker examines the two passages in the Prologue that refer to the Baptist and says, "Their importance lies in the fact that each refers to John as the witness who confirms the truth of what has just been said, that light is shining in the darkness, and that we have seen the glory of the incarnate Logos" (NTS, XVI [1969-70], p. 357).

51.άπεσταλμένος παρά Θεοϋ. The perfect indicates the permanent character of his mission. He continues in the character of a man sent, παρά Θεοϋ does not indicate the same close relationship as does πρòς τον Θεόν in v. 1, but too much should not be made of this, for Jesus can say that he came παρά the Father (17:8). This Gospel makes frequent use of the idea that the Father sent the Son into the world. There may, however, be significance in the fact that the verb is always in the active when it refers to Christ, never passive as it is here and in 3:28. For the alleged distinction between άποστέλλω and πέμπω see on 3:17.

52. For the greatness of John the Baptist see SFG, pp. 59-60. The simple description of the man, "his name was John," invites comment. It has traditionally been taken as pointing to John the Apostle as the author of the Gospel. Who else would introduce the Baptist without qualification as John? Support for this is found in the fact that this Evangelist is usually very careful with names that might be confused, as we see from his treatment of Judas (6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 14:22; 18:2), Mary (11:2; 19:25), and Joseph (19:38). The Synoptists, of course, also sometimes refer to the Baptist simply as John (e.g., Matt. 11:2; Mark 2:18), But when full allowance is made for this, the use of "John" in the Fourth Gospel is sufficiently unusual for the point to have weight.

53. είς μαρτυρίαν signifies "for witness," not "to be a witness." It is the activity rather than the man that receives the emphasis.

54. The noun μαρτυρία is found 14 times in John (it does not occur in Matthew, but is found three times in Mark and once in Luke), and the verb μαρτυρέω 33 times (once each in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark). In both cases John uses the word more often than anyone else in the New Testament.

55. Gabriel Marcel makes much of the commitment aspect of witness, as in The Philosophy of Existence (London, 1948), pp. 67-76. He says, for example, "To be a witness is to act as a guarantor. Every testimony is based on a commitment and to be incapable of committing oneself is to be incapable of bearing witness. This is indeed the reason for the preliminary oath which is administered in a law court. By taking the oath I bind myself, I give up the possibility of withdrawing myself, as it were, from what I have said" (p. 68). See also his The Mystery of Being, II (London, 1951), ch. VIII. Similarly J. H. Oldham says, "Unless you commit yourself, unless you stake everything on the truth of what you say, you cannot be a witness" (Life Is Commitment [London, 1953], p. 11).

56. "He is thus saying, before he records John's testimony to the incarnate Logos, that the Baptist also bore witness to the Logos that had been the true illumination of all men, and especially of God's own people Israel" (Marsh, p. 98).

57. There is a contrast between John's preaching to all, that they might believe, and the attitude of the men of Qumran. For them, "There must be no admonitions or contention with the men of the pit, for the counsel of the law must be concealed among the men of error" (DSS, p. 383).

58. έχεῖνος is used to emphasize the subject. The pronoun is a favorite with John, who uses it 70 times, more than any other New Testament writer (Matthew 54 times, Mark 23 times, Luke 33 times, Acts 22 times, Paul 21 times). He uses it significantly often of Christ (10 times), of the Father (6 times), and of the Holy Spirit (5 times). The pronoun is often a way of giving emphasis. Indeed, except when it is used in dialogue it is usually emphatic in this Gospel.

59. John was ό λύχνος, "the lamp" (5:35), but not τό φῶς, "the light."

60. άλλ'. John is very fond of άλλά, which he uses 101 times. This is more than in any other book in the New Testament (next is 1 Corinthians with 72). άλλ' ίνα recurs (1:31; 13:18; 15:25).

61. ἴνα is usually taken as telic after an ellipsis of "he came" or the like. It has, however, been suggested that this is an example of imperatival ίνα. For this construction see C. J. Cadoux, JThS, XLII (1941), pp. 165ff.; H. G. Meecham, JThS, XLIII (1942), pp. 179-80; A. R, George, JThS, XLV (1944), pp. 56ff.; C. F. D. Moule, IBNTG, pp. 144-45; Μ, I, pp. 178-79, ΙΠ, pp. 94-95 (and the literature there cited). Such discussions make it clear that this construction is more widespread than has often been assumed. But it is questionable whether John lends as much support as Cadoux, for example, claims. Thus if in the present passage tva were imperatival we should translate, "let him bear witness," which is an impossible sense. Cadoux suggests, "he had to bear witness." But this is not an imperative; it sounds more like a construction based on δει. Further, ϊνα occurs in other Johannine passages with no preceding principal verb (1:22; 9:3, 36; 13:18; 14:30-31; 15:24-25; 18:8-9, 31-32; 19:24). In some of these the imperatival sense is quite impossible, and in none of them does it yield a better sense than the supposition of an ellipsis. Sometimes, as here, a verb may readily be supplied from the context; sometimes no verb in the context is suitable (e.g., 13:18; 15:24-25). It may be that John uses the construction as a way of hinting at the divine purpose working out in each of the passages where it occurs. The telic force in 'ίνα would be favorable to such a significance. John incidentally is fond of constructions with ίνα: the word occurs in this Gospel 147 times, which is far and away the highest total in any New Testament book. Next is Mark with 65 times, while Matthew and Luke have it 41 times and 46 times respectively.

62. There is a note on the construction in Abbott, 2277. John often separates participles from ήν (cf. v. 28), and it may be that we should take έρχόμενον with ήν accordingly. But it will probably be in the sense, "That was the true light... coming. ..."

63. No argument should be based on the occurrence of ἂνθρωπον, for John uses the redundant ἂνθρωπος quite often (cf. 2:10; 3:1, 27, etc.; all told he uses the word 60 times).

64. There is an interesting parallel to the present passage, namely, "Thou givest light ... to all who enter into the world" (Lev. Rah. 31.6; Soncino edn. p. 401). Again, the Law is said to have been given "to lighten every man" (Test. Lev. 14:4).

65. The participle might be held to mean, "by coming into the world." This, however, does not seem to be the significance of the incarnation in John, and therefore should be rejected. If the present tense, έρχόμενον, be held to be continuous, the meaning will be that the light continuously came in many ways (cf. Westcott: "He came in type and prophecy and judgement"), but especially in the incarnation. In 6:33, 50 we read similarly of a continuous coming of Christ (ό χαταβαίνων), while in 6:51, 58 the reference to the single coming in the incarnation is plain (ό χαταβάς).

66. The word for "true" is άληθινός, which Bernard distinguishes from άληθής "as the genuine from the true" (though he admits that the distinction is not always easy). This leads to comments like that of Godet: "It designates the fact as the adequate realization of the idea. It contrasts, therefore, not the true with the false, but the normal appearance with the imperfect realization." Barrett thinks that in this Gospel άληθής is applied to opinions and statements and those who hold them, whereas άληθινός means "real," "genuine," "authentic." G. D. Kilpatrick, however, has shown that John's use of άληθινός is probably always attributive and of άληθής predicative (BT, 11 [1960], pp. 174-75; the doubt arises because of textual variants). Brown rejects this view, holding that the word is predicative in 4:37; 7:28; 19:35, taking the opposite view of the variants (The Epistles of John [New York, 1982], p. 267). But Kilpatrick's position seems to be the right one. John's distinction between the two words in this case is purely grammatical, and we should not look for any essential difference in meaning. Both words cover various shades of meaning including "true" and "genuine." BAGD gives both meanings for both words.

67. The use of the singular, πάντα άνθρωπον, rather than the plural, πάντας, may be meant to indicate every person individually rather than all people in the mass.

68. Calvin says that "men . . . bear the distinction between right and wrong engraven in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate." Strachan denies that the words mean that "in every man, irrespective of race or religion, there is some knowledge of God, however faint." He thinks the words have much the same sense as 3:21 and that John has in mind the effect of the message. Thus "the idea of Judgment is prominent." Barrett comments, "the light shines upon every man for judgement, to reveal what he is."

69. The pronoun αύτόν in the third clause is masculine, and this probably indicates that we should understand "Word" here rather than the neuter "light."

70. The pronoun αύτόν is masculine and means "him." But grammatically it refers to φως and should be neuter. It is possible that we are to understand the real subject as the Λόγος now regarded in his aspect of light. Or John may already be thinking of the incarnate Christ. Both, of course, could be true. Dodd takes notice of the point and discusses some of its implications (IFG, pp. 268-70).

71. The verb is γινώσχω, which it is sometimes suggested means knowledge acquired by effort and attention, whereas οΐδα would denote rather an intuitive knowledge. But it is more than doubtful whether this distinction can be shown to hold in this Gospel. See further on 2:24.

72. In a well-known passage Augustine speaks of having read in the writings of the Platonists something equivalent to the teaching of the Prologue up to this point. "But I did not read in those books that He came unto His own, and His own received Him not" (Confessions 2.9). Here is the distinctively Christian note, that which sets the gospel apart from the writings of the philosophers.

73. The Greek is εἰς τά ἴδια ἦλθεν. W. F. Howard accepts this meaning, but adds, "there is also warrant for translating it 'his own possession' " (IB). Luther distinguishes between the coming of Christ into the world mentioned earlier in the Prologue and this coming which he calls "His real advent" and which he understands to refer to his entering on his public ministry at his baptism (Luther, 22, p. 77).

74. οί ίδιοι. Note the change from and the link with εíς τα ίδια.

75. Plummer and others distinguish between the meaning of παρέλαβεν here and ἔλαβον in the next verse. The former verb means "to take from the hand of another, accept what is offered," Plummer says, whereas the latter "denotes the spontaneous acceptance of individuals, Jews or Gentiles." Christ was offered to the Jewish nation, but they did not avail themselves of the offer. Moffatt makes another distinction with his renderings "welcome" in v. 11 and "accepted" in v. 12. But Moulton denies any distinction, taking this to be an example of "a classical idiom by which the preposition in a compound is omitted, without weakening the sense, when the verb is repeated" (Μ, I, p. 115). In view of John's penchant for using synonyms with no appreciable difference of meaning, it would not be wise to build much on a difference of meaning here. Elsewhere I have pointed out that variation of expression without significant difference of meaning is a mark of John's style (SFG, pp. 293-319). See also the note on 3:5.

76. This is the first of twenty-seven examples cited by Burney of the use of the casus pendens followed by a pronoun, which he regards as evidence of a Semitic origin (AO, pp. 64-65). The construction is found in many languages, including Greek, so that it is not its occurrence but its frequency that is significant. Burney found twenty-one examples only in the whole of the Synoptic Gospels, so that John does use the construction significantly often. Black points out that after the Prologue most are in sayings of Jesus, and all are in direct speech (AA, p. 35; it may be asked whether this is in fact the case with 3:32). This points to Aramaic behind the sayings in this Gospel.

77. έξουσίαν. BAGD gives the first meaning of this word as "freedom of choice, right to act, decide, or dispose of one's property as one wishes" (though they classify this passage under "ability to do someth.)."

78. "Authorization, an imparted title to a new status, rather than an inherent ability, is the root meaning of the word" (IB).

79. The term John uses is τέχνα. He never uses υἱός of human sonship to God, but keeps this term for Christ, who alone has the full right to what the word signifies. This is a distinctive Johannine usage. The nearest John gets to using "son" for people is when he refers to them as becoming υίοἰ φωτός (12:36). By contrast, Paul speaks of people as both υἱοί and τέχνα. He uses the former term to refer to the rights Christ confers on those adopted into the heavenly family rather than the community of nature they share.

80. Curiously Schnackenburg says the passage "speaks of the supernatural process which takes place in baptism." It certainly speaks of "the supernatural process," but there is nothing in the passage about baptism; John is writing about faith, not any ecclesiastical action.

81. The expression is τοĩς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τό όνομα αύτοΰ. While John uses the verb πιστεύω 98 times (as against Matthew 11 times, Mark 14 times, Luke 9 times, Acts 37 times, Paul 54 times), he never uses the noun πίστις. This may, as some think, be due in part to the use made of the noun by heretical thinkers. But it is clear that he thought of faith as an activity, as something that people do. His favorite construction is to follow the verb with εις and the accusative (36 times). Of this W. Turner writes, "The sense must bethat the believer throws himself upon his Lord in loving, self-abandoning faith and trust" (ExT, LXIV [1952-53], p. 51). By contrast the simple dative means believing that what someone says is true. But in the last resort if one believes God one acts on that belief, so probably there is not much difference in ultimate meaning. See further, Additional Note E, pp. 296-98.

82. For the use of "the name" in antiquity see the note by S. New in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake, V (London, 1933), pp. 121-40.

83. BAGD explains the meaning of "believe in the name of the Son" as "believe in the Son and accept what his name proclaims him to be" (2.a.a). There is a similar meaning here.

84. See MM sub ὄνομα (5). They think that the use of this expression in connection with baptism signifies "baptized into the possession of."

85. The singular is read by the Old Latin MS b, and the verb, though not the pronoun, appears to be singular in syr^c There is also patristic support, notably from Irenaeus (Latin translation; see Adv. Haer. 3.16.2) and Tertullian. The latter vigorously defends the singular (De Cam. Chr. 19), and he regards the plural as an invention of the heretics. Justin can say, "His blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the will of God" (Dial. Try. 63), which may possibly imply this reading. In modern times the singular is accepted by Burney, Torrey, Boismard, and others (see the list in Boismard, St. John's Prologue, p. 39, η. 1). There are good notes in Hoskyns, pp. 163-66, and Boismard, pp. 35-45. Torrey regards the usual text as giving us "an impossible saying." He thinks that the past tense of the verb rules out any possibility of the saying being a promise of the new birth and goes on: "Only one being could be described in the phrases used here" (Our Translated Gospels [London, n.d.], pp. 151-53). But we should not overlook MacGregor's caution, "the words in question would exclude the idea of human mother no less than of human father (cf. Heb. 7:3)." We should also bear in mind that John does not elsewhere speak of the Virgin Birth, whereas he does refer to regeneration (ch. 3; it is an important topic in John, see 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).

86. Turner views the plural as classical and says here "of husband and wife" (M, HI, p. 27).

87. Hoskyns thinks that the writer could not say that "the Christians were not born of blood (singular), because their birth does in fact depend upon a death which later he describes as involving the outpouring of blood (xix.34)."

88. John is rather fond of the word θέλημα, which he uses 11 times (more than in any other New Testament book). Here there is an implicit reference to the will of God, and such a reference, implicit or explicit, is found in every passage where John uses it. The frequency with which John employs the term is indicative of his deep interest in the

way God's will is wrought out.

89. Note the strong adversative άλλ'.

90. Lucetta Mowry finds a reference throughout this section to the Qumran idea of two groups of men, but with a different basis of division. Here "one recalls the Essene ceremonies when men were elevated or lowered in rank according to their ethical achievements during the past year. But John maintains that one must be transformed into the other order by a power outside the self. The divine spirit transforms men" (ΒΑ, XVII [Dec. 1954], p. 92).

91. On the basis of patristic citations Boismard reconstructs the text of vv. 12 and 13 to read,

"All those who received him,

He gave them to become children of God,

He whom (sic) neither of flesh nor of blood

But of God was begotten.'' (St. John's Prologue, p. 35)

The value of quotations in the Fathers is not to be denied, but I do not see how they justify us in rejecting the testimony of the MSS in this case.

92. C. Ε. B. Cranfield argues (against Barrett) that "became" or "was made" "is surely the natural meaning of egeneto here" (ExT, 93 [1981-82], p. 215). The verb is identical with that used of the Baptist in v. 6, which underlines the reality of the incarnation.

93. Laurence Housman brings out something of the wonder of it all:

"Light looked down and beheld Darkness.

'Thither will I go,' said Light.

Peace looked down and beheld War.

'Thither will I go,' said Peace.

Love looked down and beheld Hatred.

'Thither will I go,' said Love.

So came Light and shone.

So came Peace and gave rest.

So came Love and brought life.

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

94. There is a valuable note on glory in Strachan, pp. 103-6. Two notable comments are, "When the Evangelist says We beheld his glory, he is really saying that the final purpose of God is already achieved in the historical person Jesus," and "The 'glorifying' of Jesus always means His dying" (p. 106). See also the articles by Paula von Mirtow in Theology, XLIX (1946), pp. 336-40, 359-65. See also on δοξάζω in 7:36 below.

95. Many authors see a reference to the Sinai theophany rather than to the setting  of the tabernacle. The points of contact with Exodus 33 are especially numerous:

All this strengthens the view that John wants us to view Jesus as the new and greater Moses. H. Mowvley emphasizes the importance of the connection with Exodus 33 in an article in ExT, 95 (1983-84), pp. 135-37.

96.. The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (London, 1949), pp. 59-60. So also W. Nicholls, "By the play on skene, eskenosen, St. John implies that Christ as the Word made flesh was the true Shekinah, the true presence of God with men" (Jacob's Ladder [London, 1958], p. 19).

97.. But against this we should notice Barrett's two points that Shekinah means not the glory of God, but the presence of God and that σχηνόω and its compounds are not regularly used to render.

98. D. E. Holwerda emphasizes this: "The 'we' of 1:14 does not refer to the 'Apostolic Church' (Barrett, Comm.) or to believers in general, both pre- and post-resurrection (Bultmann, Comm.). The 'we' must be restricted to those who saw Jesus' σχηνοϋν. It is true, as Bultmann says, that not all who were eyewitnesses of Jesus saw His glory and that, therefore, θεάομαι refers to a seeing in faith. But this gives no cause for extending this seeing to all believers. Every believer sees Jesus in faith, but he does not see the earthly (σχηνοϋν) Jesus" (The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the Gospel of John [Kampen, 1959], p. 3, n. 8).

99. Wright comments, "Whatever awakens us to the reality of the presence of God is a manifestation of the Divine glory. Tintern Abbey was this to Wordsworth. The Thames was this to Francis Thompson. The 'flower in the crannied wall' was this to Tennyson." All this is doubtless true, but it is misleading to see in it a parallel to John's thought. For him Jesus was the unique embodiment of the glory of God. Because of Jesus' character as the Word we see in him the divine glory, and we see it nowhere else. See further on 3:14.

100. All this has implications for Christian service. As C. H. Dodd reminds us, "Because the Lord is King, and His claim upon all His creatures is absolute, the word of God is first of all a call or command. Christ as λόγος is God's call to us, His command laid upon us.... Unless our worship includes this element of whole-hearted allegiance, it has not reckoned with the full gravity of the statement: 'the Word became flesh' " (Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. L. Cross [London, 1957], p. 21).

101. It should not be overlooked that μονογενής is derived from γίνομαι, not γεννάω (one v, not two). Etymologically it is not connected with begetting. See further the note by D. Moody, BT, 10 (1959), pp. 145-47.

102. John makes "Father" the characteristic word for God, as may be seen by the fact that he uses the term more than twice as often as anyone else and almost entirely of God. The figures for the Gospels are: Matthew 64 times; Mark, 18 times; Luke, 56 times; and John, 137 times. Of John's total of 137 no less than 122 refer to God.

103. If πλήρης is rightly regarded as masculine and nominative it must go with λόγος. But the word is often treated as indeclinable, in which case it could agree either with δόξαν or μονογενούς. John does not use the adjective elsewhere, so we are left to the general probabilities.

104. He is probably also pointing to the frequent conjunction of hesedh and 'emeth in the Old Testament (cf., e.g., Exod. 34:6). Newbigin draws attention to this passage and remarks, "In the Old Testament the primary reference is to God's faithfulness, so that 'grace and truth' means God's faithfulness to his covenant of mercy." C. K. Barrett, however, warns us that John's meaning is not that of the Old Testament expression (The Gospel of John and Judaism [London, 1975], p. 31).

105. The four concepts "mercy," "dwell," "grace," and "truth" that we meet here are found together also in Ps. 85:9-10.

106. The perfect χέχραγεν is used in the sense of the present, as Moulton has shown (Μ, I, p. 147; so also Burton, Moods, 78). Abbott (2479) suggests that one reason for the use of this tense and not the aorist is that the latter tense is used several times of Jesus' preaching (7:28, 37; 12:44). This may be so, but here the primary reason surely is that the Evangelist thinks of the Baptist's voice as still effectively sounding.

107. In v. 4 the present, έστιν, is read by χ D syr^c sah, some Old Latin MSS, and a few other authorities. Most editors and commentators, however, agree that this is a correction of ήν, and not the true text. An exception is Boismard, who not only accepts the present but alters the next verb to the present also (without any MS support) because "it is clear that the second verb 'to be' should be in the same tense as the first" (St. John's Prologue, p. 13). But this argument cuts both ways.

108. It is possible, however, to take the words differently, όπίσω in the New Testament is used much more often of place than of time. In particular έρχομαι όπίσω τινός is used of following someone, that is, of becoming or being a disciple (e.g., Mark 8:34). The expression here could be taken to mean, "A follower of mine has taken precedence of me, for he (always) was before me, my superior."

109. O. Cullmann draws attention to the Jewish apologetic that reasoned that Moses preceded the Greek philosophers and poets and was therefore superior to them (The Early Church [London, 1956], pp. 177-82). The Clementine literature by contrast developed the opposite idea that chronological priority means inferiority (Cain preceded Abel, Ishmael was born before Isaac, Esau came before Jacob, Aaron was prior to Moses [Clementine Homilies 2.16]). It goes on to assert that this gives the means of distinguishing the evil from the good, and thus John, who came before Jesus, is regarded as a false prophet. But this unusual approach highlights the more normal attitude.

110. John introduces the proposition with ὄτι, "for." He is unusually fond of this conjunction and employs it altogether 271 times. No other book of the New Testament has it more than 173 times (Luke), so John's usage stands out. It is a mark of his style.

111. πρώτός μου. Cf. Bruce, "he had absolute primacy over me."

112. So Murray, and Abbott (1896-90, 2665-66, 2799a).

113. There is something of a parallel, however, in the έμὲ πρῶτον ύμῶν μεμίσηχεν of 15:18.

114. Wright says that here "the language of time is used to express the notion of quality, as in the utterance found at 858, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' "

115. Some MSS read "And," but the attestation of "For" is superior and should be accepted. The view that John the Baptist is still the speaker in v. 16 does not seem to be correct (though it can claim the support of great names, e.g. Origen and Luther). The sense seems to be against it. Grace is explicitly associated with Christ in vv. 14 and 17, in the latter of which it is explicitly contrasted with the preceding Judaism. If John be held to have uttered the words, "we all" will mean "all we prophets."

116. J. B. Lightfoot has an important note on πλήρωμα (Colossians, pp. 257-73). He argues from the form (the -μα ending) that the word must be passive in meaning. J. Armitage Robinson shows, however, that usage does not support Lightfoot and that words of this type sometimes do have the active meaning (St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians [London, 1907], pp. 255-59). MM remind us that in the papyri nouns in -μα and nouns in -σις were drawing closer in meaning at this period (sub voc.). See also the articles on "Pleroma" in HDB and ISBE, and "Fullness" in ISBE. This is the only place in the Johannine writings where the term is found.

117. "The thought is of the inexhaustible resources of grace ('grace upon grace') which the people of Christ find in Him, and on which they may freely draw" (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians [Grand Rapids, 1957], p. 207, n. 122). Perhaps we should notice also that we may have here a foretaste of the later Gnostic view. The Gnostics held that the totality of spiritual beings emanated from the high good God and they denoted the totality of such beings by the word πλήρωμα. If the idea is as early as New Testament times Paul will be hitting at it when he insists on the uniqueness of Christ by saying that it was the Father's good pleasure "to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1:19), or again, "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). And John will then mean that what these curious speculations spread over a multitude of divine beings is in fact concentrated in Christ.

118. R. E. Brown detects a possible reference to the Qumran doctrine of the coming of the Messiahs (SNT, p. 204). If this is so, John will mean that what the covenanters looked for in vain Jesus completely supplied.

119. χάριν άντΐ χάριτος. The χαί that links this to the preceding words means "and, what is more." It should not be taken to signify "namely," or "that is to say." Abbott thinks that this use is probably absent from John altogether (2146a). There is an interesting parallel to the expression in Philo. He speaks of God as granting "graces," χάριτος, and έτέρας άντ' εχείνων χαι τρίτας άντΐ των δευτέρων, "and others in their stead, and third ones in place of the second" (De Post. Cain. 145). John does not use the preposition άντί apart from this passage.

120. "Grace" and "truth" both have the article here, though neither has it in v. 14. The meaning may be "the" grace and "the" truth already mentioned, or the well-known, outstanding grace and truth. This latter is supported by the fact that preliminary manifestations of grace and truth are found in the Old Testament (cf. Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15). The verse affords a good example of John's habitual paratactic style. We should have expected the contrasting μεν and δέ, but John simply puts the two statements side by side.

121. έγένετο (used in w. 3, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 15; the perfect in v. 4) signifies "became," "came into being." In some of its previous occurrences it refers to the Word's creative activities (3, 10, 12); its use here may be meant to associate grace and truth with the work of Christ. As Christians understand it, grace is always "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," and they can say of truth "as truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21). There is point in linking them both to Christ's creative work.

122.Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963).

123. For John's frequent use of ούδείς see on v. 5.

124. John is fond of the verb όράω, which he uses 31 times, far more than in any other book in the New Testament (next is Acts with 16 times). For the difficulty of discerning a difference of meaning in John's various words for seeing see on 2:23.

125. (ό) μονογενής Θεός is read by p⁶⁶ p⁷⁵ χ Β C* L 33 boh syrP and a good deal of patristic evidence, including some heretics (Valentinians, Arius). ό μονογενής ΥΙός is read by AC³ K0 f1 fl3 28 565 700 vg syr^c and much patristic evidence. On the basis of quotations in the Fathers Boismard reads simply μονογενής.

126. The expression is εις τόν χόλπον, not έν τᾢ χόλπὡ (13:23), "into the bosom," rather than "in the bosom." If the distinction can be pressed we have an expression analogous to πρός τόν Θεόν of 1:1, with the thought of the orientation of the Son toward the Father. But, as often in Hellenistic Greek, εις may simply be equivalent to έν. Abbott, however, denies that John uses εις loosely (2706-13), as does I. de la Potterie (Biblica, XLIII [1962], pp. 366-87). The latter sees the significance'of the present passage as " 'tourné vers le sein du Père', comme pour décrire le Fils, éternellement conscient de recevoir de ce sein toute sa vie, tout son être" (Biblica, XLIII [1962], p. 385). But we must not overlook John's habit of using synonyms without significant difference of meaning (see on 3:5).

127. In the Greek it is the participle ό ὤν.

128. The word χόλπος is found in the New Testament only in Luke and John. John 3:13 is a parallel to the present passage if the appropriate words are rightly read there.

129. Augustine has some fine sayings, e.g., "Man was added to Him, God not lost to Him"; "He emptied Himself not by losing what He was, but by taking to Him what He was not" (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 8.3; 17.16).

130. έξηγήσατο. From this root we derive our word "exegesis." It is a suggestive thought that Christ is the "exegesis" of the Father.

131. This will be the point of the emphatic ἐχεΐνος (for this term see on v. 8), "He and no other."

132. For that matter "the Word" was used in many religions (see F. W. Dillistone, Christianity and Symbolism [London, 1955], pp. 141-51). See further R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (New York, 1949), pp. 122-27; art. "Logos" by A. F. Walls in Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, 1960), pp. 327-28; art. by R. B. Edwards in ISBE, IV, pp. 1101-7.

133. These are distinguished as λόγος ένδιάθετος and λόγος προφοριχός. Some-times we read also of λόγος σπερματιχός, the "seminal" or "generative" reason, the creative force in nature. This last term is often in the plural. Justin used it in the singular of Christ, saying concerning the philosophers, "each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word" (2 Apol. 13).

134. Origen seems to understand λόγος in much this way: "all who are rational beings are partakers of the word, i.e., of reason, and by this means bear certain seeds, implanted within them, of wisdom and justice, which is Christ" (De Prin. 1.3.6).

135. James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 217.

136. Adam, Religious Teachers, p. 233. We must be on our guard against thinking that "God" means the same to Heraclitus as it does to us. He could say, "God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and hunger. But he is changed, just as fire, when mingled with different kinds of incense, is named after the flavour of each" (Religious Teachers, p. 225).

137. T. F. Glasson, following J. Burnet, questions whether Heraclitus really had a Logos doctrine (JThS, n.s. Ill [1952], pp. 231-38). It may be doubted whether he has made his point, though clearly John owes nothing directly to Heraclitus.

138. John also has affinities with strands of Greek thought that do not use the Logos concept. Thus Dodd is able to point out that there are parallels in the Poimandres to several things John said about the Logos in John. He goes on, "we may say that the Johannine conception of Christ has in some measure combined the roles assigned in the Poimandres to four distinct beings" (IFG, p. 33). There is no question of literary dependence. But John has clearly used a form of expression that would strike many chords among his Greek readers.

139. F. V. Filson shows that there is no complete parallel in Greek thought to the Johannine concept (The New Testament against its Environment [London, 1950], pp. 89-90). He reminds us that "in the Christian account the Son or Logos is linked with the historical Christ and not, as logic would lead us to expect, with the Spirit. This most notable difference is striking, but it is often overlooked. The fact shows that the Christian doctrine of the Spirit is not a borrowing from Stoic sources, either directly or indirectly. It derives from a historical career and its sequel, rather than from a Greek philosophy" (p. 90). See also W. J. Phythian-Adams, CQR, CXXXIX (1944-45), pp. Iff. But if John's idea of the Logos cannot be derived from Greek concepts the effects of its Greek associations are important. A. C. Headlam says: "It enabled Christianity to express itself in terms of Greek thought. ... It enabled a Christian philosophy to be built up in harmony with current thought" (Christian Theology [Oxford, 1934], p. 334). For the importance of the Logos concept to early Christian theologians see G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London, 1952), and especially ch. VI.

140. Yet it is surely going too far to say, as J. Burnet does, "the Johannine doctrine of the λογός has nothing to do with Herakleitos or with anything at all in Greek philosophy" (Early Greek Philosophy [London, 1945], p. 133, η. 1). It would be impossible to use a term so widely known in Greek philosophy in a writing in the Greek language, probably published in a center of Greek culture, without being mindful of the associations the term would arouse.

141. Cf. W. Barclay: "John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: 'Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the Logos.' And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus Christ and His emblem a cross" (ExT, LXX [1958-59], p. 82).

142. "There can be little doubt that the Hebrew concept of word as deed plays a major role in understanding the meaning of the Logos. In Old Testament history and prophecy the debar Yahweh always meant Yahweh's activity in creation, revelation and redemption" (R. Morgan, Interpretation, XI [1957], pp. 159-60). Thorlief Boman puts a great deal of emphasis on the dynamic significance of dabhar (though he rejects the idea of the word as "a connecting link between Jahveh and his creation. It is of moment to the prophets and the other great personalities of the Old Testament to trace the creation directly back to Jahveh" (Hebrew Thought compared with Greek [London, 1960], p. 64). He notices Faust's translation of John 1:1, "In the beginning was the deed," and comments, "Actually Goethe is on solid linguistic ground because he goes back to the Hebrew (Aramaic) original and translates its deepest meaning; for if dabhar forms a unity of word and deed, in our thinking the deed is the higher concept in the unity" (p. 66). The linguistics behind all this has been severely criticized, notably by James Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). But, when full allowance has been made for his strictures the connection of logos with deed is noteworthy.

143. See G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity (Edinburgh, 1953), for a discussion of several Old Testament terms of this kind. He thinks that "the Word of God" in the Old Testament is an "alter ego of God" (p. 16).

144. W. F. Albright refers to the manuscript Targum Neofiti 1 (a complete Palestinian Targum) as "an important new Aramaic targum of the Pentateuch" that "has come to light in the Vatican library." It is "two or three centuries older than any previously known targum." In it, Albright tells us, "the 'Word' of God appears as a surrogate for the name of God, Yahweh" (New Horizons in Biblical Research [London, 1966], p. 45). See also M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966); G. J. Cowling, "New Light on the New Testament? The Significance of the Palestinian Targum," TSF Bulletin, no. 51 (Summer 1968), pp. 6ff.

145. A Targum 0n the Former and Latter Prophets, that is the books in our Bible from Joshua to 2 Kings (excluding Ruth), and the prophetic books (excluding Daniel).

146. SBk, II, pp. 302-33, makes it clear that Memra is used as another name for God. It is not an intermediary. Bultmann directs attention to the point that the Targums always use Memra with a genitive. It is "the Memra of the Lord" or the like, not simply "the Memra," as in John's use of "the Word." Ε. M. Sidebottom gives the force of it in these terms: "Memra then is not a mediating principle of any kind, and not the creative Word of the psalms ... it is the Name of God himself, with perhaps the suggestion especially of God as self-revealing" (The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, p. 39).

147. M. McNamara regards the Targums as an important part of the background of John's Logos concept ("Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 12-42)"; ExT, LXXIX [1967-68], pp. 115-17). He can go so far as to say, "Johannine tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influenced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly of the form found in the Targums" (p. 117). This may be going too far, but the influence of the Targums on John should certainly not be overlooked.

148. Rendel Harris argues strongly that the Logos must be understood in terms of the Wisdom literature. Again and again he suggests that the Prologue is to be understood against this background: "the Prologue to the Gospel can be turned back from a Logos-Hymn to a Sophia-Hymn" (The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, p. 39).

149. Similarly there was a development in the personification of the Law, the Torah. This had a great vogue among the rabbis, as may be seen from the passages cited in SBk, II, pp. 353ff., where we see the Torah depicted as preexistent, as eternally existent with God, as God's daughter, as active in creation, as the life of Israel and the light of Israel.

150. W. F. Howard says that Philo used the term "no fewer than thirteen hundred times" (Christianity according to St. John [London, 1943], pp. 36-37).

151. D. M. Baillie reminds us that "in the Philonic tradition the Logos, so far as hypostatized at all, was conceived as an intermediate being, between God and man" (God was in Christ, p. 70, n. 1). This is very different from John's idea of a Logos who "became flesh," that is, who was both God and man.

152. Cf. Westcott: "He found a 'Logos' in the Greek Bible which he accepted as the record of revelation, and he applied to that what Greek writers had said of the 'Logos,' without thinking it necessary to inquire into the identity of the terms" (p. xxxvi).

153. Against this A. W. Argyle argues that Philo thought of the Logos very much as he did of God ("The Logos of Philo: Personal or Impersonal?" in ExT, LXVI [1954-55], pp. 13-14). On the question of the personality of the Logos in Philo, A. C. Headlam says, "if we ask what it was in itself, whether it was personal or impersonal, we get no satisfying answer. Philo never asked or answered the question. He remains always vague and poetical" (Christian Theology, p. 331).

154. See, for example, the list of parallels he gathers (IFG, pp. 71-72, 276-77). Another who stresses Philo is A. W. Argyle (ExT, LXIII [1951-52], pp. 385-86). He questions whether "any fully satisfactory alternative interpretation" of the Fourth Gospel has been found to that which sees it in the light of Philo. He cites an impressive list of parallels and concludes, "Their cumulative force suggests that to deny any connexion between the Johannine Logos conception and that of Philo would be to throw away a valuable clue to the understanding of the mind and thought of the fourth evangelist."

155. IFG, p. 280. He proceeds to apply this concept to the expression "the Word became flesh." It is curious that he selects this passage, for from the time of Augustine on, many have felt that this thought is completely out of harmony with Philo. Argyle, for example, says bluntly, "Philo could not have said" it (IFG, p. 385). Indeed, Philo says explicitly of the life πρός Θεόν that it "has never come down to us, nor submitted to the constraints of the body" (Quis Rer. Div. Her. 45).

156. Temple, p. 4.

157. MacGregor dismisses as "a singularly futile dispute" the question of whether John's Logos concept owes more to Greek or Hebrew sources. He says, "John must certainly have been indebted to both; if he was able adequately to present the Gospel to a heterogeneous Church, it was just because in the forefront of his Gospel so many converging streams of thought are gathered into one clear pool in which is reflected the face of Jesus Christ" (p. xxxv). Similarly Β. H. Streeter thinks that "The interpretative fusion of Greek philosophic mysticism with the conception of a Personal Gad reached by the Hebrew Prophets, modified by the religious experience of the Early Church, obtained its classical expression in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel" (The Four Gospels [London, 1930],p. 374). In an article entitled "Ambiguity of Word Meaning in John's Gospel" F. W. Gingrich points out that it is characteristic of John to use words with two meanings (Classical Weekly, XXXVII [1943-44], p. 77) He thinks that λόγος is used here to convey both the Hebrew "word" and the Greek "reason."

158. In discussions of John's use of the Logos not all have borne in mind the principle of which C. J. Wright reminds us: "the 'ancestry' of an 'idea' is not the idea itself" (p. 65). Τ. E. Pollard holds that John "intended the Prologue to be interpreted in the light of the rest of the Gospel. . . . The subject of the Gospel is Jesus Christ, not the Logos" (Johannine Christology and the Early Church [Cambridge, 1970], p. 13).

159. "Logos for the Christian is a person. The Logos is not an abstract philosophical concept. It is not a category of religious experience. Nor is it speculative religious mythology. It is person, infreshed, living, historical person" (R. Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel [Atlanta, 1976], p. 25).

160. Godet thinks that the writer "wished to describe Jesus Christ as the absolute revelation of God to the world, to bring back all divine revelations to Him as their living centre, and to proclaim the matchless grandeur of His appearance in the midst of humanity" (I, p. 290). Cullmann maintains that "this title expresses very forcefully an important aspect of New Testament Christology — the unity in historical revelation of the incarnate and the pre-existent Jesus" (The Christology of the New Testament [London, 1959], p. 258). His whole discussion of the term is very valuable.

161. "The compelling urge which led the Evangelist to pen, or make use of, the Logos Hymn, is not any of the external factors which from time to time have been proposed, but the dynamic fact of Christ Himself" (V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus [London, 1953], p. 164).

162. On ἓνεχεν ἐμού χαι ένεχεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in Mark 10:29 Vincent Taylor comments: "together with the Synoptic variants, it is important as indicating an identification of Jesus Himself with the 'Gospel' and the 'Kingdom' in primitive Christian thought" (in loc.).

163. He says, "in the long run, it is primarily as an assertion of the cosmic significance of the work of Christ that we should see it" (The Cosmic Christ [London, 1951], p. 54). He compares the openings of the Second and Fourth Gospels and goes on:"Both Mark and John, while using very different language and symbolism, imply the same claim for the universal significance of the redeeming work of the Christ" (pp. 54-55).

164. Τ. E. Pollard finds similarities between Paul and John: "Like St Paul, St John focuses his attention on the redemption which God has wrought through Jesus Christ, and like St Paul also he argues back from the mediatorial work in redemption (the recreation of man and the cosmos) to the mediatorial work in the original creation" (Johannine Christology and the Early Church [Cambridge, 1970], p. 22).

165. Against this, E. F. Scott thinks that "There can be little doubt that by thus importing the doctrine of the Logos into the Gospel record, John is not only compelled to do violence to historical fact, but empties the life of Christ of much of its real worth and grandeur, while seeming to enhance it. The moral attributes, trust, pity, forgiveness, infinite sympathy, are replaced by certain metaphysical attributes, which are supposed to belong more essentially to the divine nature" (The Fourth Gospel, p. 173). But where does John's use of the Logos replace "moral attributes" with "metaphysical" ones? The fact is that the Logos adds something rather than replaces anything. If we are to think of a real incarnation, then there must be genuine deity as well as genuine humanity, and John insists strongly on both. His use of the Logos concept is part of his way of drawing attention to the deity. Nowhere can it be justly held to minimize the humanity. Scott's idea that the doctrine of the Logos is "born of philosophical theory" (p. 175) perhaps accounts for his point of view. But, as we have seen, for John the idea is more religious than philosophical, more dependent on the Old Testament than on the Stoics, and more dependent on Christian experience and thought than either. The Prologue is the expression, not of a philosophical theory, but of a religious faith.

166. With a different metaphor Hoskyns says: "The workshop in which the Word of God was forged to take its natural place among the great theological descriptions of Jesus and His Work is a Christian workshop: the tools are Christian tools" (p. 162). He develops the point convincingly (pp. 159-63). See also K. Harper. "Christ the Word" (ExT, LX [1948-49], pp. 200-202).

167. There does not appear to be much difference between his use of ρήματα (always plural) and λόγος (nor between λόγος and λόγοι; see on 14:24).

168. J. Ernest Davey maintains that the emphasis on the word(s) of God or of Christ is "One of the leading features in the Gospel" (The Jesus of St John [London, 1958], p. 83). He also says, "the main suitability of the word Logos to John's conception of Christ's significance lies in the central importance for him of the teaching or message of God which Christ mediated to men in His actual words and life on earth" (p. 88).

169. Interestingly, as H. Sasse notes, it was used among the Greeks also for heaven (TDNT, IIΙ, pp. 871-72). This use is not found in the New Testament.

170. TDNT, III, p. 893. He is referring primarily to Pauline usage, but these words

apply also to John.

171. TDNT, ΙII, p. 894.

172. Bultmann sees the ugliness in our determination to live for ourselves: "The delusion that arises from the will to exist of and by one's self perverts truth into a lie, perverts the creation into the 'world.' For in their delusion men do not let their quest for life become a question about themselves so as to become aware of their creaturehood, but instead they give themselves the answer so as to have a security of their own. They take the temporary for the ultimate, the spurious for the genuine, death for life" (Theology of the New Testament, II [London, 1955], p. 27). The whole section, "The Perversion of the Creation into 'the World,' " is important. Toward the end Bultmann says, "the world creates for itself a security of its own and operates within it as that which is familiar and to be taken for granted. It shrugs off the disturbance which is created for it by the appearing of Jesus with its incredulous question: 'How can this be?' (3:9), or with similar 'how's' (6:42; 7:15; 8:33; 12:34)" (p. 32).

173. Barclay says, "There is only one thing certain about the kosmos, the world — the kosmos is not what it was meant to be. Something has gone wrong. What is that something? It is sin" (II, pp. 21-22).

174. There is a useful summary of the Johannine usage in the article "A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of χόσμος in the Johannine Corpus with some Implications for a Johannine Cosmic Theology" by Ν. H. Cassem (NTS, XIX [1972-73],

pp. 81-91). See also J. R. W. Stott, The Letters of John1 [Leicester, 1988], pp. 106-8).

↑ Back to top