Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

14 18. The Incarnate Word’s revelation of the Father

14. And the Word was made flesh ] Or, became flesh. This is the gulf which separates S. John from Philo. Philo would have assented to what precedes; from this he would have shrunk. From Joh 1:9-13 we have the subjective side; the inward result of the Word’s coming to those who receive Him. Here we have the objective; the coming of the Word as a historical fact. The Logos, existing from all eternity with the Father ( Joh 1:1-2), not only manifested His power in Creation ( Joh 1:3) and in influence on the minds of men ( Joh 1:9 ; Joh 1:12-13), but manifested Himself in the form of a man of flesh. The important point is that the Word became terrestrial and material: and thus the inferior part of man is mentioned, the flesh, to mark His humiliation. He took the whole of man’s nature, including its frailty. “The majestic fulness of this brief sentence,” the Word became flesh, which affirms once for all the union of the Infinite and the finite, “is absolutely unique.” The Word became flesh; did not merely assume a body: and the Incarnate Word is one, not two personalities. Thus various heresies, Gnostic and Eutychian, are refuted by anticipation.

dwelt among us ] Literally, tabernacled among us, dwelt as in a tent. The Tabernacle had been the seat of the Divine Presence in the wilderness: when God became incarnate in order to dwell among the Chosen People, ‘to tabernacle’ was a natural word to use. The word forms a link between this Gospel and the Apocalypse: it occurs here, four times in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else. Our translators render it simply ‘dwell,’ which is inadequate. Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3.

among us ] In the midst of those of us who witnessed His life.

we beheld ] Or, contemplated. Comp. 1Jn 1:1. No need to make a parenthesis.

his glory ] The Shechinah. Comp. Joh 2:11, Joh 11:40, Joh 12:41, Joh 17:5; Joh 17:24; 2Co 3:7-18; Rev 21:11. There is probably a special reference to the Transfiguration (Luk 9:32; 2Pe 1:17); and possibly to the vision at the beginning of the Apocalypse. In any case it is the Evangelist’s own experience that is indicated. Omit ‘the’ before the second ‘glory.’

as of ] i.e. exactly like. The glory is altogether such as that of an only-begotten son. Comp. Mat 7:29. He taught exactly as one having full authority. No article before ‘only-begotten;’ He was an only-begotten Son, whereas Moses and the Prophets were but servants.

only begotten ] Unigenitus. The Greek word is used of the widow’s son (Luk 7:12), Jairus’ daughter (Joh 8:42), the demoniac boy (Joh 9:38), Isaac (Heb 11:17). As applied to Christ it occurs only in S. John’s writings; here, Joh 1:18, Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9. It marks off His unique Sonship from that of the ‘sons of God’ ( Joh 1:12).

of the Father ] Literally, from the presence of a father; an only son sent on a mission from a father: comp. Joh 1:6.

full ] Looks forward to ‘fulness’ in Joh 1:16.

grace ] The original meaning of the Greek word is ‘that which causes pleasure.’ Hence (1) comeliness, winsomeness: ‘the words of grace’ in Luk 4:22 are ‘winning words.’ (2) Kindliness, goodwill: Luk 2:52; Act 2:47. (3) The favour of God towards sinners. This distinctly theological sense has for its central point the freeness of God’s gifts: they are not earned, He gives them spontaneously through Christ. ‘Grace’ covers all these three meanings. The third at its fullest and deepest is the one here. It is as the Life that the Word is ‘full of grace,’ for it is ‘by grace’ that we come to eternal life. Eph 2:5.

truth ] It is as the Light that the Word is ‘full of truth.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And the Word was made flesh – The word flesh, here, is evidently used to denote human nature or man. See Mat 16:17; Mat 19:5; Mat 24:22; Luk 3:6; Rom 1:3; Rom 9:5. The Word was made man. This is commonly expressed by saying that he became incarnate. When we say that a being becomes incarnate, we mean that one of a higher order than man, and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man or becomes a man. Here it is meant that the Word, or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he was made flesh.

Was made – This is the same word that is used in Joh 1:3; All things were made by him. It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but that he was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence, agreeably to Joh 1:1. This is in accordance with the doctrine of the Scriptures elsewhere. Heb 10:5; a body hast thou prepared me. Heb 2:14; as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. 1Jo 4:2; Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. See also 1Ti 3:16; Phi 2:6; 2Co 8:9; Luk 1:35. The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was changed into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the Logos, or Word, became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or Word became or was a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man.

And dwell among us – The word in the original denotes dwelt as in a tabernacle or tent; and some have supposed that John means to say that the human body was a tabernacle or tent for the Logos to abide in, in allusion to the tabernacle among the Jews, in which the Shechinah, or visible symbol of God, dwelt; but it is not necessary to suppose this. The object of John was to prove that the Word became incarnate. To do this he appeals to various evidences. One was that he dwelt among them; sojourned with them; ate, drank, slept, and was with them for years, so that they saw him with their eyes, they looked upon him, and their hands handled him, 1Jo 1:1. To dwell in a tent with one is the same as to be in his family; and when John says he tabernacled with them, he means that he was with them as a friend and as one of a family, so that they had full opportunity of becoming familiarly acquainted with him, and could not be mistaken in supposing that he was really a man.

We beheld his glory – This is a new proof of what he was affirming – that the word of God became man. The first was, that they had seen him as a man. He now adds that they had seen him in his proper glory as God and man united in one person, constituting him the unequalled Son of the Father. There is no doubt that there is reference here to the transfiguration on the holy mount. See Mat 17:1-9. To this same evidence Peter also appeals, 2Pe 1:16-18. John was one of the witnesses of that scene, and hence he says, we beheld his glory, Mar 9:2. The word glory here means majesty, dignity, splendor.

The glory as of the only-begotten of the Father – The dignity which was appropriate to the only-begotten Son of God; such glory or splendor as could belong to no other. and as properly expressed his rank and character. This glory was seen eminently on the mount of transfiguration. It was also seen in his miracles, his doctrine, his resurrection, his ascension; all of which were such as to illustrate the perfections, and manifest the glory that belongs only to the Son of God.

Only-begotten – This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9. It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is especially dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, Gen 22:16; Jer 6:26; Zec 12:10. On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour.

1. As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a special relation to Him in His divine nature, exalted above all human beings and angels, and thus worthy to be called, by way of eminence, His only Son. Saints are called His sons or children, because they are born of His Spirit, or are like Him; but the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called His only-begotten Son.
2. He was especially dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed upon him.

Full of grace and truth – The word full here refers to the Word made flesh, which is declared to be full of grace and truth. The word grace means favors, gifts, acts of beneficence. He was kind, merciful, gracious, doing good to all, and seeking mans welfare by great sacrifices and love; so much so, that it might be said to be characteristic of him, or he abounded in favors to mankind. He was also full of truth. He declared the truth. In him was no falsehood. He was not like the false prophets and false Messiahs, who were wholly impostors; nor was he like the emblems and shadows of the old dispensation, which were only types of the true; but he was truth itself. He represented things as they are, and thus became the truth as well as the way and the life.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 1:14

The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

The God-Man satisfying the desire of humanity

I.

THE DESIRE. The desire of a Saviour had attained its maturity in the period of universal decline which preceded the Advent. This desire was a prophecy of its own satisfaction because inspired, nourished and developed by the God to whom the heart addresses itself. A child is born called Jesus whose name announces all that He came to do. What do men say about Him?

1. That He is a fabulous symbol of that union of man with God realized in the development of reason. But if this be the case why has man desired one outside of his own reason? What meaning is there in the history of religions.

2. That He was a great social reformer. But His gospel is profoundly spiritual and traces all external reform to inward moral renovation. But is mans heart satisfied with the idea of a social reformer? Had Christ swept away every social abuse and satisfied every national need, the human heart would still have yearned for a Saviour.

3. That He was a philosopher, the Socrates of Jerusalem. But man does not need such. The ancient world had more than it required. It had the greatest and purest of sages, but found no rest in their schools. Man desires something higher, shall his Christ then be

4. A prophet? Prophets will not avail, for the greatest have most ardently desired a Saviour and were but men.

5. An angel? No, or Mary would have seen Him in Gabriel. Angels could celebrate His birth but not take His place. Turning now to the desire we shall see that mans cry has been for a God-Man.

Two well-defined sentiments enter with it.

1. The hope of finding God. For this alone has man passed from one religion to another.

(1) This God not the inert and isolated God of philosophy, lost in the solitudes of heaven: but

(2) a living, present God.

2. The sorrow of condemnation. Man longs to appease a justly offended God. He therefore offers sacrifice, the produce of his fields, the first-born of his flocks, nay, his child, his brother. But it avails nothing. A sacrifice must be found that is both pure and human. For many ages man has sighed for an incarnation in order to redeeming sacrifice. This is what has been promised. Ancient prophecy recognized in the Messiahs person the man and the God, the Victim and the King.

II. THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE DESIRE. The Word was made flesh.

1. What is this but that before He existed in God as a personal being. Had the Word been a Divine virtue or influence, it would had in it nothing special or distinctive, and therefore could have been no Saviour. Nor could it have communicated the knowledge of the true God. God is love. A God who did not love would be a God dead. But how should God be from all eternity, a God of love, if He had no object for His love? Where, then, will you find this object if not in that Word which is God, and yet is distinct from Him. The Son gives as the Father.

2. He shows us the living nature of Gods revelations. A perfect revelation of the living and eternal God is living and eternal as Himself: the express image of the Father. Each utterance has life like the Word Himself. God has spoken

(1) In Eternity, and His Word is His only Son,

(2) In Time, and Creation was the echo of the Word.

(3) In Revelation, and each of the syllables of the Word was a fact of mystery.

(4) In redemption and now the Word is made flesh.

While giving full weight to His Divinity, let us not attenuate His humanity. The one is as necessary to our salvation as the other. By being Man and yet one with the Father, He was able to consummate on the cross His redeeming sacrifice, drawing the heart of man to God and the heart of God to man.

III. THE PROOFS OF THIS DOCTRINE.

1. The history of Jesus shows us Divinity and humanity united in His person. His personal humiliation from the manger to the cross side by side with the glory of His morals and perfect character.

2. Jesus was conscious of and professed His union. He speaks of Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of God; and insisted on His oneness with the Father.

3. The apostolic Church confirmed this doctrine, proclaiming His Divinity and worshipping Him.

IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE. Christianity stands or falls with it.

1. For whose sake do the impugners of the doctrine deny it?

(1) For the sake of God? But the Deist gives us instead of the living, consummate God an abstract and distant Divinity. We dont know where to find Him, and He has never dried a single tear nor gladdened a heart. Thus God is libelled and His cause compromised.

(2) For the sake of man? But man has desired this God-Man: He only has blessed the race.

2. If what the impugners say is true, Christianity is an imposture and Christ a deceiver. And yet He is admitted to be the noblest of Beings. Let these considerations be weighed.

V. CHRISTIANS ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THIS DOCTRINE. Let it not slumber in creeds, but be preserved in a living faith and communion. (E. dePressense, D. D.)

Bethlehem and its good news

1. There was nothing great about Bethlehem (Mic 5:2). It was but a shepherd village or small town, yet here the great purpose of God became a fact. It is in facts that Gods purposes come to us that we may take hold of them as realities. The city is poor, but its lowliness makes it more suitable as the birthplace of Him who though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor. And all about it seems to suit Him. It is the house of bread, fit dwelling for Him who is the Bread of God: Ephratah the fruitful, as if pointing to the fruitful One.

2. It is not named in the text; but you cannot read the latter without being transported to it.

3. At Bethlehem our worlds history began, for His birth has influenced all history, sacred and secular, before and behind. As regards our text, let us see

I. WHAT IT IS. Christ, Immanuel, Jesus, are our Lords names in time; but Word and Son are expressive of His eternal standing. The inaccessable Godhead becomes approachable, the incomprehensible, comprehensible. All the nations of the earth God hath made of one blood, and of that one blood the Word was made partaker. Thus Bethlehem becomes a link between heaven and earth. God and man must meet here and look each other in the face.

II. WHAT IT TEACHES. Gods thoughts of peace. The message is a decided but not a finished one. You must associate Bethlehem with Calvary.

1. Would you learn the way to God? Go to Bethlehem: the Infant in the manger is the way.

2. Would you learn the vanity of earth? Go to yon manger where the Lord of Glory lies.

3. Would you hays a safeguard against worldliness and sin and error? Keep the childs companionship.

4. Would you learn to be humble? Go to Bethlehem; there the Highest is lowest.

5. Would you learn self-denial? See the Word made flesh. (H. Bonar, D. D.)

Why God became Man

This Gospel contains no record of the Nativity like the others. They record the fact, this the underlying principle of the fact. Unless you take Johns point of view, you cannot understand Lukes story.

I. THE FACT ITSELF. Three things:

1. The Word: personal, eternal, Divine, the active energy of the Divine Nature.

(1) The Author of creation.

(2) The Source of all life and light.

(3) The medium of all revelation.

2. With the audacity which is the true work of Divine revelation, the text draws together the two discordant ideas Word and flesh; not this tremulous, feeble, mortal body with its needs, weaknesses, pains, desires, corruption, not the whole humanity, body, soul, spirit, the entire sweep and range of what a man is.

3. How He became it; which involves the willing transformation, by the energy of the Person Himself. Became–not assumed. It was not a transcient manifestation such as the Buddhist incarnation or Hindoo avatar; not God coming down in the likeness of men for a moment or two; but so becoming us, He ceased to be the Word. So the living heart of Christianity is supernatural. That round which it turns is the biggest of all miracles, and if you take that all the rest is natural.

II. THE VARIOUS PURPOSES WHICH THIS MIGHTIEST OF ALL MIRACLES SERVES IN THE WORLD. Here is a five-fold star, with five rays.

1. To show God. As the Shekinah glory abode in the Tabernacle, so God tabernacled in Christs flesh. Christ shows God as He was never seen before, full of grace and truth. The mightiest and brightest light that makes God known, is that of gentleness, tenderness, self-oblivlon, patience. If you want to know God, and not to guess Him, not to shrink from Him, and not merely to see the fringe of brightness about the Infinite heart, you must turn away from everything else to Christ.

2. To show what man ought to be. How perfect Christs example is we may gather from the admission of enemies, from our own hearts and consciences. Instead of being handed over to a mere law Do this and live, it means Do as I do, because I love you and you love Me.

3. That He might die. You cannot understand Christmas without Good Friday, the meaning of the cradle unless we see the shadow of the Cross. Christ came to bear our sins that we might be born again unto newness of life.

4. That He might have sympathy with us. He has trodden all the road before us, and is near us to help us on.

5. That manhood might be glorified. He has stooped down that thereby He might befit us to be like Him. Where He is, He will lead us. What He is, He will make us. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The incarnation

I. THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD PLAINLY ASSERTED.

1. THE PERSON ASSUMING. The Word, i.e, the second Person in the most glorious Godhead, called the Word, either because He is the Scope and principal Matter, both of prophetical and promissory Word; or because He expounds and reveals the mind and will of God to men (Joh 1:18).

2. THE NATURE ASSUMED flesh, i.e, the entire human nature, consisting of a true human soul and body (Rom 3:20; Gen 6:12). The word flesh is rather used here than man, on purpose to enhance the admirable condescension and abasement of Christ; there being more of vileness, weakness, and opposition to Spirit in this word than in that, as is pertinently noted by some. Hence the whole nature is denominated by that part, and called flesh.

3. THE ASSUMPTION ITSELF. Not fuit, He was (as Socinus would render it, designing thereby to overthrow the existence of Christs glorified body now in heaven) but factus est, it was made, i.e, He took or assumed the true human nature into the unity of His Divine Person, with all its integral parts and essential properties, and so was made or became a true and real Man by that assumption. The Apostle, speaking of the same act Heb 2:16), uses another word, fitly rendered He took on Him, or He assumed: which assuming, though inchoative, it was the work of the whole Trinity, God the Father, in the Son, by the Spirit, forming or creating that nature; as if three sisters should make a garment betwixt them, which only one of them wears; yet terminative, it was the act of the

Son only; it was He only that was made flesh. And when it is said, He was made flesh, misconceive not, as if there was a mutation of the Godhead into flesh; for this was performed, not by changing what He was, but by assuming what He was not. As when the Scripture, in a like expression, saith, He was made sin (2Co 5:21), and made a curse Gal 3:13), the meaning is not that He was turned into sin, or into a curse; no more may we think here the Godhead was turned into flesh, and lost its own Being and nature, because it is said He was made flesh.

II. THIS ASSERTION STRONGLY CONFIRMED. He dwelt among us, and we saw His glory. This was no phantasm, but a most real and dubitable thing. For He pitched His tent or tabernacled with us. And we are eye-witnesses 1Jn 1:1-3). (J. Flavel.)

.

The Incarnation

I. CHRISTS HUMILIATION. He took the whole nature of man.

1. That He might suffer.

2. That He might obey the law of God in the nature that had broken the Law.

3. That He might die. He could not have died without a body. He could not suffer death while in His Fathers bosom.

4. That He might sympathise with men (Heb 2:17).

II. CHRISTS CONDESCENSION. He tabernacled, as in a tent. He lived on earth for a time, just as a man might live. The word is used particularly

1. As a reference to the tabernacle of old. This was a meeting place between God and His people. Such was Christ. Through Him a just God can meet the sinner.

2. It intimates His condition. A tent is an inferior dwelling to a house or a palace. Christ went about from place to place, and had not where to lay His head. He was dependent upon others for His rest and food.

3. It sanctifies affliction. No one need be ashamed of his poverty, since Christ was poor.

III. CHRISTS GLORY. Amid all His humiliation, His glory burst forth and manifested itself–We beheld, etc. Clad as our Saviour was in the garments of a man, it was impossible entirely to veil His higher nature.

Neither was it advisable. It was necessary that the world should know that He was God. His Divine glory was constantly manifesting itself–when the star led the wise men–when He taught the doctors in the Temple–when He healed the sick and raised the dead. But the chief glory was only visible to spiritual eyes.

1. Divine wisdom. The world considered His wisdom to be folly. It was not His outward manifestation, not His miracles or acts, but the plan of salvation, and the scheme He accomplished when He said, It is finished.

2. Divine love. There is more glory in the love of God than in all the universe of material creation. This can only be discerned by the eye of faith. When a sinner is brought to find peace, he realises the glory of Christ. We have seen. Have you seen?

IV. CHRISTS FULNESS. Full of grace and truth. Hence His glory need not deter us from coming to Him.

1. Full of grace, i.e, He is easy to approach, merciful, loving, gracious, in aspect and nature.

2. Full of truth. Himself the truth. Hence we have a firm foundation for our faith. All Christ does is true. His pardon is a true pardon. His promises are true, etc. (Preachers Analyist.)

.

The necessity of the Incarnation

I. THAT MAN MAY POSSESS A FULL AND FAITHFUL REVELATION OF GODS CHARACTER. Jesus became a medium through whom the dazzling attributes of Deity were modified, and a focus in whom the infinite perfections of Diety were centred.

II. THAT THERE MAY BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE. Precept will often fail, when example will succeed. Christ was made like His brethren that they might be stimulated to be like God.

III. THAT AN ATONEMENT MAY BE MADE FOR SIN, AND MAN RECONCILED TO GOD.

IV. THAT MANY MAY HAVE A SYMPATHETIC AND POWERFUL MEDIATOR at the right hand of God. Conclusion: Jesus is a perfect Saviour–perfect in His power to save, being able to save to the uttermost; perfect in His willingness to save, declaring that whosoever cometh unto Him, He will in no wise cast out; perfect in His sympathy, knowing our frame, remembering that we are dust, and declaring that He will carry the lambs in His arm, and deal with peculiar kindness with those in special trials; perfect in His wisdom, knowing His sheep and knowing the way that they take; perfect in His faithfulness, being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and promising never to leave nor forsake His own disciples. He is a perfect Saviour because in Him dwelt and dwells the fulness of the Godhead. (J. H.Hitchens, D. D.)

The purpose of the Incarnation

I. THE DIGNIFIED CHARACTER WHO WAS MADE FLESH. 1.The Word partakes of the same nature and perfections as the Father and Spirit.

(1) Eternity (Mic 5:2).

(2) Omniscience (Joh 21:17).

(3) Omnipresence (Mat 28:20).

(4) Immutability (Heb 13:8).

2. This dignified Person was made flesh.

(1) He had a true body, not merely the appearance of one.

(2) He had a reasonable soul.

(3) All the Persons of the Trinity were concerned in His Incarnation. The Father prepared His body; the Spirit formed it; the Son assumed it.

3. He dwelt among us

(1) Performing the most astonishing miracles;

(2) Preaching the most interesting truths;

(3) Living the most holy life.

II. SOME REASONS WHY THE SAVIOUR BECAME INCARNATE.

1. That ancient prophecy might be fulfilled (Gen 3:15; Deu 18:15; Isa 9:6; etc.).

2. That the glorious perfections of Deity might be displayed–the glory of Gods infinite wisdom, almighty power, unspotted purity, inflexible justice, boundless compassion, inviolable truth. Hence angels and men combine in singing Glory to God in the highest.

3. That captive sinners might be redeemed.

(1) By nature man is a spiritual slave.

(2) Christ became incarnate to redeem him from

(a) Sin. Sin shall have no more dominion, etc.

(b) Satan. The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet.

(c) The world. This is the victory, etc.

(d) Wrath. Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come.

(3) Jesus redeems us by His blood (1Pe 1:18-19).

(4) In the day of conversion, the believer experiences His redemption.

(5) Christ redeems us to His image, His grace, His heaven (Psa 86:11).

4. That the righteous law of heaven might be honoured.

5. That the empire of Satan might be ruined.

6. That the gates of paradise might be opened. We learn the amazing condescension of the Saviour. Consider

(1) From whence He came;

(2) To whom;

(3) The circumstances in which;

(4) Why. (T. Lewis.)

The double Incarnation; or, the souls Christmas

(text in conjunction with Eph 3:17):–There are two births of Christ–one unto the world, the other into the soul. Men think more of the former than of the latter and celebrate it every year; but the latter is equally momentous. The soul has its births; the rising into conscious existence of every latent sentiment, filial, connubial, parental, Christian.

I. THE ANALOGY between those two Incarnations.

1. Both result from Divine interposition.

2. Both create great epochs; the temporal advent was the crisis of history. The B.C. meets in it, the A.D. starts from it. And from the Spiritual advent all after life takes its date and derives its impulse.

3. Both awaken antagonism, the former Herods hostility, etc., the latter that of the depraved nature.

4. Both are manifestations of God.

II. THE DISSIMILARITY.

1. The one may become a curse to man, the other must be a blessing. Nothing so terrible to a lost soul as the former. It aggravates the worlds guilt and augments its responsibility. The latter brings sunshine to the soul and ever advancing blessedness.

2. The one occurred without mans choice, the other requires his seeking. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The great birthday

Christmas day is the greatest birthday of the year.

I. It is THE BIRTHDAY OF CHRIST. The greatest man, teacher, benefactor, but immeasurably more than this. Men have misconceived and misstated the Incarnation; that two persons were united in Christ instead of two natures in His single person; that the infinite Being was confined within the finate nature which He assumed; that God ceased to be really Himself; that human nature was annihilated by its union with Deity. It was inevitable that the possibility of the Incarnation should be questioned; but what is man but a sample, at an immeasurably lower level of a union of two totally different substances, one material, the other immaterial, under the control of a single human personality? As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. And He who could bring together matter and Spirit in man might surely raise both matter and spirit to union with His own Divinity under the control of His eternal Person. But what moved God to unite Himself with a creative form? Is not such an innovation on the association, if not on the conditions of His Eternal Being? Yes, but so was Creation, and Creation involved possibilities which led to much else beyond. It involved the possibility of the fall. And then as God must have created out of love, so out of love He must bring a remedy to the ruined creature. Of other remedies nothing has been told us, but we know that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

II. THE BIRTHDAY OF HUMAN GREATNESS. Man has alternately depreciated and exaggerated His importance. Just now the deprivatory account is the popular one. It is no longer possible; we are reminded to think of this earth as the centre for whose benefit all else exists. It is only a small satellite of the sun while the sun is but one of thousands of stars which are moving round some undiscovered centre. The insignificance of mans dwelling-place involves its own insignificance. And this impression is deepened by the vicissitudes to which men are exposed, and the cheapness of human life. But apart from Christianity nature also opens out another side to the matter. When we look at any one man, however feeble and worthless, we become conscious of his having some title to a profound and anxious interest. Here is a man who, before he became a criminal, threaded his way unnoticed through the crowd; but put upon his trial for his life he becomes a centre of universal interest. Why, if he is only an animal, should the question of his life be followed more anxiously than that of an ox or a sheep? Men are thus moved because a destiny is being weighed in the balance and at such moments the depreciatory theory of mans nature and origin gives way. The poor prisoner in the dock represents the ineffaceable, indestructible greatness of man. Still mens judgment about himself rises and falls with the varying circumstances of his life and modes of his mind. Left to himself he has no solid ground of confidence in any estimate he may form. To discover the greatness of his need and capacities, he requires some standard utterly independent of himself. Such he finds in the Incarnation which, uniting, his nature to that of the Being who made Him, restores to man his self-respect, and makes him feel his moral poverty without God and his utter dependence upon Him. Think of our Lords life from this point of view, of putting such high and exceptional honour on our nature. The moral beauty of which mankind is capable appeared in Jesus as it never appeared before or since. But we can only surrender ourselves to its power when we admit that it is the life of the Word made flesh. A man might have uttered the Beatitudes, but as mere man, being modest and truthful, could have said, I and my Father are one. All, however, fall into place if He is the God-Man. Embrace this truth and it is not hard to understand how His death on Calvary availed for the worlds redemption. Nor does it matter that His life was lived on a small planet. Since the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him, the vastest stars and suns have no more claim, on account of their size, to His regard. When He became man to elevate and redeem the human family He chose the scene where the Divine work would be best achieved.

III. THE BIRTHDAY OF HUMAN BROTHERHOOD. At the manger of Bethlehem we may dare to look forward to that union of human love, of human hearts, of which the noblest of our race have ever dreamed, a brotherhood sometimes recommended as abstract argument, sometimes dictated by revolutionary terrorism, but which, to be genuine, must be a perfectly free movement of human hearts and wills drawn towards each other by supreme attraction. That attraction we find in the Divine child of Bethlehem, born that He might regenerate the world, and all the courtesies and kindnesses of Christmas between families, households, rich and poor, old and young, are rightly done in His honour who came to unite us to each other in union with Himself. (Canon Liddon.)

The relation of the Incarnation to modern problems

I. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. The soundest, shortest argument for the Being of God is Christ. God is in nature; but nature is dumb. No speech, no language, their voice is not heard. But in the Word God has spoken. The Incarnation teaches Theism by teaching us more than Theism. God is something more than the constructor of this curious clock. What comfort do we get from the conception of an infinite brain? Add the Incarnation to Theism and we have peace, Ye believe in God, believe also in Me. But does not my own nature teach me that God is good? Yes, but Christ corroborates the testimony of our moral nature. The avatars of India and the Apotheoses of Greece are only efforts of the mind to anticipate this great doctrine of Christianity. The sense of guilt and longing for reconciliation may have produced these myths. But that does not prove that the subjective state was a superstition. The ability to appeal to the historic facts concerning the life of our Lord is the strongest confirmation of the truth of our religious instincts. We can proceed by way of philosophy and prove our need of a Saviour, and by way of history prove the fact of a Saviour who reveals the nature and fatherhood of God.

II. TO THE IRRELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE AGE. That is marked by a tone of serious, disheartened scepticism. Yet the Positivist tries to keep his religion after he has denied his God. What he teaches as a substitute for the Gospel is taught by the Gospel itself, is the only form in which it is worthy of a moments consideration. If he would worship an ideal humanity, he must take Christ. If he would see an example of altruism he must take Christs atonement. But infidelity must go back to Christ or forward to despair. When a man has discarded the eternal hope in Christ it is not strange that he should ask Is life worth living? Christ or Pessimism, the gospel of hope or the gospel of despair, salvation or suicide are the sharp antitheses presented by modern thought.

III. TO APOLOGETICS. Applying to Scripture the argument of design, we conclude that it was constructed on a plan which must have existed in a single mind before it was executed in the progressive publication of the separate books. The Incarnation gives to the Bible its unity. The Old Testament is a congruous body of doctrine culminating in Christ; the New Testament is a coherent body of doctrine culminating around the Person of Christ. The doctrine is woven in the very texture of the sacred books. How did this happen? The advanced thinkers will not ask us to believe that organisms grow by chance. The intelligence that built the world, made the Bible.

IV. TO THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE. The paradox of the Bible is the severity with which God looks on sin, and the tenderness with which He regards the sinner. Is there any way in which this dual relationship can be brought into conspicuous pre-eminence? Yes; the Incarnation is Gods testimony to His love for man and to His respect for law. He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The atonement is therefore based upon the Incarnation. Advanced thought a short time since founded the hope of the universal forgiveness on the fatherhood of God. Now it preaches that man is under law to an extent which makes it idle to speak of forgiveness. Sin and suffering are inseparable, they say, and thus those who preached a gospel of love without law, now preach a gospel of law without love. Liberalism does not know how to reconcile these ideas, and by rejecting the Incarnation has rejected the only method of reconciliation.

V. TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNION. A man may be a Christian who does not accept all the doctrines of the creeds. It is equally clear that a man who denies all cannot be invited to the Lords table. Where then shall we draw the line? Here. The acceptance of this doctrine draws towards Christ; its rejection separates from Him by an impassable gulf? The man who worships the Lord Jesus as God, and gives Him the homage of his heart is a Christian, although he may not accept the Athanasian statement. The same principle determines our relations with Romanism. It is not necessary to abate any of our antipathy to her errors, but a church must not be refused a place in Christendom which holds the Incarnation and related doctrines.

VI. TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF RELIGION. Any religion which is to take permanent hold upon the world must offer a theory of the universe and tell me whence I am and whither I am going; must prescribe a code and teach morality; must stir the emotions and take hold of the heart; Christianity unites these three ideas in the Incarnation.

VII. TO PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN LIFE. The incarnate life of Christ stands in close relation to the development of Christian character. That development is gradual, and is concurrent with the study of Christ. And to study Him is to know that He is Divine. If we study the great principles which constitute His doctrine we hear the voice of one who spake as never man spake. So comprehensively, so minutely, so influentially. If we study His example there is that which proclaims His Divine perfections; and yet His human, helpful, imitable brotherhood.

VIII. TO CHRISTIAN WORK IN RELATION TO THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD. The book of Acts is the second volume of the life of Christ, the first being an account of all Jesus began. The Incarnation, then, was but the beginning of a great career which is still in progress. It is Christ who is still doing the evangelization of the world. This is the only true basis of missionary confidence, and the continuously fulfilling prophecy of the final victory.

IX. TO MANS PLACE IS THE SCALE OF BEING: correcting the depreciation of man by science and the exaggerated dignity conferred upon him by Pantheism. He is neither an insignificant atom nor God. The Incarnation shows his reconciliation, not identity with God, and his glorious and elect creatureship.

X. TO THE PURPOSES OF GOD. We know not what we shall be, but we know that we shall be like Him. And He is the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. The perpetuity of Christs human nature is the guarantee of an immortalized personality And our individual interest in Jesus will not prevent us sharing the enthusiasm we may rightly feel concerning the destiny of His Church. The marriage of God and man eighteen hundred years ago is but the prophecy of a day when the bells of heaven shall ring in the nuptials of a ransomed Church with her royal spouse. (Prof. Patton.)

An argument for the Incarnation

Millions throughout the world hail the annual return of Christmas not because of its festivities, but because it commemorates the birth of Jesus. Class Jesus, as some do, with Plato and Shakespeare, and He would receive no more honour than they. This exuberance of feeling is due to the belief that He is divine. Whence does this belief spring? From the Scriptures. But all people do not accept the Bible; we have therefore to move along other lines of argument. And Christians may find their faith strengthened by finding the conclusions reached by the Bible arrived at by other roads.

I. AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. No doubt it involves a miracle. The process by which the two natures were united in one person is wholly mysterious. But so is that by which spirit and matter, mind and body combine in man. But if the one is not impossible, why the ether? We are not now dealing with the limited powers of men but with the omnipotence of God; and what the Almighty chooses in His wisdom to do, even if it be to assume a human form, He can do.

II. AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS NOT IMPROBABLE.

1. It has always been expected and desired, and the expectation has been expressed in every possible way–in fable, philosophy, religion.

2. This instinct is natural. Man cannot be satisfied with the manifestations of God in nature. They leave the soul with vague, restless desires after a more perfect acquaintance. At best they give a God for philosophers, for the intellect, not one who has influence over life, moulding and fashioning the heart.

3. These two facts point to an incarnation. For who created the desire? God Himself. And shall He who creates the capacity leave it unsatisfied?

III. THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF CHRIST CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT HE, THE WORD MADE FLESH, IS THE SATISFACTION FOR THIS DESIRE. You cannot understand the account of His life unless you recognize His Godhead and manhood.

1. He is the only perfect Man who has ever trod this earth. This is the confession of friends and foes of His own day and ours. How is this to be accounted for? Not by surrounding influences. There was nothing in His age, home, or contemporaries calculated to produce a perfect man.

2. All His actions and words are in harmony with the idea that He was the Word made flesh. His wonderful birth is succeeded by a wonderful life. (W. Braden.)

The relations of the Incarnation

I. The Incarnation in relation to MAN.

1. It shows the dignity of the human body. The material part of our nature has been maligned in every age; but ever since the incarnation it has been respected more and more. Matter is essentially evil, said the Greek philosopher. Whoso layeth his hand on a human body toucheth heaven, said Novalis and Carlyle. The incarnation took place between these utterances.

2. It shows the dignity of the human soul in the human body–of human nature in its totality.

3. Linking man to God it removed the antithesis between them. Something more was requisite to remove the antagonism, even the atonement. Prior to the Incarnation a wide gap divided the Creator from His creation, but the Incarnation filled it up, and did away with the antithesis. There is now not a single break in the chain of existence. From the tiniest atom to Absolute Being there is one continuous ascent.

II. The Incarnation in relation to GOD. It is a revelation of God.

1. It reveals the plurality of persons in the Divine essence. This truth is the exclusive property of the Church of the New Testament because the Incarnation is its exclusive property. The Holy Trinity existed previously, and dim prefigurations of the doctrine are noticeable in the Old Testament. But the doctrine would never have been fully apprehended but for the historic reality.

2. The Incarnation reveals the Fatherhood of God. The glory as of the only Begotten. Deny the Incarnation and you deny the deepest Divine Fatherhood. It reveals the intrinsic Fatherhood. It shows us a Son, not by creation in time, but by generation in eternity, and consequently shows us a Father, not in virtue of His creative, but of His generative energies. By the side of this all other fatherhoods are types and figures.

3. The Incarnation reveals the redeeming character of God. Deny the Incarnation, and you have no positive proof of the Divine love; believe it, and you can never desire a higher proof. He gave His only begotten son; what more could He do? (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The significance of the Incarnation

There was an end sought; by what means should it be reached? There was a tremendous necessity; how should it be met? There was an infinitely gracious wonder to be wrought; in what wondrous way should it be accomplished? This was the problem. Conjectures as to its solution only serve to show that the way taken was the only way.

1. Almighty compulsion would have crushed human freedom, put human virtue aside, turned grace into magic.

2. Moral influence or persuasion would have left mans past disobedience uncancelled, the sanctities of law despised, authority abolished by Him in whom it was established. At best there would have been an invertebrate manhood, a molluscous morality.

3. Voices of audible command or promise spoken perpetually from heaven to earth would have formed a revelation as grotesque as ineffectual.

4. Written communications must have been subject to manifold hindrances and limitations as an agency of salvation, as was shown when they were actually employed.

5. A redemption by sacrifice must depend on the value of the victim sacrificed; human sacrifices would contravene all the teachings of the Divine economy touching the sanctity of human life, and of the insufficiency of the sacrifice of brutes, apart from their typical sense, the religious history of the world affords abundant evidence. We look, then, as we are bidden to look, for the reuniting power between God and man, to the Word made flesh and dwelling among us.

I. This appears in THE TWOFOLD FORM OF A FACT AND A PERSON, both being far more conclusive than any course of abstract reasoning in theodicy, or any theological demonstration. The fact and the person both take their place in the public scenery of events, in inspired Scriptures, in general history, in a line of great transactions inexplicable without them; and they have become imbedded in the experience and enshrined in the reverent and loving faith of millions of men through fifty generations. What is this fact? The life of God appears on the earth not only harmonized, but perfectly blended with the life of man. Humanity begins again with a possibility and offer of a restoration which is salvation to all who will receive it. As the life of God is in Christ, we share in it by being united to Christ. He took our human nature. The Divine nature or life was not naturally ours–it was lost. We become partakers of it. Each individual believer in this covenant of grace, lives eternally. Abiding in the vine, the branch lives, grows, bears fruit. Here is the certainty of immortality.

II. THE RELATION OF THE INCARNATION, THEN, TO THE BODY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is not difficult to be determined.

1. It is the comprehensive truth of revelation. We may take any article of the Christian creed, except those which affirm or imply the unity of God and the natural depravity of men, and attempt to separate it from this supreme and central fact, and we fail.

2. As the doctrine is comprehensive, so it is distinctive. In the ancient ethnic religions, in the Gnostic theosophies and emanations of the East, as in modern Deism, Pantheism, and Positivism, there is nothing that can be mistaken for it.

III. THE DOCTRINE OR THE FACT HOLDS A LIKE CENTRAL AND INCLUSIVE POSITION IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. There is a unity in the sacred writings, and that unity is the person of the Incarnate Word. The development of the kingdom of God among mankind follows naturally a historical method; and so Genesis comes first, with much afterwards, in the preparatory dispensations, before the birth of the Saviour. But the real beginning, or genesis, is given in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John. From that radiant dayspring the light is reflected back to Eden, and shines forward to the Apocalypse. By this reading, innumerable difficulties, which have given superfluous trouble, disappear. The parts take their due proportions.

IV. LOOKING ONWARD, WITH THIS WARRANT, FROM OUR LORDS ASCENSION, WE SEE THE INTERIOR PRINCIPLE OF HIS KINGDOM as it is set up among the nations and expands along the ages. Christ not only watches His family from above, He dwells and works within it. His family is His body, and His body is His bride, and His bride is His Church; and He lives in the members. What began in the past eternity proceeds in the eternity to come, and to the Word there is but one eternity. We see our calling. What an inheritance! What privilege! What responsibilities! (Bp. Huntington.)

Why was the Incarnation delayed

Inasmuch as God is unchangeable, and the love exhibited in Bethlehem was in Him from days of old, I make bold to affirm that He embraced the first opportunity to work out the redemption of the race. What would be the use of sending earlier when the world was not prepared to receive Him? Jesus Christ is the joint product of heaven and earth; He is God and Man; hence the necessity for both to be ready. God was ready, the Son was ready. The earth was not ready. He had to wait till humanity should be ready. The mind of man had to be prepared. Were it a mere question of love or power, He could have been sent earlier; but as it was also a question of wisdom, He must not be sent at a period likely to defeat the end in view. God could not travel faster than the conditions of humanity admitted. He must suit His pace to the tottering steps of man. It took God longer time, perhaps greater pains, to beget Christ in the human mind than to beget Him in the Virgins womb. Four thousand years were needed to accomplish the former; but the instant it was brought to pass, God sent forth His Son into the world, made of a woman, made under the law. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The difference between the Christian and the heathen incarnations

The Greek popular incarnations were, in the main, personifications of natural phenomena. When the court of Olympus was constituted, the conviction–universal among the Indo-European peoples–that the gods could not be strangers to men, made it natural to believe that they came down to earth from time to time. Aristotles and Platos triads, again were simply psychological. These philosophers resolved the unity of the human personality into a triad of principles. The Hindu Trimurtti is a classification for religious purposes of the great natural processes of creation, preservation, and destruction; and the thought of incarnation is easily linked to the idea of Vishnu, as the Preserver uses the agency of heroes or great men to deliver the race from evils by which it would otherwise be overwhelmed. The Scripture Trinity, on the other hand, is a special revelation concerning the constitution of the Divine nature. The Incarnation is based upon the ultimate fact that God is love. If we regard Christianity as a philosophy, the doctrine of the Incarnation is its essence. If we regard Christianity, practically, as salvation for fallen man, the Incarnation is the secret of its exhaustless Divine power. (Principal Grant.)

Voluntary sympathy

One of the secrets of Victor Hugos power over the French people was their memory of the following: When the disasters of the Franco-German war were falling thickly, and the iron band was closing round Paris, word came that Victor Hugo was coming to the city. He came at the very moment that the investment was complete, with the last train, the last breath of free air. On the way he had seen the Bavarians, seen villages burned with petroleum, and he came to imprison himself in Paris. A memorable ovation was given him by the people, and they never forgot his voluntary sharing of their sufferings. (H. O. Mackey.)

Christ clothed in human flesh

The pure Godhead is terrible to behold; we could not see it and live; but clothing Himself with our flesh, makes the Divine nature more amiable and delightful to us. Now we need not be afraid to look upon God, seeing Him through Christs human nature. It was a custom of old among the shepherds, they were wont to clothe themselves with sheep-skins, to be more pleasing to the sheep; so Christ clothed Himself with our flesh, that the Divine nature may be more pleasing to us. The human nature is a glass, through which we may see the love and wisdom and glory of God clearly represented to us. Through the lantern of Christs humanity, we may behold the light of the Deity shining.

God incarnate

Christ did not gain one perfection more by becoming man, nor could He lose anything of what He possessed as God. The almightiness of God now moved in a human arm; the infinite love of God now beat in a human heart; the unbounded compassion of God to sinners now glistened in a human eye; God was love before; but Christ was now love, covered over with flesh. (R. MCheyne.)

The grand purpose of the Incarnation

Christ came down to the tabernacle of our nature which had broken down and become a ruin, and to raise it up and repair it, making it fit for the habitation of God by His own indwelling. (W. Denton, M. A.)

The ideal fitness of the Incarnation

The Incarnation is not true, say the Unitarians. Then it is a great pity; certainly it deserves to be true. Deny it, and the universe loses its unity and integrity; it is despoiled of much of its grandeur and poetry. According to the orthodox view a continuous path stretches from the smallest particle of matter at the very bottom of creation right up and away to the sublimest heights of the Absolute and Unconditioned–all things gathered together in one in Christ, What a grand unity! The two hemispheres of being, the Infinite and finite, wedded in one glorious orb, which is now the Light of the World! In this sublime unity, effected in the Incarnation, is contained the fundamental truth of Pantheism without the grave and multiform errors thereof. Here the advocates of Pantheism will find all they want, the two factors, Infinite and finite, reduced into one. Instead of a God evolving the creation out of Himself, here is a God involving Himself in the creation. Instead of the doctrine of evolution, the one developing into the many, here is the doctrine of involution, the many gathered together in the one. The Unitarian doctrine, because ever confronted with a duality of being, belittles the creation, despoils it of its grandeur and divineness; and its meagreness and poverty are a testimony against its truth. What advantage, then, hath the orthodox faith? or what profit is there of the Incarnation? Much every way. It dignifies the human body, demonstrates the potentiality of human nature, and reduces the duality of being, finite and Infinite, into an adorable unity in the indivisible person of the blessed Saviour. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The beneficent inspirations of the Incarnation

It is often thrown in the face of believers in the Incarnation that we paint human nature in colours too black, that we recklessly and unduly disparage this creature of God. But surely they who fling this taunt in our face know not whereof they speak. True, we do cherish very humble views of it; but humble views are not low views. How can we, who believe the Godhead has found room enough in it to dwell in all His inexhaustible fulness, think low of it? The Incarnation shows us its grand potentialities, and throws upon it a thousandfold stronger light than Unitarlanism possibly can. Believers in the Incarnation, therefore, burn with a quenchless desire to go and rescue poor, down-trodden, despised human nature in lands afar off. Only faith in the Incarnation can create missionaries. You demand a proof: I appeal to the story of missionary enterprise. Where is the roll of the missionaries of Unitarianism? By their fruit ye shall know them–systems as well as men, faiths as well as trees. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

Lessons of the Incarnation

The Incarnation of God in human form involves or foreshadows all the great truths of redemption. It teaches or implies

I. THAT THE CONDITION OF MAN IS A FEARFUL AND EVEN DESPERATE ONE. If sin were a trivial affair God would not have so humbled Himself.

II. THAT GOD IN HIS LOVE HAS SENT DELIVERANCE. Nature does not disclose this manifestation of love. Christ incarnate shows that God has a place in His heart for the guiltiest of men.

III. THAT THE GOD-MAN WAS WILLING TO SUFFER FOR OUR SALVATION. Gods beneficence has in it heart-sorrow and willingness to endure grief for loves sake. God gave His Son, but that Son was one in heart and mind with Himself. The hand that Jesus reaches down to rescue man is the hand of the Almighty. The stormy ages will be calmed only because a Divine voice has said Peace be still. The theology taught by the Incarnation is the worlds hope. (J. H. Barrows, D. D.)

.

The Hypostatic Union

I. ITS NATURE. There are three illustrious unions m Scripture.

1. That of three Persons in one God: essentially.

2. That of two distinct natures and persons by one spirit: mystically.

3. This of two distinct natures in one Person: hypostatically.

For the more distinct management of this latter I shall speak of it

1. Negatively. When Christ assumed our nature it was

(1) Not united consubstantially as the Three Persons in the Godhead are united. They have but one and the same nature and will; but in Christ there are two natures and wills.

(2) Nor physically as soul and body are united. Death dissolves that, but this is indissoluble.

(3) Nor mystically, as Christ is united to believers; for they are not one person with Him.

2. Positively. The human nature was united to the Divine.

(1) Miraculously (Luk 1:34-35); which was necessary to exempt the assumed human nature from Adams sin (Luk 1:15). For God can have no fellowship with sin, and had Christ been a sinner He could not have satisfied for the sins of others (Heb 7:26).

(2) Integrally. Christ took a complete and perfect soul and body that He might heal the whole nature of that sin which had infected every member and faculty.

(3) With all its sinless infirmities (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:15).

(4) So that each nature retains its own essential properties distinct, and the two understandings, wills, powers, etc., the human and the Divine are not confounded as Eutyches held.

(5) Inseparably. Although Christs soul and body were divided at death, yet neither of them from the Divine nature.

II. ITS EFFECTS.

1. By virtue of this union the properties of each nature are attributed to and agree in the whole Person; so that the Lord of glory was crucified (1Co 2:8), the blood of God redeemed the Church (Act 20:28), and Christ is both in heaven and on earth (Joh 3:13). Yet the properties of our nature are not imparted to the other, nor is it proper to say that the Divine nature suffered, or that the human was omniscient. But the properties of both natures are so ascribed to the one Person that it is |proper to affirm any of them of Him in the concrete, though not abstractedly.

2. The singular advancement of Christs human nature, it being hereby replenished with an unparalleled measure of Divine graces (Psa 45:8), and so He becomes the object of worship (Act 7:59).

3. The concourse and co-operation of each nature to His mediatory works, for in them He acts according to both natures. The human doing what is human, suffering, dying, etc.; the Divine stamping all with infinite value 2Co 5:19; Heb 9:14-15).

III. ITS GROUNDS AND REASONS.

1. The Divine did not assume the human necessarily but voluntarily; not out of indigence, but bounty; not because it was to be perfected by it, but to perfect it.

2. And so consequently to qualify and prepare Him for a full discharge of His Mediatorship.

(1) As prophet; for as God He knows the mind and will of God (Joh 1:18; Joh 3:13); as man He is fitted to impart it to us (Deu 18:15 – Act 3:22).

(2) As priest; had He not been man He could have shed no blood; and if not God it had been no value, for us (Heb 2:17; Act 20:28).

(3) As king, had He not been man He had been heterogeneous, and so no fit head for us, and if not God He could not rule or defend His body the Church.

IV. Its uses.

1. Let Christians inform themselves of this momentous trust, and hold it fast against subtle adversaries.

2. Adore the love of the Father and the Son who devised this method for your recovery (Php 2:7; Joh 3:16; Heb 2:16).

3. Infinite wisdom has here left an everlasting mark.

4. Infer the incomparable sweetness of Christianity that shows such a foundation for the sinners hope.

5. Union with our natures is utterly vain without union with our persons.

6. If Jesus Christ has assumed our nature, then He is touched with and has pity for our infirmities (Heb 2:17-18).

7. See to what a height God intends to build up the happiness of man in that He has laid the foundation so deep in the Incarnation of His Son.

8. How wonderful a comfort is it that He who dwells in our flesh is God. (J. Flavel.)

The Word made flesh

I. THE NAME BY WHICH OUR LORD IS DESCRIBED.

1. He was known by this name in the Jewish Church long before His advent.

2. He is so called because He comes forth from God like a word, a revealing medium from us.

II. THE WONDERFUL ORDER OF GODS PROVIDENCE TOWARDS US. This is the mighty Being by whom the world and man was made. After man had fallen He might have refused to repair the injury. But the new creation was to proceed from the same hand as the first.

1. The unsearchable love which showed itself at the beginning brought Him down again from His Fathers bosom.

2. With wonderful condescension He came not as before in power and majesty, but in weakness and shame, in the likeness of the fallen creature whom it was His purpose to restore.

III. THE INCARNATION as a mark of love and tenderness HAS SOMETHING STRIKING ABOUT IT and affecting to the heart. To have taken the nature of angels–to have appeared on earth in the pomp of majesty had been a humiliation.

IV. BUT IT WAS IN THE FORM OF MAN THAT GODS COMMAND HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY DISHONOURED, AND THEREFORE CHRIST ASSUMED IT.

1. It might be inconsistent with the good of the denizens of the unseen world if their disobedience had been left unpunished. And yet, on the other hand, there was the love of God to His creatures. How reconcile justice and mercy? Thus the perfect obedience of the Second Adam atoned for the offence of the first and of His descendants.

2. But how merit this? For all creatures owe this obedience, even unfallen angels. In the Son of God alone could the necessary merit be found.

3. Wherefore when mediator there was none God answered for us: a body hast Thou prepared Me, etc.

4. But men required something more, something to show them how to live and to make themselves ready for their pure inheritance. Therefore to furnish an example the Word was made flesh.

V. JEHOVAH IS AWFUL IN HIS INEFFABLE PURITY, BUT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE COURAGE TO APPROACH HIM the Word was made flesh.

VI. WE WANT SYMPATHY IN OUR WEAKNESS, INFIRMITIES, AND SORROWS; therefore that we may know that He can and does feel for us THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH.

VI. THIS ASSUMPTION OF OUR BODY BY CHRIST IS A PLEDGE OF ITS RESURRECTION, and such being the case, how we ought to reverence it!

VIII. IN THAT BODY CHRIST WILL RETURN.

1. Then the Christian will be like Him, for he will see Him as He is.

2. Then those who have rejected Him will meet their doom. (J. Garbett, M. A.)

The Ward made flesh

I am thinking of a word. Do you know what it is? No, not until I have told you. But as soon as I say John, then you know the word I was thinking of. You know it now because the word was made sound, and you caught it. Were I to write it you would know it, because the word would be made ink, and you see it. Something like that is what our text means. We could not tell what Gods thoughts about us were until He showed us them in a way we could understand. And He let us know them by sending Jesus Christ into the world. He took a body like ours in order that we might know Gods thoughts about us; and the more we know Jesus the more we know of Gods mind. He is the Word; Gods thought made flesh. But then we might see and hear A word and yet not understand it. Did you ever see a Hebrew book? The letters are little, thick, squarish things, with dots all over them, as if the pen had been sputtering when it was writing I Now you could see these words, but you could not understand them by yourself. How then do we come to know Hebrew? We get some person who knows Hebrew, but who also knows English, and he teaches us. He knows the Hebrew word, and he tells us in English what it means, and so we come to learn. It is the same with the Word made flesh–with Jesus. We may see Him, may read about Him, but before we canknow Him we must get help from some one who knows Jesus Christ and also knows us. Who is that Teacher? He is the Holy Spirit. Till He teaches us we cannot know Gods thoughts about us; we might see the words in the Bible, might see the Word made flesh, but yet not be able to understand their true meaning, any more than we could understand a foreign book till some one had taught us the language. (T. R. Howat.)

The Nativity

I. THE WORD.

1. There are some who say this name was given because so many excellent words of prophecy and promise, and all of Him, are spoken in this Book–the Word objective.

2. Because he disclosed all Gods counsel–the Word effective.

3. Because He cometh as the Word to teach us–the Word preceptive.

4. These are all true, but short. He is the only-begotten of the Father. As the Son is to the Father, so is the Word to the mind, They proceed both. The Son refers to a living nature, the Word to an intellectual nature. There is in Him not only the nature, but the wisdom of the Father. The Word showeth the manner, the Son the truth of His proceeding.

(1) With us the Son is begot by propagation; the Word therefore was requisite to show that His proceeding was not after a carnal manner.

(2) But lest we should think that Gods Word is no more to Him than ours is to us, we are told that He is only-begotten, and so of the substance of His Father.

II. FLESH and IN US is used

1. To express His union with human flesh fully. It is part for the whole. If He abhor not the flesh: of the spirit there will be no question.

2. From the flesh came the beginning of transgression: so of all others least likely to be taken. The Word not refusing it, the rest have good hope.

3. Not man, a person; but flesh, our nature.

4. Flesh in Hebrew is the same for good tidings, suggesting that some incarnation should be good news for the world. Why the Word, flesh?

(1) Surely, most kindly. The offended party was the Author of the reconciliation.

(2) Most fit all things were made by Him. He that built repaired.

(3) Most in the way of justice, that He might make full amends for the fleshs fault.

III. The Word was MADE flesh.

1. Made, as against.

(1) Manicheus holding that he had no true body.

(2) Made, not converted into flesh, as Cerenthus, nor the flesh converted into the Word as Valentinus.

(3) Not made as friends are made, who continue two several persons still, and while the flesh suffered the Word stood by and looked on as Nestorius.

(4) Not made by compounding, and so a third thing produced of both, as Eutyches.

2. But by taking the seed of Abraham. His generation eternal as the Word of God is as the inditing of the Word within the heart. His generation in time, the Word made flesh, is as the uttering it forth with the voice. The inward motion of the mind taketh into it a natural body of air, and so becometh vocal; it is not changed into it, the Word remaineth still as it was, yet they two become one voice.

IV. Being past these points of belief, LET US PAUSE TO STIR UP OUR LOVE TO HIM WHO THUS BECAME FLESH FOR US.

1. If we were so much beholden for the Word spoken, how much more for the performance; if for the Word that came to flesh, how, then, for the Word become flesh.

2. The Word, by whom all things were made, came to be made Himself. It is more for Him to be made than to make many worlds.

3. If made, then made the most complete thing of all that ever He had made. But what is man that He should be made him, or the Son of man that He should take His nature upon Him?

4. If man, yet the man hath part–the soul.

5. What flesh?

(1) The flesh of an infant–not able to speak a word.

(2) How born? In a palace, cradle of ivory, robes of estate! No! A stable His palace; a manger His cradle; poor clouts His array.

(3) What flesh afterward? In cold and heat, hungry and thirsty, faint and weary.

(4) Is His end any better? What flesh then? Rent and torn; crowned with thorns; crucified. To be made the Head of angels a humiliation, much more lower than the angels, much more despised and rejected of men. And why? Because He loved us.

V. And DWELT.

1. A word of continuance. Not only made, but made stay.

2. Dwelt in a tent. Not a house to stand for ever, but a tent to be taken down again. He came but of an errand, to sojourn till He had done it, and being done He laid His tabernacle aside.

3. Soldiers dwell in tents. An enemy we had strong and mighty. He came as our champion; set up His pavilion among us; took the military oath with shedding of blood at His circumcision and passion. His engagement with the enemy cost Him His life, but saved ours.

VI. WE BEHELD.

1. He dwelt not invisibly or obscurely. The angels saw Him, and the wise men and the apostles, etc., etc.

2. We, not one but many.

3. We beheld: not at a blush, but at full sight, and at leisure and for long. The word is that from whence a theatre is derived; as men with good heed behold things there. So did we intentively all the acts and scenes of His life.

VII. HIS GLORY FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH. Two streams. Grace refers to the Son, truth to the Word; grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew. Fitly do these follow after glory. Glory terrifies. Grace invites; and His glory is such that it is full of grace; His mercy as great as His Majesty. Grace, too, as opposed to the rigour, threats, and curses of the law; and truth as set against the shadows and ceremonies of the law. Take grace from truth and it is a mere illusion; sever truth from grace and it is unpleasant.

VIII. Now for THE BENEFIT.

1. Being made flesh He will be a benefactor to it. No man hateth his own flesh. He seeth us daily in himself. And if God the Father love the Word He must love, too, our flesh which he has taken from us.

2. Being made flesh, all flesh may come to him to present their request.

3. Being made flesh, He will not suffer this of ours, the same with His, to perish, but repair it again and raise it out of the dust. (Bp. Andrews.)

The Person and work of Christ

I. THE PERSON HERE SPOKEN OF. The Word.

1. The origin of the expression.

(1) Some have traced it to the Jewish Targums, where the angel of the Lord of the Old Testament is designated the Word of God.

(2) Others to Philo, who spoke much of a semi-divine person called the Word of God.

(3) Others to the phrase, the Word of the Lord came upon him, in the prophets, understanding by that not an influence or a communication, but a person. But it is difficult to decide.

2. What is said about the Word.

(1) That He was God.

(2) And yet distinct from God.

(3) The Creator of the universe.

3. The appropriateness of the term. He is especially the revealer of God. Deity in the abstract is unrevealed; only through the Word has He made Himself known. Not that Divine manifestations began at the Advent.

(1) The external world reveals Gods power and Godhead through its Maker, the Word.

(2) Hence for all that men have learned from the universe they have been indebted to the Word.

(3) His are the intimations of God derived through conscience and intuition.

(4) All the truth that man has ever learned has been through Him who is the True Light that enlighteneth every man.

II. THE AFFIRMATION HERE MADE CONCERNING THE WORD became flesh. The other evangelists give us the facts, St. John the soul beneath the facts. Admit the assertion of John, and all that the others say becomes perfectly natural. Deny the truth of what John affirms, and everything that they tell becomes incomprehensible. What is meant is not that He ceased to be the Word, but that in addition to what He had been He took human nature upon Him. This union of Deity and humanity conditioned both.

1. It made it necessary that the humanity should be pure; hence the peculiar manner of Christs birth, wherein the entail of sin was broken, and His body made a holy thing.

2. It required that His Godhead should be manifested under certain limitations. The Incarnation was to man a revelation of God; to angels an inveiling of God.

III. THE PROOF WHICH IS FURNISHED OF THIS TRUTH. We beheld. This verse is the text of the whole gospel, and each succeeding chapter presents us with some new manifestation. In the first, Christ is introduced to us by John the Baptist as the Lamb of God; in the second, He is the Temple of God; in the third, He is the glorious anti-type of the brazen serpent; in the fourth, He says, in answer to the womans question, I Am; in the fifth, He is the Judge of all; in the sixth, He says: I am the Bread of Life; in the seventh, He is the Water of Life; in the eighth and ninth, He says twice: I am the Light of the World; in the tenth, He says: I am the good shepherd; in the eleventh, He says: I am the Resurrection and the Life; in the twelfth, He is the King of Zion riding in triumph to His capital; in the thirteenth, He is the perfect Exemplar; in the fourteenth, He says: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; in the fifteenth, He says: I am the True Vine; in the sixteenth, He is the Precursor of the Comforter; in the seventeenth, He is the great Intercessor; in the eighteenth, He is, by His own solem asseveration to Pilate, the King of a spiritual domain, whose fundamental principle is truth; in the nineteenth, He is the Willing Victim; and in the twentieth, He is again the Resurrection and the Life.

IV. THE RESULTS that flow from the reality of the Incarnation.

1. The reality of Christs Deity gave sacrificial efficacy to His death on our behalf.

2. The reality of Christs manhood assures us of perfect sympathy at His hands.

3. The union of the two makes the resources of Deity available for us. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)

Christ, the word

1. It will be quite unnecessary for us on the present occasion to entangle ourselves in any philosophical discussion of the name employed by St. John–The Word. He who became flesh is the Word, the Revealer of God, at once Power and Wisdom, Light and Life. Creation is part of His handiwork, as the Revealer of God. In order to reveal the Father, the Word must live a mans life amongst men. This, then, is St. Johns contention. By sight, and by touch, and by voice, says he, I became acquainted with a certain human life; a life, which had a peculiar charm, a special glory about it; and that glory I can only describe as the glory of a well-beloved and only son from a father. Utterance, action, suffering, all were one continuous and incessant testimony to an unseen Father in heaven.

2. Thus, then, it appears, on St. Johns showing, that that which became human was truly Divine; and that which became subject to the conditions and limitations of space and time was truly Eternal. Let us endeavour to draw out one or two of the thoughts that are involved in these two statements.

(1) The Divine became human. That is to say, the Divine laid hold of the human in such a way as to make the human, so far as it could be made, a true image and reflection of itself. All, then, that our faith in the Incarnation warrants us in asserting is, that in Jesus Christ we have authentic tidings of invisible things, that in Him the Divine and human are so united and blent, that we can draw certain and reliable conclusions as to the nature of God, so far as that nature can and need be known by us. And oh! think what this means! Think what the difference is between saying, Jesus is only a man seeking God, adding one more to the many guesses as to the nature of God: and saying, In Jesus we see God seeking man, and seeking him out of pure love in order to save him: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. When we have told its isles of light, and fancied all beyond, there must yet be heights and depths in that High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity which no fancy, however soaring, can penetrate. In this sense, and under such limitations as these, did the Divine become human, or the Word become flesh. If I make the Incarnation the measure not only of that in God which it is necessary for our eternal life to know, but also the measure of God Himself, I am exposing your faith and my own in the truth of the Incarnation to a very perilous strain. For my own sake, and for yours, I dare not do this.

(2) As we may say, in this guarded manner, that in the Incarnation the Divine became human; so we may say also, somewhat paradoxically, that in the Incarnation the Eternal became temporal, clothed itself in forms of time and space, in order to reveal that which was before the foundation of the world, which is from everlasting to everlasting. We all know, I should suppose, how easy it is to drift into a notion about the work of Christ, which amounts really to this: that He came not to do the will of God, but to alter it. The Divine did not become human, the Word was not made flesh, if the will of the Son on earth was not at all times and in all things at one with the will of the Father in heaven; and if we may not accept the words, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God, as a full and adequate statement of the mission of Jesus Christ. The work of Christ is, in fact, the invisible becoming visible, the Eternal becoming temporal, the Infinite, finite. The Incarnation is, in short, the sacrament of the eternal grace of God; an outward and visible sign, an effectual sign, of a grace, of which time is no measure.

3. Rejoice in the Lord alway. We can see now what the real ground of all such rejoicing is, and how solid it is. The Incarnation unlocks for us the secret of the Divine, Eternal Will, the Will which is at the root of all things, and which rules all things, and shows us that its first and last word is love. (D. J.Vaughan, M. A.)

Christ, the life and the light

The Word became flesh: such is St. Johns statement. In order to understand the statement thoroughly, we must ask: First, what does St. John mean by The Word? And, secondly, what does he mean when he says, that The Word was made, or became, flesh? In the previous verses of the chapter St. John has been speaking of the Word, though only in the fourteenth verse does he begin to speak of the Word Incarnate. But St. John has much more to say than this. He refers all creation to the instrumentality of One whom he calls the Word; whom, afterwards, he calls the Light; and presently as Incarnate, the Son. Moving on, step by step, St. John at this point introduces another thought. All creation is expressive; but one part of Creation is more expressive than another. Creation is not a dead level, but an ascending series. First the inorganic and inanimate world; then the living being; then the self-conscious life of man. Things first; then, life: then, light; that is, persons, existence, self-conscious, rational and moral. All things were made by Him. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. All is by the Word, expressive: but into the life which is the light of men–that is to say, which in men becomes self-conscious, intelligent, capable of reflecting the Makers image, He, the Word, can pat more meaning, more expression, than he could into the inorganic creation; and so can render it more significant, more declaratory of the Divine thoughts, mind, and will. From the creative Word St. John passes to the indwelling Light, that true Light, which (as he says) lighteth every man. He who is the creative Word is also the indwelling Light. He who is the fount of all being, is also the light of mans being, the illumination of reason and conscience, the son of his soul. So it has been since the Incarnation. And so it was before the Incarnation. Whatever the physical basis of life may be, the metaphysical basis of life is ever one and the same, even the Divine eternal Word. The Word, who was in the beginning, and was in the beginning with God, did not make man, as man makes a thing–a piece of furniture, or a house, or what not–turning it out of hand, and so leaving it to shift for itself. In the moment of creation He became to man the mysterious basis of that strong mysterious thing which we call life; the indwelling light, through whose guidance and illumination man might know God, and become like God. So wondrous, so subtle, so passing thought, are the ties which bind man to Him who made him! In this way, all those long ages before the Incarnation, He was in the world–a world made by Him, yet a world which knew Him not

II. And now we can safely address ourselves to the second part of our subject, and inquire what St. John means, when he says that The Word became flesh. That the Word–being what He has been from the first, and still is, to man, the metaphysical basis of life, the indwelling light–should Himself become a man, and dwell for some thirty-three years amongst men, full of grace and truth, need not surprise us; ought to be no stumbling-block to us; has nothing incredible or unnatural about it. Certainly it would be in the highest degree unnatural and incredible and monstrous, that the Word should become man, if that Word were not, by original constitution, so intimately related to man, But once see the spiritual constitution of man in this living and life-giving Word of God, as John and Paul saw it, and the Incarnation becomes not only unnatural, but, in the highest sense of the word, natural; not merely not incredible, but eminently credible, because so entirely in accordance with mans needs, and with Gods original constitution of human nature. The Light that was only inward; and, being only inward, was dimmed and almost quenched by mans darkness; must needs become outward also, in order that it may shine in all its native purity and strength, and shining thus may reveal God to man, and man to himself. And how could it thus become outward, save in a human life; that sweet and lovely and altogether exquisite human life which the Gospel pages mirror to us? There, in those pages, the inward voice of conscience becomes an outward voice also; the latter attested by the former, the former cleared and deepened and intensified by the latter. The voice of Jesus, be sure, has its echo within every one of us. On this same Rock of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, Life, and Light, we can securely build all the other truths of our most holy faith; the Fatherliness of God, the brotherhood of men, and all else that most concerns us to know and believe for our souls health. Wherever, in human nature, there is a trace or vestige of light, there we have a manifestation of the presence of the indwelling Word, the same Eternal Word, who dwells in our souls as Light. (D. J. Vaughan, M. A.)

And dwelt among us and we beheld His glory. Three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents: shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. The phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christs life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveller, and a soldier. (Arrowsmith.)

Christ the tabernacle of God

The Jews in the wilderness had a tabernacle or tent, wherein they worshipped God, and there the glory of God was seen. Over the mercy seat hovered the Shechinah. A glorious light, the symbol of the Divine presence, shone ever in the sanctuary. In like manner Christ, who is the brightness of the Fathers glory, the true Shechinah, tabernacled among us. His flesh, that is, His body of human nature, was as a tabernacle, in which resided that Divine nature of which the glory in the Jewish tabernacle was the symbol. Thus the Tabernacle of God was with men, and He dwelt among us. (G. J. Brown, M. A.)

God dwelling with men

Here is an answer to Solomons wondering exclamation: But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Here is fulfilment, higher than had yet been known, of the ancient word, I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you, and anticipation of what shall yet be when the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them; and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them–their God. (J. Culross, D. D.)

Christs glory in the flesh

I. His OUTWARD GLORY. When a Jew heard this he must have denied it, inasmuch, as there was little in Christ which answered to his conception of Messianic glory. Yet lowly as was our Lords life in general, there were occasional gleams of it.

1. At the Incarnation.

2. At His Baptism.

3. At His Transfiguration.

4. When the Greeks had an interview with Him.

5. At His Resurrection.

6. At His Ascension.

II. But His INTERNAL GLORY far surpassed this. Love, compassion, justice, truth. Add to these an existence which has neither beginning nor ending, and a power which nothing can resist, and this is God. And such as is the Father, such was the Son.

1. This glory is that to which man, in his fallen condition, is most blind. Offer man a Saviour crowned with visible power, or who shall secure wealth or pleasure, who would not acknowledge Him? Christ did indeed offer these. They who should come to Him should conquer sin and reign in heaven; should have spiritual riches and celestial pleasures–but who would purchase these at the price demanded?

2. Pray to God that He may open your eyes to see the glory of Christ and your glorious privilege. (J. Garbett, M. A.)

The glory of Christ

What was it?

I. Not A NIMBUS or halo as seen in pictures, or it would never have been denied. But that of

II. His CHARACTER and life, and therefore open moral and spiritual eyes were needed to see it.

III. His PERFECT WISDOM, which spake as never man spake.

IV. His ALMIGHTY POWER, able to minister to every need and relieve every suffering.

V. His WONDROUS LOVE, which prompted Him to go about doing good.

VI. A glory, therefore, which could only have come down from THE FATHER, and which led the disciples afterwards from the earthly Master to the heavenly Father. (A. J. Joscelyne, M. A.)

The True Tabernacle and its glory

I. LET US BEHOLD THIS TABERNACLING OF GOD WITH US. Two Divine things are more clearly seen in Christ than aught else.

1. Consider them together.

(1) Grace and truth are spoken of in the concrete; not full of the news of grace and truth. Others were that. There is grace in other men; but they have it as water flowing through a pipe: He as water in its fountain. There is truth in others; but in Him dwell the depth, the essence of the fact. And both evermore abide in Him.

(2) Grace and truth are blended. And is no common conjunction. The two rivers unite in one fulness. The grace is truthful grace; not in fiction, fancy, to be hoped for or dreamed of; but grace, every atom of which is fact, redemption which does redeem, pardon which does blot out sin, renewal which actually regenerates. The truth is gracious truth, steeped in love, saturated with mercy.

(3) Grace and truth balanced. He is full of grace, but He has not neglected the sterner quality. There are many who are loving but not faithful; many sternly honest, but not kind. In Christ there is no defect either way. He does not hide the truth, however terrible; but He utters it with infinite compassion. He does not save unjustly, nor proclaim truth unlovingly.

(4) These qualities in Him are at the full. In Him the immeasurable grace of God is treasured, up; and all truth about God and Divine things hath been declared by Him.

2. Take each by itself.

(1) Full of grace. In Exo 34:1-35, the glory of God lay in His grace. So in Christ. This is seen in His Incarnation; in His being made perfect through sufferings, so that He might be a sympathetic High Priest; in His life, words, and actions; in His death, as our substitute and representative; and in His union with His people.

(2) Full of truth; not merely in what He said and promised, but in Himself He is the fulfilment of all the promises; the substance of all the types.

(3) Full of grace and truth as dealing truthfully in matters of grace concerning our salvation; encouraging many gracious hopes which are all truthfully realized; working both in His people.

II. LET US AVAIL OURSELVES OF THIS TABERNACLING.

1. Let us pitch our tents around this central tabernacle, as the Israelites did round theirs.

2. Let us resort to it to obtain grace to help in time of need.

3. Let us abide in joyful, peaceful confidence in Him who is grace and truth to us.

4. Let us tell everybody about it.

5. What manner of people ought we to be among whom Jehovah dwells. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

The glory of Christ beheld!

The greatest glory of the Jewish Church was thai God tabernacled in its midst. The greatest glory of the Tabernacle was the most holy place. The glory of the holy place was the Shekinah. Jesus Christ was Gods Tabernacle, and the surpassing excellence of this Tabernacle is fulness of grace and truth.

I. A FAVOURED PEOPLE. Who are the we?

1. An elect company.

2. A called company. Special in the case of the apostles. General in the case of all believers.

3. An illuminated company. Christs glory not manifest to the rest of mankind.

II. THEIR EXALTED PRIVILEGE. Beheld His glory: not heard or read of. Many were the privileges of the disciples, but this excelled them all. How can we behold?

1. By faith.

2. Experience.

3. Communion.

III. A MOST BLESSED VISION.

1. Of Christs complex person as God and man.

2. Of the motive for which He undertook His redeeming work.

3. Of His self-sacrifice.

4. Of His endurance and perseverance.

5. Of His triumph.

IV. THE TESTIMONY WHICH WE WHO HAVE SEEN HIS GLORY ARE SURE TO BEAR. That He is

1. The only-begotten of the Father.

2. Full of grace.

3. Full of truth. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Beholding Christs glory

The noblest objects never disclose their best meaning at first sight. Sir Joshua Reynolds says that when he visited Italy to make the acquaintance of the celebrated masterpieces, he was much cast down. The renowned masters maintained towards him a quiet and dignified silence; they refused to confide to him their thoughts. He gazed steadfastly and could not behold their glory. Persevering, however, the pictures gradually began to raise their veils, and permit him to have an occasional peep at their rare beauty: they softly whispered to him a few of their secrets; and as he continued unwavering in his devotion, they at last flung away their reserve, showed themselves with an open face, and revealed to him the wealth of beautiful ideas that was lodged in them. As with pictures, so with characters. The diviner the life, the closer the inspection requisite to understand it. If we begin in the remote past, with Samson and Hercules, we shall not experience any very formidable difficulties in grasping the principle which fashioned their characters. The story of their lives is comparatively simple, having strength for a foundation. But as we wend our way down to later times, we come across more complex characters; new factors come into operation; and the process of analysis is harder of a successful accomplishment. But of all characters, ancient or modern, none demand so much intent gazing as that of Jesus Christ. Potences perfectly novel in the history of the world exert their subtle influence; the human and the Divine, the grace and the truth, are so closely associated, that not at once do we grasp the radical idea, and perceive its subdued, tempered beauty. The depth and manifoldness of Christs character form the reason for the well-nigh two hundred lives and harmonies which have been launched upon the world. A difficult character to understand fully, for its beauty only grows upon us by degrees. Every age discovers a new trait; every fresh generation perceives a fresh excellence; and thus from age to age He increases in loveliness in the estimation of men. He continues to reveal to the loving earnest gaze His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. (J. C. Jones, D. D.)

Beholding the glory of Christ

Though the Israelites were not able to look on the face of Moses, we saw the glory of the only-begotten. No one indeed could see His glory who was not healed by His humiliation; for there had flown into mans eyes, as it were, dust from the earth; the eye itself had become diseased, and earth was sent to heal it again; the flesh had blinded man, the flesh restores him; the soul, by consenting to carnal affection, had become carnal; hence the eye of the mind had been blinded: then the Physician made for us ointment; He came in such wise, as that by the flesh He destroyed the corruption of the flesh. Thus the Word was made flesh, that we might be able to say, we saw His glory. (Augustine.)

Full of grace and truth

The fulness of Christ

It was fulness in presence of the worlds immeasurable need; fulness that stood in contrast with the emptiness of men. The scribe and the Pharisee, the philosopher and the guide into the paths of pleasure, the bringer forth of things new and the bringer forth of things old, whatever their pretensions, alike failed to satisfy the cravings of human hearts, so manifold and deep, and left them sighing, Who will show us any good? Even the sacred ordinances of the Old Covenant, out of which it was designed that with joy men should draw water as from the wells of salvation, had been turned very largely into mere outward ceremonies, and the sacred services into mere bodily exercise –reminding one of the process of dropping buckets into empty wells, and drawing nothing up. The Word is made flesh, and sojourns among men; and they find in Him the very fulness of the Godhead bodily. (J. Culross, D. D.)

The character of Jesus

In the life of Jesus we see

I. INEFFABLE GRACE combined with RESOLUTE FIRMNESS.

1. His character is such as to forbid undue familiarity. Avowed infidels, as well as Christians, feel almost reverent in its hallowed presence.

2. But He was as remarkable for His firmness. Strength is necessary to greatness. Christ possessed tenacity of purpose in an extraordinary degree. His spirit did not faint because of the magnitude of the task He undertook. He successfully stood the test of adversity and of prosperity.

II. The FEMININE AND MASCULINE VIRTUES in sweetest harmony. He was made of a woman, which explains partly those fine feminine traits discoverable in His character. Every great man, especially every poetic genius, is strongly marked by womanly softness and delicacy in countenance, feelings, life. Christ had them pre-eminently.

III. FEELINGS AND KNOWLEDGE, heart and intellect, in perfect accord. No one can read the gospels without being deeply impressed by the exquisite sensibility of Christ. There is more heart in the gospels than in all other books put together. The heart was systematically crushed under ancient forms of civilization. Sensibility was deemed a sign of weakness. Hence men were carefully trained to repress, and, if possible, eradicate all feeling. Witness stoicism. How different with Christ! In Him we witness a dignity, a loftiness, a nobility which never show to better advantage than when compared with the highest ideals of Greek culture. But at the same time He evinces a depth of emotion and delicacy of feeling quite foreign to them. The Greek impresses us with his cleverness: Christ with His greatness and goodness. The Greek sought mind in all things; taught by Christ, the Christian seeks a heart.

IV. THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VIRTUES in beautiful proportion. The hardest of tasks is to suffer in a right spirit. Christ taught it and practised it. No one was ever more energetic in opposition to wickedness; but what strikes us more forcibly is His unprecedented meekness under wrong; and thus He originated a new type of goodness.

V. THE REAL KISSING THE IDEAL. He realized in daily life the highest ideal humanity has ever been able to conceive, the divinest poetry and the sternest reality. Mans ideas were always far in advance of his noblest achievements; in Christ both go hand in hand.

VI. THE HUMAN GENTLY MELTING INTO THE DIVINE.

He moves before our vision in the form of a man; we look inquiringly and affectionately, and then we penetrate the outward guise and behold the inner splendour. He was a man, no doubt; but no man ever looked more like God. The character of Christ can be transferred in its integrity to the Lord of Hosts without degrading the loftiest ideal of Him. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The influence of Christs grace and truth upon art

In classical times the prevailing form of art was sculpture. The hard stone was fetched from the rock, and carefully chiselled and elaborately polished to represent the human form divine. Their sculpture exhibited a simplicity, a severity, a chaste grandeur which far outstrips all efforts of modern ages. Indeed, a vast change has imperceptibly stolen over the minds of men, which is seen in the fact that whereas sculpture was the prevailing form of art among the Greeks, painting is the prevailing form among Christians. We have not been able to cope with the ancients in marble, but it is generally admitted, I believe, that we have greatly surpassed them on canvas. But why has painting superseded sculpture? Because painting is more feminine, and therefore more capable of expressing the softer, gentler virtues. It is the female face of art. One may say with tolerable accuracy that fine art is the creation of Christianity. Art there unmistakably was in the world before–splendid, severe, pure, strong; but we can hardly pronounce it fine. Christianity has softened men, it has softened manners, it has softened art. The heathen ideal was truth; the Christian ideal is grace and truth. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

Jesus Christ the fountain of Grace

The glory of the Mediator consisted, not in His wisdom, by which He knew what was in man–nor in His power, to which a material universe rendered homage–but in His grace, in the kindness of His heart, in the complete and perfect benevolence of His character. In this respect He was the brightness of His Fathers glory. His heart was an overflowing fountain of love, a plenary spring of goodness, which perpetually sent forth streams of grace, to bless a barren and desert world. He is exhibited to us in this character, as the Head of the gospel dispensation, as the Founder of a new order of things, as the Author and Finisher of our faith.

I. TO ILLUSTRATE THE GRACIOUS CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST. He was full of grace.

1. The gracious character of the Saviour appears from the great design of His dispensation. His benevolent mind contemplated a world lost and ruined by sin; a whole race of creatures who were in rebellion against God, and exposed to the penalties of a just and righteous law. His own happiness was unaffected by the apostacy of creatures. He was in the bosom of His father. He was with God, and was God. There was nothing in His immaculate purity, nothing in His essential rectitude, or in His inviolable adherence to justice, that dictated a dispensation of mercy. The world might have perished, its inhabitants might have been lost, and His glory would have been without a stain, His felicity unimpaired. It was only the plenitude of His grace, only the promptings of infinite kindness, that induced Him to undertake our salvation. Believers are destined to a heavenly inheritance, to live with Christ, to enter into His joys, to share in His dominion, to be for ever with the Lord. He effects a great deliverance, and bestows an infinite wisdom. He is full of grace.

2. From the means adopted to secure the design of His mission. The intensity of kindness may always be measured by the sacrifices to which it leads. What think you would be the testimony of the widow of Nain to the gracious character of our Lord? But these miracles of mercy were but the appropriate appendages to His mission; they were not its objects; they were but blessings which He scattered in His way to suffering and to death. In order that suffering on behalf of others should indicate kindness it must be voluntary. It testifies to benevolence of disposition, only in as much as it is a free-will offering. So strong was His kindness, so intense His love, so determined His compassion, that He submitted to the agonizing, the ignominious death of the cross, to accomplish the salvation of sinners. This was compassion like a God.

3. From the characters of those whose salvation He sought. They were all sinners, but many of them were the worst of sinners. But the grace of His heart was not expended by its earthly efforts; after He ascended to glory, He manifested in an equal degree the forbearing kindness of His heart, the distinguishing sovereignty of His grace. Who would have thought that the kindness and grace of our Lord would have rested upon such a man as Saul?

4. From those supplies of grace which are afforded to the believer, from his conversion to his reception into a world of glory. The work of grace would not have been complete had it terminated with the renewal of our hearts. The life of the Saviour imparts must be sustained by the same energy.

5. From the benignant character of His religion.

II. LET US ATTEMPT AN IMPROVEMENT OF OUR SUBJECT.

1. The gracious character of the Saviour is an encouragement to sinners to come to Him.

2. The gracious character of the Saviour will aggravate the punishment of the finally impenitent.

3. The gracious character of the Saviour is a reason why His people should continually apply to Him.

4. Finally, it is the duty of Christians to imitate the example of Christ. It should ever be their aim to be full of grace, to cherish a kind and generous disposition to others. It is not for the Christian, who has had so much done for him, and who constantly needs more, to be a selfish man. (S. Summers, M. A.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 14. And the Word was made flesh] That very person who was in the beginning-who was with God-and who was God, Joh 1:1, in the fulness of time became flesh-became incarnated by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin. Allowing this apostle to have written by Divine inspiration, is not this verse, taken in connection with Joh 1:1, an absolute and incontestable proof of the proper and eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus?

And dwelt among us] , And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah.

The original word, , from , a shadow, signifies:

1. To build a booth, tent, or temporary hut, for present shelter or convenience; and does not properly signify a lasting habitation or dwelling place; and is therefore fitly applied to the human nature of Christ, which, like the tabernacle of old, was to be here only for a temporary residence for the eternal Divinity.

2. It signifies to erect such a building as was used on festival occasions, when a man invited and enjoyed the company of his friends. To this meaning of the word, which is a common one in the best Greek writers, the evangelist might allude, to point out Christ’s associating his disciples with himself; living, conversing, eating, and drinking with them: so that, while they had the fullest proof of his Divinity by the miracles which he wrought, they had the clearest evidence of his humanity, by his tabernacling among, eating, drinking, and conversing with them. Concerning the various acceptations of the verb see Raphelius on this verse.

The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the incarnation of the Deity have prevailed among the most ancient nations in the world, and even among those which were not favoured with the letter of Divine revelation. The Hindoos believe that their god has already become incarnate, not less than nine times, to save the wretched race of man.

On this subject, Creeshna, an incarnation of the supreme God, according to the Hindoo theology, is represented in the Bhagvat Geeta, as thus addressing one of his disciples: “Although I am not in my nature subject to birth or decay, and am the Lord of all created beings, yet, having command over my own nature, I am made evident by my own power; and, as often as there is a decline of virtue and an insurrection of vice and injustice in the world, I make myself evident; and thus I appear from age to age, for the preservation of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and the establishment of virtue.” Geeta, pp. 51, 52.

The following piece, already mentioned, Lu 1:68, translated from the Sanscreet, found on a stone, in a cave near the ancient city of Gya in the East Indies, is the most astonishing and important of any thing found out of the compass of the Sacred Writings, and a proper illustration of this text.

“The Deity, who is the Lord, the possessor of all, APPEARED in this ocean of natural beings, at the beginning of the Kalee Yoog (the age of contention and baseness.) He who is omnipresent, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme Being, the eternal ONE, the Divinity worthy to be adored-APPEARED here, with a PORTION of his DIVINE NATURE. Reverence be unto thee in the form of (a) Bood-dha! Reverence be unto the Lord of the earth! Reverence be unto thee, an INCARNATION of the Deity, and the Eternal ONE! Reverence be unto thee, O GOD! in the form of the God of mercy! the dispeller of PAIN and TROUBLE, the Lord of ALL things, the Deity who overcometh the sins of the Kalee Yoog, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy towards those who serve thee! (b) O’M! the possessor of all things, in VITAL FORM! Thou art (c) Brahma, (d) Veeshnoo, and (e) Mahesa! Thou art Lord of the universe! Thou art under the form of all things, movable and immovable, the possessor of the whole! And thus I adore thee! Reverence be unto the BESTOWER of SALVATION, and the ruler of the faculties! Reverence be unto thee, the DESTROYER of the EVIL SPIRIT! O Damordara, (f) show me favour! I adore thee who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy! Be propitious, O most high God!” Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284, 285.

We beheld his glory] This refers to the transfiguration, at which John was present, in company with Peter and James.

The glory as of the only begotten] That is, such a glory as became, or was proper to, the Son of God; for thus the particle should be here understood. There is also here an allusion to the manifestations of God above the ark in the tabernacle: see Ex 25:22; Nu 7:89; and this connects itself with the first clause, he tabernacled, or fixed his tent among us. While God dwelt in the tabernacle, among the Jews, the priests saw his glory; and while Jesus dwelt among men his glory was manifested in his gracious words and miraculous acts.

The only begotten of the Father] That is, the only person born of a woman, whose human nature never came by the ordinary way of generation; it being a mere creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Ghost.

Full of grace and truth.] Full of favour, kindness, and mercy to men; teaching the way to the kingdom of God, with all the simplicity, plainness, dignity, and energy of truth.

_________________________________________________________________

(a) Bood-dha. The name of the Deity, as author of happiness.

(b) O’M. A mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters a, o o, which in composition coalesce, and make o, and the nasal consonant m. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer. It is the same among the Hindoos as Yehovah is among the Hebrews.

(c) Brahma, the Deity in his creative quality.

(d) Veeshnoo. He who filleth all space: the Deity in his preserving quality.

(c) Mahesa. The Deity in his destroying quality. This is properly the Hindoo Trinity: for these three names belong to the same God. See the notes to the Bhagvat Geeta.

(f) Damordara, or Darmadeve, the Indian god of virtue.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The Word was made flesh; the Son of God, called the Word, for the reasons before specified, was made truly man, as flesh often signifieth in holy writ, Gen 6:12; Psa 65:2; Isa 40:5,6; not a vile, despicable, mortal man. The evangelist rather saith he was made flesh, than he was made man, more plainly to distinguish the two natures in Christ; to assert the truth of his human nature; to let us know that Christ assumed human nature in common, not the particular nature of any; to commend the love of God, and to let us see, that his plaster was proportioned to our sore, it reached all flesh.

The evangelist saith not he was changed into flesh; but, by assuming, he was made flesh. And dwelt amongst us: and he tabernacled amongst us; amongst us men, or amongst men that were his disciples: the word signifieth properly, he made no long stay.

And we beheld his glory; and we beheld the signs and effects of his glory; many of which were seen, both at the time of his transfiguration, and at his passion, resurrection, and ascension; the glory of his grace, holiness, truth, miraculous operations, &c.

The glory as of the only begotten of the Father; which glory was the glory of the only begotten of the Father; for the particle as here doth not signify likeness, but truth, Neh 7:2; Job 24:14.

Full of grace and truth, as he was God manifested in the flesh. Grace signifieth love and good will, out of which it was that he delivered us from the curse and rigour of the law (to which grace is opposed). He was also full of truth, both as truth is opposed to falsehood, and to the shadows and figures of the law; and Christ was full of truth as he was the antitype to all the ceremonies, and all the promises had and have their completion and reality in him: see Joh 14:17; Rom 15:8; 2Co 1:20. Truth also may signify the sincerity and integrity of Christs life, as he was without guile.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

14. And the Word, c.Toraise the reader to the altitude of this climax were the thirteenforegoing verses written.

was made fleshBECAMEMAN, in man’s present frail, mortal condition, denoted by theword “flesh” (Isa 40:61Pe 1:24). It is directedprobably against the Docet, who held that Christ was notreally but only apparently man; against whom this gentlespirit is vehement in his Epistles (1Jn 4:3;2Jn 1:7; 2Jn 1:10;2Jn 1:11), [LUCKE,c.]. Nor could He be too much so, for with the verity of theIncarnation all substantial Christianity vanishes. But now, marriedto our nature, henceforth He is as personally conscious of allthat is strictly human as of all that is properly divine and ournature is in His Person redeemed and quickened, ennobled andtransfigured.

and dwelttabernacledor pitched his tent; a word peculiar to John, who uses it four times,all in the sense of a permanent stay (Rev 7:15;Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6;Rev 21:3). For ever wedded to our”flesh,” He has entered this tabernacle to “gono more out.” The allusion is to that tabernacle where dwelt theShekinah (see on Mt 23:38, 39),or manifested “GLORY OF THELORD,” and withreference to God’s permanent dwelling among His people(Lev 26:11; Psa 68:18;Psa 132:13; Psa 132:14;Eze 37:27). This is put almostbeyond doubt by what immediately follows, “And we beheld hisglory” [LUCKE, MEYER,DE WETTEwhich last critic, rising higher than usual, says that thus wereperfected all former partial manifestations of God in anessentially Personal and historically Human manifestation].

full of grace and truthSoit should read: “He dwelt among us full of grace and truth”;or, in Old Testament phrase, “Mercy and truth,” denotingthe whole fruit of God’s purposes of love towards sinners of mankind,which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilmentat length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, “theSURE MERCIES of David“(Isa 55:3; Act 13:34;compare 2Sa 23:5). In HisPerson all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long inshadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy itsbroken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filledit full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching ofthousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and thefamily of God sprang into Manhood.

and we beheld his glorynotby the eye of sense, which saw in Him only “thecarpenter.” His glory was “spiritually discerned”(1Co 2:7-15; 2Co 3:18;2Co 4:4; 2Co 4:6;2Co 5:16) the glory ofsurpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality;majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness,meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at timesravishing the “babes” that followed and forsook all forHim.

the glory as of the onlybegotten of the Father(See on Lu1:35); not like, but “such as (belongs to),”such as became or was befitting the only begotten ofthe Father [CHRYSOSTOM inLUCKE, CALVIN,&c.], according to a well-known use of the word “as.”

Joh1:15. A SAYING OF THEBAPTIST CONFIRMATORYOF THIS.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And the word was made flesh,…. The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and “flesh” here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: and when he is said to be “made” flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ’s works and actions, as Mediator:

and dwelt among us; or “tabernacled among us”; in allusion to the tabernacle, which was a type of Christ’s human nature: the model of the tabernacle was of God, and not of man; it was coarse without, but full of holy things within; here God dwelt, granted his presence, and his glory was seen; here the sacrifices were brought, offered, and accepted. So the human nature of Christ was of God’s pitching, and not man’s; and though it looked mean without, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in it, as well as a fulness of grace and truth; in the face of Christ the glory of God is seen, and through him, even the vail of his flesh, saints have access unto him, and enjoy his presence; and by him their spiritual sacrifices become acceptable to God: or this is observed, in allusion to the feast of tabernacles, when the Jews dwelt in booths, in remembrance of their manner of living in the wilderness: the feast of tabernacles was typical of Christ, and of his tabernacling in our nature. Solomon’s temple, which was also a type of Christ, was dedicated at the time of that feast; and it seems probable, that our Lord was born at that time; for as he suffered at the time of the passover, which had respect unto him, and the pouring forth of the Spirit was on the very day of Pentecost, which that prefigured; so it is highly probable, that Christ was born at the time of the feast of tabernacles, which pointed out his dwelling among us; and is therefore very pertinently hinted at, when mention is here made of his incarnation. However, reference is manifestly had to the Shekinah, and the glory of it, in the tabernacle and temple; and almost the very word is here used. The Targumists sometimes speak of the Shekinah of the word dwelling among the Israelites: so Onkelos in Nu 11:20 where the Israelites are threatened with flesh, until they loath it; because, says the paraphrast,

“ye have loathed “the word of the Lord”, whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.”

Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the same place, expresses it thus;

“because ye have loathed the word of the Lord, the glory of whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.”

And it follows here,

and we beheld his glory; the glory of his divine nature, which is essential to him, and underived, is equal to the Father’s glory, is transcendent to all creatures, and is ineffable, and incomprehensible; some breakings forth of which there were in his incarnate state, and which were observed by the evangelist, and his companions; who, in various instances, saw plainly, that Christ was possessed of divine perfections, such as omniscience, and omnipotence; since he knew the thoughts of the heart, and could do the things he did: his Father declared him to be his beloved Son; and the miracles he wrought, and the doctrines he taught, manifested forth his glory; and not only there were some beams of his glory at his transfiguration, which were seen by the apostles, among which the Evangelist John was one, and to which he may have here a particular reference; but even at his apprehension, and death, and especially at his resurrection from the dead. The Jews speak of the glory of the Messiah to be seen in the world to come. They say h,

“If a man is worthy of the world to come, (i.e. the times of the Messiah,) he shall “see the glory” of the King Messiah.”

And of Moses, they say i,

“there was (or will be) no generation like that in which he lived, until the generation in which the King Messiah comes, which shall “behold the glory” of the holy, blessed God, as he.”

This our evangelist, and the other disciples of Christ have seen:

the glory, as of the only begotten of the Father; a glory becoming him, suitable to him as such; the very real glory of the Son of God; for the “as”, here, is not a note of similitude, but of certainty, as in Mt 14:5 and the word is here called, “the only begotten of the Father”; which cannot be said of Christ, as man; for as such, he was not “begotten” at all: nor on the account of his resurrection from the dead; for so he could not be called the “only begotten”, since there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead, besides him: nor by reason of adoption; for if adopted, then not begotten; these two are inconsistent; besides, he could not be called the only begotten, in this sense, because there are many adopted sons, even all the elect of God: nor by virtue of his office, as magistrates are called the sons of God; for then he would be so only in a figurative and metaphorical sense, and not properly; whereas he is called God’s own Son, the Son of the same nature with him; and, as here, the only begotten of the Father, begotten by him in the same nature, in a way inconceivable and inexpressible by us:

full of grace and truth; that is, he dwelt among men, and appeared to have a fulness of each of these: for this clause is not to be joined with the glory of the only begotten, as if this was a branch of that; but regards him as incarnate, and in his office, as Mediator; who, as such, was full of “grace”; the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit; of all the blessings of grace, of justifying, pardoning, adopting, sanctifying, and persevering grace; of all the promises of grace; of all light, life, strength, comfort, peace, and joy: and also of truth, of all Gospel truths; and as he had the truth, the sum, and substance of all the types and prophecies concerning him in him; and as he fulfilled all his own engagements, and his Father’s promises; and as possessed of sincerity towards men, and faithfulness and integrity to God.

h Gloss. in T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 58. 1. i Zohar in Lev. fol. 9. 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the Word became flesh ( ). See verse 3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than of verse 1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive , so that it cannot mean “the flesh became the Word.” The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in Matt 1:16-25; Luke 1:28-38, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John’s language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child “becoming flesh”? For the Incarnation see also 2Cor 8:9; Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7; 1Tim 3:16; Heb 2:14. “To explain the exact significance of in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter” (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. “The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history” (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity.

Dwelt among us ( ). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of , old verb, to pitch one’s tent or tabernacle ( or ), in N.T. only here and John 1:7-15; John 12:12; John 13:6; John 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God’s Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son.

We beheld his glory ( ). First aorist middle indicative of (from , spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory () of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (Jas 2:1). John employs again in 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also John 4:35; John 11:45; 1John 1:1; 1John 4:12; 1John 4:14. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did.

As of the only begotten from the Father ( ). Strictly, “as of an only born from a father,” since there is no article with or with . In John 3:16; 1John 4:9 we have referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of of God in relation to the Logos. (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children () of God. The word is used of human relationships as in Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38. It occurs also in the LXX and Heb 11:17, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John’s writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words (from the Father) are to be connected with (cf. John 6:46; John 7:29, etc.) or with (cf. John 5:41; John 5:44). John clearly means to say that “the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son” (Bernard). Cf. John 8:54; John 14:9; John 17:5.

Full (). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with (or genitive with ) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative can agree with the subject of .

Of grace and truth ( ). Curiously this great word (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John’s Gospel save in John 1:14; John 1:16; John 1:17, though (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In 1:17 these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

INCARNATION DECLARED, v. 14

1) “And the Word was made flesh,” (kai ho logos sarks egeneto) “And the word (Jesus Christ) became flesh,” what every man is by natural birth. He who was, or existed in eternity with God, as the Word, came to be made flesh, made of a woman, Gal 4:4-5; 1Ti 3:16; Rom 1:3, Heb 2:14; Heb 2:16-17. Yet He did not cease to be God during His temporary visit to the earth, as He tabernacled among men, tented among men for a short time.

2) “And dwelt among us,” (kai eskenosen en hemin) “And he tabernacled, tented, or temporarily dwelt in the midst of us,” in our midst or among us, as a pilgrim, for a little while, as a sojourner, much as the tabernacle was a temporary dwelling place of God’s glory in the wilderness, Lev 26:11; 2Sa 7:6.

3) And we beheld his glory,” (kai etheasametha ten doksan autou) “And we gazed upon his glory,” observed and drew conclusions about His glory, by His holy life, His mighty works, and His wondrous words. It was seen at its height in the dazzling transfiguration before them on the mount, Mat 17:1-27; 2Pe 1:17-18.

4) “The glory of the only begotten of the Father,” (doksan hos mongenous para patros) “Glory as of an only begotten (from a close association) of a father” the term only begotten” refers to that virgin birth begettal of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, in a supernatural and unique manner, as also certified or alluded to Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9; 1Ti 3:16; Gal 4:4-5. This glory of personality and character was above that of the tabernacle.

5) “Full of grace and truth.” (pleres charitos kai aletheias) “Of abounding (plenty of) grace and truth,” being full of grace and truth, This glory effuses from a fullness of revelation of Grace and Truth in and through Jesus Christ, Col 1:19; Col 2:3; Col 2:9; Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Tit 2:11. In His life, spirit, and speech, Jesus was truth, reflected in what He was, said, and did.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

14. And the Speech was made flesh. The Evangelist shows what was that coming of Christ which he had mentioned; namely, that having been clothed with our flesh, he showed himself openly to the world. Although the Evangelist touches briefly the unutterable mystery, that the Son of God was clothed with human nature, yet this brevity is wonderfully perspicuous. Here some madmen amuse themselves with foolish and trivial subtleties of this sort: that the Speech is said to have been made flesh, because God sent his Son into the world, according to the conception which he had formed in his mind; as if the Speech were I know not what shadowy image. But we have demonstrated that that word denotes a real hypostasis, or subsistence, in the essence of God.

The word Flesh expresses the meaning of the Evangelist more forcibly than if he had said that he was made man. He intended to show to what a mean and despicable condition the Son of God, on our account, descended from the height of his heavenly glory. When Scripture speaks of man contemptuously, it calls him flesh. Now, though there be so wide a distance between the spiritual glory of the Speech of God and the abominable filth of our flesh, yet the Son of God stooped so low as to take upon himself that flesh, subject to so many miseries. The word flesh is not taken here for corrupt nature, (as it is often used by Paul,) but for mortal man; though it marks disdainfully his frail and perishing nature, as in these and similar passages, for he remembered that they were flesh, (Psa 78:39😉 all flesh is grass, (Isa 40:6.) We must at the same time observe, however, that this is a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole; for the lower part includes the whole man. (22) It was therefore highly foolish in Apollinaris to imagine that Christ was merely clothed with a human body without a soul; for it may easily be proved from innumerable passages, that he had a soul as well as a body; and when Scripture calls men flesh, it does not therefore deprive them of a soul.

The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it. And, therefore, as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons. Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs, one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed up by the Divinity.

The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies. When he tells us that the Speech was made flesh, we clearly infer from this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives to the man Christ the name of the Speech, it follows that Christ, when he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh. In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.

And dwelt. Those who explain that the flesh served, as it were, for an abode to Christ, do not perceive the meaning of the Evangelist; for he does not ascribe to Christ a permanent residence amongst us, but says that he remained in it as a guest, for a short time. For the word which he employs ( ἐσκήνωσεν) is taken from tabernacles (23) He means nothing else than that Christ discharged on the earth the office which had been appointed to him; or, that he did not merely appear for a single moment, but that he conversed among men until he completed the course of his office.

Among us. It is doubtful whether he speaks of men in general, or only of himself and the rest of the disciples who were eye-witnesses of what he says. For my own part, I approve more highly of the second view for the Evangelist immediately adds:

And we beheld his glory. for though all men might have beheld the glory of Christ, yet it was unknown to the greater part on account of their blindness. It was only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit opened, that saw this manifestation of glory. In a word, Christ was known to be man in such a manner that he exhibited in his Person something far more noble and excellent. Hence it follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated, though it was surrounded by flesh; it was indeed concealed under the low condition of the flesh, but so as to cause its splendor to be seen.

As of the only-begotten of the Father. The word as does not, in this passage, denote an inappropriate comparison, but rather expresses true and hearty approbation; as when Paul says, Walk as children of light, he bids us actually demonstrate by our works that we are the children of light. The Evangelist therefore means, that in Christ was beheld a glory which was worthy of the Son of God, and which was a sure proof of his Divinity. He calls him the Only-begotten, because he is the only Son of God by nature; as if he would place him above men and angels, and would claim for him alone what belongs to no creature.

Full of grace. There were, indeed, other things in which the majesty of Christ appeared, but the Evangelist selected this instance in preference to others, in order to train us to the speculative rather than the practical knowledge of it; and this ought to be carefully observed. Certainly when Christ walked with dry feet upon the waters, (Mat 14:26; Mar 6:48; Joh 6:19,) when he cast out devils, and when he displayed his power in other miracles, he might be known to be the only-begotten Son of God; but the Evangelist brings forward a part of the approbation, from which faith obtains delightful advantage, because Christ demonstrated that he actually is an inexhaustible fountain of grace and truth. Stephen, too, is said to have been full of grace, (24) but in a different sense; for the fullness of grace in Christ is the fountain from which all of us must draw, as we shall have occasion shortly afterwards to explain more fully.

Grace and truth. This might be taken, by a figure of speech, for true grace, or the latter term might be explanatory, thus: that he was full of grace, which is truth or perfection; but as we shall find that he immediately afterwards repeats the same mode of expression, I think that the meaning is the same in both passages. This grace and truth he afterwards contrasts with the Law; and therefore I interpret it as simply meaning, that the apostles acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, because he had in himself the fulfillment of things which belong to the spiritual kingdom of God; and, in short, that in all things he showed himself to be the Redeemer and Messiah; which is the most striking mark by which he ought to be distinguished from all others.

(22) “ Car sous la chair et la partie inferieure tout l’homme est comprins;” — “for under the flesh, and the lower part, the whole man is included.”

(23) “ Est deduit d’un mot qui signifie Tabernacles, c’est a dire, tentes et avillons;” — “is derived from a word which signifies Tabernacles, that is, tents and pavilions.”

(24) This must have been a slip of memory on the part of our Author; for the phrases applied to Stephen are different, though parallel. He is called a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, (Act 6:5😉 full of faith and power, (Act 6:8😉 and full of the Holy Ghost, (Act 7:55.) — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt.The reality of the moral power and change wrought in those that believed recalls and is itself evidence of the reality of that in which they believed. Man came to be a son of God, because the Son of God became man. They were not, as the Docet of that time said, believers in an appearance. The Word was made flesh. The term flesh expresses human nature as opposed to the divine, and material nature as opposed to the spiritual, and is for this reason used rather than body, for there may be a purely spiritual body (see Note on 1Co. 15:40-44); and rather than man, which is used in Joh. 5:27; Joh. 8:40, for of man the spiritual is the highest part. It is not the approach of the divine and human nature in the region of the spiritual which is common to both that strikes the writer with wonder, but that men should have power to become sons of God, and that the Word, of whose glory he has spoken in the earlier verses, should become flesh. (Comp. Php. 2:6-8; 2Co. 8:9, Notes.)

Dwelt among us.The Greek word means tabernacled. sojourned among us. It was, probably, suggested by the similarity of sound with Shekhnah, a term frequently applied in the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases, though the substantive nowhere occurs in the Old Testament itself, to the visible symbol of the divine Presence which appeared in the Tabernacle and the Temple. The Targums, moreover, frequently identify the Shekhnah with the Memra or Word. (Comp. Excursus A.) The thought, then, of this Presence brings back to the writers mind the days and weeks and months they had spent with the Word who had pitched His tent among them. He had been among the first to follow Him, and of the last with Him. He had been of those who had seen the glory of the Transfiguration, who had entered with their Master into the chamber of death, who had been with Him in the garden of Gethsemane. His eye, more than that of any other, had pierced the veil and gazed upon the Presence within. And now the old man, looking forward to the unveiled Presence of the future, loves to think and tell of the past, that the Presence may be to others all it had been to him. He is conscious that the statement of this verse needs evidence of no common order; but this is present in the words and lives of men whose whole moral being declared it true, and the test is within the power of all. (Comp. especially 1 John 1)

The glory.Comp. Joh. 2:11; Joh. 11:4. There is probably a special reference here to the Transfiguration. (See Note on Mat. 17:2, and comp. the testimony of another eye-witness in 2Pe. 1:17.)

As of the only begotten.Better, as of an only begotteni.e., glory such as is the attribute of an only begotten Son. The term as applied to the person of our Lord, is found only in St. John, Joh. 1:18; Joh. 3:16; Joh. 3:18; 1Jn. 4:9. It is used four times elsewhere in the New Testament, and always of the only child. (Luk. 7:12; Luk. 8:42; Luk. 9:38; Heb. 11:17.) The close connection here with the word Father, and the contrast with the sonship by moral generation in Joh. 1:12, fixes the sense as the eternal generation of the Word, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds.

Of the Father.The English does not fully express the meaning. It would be better to read, from with the Father. (Comp. Joh. 6:46; Joh. 7:29; Joh. 16:27.) The thought is of the glory witnessed on earth of the only begotten Son who had come from God.

Full of grace and truth.These words do not refer to the Father, or to the glory, but to the Word. The structure of the English sentence is ambiguous, but the meaning of the Greek words is quite clear. They represent a Hebrew formula, expressing a divine attribute, and the passage which is almost certainly present to the thought here is the revelation of the divine nature to Moses (Exo. 34:6. Comp. 2Sa. 2:6; Psa. 25:10; Psa. 57:10; Psa. 89:15). These witnesses, too, had seen God, not indeed in the mountain only, but as dwelling among them. Every word a ray of truth, and every act a beam of love, they thought of that life as one with the divine Essence; of that glory as of the only begotten of the Father. (Comp. Joh. 1:17.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

14. Word was made flesh So that which in the first verse was God, now is made flesh, God incarnate. He is made flesh not by ceasing to be Logos or God, but by investing himself with humanity. He does not become body, for that might imply that the Logos was the proper soul of the body and the substitute for a human soul. The incarnate is one Christ, perfect man and perfect God.

Dwelt among us There are in the Old Testament appearances of the angel-Jehovah, which have every proof of being transient manifestations of God himself to man. But their phenomenal bodies were not truly flesh, and so the Divine dwelt not among men permanently, but only appeared transiently.

His glory Moses on the contrary could not stand the effulgence of Jehovah. See Exo 33:18-23. John beheld in vision the glory of Christ, (Rev 1:12-17,) and fell as dead. The apostles beheld his glory at the transfiguration, and were struck with stupor. But this effulgence to the senses is but the symbol of that divinity which shone in the spirit, the words, and the works of the Incarnate.

Only begotten of the Father He who has thus far been styled the Word is now viewed as the Son. The terms we think beyond all question express essentially the same thing. Remove all physical elements from both, and conceive the pure spiritual import, and they express an ineffable derivation of the second person of the Trinity, in his divine nature, from the first person. We most easily conceive it as identical with the distinction between God as the eternal, unknowable background, and God as self-manifesting. Both are living God. But the latter is the living Word, the living Son, uttered, generated from the former. The difference between the Word and Son is, that, while the former most distinctly expresses revelation, the latter expresses personality. But as the former implies no physical lips or voice in the utterance, so the latter expresses no sex or real physical begetting.

Full This adjective agrees with the term

Word. Of grace and truth Grace to bring salvation to man; truth to guide him in the way to that salvation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’

Now John declares openly the startling and unique nature of the Christian message. It is that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.’ The greatness that was the God of creation, the eternal Reason, became truly human. He was made genuine flesh. The gods were often thought of as taking on human bodies, of dwelling for a time among men, but never as being ‘made flesh’. Always they retained their essential natures. But here was the unique miracle. The ‘only begotten (monogenes) of the Father’, the only One Who was of the same nature as the Father, fully took on human nature and became man in the fullest sense of the word. The idea behind monogenes is that He was uniquely ‘God’s only Son’, of one essence with the Father, partaking of the divine nature. Being eternal He could not be ‘born’ but He could be of the same essential nature as the Father, just as a human son has the same essential nature as his father. This destroys for ever any suggestion that He was a created being.

Thus men could see Him, watch Him, touch Him, talk with Him, from babyhood to the grave (1Jn 1:1-4). And those who went around with Him saw Him under every circumstance. As John could say elsewhere, ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have gazed upon, and touched with our hands – of the Word of life’ (1Jn 1:1). It was to be no fleeting glimpse. It was a day by day contact with, and awareness of, the One Who was the Word. They had walked with Him and lived with Him among the everyday problems and trials of life, and what they had seen had only convinced them the more that they had seen ‘the glory as of the only begotten of the Father’. Indeed Jesus will later explain to them that in Him they have seen the Father Himself (Joh 14:7-9).

‘The only begotten of the Father.’ As noted it is important to note that the emphasis and emphatic idea behind the term ‘begotten’, as with the use of the term ‘the Son’ in parallel with ‘the Father’, was that He was of the same nature as the Father. It is stressing that He was not created, but was truly God. But as with all human pictures it must not be overpressed. As John has already indicated it does not indicate that He came into existence after the Father, for He always ‘was’ (Joh 1:1).

‘And tabernacled among us’. The Greek word is eskenosen. The glory of God had come down on the Tabernacle of old, but it was a glory which had only partly been revealed, for when He was there the cloud hid him from men’s sight. Now His glory had again descended, again shielded in a Tabernacle, but this time the tabernacle was a human body. In this case God only begotten had been ‘made flesh’.

‘We beheld His glory.’ Many men have lived glorious lives, some more than others, but always those who knew them best have known of weaknesses that have marred the image. But in this case it was different. Having known Him so intimately that no fault could have been hidden John could only say of this One, ‘we beheld His glory’. There was no weakness, there was nothing that could detract from the image. His glory was as the only begotten of the Father, perfect in all His ways.

These words must not be limited to the glorious revelation of Jesus at the Transfiguration when they saw His glory in a physical sense and He was revealed before them in dazzling light (Mat 17:2; Mar 9:2-3; Luk 9:29), although that is included. It refers to the totality of the glory of His life in every situation, a glory revealed in the Gospel that is to follow (see Joh 2:11; Joh 11:4; Joh 12:41). And he is asking his readers to consider this glory for themselves as revealed in what follows.

‘As of the only begotten of the Father.’ Some ancient manuscripts have ‘as of the only Son of the Father’. But that is clearly the easier reading, easily read in from the first, while the change the other way round is inexplicable in the early days. Thus John declares Him to be the ‘only-begotten’ in the true sense of the word, in contrast with those who will be begotten of God by new birth (Joh 1:12-13), His begetting was in a unique sense and from all eternity. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (Joh 1:18) in a sense in which no other was.

John continually stresses this uniqueness of Jesus. Israel had been God’s ‘firstborn son’ (Exo 4:22; Jer 31:9), because He had adopted them as His own. The Davidic king was to be made His ‘firstborn’, higher than the kings of the earth (Psa 89:27). But again the idea was of adoption. Here, however, Jesus is ‘monogenes’, the only one of its kind, something unique in kind, an only Son. He was ‘the Son’ rather than one of many sons. The contrast is brought out powerfully in Mar 12:6. He alone was of the same nature as the Father.

We must indeed recognise that here ‘begotten’ is being used in a unique sense. It is not indicating a ‘begetting’ in time, but indicating a situation that always was, that the ‘the Son’ was of the same nature with ‘the Father’.

‘Full of grace and truth.’ He revealed what He was (God only begotten) by what He was (full of grace and truth). This is what lies at the root of the nature of God. Graciousness, love undeserved, abounding mercy is the essence of what God is and yet always in the context of what is true and right. Grace has to go along with truth, for God cannot deny Himself and His own essential nature. If His grace is to be known it is by response to truth, for the One Who is Love is also Light (1Jn 1:5; 1Jn 4:8). In the same way the One Who is God’s Word to man came with all compassion to sinful men, but He would only prove of benefit to those who responded to the truth. Men could not enjoy His gracious working in their hearts unless they responded to that truth. All men want to experiene His love and compassion. Few want to face up to the truth that He brought.

So the great uncreated Word, the source and upholder of all things, the light of men, became Himself a man, not just in human guise, but in human flesh. That is why John, along with others, was able to behold His glory, a glory revealed in His life and teaching, in the wonder and purity of His life, and in the graciousness with which He lived. And having beheld that life he had to acknowledge that it revealed Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father as His only Son. To both Greek and Jew this would be a wonder to be gaped at. The eternal Reason, or the creative, revelatory, saving Word, had become man.

We might here note the progression of thought through the passage. ‘In the beginning was the Word (Joh 1:1) — in Him was life and the life was the light of men (Joh 1:4) — the light was coming into the world (Joh 1:9) — the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory — (Joh 1:14)’. Having commenced with the creative Word John has moved on inexorably stage by stage to the glory of the incarnate Word.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The 5-Fold Witness Sent by God After we learn that Jesus Christ was with the Father in the beginning and that creation testifies of Him (Joh 1:1-5), and we are told that God sent John the Baptist to bear witness of the Light before Jesus was manifested to the world (Joh 1:6-13), we now have a brief list of the five-fold witnesses that God sent to mankind once Jesus Christ was baptized in order to be recognized by the world as the Son of God (Joh 1:14-18). God sent Jesus Christ into this world with a supernatural birth and the Word became flesh (Joh 1:14 a). What would we see if we beheld the Word manifested and embodied in flesh and blood walking and living among us? What would God manifested in the flesh look like? The next few verses tell us what He looks like.

1. The Witness of the Father Joh 1:14 b

2. The Witness of John the Baptist Joh 1:15

3. The Witness of His Works Joh 1:16

4. The Witness of Scripture Joh 1:17

5. The Witness of Jesus’ Words Joh 1:18

This five-fold testimony will serve to identify for us the structure of the Gospel of John from which we will build an outline. John’s Gospel can be divided according to this five-fold witness.

The Testimony of the Father Joh 1:1-18

The Testimony of John and His Disciples Joh 1:19-51

The Testimony of Jesus’ Miracles Joh 2:1 to Joh 11:54

The Testimony of Scriptures Joh 11:55 to Joh 20:29

The Testimony of Jesus Joh 21:1-23

In addition, Jesus discusses these witnesses in Joh 5:19-47.

1. Jesus Testifies of Himself Joh 5:19-30

2. Testimony of John the Baptist Joh 5:32-35

3. Testimony of His Works Joh 5:36

4. Testimony of the Father Joh 5:37-38

5. Testimony of the Scriptures Joh 5:39-47

Here is a summary:

1. The Witness of the Father ( Joh 1:14 b) (see Joh 1:1-14 ) How did the Father testify of the pre-incarnate deity of His Son Jesus Christ after His baptism? The apostles then beheld the glory of the God, or deity, embodied within the man Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14 b). One example would have been at His baptism, and another would have been on the Mount of Transfiguration. Through these divine manifestations of God’s glory mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity.

2. The Witness of John the Baptist ( Joh 1:15 ) (see Joh 1:19-51 ) How did John the Baptist testify of the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? John the Baptist announced the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ as One who was pre-incarnate. Through his preaching mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity.

3. The Witness of His Works ( Joh 1:16 ) (see Joh 2:1 to Joh 20:31 ) How did the works and miracles of Jesus Christ testify to the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? The apostles saw Jesus Christ in His fullness, both spirit, soul and body, as well as financially sound. He had no lack in anything, but walked in fullness in every area of His life. Jesus Christ showed to us what fullness means as a human being. God wants us complete in every area of our lives. Then, as Jesus Christ began to perform miracles, men began to partake of His fullness. We become whole, or walk in our fullness, by these miracles. Through these miracles mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity.

4. The Witness of the Scriptures ( Joh 1:17 ) (see Joh 11:55 to Joh 20:29 ) How did the Old Testament Scriptures testify to the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? The life and ministry of Jesus Christ fulfilled many Old Testament Scriptures. By the fulfillment of prophetic Scriptures, Jesus Christ showed us a God of love and truth. These Scriptures revealed God’s plan of bestowing His grace upon mankind while remaining true to His judgment upon a sinful world. Moses revealed to us laws to live by and these laws revealed man’s sinfulness. But the Scriptures revealed Jesus Christ as the Father’s way of showing His love for humanity.

5. The Witness of Jesus Christ Himself ( Joh 1:18 ) (see Joh 21:1-23 ) How did Jesus Christ Himself testify to His pre-incarnate deity after His baptism? Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Son of God who had been sent from the Father in Heaven.

Conclusion – This five-fold testimony will follow the same order as they are presented in the Gospel of John. In addition, these five testimonies are given in the order in which God gave them to mankind. The Father testified of the coming Messiah under the Old Covenant. John the Baptist appeared and served as the second witness just before Jesus’ public appearance. The miracles of Jesus’ ministry became the third witness of His deity. Finally, after Jesus’ resurrection, the New Testament Church began to receive revelation from the Old Testament Scriptures of how Jesus fulfilled its prophecies, particularly by His Passion and Resurrection. Thus, John will present these five witnesses in a chronological order in his Gospel.

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” – Word Study on “dwelt” – The Greek word literally means, “to pitch one’s tent.” [104] It is used three times in the New Testament (Joh 1:14, Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6). Some scholars believe is used in Joh 1:14 to allude to the fact that God first dwelt with Israel by means of the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, a parallel supported by the next statement saying, “we beheld his glory.” The Jews understood that God’s glory dwelt in the Tabernacle and the Temple, so that would associate God’s glory to the fact that He has come to dwell among them.

[104] Andreas J. Ksterberger, John, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 41.

Joh 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Rev 12:12, “Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

Rev 13:6, “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.”

Comments – Joh 1:14 tells us how God the Father sent His Son to earth to partake of flesh and blood. Note similar passages in Php 2:5-8 and Heb 2:14-18 which gives us a description of how Jesus Christ left His glory above and partook of flesh and blood. Jesus Christ is the only begotten from the Father. No other Messiah ever came from the Father of lights with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Joh 1:14 “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” Comments – With Jesus’ public presentation at His water baptism, the Father began to testify to Israel of the pre-incarnate deity of His Son Jesus Christ. Beginning with His baptism the apostles beheld the glory of the God, or deity, embodied within the man Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14 b). One example would have been at His baptism, and another would have been on the Mount of Transfiguration. Through these divine manifestations of God’s glory mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity. The Goodspeed translation brings out this idea in Joh 1:14 by saying, “abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honour God had given him, such honour as an only son receives from his father.”

John opens his Gospel by stating in Joh 1:14 that his Gospel is intended to reveal the glory that Christ Jesus had with the Heavenly Father. Each miracle that John recorded was done so to reveal His glory (Joh 2:11; Joh 11:4). The disciples of Jesus Christ beheld His glory each time He performed a miracle. These events revealed Christ’s splendour, brightness, praise, honor, magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace and majesty.

Joh 2:11 , “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory ; and his disciples believed on him.”

Joh 11:4 , “When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby .”

In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ glory and splendor as divinity is revealed by the various titles that He claims for Himself: the Word of God, the Only Begotten from the Father, the Light of the World, the Lamb of God, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Great I Am, the Door, the Good Shepherd, the Son of God, the Son of Man, Master and Lord, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Vine, and the King of the Jews.

Joh 1:14 “ full of grace and truth ” Comments – Jesus revealed to us God’s grace, or unmerited favor and love, when He showed compassion on the multitudes and healed them. Jesus revealed the truth by showing us a Holy God as He pronounced woes to the Pharisees and as He taught the laws of the Kingdom of God to the multitudes. It is because of God’s love for mankind that He poured forth His grace upon us through Jesus Christ. It is because God is still a holy and just God that Jesus spoke of truth and righteousness and judgment. It was because of His truth and righteousness that Jesus had to bear the death of the Cross in behalf of all humanity.

Another way to see the use of these two words is to note that in the New Testament epistles, the word “grace” also applies to the gifts of the Spirit. Thus, Jesus was full of the anointing and of the Word of God. We see this duel description in the book of Acts.

Act 6:3, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom , whom we may appoint over this business.”

Act 6:5, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost , and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:”

Act 6:8, “And Stephen, full of faith and power , did great wonders and miracles among the people.”

Act 11:24, “For he [Barnabas] was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith : and much people was added unto the Lord.”

Joh 1:15  John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Joh 1:15 The Witness of John the Baptist Comments – How did John the Baptist testify of the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? John the Baptist announced the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ as One who was pre-incarnate. Through his preaching mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity.

Joh 1:16  And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Joh 1:16 “And of his fulness have all we received” – Comments – BDAG interprets this phrase to say, “from his fullness we have received grace.” (see 2)

Joh 1:16 “and grace for grace” – Comments – BDAG interprets this phrase to say, “Grace after grace, or grace upon grace,” meaning, “grace pours forth in ever-new streams.” (see 2) Andreas Ksterberger understands this phrase to means that the grace that God intended to pour forth upon mankind through the Law has now been poured forth through Jesus Christ. He says the preposition means, “in exchange or return for,” meaning the grace of the Law was exchanged for the grace obtained through faith in Christ Jesus. [105]

[105] Andreas J. Ksterberger, John, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 46-47.

The reason that Jesus became the fullness of God was that we might receive grace and truth through His atoning sacrifice.

Also, note similar constructions in the Greek text:

Joh 1:16, “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace .”

Rom 1:17, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith : as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”

Rom 6:19, “I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity ; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”

2Co 2:16, “To the one we are the savour of death unto death ; and to the other the savour of life unto life . And who is sufficient for these things?”

2Co 3:18, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory , even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

Php 2:27, “For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow .”

Joh 1:16 Comments – Out of God’s abundance of grace towards mankind, all have partook. We have all received blessing after blessing of His grace.

Illustration The phrase “grace upon grace” can be illustrated like the waves of the sea. When we stand upon the beach, the waves flow over us while another wave comes from behind and flows over us again and again. Thus, we experience a continual overflow of water. God’s grace is continually poured forth upon us, day by day, during each situation we face in life.

Joh 1:16 The Witness of His Works Comments – How did the works and miracles of Jesus Christ testify to the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? The apostles saw Jesus Christ in His fullness, both spirit, soul and body, as well as financially sound. Jesus Christ showed to us what fullness means as a human being. God wants us complete in every area of our lives. Then, as Jesus Christ began to perform miracles, He imparted His fullness into people who lacked fullness, and men began to partake of His fullness. When the lady with the issue of blood touched the helm of His garment and virtue left Jesus’ body, she partook of His fullness. When Jesus Christ took Jarius’ daughter by the hand and raised her from the dead, the child partook of His fullness. When the hundred and twenty in the upper room were filled with the Hoy Spirit, they partook of His fullness. We become whole, or walk in our fullness, by such miracles. Through these miracles which Jesus Christ performed mankind could see the Father’s love for humanity.

All of mankind has tasted of some portion of God’s goodness. There is no man who has not been blessed by God in some way. This verse perhaps tells us that Jesus Christ wrought many wonderful works among us through His grace.

As we receive of His fullness by faith, we position ourselves to stand continually in His grace (Rom 5:2). Thus, we partake of His ever-increasing grace, now called grace upon grace. Note:

Rom 5:2, “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

Joh 1:17  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:17 The Witness of the Scriptures Comments – How did the Old Testament Scriptures testify to the pre-incarnate deity of Jesus Christ after His baptism? The life and ministry of Jesus Christ fulfilled many Old Testament Scriptures. By the fulfillment of prophetic Scriptures, Jesus Christ showed us a God of love and truth. These Scriptures revealed God’s plan of bestowing His grace upon mankind while remaining true to His judgment upon a sinful world. Moses revealed to us laws to live by and these laws revealed man’s sinfulness. Thus, Joh 1:17 tells us that Jesus Christ was the fullness of the Law that God gave to Moses. The Scriptures revealed Jesus Christ as the Father’s way of showing His love for humanity.

Joh 1:17 “but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” Comments – Grace and truth were the instruments that God used to pardon our iniquity. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:6; Eph 2:6). Jesus declared Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Joh 14:6).

Eph 1:6, “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

Eph 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

Joh 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

God poured forth His grace upon us through Jesus Christ because of His great love for mankind. It is because God is still a holy and just God that Jesus spoke of truth and righteousness and judgment. It was because of His truth and righteousness that Jesus had to bear the death of the Cross in behalf of all humanity. Note:

Pro 16:6, “ By mercy and truth iniquity is purged : and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”

Note other translations of this verse:

ASV, “ By mercy and truth iniquity is atoned for.”

YLT, “In kindness and truth pardoned is iniquity.”

Joh 1:17 Comments – While the Law of Moses brought mankind under judgment and a curse because of his sinful nature, Jesus brought blessings by redeeming us from under the curse of the Law. We see examples of this contrast in the ministry of Jesus Christ as He confronted the religious leaders. For example, the Law required that the woman caught in adultery be stoned (Joh 8:1-11). However, Jesus forgave her and her let go free. On another occasion a woman with an issue of blood pressed through the crowd and touched the helm of His garment. According to the Law she was unclean and required to separate herself from society (Luk 8:43-48). However, Jesus commended her faith. There were times that Jesus and His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath (Mat 12:1-8). When the Pharisees condemned this action, Jesus replied that He was Lord over the Sabbath.

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 1:18 The Witness of Jesus Christ Himself Comments – How did Jesus Christ Himself testify to His pre-incarnate deity after His baptism? Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Son of God who had been sent from the Father in Heaven. In addition, Joh 1:18 tells us that Jesus Christ came to reveal to us the Father. This is what Jesus told Philip when he asked Jesus Christ to show him the Father.

Joh 14:8-9, “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

Joh 1:18 “which is in the bosom of the Father” – Comments – The phrase “which is in the bosom of the Father” is used figuratively to describe the position of Jesus Christ with the Father. This term is used when the Jews of this period in history gathered around a table. There were no chairs. Therefore, people reclined on the floor leaning on their left side, with their feet pointed away from the table. When a cushion or a floor mat was used to recline in this fashion, it gave the person in front a position of literally leaning close to the bosom of the person behind him.

The person of highest rank was given the chief place at the table. Those of more important positions were placed next to the chief guest. To recline next to someone was associated with being intimately acquainted with that person.

This phrase means that Jesus holds the closest relationship with God the Father of any man. Andreas J. Ksterberger says this phrase literally means, “in the Father’s lap,” and he paraphrases it to say “in closest relationship.” [106] It means that Jesus knows the Father more intimately that anyone and is thus, qualified to make Him known.

[106] Andreas J. Ksterberger, John, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 49.

Joh 1:18 reveals that Jesus still holds that perfect relationship with the Father that He has from eternity. Jesus’ position with His Father has not been lowered in any way.

This phrase says basically the same thing that Joh 1:1 reveals. It tells us that Jesus was pre-existent, that this pre-existence was with the Father, and that Jesus shared intimate fellowship with the Father so as to share in His same character.

This phrase is used in other passages in Scripture. It is used of Sarai giving Hagar to Abraham.

Gen 16:5, “And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom ; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.”

It is used in other places to describe the tender love and devotion of a parent.

Num 11:12, “Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?”

Rth 4:16, “And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.”

2Sa 12:3, “But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.”

1Ki 3:20, “And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.”

1Ki 17:19, “And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.”

Lam 2:12, “They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers’ bosom.”

In the New Testament, this phrase is used of Lazarus, after he died, being given intimate fellowship with Abraham.

Luk 16:22-23, “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom : the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom .”

John the apostle’s tender relationship with Jesus gave him the position of lying in the bosom of Jesus at mealtime.

Joh 13:23, “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”

Joh 1:18 “he hath declared him” – Word Study on “declared” Strong says the Greek word “declared” ( ) (G1834) literally means, “to consider out (aloud), to rehearse, i.e. to unfold,” and is a compound word coming from ( ) (G1537), meaning, “out of,” and ( ) (G2233), which means, “to lead, to command,” and figuratively, “to deem, to consider.” BDAG says it means, “explain, interpret, tell, report, describe.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 6 times in the New Testament, being translated in the KJV as, “declare 5, tell 1.”

Comments – From the Greek word we derive the English word “exegesis.”

Comments BDAG translates this statement as, “he has made known or brought new of (the invisible God). Jesus Christ has brought the invisible God forth for us to view in bodily form. Thus, Jesus declared God by revealing Himself that we might see God for ourselves (Joh 14:9). This declaration of the Father is the content of the rest of the Gospel of John beginning in the following verse. [107]

[107] Andreas J. Ksterberger, John, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 50.

The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of His person (Heb 1:3).

Joh 14:9, “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

Heb 1:3, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”

In Joh 1:18, we see the role of the Lord Jesus Christ from creation, which is to declare the mind of the Father, thus, the title of Jesus as “the Word” in Joh 1:1 and more clearly as “The Word of God” in Rev 19:13. This phrase means that Jesus revealed the Father to us, but the Greek verb shows us that Jesus did this by telling us, or declaring to us, the character of the Father.

Joh 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Rev 19:13, “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God .”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Joh 1:14. And the Word was made flesh, This divine and eternal Word was made flesh;uniteditselftoourinferiormiserablenature,withallitsinnocent infirmities, (see the 9th article in the argument;) and not made a transient visit, but for a considerable time pitched his tabernacle among us,, which manifestly alludes to the tabernacle of Moses, where the Shechinah, or divine glory, inhabited. So the Logos, or divine nature, shechinized, or tabernacled in the human body, which Christ assumed. The word glory here alludes to this Shechinah, or splendid light, which the Chaldee paraphrase always interprets by the word glory. “We, his disciples, (says St. John,) beheld his glory with admiration, and knew it to be such as became the only-begotten of the Father;” for he was not decked with the glitter of worldly pomp and grandeur, but he shone most beautiful with the glory of the divine perfections; and withal he wrought the greatest and most beneficent miracles, expressly called by this evangelist, His glory, ch. Joh 2:11. Perhaps also there is an allusion here to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism; to the glory with which his body was adorned at the transfiguration, and to the voice from heaven a little before his crucifixion. The particle , rendered as of, does not denote similitude or comparison, but reality and confirmation. In this sense it is used by the LXX, Psa 73:1. Truly, God, is, &c.And here it signifies the glory of the true and real Monogenes, or Only-begotten. For this verse asserts, that the Logos and Monogenes were not distinct beings, but one and the same person, in opposition to Cerinthus, (article 2.) The last words full of grace and truth, seem much more naturallyand properly to belong to the Word,the preceding sentence being read in a parenthesis,than to the Father, as some wouldconnect them. The meaning is, that as this Word who dwelt among us, was in himself most benevolent and upright, so he made the amplest discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not possibly do; and exhibited the most important and substantial blessings; whereas that was at best but a shadow of good things to come. Truth is here used, as it often is in the scripture, not so much in opposition to falsehood, as to hieroglyphics, types, and shadows. See Joh 1:17. Heb 10:1; Heb 8:2; Heb 9:24. Dan 7:17 and Col 3:17.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 1:14 . ] and ; not assigning a reason for the sonship just mentioned (Chrys., Theophyl., Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and several others); nor even = (Bleek), nor in the sense of namely (Frommann), nor yea (Godet), but simply carrying forward the discourse , like every in the Prologue; and not therefore pointing back to Joh 1:4 (Maldonatus) or to Joh 1:9 (De Wette), nor joining on to Joh 1:11 (Lcke: “The Logos came not only to His own possession, but appeared visibly; ” so, substantially, also Baur and Hilgenfeld), which would be a merely apparent advance in the exposition, because the visible manifestation is already intimated by in Joh 1:5 and in Joh 1:9-13 . No; after having in Joh 1:4-13 spoken of the Logos as the light, of the melancholy opposition of the darkness of unbelief to that true light which had been attested by the Baptist as divine, and of the exceedingly blessed effects which He exercised on believers through the bestowal of the gift of sonship, the evangelist, on arriving at this last point, which expresses his own deepest and most blessed experience, can no longer hesitate formally and solemnly again to proclaim the great event by which the visible manifestation of the Logos previously so frequently presupposed and referred to had, with all its saving power, been brought about; and thus by an outpouring of speech, which, prompted by the holiest recollections, soars involuntarily upwards until it reaches the highest height, to set forth and celebrate the How of that manifestation of the Logos which was attended with such blessed results (Joh 1:12-13 ), and which he had himself experienced. The transition , therefore, is from what is said in Joh 1:12-13 of the efficacy of the manifested Logos, to the nature and manner of that manifestation itself, i.e . consequently to the incarnation , as a result of which He, as Jesus Christ, exhibited the glory of the Only-begotten, and imparted the fulness of grace and truth, that incarnation which historically determined what is recorded of Him in Joh 1:12-13 . Accordingly is not definitive, “under such circumstances, with such consequences” (Brckner, who inappropriately compares Heb 3:19 , where connects the answer with the question as in continuous narration), but it carries the discourse onwards , leading up to the highest summit, which even from Joh 1:5 showed itself as in the distance. We must interpret it: and to advance now to the most momentous fact in the work of redemption, namely, how He who had come and wrought so much blessing was manifested and was able to accomplish such a work the Word was made flesh, etc .

] John does not simply say , but he names the great subject as he had done in Joh 1:1 , to complete the solemnity of the weighty statement, which he now felt himself constrained still to subjoin and to carry onwards, as if in joyful triumph, to the close of the Prologue.

] The word is carefully chosen , not indeed in any sort of opposition to the divine idea of humanity , which in this place is very remote, [89] but as opposed to the purely divine , and hence also to the purely immaterial nature [90] of the Logos (Clem. ad Cor . II. 9, ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 197), whose transition, however, into this other form of existence necessarily presupposes that He is conceived of as a personality , not as a principle (Beyschlag, Christol . p. 169); as is, besides, required by the whole Prologue. The actual incarnation of a principle would be for John an unrealizable notion. Just as decidedly is opposed to the representation that the Logos always became more and more completely (Beyschlag) during the whole unfolding of His earthly life . The is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e . a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1Jn 1:2 ), which He was not before, [91] and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus , and which was known to the reader, is intended. ( 1Jn 4:2 ; 2Jn 1:7 ; comp. 1Ti 3:16 ) is, in fact, the same thing, though expressed from the point of view of that modality of His coming which is conditioned by the . As, however, points out that He became what He was not before, the incarnation cannot be a mere accident of His substantial being (against Baur), but is the assumption of another real existence, whereby out of the purely divine Logos-Person, whose specific nature at the same time remained unaltered, and in order to accomplish the work of redemption (chap. 6; Rom 8:3 ; Heb 2:14-15 ), a really corporeal personality, i.e . the God-man Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17 ), came into existence. Comp. on the point, 1Jn 4:2 ; Phi 2:7 ; 1Ti 3:16 ; Heb 2:14 ; Heb 5:7 . Since necessarily carries with it the idea only of the (see Schulz, Abendm . p. 94 ff.; Weiss, Lehrbegr . p. 256), it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian notion, that in Christ there was no human , but that the took its place. [92] But it is not really so (see, on the other side, Mau, Progr. de Christolog. N. T ., Kiel 1843, p. 13 ff.), because the human does not exist by itself, but in necessary connection with the (Beck, bibl. Seelenl . 13; Hahn, Theol. d. N.T . I. 154), and because the N. T. (comp. Joh 8:40 ) knows Jesus only as perfect man. [93] In fact, John in particular expressly speaks of the (Joh 12:27 ) and of Christ (Joh 11:33 , Joh 13:21 , Joh 19:30 ), which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates as the substratum of the human self-consciousness (Joh 11:38 ). [94] The transcendental character, however, of this self-consciousness, as necessarily given in the incarnation of the Logos, Weizscker has not succeeded, as is plain from his interpretation of the passages referred to, in explaining away by anything Jesus Himself says in this Gospel. The conception of weakness and susceptibility of suffering (see on Act 2:17 ), which Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others find in , is quite remote from this verse (comp. 1Jn 4:2 ), where the point in question is simply the change in the divine mode of existence, while the is that which bears the ; and so also is any anti-Docetic reference, such as Frommann and others, and even De Wette and Lechler, imagine.

The supernatural generation of Jesus is neither presupposed nor included (as even Godet maintains), nor excluded, [95] in John’s representation , for the expression contains nothing as to the manner of the incarnation; it is an addition to the primitive apostolical Christology, of which we have no certain trace either in the oldest Gospel (Mark), or in the only one which is fully apostolic (John), or even anywhere in Paul: see on Mat 1:18 ; comp. Joh 5:27 , Rom 1:3-4 .

] and tabernacled, i.e. took up His abode, among us : here is chosen merely to draw our attention to the manifestation of the incarnate Logos, whose holy (2Pe 1:13 ) was in fact His human substance, [96] as the fulfilment of the promise of God’s dwelling with His people (Exo 25:8 ; Exo 29:45 ; Lev 26:11 ; Joe 3:21 ; Eze 37:27 ; Hag 2:8 : comp. Sir 24:8 ; Rev 21:3 ), and therefore as the Shekinah which formerly revealed itself in the tabernacle and in the temple (see on Rom 9:4 ); an assumption which the context justifies by the words: . . . The Targums, in like manner, represent the Word ( ) as the , and the Messiah as the manifestation of this.

] refers to the , Joh 1:12-13 , to whom John belongs, not simply to the Twelve (Tholuck), nor to the Christian consciousness (Hilgenfeld), nor to mankind generally; comp. Joh 1:16 . The believers whom Jesus found are the fellowship who, as the holy people, surrounded the incarnate Word, and by whom His glory was beheld (comp. 1Jn 1:1 ).

, . . . ] We must not (as most expositors, even Lcke, Frommann, Maier, De Wette) take this clause as far as to be a lively insertion , interrupting the narrative; for the having beheld the is the essential element in the progress of the discourse. It is an independent part in the connection ; so that . . . , which is usually joined grammatically with , is to be referred to in an irregular combination of cases, determined by the logical subject (B. Crusius, Brckner, Weiss, comp. Grotius), by which the nominative instead of the dependent case (Augustine read ) sets forth the statement more emphatically without any governing word. See especially Bernhardy, p. 68; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet . 89, Soph . 7; Winer, p. 524 [E. T. p. 705].

] the Majesty ( ) of the Logos, i.e. of necessity the divine glory (in the O. T. symbolically revealing itself as the brilliant light which surrounded the manifestation of Deity, Exo 24:17 ; Exo 40:34 ff.; Act 7:2 ), so far as the Logos from His nature (see what follows) essentially participated therein, and possessed it in His pre-human state and onwards. [97] It presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it [98] ( intuebantur ), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1Jn 1:1 ; comp. chap. Joh 2:11 ). The idea of an inner contemplation is opposed to the context (against Baur). The , which before the incarnation could be represented to the prophet’s eye alone (Joh 12:41 ), but which otherwise was, in its essence, incapable of being beheld by man, became by means of the incarnation an object of external observation by those who were eye-witnesses (Luk 1:2 ; 1Jn 4:14 ) of His actual self-manifestation. We must, however, bear in mind that the manifestation of this divine glory of the Logos in His human state is conceived of relatively , though revealing beyond doubt the divine nature of the Logos, and nothing else than that, yet as limited and conditioned on the one hand by the imperfection of human intuition and knowledge, and on the other by the state of humiliation (Phi 2:6 ff.) which was entered upon with the . For the absolutely, which as such is also the adequate , was possessed by Him who became man the Logos, who entered upon life in its human form only in His pre-existent state (Joh 17:5 ), and was resumed only after His exaltation (Joh 12:41 , Joh 17:5 ; Joh 17:22 ; Joh 17:24 ); while during His earthly life His as the manifestation of the was not the simply divine , but that of the God-man . [99] See on Phi 2:8 , note, and chap. Joh 17:5 . No distinction is hereby made between God’s and the of the God-man (as objected by Weiss); the difference is simply in the degrees of manifestation and appearance. Still Weiss is quite right in refusing, as against Kstlin and Reuss, to say that there is in John no idea whatever of humiliation (comp. Joh 12:32 ; Joh 12:34 , Joh 17:5 ).

] more animated without . Comp. Hom. Od. A , 22 f.; Dem. de. Cor . 143 (p. 275, Reisk.): . . See Krger, 59, 1. 3, 4.

] as of an only-begotten, i.e . as belongs to such an one, [100] corresponds to the nature of one who is ; Chrysostom: , . . . The idea of reality (Euthymius Zigabenus: ) lies as little in as in the erroneously so-called veritatis (against Olshausen, Klee, and earlier writers); there is rather the supposition of a comparison, which approaches the meaning of quippe (Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 1002); see Khner, 330. 5.

] of Christ, and regarded, indeed, in His divine nature, is Johannean, expressing the apostle’s own idea of Christ’s unique relationship as the Son of God, Joh 1:18 , Joh 3:16 ; Joh 3:18 , 1Jn 4:9 , though it is put into the mouth of Christ Himself in Joh 3:16 ; Joh 3:18 . Comp. the Pauline , Col 1:15 , Heb 1:6 , which as to the thing certainly corresponds with the Johannean , but presents the idea in the relation of time to the creation, and in Rom 8:29 to Christendom. . designates the Logos as the only Son (Luk 7:12 ; Luk 8:42 ; Luk 9:38 ; Heb 11:17 ; Tob 8:17 ; Herod, vii. 221; Plato, Legg . III. p. 691 D; Aesch. Ag . 898; Hes. . 378), besides whom the Father has none, who moreover did not become such by any moral generation, as in the case of the , Joh 1:12-13 , nor by adoption, but by the metaphysical relation of existence arising out of the divine essence, whereby He was with God, being Himself divine in nature and person, Joh 1:1-2 . He did not first become this by His incarnation, but He is this before all time as the Logos, and He manifests Himself as the . by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the . is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, “who may be also conceived of retrospectively” (Weizscker, 1862, p. 699). In other respects the designation corresponds to human relations, and is anthropomorphic, as is itself, a circumstance which, however, necessarily limited its applicability as an expression of the metaphysical relation, in apprehending which we must also leave out of view the conception of birth as such, so far as it implies the idea of the maternal function. Origen well remarks: . . , , .

] without the article (Winer, p. 116 [E. Tr. p. 151]). . must be joined to . , to which it adds the definite idea of having gone forth, i.e. of having come from the Father (Joh 6:46 , Joh 7:29 , Joh 16:27 ). Correlative with this is Joh 1:18 , . , where the, only-begotten Son who came forth from the Father is viewed as having again returned to the Father. The conception of having been begotten , consequently of derivation from the essence , would be expressed by the simple genitive ( ) or by the dative, or by or , but lies in the word itself; since this expresses the very generation , and therefore the (Origen). Its connection with (Erasmus, Grotius, Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. 120, Weiss; already Theophyl.?) is in itself grammatically admissible (Plut. Agis , 2; Plato, Phaedr . p. 232 A; Act 26:12 ), but is not favoured here either by the position of the words or by the connection, from which the idea of the origin of the lay far remote, the object being to designate the nature of the ; moreover, the anarthrous . requires a more precise definition, which is exactly what it has in .

. .] To be referred to the subject, though that ( ) stands in the genitive. See above. It explains how the Logos, having become incarnate, manifested Himself to those who beheld His glory. Grace and truth [101] are the two efficaciously saving and inseparable factors of His whole manifestation and ministry, not constituting His (Luthardt), a notion opposed to Joh 2:11 ; Joh 2:17 , but displaying it and making it known to those who beheld that glory. Through God’s grace to sinful man He became man; and by His whole work on earth up to the time of His return to His Father, He has been the instrument of obtaining for believers the blessing of becoming the children of God. Truth , again, was what He revealed in the whole of His work, especially by His preaching, the theme of which was furnished by His intuition of God (Joh 1:18 ), and which therefore must necessarily reveal in an adequate manner God’s nature and counsel, and be the opposite of and . Comp. Mat 11:27 . The corresponds formally to the nature of the Logos as light ( ); the , which bestows everlasting life (Joh 3:15 ), to His nature as life ( ), Joh 1:4-5 . That the . with which He was filled are divine grace and truth, of which He was the possessor and bearer, so that in Him they attained their complete manifestation (comp. Joh 16:6 ), is self-evident from what has preceded, but is not specially indicated, as would necessarily have been done by the use of the article, which would have expressed the grace and truth (simply) . Joh 1:16 f. is decisive against the construction of with what follows (Erasmus, Paulus). Whether John, moreover, used the words . . . with any reference to Exo 34:6 (Hengstenberg) is very doubtful, for in that passage has a different meaning (truthfulness, fidelity). John is speaking independently, from his own full experience and authority as a witness. Through a profound living experience, he had come to feel, and here declares his conviction, that all salvation depends on the incarnation of the Logos.

[89] Against Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit . 1860, p. 459.

[90] Hence also is selected for the purpose of expressing the full antithesis, and not , because there might be a without (1Co 15:40 ; 1Co 15:44 ); and besides, the expression would not necessarily include the possession of a human soul. John might also have written (Joh 5:27 , Joh 8:40 ), but presented the antithesis of both forms of existence most sharply and strikingly, and yet at the same time unquestionably designates the human personality (Joh 17:2 ). According to Baur, indeed, it is said to be impossible to understand by the incarnation any proper assumption of humanity.

[91] Comp. the well-known “Sum quod eram, nec eram quod sum, nunc dicor utrumque.” In Jesus Christ we have the absolute synthesis of the divine and the human.

[92] Of late, Zeller in particular (in the Theol. Jahrb . 1842, I. 74) has limited the Johannean doctrine of the human element in the person of Jesus simply to His corporeity , excluding any special human anima rationalis . Comp. also Kstlin, p. 148 ff., and Baur, neutest. Theol . p. 362. That was the merely formal non-personal clothing of the Logos-subject (Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr . 1866, p. 260), does not correspond with the conception of , under which Christ represents Himself (Joh 8:40 ). This is also in answer to Scholten, who in like manner comes to the conclusion that, in John’s view, Jesus was man as to His body only, but the Logos as to His spirit.

[93] So John in particular. See Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr . p. 234 ff., who, however, explains the from the Valentinian system, and attributes to the evangelist the notion of a corporeity, real indeed, but not fettered by the limitation of a material body, appealing to Joh 6:16 ff., Joh 7:10 ; Joh 7:15 , Joh 8:59 , Joh 2:19 ff. Baur’s view is similar, though he does not go so far. Baur, p. 367.

[94] Rightly has the church held firmly to the perfection (perfectio) of the divine and human natures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be justified on exegetical grounds, and especially no such doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos became a human soul or a human spirit (comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 198 f.). This modification, which some apply to the , is un-scriptural, and is particularly opposed to John’s testimony throughout his Gospel and First Epistle. How little does Gess succeed in reconciling his view with Joh 5:26 , for example, a passage which is always an obstacle in his way! Further, according to Wrner, Verhltn. d. Geistes zum Sohne Gott . p. 27, the Logos became a soul . Against Hahn, see Dorner in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol . 1856, p. 393 ff.

[95] For assuredly the same Subject, which in His divine essence was pre-existent as the eternal Logos, may as a temporal human manifestation come into existence and begin to be, so that in and by itself the manner of this origination, natural or supernatural, makes no difference in the conceivableness of the fact (against Baur in the Theol. Jahrb . 1854, p. 222).

[96] In this He tabernacled among us not merely as a divine principle (Beyschlag), but as (Col 2:9 ), i.e. exactly what He was as the personal Logos . Thus His body was the temple of God (Joh 2:19 ), the true special dwelling of God’s gracious presence.

[97] Comp. Gess, Person Chr . p. 123.

[98] All limitations to individual points, as e.g. to the miracles, or even specially to the history of the transfiguration (Luk 9:32 ; Wetstein, Tittmann), are arbitrary.

[99] Which indeed, even after His exaltation, is and ever continues to be that of the God-man , though without limitation and perfect. According to Weiss ( Lehrbegr . p. 261), the of the Logos cannot he that of the originally divine essence itself, but one vouchsafed to Christ for the purpose of His works. This, however, is contrary to the express meaning of the word here, where by the . , . . ., we can only understand His proper glory brought with Him by the Logos into His incarnate life. As to Joh 17:22 , see on that passage.

[100] Therefore . is without the article . The expression is qualitative .

[101] Where, according to Hilgenfeld, the author must have had in view the female Aeons of the two first Syzygies of the Valentinian system. John undoubtedly has the word only in the Prologue, but Matthew and Mark also do not use it; while Luke does not employ it in the sense of saving Christian grace, in which sense it first occurs in the Acts and in Paul.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

THRID SECTION

The Incarnation of the Logos, the Appearance of the real Shekinah among the Faithful

Joh 1:14-18

(1) Incarnation Of The Logos, Or The Absolutely New Birth. Appearance Of The Real Shekinah, Joh 1:14. (2) Testimony Of John In General, Joh 1:15. (3) Experience Of Believers, Or Grace, Joh 1:16. (4) Antithesis Between Moses And Christ, The Law Of The Old Testament And Christianity, In Their Authority And Work, Joh 1:17. (5) Antithesis Between The Whole Old World And Christ In Their Relation To God, Joh 1:18

14And the Word was made [became, ] flesh, and dwelt [sojourned, tabernacled, 76] among us, (and we beheld his glory [the real Shekinah], the glory as of the [an] only-begotten of [from, the Father,) [omit parenthesis]77 full of 15grace and truth. John bare [beareth]78 witness of him, and cried [crieth],79 saying, This was he of whom I spake [said], He that cometh after me [behind me] is preferred 16[hath come to be] before me; for he was before me [lit. first of me]. And [For]80 of his fulness have all we received [did we all receive], and [even] grace for grace. 17For the law was given by [through] Moses, (but) grace and truth came [came to pass] by [through] Jesus Christ. 18No man hath seen God at any time [No one hath ever seen God]; the only begotten Son [God],81 which [who] is in [toward] the bosom of the Father [of the nature of the Father and in his full confidence and service] he hath declared him [hath interpreted all).82

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Joh 1:14 contains the central idea of the Prologue, the Gospel, and the system of Christianity, yea, central idea of the whole history of the world; for ancient history before the incarnation was a preparation for Christ as the fulfillment of all types, prophecies and nobler aspirations of men; history after that event is subservient to the spread and triumph of Christianity till Christ be all in all. The theology of John is Christological throughout (comp. 1Jn 4:2-3); that of Paul, in the Romans and Galatians, is anthropological and soteriological, but the Colossians and Philippians are likewise Christological, and in 1Ti 3:16 Paul makes the incarnation the central fact of our religion. But the idea of the incarnation, the great mystery of godliness, should not be confined to the mere birth of Christ, but extended to His whole divine human life, death and resurrection; it is God manifest in the flesh. Bengel discovers a threefold antithetic correspondence between vers.1 and John 4 :

THE WORD

Was in the beginning

became

God

flesh

With God

and dwelt among us.P. S.]

Joh 1:14 And.This has been explained in very different ways: as equivalent, for example to (for)83 or (therefore),84 or as signifying the condition of Christs becoming man. But it denotes an actual historical advance85 not, however, as De Wette takes it, upon Joh 1:9, but, as Lcke, upon Joh 1:11. First, the universal advent was spoken of; then the theocratical advent in the Old Testament; now, after indicating the transitional distinction of consecrated human birth and birth from God, which were continually approaching each other, the Evangelist comes to the point of incarnation, where birth and new or divine birth coincide.

The Word became flesh.In this finishing sentence the subject is again named. Not a life only, or a light, from the Logos, was made flesh, but the whole Logos as Life and Light (see Col 1:19; Col 2:9). He became ; the strongest expression for becoming veritable man.

[This grand sentence: , stands alone in the Bible; but the same idea in somewhat different forms of expression occurs repeatedly, viz.: 1Jn 4:2 ( , Christ having come in the flesh); 1Ti 3:16 ( , God was manifested in the flesh); Rom 1:3 ( , born from the seed of David according to the flesh); Joh 8:3 ( , in the likeness of sinful flesh); Php 2:7 ( , being made in the likeness of men); Heb 2:14 (where it is said that Christ, like other men, partook of , of blood and flesh). Flesh () is a strong Hebraizing term () for human nature in its weakness, frailty and mortality. Comp. the English, mortal (the German, der Sterbliche), for man. When used of man, the idea of moral weakness or sinfulness is also often implied, but not necessarily. In the passages where it is ascribed to Christ, sin must be excluded in view of the unanimous testimony of the Apostles to the sinlessness of Jesus. The term is more, comprehensive than body (), which is used in distinction from soul () and spirit or ), while flesh sometimes includes both; it is more concrete and emphatic than man (), and expresses more strongly the infinite condescension of the Logos, the identity of His human nature with our own, and the universalness of His manhood. Yet it is as correct to speak of Christs becoming man (, Menschwerdung) as of His becoming flesh (, incarnatio, incarnation, Fleischwerdung). The Logos assumed, not an individual man or a single human personality, but human nature into union with His pr-existent divine personality. He moreover assumed human nature, not apparently and transiently (according to the Gnostic Docetic view), but really and permanently; nor partially (as Apollinaris taught), but totally, with all its essential constituents as created by God, body, soul and spirit. For Christ everywhere appears as a full man (comp. Joh 8:40 : Ye seek to kill me, a man who, etc.), and He is emphatically called the Son of Man; John speaks expressly of the soul () of Christ, Joh 12:27, and of His spirit (), Joh 11:33; Joh 13:21; Joh 19:30; comp. Mat 27:50. In the O. T., too, flesh often includes the moral or spiritual nature of man, comp. Lev 17:11; Deu 12:15; Job 12:10. It is not the flesh as opposed to the spirit, that is here intended, but human nature, as distinct from the divine. The flesh is the outward tabernacle and the visible representative of the whole man to our senses.86 Finally Christ assumed human nature, not in its primitive state of innocence, but in its fallen, suffering, mortal state, yet without sin (which, does not originally and necessarily belong to man); for He came to save this fallen nature. He was subject to temptation, or temptable, and was perfected through suffering (Heb 2:14-18; Heb 4:15), but He was neither (Rom 7:14), nor (1Co 2:14). He appeared not in the flesh of sin, but only in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:2). He bore all the consequences of sin without a share of personal sin and guilt. This amazing miracle of His love is best expressed by the term: The Logos became flesh.87 Comp. 2Co 8:9 : Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye by His poverty might become rich. At His second advent Christ will appear as man indeed, yet no more in the likeness of sinful flesh, nor in weakness and poverty, but in glory and immortality (comp, Heb 9:28, ). P. S.]

It imputes a Judaistic [and Apollinarian] nonsense to the Evangelist, to represent him as saying that the Logos took only the human , and not a reasonable human soul (Praxeas, Kstlin, Zeller88). The evidence of the contrary lies not only in the impossibility of conceiving a human without and such a without (see Meyer, p. 65), but especially in the Old Testament usage of the term flesh to denote human nature (Isaiah 40); to say nothing of Johns express designation of the of Christ in Joh 12:27, and the in Joh 11:33; Joh 13:21; Joh 19:30. But while the half-Baur school thus construes Johns statement of the incarnation Judaistically, Hilgenfeld construes it Gnostically: giving Christ (according to the Valentinian system) a real , indeed, but such as was exalted above material limitations. Meyer (against Frommann and others) contests without good reason the anti-Docetic force of this expression; though certainly the main force of it is rather anti-Gnostic; for the incipient Gnosticism first asserted an external connection of and , against which the verb would be more emphatic than the substantive .

With the idea of the comes also the idea of passibility, but by no means the idea of any weakness of the flesh arising from sin; for Scripture recognizes the flesh in three stages: (1) pure in paradise; (2) weakened by sin; (3) sanctified by the Spirit; and the Logos could become flesh only in the latter sense.

All this carries in it the antithesis between His incarnation and His eternal, immaterial existence; yet neither in the sense of Pantheism, which makes His incarnation an accident (Baur), nor in the sense of the medival scholasticism, which sees in it, even as incarnation, a humiliation of the Logos even into an incongruous, heterogeneous nature. The historical humiliation of Christ coincides indeed with His historical incarnation; yet the two are to be distinguished.
The supernatural birth of Christ is unquestionably implied in this passage, in that the origin of Christ as God-Man stands in opposition to the natural births previously described, all which, as such, needed to be completed by the birth from God (contra Meyer).
[Became, .Not was, , as in Joh 1:1, nor , as is said of John, Joh 1:6, who had no existence before his birth, but the pr-existent, personal Logos became flesh.89 Comp. LXX., Gen 2:7 : . The word denotes a single and completed act. The Logos was not converted or changed into flesh, nor simply associated with flesh, but endued with human nature, which He assumed once for all into personal and perpetual union with Him.90 The Logos was henceforth Christ Jesus, the God-Man (), and this not only for a transient purpose, but He continues so forever.P. S.]

Tabernacled among us.God dwelt as Jehovah in Israel, hidden in the most holy place of the tabernacle (); now in the Logos He has tabernacles () among the disciples in the midst of the people, thus making the disciples themselves His tabernacle.91 (On among us, , see Joh 1:16. The disciples and witnesses of Christ are meant, but as the central point of the people, and of all mankind). The expression evidently alludes to the Old Testament dwelling of God in Israel. The idea of that dwelling of Jehovah in the holy tabernacle (Exo 25:8; Exo 29:45) is enlarged even in the prophets (Isa 4:5; Isa 57:15). Now the Lord has taken His dwelling among His own people themselves. This reference is confirmed by what follows. The Targums likewise represent the Word () as the Shekinah (), and the Messiah as the manifestation of the latter (Meyer).92

And we beheld his glory.Meyer rightly maintains, against Lcke, De Wette and Tholuck, that this main thought cannot be read as a parenthesis. Such reading has been occasioned by the nominative 93 , at the close of the verse, referring to . According to Baumgarten-Crusius and Meyer [Brckner, Alford], this nominative refers, by a solecism, to , and serves to give more independent prominence to the descriptive clause. But the clause may also be read as a declaration prompted by the contemplation; being understood.94

We beheld.The beholding has faith for its organ; it is not a merely outward vision, still less merely inward; nor does it perceive the glory of Christ only in single miracles or in a transfiguration, but in His whole life (comp. 1Jn 1:1). [ moreover is richer than , and means properly to behold or contemplate with admiration and delight. John speaks here in the name of all the Apostles and eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. The plural adds force to the statement, as in Joh 21:24; 1Jn 1:1; 2Pe 1:16. Faith lifts the veil of Christs humanity and worships His divine glory, while to unbelief He is a mere man. Hengstenberg refers to several passages from Isaiah (Isa 40:5; Isa 66:2; Isa 66:18), in which the beholding of the glory of Jehovah is promised. John recognized Jehovah in the incarnate Logos (Joh 12:41).P. S.]

His glory, , .The real appearances of the divine glory in the Old Testament must be distinguished from its symbolical signs. Its signs are the cloud and tempest on Sinai, the pillar of smoke and the pillar of fire, the cherubim over the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. Its real manifestations are, from the nature of the Old Testament, transient, and given in visions: manifestations of the Angel of the Lord (see above), or of the Lord Himself attended by a host of angels, Daniel 7. The manifestation of the Angel of the Lord is, in its nature, connected with the manifestation of His glory. The later Jewish theology has designated these manifestations as the Shekinah.95 In Christ the Shekinah appears in full reality.

[We must distinguish four stages of this glory: 1) the pr-existent divine glory of the Logos with the Father, Joh 17:5; John 2) the preparatory shadowy manifestation of His glory in the Old Testament, as seen by the prophetic eye of Isaiah 12:41; Isaiah 3) its visible revelation in human form in the life and work of the incarnate Word, which shone from every miracle, Joh 2:11; John 4) the final and perfect manifestation of His divine-human glory in eternity in which the believers will share, Joh 17:24.P. S.]

When Meyer, with Hofmann (Schriftbew. II.1, p. 21), makes the incarnation of Christ itself equivalent to His humiliation, and so conceives even theanthropic existence as distinct from simple divine, he has no Scripture for it, either in Joh 12:41; Joh 17:5; Joh 17:22; Joh 17:24, or in Php 2:6. Unquestionably the human of Christ in His earthly life was to be relatively conceived; but only (1) in that He entered into the historical conditions of humanity, especially into subjection to the law, (2) in that the life of the first man waited in Him for its completion in the higher, imperishable manifestation of the second.

The glory [emphatically repeated] as of an only begotten [].A closer description of the . It was alone in its kind, and could be characterized only thus: as of the only begotten. The expresses literally not the reality (Euthym. Zigabenus: ), but in similitude, the idea of the only begotten, to which the appearance of Christ corresponded, while assuredly it first awakened that idea and brought it to view.96 Only the could manifest Himself so (Joh 1:18; Joh 3:6; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9).97 That John has the term from Christ Himself, is shown by Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18. Pauls , first begotten [Col 1:15; Heb 1:6], is a parallel. Both terms denote not only the trinitarian relation, of the Son of God, but also His theanthropic relation. In the expression of John, however, the incommunicable relation of Christ to God predominates; in that of Paul, His incommunicable relation to the world. In the one, the ontological idea of the Trinity rules; in the other, the economic and soteriological. The notion of the only begotten is closely akin to that of the beloved (), not identical with it as Kuinoel holds. The word denotes indeed, according to Meyer, the only begotten; but it thereby makes Christ also the peculiarly begotten (Tholuck), who is the principle of all other births and regenerations.98 The reference of to (Erasmus and others) is wholly without support.

From the Father [belongs to , not to .Origen: . His origin and issue is from the essence of the Father. His coming forth from the Father (Joh 6:46; Joh 7:29; Joh 16:27) does not exclude, however, His continuance in the heaven of the Father (Joh 3:13; comp. Joh 1:18). His human relations do not supersede His divine.

Full of grace and truth.Comp. Joh 1:17. The result of the beholding, uttered in an exclamation of astonishment, expressing the main forms in which the was seen in Him. He was full of grace and truth. Not only did He seem all grace and truth, but grace and truth seemed concentrated in Him. And this was His glory, for grace and truth are the main attributes of Jehovah in the Old Testament, since the Messianic spirit recognized Him as pre-eminently the God of redemption ( [in the LXX.: ], Exo 34:6; Psa 25:10; Psa 36:6). This reference to the Old Testament is groundlessly doubted by Meyer;99 for though denotes also faithfulness, yet faithfulness and truth are one in the divine nature; and the rendering of by in the Septuagint decides nothing, since finds its more precise equivalent in . But Meyer well observes that answers to the light-nature (), to the life-nature () of the Logos. Of course the life is as much concerned in the truth of Christ, as the light in the grace; the latter notions are more soteriologically concrete, than the former. Christ, as absolute redemption, was pure grace; as absolute revelation, pure truth. [Christ is the personal Truth, Joh 14:6, and is in the Apoc. called the , Joh 3:7; Joh 19:11, is whom there is a perfect harmony between appearance and reality, claim and being, promise and fulfilment.P. S.]

Joh 1:15. John beareth witness of him.Having described the advent of Christ to its consummation in the incarnation, the Evangelist comes to the testimony of John concerning Christ. He first introduced Johns mission to bear witness of Christ, Joh 1:6; now he comes to his actual testimony concerning Christ, and that as a testimony even to His pr-existence and His higher nature. Afterwards follows the testimony of the Baptist concerning the Messianic (Joh 1:19) and the soteriological (Joh 1:29 sqq.) character of Jesus.

Beareth witness.Present. Johns testimony is perpetually living, active and valid. Its continued validity in the present rests upon the past fact that he cried only in Israel, and uttered what he had to say of Christ ( ). Hence Christ could appeal to his testimony, Joh 5:33; Mat 21:24. , elsewhere also, Joh 7:28; Joh 7:37, etc., for loud public proclamation. There is no reason for taking the perfect in a present sense. [Comp. Text. Notes 3 and 4.P. S.]

This was he of whom I said.. He it was. Not because John is conceived as speaking in the present. In the testimony of John two periods must be distinguished: before and after the baptism of Jesus. Before the baptism, he preached the Messiah in His higher characters, as approaching, but knew not yet the Messianic individual; after the baptism he could point to Jesus and say: This was He, of whom I declared that pr-existence. Thus this second stage of his testimony is here in hand.

He that cometh after me.[ , . A pithy oxymoron exciting attention and reflection, repeated Joh 1:27; Joh 1:30, and probably suggested by the prophetic passage, Mal 3:2 : Lo, I am sending My messenger, and he hath prepared a way before Me. The following words, , which must be referred to the pr-existence of Christ (comp. , Joh 1:1; Joh 1:9-10), not to the superiority of rank (which would require ), contain the clue to the enigmatic and paradoxical sentence. The meaning may be thus explained: My successor (in time) has become (or has come to be) my predecessor (in rank); for He is before me (even in time), being absolutely the first, viz.: the eternal Son of God; while I am only a man born in time and sent to prepare the way for Him.P. S.]

He that comes after me, has come before me. Meyer.100 But it means: was made, has become() before me. John appeared before Christ as His fore-runner and herald; as to his progressive approach in His Old Testament advent, Christ was before him. His coming forth pervaded the Old Testament, and was the impelling power and cause of all prophecy, even the prophecy of John. And this earlier coming had its ground in His earlier (absolutely early, eternal) existence; hence . These are, indeed, primarily antitheses of time. But the designation of the one coming after, as being before, implies at the same time a deeper and higher principle of life. According to Aristotle, the posterius in the real development is the prius in the idea or the value of the life. This is true of man in relation to the animal world, of the New Testament in relation to the Old, of Christ in relation to the Baptist. The of Chrysostom, therefore, is involved in the clause; while Meyer is right, against Lcke, Tholuck and others, in not taking this for its primary sense. The , of course, means not was before me (Luther and others), but: has become [or come to be] before me (against Meyer). Commentators have not been able to reconcile themselves to this , because they have not yet fairly reconciled themselves to the Old Testament incarnation of Christ. Hence Meyer: it is equal to ; Luthardt: He who at first came after me, as if He were my disciple, is since come before me, that is, become my master. Baumgarten-Crusius: of the ideal pr-existence of Christ in the divine counsels. This interpretation lies in the right direction, but misses the fact that the pr-existence of the Logos was personal and real, and that the ideal pr-existence of the God-Man was from the first dynamically real, the power of the creation, the central force and the core of the Old Testament (the roct of Isaiah), and in Israel was in a continual process of incarnation, which was objectively represented beforehand in the Angel of the Lord.

For he was before me [ ].The eternal pr-existence of Christ is the ground of His theocratic manifestation. Here again Meyer [on account of the ] emphasizes the temporal sense, against the reference of the to rank [which would require ], contrary to Chrysostom, Erasmus [Beza, Calvin, Grotius] and many others. He would take the merely temporal conception (i.e., the pr-existence of the Logos); hence in the sense of . The comparative, however, could hardly stand here. Such pr-existence itself involves the higher, even divine dignity.101

Meyer justly holds, against Strauss [De Wette, Scholten] and others, that the Baptist could certainly have from Mal 3:1; Isa 6:1 ff. and Dan 7:13 ff., the idea of the pr-existence of Christ, which even the Rabbins attested. [Besides, we must assume a special revelation given to John at the baptism of Christ, Joh 1:33.P. S.]

Joh 1:16. For [text, rec.: And] of his fulness did we all receive.Undoubtedly the testimony of the Baptist continued, as Origen,102 Chrysostom [Erasmus, Luther, Mel.] and others take it. We adjust the by referring it to the Old Testament saints (Joh 1:12), and particularly to the prophets, whose line John closed.

From the fullness of Christ have we all drawn our supply, says the last of the prophets, and (even) grace for grace. The last, best, highest, which each one in the end received from His fulness, was grace. Thus the Old Testament experience of salvation looked to its completion in the New Testament. Comp. 1Pe 1:11-12.103

Of his fulness.See Joh 1:14, [also Col 1:19; Col 2:9, according to which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelled in Christ bodily; Eph 1:23, where the church as the body of Christ is called the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.P. S.].That the idea of the does not necessarily originate in Gnostic soil (as Schwegler and others [of the Tbingen School] hold), to pass thence into a pseudo-Johannean Gospel, a more thorough knowledge of the history of religion might abundantly teach.104 The heathen philosophy knows only an ideal pleroma as the basis of things; in the actual world all proceeds in broken emanations in infinitum, upon the premises of pantheism. But the idea of the real pleroma was an essential principle of the Old Testament religion and promise. In the Messiah the old piece-work was to become a whole,

shadows were to become reality, revelation was to be finished. See Isa 11:1; [comp. Heb 1:1-2] Hence even Matthew, at the outset, speaks repeatedly of positive fulfilment, John 2, etc. Likewise all the Evangelists and Apostles in their way; Eph 1:10; Col 2:9; Col 2:17; Col 1:19. The pleroma of Christ in the world corresponds with the pleroma of the Trinity in heaven; it is absolute revelation and religion concluded and consummated in His personality; and it is patent that this idea could be only borrowed by the Gnostics, to be altered and corrupted. The of Christ is His fullness of being in its revelation, ontologically present, actively demonstrating itself. He had already partially opened Himself in the Old Testament, so that all the prophets might draw from Him. Comp. Joh 10:6 sqq.; 1Pe 1:11-12.

And (even) grace for grace.And even; not: and that, or: to wit.105Grace for grace[ gratiam super gratiam]. Variously interpreted: (1) Starke: The grace of restoration, for the grace lost in paradise. (2) Chrysostom, Lampe, Paulus and others: The grace of the New Testament instead of or after that of the Old.106 (3) Augustine: First justification, then eternal life.107 (4) Bengel and most moderns: One grace after another [ever growing supplies of grace] from the fullness of Christ.108At the same time, however, the Baptist doubtless thought of the different developments of religious experience in the course of the Old Testament prophecy. Grace was continually assuming new forms. [This remark loses its force if Joh 1:16 gives the words of the Evangelist, not of the Baptist.P. S.]

Joh 1:17. For the law, etc.[Antithetic demonstration of Joh 1:16] The antithesis of the Old and New Testaments, as in Paul (Rom 6:14; Rom 7:3; Gal 4:4, etc.]. It must be remembered that both Apostles (and all the Apostles) recognize likewise the unity of the Old and New Testaments. This unity, even according to our text, is Christ Himself, and it is elsewhere in John [ch. Joh 8:56], as well as in Paul (Rom 4:4), represented by Abraham, or by promise and prophecy, also by the prophetic, typical side of the Mosaic law itself. The law, however, as law, constitutes the opposition of the Old Testament to the New. But the law is here placed in a twofold opposition to the New Testament. (1) As against grace, it is the binding commandment, which cannot give life, but by its demand of righteousness works the death of the sinner, either unto life in repentance, or unto death in the judgment, while it is incapable of giving life, expiating, justifying, sanctifying. Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 5; Galatians 3. (2) As against truth or the reality of salvation and of the kingdom of God, it is first only type, prefiguration, symbol; and then, when the reality is come, shadow, Col 3:17; Heb 10:1. Notice also the further antithesis, that the law was given, set forth, laid down (), as a lifeless statute; grace and truth came, became (), unfolded themselves as life.109

Grace and truth.110Grace as the complete New Testament grace of redemption, in the distinct and solemn sense [Meyer, p. 93], yet according to its historical progress, which began with Abrahams righteousness of faith, Gen 15:6.Truth, as the full truth of life and the full life of truth, the reality and substance of salvation, in contrast with the shadow. [Redeeming grace is opposed to the condemnation, truth to the typical and shadowy character, of the law, of which Bengel says: iram parans et umbram habens.]

Came through Jesus Christ.In the historical synthesis: Jesus Christ, who is here for the first time called by His full [historical] name [in harmony with the instinctively artistic arrangement of the Prologue],111 the development of the grace also culminates in the absolutely efficient grace of redemption, But as Christ the Logos was from eternity, so also was the grace, as the power of the love and righteousness of God over the foreseen guilt of the world. Development is therefore no more to be ascribed to the grace in itself, than to the Logos in Himself; but the eternal grace, with the eternal Logos, entered into historical development towards incarnation, and the consummation: Christ in Jesus, was also the consummation of the grace. The thing here expressed, therefore, is the historical completion and operation of grace, not as a mere work of Christ (Clement of Alex.), or of God (Origen), but rather as the vital action of God in Christ. Dorschus: et eleganter distinguuntur, Ebr. III., prius enim organicam causam, posterius, principalem notat, Yet leaving the Father the first principle.

Joh 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time.That these words also might have been spoken by John the Baptist, appears from Joh 3:31-32; and that they are to be actually attributed to him, from the fact that the Evangelist evidently distinguishes the testimony concerning Christ which, from Joh 1:15, the Baptist gave in general, and particularly among His disciples, from his next following testimony, Joh 1:19, before the rulers of the Jews.112 Our verse, however, not only particularizes respecting the , Joh 1:17 (Meyer), but at the same time enlarges the preceding thoughts. Christ is so truly the fulfiller of grace and truth, that He stands in contrast not only to Moses, but also to the prophets and to the Baptist himself (see Joh 3:31). No man hitherto has seen and revealed God in the sense in which He has seen and revealed Him. Christ, therefore, as fulfilment, is the first veritable revelation.God is emphatically put first. God, in His interior essence, and in His fulness and full glory, no man hitherto hath seen.No mani.e., not only: not even Moses, but also: none of all the prophets, not even the Baptist.Seen (). Not merely perfecte cognovit (Kuinoel); nor does the term refer to intuition without visions (Meyer); still less to such a seeing on the part of the Logos, as was suspended by His incarnation. For as to Christs seeing of God, this was in its nature at once internal, intuitive beholding and external seeing. When the prophets beheld, they saw not with the outward eye; when they saw, they beheld not in the prophetic way; and all that they in their prophetic moments beheld, was piece-work, which they beheld in its symbolical image. In Christ the prophetic vision became one with the ordinary external vision. He saw in all the outward works of God His Spirit, His personal love; and what He saw in the Spirit, He saw not merely as idea, but as actual divine operation. To Him all sensible seeing was permanently a sublime seeing of the majesty of God, a blissful seeing of the love of the Father. And of this vision of Christ, though it was grounded in the eternity of the Logos, Brckner justly observes that it was not interrupted by the incarnation. See John 3. [The same perfect knowledge of God, Christ claims for Himself alone, Mat 11:27,a passage which strongly proves the essential harmony of the Christ of the Synoptists with the Christ of John.P. S.]

The only begotten Son [God]113 who is on (or toward) the bosom of the Father.With the pr-existence of the Logos before His incarnation, His co-existence during His incarnation, is so simply put, that we can find in these words nothing too high for the theology of the Baptist. [?] If the Baptist elsewhere called Him the One who baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matthew 3), the Bridegroom of the church (Joh 3:29), the One who cometh from heaven, in contrast with all prophets, he thereby designated Him also as the only begotten Son. We may then leave it entirely undecided, how far he actually understood the Sonship of Christ from Psalms 110 and other passages, and whether the term does not belong rather to our Evangelist.Who is on the bosom of the Father [ not . The preposition expresses a leaning on, or direction towards, the bosom of the Father, the union of motion and rest in the love of the Only Begotten to the Father.114 Comp. the notes on , Joh 1:1. The phrase to be (leaning) on the bosom, like the Latin, in sinu or gremio esse, sedere, and the German, Schoosskind, bosom-child, expresses a relation of the closest intimacy and tenderest affection. Compare what is said of the Wisdom (the Logos) in Pro 8:30 : Then I was near Him as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him. Bengel remarks: The bosom here is divine, paternal, fruitful, mild, sweet, spiritual. Men are said to be in the loins (in lumbis) who are yet to be born; they are in the bosom (in sinu) who have been born. The Son was in the bosom of the Father, because He was never-not born (non natus, ). The highest unity, and the most intimate knowledge from immediate sight, is here signified.P. S.].Acccording to Hofmann115 and Meyer, the Evangelist is speaking here, and speaking of Christ exalted. From this the is supposed to explain itself as expressing the exaltation. But this would deprive the clause of all force, and reduce it to a pointless, self-neutralizing announcement. If it means: The only begotten Son, who has now ascended to the bosom of the Father, who once preached to us when He was with us,the relative clause, besides being unmeaning, would be inaccurate; it should read: Who is again in the bosom of the Father. The passage Joh 1:50 does not prove that during the earthly life of Christ such an did not belong to Him.116 The antithesis between His being on earth (Joh 1:51) and His being in heaven (Joh 3:13), between His being with the Father (Joh 8:35), representing the Father (Joh 14:9), and being one with the Father (Joh 10:30), and His coming forth from the Father (Joh 16:28), His being alone with the Father in His passion (Joh 16:32), and His being forsaken by God (Mat 27:46), as well as between His glory (c. Joh 1:14) and His being not yet glorified (Joh 7:39),is to be explained neither by a dualistic separation between the consciousness of the Logos and the consciousness of Jesus, nor by a pantheistic admission of human limitations into the Logos (Thomasius), but by the alternation of Christs moods between His self-subsistent relation to God and His self imposed compassionate relation to the world, or between the predominance of self-limiting grace and that of heaven-embracing omnipotence; between the states of humiliation and exaltation in their essential principle and positive spirit. We therefore, with De Wette, take as a time- less present, and , after the analogy of the in Joh 1:1, as expressing the eternal direction of the Son towards the Father, Lcke rightly refers the being in the bosom of the Father, or for the Father, to the incarnate Logos, as He here appears in the definite character of the only begotten Son. Following the common acceptation, Tholuck considers the figure as borrowed from the place of fellowship at table, at the right hand, Joh 13:23 [ . ].117 Meyer thinks this unsuitable, but refers the expression to the paternal embrace, Luk 16:22 [ ].118 But the common acceptation is supported by the kindred expression of Christ, that He will come with the Father to His own, to make His abode with them, Joh 14:23; comp. Rev 3:20; Rev 19:9.

He hath, etc. [an epithet of excellency and of distance, as Bengel observes] is certainly very emphatic [He, and none else]; yet not as looking to the local superiority of heaven,119 but to the majesty of the Son of God.

Interpreted. is hard to explain. Lcke refers it to the grace and truth which Christ has seen in God; Meyer, to the substance of His view of God; [the E. V. (which supplies: Him), Alford, Owen, Godet, to God Himself in the beginning of the verse.P. S.] Lcke translates: He hath revealed it; De Wette: He hath proclaimed (declared) it, told it; Meyer: He hath explained, interpreted [viz.: the contents of His intuitions of God]. The New Testament parallels, Luk 24:35; Act 15:12; Act 15:14, etc., admit both renderings, but favor that of De Wette; the passage Lev 14:57 (LXX.) seems rather to favor Meyer, especially since the word, in classic usage, is applied particularly to the explaining of divine things.120 As we attribute the word to the Baptist, we conceive that it contains an allusion to the obscure beginnings of revelation in the Old Testament. The Baptist has not understood the historical predictions of Jesus, but has no doubt recognized in Christ the key of the ancient time, the perfect interpretation of the rudiments of revelation. We therefore take absolutely, with respect to the old covenant. In virtue of His seeing of God He has cleared up the law in grace and truth, brought the Old Testament gloriously to light in the New. He has brought and made solution.

[This very verb argues against Dr. Langes view of the authorship of Joh 1:18, which must be as cribed to the Evangelist. The Baptist never came into close personal intimacy with Christ, and died before He had fully revealed the counsel of God and the meaning of the Old Testament. But the Evangelist, in full view of the atoning death and glorious resurrection, could use this term in its most comprehensive sense. With it the Prologue returns to the beginning, and suggests the best reason why Christ is called the Logos, since He is the Revealer and Interpreter of the hidden being of the Godhead in all that relates to our salvation.John puts the supreme dignity of Christ, as the eternal Word, the Author of the world, the Giver of life and light, the Fountain of grace and truth, the only and perfect Expounder of God, at the head of his Gospel, because without this dignity Christianity would sink to a position of merely relative superiority above other religions, instead of being the absolute and therefore final religion for all mankind. Luther observes on the Prologue: These are indeed brief words, but they contain the whole Christian doctrine and life.P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the preceding exegesis.
2. The Word was made flesh. He was God, He became flesh. What He was, He was not merely in idea (Hegel), but in personal divine subsistency; what He became (), He became not merely in appearance (Gnosticism), nor in a partial way (joining Himself to the flesh, or veiling Himself in it, according to Nestorianism, or depriving the flesh of its genuineness, and transforming it into a divine manifestation, according to Eutyches), nor only for a particular need and purpose (Anselm), but perfectly and forever. As Word, He was the full expression of the essence of the Godhead, and therefore was also pure eternal being and personal life; in His coming forth, He entered into veritable, integral human nature in its pure essence. The Word could not be changed by the flesh (contrary to modern attempts to carry change into the essence of God), but the flesh was to be perfected by the Word in His coming in it, carried from conditional potentiality to determinate actuality, made the glorified organ of the eternal Spirit. The prosecution of the doctrine of the Communicatio idiomatum lies not on the side of the divine nature, but on the side of the human.

As regards the doctrine of the incarnation, the Logos, as eternal Logos, became man, without change in Himself; that is to say, the incarnation was not occasioned by the sin of man. The doctrine of the flesh must, according to our passage, be so constructed that the flesh shall be as penetrable (and more) to the Spirit as to sin. The union between the divine and human natures is the great mystery of life, and to think of it rightly we must keep the distinction, that the divine being unfolds itself in a conscious way, like a work of art from a human mind, while the human becoming effects itself in an unconscious way, after the manner of the development of a plant. The pure contra-distinction appears in the work of art, which unfolds itself synthetically, subjecting to its service the material originally belonging to it, and the metamorphosis of the plant, which reveals spirit analytically, without attaining any power over itself. In the life of the natural man (in the pure sense of the term) nature predominates, but the spirit comes more and more to power (1Co 15:45); in the life of the spiritual man, who is from heaven, spirittual consciousness predominates, appropriating, pervading, and ruling the human organism. So the Logos, with the absolute master power of His essence as Logos, entered into human nature. He is not only voluntary in His incarnation in general; He is voluntary in each act of His human nature, i.e., of His human self-limitation for the sake of a higher spontaneity. He is voluntarily born (Luk 1:26 sqq.), voluntarily a child (Luk 2:51), voluntarily sleeps (Mar 4:38), is voluntarily ignorant as to the day of judgment (Mar 13:32-33), voluntarily suffers (Mat 26:53), voluntarily dies (Joh 10:18); but all in order that He may truly live (Joh 5:17; Joh 9:4), truly unfold Himself (Joh 10:15-16; Joh 12:24), truly watch (Mat 26:38), truly know (Mar 3:12), truly act and triumph (Joh 12:12), and eternally live (John 17).

In other words, Christ entered into the entire life of man, sin excepted, to raise it to the second, higher life of glorified humanity. This opposition is illustrated by the suspensions of consciousness in our natural life itself; and before we decide respecting the divine mystery of the Logos entering into sleep, we must be clear respecting the human mystery of our own minds sleeping. He goes to sleep. Weakness must be transfigured by freedom into rhythm, or determination of power. In the ideal incarnation of Christ, His historical incarnation, His subjection to law, is actually involved.

3. And we beheld His glory. The humiliation of Christ in the form of a servant did not hinder the Evangelist from seeing His glory. The omnipotence which, in the strength of love, puts limits upon itself (Mat 26:53-54), is not entered into an absolute humiliation, but into a humiliation to our human vision, in order to reveal Himself in a higher glory. It remained , inasmuch as it remained at every point free; it became , inasmuch as it made earnest of the self-humiliation. But it did not leave its riches of power and honor behind in heaven; it yielded them up to the world, 2Co 8:9. The world had the honor of judging the universal Judge; it had the power to put omnipotence to death; the wisdom to judge concerning him; the omnipresence of the Roman empire to bring him down to Golgotha, the grave and Sheol; but it thereby only gained the power to judge itself, that it might be the medium of that revelation of omnipotence in the impotence of Christ whereby it was overcome, judged and reconciled. Full faith in the cross must feel that Christ has humbled Himself by surrender of Himself to the world, not in heavenly reservation towards the world, and that here has taken place on the full scale what occurs elsewhere on smaller scales, or here in one central fact what appears otherwise every where in history: God makes Himself weak, and stands, as bound, in His government, over against the freedom of the sinner, to let him feel in the judgment that physical power is nothing of itself, and that truth, righteousness and love are all.

4. Christ is the Only Begotten (), inasmuch as He is the one Word, in whom all things were ideally and virtually included, in distinction from the universe in its development; He is the First Born (), inasmuch as He has entered, as a principle, into development.

5. And of His fulness. If John could bear witness of the pr-existence of Christ, he could also testify that the prophets had all drank of His fulness, and that their highest, fairest experience had been the experience of grace.

6. Grace for grace. The reciprocal forms of grace in the Old Testament, and in the whole history of the world.

7. The distinction between the Old and New Testaments: (1) Moses, the servant, serving; Christ, the Son and Lord, reigning in the obedience of the Father; (2) Given, laid down; come; (3) Law; grace and truth (see above).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The combined testimony of the Old Testament John and the New to the incarnation of the Son of God: 1) The agreement of the two testimonies; 2) their difference; 3) their copiousness.The Old Covenant and the New: 1) In contrast: Moses and Christ; 2) In harmony: John and Christ.The Old Covenant in its relation to the New: 1) The advent of the New (Christ in the Old Testament); 2) the discipline for the New (Moses and the Law); 3) a shadow vanishing before the New (No man hath seen God at any time).Twofold testimony of the Baptist concerning Christ: 1) Concerning the near approach of Christ, whose person he yet knew not; 2) concerning Jesus, that He is the Christ.The Incarnation for our salvation: A great mystery in its nature (the Word was made flesh); 2) a historical fact in its demonstration (dwelt among us); 3) an assured sight of blessed eyewitnesses (we beheld); 4) a blessed experience of all believers (full of grace and truth).The consummation of revelation: 1) The revealing Word, which had appeared in the Angel of the Lord, now become man; 2) the glory of God above the most holy place, now bodily manifested in the dwellings of men; 3) the entranced vision of divine tokens, now become the blessed seeing of the divine glory; 4) the law transformed into the fulness of grace and truth.The Word was made flesh: a gospel of the highest knowledge; being 1) a view of Christ; 2) the key of philosophy; 3) a prophecy for Christianity.The announcement: The Word was made flesh: 1) a preaching of repentance (sin therefore does not belong to the flesh, Rom 8:3); 2) a preaching of faith. Our flesh should be transformed through the Word.Christ has explained all: 1) The mysteries of the Old Testament; 2) the mysteries of humanity (the Word was made flesh); 3) the mysteries of nature (the Word entered into the process of growth); 4) the mysteries of God.

Starke: O the mystery! God is become man; the Son of God the Father, a son of man; the Word, a child; the Life, a mortal man; the eternal Light is in the midst of darkness, Rom 9:5.How deeply the Most High has abased Himself, and how gloriously the Humbled has exalted us.121Canstein: Christ has pitched His tent in our nature, that He might make His abode in each one of us, and He will still more gloriously pitch His tabernacle among men, and more peculiarly manifest His glory, Rev 21:3; Rev 21:11.Jesus is ever, in His whole office, full of grace and truth. In His prophetical office He preaches [and actually presents] grace and truth; in His priestly office He procures them; in His kingly office He gives and maintains them.Seest thou how the Word is made flesh? Give diligence that thou mayest be made like Him according to thy measure in glory.Zeisius: Christ, the one inexhaustible fountain of all graces, from which all believers from the beginning have drawn.Canstein: The true use of grace received fits us for more grace, so that one grace becomes the reward of another, yet remains grace, Heb 10:1. Christ is the end of all the Mosaic system of shadows, and in Him we have the substance itself, which the shadows only prefigured, Heb 10:1; Col 2:17.Ibid.: Grace and truth belong together. Where grace is, in the forgiveness of sins, there appears also the truth of a holy and upright nature in Christ. And where the latter fails, grace also is wanting.Hedinger: Christ a prophet and interpreter of the divine will.

Mosheim: The second word: Truth is contrasted with ceremonies. Moses set forth only types and shadows; the Saviour has preached [acted in His life] pure truth, the grace and love of God towards men without figure.Von Gerlach: He that cometh after me is preferred, etc. One of the many sacred enigmas in this Gospel, in which the literary sense gives a paradox to incite us to seek a higher.From Augustine: The same God who gave the law, has also given grace; but this law He sent by His servant; with the grace He has Himself come down.Heubner: This sentence [the Word was made flesh] contains all: (1) The divinity of ChristHe is the Logos; (2) His true humanityHe is made flesh. This dwelling denotes His true human life, and is a pledge of our future dwelling with Him.There is no stopping, no limit, in grace, but ever new growth in insight, power, joy and peace.Schleiermacher: Grace for grace. It is properly equivalent to grace in reward for grace; i.e., for our receiving one grace from Him, another grace is in turn imparted.Only the One who is from the Father, hath seen the Father (Joh 6:46); only in Him and through Him can man know God the Father, and draw from His fulness grace and truth.

[Schaff: Joh 1:14. The Incarnation the central truth of Christianity and of all religion.: 1) The end of the reign of separation from God, or the reign of sin and death; 2) the beginning of the reign of union and communion with God, or the reign of righteousness and life.The Incarnation: 1) Its nature: (a) not a change or conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but an assumption of manhood into abiding union with the second person of the Godhead; the two natures remaining distinct, yet inseparably united for ever; (b) not an assumption of a part of human nature, but of the whole, body, soul and spirit; Christ being perfect God and perfect Man in one person; (c) not an assumption of sin, but only of its consequences, in order to remove and destroy them; sin being no part of human nature as originally constituted, but a corruption of that nature by a foreign poison and an abuse of freedom. Christ was tempted, and suffered and died as we, but He never submitted to temptation; He knew no sin, and remained holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. 2. Its effects: (a) the redemption of human nature, or of the whole race, from the curse and dominion of sin and death; (b) the elevation of human nature to abiding union with the Godhead.The Word became flesh: 1) really and truly (against Gnosticism, docetism, Arianism); 2) totally and perfectly (against Apollinarianism); 3) undividedly and inseparably (against Nestorianism); 4) unmixedly, without confusion or absorption of substance (against Eutychianism and Monophysitism).The incarnation the end and aim of all religion; for religion (religio, from relegare, to rebind, to reunite) implies: 1) an original union of man and God in the state of innocence; 2) a separation of the two by sin and death; 3) a reconciliation and reunion which was effected by the atonement of Christ.The mystery of the incarnation reversely repeated in every true regeneration by which man becomes a child of God, a partaker of Christs divine nature, and a new creature in Christ Jesus.]

[Burkitt, Joh 1:14 : Christs taking flesh implies that He took not only human nature, but all the weaknesses and infirmities of that nature also (sinful infirmities being excepted), such as hunger, thirst, weariness. As man, Christ has an experimental sense of our infirmities and wants; as God, He can supply them all.]

[M. Henry (abridged) on Joh 1:16 : As of old, God dwelt in the tabernacle of Moses, by the Shekinah, between the cherubim, so now He dwells in the human nature of Christ, the true Shekinah, the symbol of Gods peculiar presence. And we are to address God through Christ, and from Him receive divine oracles. All believers receive from Christs fulness; the greatest saints cannot live without Him, the weakest may live by Him. This excludes boasting and silences perplexing fear.Grace is the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. Gods good will works the good work, and the good work qualifies for further tokens of His good will.As the cistern receives from the fulness of the fountain, the branches from the root, and the air from the sun, so we receive grace from the fulness of Christ.Grace for grace speaks the freeness of grace; the abundance of grace; the promotion of grace by grace; the substitution of the N. T. grace for the O. T. grace; the augmentation and continuance of grace; the conformity of grace in the saints to the grace that is in Christ, the saints being changed into the same heavenly image. (A combination of different interpretations of , which may do for a sermon, but not for exegesis.)]

[Augustine on Joh 1:17 : The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness. But it made ready for the physician, who was to come with grace and truth.Olshausen: The law induces and elicits the consciousness of sin and the need of redemption; it only typifies the reality; the gospel actually communicates reality and power from above.]

[J. C. Ryle, Joh 1:18 : After reading this Prologue, it is impossible to think too highly of Christ, or to give too much honor to Him. He is the meeting point between the Trinity and the sinners soul. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father who sent Him (Joh 5:23).Quesnel calls the Prologue, especially Joh 1:1, the gospel of the holy Trinity. Our knowledge of this mystery of mysteries begins with the knowledge of the Son, who reveals and expounds to us the Father, and who is Himself revealed and applied to us by the Holy Spirit.P. S.]

Footnotes:

[77]Joh 1:14.[The parenthesis marked in this verse in the text. rec. appears to be, like the division of chapters and verses, only conventional; though it serves us the good purpose of showing the true reference of full () to the Word ( ) rather than to glory (), which could not be otherwise indicated in the English version. The clause itself is not properly parenthetical. See the Exegesis.E. D. Y]

[78]Joh 1:15. [, present; the testimony of John goes on. Meyer: Vergegenwrtigung, als tnte das Zeugniss noch for.P. S.]

[79]Joh 1:15. [The perfect likewise implies continuation of the action in its effect. Meyer: Das Perf, in gewhnlicher, classischer, prsentischer Bedeutung. Alford: the voice is still sounding. (also used of Christ, Joh 7:28; Joh 7:37; Joh 12:44) is an onomato-potic word, imitating the hoarse cry of the raven, like the German, krchzen, the English, to croak; here to call aloud with the confidence and solemnity of a herald. Bengel: Clamat Joh. cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum prconem decet.P. S. ]

[80]Joh 1:16, in most codd. [. B. C* D. L. X], begins with, instead of : For of his fulness, etc. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf. [Hengstenberg and Godet prefer , and conjecture that on was occasioned by the preceding and succeeding .P. S.]

[81] Joh 1:18. B. C* L. Codd. Sin. et al. read for ; probably from Joh 1:1. [So also Meyer.]

[This is the first important difference of reading which occurs in the Gospel of John, and which, on account of its theological character, deserves a fuller notice than it has received from Lange or any other commentator, except Alford, in his sixth edition. The ancient authorities are almost equally divided between , the (an) Only-begotten God, and the Only-begotten Son. A minor difference relates to the article which is omitted by most of the authorities favoring . The reading is supported by the two oldest MSS., the Sinaitic (which has C, the usual abbreviation of , a prima manu, but which, in this very verse, by omitting the words , before betrays the carelessness of the transcriber), and the Vatican (both from the 4th century), also by C.* L.; the Syr. Peshito; Clemens Alex, (once or twice), Excerpta Theodoti (a full quotation), Epiphanius (three times), the Second Synod of Ancyra, Didymus of Alex, (twice). To this must be added that Gregory of Nyssa and other Greek fathers repeatedly call Christ , where they do not quote from Joh 1:18. The reading is favored by a larger number of manuscripts, A. (Cod. Alex, of the 5th cent.), C. (the Ephrm MS. corrected) 10. and nearly all other MSS.; the Curetonian Syriac Vers., the Lat. Vers. (Itala and Vulgata); Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 15), who is older by at least 120 years than the oldest known MSS., Eusebius (in six passages, in one, however, with the significant addition after , for which reason Tregelles claims him for , though unjustly; see Abbot, Bibl. Sacra, 1861, p. 859), Athanasius (four times), Chrysostom (eight times), Ambrose, Augustine and other fathers, also the emperor Julian (twice). Hilary, in seven places, supports Filius, but in one (De Trin., xii. 24) he reads unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris. The evidence from Irenus, Origen, Basil and Cyril of Alexandria is contradictory and uncertain. Irenus, the oldest witness in this case (A. D. 170), quotes the passage three times, twice in favor of Filius (Adv.hr. IV. c. 20, 6), or Filius Dei (III. xi., 6), once in favor of Deus (IV. xx., John 11 : unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit). Origen reads twice (In Joh. Tom. II. c. 29; XXXII. c. 13, Opp. ed. Delarue 4. p. 89 and 438), once (Contr. Cels. l. II. c. 71, Opp. 1 p. 440, in a full quotation), besides once (In Joh. Tom. vi. 2, Opp. iv. 102, with a different reading, ), and Unigenitus Dei Filius once (in Rufinus version of Com. on Son 1:4 Opp. iii. 91). Cyril of Alexandria, as edited by Aubert, has three times, four times, and favors the latter in his Commentary, as printed. For a fuller statement of patristic testimonies see an elaborate article of Ezra Abbot (the learned librarian of Harvard University) in the Andover Bibliotheca Sacra for Oct. 1861, pp. 840872. I have verified several of his quotations. He has corrected many errors of former critics and disproved the assertion of Tregelles that is the ancient reading of the Fathers generally. The authorities for cover a much larger territory than those for , which seem to be almost confined to Egypt. For internal reasons, , being the more difficult reading, has the preference, according to the usual canon; for naturally suggested , while the designation of Christ as the only begotten God, stands isolated in the Bible. On the other hand, a change of the abridged form C to C, which is usual in the uncial MSS., was as easy as the change from the latter to the former. There is moreover an inherent propriety for the use of in connection with and with the mention of the Father; while is hardly in place immediately after at the beginning of the verse, and introduces a harshness without a parallel in the style of John. The Scripture argument for the Divinity of Christ is strong enough, even from the first verse of the Prologue, without the reading in Joh 1:18. In view of all the data before us, I see no sufficient reason here to depart from the received text. Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt (without the article); Abbot, Alford, Tischend. (ed. 8) retain . Lachmann likewise reads , but before the authorities in favor of were fully known. Comp. on this subject, besides Tregelles and Tischend. (ed. 8, Vol. 1, p. 745), especially the article of Ezra Abbot already quoted, and a long note in the 6th ed. of Alford (pp. 689691).P. S.]

[82]Joh 1:18. [On the meaning of see the last foot note, p. 78. Christ is the true Exegete or Expounder of God.P. S.]

[83][So Chrysostom, Theophyl., Grotius, Lampe.]

[84][So Bleek.]

[85][So Meyer: einfach die Rede fortfhrend,wie alle des Prologs. Here the copula carrie the reader to the highest pinnacle of contemplation. So far we may say with Godet that it is emphatic, but cannot adopt his translation: Yea, indeed.P. S.]

[86][Apollinaris had no more right to appeal to this passage for his assertion that Christ had no rational soul, its place being supplied by the divine Logos, than he had a right to draw the same inference from all those passages where man is called flesh. On the Apollinarian Christology comp. my Church History, Vol. III., pp. 708 ff.P. S.]

[87][Some of the ablest commentators urge this point. Calvin: Eo usque se Filius Dei submisit, ut carnem istam tot miseriis obnoxiam susciperet. Hengstenberg, John 1 : p. 49, quotes at length from Luther to the same effect, and says: There is a wealth of comfort in this fact, a balm for the poor, terrified conscience. Ewald, p. 127, makes these striking remarks: Of all the words which express human nature, John chooses the meanest and most contemptible, viz.: flesh, which, in the O. T., denotes the lower, perishing, corruptible part of man; but even this the Logos did not despise, and thus He became man in the fullest sense of the term.P. S.]

[88][The same view is ascribed to John by Pfleiderer in Hilgenfelds Zeitschrift for 1866, p. 260, and by Scholten of LeydenP. S.]

[89][Bengel remarks that nowhere in the whole range of literature is the difference of the verbs and more studiously observed than in the Prologue of John.P. S.]

[90][Godet, p. 194, puts a strained view of the into , and makes it to mean that the Logos gave up His divine mode of existence.P. S.]

[91][Or rather the humanity of Christ. His body (comp. Joh 2:19; Joh 2:21) was the , the tabernacle, the temple of God, in which He revealed His presence, the fulness of His grace and truth. The Apostles and the believers generally (comp. Joh 1:12. ) are the spectators and worshippers in this sanctuary.P. S.]

[92][Hengstenberg: The indwelling of God among His people, which is implied in the idea of the people of God, was merely a shadow of the temple, and has attained its full truth only in Christ. Bengel sees in the verb an allusion rather to the transitory abode of Christ on earth: habitavit, ut in tabernaculo, vere, nec diu, spectaculum sui prbens. So also Godet. But this is certainly not applicable to Gods dwelling: with His people on the new earth, Rev 21:3. Ewald, on the contrary, urges the idea of a longer abode, which is equally untenable. The Apostle has no reference to time, but to the reality of Gods abode with man in His incarnate Son as compared with the shadowy indwelling in the old tabernacle and temple. This sojourning implies community of life, as to say: We have eaten together, slept under the same tent, travelled together.P. S.]

[93][This is the proper reading, while , plenam, is conformed to , , pleni, to . P. S.]

[94][Winer, Gramm., p. John 524: (7th Germ, ed.), likewise regards the comprehensive … as grammatically independent, and refers to Php 3:19; Mar 12:40. Hengstenberg views these words as an abridged relative sentence: (who is) full, etc.; comp. Rev 1:5. But even this supplement is not necessary. Ewald, repeating the main subject, well translates: Er, voll Gnade und Wahrheit.P. S.]

[95][ or (from , to dwell) does not occur in the O. T. Scriptures, and signifies the glorious presence of God with His people. Buxtorf (Lexicon Chald, Talmud, et Rabbin., ed. Bas. 1640, p. 2394) gives the following definition of it: habitatio, cohabitatio. In specie dicitur de prsentia, gloria et majestate divina aut Divinitate, quando dicitur hominibus esse prisens, aut cum cis conversari, auxilio suo, gratia et salutari prsentia adesse. Communiter explicatur, gloria vel majestas divina, divinitas gloriosa. In the same sense John uses in Rev 21:3 : , , . (Comp. Text. Note, 1.)P. S ]

[96][ is also here a particle of comparison, not of confirmation (like the falsely so-called Hebrew veritatis); but the comparison here is not between similar things, but between the fact and the idea, the reality and the expectation: as might be expected from one that is the only begotten. Hence the absence of the article before . The reality is implied as the basis of the comparison (against Alford).P. S.]

[97] [John alone uses of Christ, namely, in the five passages above referred to. Besides, the term occurs four times of human sons, three times in Luke (Joh 7:12; Joh 8:42; Joh 9:38) and once in the Hebrews (Joh 11:17). The term is called figurative, but it is more correct to say that all earthly relationships of fathers and filial affection are a figure and reflection of the eternal Fatherhood of God and the eternal Sonship of Christ. Comp. Eph 3:14-15 : The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. I hold with Lange that John learned the word directly from Christ. Lampe and Hengstenberg derive the appellation from Zec 12:10, where the Messiah is compared to an only begotten ():

And they have looked unto me whom they pierced,
And they have mourned over it,
Like a mourning over the only One(, LXX.: Vulg.: unigenitum).

And they have been in bitterness for it,
Like a bitterness over the first-born(, LXX.): P. S.]

[98][The term refers back to , Joh 1:12, and marks the difference between Christ and the believers: 1) He is the only Son in a sense in which there is no other; they are many; 2) He is Son from eternity; they become children in time; 3) He is Son by nature; they are made sons by grace and by adoption; 4) He is of the same essence with the Father; they are of a different substance; in other words, His is a metaphysical, primitive and co-essential, theirs only an ethical and derived, sonship. The idea of generation, as Meyer correctly remarks, is implied in the very term . Origen explains = . This leads logically to the Nicene dogma of the homoousia and the eternal generation, i.e., the eternal communion of love between the Father and the Son. (Comp. Joh 17:24) Luther says: God has many children, but only one only begotten Son, through whom all things and all other children were made.P. S.]

[99][But defended by Hengstenberg, who sees here a new proof for the identity of Christ with the revealed Jehovah of the O. T. Grace and truth appear here as personal attributes, as in Exo 34:6; while in Joh 1:17, as in Mic 7:20, they appear as gifts which Christ bestows.P. S.]

[100][Der hinter mir her Kommende ist mir zuvwgekom-men. Meyer, like Origen, takes both adverbs in a temporal (or rather local sense; time being represented here in the form of space). So does Hengstenberg: Der nach mir kommt ist mir vorangegangen. Godet: Celui qui vient aprs moi, ma precd. The objection to this interpretation is that it makes a mere repetition. Hence most commentators (Chrys., Lcke, Thol., Olsh., De Wette, Alf.) refer to time, and to rank. So also the E. V: He that cometh after me is preferred (i.e., is advanced) before me. Johns preparatory office decreased before the rising glory of the Messiah. This interpretation saves the distinction of , has become, and , was, so carefully observed throughout the Prologue; must, of course, not be referred to the divine dignity of the Logos, which is eternal, but to the divine-human dignity of the incarnate Christ, which was acquired. Dr. Lange ingeniously combines the reference to time and that to rank in and .P. S.]

[101][John probably chose instead of , to raise Christ above all comparison. He is absolutely the first, the Alpha and Omega. Hengstenberg, too, finds in the word the idea of absolute priority, which would have been weakened by the use of the comparative.P. S.]

[102][Origen (In Evang. Joh., Tom. VI. 2, Vol. IV., p. 102) blames Heracleon, a Gnostic commentator on John, from the middle of the second century, for terminating the testimony of the Baptist at the end of Joh 1:17, and makes it continue to the end of Joh 1:18.P. S.]

[103][I prefer, with Meyer, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Alford, Godet, to ascribe this and the following verses to the Evangelist, on account of their specific Christian character, and on account of we all (comp. Joh 1:14, ). The Baptist, after all, belonged to the O. T. dispensation, though standing at the very threshold of the New, as Moses died of the kisses of Jehovah outside, yet in sight of, the holy land. John speaks in the name of the Apostles, Joh 1:14, in the name of all believers, Joh 1:16. Hence , which already pre-supposes the existence of the Christian Church.P. S.]

[104][The Gnostic pleroma is the ideal world, containing all the ons, i.e., the divine powers and attributes, such as mind, reason, wisdom, truth, life, which gradually emanate from it in a certain order (according to Valentine, in pairs with sexual polarity, the and , the and , the and ). Christ is only one of these ons. But according to John, Christ is the whole pleroma from which flow all the benefits of salvation and gifts of grace. Irenus, Adv. Hr. III. 11, 1, argues from the Prologue of John against the Gnostic idea of the pleroma.P. S.]

[105][ Und zwar; nmlich, et mme. In this epexegetical sense is taken by Winer, Gram. p. 407, Meyer and Alford. Comp. Gal 6:16; Eph 6:18; Heb 11:17. But Langes interpretation makes more forcible. It often means also, even, (eben, ja). See Winer, p 408. Similarly Bengel: omne quod ex ejus plenitudine accipiendum erat, et (speciatim) gratiam pro gratia.P. S.]

[106][Chrysostom supports this view by Joh 1:17, where the law of Moses is contrasted with the grace of Christ; but for this very reason the law cannot be another kind of grace, and is never so called. Cyril and Euthymius Zigabenus likewise explain: .P. S.]

[107][Or rather fides, and vita terna, as the free reward of faith. Quia ipsa fides gratia est, says Augustine, et vita terna gratia est pro gratia. Tract. III. in Joh., Tom. III. Pars. II. p. 308. The similar interpretation of St Bernard: gratia glori pro gratia militi, is equally true and equally insufficient. The glory of the heavenly state is only the last link in this chain of divine grace.P. S.]

[108][This interpretation is also adopted by Lcke, Thol., Olsh., Mey., Hengstenb., Alf., Wordsw., and falls in most naturally with the idea of , nor is it inconsistent with the fundamental meaning of (grace exchanging with grace). It is an unbroken stream of grace from justification through the various stages of sanctification to life everlasting, every new wave taking the place of and overwhelming, though not superseding or destroying, the other. Ewald refers to the multiplicity of spiritual gifts () in the Apostolic Church, 1 Corinthians 12-14, but the ordinary graces and blessings must be included. does not always mean an exchange that supersedes one thing, but, like and , a. succession. Bengel refers for a similar use of to schylus, Agam., and Chrysostom, De sacerd. VI. 13. Other examples are added by Lcke, Meyer and Alford. John might have said or . (as Php 2:27) instead of , but it would not have expressed so strongly the overwhelming flow of grace upon grace. For the idea comp. Rom 5:1 ff.; Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9.P. S.]

[109][Bengel remarks here that no philosopher so accurately employs words and observes their distinctions as John, especially in this chapter, and explains the difference between and : Mosis non sua est lex, Christi sua est gratia et Veritas. Alford, after De Wette, finds the reason of the contrast in the fact that the law as a positive enactment was narrow and circumscribed, and hence , while grace is unlimited. But besides the idea of positive enactment, implies also the divine origin and solemn promulgation of the law, while indicates the free, spontaneous and abiding nature of grace. Moses may disappear, for the law was only given through him, but Christ with His grace abides forever. The law commands, the gospel gives; the law condemns, grace justifies; the law kills, grace makes alive. The highest mission of the law is to awaken a sense of sin and guilt, the need of redemption, and thus to lead to Christ.P. S.]

[110][The conjunction before grace, as Bengel remarks, is here elegantly omitted; for a but as well as an and was in place here.P. S.]

[111][Comp. here the remarks of Meyer and Godet. The latter says: Cest u ce moment du prologue que l’ aptre prononce pour la premire fois le grand nom attendu depuis si long temps, Jesus-Christ. A mesure, que la divine kistoire des misericordes de la Parole envers l’ humanit se droule ses regards, ce spectacle lui inspire des termes toujours plus concrets, plus humains. First the Word, then Life and Light, then the Only Begotten of the Father, now Jesus Christ, who embraces all that was. said of Him before.P. S.]

[112][I dissent from this view. See foot notes on page 76.P. S.]

[113][On this remarkable difference of reading: , generally abbreviated in ancient MSS. YC and (b) () or C, see Textual Notes (5).P. S.]

[114][Winer, Gramm, p. 387 (7th ed.): an den Busen (angelehnt), gegen den Busen hin. Ewald translates am Schoosse.P. S.]

[115][Schriftbeweis, Vol. I., p. 120, sec. ed,: der in den Schooss des Vaters hingegangen. But Meyer gave this explanation before Hofmann, who also refers to him.P. S.]

[116][Hengstenberg, Brckner, Godet, Philippi likewise oppose Meyers ungrammatical reference of the present participle to the future state of exaltation. The intimate communion between the Son and the Father was not interrupted or suspended by the incarnation. Christ, while on earth, was at the game time in heaven (Joh 3:13), not simply de jure (as Meyer, in the fifth edition, p. 95, explains it), but de facto in a moss real, though mysterious sense. (Wordsworth is altogether too fanciful if he finds in an allusion to the peculiar name of Jehovah, the Being, the ever Existing One.)P. S.]

[117][So also Winer, Lcke, Gess, Ewald, Godet, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson.P. S.]

[118][So also Robinson (Lex. sub ), Owen (from the idea of embracing a friend and straining him to the bosom) and Hengstenberg, who besides refers to similar expressions, Deu 13:7; Deu 28:36; Mic 7:5; Isa 40:11.P. S.]

[119][As Meyer explains it in accordance with his reference of the passage to the state of exaltation in heaven.P. S.]

[120][The words (properly to lead out, either in the sense of taking the lead, or of bringing out, explaining the hidden sense), , , are technical terms used by the classic writers of the interpretation of divine oracles, visions, mysteries, prodigies, laws and ceremonies, and hence properly applied by Christian writers to the exposition of the holy Scriptures. See the passages collected by Wetstein, p. 841, and the references in Meyer, p. 96. Lampe, who strictly adheres to this technical sense, like Meyer, supplies no object, and takes = , interpret est, as regnat without the object is equivalent to rex est, and docet to doctor est. The emphasis certainly lies on the verb rather than the object. He has explained, truly and fully, in His words and in His life; His instruction alone merits the name of an explanation; He is the Expounder of God and divine things.P. S.]

[121] [Richard Crashaw (1646):

Welcome to our wondering sight,
Eternity shut in a span!
Summer in winter! day in night!
Heaven in earth! and God in man!
Great Little One, whose glorious birth
Lifts earth to heaven, stoops heaven to earth.
Luther, in his Christmas hymn: Gelobet seist Du, Jesu Christ, commemorates the sublime contrasts of the transcending mystery of the incarnation.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1598
INCARNATION AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST

Joh 1:14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

IN treating on divine subjects, the mind should be impressed with holy awe: whenever we approach them, we should apply to ourselves the injunction given to Moses, and pull off our shoes as standing upon holy ground. But of all subjects, that of the incarnation of our blessed Lord should be contemplated with the profoundest reverence. It has heights and depths, which even the heavenly intelligences themselves are unable to explore. They are ever looking into it; and to all eternity will behold in it fresh wonders to admire. But great as is this mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, it cannot for one moment be questioned by any one who believes the Scriptures. The Evangelists, as inspired by the Holy Ghost, declare it; whilst, as eye-witnesses of his Majesty, they attest it. Let us then with all humility of mind proceed to the consideration of the Apostles testimony in our text; wherein we notice both the incarnation and the character of Christ.

I.

The incarnation of Christ

[The person here said to be made flesh, is the Word: and it is manifest, that the Apostle speaks, as knowing that the persons to whom he spoke were familiar with the terms he used. It does not appear probable that the Jews should borrow the term Logos (here translated the Word, and elsewhere translated Wisdom,) from the Platonists; or that the Apostle would adopt it from them. We rather suppose that the Jews, and consequently the Apostle also, received the term from the Scriptures themselves: for the Psalmist says, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made: and Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs, speaks of Wisdom in almost the same terms as the Apostle uses in reference to the Word [Note: Pro 8:22-30.]. At all events, we know from the whole preceding context, as also from the text itself, that the Logos or the Word is no other than the only-begotten Son of God. We know that he subsisted from all eternity; that he was personally distinct from God the Father; that, nevertheless, he was truly and properly God; and, finally that, so far from being himself a creature, he was the Creator of all things, without any limitation or exception [Note: ver. 13. This is confirmed by Php 2:6-7. Col 1:16-17.].

This divine Person (the Second Person in the ever-adorable Trinity,) was made flesh; that is, he assumed our nature with all its sinless infirmities; and was made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted In that state of humiliation he sojourned upon earth, as once he dwelt with his people in the wilderness; his Deity being veiled by human flesh, as formerly it had been by the Shechinah, the bright cloud, which, as the symbol of his presence, dwelt in the tabernacle first, and afterwards in the temple.
We stop not to enlarge upon this stupendous mystery; wishing rather to shorten our discussion, that we may have the more room for a practical improvement of it.]
The Apostle, as we might well expect, after mentioning the incarnation of Christ, proceeds to notice,

II.

His character

[In the primary sense of the passage, the terms full of grace and truth refer to the official character of Christ. He came to introduce a dispensation very different from that which had hitherto existed. The law which Moses had given to the Israelites was a ministration of death and condemnation: and though the ceremonial law had held forth hopes of pardon and acceptance, yet it consisted merely in ritual observances, which in themselves were of no value, and which could never take away sin. But Jesus Christ came to proclaim pardon and peace to all; and was himself the substance, of which all the rites of Moses were only types and shadows. View the types of every description; and there was not one which had not its accomplishment in him: view the prophecies; all of which were fulfilled in him: and at the same time all the curses denounced by the moral law are turned into blessings, to all them who embrace his Gospel. Hence he is justly said to be full of grace and truth.

But we may not improperly include under these words the personal character of Christ. Whilst all his instructions exactly accorded with the mind and will of God, his life was wholly without spot or blemish: he was full of truth; and in him was no sin, no guile whatever.

As to the grace that was in him, listen only to any of his discourses; hear his gracious invitations even to the chief of sinners; see him conversing with publicans and harlots, and allowing them to have the freest access to him; behold him going about doing good, healing all who came to him, even hundreds and thousands in a day, and proclaiming to all of them the glad tidings of a free and full salvation: and then say whether he was not also full of grace, even like an overflowing fountain, out of whose fulness all that believed on him might receive?

If we needed any express testimony respecting his character, we have it from those whose ears heard, whose eyes saw, and whose hands handled this Word of life: they beheld his glory, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father: they beheld it in his miracles (by which he manifested forth his glory); they beheld it in his transfiguration; in the audible attestations which he repeatedly received from heaven; in the perfections of wisdom, power, holiness, &c. which he displayed; and finally in his resurrection, and glorious ascension to the right hand of God: they beheld him in all these things, shining as the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person: veiled as his Godhead was from common eyes, they beheld in him a radiance, altogether suited to his august character.]

That we may not entertain these thoughts in a merely speculative manner, we would entreat you to suffer a word of exhortation
1.

Inquire wherefore Christ became incarnate

[When we hear of such an astonishing event, methinks we should naturally inquire into the reasons of it. Surely there was some occasion for it; nay, we cannot conceive that it should take place without some urgent necessity. What then was that necessity? It was this. The whole human race were become guilty before God, and were no more able to restore themselves to the Divine favour than the fallen angels were. Is any one disposed to doubt this truth? let him tell us then, why Gods co-equal, co-eternal Son became incarnate. In vain will he seek for a reason, except (where St. Paul found it) in the lost state of man: If one died for all, then were all dead Know ye then, beloved, every one of you, that you are, in yourselves, lost and hell-deserving sinners; and that, if ever you be saved at all, it must be by the blood and righteousness of your incarnate God ]

2.

Endeavour to obtain clearer views of his character

[Though there are days expressly set apart for the consideration of the most important things relating to Christ, his formation in the womb, his nativity, his circumcision, his death, his resurrection, and ascension, yet few, very few, are in the habit of directing their attention to him. Instead of counting all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of him, they scarcely think of him at all, or desire to receive any instruction respecting him. Hence that supineness which we behold on every side But how different would be the state of men, if they once saw his glory, and had just views of his grace and truth! What a gathering of the people to him would there then be! How would they flock to him as the doves to their windows! O that God would take the veil from our hearts And that we might so behold his glory, as to be changed by it into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of our God!]

3.

Seek after a closer union with him

[We may all be said to be united with him in some respect, because we are partakers of flesh and blood, and he likewise has taken part of the same. But it is not his union with our nature that will save us, but our union with him; not his being one flesh with us, but our being one spirit with him. We must exercise faith on him; and by means of that faith be united to him as branches to the vine, or as members to the head Without this, we can never hope to receive out of his fulness those blessings which we stand in need of Let none of you then imagine that you have any interest in his salvation, till you are brought daily to live a life of faith upon him, and, through the influences of his Spirit, to devote yourselves unreservedly to his service.]

4.

Aspire after that which was the great end of his coming

[We are constantly reminded that he came into the world, that they who believe in him might become sons of God, and enjoy everlasting life [Note: Gal 4:4-5.] Shall we then be indifferent about that which brought him down from heaven? How shall we bear the sight of him in the day of judgment, when we shall behold him in the very same body which he assumed on earth? How will that stupendous effort of his love reproach and confound us! How shall we even wish that we had been permitted to perish like the fallen angels, instead of being left to contract that more aggravated guilt of sinning against a God in our own nature, and rejecting the salvation which he died to purchase for us! If we could suppose the Saviour now capable of weeping, as once he did over the impenitent Jerusalem, methinks he must be now weeping over many of us, to see how his love has been disregarded by us, and that the only effect of it is to aggravate our condemnation. Let us awake from this fatal stupor; let us follow him in our hearts to those realms of glory where he now dwells; and strive incessantly for the attainment of that kingdom, where we shall be with him and like him for ever.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

If there be a single verse in the Bible marked with the special emphasis of God the Holy Ghost, surely this is one. Every word tells. Here is the glorious person so much and so highly spoken of before under the name of the Word, declared to be made flesh. And this distinct from the person of either the Father or the Holy Ghost. It is the Son of God only. He is made flesh. The original word translated flesh, is very strong. It is Sarx. The same word as is used Rom 3:20 . where no flesh is said to be justified. And elsewhere Christ is said to be made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Rom 8:3 . And it is a word of the same significancy with one in the Hebrew, used Gen 6:12 corrupt flesh. So that no word of stronger import can be found to denote the vast humiliation of the Son of God in the assuming of our nature. Had the verse expressed that the Word was made Man, though the same nature would have been implied, yet it would not have been so strong, as to the point of degradation. The word means our full nature, both of soul and body, complete man. And it is so very fully expressed by the word flesh, that the assumption implies the most perfect union of the both natures, divine and human. Not by any change or alteration of the one by the taking the other; but by the junction forming and constituting one whole person, God and Man Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. As Augustine hath happily expressed it, when speaking of the word being made flesh; ” Not (said he) by changing what he was, but by taking what he was not.” And what endears the whole, and renders it truly blessed to all his people who are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, is, that this union of God and Man in one person, is indissoluble and forever. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Heb 13:8 .

And how blessedly John speaks of his and his brethren’s knowledge of Christ under this precious union, He dwelt among us (said John,) tabernacled, as the word is, alluding to the Tabernacle in the wilderness, which was (and no doubt considered as such by holy men of old,) a type of Christ’s human nature, in which Jehovah dwelt, and from which manifestations were made. We beheld his glory, (said he,) observe, his glory. Yes! because in his divine nature, truly his own, underived as it was, it could be called no other. And this glory, like to that of God’s own Son, full of grace and truth. Reader! think what a blessed testimony is here to the Godhead of Christ, to the Manhood of Christ, and to the union of both. And do not fail to observe, that all this was in the same time while Christ came to his own, and his own received him not; distinguishing grace taught John and his brethren thus to behold Christ’s glory, and rejoice in it. Depend upon it, so is it now, so hath it been in all ages of the Church, and so will it be as long as the earth shall continue!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

III

PART III

THE TRANSFIGURATION

Harmony, pages 92-94 and Mat 17:1-13 ; Mar 9 ; Mar 2:13 ; Luk 9:28-36 ; Joh 1:14 ; 2Pe 1:14-18 .

The transfiguration of Jesus is one of the most notable events of his history. The occasion which called forth the event the wonderful facts of the event itself the manifest correlation of these facts with both the near and the remote past, and the near and distant future the primary and multiform design of this event, and the secondary important lessons which may be deduced from it, all conspire to make it notable. The history of the whole case may be gathered from what are called the Synoptic Gospels, that is, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and from the references to the event by two out of the three witnesses, Peter and John. James, the other eyewitness, was prevented by an early martyrdom from leaving any record. We find an account of his death in Act 12 . He was put to death by Herod. So these are the five historians of the transfiguration. In discussing the subject of the transfiguration, let us consider:

1. The occasion. From the context in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we group in order the following facts, which, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of the transfiguration:

First fact: While the people generally had vague and conflicting views of the person and mission of Jesus, his immediate disciples had now reached a definite and fixed conclusion that he was the divine Messiah, and had publicly confessed that faith near Caesarea Philippi.

Second fact: On this confession of their faith in his messiahship, he began for the first time to openly and plainly show that the Messiah was to be a suffering Messiah; that he must die; that he must die an ignominious death; that he must die under the condemnation of the supreme court of their nation.

Third fact: At this plain revelation of his death their faith staggers. It is both an inexplicable and abhorrent thing to them. It so deeply stirred them that, through Peter, they present the strongest possible protest. Peter says, “Mercy on thee, Lord, it shall never be.” They, while believing him to be the Messiah, wanted a living, conquering Messiah, with a visible, earthly, triumphant kingdom and jurisdiction.

Fourth fact: He sharply rebukes this protest, as satanic in its origin as coming from the devil, and it had originally come from the devil. Now, one of his own apostles comes as a tempter. As if he had said, “You are a stumbling block to me. You quote the very sentiments of the devil, when you would beguile me from the cross to accept an earthly crown.” He then adds that to take that view of it is to think men’s thoughts and not God’s thoughts. He says, “You are minding the things of men and not the things of God when you present such a view as that to me.”

Fifth fact: Whereupon, after his turning sharply away from Peter, he calls up the whole multitude to hear with his disciples, the great spiritual and universal law of discipleship, and perhaps it will stagger some to hear it, if they take it in. What was it? Absolute self-renunciation the taking up daily of the cross upon which one is appointed to die, and the following of Christ; carrying the cross even unto the death which is appointed. We have such low conceptions of self-denial. We count it self-denial if we want a little thing and do not get it. We count it cross-bearing if some little burden is put on us and we bear it. That is not the thought in this connection at all. “If any man, whether he be an apostle or anybody else if any man would be my disciple, he must have absolute self-renunciation, and he must take up every day the cross upon which he is appointed to die, and he must follow me, bearing that cross even unto the appointed death.” He assured them that a man must not be merely willing to suffer temporal death, if an occasion should arise not at all such a mere contingency but he must actually lose temporal life in order to find eternal life. He must do it. He must lose temporal life to find eternal life, and then puts it to them as a supreme business question of eternal profit and loss. In that very connection he says, “What will it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, and what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” It is the universal law of discipleship, from which there is no exception. No Christian can escape crucifixion. The reference is to our sanctification. We not only die judicially on the cross in Christ our substitute (Col 3:2 ), but we must actually “put to death our members which are upon the earth” (Col 3:5 ). I say this is a universal law: “If ye through the Spirit do mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body ye shall live” (Rom 8:13 ). Our sanctification consists of both death and life. The old man must die. The new man must be developed. Paul died daily. In putting on the new man we put off the old man. Our baptism pledges us both to death and life. ‘ In our progressive sanctification the Holy Spirit reproduces in every Christian the dying of our Lord, as well as his living. In every Christian “a death experience runs parallel with his life experience.” Not only Paul must fill up “that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Col 1:24 ), but all of us must have fellowship with his sufferings. We must suffer with him if we would reign with him. The lamented Dr. Gordon quotes this remarkable passage: “The church is Christian no more than as it is the organ of the continuous passion of Christ.” Yes, it is no possible contingency, but a universal fact we must take up the cross. We must lose our life to find it.

Sixth fact: The solemnity of this occasion was deeply intensified by his announcement of his second coming in power and great glory for the final judgment of all mankind according to their decision of that question which he had presented. All this comes just before the transfiguration. After announcing to them his death; after rebuking other conceptions of the messiahship; after presenting the great universal law of discipleship; now he says, “For the Son of man shall come in his glory, with his angels, and shall reward every man according to his doings.”

Seventh, and last, fact: Mark it well. Then follows the startling announcement that some of them standing there should never taste of death until they saw this second coming.

These seven facts, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Let us restate them: (1) That while the world had vague and conflicting ideas of his person and missions, his immediate disciples had reached the conclusion that he was the divine Messiah, and had publicly confessed that faith. (2) That upon that public confession he commences for the first time plainly and openly to show that this Messiah must be a sufferer and must die. (3) They indignantly and abhorrently repudiate that conception of the Messiah. (4) He rebukes their protest as coming from the devil. (5) He announces the great law of discipleship, that no man could be a disciple of Jesus Christ without absolute self-renunciation, and without taking up every day the cross upon which he was appointed to die, and following Jesus even unto the appointed death, and that it was simply a question of business a supreme business question of profit and loss, and they had to decide one way or the other. “If you prefer to find your life, you will lose it; if you prefer to lose your life, you will find it; if you want to take this world, you will lose your own soul; if you want to save your soul, you must renounce the world.” Just that, no less and no more. (6) He announces his second coming in power and glory, as a final judge to determine the destiny of men upon this solitary question: “Did you lose your life for my sake?” (7) The still more startling announcement that some people some of those to whom he was speaking would never taste death until they saw his second coming. That these seven facts, considered as a whole, do in some way constitute the occasion of the transfiguration, is to my mind incontrovertible. Some of the most convincing reasons for the conclusion may be stated.

First: In all the histories the account of the transfiguration follows immediately after the record of these events without & break in the connection. No event of the intervening week is allowed to separate the two transactions. Now, that three historians should, without collusion, follow this method, seems to establish a designed connection between these facts and the transfiguration which followed.

Second: The disheartening protest of the disciples against his position and in favor of the common Jewish idea of an earthly kingdom, would naturally so depress the humanity of Jesus that he himself would need some marvelous encouragement from heaven and would seek it in prayer.

Third: From the same sad cause, it would be necessary that some compensating revelation of future glory must be shown to the disciples in order to make them bear up under the hard condition of present discipleship, and under the awful thought of separation from him by death.

Fourth: It cannot be a mere coincident that the transfiguration is calculated to so exactly supply these things the encouragement to Jesus and compensation to the disciples, both for the death of Jesus and for the hard terms of present discipleship.

2. The event. Such being the occasion, then, let us reverently approach the wonderful transaction itself. The scene cannot have been at Mount Tabor in Lower Galilee, as tradition would have us believe. While it is not now necessary to show how insuperable are the objections to Mount Tabor as the place, yet it is important to note, by the way, that little reliance can ever be placed on the exact localities of great events in the New Testament, as indicated by tradition, because the inspired record oftentimes designedly and wisely leaves them indeterminate. It is not small proof of inspiration by him who knew the superstitions of men, and would provide no food to feed it on. Christ left neither autograph nor portrait to be worshiped as relics. None of the historians even/ hint at a personal description of Jesus. We know absolutely nothing of the color of his eyes or hair. Absolutely nothing of his height or size. Worshipers of shrines, relics, and souvenirs derive no sort of help or encouragement from the New Testament. The scene of the transfiguration was evidently near Caesarea Philippi, and on some mountain spur of the Hermon range. It could not have been anywhere else from the circumstances going before and after the event. The time is night, somewhere about seven months before his crucifixion. The object is prayer in some lonely private place. His companions are Peter, James, and John. It must have been an all-night prayer meeting, for they did not come down from the mountain until the next day, and it is stated that the three disciples were heavy with sleep, as on a later and more solemn occasion, these very three men succumbed to the spirit of sleep, through the weakness of the flesh. The original here, however, would lead us to infer that they forced themselves to remain awake, notwithstanding their strong inclination to sleep, and now, late in the night, struggling against an almost irresistible desire to sleep, but yet their gaze fixed upon their Master, who is yet praying, they behold a sight that drives sleep utterly away. What do they see? A wonderful sight indeed; earth never saw a more wonderful one. Mark you, it is no vision or dream. With the use of their natural senses, sight and hearing, being fully awake, they became the wit- nesses of three distinct remarkable supernatural events. These three things are: first, the transfiguration of Jesus; second, the glorified forms of Moses and Elijah; third, the luminous cloud symbol and the voice of the eternal God. Now, let us consider separately each one of these things:

“Transfiguration: what does the word mean? The word means to transform to change the form or appearance. In what respect was the appearance or form of Jesus changed? It was this: It is in the night; it is on that lonely mountaintop; and while they look at him, he begins to shine as from a light within. The light seems to struggle through him. He seems to become translucent, and his whole body becomes luminous, as if it were a human electric jet, and the light is white whiter than any fuller on earth could make it, and his face is brighter than the shining of the sun at midday. Let us carefully collate the several records: Matthew says, “And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart.” Mark says, “They went up into that mountain to pray.” There are the four separating themselves from all the others and going up into that high mountain to hold a prayer meeting. Luke then says, “And as Jesus was praying, the fashion of his countenance altered,” or, as Matthew says, “His face did shine as the sun and his garments became as white as light,” or, as Mark says, “And his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth could whiten,” and, as Luke says, “His raiment became white and dazzling.” We notice that two things are referred to, first, the fashion of his countenance, and second, the shining of his garments. Jesus becomes as a pillar of fire to them, as they look at him. That is the first thing they saw that night. Then suddenly there is an interview held with him. Those who come to hold the interview with him are not from hell; they are not from earth. He has gone up on that mountaintop and implored the Father for something. As a result of his prayer, an interview is held with him. Who comes to hold that interview with him? The two most remarkable men of the past: the representative of the law, and the representative of prophecy Moses, the great law-giver, and Elijah, the greatest of the prophets. These three witnesses could instinctively, by spiritual intuition, recognize them. Of course, they had never personally known them, but it was given to them to recognize them. And what do they look like? They are also in glory; they are luminous. There are the three shining bodies together, and they enter into conversation they are talking. What are they talking about? Now, mark the occasion. Jesus had said to his disciples, “I go up to Jerusalem to die. I must die. There is a’ necessity that I should die, and these disciples abhorred the thought that I should die. Oh, Father, show them by some way that I must die. Is there no one in the past whose evidence would avail?” Out from the past comes Moses and says, “Jesus, I came to talk to you about your death.” Out from the land of the prophets comes Elijah and he says, “Jesus, I came to talk to you about your death.” The law says the substitute of the sinner must die. Moses comes from the other world, representing the law, saying to the substitute of the sinner, “You must die.” Elijah says, “You must die.” Every voice from the prophets calls for the death of the Messiah. “And they come to talk to him about his death” his death that should take place at Jerusalem. Suppose Moses had said this: “Jesus, I died on Mount Nebo. No man on earth knows where my bones are resting. Unless you die, that body will never be raised, never, never.” Suppose Elijah had said: “Jesus, I escaped death as to my body. I was translated. I was carried up to heaven, and am now enjoying in both soul and body the blessed glories of the eternal world, upon your promise to die. That promise must be redeemed. I am in heaven on a credit the credit is on your promise to pay. You must die.” “They talked with him concerning his/ death at Jerusalem.”

They are now about to leave. They have had their interview, and they are going back, and just as they are about to depart. Peter is terribly frightened, but they never could put Peter in a place where he would not say something. Peter sees that the guests are about to leave, although trembling with apprehension, and not knowing what he did thinking, however, that he ought to say something, as if he had said, “Lord, they intend to go,” and in the original it does not say, let us build three tabernacles; it says, “Lord, I will build three tabernacles, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” Now, while Peter said that, there came the third wonderful thing, and the only time that it ever was seen in the New Testament dispensation, though it had often been seen in the earlier days the cloud symbol of God. How did the cloud symbol of God appear? If it was in the daytime, it appeared as a beautiful pillar of cloud; if it was the nighttime, it appeared as a pillar of fire. Now, the old-time drapery of God, the fire cloud, that had not been witnessed since far off Old Testament days that fire cloud came down and wrapped Moses and Elijah and Jesus in its folds of light. As it wrapped them, there leaped from its bosom, as leaps the lightning from the clouds, a voice: “This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.” And they fell as if lightning had struck them. Fear had taken possession of them from the beginning; their apprehensions had grown more and more demoralizing from the very beginning of the supernatural manifestation, but when this voice spoke this voice of God, they fell on their faces; they could not bear to face that burning cloud and to hear that awful voice, and there they lie, as still as if dead, until Jesus comes and stoops over them, and touches them, each one, and says: “Do not be afraid,” and they rise up and the cloud is gone, and Moses and Elijah are gone. Now, these are the things they witnessed three entirely distinct things: The transfiguration of Jesus; the glorified appearance of Moses and Elijah; the fire cloud, which was the symbol of the divine presence, and the audible Voice. Such were the wonderful facts of the event. Now comes the next question:

3. The design What was meant by the transfiguration? We go back and look at it to see if we can gather there the design. We take the testimony of the men who actually witnessed these transaction, in order to get the design. Let’s see what that is. First, he had said that there were some people there that should never taste death until they saw the coming of the Son of man until they saw the second coming of the Son of man until they saw the kingdom of God come with power. Unquestionably that is what he said: that there were some people there that should never taste death until they saw the second coming of Jesus Christ. Let’s see what one of the witnesses says about this. I cite the testimony of Peter: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” Now mark what Peter says, that in preaching to these people that Christ would come again the second time with power and great glory and as a final judge, he had not followed a cunningly devised fable, but he preached what he had witnessed; that he, on Mount of Transfiguration, had gazed upon the second coming of Christ in some sense, in whatever sense that might be. He had seen it. He was an eyewitness of the power and majesty of that second coming. Let’s see what J John said about it. He was the other witness. In Joh 1:14 , and in the parenthesis of that verse, we have this: “And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” When did John see his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father? The glory of Christ always in the New Testament when spoken of in its fulness, is that glory which shall attend him when he comes the second time. The first time he came without glory; he came in his humiliation. The second time, he comes in glory, as we learn from Mat 24 : “The Son of man shall come in all of his glory, and all of his holy angels with him, and then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.” John says that he, with others witnessed the glory of Jesus Christ, as of the only begotten of the Father. He saw it, and like Peter, he saw it on the Mount of Transfiguration. As a further proof of it, in Joh 12:24 we have an account of Jesus praying, and he says, “Father, glorify me,” and instantly that same voice says, loud as thunder, “I have glorified thee, and will glorify thee.” So that the glory that they witnessed was in some sense the glory of the second Coming of Jesus Christ. It was a miniature representation of the power and glory that would be displayed when he does come an anticipatory scene presenting to the ye on a small scale that great and awful event in the future.

When Jesus does come, every living Christian will instantly be transfigured. He will take on the resurrection body. He will take on a glorified body just as Elijah and Enoch did. As Paul puts it: “Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” Here was Elijah, the type and representation of that work. Here was Elijah, who without death, by the transfiguring power, had been carried up to heaven. Here he was talking to Jesus.

There is another thing that will take place when Jesus comes. The dead will be raised. The bodies that have been buried and turned to dust are to be reanimated and “are to be glorified in one moment of time. Corruption puts on incorruption; mortality puts on immortality; sleep changes to waking; and the dead rise up and are glorified in the twinkling of an eye. As Paul again puts it: “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” Here is Moses representing that thought. Moses died; he did not escape death like Enoch and Elijah. Moses died, and no man has ever been able to tell where he was buried. The devil tried to take possession of his body, but here in this transfiguration scene appears Moses glorified as Elijah is glorified. In type, these represent the two great displays of divine power at the second coming of Jesus Christ, and they are the very two that are needed to be brought to bear on the discouraged heart of the disciples who have been informed that Jesus will die.

They wanted a living Messiah. They wanted an earthly king. To say that he will die means the loss of everything to them. They have not yet looked over the border. Now, how can a revelation be given to them that will compensate them for the awfully disheartening effect of the announcement that their Messiah must die? Why, in order to compensate them, there must be some revelation of the future. They must have an insight into the things which shall be. The curtains must be drawn aside. They must look beyond death. They must see into the spirit world. They must see samples of heavenly glory that are to be brought about by the death of Christ, and as they gaze upon that transfiguration of Jesus, which pledges the resurrection of his body when he dies, they can understand that death; and when they see the forerunner of his death in Moses and Elijah, as types of classes, and can thereby look to the end of time and see all the sleeping bodies brought to life, and the living Christians changed if anything on earth is calculated to remove their depression, that scene is certainly calculated to remove it.

I venture to say that every Christian has become at times disheartened and depressed when he looked at the sacrifices that have to be made in order to be a Christian; when he looked at the stern and unrelenting laws of discipleship absolute self-renunciation absolutely, a man must deny himself. When one denies Christ, what does that mean? “I will not have him to rule over me.” Now, when we deny self, what does that mean? “I absolutely abjure thee, O self, as the ruler of my life. I repudiate thee, self. I have another King.” When we take up these duties and requirements, that is the start only, but every day of our lives requires us to see to it that self is crucified; that the body shall be mortified; that the deeds of the flesh shall be crucified; that they shall be put to death. When we daily take up that cross, and know that this must go on as long as we live, even up to the very time that we die, where is the compensation? It is in this: If I do not renounce self, if I do not follow Christ to crucifixion, I will ultimately lose self. I will lose my soul. This supreme business question comes up before me for decision: Shall I gain the world and lose myself, or shall I save myself and lose the world? Now, to help a man on that; to help him to decide rightly; to take away from him any discouragement, and the disheartening depression, what can do it so forcibly as to bring him up on a mountain and cause him by night, in the loneliness of its solemn hours, to witness an interview with the glorified spirits that have passed out of earth’s sorrows and pains and disappointments, and now in the midst of the blessedness which is theirs forever. It is to bring him where he can see the ordinarily closed doors of the arching heavens open, and down through the opening the light of the eternal world transfigures everyone upon whom it shines, and looking at that he will say, “Oh, self, die; oh, world, you shall not be my master. Jesus, I am coming; I follow; I take up the cross. I carry it to the place where I must die the appointed death on the appointed cross. I accept it for Christ’s sake.” So the transfiguration fits the occasion of it by meeting the needs of the disciples.

Let us now see if that design of the transfiguration met the need of Christ. Oh we must remember that he had humanity, that, he could not help feeling terribly discouraged when these, his chosen disciples, the witnesses of his power, at this late day in his ministry, while they had clearly recognized him as the divine Messiah, yet did not recognize him as a suffering Messiah, and still clung with old Jewish ideas to the thought of an earthly conquering king. How it must have disheartened him! Then, we remember that from the beginning he saw his death, but as he neared it, the shadows on his brow had deepened, and the depressing effect of it weighed him down more and more as he got closer to it, at every approach of it, feeling more and more the anguish of it, and now with these thoughts upon him, he had spent so much time and labor, his loneliness, his solitariness oppresses him, and he wants to pray. He wants to get alone and pray; and on that mountain top he prays: “Oh, Father, nobody down here understands me, nobody, not even my disciples; send me sympathy, send me some revelation that shall cheer and sustain me; let somebody from the upper world come and talk with me here on the edge of the battlefield, where I am breast- ing the tide by myself.” And he prays until the glory of God in him bursts through the opaqueness of the flesh and makes translucent, and he is glorified by his importunate prayer. And the Father comes down from heaven, comes in a drapery of clouds, comes in his drapery of fire, and wraps around with its folds of light the dear Redeemer, and speaks to him. “My Son, my beloved Son, my chosen One on earth, hear him! Hear him! Hear him I Not Moses, not Elijah, hear the Son of God.” That strengthened him, and he went back to his burden with lighter heart. That is what I understand to be the design of the transfiguration.

4. Its relations See how the facts of that transfiguration correlate themselves with the near and the remote past and with the near and the remote future.

The facts of the transfiguration reached right over and took hold of the scene of that confession at Caesarea Philippi; they go on back until they touch the prophetic days and grasp the hand of Elijah; they go on back to the days of Israel in the wilderness and take the hand of Moses; they go on back until they touch the first promise of mercy in Eden. Then they go forward until they touch the death in Jerusalem. They touch the resurrection after that death; they reach through the silent centuries of the unborn future and take hold of the second coming; they speak of hovering angels and heavenly glory, and open graves, and the white throne of the judgment, correlating with all the past, and correlating with all the future, harmonizing law and prophecy and gospel; showing that in Jesus, they all meet in perfection, and also showing that in Jesus is the redemption of all the world.

Such is the relation of the transfiguration to the past and present and future.

“Say nothing about it; say nothing about ill” Well, why say nothing about it? “Do not tell it now; wait until I am dead; wait until I have risen from the dead; and when I have risen from the dead you may tell this story, and it will fit into the resurrection so that no man will disbelieve it. If you tell it now they cannot understand it, but wait until I have risen and then it will instantly appear to men to be a miniature resurrection scene.”

I have thus presented to you what I conceive to be: (1) the occasion of the transfiguration; (2) the wonderful facts of the event itself; (3) the design of that event; (4) the correlation of that event with the past and with the future, and now what are its lessons for us?

5. Its lessons for us. There is one thing about a pastor that a congregation never can understand never can, and that is his concern that the congregation may get upon a higher plane of Christianity. Sometimes it is like a stroke of death. What kind of Christians are we? What kind of self-denial do we now exhibit? What kind of cross-bearing? What kind of discipleship? What kind of decision of the question of profit and loss? And after intense agony, I pray, “Oh, God, multiply the number that will make a full renunciation of self.” We ourselves know that the majority of church members are walking on the edge only of practical Christianity; just on the edge of it. Oh, the value of the spiritual power that will come upon all who will utterly decide the question who will truly say: “I am God’s all over. He is Lord of all my time, and all my money and all of my life.” Now and then we find a few that will come up to that just a few. In view of the low grade of present Christianity, the very few that attain the gift of the Spirit, what is it that keeps pastors from being discouraged? From being utterly disheartened? What is it that keeps despair from spreading her mantle of gloom over his pulpit and over his heart? What is it that keeps away the howling wolves, and the ill-boding owls and ravens, that creeping or swooping from the plutonian shores of night, croak and howl their prophecies of evil? What is it? It is that every now and then he gets on some mount of transfiguration, where after long prayer; where after reconsecration; where after offering up himself and his soul and his body to God Almighty, the heavens open and show him the glorious future, so beautiful, so shining, so near, so enchanting, so drawing, so thrilling, that he goes back, and says, “Well, I can stand anything now.” And every now and then God comes so to a church. He did to us, once, while I was pastor in Waco. He did rend the heavens and come down. The fire cloud was on the church. Heaven was near to us. We saw it. We felt it. Its glory could be touched, and under the power of that revival, earth seemed little and insignificant, and all of its claims were DO more than thistledown on the breath of the storm.

O that our children some dark night, awfully dark night, should be up on a spiritual mountain and see a fire church, see a translucent church, a church in touch with angels, a church hearing heavenly voices, a church wrapped in the great fire symbol of God, then might they believe and receive in their trusting hearts an impression that would affect forever and forever their life.

Shall we not pray that God may cause us to take a solemn look at that universal and spiritual and absolute law of discipleship? “If any man would be my disciple, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow me. He that loses his life for my sake shall find it.” “What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” O Lord, we are in the valley just now. Its shadows are as the shadows of death. Lead us, we pray thee, for a little while up to the top of the Delectable Mountains, from whose unclouded summits we may catch again the inspiring, transfiguring view of the Heavenly City. Thus reassuring our desponding hearts, and refreshing our weary minds, we may resume our pilgrimage in hope of speedily arriving at our heavenly home.

QUESTIONS

1. What things conspire to make the transfiguration a notable event?

2. What are the sources of its history and import?

3. What facts constitute its occasion?

4. What reasons assigned for the conclusion?

5. What was the scene of this event and what left in doubt by the inspired record? Illustrate.

6. What was the time?

7. What was the object of the going on this mountain?

8. Who were Jesus’ companions?

9. What were the events while on the mountain leading up to the transfiguration?

10. Was what they saw a dream or vision?

11. What were the three distinct, supernatural events which they saw here?

12. What is the meaning of the word “transfiguration”?

13. Describe this transfiguration of Jesus.

14. What two Old Testament characters appear in interview here with Jesus, how were they recognized by Peter, James, and John and what was the bearing on the question of heavenly recognition?

15. What was the subject of their conversation, what were the circumstances which led up to it, what was the bearing of the work of Moses and Elijah on this subject, respectively, and how illustrated in each case?

16. What was Peter’s proposition and why?

17. What Old Testament symbol reappeared here and what was its special significance?

18. What voice did they hear and what was its import?

19. What was the design of this incident?

20. What was Peter’s testimony? What was John’s?

21. What was the significance of the appearance of Elijah here and how does this correlate with the New Testament teaching on this thought?

22. What was the significance of the appearance of Moses here and how does this thought correlate with New Testament teaching?

23. What was their conception of the Messiah and what was the bearing of this incident on that conception?

24. What was the requirement of discipleship and what was the bearing of this incident on it?

25. Show that the design of the transfiguration met the need of Christ just at this time.

26. What was probably Christ’s prayer here on this occasion and how does this fit the idea of his need at this time?

27. How do the facts of the transfiguration correlate themselves with the past and the future?

28. What charge did our Lord give his disciples relative to this incident & why?

29. What are the lessons of the transfiguration for us?

30. What illustration of this transfiguration power from the life of the author?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Ver. 14. And the Word was made flesh ] Put himself into a lousy, leprosy suit of ours, to expiate our pride and robbery, in reaching after the Deity, and to heal us of our spiritual leprosy; for , if he had not assumed our flesh he had not saved us. (Nazianzen.) Induit ergo sordes nostras, saith one. He therefore condescended to our rags; and so

Dwelt among us ] Dwelt as in a tent or booth, . He alludes to soldiers pitching their tents; or rather to the feast of tabernacles, in or near the time of which celebrated, by consent of many authors of best note, our Saviour was born.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

14. ] must not be understood (Chrysost., Grot., Lampe, Theophylact, alli [17] .) as giving a reason for the verse before; it is only the same copula as in Joh 1:1 ; Joh 1:3-5 ; passing on to a further assertion regarding the Word.

[17] alli = some cursive mss.

., became flesh: the most general expression of the great truth that He became man . He became that, of which man is in the body compounded. There is no reference here to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus being the second Adam, as Olshausen thinks; but although there may be no reference to it, it lies at the ground of this wideness of expression. The doctrine in this form may have been, as Lcke observes, alien to John’s habits of thought, but not that which is implied in the doctrine , the taking of the nature of man by the Eternal Word.

The simplicity of this expression is no doubt directed against the Docet of the Apostle’s time, who maintained that the Word only apparently took human nature. Therefore he says , absolutely and literally became flesh: see ref. 1 John. The expression is not guarded against the interpretation of the Apollinarian heretics, who held that the Lord had not a human soul ( ); but this error was not in the Apostle’s view, and is abundantly refuted elsewhere (see Mat 26:38 and note on 36 46, and the references there made to John’s Gospel).

, ‘ sojourned ,’ or ‘ tabernacled ,’ in us. There is no reference to the flesh being the tabernacle of the Spirit; but the word is one technically used in Scripture to import the dwelling of God among men . See besides reff., Lev 26:11-12 ; Eze 43:7 ; Eze 37:27 ; Sir 24:8 ; Sir 24:10 .

“hominibus, qui caro sumus,” Bengel.

. . . . ] we saw see 1Jn 1:1 ; 2Pe 1:16 .

This is the Apostle’s testimony as such , see Act 1:21 .

The mention of seems to be suggested by the word , so frequently used of the divine Presence or Shechinah , and cognate in its very form with it: “edem litter in et .” Bengel.

This glory was seen by the disciples, ch. Joh 2:11 ; Joh 11:4 : also by Peter, James, and John, specially, on the mount of transfiguration: to which occasion the words seem to refer: but mainly, in the whole converse and teaching and suffering of the Lord, who was full of grace and truth: see below.

On Chrysostom remarks (Hom. xii. in Joan., vol. viii. p. 66), , , . (see reff.).

. ] This word applied to Christ is peculiar to John: see reff. In the N.T. usage it signifies the only son; in the LXX, Ps. 21:20, the beloved , and Ps. 24:16, one deserted, left alone . It has been attempted to render the word in John, according to the usage in Ps. 21:20. But obviously in the midst of ideas reaching so far deeper than that of regard, or love, of the Father for the Son, the word cannot be interpreted except in accordance with them. It refers to, and contrasts with, the in Joh 1:12-13 . They receive their divine birth by faith in Him and through Him; but HE is the of the Father in the higher sense, in which He is the Son of God.

belongs to ; not to , as Theophyl., Erasm., Grot. suppose.

The ellipse is to be supplied by considering the state in which the here appears, that of having become and dwelling among us.

. . . . ] These words have been variously connected. The view of Erasmus, who places the period at , and connects these words with , scarcely needs refutation, whether we regard the construction, or the meaning of the sentence. The reading has probably arisen from a correction, to connect the adj. with . Some do this even with , but both the construction and the sense are against it. It was not the , but He Himself, that was . . .: see below, Joh 1:17 . Others suppose to refer directly to , and justify this by Eph 3:17-18 . But besides the unnecessary harshness of this, the sense is against it also; for it cannot be said, ‘we saw His glory, the glory as of one who was full of grace and truth;’ we must have the referring, in the sense of (see above), to some mysterious hidden character which the glory testified, whereas the . . . is itself a mere matter of fact , to which the Apostles themselves could ( Joh 1:17 ) bear witness. Another construction is (as usually done and in E. V.) to take as parenthetical, and connect immediately with . Such parentheses are common in the style of this Gospel: see ch. Joh 6:22-24 ; Joh 11:2 ; Joh 19:23-24 ; ib. Joh 19:31 . But by far the best is, to regard as referring to , by an anomaly in concord often found in the N.T. (see Luk 20:27 note; Luk 24:47 ), and especially in the Apocalypse, cf. Rev 1:4 alli [18] . fr.

[18] alli = some cursive mss.

. . . ] Not = , which destroys the precision of the expression, and itself conveys no sense whatever; but setting out the two sides of the divine manifestation in Christ, , as the result of Love to mankind, (see reff. and ch. Joh 14:6 ), as the unity, purity, and light of His own Character.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 1:14-18 . The manifestation of the Logos defined as Incarnation .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Joh 1:14 . , “and the Word became flesh”. This is not a mere repetition. John has told us that the Logos came into the world, but now he emphasises the actual mode of His coming and the character of the revelation thus made, “simply carrying forward the discourse” (Meyer) and now introducing the chief statement (Luthardt). It is this great statement to which the whole prologue has been directed; and accordingly he names again the great Being to whom he at first introduced us but whom he has not named since the first verse. As forcibly as possible does he put the contrast between the prior and the subsequent conditions, ; he does not even say but . He wishes both to emphasise the interval crossed, , ; and to direct attention to the visibility of the manifestation. Cf. 1Ti 3:16 , ; 1Jn 4:2 , ; also Heb 2:14 . “Flesh expresses here human nature as a whole regarded under the aspect of its present corporal embodiment, including of necessity the ‘soul’ (Joh 12:27 ) and the ‘spirit’ (Joh 11:33 , Joh 13:21 ) as belonging to the totality of man” (Westcott). The copula is , and what precisely this word covers has been the problem of theology ever since the Gospel was written. The Logos did not become flesh in the sense that He was turned into flesh or ceased to be what He was before; as a boy who becomes a man ceases to be a boy. By his use of the word in connection with the incarnation Paul intimates that something was left behind when human nature was assumed; but in any case this was not the Divine essence nor the personality. The virtue of the incarnation clearly consists in this, that the very Logos became man. The Logos, retaining His personal identity, “became” man so as to live as man. , “and tabernacled among us”; not only appeared in the flesh for a brief space, manifesting Himself as a Being apart from men and superior to human conditions, but dwelt among us (“non tantum momento uno apparuisse, sed versatum esse inter homines,” Calvin). The “tent,” , suggests no doubt temporary occupation, but not more temporary than human life. Cf. 2Co 5:1 , 2Pe 1:13 . And both in classical and N.T. Greek had taken the meaning “dwell,” whether for a long or a short time. Cf. Rev 7:15 ; Rev 12:12 , and Raphel, Annot. in loc . From the use of the word in Xenophon to denote living together and eating together Brentius would interpret in a fuller sense: “Filius ille Dei came indutus, inter nos homines vixit, nobiscum locutus est, nobiscum convivatus est”. But the association in John’s mind was of course not military, but was rather with the Divine tabernacle in the wilderness, when Jehovah pitched His tent among the shifting tents of His people, and shared even in their thirty-eight years of punishment. Whether there is an allusion to the has been doubted, but it is probable. The Shekinah meant the token of God’s presence and glory, and among the later Jews at all events it was supposed to be present not only in the temple but with individuals. See Schoettgen in loc. and Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud , 39. What the tabernacle had been, the dwelling of God in the midst of the people, the humanity of the Logos now was. , we, among whom He lived, beheld by our own personal observation the glory of the incarnate Logos. “Beheld,” neither, on the one hand, only by spiritual contemplation (Baur), nor, on the other, merely with the bodilyeye, by which the glory could not be seen. This “beholding” John treasured as the wealth and joy of his life. The “glory” they saw was not like the cloud or dazzling light in which God had manifested His glory in the ancient tabernacle. It was now a true ethical glory, a glory of personality and character, manifesting itself in human conditions. It is described as something unique, , “a glory as of an only begotten from a father”. introduces an illustrative comparison, as is indicated by the anarthrous . Holtzmann expands thus: “The impression which the glory made was of so specific a character that it could be taken for nothing less than such a glory as an only son has from a father, that is, as the only one of its kind: for besides the a father has no other sons”. But the expression is no doubt suggested by the immediately preceding statement that as many as received Christ were born of God. The glory of the Incarnate Logos, however, is unique, that of an only begotten. In the connection, therefore, the application of the relation of Father and Son to God and Christ is close at hand and obvious, although not explicitly made. “The thought centres in the abstract relation of Father and Son, though in the actual connection this abstract relation passes necessarily into the relation of the Son to the Father.” Westcott. more naturally follows than . The glory proceeds from the Father and dwells in the only begotten wholly , as if there were no other children required to reflect some rays of the Divine glory. Accordingly He is . With what is to be construed? Erasmus thinks with following. Codex Bezae reads and joins it to . Many interpreters consider it to be one of those slight irregularities such as occur in Mar 12:40 and Phi 3:19 and in the Apoc., and would unite it either with or . But ( pace Weiss) there is no good reason why we should not accept it as it stands and construe it in agreement with the nominative to . . His glory consisted in the moral qualities that appeared in Him. What these qualities were will appear more readily from Joh 1:17 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

John

THE WORD IN ETERNITY, IN THE WORLD, AND IN THE FLESH

‘THREE TABERNACLES’

Joh 1:14 . – Rev 7:15 . – Rev 21:3 .

The word rendered ‘dwelt’ in these three passages, is a peculiar one. It is only found in the New Testament-in this Gospel and in the Book of Revelation. That fact constitutes one of the many subtle threads of connection between these two books, which at first sight seem so extremely unlike each other; and it is a morsel of evidence in favour of the common authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse, which has often, and very vehemently in these latter days of criticism, been denied.

The force of the word, however, is the matter to which I desire especially to draw attention. It literally means ‘to dwell in a tent,’ or, if we may use such a word, ‘to tabernacle,’ and there is no doubt a reference to the Tabernacle in which the divine Presence abode in the wilderness and in the land of Israel before the erection. In all three passages, then, we may see allusion to that early symbolical dwelling of God with man. ‘The Word tabernacled among us’; so is the truth for earth and time. ‘He that sitteth upon the throne shall spread His tabernacle upon’ the multitude which no man can number, who have made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb; that is the truth for the spirits of just men made perfect, the waiting Church, which expects the redemption of the body. ‘God shall tabernacle with them’; that is the truth for the highest condition of humanity, when the Tabernacle of God shall be with redeemed men in the new earth. ‘Let us build three tabernacles,’ one for the Incarnate Christ, one for the interspace between earth and heaven, and one for the culmination of all things. And it is to these three aspects of the one thought, set forth in rude symbol by the movable tent in the wilderness, that I ask you to turn now.

I. First, then, we have to think of that Tabernacle for earth. ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt, as in a tent, amongst us.’

The human nature, the visible, material body of Jesus Christ, in which there enshrined itself the everlasting Word, which from the beginning was the Agent of all divine revelation, that is the true Temple of God. When we begin to speak about the special presence of Omnipresence in any one place, we soon lose ourselves, and get into deep waters of glory, where there is no standing. And I do not care to deal here with theological definitions or thorny questions, but simply to set forth, as the language of my text sets before us, that one transcendent, wonderful, all-blessed thought that this poor human nature is capable of, and has really once in the history of the world received into itself, the real, actual presence of the whole fulness of the Divinity. What must be the kindred and likeness between Godhood and manhood when into the frail vehicle of our humanity that wondrous treasure can be poured; when the fire of God can burn in the bush of our human nature, and that nature not be consumed? So it has been. ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’

And when we come with our questions, How? In what manner? How can the lesser contain the greater? we have to be content with the recognition that the manner is beyond our fathoming, and to accept the fact, pressed upon our faith, that our hearts may grasp it and be at peace. God hath dwelt in humanity. The everlasting Word, who is the forthcoming of all the fulness of Deity into the realm of finite creatures, was made flesh and dwelt among us.

But the Tabernacle was not only the dwelling-place of God, it was also and, therefore, the place of Revelation of God. So in our text there follows, ‘we beheld His glory.’ As in the tent in the wilderness there hovered between the outstretched wings of the silent cherubim, above the Mercy-seat, the brightness of the symbolical cloud which was expressly named ‘the glory of God,’ and was the visible manifestation of His real presence; so John would have us think that in that lowly humanity, with its curtains and its coverings of flesh, there lay shrined in the inmost place the brightness of the light of the manifest glory of God. ‘We beheld His glory.’ The rapturous adoration of the remembrance overcomes him, and he breaks his sentence, reckless of grammatical connection, as the fulness of the blessed memory floods into his soul. ‘That glory was as of the Only Begotten of the Father.’ The manifestation of God in Christ is unique, as becomes Him who partakes of the nature of that God of whom He is the Representative and the Revealer.

And how did that glory make itself known to us? By miracle? Yes! As we read in the story of the first that Christ wrought, ‘He manifested forth His glory and His disciples believed upon Him.’ By miracle? Yes! As we read His own promise at the grave of Lazarus: ‘Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?’ But, blessed be His name, miracle is not the highest manifestation of Christ’s glory and of God’s. The uniqueness of the revelation of Christ’s glory in God does not depend upon the deeds which He wrought. For, as the context goes on to tell, the Word which tabernacled among us was ‘full of grace and truth,’ and therein is the glory most gloriously revealed.

The lambent light of stooping love that shone forth warning and attracting in His gentle life, and the clear white beam of unmingled truth that streamed from the radiant purity of Christ’s life, revealed God to hearts that pine for love and spirits that hunger for truth, as no others of God’s self-revealing works have done. And that revelation of the glory of God in the fulness of grace and truth is the highest possible revelation. For the divinest thing in God is love, and the true ‘glory of God’ is neither some symbolical flashing light nor the pomp of mere power and majesty; nor even those inconceivable and incommunicable attributes which we christen with names like Omnipotence and Omnipresence and Infinitude, and the like. These are all at the fringes of the brightness. The true central heart and lustrous light of the glory of God lie In His love, and of that glory Christ is the unique Representative and Revealer, because He is the only Begotten Son, and ‘full of grace and truth.’

Thus the Word tabernacled amongst us. And though the Tabernacle to outward seeming was covered by curtains and skins that hid all the glowing splendour within; yet in that lowly life that was lived in the body of His humiliation, and knew our limitations and our weaknesses, ‘the glory of the Lord was revealed; and all flesh hath seen it together’ and acknowledged the divine Presence there.

Still further the Tabernacle was the place of sacrifice. So in the tabernacle of His flesh Jesus offered up the one sacrifice for sins for ever. In the offering up of His human life in continuous obedience, and in the offering up of His body and blood in the bitter Passion of the Cross, He brought men nigh unto God.

Therefore, because of all these things, because the Tabernacle is the dwelling-place of God, the place of revelation, and the place of sacrifice, therefore, finally is it the meeting-place betwixt God and man. In the Old Testament it is always called by the name which our Revised Version has accurately substituted for ‘tabernacle of the congregation,’ namely ‘tent of meeting.’ The correctness of that rendering and the meaning of the name are established by several passages in the Old Testament, as for instance, ‘There I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee, and there I will meet with the children of Israel.’ So in Christ, who by His Incarnation lays His hand upon both, God touches man and man touches God. We who are afar off are made nigh, and in that ‘true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man’ we meet God and are glad.

‘And so the word was flesh, and wrought

With human hands the creed of creeds,

In loveliness of perfect deeds.’

The temple for earth is ‘the temple of His body.’

II. We have the Tabernacle for the Heavens.

In the context of our second passage we have a vision of the great multitude redeemed out of all nations and kindreds, ‘standing before the Throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands.’ The palms in their hands give important help towards understanding the vision. As has been often remarked, there are no heathen emblems in the Book of the Apocalypse. All its metaphors move within the circle of Jewish experiences and facts. So that we are not to think of the Roman palm of victory, but of the Jewish palm which was borne at the Feast of Tabernacles. What was the Feast of Tabernacles? A festival established on purpose to recall to the minds and to the gratitude of the Jews settled in their own land the days of their wandering in the wilderness. Part of the ritual of it was that during its celebration they builded for themselves booths or tabernacles of leaves and boughs of trees, under which they dwelt, thus reminding themselves of their nomad condition.

Now what beauty and power it gives to the word of my text, if we take in this allusion to the Jewish festival! The great multitude bearing the palms are keeping the feast, memorial of past wilderness wanderings; and ‘He that sitteth on the throne shall spread His tabernacle above them,’ as the word might be here rendered. That is to say, He Himself shall build and be the tent in which they dwell; He Himself shall dwell with them in it. He Himself, in closer union than can be conceived of here, shall keep them company during that feast.

What a thought of that condition-the condition as I believe represented in this vision-of the spirits of the just made perfect, ‘who wait for the adoption, to wit, the resurrection of the body,’ is given us if we take this point of view to interpret the whole lovely symbolism. It is all a time of glad, grateful remembrance of the wilderness march. It is all a time in which festal joys shall be theirs, and the memory of the trials and the weariness and the sorrow and the solitude that are past shall deepen to a more exquisite poignancy of delight, the rest and the fellowship and the felicity of that calm Presence, and God Himself shall spread His tent above them, lodge with them, and they with Him.

And so, dear brethren, rest in that assurance, that though we know so little of that state, we know this: ‘Absent from the body, present with the Lord,’ and that the happy company who bear the palms shall dwell in God, and God in them.

III. And now, lastly, look at that final vision which we have in these texts, which we may call the Tabernacle for the renewed earth.

I do not pretend to interpret the scenery and the setting of these Apocalyptic visions with dogmatic confidence, but it seems to me as if the emblems of this final vision coincide with dim hints in many other portions of Scripture; to the effect that some cosmical change having passed upon this material world in which we dwell, it, in some regenerated form, shall be the final abode of a regenerated and redeemed humanity. That, I think, is the natural interpretation of a great deal of Scriptural teaching.

For that highest condition there is set forth this as the all-sufficing light upon it. ‘Behold, the Tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them.’ The climax and the goal of all the divine working, and the long processes of God’s love for, and discipline of, the world, are to be this, that He and men shall abide together in unity and concord. That is God’s wish from the beginning. We read in one of the profound utterances of the Book of Proverbs how from of old the ‘delights’ of the Incarnate Wisdom which foreshadowed the Incarnate Word ‘were with the sons of men.’ And, at the close of all things, when the vision of this final chapter shall be fulfilled, God will say, settling Himself in the midst of a redeemed humanity, ‘Lo! here will I dwell, for I have desired it. This is My rest for ever.’ He will tabernacle with men, and men with Him.

We know not, and never shall know until experience strips the bandages from our eyes, what new methods of participation of the divine nature, and new possibilities of intimacy and intercourse with Him may be ours when the veils of flesh and sense and time have all dropped away. New windows may be opened in our spirits, from which we shall perceive new aspects of the divine character. New doors may be opened in our souls, from out of which we may pass to touch parts of His nature, all impalpable and inconceivable to us now. And when all the veils of a discordant moral nature are taken away, and we are pure, then we shall see, then we shall draw nigh to God. The thing that chiefly separates man from God is man’s sin. When that is removed, the centrifugal force which kept our tiny orb apart from the great central sun being withdrawn, we shall, as it were, fall into the brightness and be one, not losing our sense of individuality, which would be to lose all the blessedness, but united with Him in a union far more intimate than earth can parallel. ‘The Tabernacle of God shall be with men, and He will tabernacle with them.’

Do not let us forget that this highest and ultimate hope that is held forth here, of the union and communion, perfect and perpetual, of humanity with God, does not sweep aside Jesus Christ. For through all eternity the Everlasting Word, the Christ who bears our nature in its glorified form, or, rather, whose nature in its glorified form we shall bear, is the Medium of Revelation, and the Medium of communication between man and God.

‘I saw no Temple therein,’ says this final vision of the Apocalypse, but ‘God Almighty and the Lamb,’ and these are the Temples thereof. Therefore through eternity God shall tabernacle with men, as He does tabernacle with us now through Him, in whom dwelleth as in its perennial habitation, ‘all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’

So we have the three tabernacles, for earth, for heaven, for the renewed earth; and these three, if I may say so, are like the triple division of that ancient Tabernacle in the wilderness: the Outer Court; the Holy Place; the Holiest of all. Let us enter into that outer court, and abide and commune with that God who comes near to us, revealing, forgiving, in the person of His Son, and then we shall pass from court to court, ‘and go from strength to strength, until every one of us in Zion appear before God’; and enter into the Holiest of all, where ‘within the veil’ we shall receive splendours of revelation undreamed of here, and enjoy depths of communion to which the selectest moments of fellowship with God on earth are shallow and poor.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 1:14-18

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Joh 1:14 “the Word became flesh” John is attacking the false doctrine of the Gnostics, who were attempting to merge Christianity with Greek pagan thought. Jesus was truly human and truly God (cf. 1Jn 4:1-3) in fulfillment of the promise of Immanuel (cf. Isa 7:14). God took up residence as a man among fallen mankind (literally, “pitched His tent”). The term “flesh” in John never refers to the sin nature as in Paul’s writings.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH (SARX)

“dwelt among us” Literally, this is “took up residence.” It had a Jewish background from the wilderness wandering period and the Tabernacle (cf. Rev 7:15; Rev 21:3). The Jews later called this wilderness experience the “honeymoon period” between YHWH and Israel. God was never closer to Israel than during this period. The Jewish term for the special divine cloud that guided Israel during this period was “the Shekinah,” the Hebrew term “to dwell with.”

“we saw His glory” The OT kabod (glory) has now been personified, incarnated. This refers to (1) something in Jesus’ life such as the transfiguration or the ascension (i.e., apostolic testimony, cf. 2Pe 1:16-17) is or (2) the concept that the invisible YHWH is now visible and fully known. This is the same emphasis as 1Jn 1:1-4, which is also an emphasis on the humanity of Jesus in opposition to the false Gnostic emphasis on the antagonistic relationship between spirit and matter.

In the OT the most common Hebrew word for “glory” (kabod, BDB 458 ) was originally a commercial term (which referred to a pair of scales), literally, “to be heavy.” That which was heavy was valuable or had intrinsic worth. Often the concept of brightness was added to the word to express God’s majesty (i.e., first on Mr. Sinai, the Shekinah cloud of glory, eschatological light, cf. Exo 13:21-22; Exo 24:17; Isa 4:5; Isa 60:1-2). He alone is worthy and honorable. He is too brilliant for fallen mankind to behold (cf. Exo 33:17-23; Isa 6:5). God can only be truly known through Christ (cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (DOXA)

NASB, NKJV”glory as of the only begotten from the Father”

NRSV”the glory as of a father’s only son”

TEV”The glory which he received as the Father’s only Son”

NJB”the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father”

This term “only” (monogens) means “unique,” “one of a kind” (cf. Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, pp. 24-25). The Vulgate translated it “only begotten” and, unfortunately, the older English translations followed this (cf. Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17). The focus is on singularity and uniqueness, not sexual generation.

“Father” The OT introduces the intimate familial metaphor of God as Father.

1. the nation of Israel is often described as YHWH’s “son” (cf. Hos 11:1; Mal 3:17)

2. even earlier in Deuteronomy the analogy of God as father is used (Deu 1:31)

3. in Deuteronomy 32 Israel is called “his children” and God called “your Father”

4. this analogy is stated in Psa 103:13 and developed in Psa 68:5 (the father of orphans)

5. it was common in the prophets (cf. Isa 1:2; Isa 63:8; Israel as son, God as Father, Isa 63:16; Isa 64:8; Jer 3:4; Jer 3:19; Jer 31:9).

Jesus takes this analogy and deepens it into full family fellowship, especially in Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Joh 2:16; Joh 3:35; Joh 4:21; Joh 4:23; Joh 5:17-23; Joh 5:26; Joh 5:36-37; Joh 5:43; Joh 5:45; Joh 6:27; Joh 6:32; Joh 6:37; Joh 6:44-46; Joh 6:57; Joh 8:16; Joh 8:19; Joh 8:27-28; Joh 8:38; Joh 8:42; Joh 8:49; Joh 8:54; Joh 11:41; Joh 12:26-28; Joh 12:49-50; Joh 13:1; Joh 14:2; Joh 14:6-13; Joh 14:16; Joh 14:20-21; Joh 14:23-24; Joh 14:26; Joh 14:28; Joh 14:31; Joh 15:1; Joh 15:8-10; Joh 15:15-16; Joh 15:23-24; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:3; Joh 16:10; Joh 16:15; Joh 16:17; Joh 16:23; Joh 16:25-28; Joh 16:32; Joh 17:1; Joh 17:5; Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21; Joh 17:24-25; Joh 18:11; Joh 20:17; Joh 20:21!

“full of grace and truth” This coupling follows the OT terms hesed (covenant love and loyalty) and emeth (trustworthiness) which are used and expanded in Exo 34:6; Neh 9:17; Psa 103:8, both words occur together in Pro 16:6. This describes Jesus’ character (cf. Joh 1:17) in OT covenantal terms. See Special Topic on Truth at Joh 6:55; Joh 17:3.

SPECIAL TOPIC: LOVINGKINDNESS (HESED)

SPECIAL TOPIC: BELIEVE, TRUST, FAITH, AND FAITHFULNESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ()

Joh 1:15 “for He existed before me” This is John the Baptist’s doctrine of strong affirmation of Jesus’ pre-existence (cf. Joh 1:1; Joh 8:56-59; Joh 16:28; Joh 17:5; 2Co 8:9; Php 2:6-7; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3; Heb 10:5-8). The doctrines of pre-existence and predictive prophecy affirm that there is a God above and beyond history, yet who works within history. It is an integral part of a Christian/biblical world view.

This verse is awkward and many scribal changes were made in an attempt to clarify and simplify the text. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 197-198.

It is also a good example on how the Greek verb tenses cannot be standardized. This is a past act recorded in the PRESENT tense. See Appendix One.

Joh 1:16-18 One of the characteristics of John’s Gospel is how the author breaks into the historical event, dialogue, or teaching session with his own comments. Often it is impossible to differentiate between Jesus’, other persons’, and John’s words. Most scholars assert that Joh 1:16-19 are John the author’s comments (cf. Joh 3:14-21).

Joh 1:16 “fullness” This is the Greek term pleroma. The Gnostic false teachers used it to describe the angelic aeons between the high god and lesser spiritual beings. Jesus is the only mediator (i.e., the true and only fullness) between God and man (cf. Col 1:19; Col 2:9; Eph 1:23; Eph 4:13). Here again it seems John the Apostle is attacking an early Gnostic view of reality.

NASB, NRSV”and grace upon grace”

NKJV”and grace for grace”

TEV”giving us one blessing after another”

NJB”one gift replacing another”

The interpretive question is how to understand “grace.” Is it

1. God’s mercy in Christ unto salvation

2. God’s mercy for the Christian life

3. God’s mercy in the new covenant through Christ?

The key thought is “grace”; God’s grace has been wondrously given in the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind (cf. 2Co 1:20).

Joh 1:17 “the Law” The Mosaic Law was not bad, but was preparatory and incomplete as far as providing a complete salvation (cf. Joh 5:39-47; Gal 3:23-29; Romans 4). Hebrews also contrasts and compares the work/revelation/covenants of Moses and Jesus.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL’S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW

“grace” This refers to God’s undeserved, unmerited love for fallen mankind (cf. Eph 2:8). This term grace (charis), so important in Paul’s writings, is used only in this paragraph in John’s Gospel (cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 1:16-17). New Testament writers, under inspiration, were free to use their own vocabularies, analogies, and metaphors.

Jesus brought into reality the “new covenant” of Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:22-38.

“truth” This is used in the sense of (1) faithfulness or (2) truth vs. falsehood (cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 8:32; Joh 14:6). Notice both grace and truth came through Jesus (cf. Joh 1:14). See Special Topic at Joh 17:3.

“Jesus” This is the first use of the human name of Mary’s son in the Prologue. The pre-existent Son now becomes the Incarnate Son!

Joh 1:18 “No one has seen God at any time” Some say that this contradicts Exo 33:20-23. However, the Hebrew term in the Exodus passage refers to “afterglow,” not the physical sight of God Himself. The thrust of this passage is that only Jesus fully reveals God (cf. Joh 14:8 ff). No sinful human has seen God (cf. Joh 6:46; 1Ti 6:16; 1Jn 4:12; 1Jn 4:20).

This verse emphasizes the unique revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. He is the full and only divine self-disclosure. To know Jesus is to know God. Jesus is the Father’s ultimate revelation of Himself. There is no clear understanding of deity apart from Him (cf. Col 1:15-19; Heb 1:2-3). Jesus “sees” the Father and believers “see” the Father through Him (His life, words, and acts). He is the full and complete revelation of the invisible God (cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:3).

NASB”the only begotten God”

NKJV”the only begotten Son”

NRSV”It is God’s only Son”

TEV”The only Son”

NJB”It is the only Son”

See note on monogens at Joh 1:14. Jesus is fully God and man. See full notes at Joh 1:1.

There is a Greek manuscript variation here. Theos/God is in the early Greek manuscripts P66, P75, B, and C, while “Son” is substituted for “God” only in MSS A and C3. The UBS4 gives “God” a “B” rating (almost certain). The term “Son” possibly comes from scribes remembering “only begotten Son” in Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18 and in 1Jn 4:9 (cf. Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament p. 198). This is a strong affirmation of the full and complete deity of Jesus! It is possible that this verse has three titles for Jesus: (1) only begotten, (2) God, and (3) who is in the bosom of the Father.

There is an interesting discussion of the possibility of a purposeful alteration of this text by orthodox scribes in Bart D. Ehrmans’ The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 78-82.

“who is in the bosom of the Father” This is very similar in meaning to the phrase “with God” in Joh 1:1-2. It speaks of intimate fellowship. It could refer to (1) His pre-existent fellowship or (2) His restored fellowship (i.e., the Ascension).

NASB”He has explained Him”

NKJV”He has declared Him”

NRSV, NJB”who has made him known”

TEV”he has made him known”

We get the English term “exegesis” (lit. “to lead out,” aorist middle [deponent] indicative) from this Greek word used in Joh 1:18, which implies a full and complete revelation. One of Jesus’ main tasks was to reveal the Father (cf. Joh 14:7-10; Heb 1:2-3). To see and know Jesus is to see and know the Father (loving sinners, helping the weak, accepting the outcast, receiving children and women)!

The term in Greek was used of those who explain or interpret a message, dream, or document. Here again John may be using a word that had specific meaning to both Jews and Gentiles (like Logos of Joh 1:1). John is attempting to relate to both Jew and Greek with his prologue. The word could mean

1. to the Jews one who explains or interprets the Law

2. to the Greeks one who explains or interprets the gods.

In Jesus, and Jesus alone, humans fully see and understand the Father!

CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS TO Joh 1:19-51

A. This passage concerning John the Baptist deals with two early church misunderstandings:

1. that which developed around the person of John the Baptist and is disputed in Joh 1:6-9; Joh 1:20-21; Joh 1:25; and Joh 3:22-36;

2. that which involved the person of Christ and is dealt with in Joh 1:32-34. This same heresy of Gnosticism is similarly attacked in 1 John 1. 1 John may have been the cover letter to the Gospel of John.

B. The Gospel of John is silent about the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The ordinances of the church, baptism and the Eucharist, are noticeably absent in John’s account of the life of Christ. There are at least two possible reasons for this omission:

1. the rise of sacramentalism in the early church caused John to de-emphasize this aspect of Christianity. His Gospel focuses on relationship, not ritual. He does not discuss or record the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper at all. The absence of something so expected would draw attention to it.

2. John, writing later than the other Gospel writers, used his account of the life of Christ to supplement the others. Since all of the Synoptics cover these ordinances, John only supplied additional information about the surrounding events. An example would be the dialog and events which occurred in the upper room (chapters 13-17) but not the actual supper itself.

C. The emphasis of this account is on John the Baptist’s testimony concerning the person of Jesus. John makes the following Christological statement:

1. Jesus is the Lamb of God, (Joh 1:29) a title for Jesus used only here and in Revelation

2. Jesus is pre-existent (Joh 1:30)

3. Jesus is the receiver and giver of the Holy Spirit (Joh 1:33)

4. Jesus is the Son of God (Joh 1:34)

D. The truths about the person and work of Jesus are developed by the personal testimony of

1. John the Baptist

2. Andrew and Simon

3. Philip and Nathanael

This becomes a common literary technique throughout the Gospel. It contains twenty-seven of these dialogues or testimonies about Jesus or with Jesus.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

And, &c. Continuing Joh 1:13, and showing that Joh 1:13 also relates to the Word.

was made = became, as in Joh 1:3.

flesh. See note on Joh 1:13. The new mode of His being. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), App-6, for His humanity.

dwelt = tabernacled. Occurs only here, Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3. See App-179.

among. Greek. en. App-104.

and we, &c. For other similar parenthetical remarks characteristic of this Gospel, See verses: Joh 1:38, Joh 1:41, Joh 1:42, Joh 38:44; Joh 2:9; Joh 2:8, Joh 2:9, Joh 2:44, Joh 2:45; Joh 5:2; Joh 6:10, Joh 6:23; Joh 7:2, Joh 7:39, Joh 7:50; Joh 9:7; Joh 11:2; Joh 19:31; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:8.

beheld. Greek. theaomai. App-133. Not the same word as in verses: Joh 1:29, Joh 1:36, Joh 1:42, Joh 29:47. Compare Luk 9:32. 2Pe 1:16. 1Jn 1:1; 1Jn 4:14.

glory. The Shekinah. See Luk 9:32. 2Pe 1:17. Greek. doxa. One of the characteristic words of this Gospel.

the glory = glory. No Art. Note the Figure of speech Anadiplosis, App-6.

as of = exactly like.

the only begotten = an only begotten [Son]. As applied to Christ it Occurs only here, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9. But it is used of an earthly relationship in Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38. Heb 11:17. Septuagint for “only One”, Psa 25:16. See note there.

of = from beside: i.e. (sent) from beside. Greek. para. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Joh 1:13, Joh 1:15, Joh 1:16, Joh 13:22, Joh 13:34, Joh 13:35, Joh 13:40, Joh 13:44, Joh 13:47.

Father. See App-98. A characteristic word of this Gospel. Occurs 121 times.

full = abounding in.

grace and truth. A Hebraism for the sum of Divine revelation. Hebrew. chesed vehemeth. See Gen 24:27; Gen 32:10. Exo 34:6. Psa 40:10, Psa 40:11; Psa 61:7.

truth. A characteristic word of this Gospel.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

14.] must not be understood (Chrysost., Grot., Lampe, Theophylact, alli[17].) as giving a reason for the verse before; it is only the same copula as in Joh 1:1; Joh 1:3-5; passing on to a further assertion regarding the Word.

[17] alli = some cursive mss.

., became flesh: the most general expression of the great truth that He became man. He became that, of which man is in the body compounded. There is no reference here to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus being the second Adam, as Olshausen thinks; but although there may be no reference to it, it lies at the ground of this wideness of expression. The doctrine in this form may have been, as Lcke observes, alien to Johns habits of thought, but not that which is implied in the doctrine, the taking of the nature of man by the Eternal Word.

The simplicity of this expression is no doubt directed against the Docet of the Apostles time, who maintained that the Word only apparently took human nature. Therefore he says , absolutely and literally became flesh: see ref. 1 John. The expression is not guarded against the interpretation of the Apollinarian heretics, who held that the Lord had not a human soul (); but this error was not in the Apostles view, and is abundantly refuted elsewhere (see Mat 26:38 and note on 36-46, and the references there made to Johns Gospel).

, sojourned, or tabernacled, in us. There is no reference to the flesh being the tabernacle of the Spirit;-but the word is one technically used in Scripture to import the dwelling of God among men. See besides reff., Lev 26:11-12; Eze 43:7; Eze 37:27; Sir 24:8; Sir 24:10.

-hominibus, qui caro sumus, Bengel.

. . . .] we saw-see 1Jn 1:1; 2Pe 1:16.

This is the Apostles testimony as such, see Act 1:21.

The mention of seems to be suggested by the word , so frequently used of the divine Presence or Shechinah, and cognate in its very form with it: edem litter in et . Bengel.

This glory was seen by the disciples, ch. Joh 2:11; Joh 11:4 : also by Peter, James, and John, specially, on the mount of transfiguration: to which occasion the words seem to refer: but mainly, in the whole converse and teaching and suffering of the Lord, who was full of grace and truth: see below.

On Chrysostom remarks (Hom. xii. in Joan., vol. viii. p. 66), , , . (see reff.).

.] This word applied to Christ is peculiar to John: see reff. In the N.T. usage it signifies the only son;-in the LXX, Ps. 21:20, the beloved, and Ps. 24:16, one deserted, left alone. It has been attempted to render the word in John, according to the usage in Ps. 21:20. But obviously in the midst of ideas reaching so far deeper than that of regard, or love, of the Father for the Son, the word cannot be interpreted except in accordance with them. It refers to, and contrasts with, the in Joh 1:12-13. They receive their divine birth by faith in Him and through Him; but HE is the of the Father in the higher sense, in which He is the Son of God.

belongs to ; not to , as Theophyl., Erasm., Grot. suppose.

The ellipse is to be supplied by considering the state in which the here appears,-that of having become and dwelling among us.

. . . .] These words have been variously connected. The view of Erasmus, who places the period at , and connects these words with , scarcely needs refutation, whether we regard the construction, or the meaning of the sentence. The reading has probably arisen from a correction, to connect the adj. with . Some do this even with , but both the construction and the sense are against it. It was not the , but He Himself, that was . . .: see below, Joh 1:17. Others suppose to refer directly to , and justify this by Eph 3:17-18. But besides the unnecessary harshness of this, the sense is against it also; for it cannot be said, we saw His glory, the glory as of one who was full of grace and truth; we must have the referring, in the sense of (see above), to some mysterious hidden character which the glory testified, whereas the . . . is itself a mere matter of fact, to which the Apostles themselves could (Joh 1:17) bear witness. Another construction is (as usually done and in E. V.) to take as parenthetical, and connect immediately with . Such parentheses are common in the style of this Gospel: see ch. Joh 6:22-24; Joh 11:2; Joh 19:23-24; ib. Joh 19:31. But by far the best is, to regard as referring to , by an anomaly in concord often found in the N.T. (see Luk 20:27 note;Luk 24:47), and especially in the Apocalypse,-cf. Rev 1:4 alli[18]. fr.

[18] alli = some cursive mss.

. . .] Not = , which destroys the precision of the expression, and itself conveys no sense whatever; but setting out the two sides of the divine manifestation in Christ,-, as the result of Love to mankind,- (see reff. and ch. Joh 14:6), as the unity, purity, and light of His own Character.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 1:14.[19]) , flesh) Flesh (besides that it denotes as to us our corrupt nature, estranged from the Spirit of God, Joh 1:13), denotes the human body, or, as in this place, the man himself, denominated from his visible part. Comp. 1Ti 3:16, Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.-, was made) not was, as Artemonius maintains, p. 332, 387, etc., 472. [It is not said here; there was made another man, sent by God, whose name was Jesus, comp. Joh 1:6; but The Word was made flesh. John Baptist, before that he was born of Elizabeth, had no existence: but the Word was, before that His mother Mary-before that Abraham-before that the world at all was brought into being: and in His own time the Word was made flesh: i.e. assumed a human nature, in such a way, however, that there were not two Messiahs, but one; not two sons of God, but one.-V. g.] Nowhere in the whole range of literature will any passage be found under the sun, wherein the difference of the words and is more studiously observed than John 1. Read from the beginning the whole context, from Joh 1:1-30, and you will agree with this assertion. Since Artemonius, p. 464, acknowledges that the tenses of the verbs are set down by John with great accuracy [discrimination], why not also the verbs themselves?- , and dwelt) From this point to the end of the verse there are four sentences; to the first of which the fourth has reference, by : to the second, the third has reference; in very apposite order.

[19] , the Word) John in this place repeats the former denomination in this sense: That same Being, who was previously the Word, who was the Life, who was the Light, the same was now made Flesh. What He had been before, that He did not cease to be; but He was now made what He had not been before.-V. g.

1) And dwelt among us;

2) and we saw His glory,

3) the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father:

4) full of grace and truth

, a tabernacle [tent]; whence [I tabernacle]: He dwelt as in a tabernacle [tent] with as; truly, but not long, giving us a view of [the opportunity of seeing] Himself. The verbs are akin; and , as a stage-scene [] and a theatre. The Dweller was , the Word: the flesh was His tabernacle and temple: Heb 9:11 [Christ being come, an high-priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building]; Joh 2:21 [The temple of His body destroyed, and then in three days raised up again by Him]. The same letters are in and .-, us) men who are flesh.-, we beheld) we, the apostles, especially Peter, James, and John, Luk 9:32. [These three, at the transfiguration, saw His glory.] The apostles, in speaking of that which they had seen, are wont to speak in the plural number: a usage which tends to the greater confirmation [of the things which they attest]. 1Jn 1:1, That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled. 2Pe 1:16, We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His majesty. Paul uses the singular number, 1Co 9:2, Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? and John the Baptist, Joh 1:32, I saw the Spirit descending, etc., and it abode upon Him.- ) His glory, His Godhead, ch. Joh 2:11, Jesus manifested forth His glory.-, as) This particle does not compare, but declares. For He, the , the Word, is Himself the Only-begotten.-, the only begotten) There is hereby intimated the reality and unity of the Divine generation. There is reference chiefly to the baptism of Jesus Christ; Joh 1:34, I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God; Mat 3:17, Lo a voice from heaven saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; although the history itself of Jesus baptism, as being fully described by the other Evangelists, John fittingly omits. Comp. Mat 3:14, John forbade Him, saying, I have need to be baptised of Thee, and comest Thou to me?-, by [or of]) Construe with , the Only-begotten: alone, not only-begotten by the Father, but even sent [by Him]: ch. Joh 6:46, He which is of God; ch. Joh 7:29, I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me.-, full) not , filled, which, however, in another point of view, is said of Jesus, Luk 2:40.[20] [We ought to construe the passage thus, The Word dwelt with us full of grace and truth: inasmuch as this was properly the very point intended to be indicated in this verse: for the fact of His being made flesh is repeated from the previous verses.-V. g.]- , grace and truth) The whole of this is repeated, Joh 1:17 : Grace alone is named, Joh 1:16, [of which if destitute we could not have endured His glory.-V. g.] Truth is grace clad with a promise, and put forth in exercise. Heb. , Exo 34:6. Thence Psa 25:5, etc., Lead me in Thy truth, and teach me, for Thou art the God of my salvation; Psa 25:10, All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth; Psa 26:3, I have walked in Thy truth; Psa 33:4-5, All His works are done in truth: He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord; Psa 36:6, Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; Psa 85:11, Truth shall spring out of the earth: and righteousness shall look down from heaven: Psa 89:2-3, Mercy shall be built up for ever: Thy faithfulness shalt Thou establish in the very heavens. I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant; Psa 89:5; Psa 89:8, Thy faithfulness; Psa 89:14, Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne; mercy and truth shall go before Thy face; Psa 89:24, My faithfulness and mercy shall be with Him; Psa 89:33, My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail; Psa 89:49, Lord, where are Thy former loving-kindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth? Psa 92:2, To show forth Thy loving-kindness every morning, and Thy faithfulness every night; Psa 98:3, He hath remembered His mercy and truth toward the house of Israel; Psa 100:5, The Lord is good: His mercy is everlasting: and His truth endureth for ever; Psa 115:1, Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy and for Thy truths sake; Psa 117:2, His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Add Rom 15:8-9, Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy; Col 1:5-6, the word of the truth of the Gospel,-which bringeth forth fruit-in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth. This grace and truth is by nature unknown to the sons of wrath, and to the untruthful: but it falls to us [is bestowed on us] in the well-beloved Son, in whom the Father is well pleased, Mat 3:17. It is called the grace [of God] in truth, Col 1:6; 2Jn 1:3, Grace be with you, mercy and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love; the true grace [of God], 1Pe 5:12.

[20] The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: where His perfect humanity is exhibited.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 1:14

Joh 1:14

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us-This Word was Immanuel-God in the flesh. He dwelt among men as a man, subject to like passions and infirmities as man, tempted in all things as we are, yet his nature and life were manifestations of divine life and truth. [The Word became denotes a single and complete act. His dwelling among us was not a mere transitory or momentary appearance followed by a quick vanishing. He remained with us about thirty-three and a half years so that we could study and know him.]

(and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father),-In the transfiguration and works of Christ his associates saw this glory. The working of miracles was showing forth the glory of God (Joh 2:11), full of kindness to man, teaching the truth of God. [They beheld his glory, not in any particular instance, as the transfiguration, for example, but the continuous glory of his life and character as manifested through the whole period of his active ministry and which marked him as the Son of God.]

full of grace and truth.-[Sweetness and light, or love and light. Through him both mind and heart are fed. Grace in his redemptive work; truth in his teaching. Not that there was no grace and truth before, but he is a rich storehouse of it all.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the Voice of Promise

Joh 1:14-28

Note that the Revised Version changes the words was made to became, Joh 1:14. Evidently Jesus had existed before this becoming; and evidently there was a process of self-limitation. Dwelt, that is, tabernacled. As the Shechinah light was veiled by the curtain of the Tabernacle, so the divine essence in Jesus was veiled by His humanity, though it shone out at the Transfiguration. He was full of grace, the unmerited love of God; full of truth, coming to bear witness to it; full of glory, that of the only begotten Son. There are many sons, but only one Son.

What a beautiful testimony John the Baptist gave! He was not the Christ, not Elijah (except in spirit), not the expected prophet, but just a voice, announcing the Christ and dying away. He was content to decrease before the greater whom he had been taught to expect and was sent to herald. There is a sense in which the preacher of repentance must always precede the Christ. There must be a putting away of known sin, previous to the recognition of the Lamb of God. But how great must Christ be, when so noble a man as the Baptist felt unworthy to unloose His sandals!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

The Incarnation of the Word

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.Joh 1:14.

1. The Word. Thrice elsewhere (Joh 1:1; 1Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13) is this term used to designate the same Person. It is used in the first verse of this Gospel without apology, and without definition, as if the readers were acquainted with it, as indeed they were, for it had a large circulation among both Greek and Jewish thinkers. It is one of the most pregnant words used in the New Testament. In Joh 1:18 we are told why the term is so usedNo man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. As thus used the term is one of great significance. By our words we make our wills known to others. By our words we issue our prohibitions or commands, and give effect to our intentions. Our words, then, give expression to our will. And, similarly, the Word of God is Gods will expressing itself. It is the God of Heaven coming into relation with created things and revealing Himself.

2. Who is this Word? He is one who existed in the beginning, and is in perfect union with God, being the expression of Gods thought and purpose and energy. He is Himself the Creator of all things, of bird and flower, of mountain and sea, of sun and star. He is the Creator of man; and all the light of truth and goodness that has ever arisen in mans heart came only from Him. Who, then, is this mysterious Person, this Eternal Word of God? We must turn to this fourteenth verse. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us! This august and mysterious Word of God, Himself became a man. Then we know who He is. He must be Jesus, that Jesus of Nazareth who was born in Bethlehem.

3. Far away down the years, at the close of the first century, an old man sits brooding over the things that he had seen and heard in the cities of Judah and in the fields of Galilee. Forty, fifty, sixty years, and more perhaps, now lie between him and the scenes which he records. Sixty yearsand such years!years of revolutionyears of judgmentyears in which the old order perished in doom, and the New World rose into victory under the breath of the Spirit of God. He had himself, long ago, it may be, laid up in the Book of the Revelation the visions in which the tremendous drama of those momentous years moved towards its final and critical act. Yet, now, his look is not forward into the silences that delay the trumpet-blasts of Divine action. His eyes turn ever back, overleaping the crowded interval; back to those wonderful days when he walked behind the feet of the Masterthe days when he saw, and heard, and handled. Still his whole being hangs upon those sealed memories. Still he ponders, and weighs, and wonders, and broods. For we are listening, in these first verses of St. John, to an old mans broodings. No one can mistake their tone, or be insensible to their atmosphere, as the verses fall on the ear with their solemn weight of measured monotony, serious as a winters eve, in which the stars silently offer themselves to our eyes, one by one, in seemly order and in noiseless ease. So the great words detach themselves from his lips, single, slow, deliberate, unhasting. Round and round the story his spirit has searched and laboured, and waited, until word could set itself to word, and phrase to phrase. No time could be too long in which to collect into one brief passage the sum and substance of all that revelation which was made known to him in the Name of Jesus Christ.1 [Note: H. Scott Holland, Creed and Character, 3.]

The belief in the Divinity of Christ is waning among us. They who hold it have petrified it into a theological dogma without life or warmth, and thoughtful men are more and more beginning to put it aside. How are we then to get back this belief in the Son of Godby authority or by the old way of persecution? The time for these has passed. The other way is to begin at the beginning. Begin as the Bible begins, with Christ the Son of Man. Begin with Him as Gods character revealed under the limitations of humanity. Lay the foundations of a higher faith deeply in a belief of His Humanity. See Him as He was. Breathe His spirit. After that, try to comprehend His Life. Enter into His Childhood. Feel with Him when He looked round about Him in anger, when He vindicated the crushed woman from the powerless venom of her ferocious accusers;when He stood alone in the solitary Majesty of Truth in Pilates judgment-hall; when the light of the Roman soldiers torches flashed on Kedron in the dark night, and He knew that watching was too late; when His heart-strings gave way upon the Cross. Walk with Him through the Marriage Feast. See how the sick and weary came to Him instinctively; how men, when they saw Him, felt their sin, they knew not why, and fell at His feet; how guilt unconsciously revealed itself, and all that was good in men was drawn out, and they became higher than themselves in His presence. Realize this. Live with Him till He becomes a living thoughtever presentand you will find a reverence growing up which compares with nothing else in human feeling. You will feel that a slighting word spoken of Him wounds with a dart more sharp than personal insult. You will feel that to bow at the name of Jesus is no form at will of others, but a relief and welcome. And if it should ever chance that, finding yourself thrown upon your own self, and cut off from sectssuspected, in quest of a truth which no man gives,then that wondrous sense of strength and friendship comes, the being alone with Christ, with the strength of a manlier independence. Slowly then, this almost insensibly merges into adoration. For what is it to adore Christ? To call Him God; to say Lord, Lord? No. Adoration is the mightiest love the soul can givecall it by what name you will.1 [Note: F. W. Robertson, in Life and Letters, 417.]

4. The one supremely significant fact in the universe is, to quote Dr. Peabodys fine paraphrase, the transformation of language into life. We see this transformation in three different moments. There was the creation at the beginning, when great vitalizing words of God took form in created beings. Again there is the same transformation in all human work and morality to the end, when man is hearing words of God within him and is transforming them into deeds and finished products. But between these two there stands the stupendous fact of Christ, interpreting the first and inspiring the second.

(1) Creation.It is matter of general consent that the universe as we know it had a beginning. As thought travels backward into the great silence before that beginning, it must needs discover a moment when the eternal thought found expression, and the universe began. The word became flesh. God spoke, and the thing spoken stood out as a created fact. The universe is Gods language. The unspoken word is all that might be; the spoken word is all that is. This is the meaning of those wonderful stories of Genesis, in which we see all things coming forth in their mighty evolution in answer to the words of God.

That is the Christian view of nature and the universe. It is not an eternally grinding machine, nor is it a dream-picture woven of mist. It is a real universe, in which Gods language is transformed into life. The great words were spoken, and there are the mountains and the fields and the seas, and the ships upon the seas and the cities of men. It makes all the difference in the world whether as we stand in the midst of all these things we hear only a jangle of meaningless sounds, or whether we hear the word of the Lord. Listen to that word in the summer fields and sunshine, in the winter storms and the voice of the tossing seas. Listen, too, in the crowded streets, the throb of machinery and traffic, the bustle and the gentle speech of homes. In new thought and adventurous policy, in great loyalties to ancient institutions; in the voices of teachers in schools, of preachers in pulpits, of business men in offices, of shopkeepers in shops; in the heart-beatings of the lonely and the sobs of the penitenteverywhere creation is the word become flesh.

(2) Jesus Christ.The word had been spoken in an unknown tongue. We heard it, and saw its incarnate forms, but we did not understand. Science was patiently deciphering it, retranslating it back from life to language; endeavouring from the manifest facts of the universe to spell out the meaning of the Word of God. But science finds it difficult, and conscience and love find it far more difficult to understand. The Divine Word has seemed to change and suffer in the process of becoming flesh. Its meaning is obscure, and it seems to have been mingled with much other speech that is not Divine.

Many had tried to interpret it into human speech. Psalmists, prophets, philosophers had tried; but their words died away, leaving fainter and fainter echoes in mans conscience. They had written their interpretation, but Gods word can never find full expression in a book. Language must be transformed into lifeand not, this time, the general life of the universe, but our human lifethat we may understand. So the Word became flesh. The meaning of life, the purpose of God in creation, became intelligible in Jesus Christ. His whole speech and conduct and being interpreted the world. When men saw Him they said, Life ought to be like that: God is like that.

Take three of the words of God, and let us see their transformation into life in Christ:

(a) Holiness.The word was familiar, for there was abundance of ethical speculation and of conscience too. But holiness was dead and buried in formal rules of conduct, paralysed by mans universal failure, and hopelessly unattainable. But here was holiness splendidly alive, spontaneous, free, and natural. Here it was not merely attainable but actually attained. Jesus Christthat was what God had meant by conscience, what conscience had tried to say; that was what ethical science had seen afar off, but never reached.

(b) Lovethe most fascinating and yet the most elusive word of God. Men heard it in their own hearts and homes, but it was uncertain or sinister, and always precarious, being threatened both by life and by death. That was human love, and the Divine love was but a remote and dim whisper of possible goodwill, if things turned out to be as one sometimes almost dared to hope. But here was love at once stronger than death and simple as the laughter of a child. Men saw its patience, its responsiveness, its facility. They felt its tenderness, its understanding, its healing power. Here is Gods heart, seen in the heart of a man. Here is what all true love actually means. The word Love had become flesh.

(c) Deaththat last sad word. Every death before had been recognized as a Word of God, but how unfriendly and how harsh! Since Jesus died, men have known what God means by His great word Death, for the death of Jesus has interpreted the whole of life. In the light of its love and sacrifice we look with new eyes upon sin, despair, forgiveness, restoration. And that death has reinterpreted death itself, giving to it surprisingly rich and blessed meaning. All the wonder of the eternal lifeits rest, its renewal, its reward, its higher serviceall these were included in the meaning of the word death, when in Christ language was translated into life. Truly man may say to the spectre, at the grave of Jesus

Thou hast stolen a jewel, Death,

Shall light thy dark up like a star.

All this, and far more than this, is included in the meaning of the word became flesh. Flesh, the tempted and tempting thing, weak and suffering, subject to all contingencies and liable to all risksflesh was used to express adequately and for ever the meaning of Gods word of creation.

(3) The third stage of this incarnation has yet to be considered. The text is a command that the word shall become flesh again in every Christian life. The translation of language into life is the great act of religion.

We are familiar with the idea of the incarnation being perpetuated in the Bible, the Church, and the Sacraments. But besides these, each life around us is a Word of God, a special purpose and design realized in flesh in its degree. This thought surely gives new meaning to our intercourse with those who do business with us or live beside us. There is but one temple in the world, says Novalis, and that temple is the Body of Man. We touch heaven when we lay our hands on a human body. Another has said: The body of a child is as the body of the Lord; I am not worthy of either. How reverently, gently, purely, should we treat one another if this is indeed so.

But most especially in ourselves must language be transformed into life. We all hear many words of God. The worship of the Church, its songs and prayers, its readings and thoughts, and the inward response to these is desire, aspiration, and resolve; these words are to become flesh in us when we return from our worship to our daily life. And also there are other words which our spirits hear from day to day. What has life been saying to you? What has your experience meant? What lessons has God been trying to make you understand? Some of it we cannot understand, and all that is required of us is that we shall walk among these unknown voices of life, erect and brave and self-respecting and gentle. But there is much that we understand quite well. It is the Word of God, spoken clearly and in familiar language by the voice of life.

But that Word has yet to become flesh. There are countless words of God in the knowledge and conviction of us all which are as yet no more than words. These are waiting for their incarnation in our character and influence, in our daily work and service of man and God. The works of our hands are Gods word fulfilled in us. We who can work are born that certain great words we have heard in our secret souls may become flesh in deeds. Rise then and do the work that thy hands find to do. In this living fashion speak out what is in thee. So shalt thou also be a Word of God incarnate, an expression of His mind in living flesh.1 [Note: J. Kelman.]

The Incarnation of God in the terms of the Christ is not finished yet. Still as the Christ within He has to be born again in the hearts of men, and not only yesterday, but to-day and for ever, has Jesus to be received by His own. If the redemption of the world is to be wrought out and completed, that spirit which dwelt in Jesus, that grace and truth, that complete merging of the individual will in the Divine, that passionate love of men, that reverence for all things as belonging to the Father, that consciousness of unity with Himall these have to become our common inheritance and possession. The Christian is not called upon to go out of his ordinary world to find his God, but by his very loyalty to Christ he must look first of all for his God in terms of the human life he knows so well. Having once God in Christ he must go on to look for and to find the Christ as every man. The Incarnation must not be for him historical, a past phenomenon merely, but a continually recurring process and experience. The Christ who was born once in Jewry has to be born again in the hearts of all who would attain their true manhood. Not in nothingness and non-entity, then, but in living, breathing, feeling power does the God who is Spirit still reveal Himself and carry forward His purpose. To every generation He manifests Himself afresh, Love making for itself new channels to meet the new needs. Still the God of Love clothes Himself in the garment of form, and still He becomes flesh and dwells among men.2 [Note: M. C. Albright, The Common Heritage, 144.]

Lo! this one preached with fervent tongue;

The world went forth to hear;

Upon his burning words they hung,

Intent, with ravished ear.

Like other lives the life he led,

Men spake no word of blame;

And yet, unblest, unprofited,

The world went on the same.

Another came, and lived, and wrought,

His heart all drawn above;

By deeds, and not by words, he taught

Self-sacrificing love.

No eager crowds his preaching drew;

Yet one by one they came;

The secret of his power they knew,

And caught the sacred flame.

And all around, as morning light

Steals on with silent wing,

The world became more pure and bright

And life a holier thing.

Ah! Pastor, is thy heart full sore

At all this sin and strife?

Feed with the Word, but ah! far more

Feed with a holy life.1 [Note: W. Walsham How.]

5. There is a difficulty in the construction of this passage, which our English Versions endeavour to clear up by putting the middle portion of the verse in a parenthesis. Some of the best commentators give their sanction to the course which our translators have adopted; and we may therefore, perhaps, safely regard the Evangelist as in the text announcing the doctrine that The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and throwing in at the same time the parenthetical remark, We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

Thus we have

I.The Divine Life entering upon a Human Life.

And the Word became flesh.

II.The Character of the Human Life.

And dwelt among usfull of grace and truth.

III.The Divine discovered in the Human.

And we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

I

The Divine entering the Human

And the Word became flesh.

This is called the Incarnation. What does the word Incarnation mean? We know that carnal means fleshly, and carnivorous means flesh-eating, and carnation means a flesh-coloured flower. Incarnate, then, means to clothe in flesh; and the Incarnation is the becoming clothed in flesh, or the assumption of flesh. So that when we speak of the Incarnation we are using an abbreviated phrase; it must mean the Incarnation of something; and when it stands in this way, alone with the definite article, it refers to the Incarnation of the Son of God. The subject before us, then, is the clothing of the Son of God in flesh, or the Son of God assuming human nature.

Two things therefore have to be understood: First, that before assuming human nature He previously existed as Son of God; Second, that when He assumed human nature He really and truly became a man. When these two things are understood we must consider why the Son of God became Son of man.

i. His Pre-existence

1. Who is it of whom St. John says that He became flesh? The Word, he says. And who was the Word? Was it some prophet, a voice from God, bringing His word to man? It was more than that. Was it some Being, more than man, created on purpose to be the messenger of God to His creatures, and to declare His will with more authority than any human being could declare it? If we believe anything at all about Him, it was more than that. Was it some great angel, a dweller in the secret place where thought of man never approaches, seated near Gods throne, ever beholding the face of God?was it such a one, who was sent to clothe himself with mans form and flesh? Was it Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God? Was it Michael, the Prince of Angels? Was it one of the Seraphim, who day and night cry aloud, Holy, holy, holy? It was more than thatmore, infinitely more than thatone to whom highest angels were but messengers and servants. Was it some heavenly Person, greater, higher, more ancient than the archangels, created almost from all eternity, to be the companion of the solitude of the Godhead on the eternal throne, to be His minister in all creation, the revealer and utterer of the mind of God, the sharer with Him in the worship of heaven and earthall but God? Again, if we hold the faith of St. Paul and St. James, if we believe Him of whom we are speaking, it was more than this. The gulf is infinite, the gulf is impassable, between such a supposed being and the reality declared in Scripturebetween God and the highest of His creatures. Who was the Word? St. John tells us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. The Word was God. This is He of whom it is said, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This is that Jesus Christ, of whom it is written, that She brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. The Son of God, only begotten, equal to the Father, ever with the Father, by whom also He made the worlds; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power. The firstborn of every creature, for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist;not to be named with the angels, for the angels were made by Him, and Him do the angels worshipFar above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. Only He knew the secret of God, for He was one with God. Only He had seen God, for He was the Son of God, in glory with God before the world was. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son (himself God), which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. And from the glory and bosom of the Father He came, to be a little child, born in Bethlehem of Juda, the city of David; and He who came, was God.

Such a relation as we believe our Saviour now bears to the Father could not have arisen at a point of time. It could not have been created by His earthly life. The power to exercise Gods prerogative of forgiveness, judgment, and redemption could never have been acquired by the moral excellence or religious achievement of any created being, however endowed by the Spirit of God. I confess (if I may descend so far) I had long this difficulty, which lowered the roof of my faith, and arrested the flight of devotion. And I am afraid, from the state of our public worship, I was not alone in that difficulty. I could not get the plenitude of New Testament worship or Catholic faith out of the mere self-sacrifice of the human Christ even unto death. Nor could I rise to it from that level. I was too little moved by His earthly renunciations to rise to the dimensions of the Churchs faith, for I am not speaking of its creed, which was my own. The cross of such a Christ, who was the mere martyr of His revelation, or the paragon of self-sacrifice, was not adequate to produce the absolute devotion which made a proud Pharisee, yea a proud Apostle, glory in being Christs entire slave, and which drove the whole Church to call Christ Lord and God, in a devotion the most magnificent the soul has ever known. Such worship seemed too large a response to anything which Jesus, with all His unique greatness, did or determined in the course of His earthly life alone. The Synoptic record alone would not account for the Christian religion, nor produce the plerophory of Christian faith. Christs earthly humiliation had to have its foundation laid in Heaven, and to be viewed but as the working out of a renunciation before the world was.1 [Note: P. T. Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, 269.]

Among geographers there have sometimes been disputes as to the identity of a river. They have debated, for instance, whether the Quorra were the same as the Niger; but when a boat, launched on the Niger, after a few weeks made its appearance floating on the Quorra, there was an end of the argument: the names might be two, but the streams were demonstrably the one the continuation of the other. And sometimes a critic, indignant at an anonymous author, has shown how much better a well-known writer would have handled the self-same subjectwhen it turns out that the nameless and the well-known personages are in this instance identical. In the 102nd Psalm, eternity and unchangeableness are ascribed to the Great Creator; and there is no opponent of the Saviours divinity who would not sing that psalm as a fitting ascription to the Most High God: when behold! the Epistle to the Hebrews informs us that it is a hymn of praise to Jesus Christ!1 [Note: James Hamilton, Works, iii. 257.]

2. The doctrine of the Incarnation involves the pre-existence of Christ, not in an ideal, mystic sense, but as a personal Being. The preposition with in the second clause of Joh 1:1the Word was with Godis one which implies mutual association in a striking way. It suggests the intercourse of those who are standing face to faceThe Word was directed to God, moving toward God. The same idea appears in a more tender form in Joh 1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Christ asserts His personal pre-existence in the majestic words of Joh 8:58 : Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. It is implied in the saying so frequently upon His lips about His coming into the world, coming with a purpose which it was His constant effort to fulfil. It has its loftiest expression in His solemn words of prayer, I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

In ordinary biographies, a birth is the beginning. It was in the year 1483 that the mind to which we owe the Reformation commenced its existence; for it was then that Martin Luther was born. It was in London that the career began to which England is indebted for its great epic poem, and that other from which science received its mightiest modern impulse; for it was there that Milton and Bacon first saw the light of life. Having told us this, the biographer feels that he has begun at the beginning; and with this statement coincides the consciousness of the individual himself. For, whatever the old philosophy may have dreamed about the pre-existence of spirit and the transmigration of souls, no man could ever seriously say that he had led another life before he was born; no man could ever tell incidents and experiences which had occurred to him in a state of existence anterior to the present. With us, to all intents, our birth is our beginning. In the whole history of our species there has been only one exception.1 [Note: James Hamilton, Works, iii. 249.]

3. The Apostle Paul draws practical appeals from the same truth. When he would urge the Corinthians to prove the sincerity of their love, he gives them this touching reminderFor ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich. The sacrifice which ended in the Cross began when Jesus left the bosom of the Father. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, counted not the being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, then he humbled himself, becoming obedient as far as unto death, even the death of the cross.

The doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus is not confined to St. John. Writing to the Corinthian Church St. Paul reminds them in one passage of the history of Israel of old, and then he adds the remarkable words, They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christthat is, Christ was with Gods ancient people in their wanderings in the wilderness some fourteen or fifteen hundred years before He was born (1Co 10:4). So, too, in the great passage on the resurrection of the dead in the same Epistle, he says, The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven (1Co 15:47); and in the Second Epistle to the same Church at Corinth he reminds them of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become richwords which have no possible meaning unless Jesus had lived a heavenly life before His incarnation. Perhaps the strongest assertion of the pre-incarnate Being of Christ in all the writings of St. Paul is the following passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (Joh 2:6-7): Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

So, too, St. Peter declares that long before Jesus came into the world, the Spirit of Jesus was moving and working in the prophets of the Hebrew people: Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them (1Pe 1:10-11).1 [Note: G. S. Barrett, The Earliest Christian Hymn, 32.]

ii. His Humanity

1. Very early in the history of the Christian Church, and even before all the original Apostles had passed away, there were persons who had received Christian baptism and professed to be Christians to whom it seemed incredible that our Lord was really manthat according to the vigorous statement of St. John in the text, He became flesh. The form in which St. John affirms the truth was, no doubt, suggested by the heresies which denied it. There was a very common belief in the ancient world that human sin has its origin and roots in the flesh and blood of the body, and that all matter is necessarily evil; to disengage and separate the higher and spiritual life of man from his physical nature was therefore supposed to be the true discipline of moral and spiritual perfection. There were teachers in the Church, claiming to speak in the power of the Spirit of God, who taught this doctrine, and to whom it was inconceivable that our Lord could have had a body like our own. St. John was thinking of these teachers when he said in his Epistle, Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist.

Earnest belief in Christs divinity has a difficulty in allowing His real humanity. The idea, for example, of Christs growing, as a man, in wisdom as well as in stature, is repugnant to some minds; and, despite the teaching of Scripture, there are those who refuse to think of His being subject to any ordinary human limitations, whether of power or of knowledge. This idea of Christ, too common among believers in His divinity, finds expression in Shelleys fine but misleading figure

A mortal shape to him

Was like the vapour dim,

Which the orient planet animates with light.

The same poet makes Him tread the thorns of death and shame, like a triumphal path, of which He never truly felt the sharpness. One of our hymns falls into this heresy when it speaks of the seeming infant of a day. This is exactly to reduce His humanity to a mere appearance. He was not the seeming infant, but the real infant of a day. I have myself met people to whom Christs patience and suffering, for example, could offer no consolation, because they said, He was God all the time, and it was easy for Him.1 [Note: A. Halliday Douglas.]

I believe, cries Irving with the deepest emotion, that my Lord did come down and toil, and sweat, and travail, in exceeding great sorrow, in this mass of temptation, with which I and every sinful man am oppressed; did bring His Divine presence into death-possessed humanity, into the one substance of manhood created in Adam, and by the Fall brought into a state of resistance and alienation from God, of condemnation and proclivity to evil, of subjection to the devil; and bearing it all upon His shoulders in that very state into which God put it after Adam had sinned, did suffer its sorrows and pains, and swimming anguish, its darkness, wasteness, disconsolateness, and hiddenness from the countenance of God; and by His faith and patience did win for Himself the name of the Man of Sorrows and the author and finisher of our faith.

This was the very essence of his belief. And when from unexpected quarters, everywhere round him, he discovered that other men, that his fathers and brethren in his own Church, disowned this central truth which gave life and reality to the gospel, it went to his heart like a personal affliction. It was not that they differed with him on a controverted subject; the matter was different to his grieved and wondering perception. To him it appeared that they denied the Lord. The deepest heart of Divine grace and pity, the real unspeakable redemption, seemed to Irving overlooked and despised when this wonderful identity of nature was disputed. He stood wondering and sorrowful, always in the midst of his argument turning back again to simple statement, as if, like his Lord, he would have asked, Do ye now believe?1 [Note: Mrs. Oliphant, Life of Edward Irving, ii. 109.]

2. The faith of the Church in our Lords humanity rests primarily on experiencethe experience of those who knew Him during His earthly life. And their experience must also determine our whole conception of the Incarnation. Our theory must be governed by the facts; we shall go far astray if we attempt first to construct a theory and then to force the facts into agreement with it. What, then, are the facts?

Mary, His mother, was the friend of the original apostles and disciples of our Lord, and after His crucifixion, she lived with the Apostle John. She would tell our Lords friends how He grew from infancy to childhood, and childhood to youth, increasing in wisdom as well as in height and strength with His increasing years,a child and a youth to attract the favour of both God and man. Nor was it Mary alone who could tell them of our Lords childhood, youth, and manhood. James and Jude, to whom two Epistles, bearing their names, are attributed in the New Testament, but who do not appear to have become His disciples till after His resurrection, were His brothers. Salome, the wife of Zebedee, was, in all probability, the sister of Mary His mother, and was therefore His aunt. Her sons, the two Apostles James and John, were His cousins; and it was this relationship, as well as the special confidence with which our Lord had treated them, that, perhaps, suggested the request that they might sit, one on His right hand and one on His left hand, in His Kingdom. All these relatives of His, who were well known to the first generation of Christians, could recall our Lords life in Nazareth before His public ministry began; and it is certain that they never doubted that He was really man. Nor were there any signs during His public ministry that our Lord had lost any of the characteristics of humanity or had been liberated from any of its limitations.

Man has always found it easier to see a Divine element in the strange and awful and supernatural, and to picture his Deity as living above him in the high mountains, or the unknown depth of sky, than to find Him in the near and the accustomed. Now in the fulness of time he has been called upon to see Him in the Word made flesh, dwelling among men in fashion as a man, not taking upon Him the nature of angels, but the nature of suffering humanity. The Greeks might indeed conceive of their gods, their Apollo or Athena, taking some part in the affairs of men, and jealously watching the interests of their worshippers; the Egyptian might picture Horus or Osiris, experiencing like men the triumph of victory or the ignominy of defeat; but the Christian has a more difficult, but a far more glorious, conception to which he may rise. He may see his God as manifested in terms of his own life, becoming his Comrade in temptation, and his Example in humility. Here is one who undertook, not to govern the world from afar, but to overcome it from within, who calls Himself not high and lifted up, but meek and lowly, the servant of all. As a shepherd He goes before His sheep to make the crooked paths straight, and the rough places smooth, and in His own experience He conquers death and triumphs over the grave.1 [Note: M. C. Albright, The Common Heritage, 113.]

In deep spiritual temptations nothing has helped me better, with nothing have I heartened myself and driven away the devil better, than with this, that Christ, the true Eternal Son of God, is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; and that He sits on the right hand of God, and pleads for us. When I can grasp this shield of faith, I have already chased away the evil one with his fiery darts.2 [Note: Luther.]

3. Why do we insist upon the humanity of Christ?

(1) First, there is the sense of our loss should the doctrine be obscured. Such comfortable words as theseThough he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him: We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sinwould lose their meaning.

(2) And, secondly, we should fall back into the old error about the character of God. It was because men thought it degrading to the Son of God to have become flesh that they denied it. St. John knew that humiliation is not degradation; pride degrades. The imperfect soars or stands aloof. The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, can only reveal Himself by stooping. We shall never know by our experience the glory and the bliss of immeasurable condescension, for He came to lift us into participation with Himself. But we can adore the man Christ Jesus, and the Father whom He reveals, as we could not have adored a God shrouded from us in His own perfections.

Save through the flesh Thou wouldst not come to me

The flesh, wherein Thy strength my weakness found,

A weight to bow Thy Godhead to the ground,

And lift to heaven a lost humanity.1 [Note: John Bannister Tabb.]

4. Christ was not only truly man, with body, soul, and spirit, in each of which He suffered, by hunger and weariness and pain, by grief and anger, by desolation: He also was and is perfectly man, and He was and is representatively man.

(1) Christ was and is perfectly man.For us humanity is broken up into fragments by sex, by race, by time, by circumstance. From the beginning its endowments were not unequally divided between man and woman, whose differences are essential to the true idea of the whole. And we can see that countless nations and ages have not yet exhausted the manifold capacities of manhood and womanhood under the varied disciplines and inspirations of life. Again and again even in our own experience some new flash of courage or wisdom or patience or tenderness goes to brighten the picture of mans completed and real self. But in Christ there are no broken or imperfect lights. In Him everything which is shown to us of right and good and lovely in the history of the whole world is gathered up once for all. Nothing limits His humanity, but the limits proper to humanity itself. Whatever there is in man of strength, of justice, of wisdom: whatever there is in woman of sensibility, of purity, of insight, is in Christ without the conditions which hinder among us the development of contrasted virtues in one person. Christ belongs peculiarly to no one people, to no one time. And conversely, if there be aught that is noble in the achievements or in the aspirations of any people or of any time, it finds a place in His sympathy, and strength from His example.

(2) Christ was and is also representatively man.Seeing that He unites in Himself all that is truly manly and truly womanly, stripped of the accidental forms which belong to some one country, or to some one period, every one therefore can find in Him for his own work union with the eternal. He is, in the language of St. Paul, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. For Him, consciously or unconsciously, all men were looking: to Him all history tended: in Him a higher life had its beginning and its pledge. Ye shall see, He said Himself in answer to the first confession of faith, the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. And for us the promise has found accomplishment. In Him we are enabled to perceive that the broken unity of earth and heaven has been restored; in Him we are enabled to recognize that the earlier intercourse between the seen and the unseen worlds has been brought to an absolute fulfilment. Christ the Son of man has bestowed on all men the gifts which belonged to Him as the Son of God.

iii. Why did He become flesh?

The purpose of the Incarnation has been abundantly discussed in the history of Christendom, from the Alexandrine Fathers onward. Anselm, in his Cur Deus Homo, asks and answers the question by saying that God became incarnate to provide a remedy for human sin; and two great medival schools, the Thomists and Scotists, took opposite sides on this point. The controversy is not even yet over; some maintain that God would have become incarnate whether man had sinned or not, and others assert that human sin is the predisposing cause of the humiliation of Deity. Perhaps a reconciliation might be effected between both extremes if it were recognized that moral evil is here by the good purpose of God, and hence that one main and necessary object of the Incarnation must, in the foreknowledge of God, have been the salvation of men from their sins and sorrows. It is not to the purpose to discuss whether Christ would have been born into the world had man never sinned, for in creating man God must have foreknown that he would sin. On the other hand, however, we may say that it was fitting that in the fulness of time God should send forth His Son, so that men might recognize and obey the very Self of God. God being what He is, it is clear that as soon as humanity was able to receive a revelation so complete as the fact of the Incarnation provides, such a revelation was just what we might expect. Had there been no Christ of history men to-day would have been wistfully longing for just such an expression of God as Christ brought into the world. We may therefore say that God became man for three reasons: (1) in order that He might realize Himself; (2) in order that He might give to the world a fuller revelation of God; and (3) in order that He might make atonement for sin.

1. He became man in order that He might realize Himself. This point we must touch reverently, yet firmly. It has a certain significance. God shares in every experience of the race and lives His life in every individual. The Hegelian philosophy declares that creation is the result of a process in which the Deity realizes Himself. To say less would be to affirm that man purchases in the school of pain an experience of which God is in possession without pain. A nobler thought is that which represents humanity as living its life with God, in God, and for God; and God as living His life in company with men, through men, and by men. That God has a deeper life than humanity can ever touch is certainly the case, but that the life of humanity has immediate value for the life of God is also an indispensable truth. God is the Universal Consciousness within whom are many separate centres of consciousness. God is immediately conscious of all that enters into our individual consciousness; He is, indeed, more conscious of us than we are of ourselves. Yet something more is needed even for Deity than this general consciousness of the flux of creation. God knows being in general; He needs to know human nature in particular. Here, perhaps, is a key to the purpose of the Incarnation. It was fitting that the Captain of our salvation should be made perfect through sufferings. God thus knows Himself through incarnation in a human life, and returns to Himself through humanity.

Previous to His Incarnation, Christ knew, as a Divine person, what was the condition of man on earthnot only knew it, but regarded it with tender interest. The sad music of humanity entered His ear and touched His compassion. It was because of the pitying love He felt for us, that He visited and redeemed us. But it is one thing to look on suffering, and another thing to suffer; and when Christ not only pitied the miserable, but came down and took up His abode among them, clothed Himself with their nature, lived among them, felt with them, wept with them, suffered with them, was made in all points like them, sin excepted, He acquired a new experience, which suffused the infinite compassion of His Godhead with the glow of a human tenderness. Then He knew the state of man as a sinner by making it His own, and through this personal acquaintance with evil He qualified Himself to be a merciful and faithful High Priest.

Thus, instead of jarring against our idea of God, the Incarnation seems not only natural but delightful to conceive. How often have we ourselves, when affection for the lower creation has been kindled in us, desired in idea to enter into their life for a time, and then to return into ourselves again with a new consciousness of a lower life than our own, and with increased ability and desire to help. And if we have felt this towards a nature not kindred to our own, how much more may God have felt it towards a nature in direct kinship with Himself? It is a noble thought: it ought to commend itself to all who have ever loved purely and passionately, and desired to become at one with the being of those they loved.

Macaulay never wrote more truly than when he said, It was before Deity embodied in a human form, walking among men, partaking of their infirmities, leaning on their bosoms, weeping over their graves, slumbering in the manger, bleeding on the cross, that the prejudices of the synagogue, and the doubts of the academy, and the fasces of the lictor, and the swords of thirty legions were humbled in the dust. By His very gentleness the incarnate Son does make men great, and he who seeks for purest sympathy and richest solace must betake himself to Christ.1 [Note: W. M. Taylor, The Limitations of Life, 28.]

There was once a chaplain to a prison who thought that the prisoners were treated cruellymore severely than their judges intended them to be; so he determined to live as they lived, to be punished as they were punished, although he had not committed any crime. This is almost exactly what our Lord Jesus Christ did.2 [Note: J. Robinson Gregory.]

2. He became man in order that He might give to the world a fuller revelation of God. Nature has in all ages and in all lands spoken of God and taught men to worship Him, but nature has never been able to get beyond a mere declaration of the existence of a Supreme Being, and her disciples must, perforce, erect their altars to the Unknown God, and worship Him in ignorance and through the medium of symbols. Nature is powerless to expound the attributes of Deity. She cannot even, in the face of so much sorrow and suffering on every hand, go so far as to assert His unchanging and unchangeable goodness. She proclaims to us, with her ten thousand voices echoing through earth and sea and sky, that there is a God, but she can tell us no more. Here, then, is the province of revelation. From a world sitting in darkness there is borne upwards a cry whose burden is, More light! more light! And the cry is heard, the petition is granted, and through the deep gloom of the shadow-wrapped land a voice resounds, Arise, shine, for thy light is come!

When Christ came, He, and He first, taught us that we, with our sin-stained lips, might call upon God as Our Father which art in heaven. Thus a new relationship altogether was (not established but) revealed between the Creator and the creature, and that connection which David faintly foreshadowed when he said, Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him, was shown by our Saviour to be not a semblance but a reality.

If a friend visits you, you like to show him your most valued possessions. If you are a gardener you take him to see the loveliest flower in your conservatory. If you are an artist you lead him to your studio and show him your best picture. If you are an author you place your favourite volume in his hand. Now God wishes man to know what He glories in, what He deems His best possession, what affords Him more joy than anything else. He wishes to give us the knowledge of His glory. What does He glory in? What does He wish us to know above everything else?

Does He wish us to know His power? Certainly not. That might impress some. But He placed our first parents in the Garden of Eden. Great loveliness was there, but no special manifestation of power. I notice that when kings and other potentates visit one another they are taken to see the arsenal, or the army, or the fleet. The host is very anxious to give the guests a great idea of his power. This is one of the many particulars in which the King of kings is essentially different from all other kings. He put our first parents in the Garden of Eden where there was no great display of power. He might have placed them on some solitary island, around which great oceans leaped and rolled. But He has never gone out of His way to impress men with His power. Neither has He ever sought to overwhelm them with His wisdom. It is only lately that He has begun to unfold to us, on a large scale, the marvels of His knowledge. The physical sciences are exceedingly modern. It is only in our own lifetime that God has permitted us, by the use of such modern inventions as the microscope, the telescope, and the spectroscope, to find out the wonders of His skill. He was in no hurry to impress us with that. Nothing can be more absurd, or wicked, or degraded, than the idolatrous worship of mere cleverness. We may be as clever or as powerful as Satan himself, and yet as odious and degraded. God does not glory either in power or in wisdom.

But what God does glory in, what He has been trying to reveal to us from the beginning, what He wishes us to know more than anything else, is that His nature is love! He wishes to persuade us that He attaches an immeasurably higher value to love than to power or to wisdom. Where shall we find words to describe the rapture of man when he discovers that God is love? One of the most delightful passages in human biography is in the life of Henry Ward Beecher. He was brought up in a narrow, hard, Calvinistic school. For a long time he groped in darkness and misery. The name of God was to him a name of terror. But with glowing eloquence and delight he tells us how on one memorable day it dawned upon him that God is love. At once the whole universe was radiant with new beauty. Everything was changed. He was changed. He passed from hell to heaven, and the light of that rapturous moment never passed away. But neither to him nor to us could that vivid and full knowledge of the love of God ever have come except in the face of Jesus Christ. All previous revelations are summed up, supplemented, and completed in Christ. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father (Joh 14:9). There is life for a look at that face.1 [Note: H. Price Hughes, Essential Christianity, 50.]

3. But the grand reason why God became man in Christ, the New Testament tells us, was that He might make propitiation or atonement for sin. This is the great reason which Anselm discusses in his own way in his book. The law had something to say in Court, as it were, with regard to the bestowment of an absolutely gratuitous pardon, and the right to claim that its principles and requirements should be duly conserved and satisfied. Now the Incarnation of the Son of God and His perfect obedience to the law, thus magnifying the law and maintaining its honour, fully met the case. He fully met all the requirements which the law might put forth with a view to securing a free pardon, and He did it as mans Head and Representative. Accordingly, when the penitent sinner accepts Christ in His incarnate fulnessHis law-satisfying life and deathChrists law-satisfying life and death practically and substantially become the sinners own, and count for his salvation. Thus it follows that while pardon is freely given, the law is duly honoured, maintained, and even fulfilled. Christ Himself declares that He came to give his life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28). As St. John puts it, God loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1Jn 4:10).

And this brings new life into the world. Christ is the propitiation for His people through whom they recover their lost place in the Divine favour. But besides this, He is their life, and is made to them a quickening spirit. To Him they are indebted for their new existence; in His likeness they are renewed; on Him they depend; and in Him they find their unity. His own favourite image of the relation is that of a tree: I am the vine; ye are the branches. The branches spring from the tree; they are nourished by it; they are in union with it; and so believers have their being from Christ; they live in Him; they are one with Him.

The Incarnation of the Son of God has not left human nature where it was, but imported into it a new Divine splendour. Wonderful as man was in his created likeness to God, the entrance of the Son of God into the vital body of humanity has raised human nature to a higher point than it ever attained before. This, like the Incarnation itself, is as difficult to define as it is clearly a fact. When the Word became flesh, and dwelt among men, the measurements of humanity had to be taken from a new height, even from the glory of the Son of Man 1:1 [Note: J. Thomas, The Mysteries of Grace, 24.]

So the Lord of all things,

Caring for His own,

Even for the small things

Left His golden throne.

Down the mystic stairway,

To the bourne of earth,

Of the womb of Mary,

By a human birth,

Came the Sun of Healing

Above human ken,

All His might concealing

From the sons of men.

That He might precede them,

Out of pain and strife,

Head them, join them, teach them, lead them

Into fuller life.

For the life diurnal

Waxeth old and dim;

Love and life eternal

Rest alone in Him!

All is in the story

How the Christ brought good

In a costly crimson glory

Of His Brotherhood.1 [Note: John W. Taylor, The Doorkeeper, 5.]

II

The Human Life

And dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

The Nativity was but the beginning of a long work. The Son of God not only came as man, but He grew as man grows. He passed through the stages of human development, tempted in all points even as we are. He consecrated not our nature only, but our life. He dwelt among us. He shared the transitory joys and griefsthe spirit of righteous anger and the spirit of thankful exultationwhich belong to us. He tabernacled among us,to preserve the idea of the original, which carries us back to the time when the people of Israel wandered as pilgrims in the wilderness, and the visible glory of the Lord rested when they should rest and guided their forward path, the sign and type of Gods abiding presence. Even so it was with Christ. He tabernacled with us, and the faithful beheld His glory. He marked out the path of life. He hallowed each resting-place upon the way. The material splendour of the fiery pillar was changed into a spiritual beacon; but it was still clear with the light of heavenclear to the loving. But even here, as of old time, that which is the light of the Christian is the thick gloom which enwraps the unbelievingthe thick gloom or even the consuming fire.

We know, we feel, we value all that He gave up. We know how He passed through that life of man on earth, which He accepted from its beginning to its close. We know that there is nothing so pinched and hard and trying in mans condition that it was not His will to go through. We know that there is nothing so mean and scorned, so rough and dangerous in what the poor of this world have to put up with that did not fall to His lot when He came among men. That we might not feel Him to be in lot and condition above any of us, He chose to be below most of uson a level with the meanest and the most helpless. He asked for no privilege as the Son of God; He refused nothing appointed to man to go through; He desired not to be spared any burden of our mortal state. As each thing came in the course of years, He accepted it. He hurried nothing; He waited till the years should change the babe into the child, and the child into the boy, and the boy into the man. For He came to be among us, not a passing vision, or a strange spectacle, but actually and in earnest to be man with men, to be flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, to bind us to Himself in life, and in death, and in resurrection. He came that we might see and know that, being what He was, He had made Himself one of ourselves, living our very life, feeling, suffering, buffeted, tempted like man, but without mans sin.

What must it be, only to be a man, when you think what He did to save and to bless mankind? What must it be, only to be a man, when you think that it is to be what Jesus Christ was onceand is now at the Fathers right hand? Let it be enough, to be of that nature which God cared for so wonderfully, for which He has opened such a road to perfection, for which He has provided such wondrous hopes. It cannot be a small thing to be a manto be what our God and Maker was pleased to become, that He might be more closely joined to us. It cannot be a small thing to be man, with mans destiny; to be man, with the honour put on man by God.1 [Note: Dean Church, The Message of Peace, 170.]

1. The Word dwelt among us. There can be little doubt that the author had in mind the Shekinah of the temple of the old dispensation. Biblical history tells us that after the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, the glory of God descended with the pillar of cloud and took possession of the Holy of Holies, and abode there upon the cherubic throne. So in the temple, the God of Israel was enthroned in theophanic glory in the Holy of Holies, on the outstretched wings of the cherubim. The tabernacle and the temple, its historic successor, continued, until the destruction of Jerusalem at the Babylonian exile, to be the dwelling-place of God enthroned upon the cherubim. Just as the temple was the abiding presence of the theophanic God in the old dispensation, just so the Word of God tabernacled in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.

All that was glorious in the conception of the Shekinah and the temple of the old dispensation became still more glorious in Jesus Christ; only that glory was veiled and hidden in His flesh, as the Shekinah had been hidden in the innermost throne-room of the temple. But this veiling of the glory of the Word was only a temporary veiling, during His earthly life; when the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was rent by an earthquake, the veil of the flesh of the Son of God was also rent, and when His body arose from the tomb, the body of the risen Lord no longer veiled the glory, but transmitted it in Christophanies to His disciples.

The process of the Incarnation St. John describes very simply. The Jews were familiar with the idea of God dwelling with His people. By the word St. John here uses he links the body of Christ to the ancient dwelling of God round which the tents of Israel had clustered. God now dwelt among men in the humanity of Jesus Christ. The tabernacle was human, the indwelling Person was Divine. In Christ is realized the actual presence of God among His people, the actual entrance into and personal participation in human history which was hinted at in the tabernacle and the temple.2 [Note: M. Dods, Footsteps in the Path of Life, 19.]

2. Full of grace and truth. St. John had a special form of the manifestation of grace and truth before his mind when he wrote these words. He was thinking of the covenant God, who proclaimed Himself to Moses on the mount when He descended in the cloud as Jehovah, Jehovah, a God full of compassion, and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and truth. He was thinking of Davids prayer, O prepare loving-kindness and truth; and his heart burned within him as he saw them now prepared. It was the thought of Christs redeeming work that filled his mind, and that led him to sum up the revelation of the Incarnation in the revelation of grace and truth. Therefore he says, not love, but graceundeserved love to sinners. And in truth he is thinking chiefly of Christs faithfulness. The Divine glory that rested as a nimbus on the Lords head was compounded before all else of His ineffable love for the unlovely, of His changeless faithfulness to the unfaithful. For in Christ, God commended His love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Nevertheless, it would be a serious error to confine the words as here used to this single reference. This is rather the culmination and climax of their meaning than the whole extent and meaning of it. Christ is not only love as manifested in grace, but as the God of love manifest in the flesh He is love itself in all its height and breadth. Not only the loftiest reaches of love, love for the undeserving, find their model in Him, but all the love that is in the world finds its source and must seek its support in Him. His was the love that wept at the grave of a friend and over the earthly sorrows of Jerusalem, that yearned with the bereaved mother at Nain, and took the little children into His arms to bless them; as well as the love that availed to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin. In like manner, that St. John has especially in mind here the highest manifestations of truthour Lords trustiness in the great work of salvationin no way empties the word of its lower contents. He is still the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and all the truth that is in the world comes from Him and must seek its strength in Him. We beheld his glory, says the Apostle, fullcomplete, perfectof grace and truth. And perfection of love and truth avails for all their manifestations. This man, the man Christ Jesus, could not act in any relation otherwise than lovingly, could not speak on any subject otherwise than truly. He is the pure fountain of love and truth.

(1) Grace and truth are spoken of in the concrete. The Apostle says that the only begotten is full of grace and truth. He did not come to tell us about grace, but actually to bring us grace. He is not full of the news of grace and truth, but of grace and truth themselves. Others had been messengers of gracious tidings, but He came to bring grace. Others teach us truth, but Jesus is the truth. He is that grace and truth whereof others spake.

(2) The grace and truth are blended. The and between the two words is more than a common conjunction. The two rivers unite in one fulnessFull of grace and truth: that is to say, the grace is truthful grace, grace not in fiction or in fancy, grace not to be hoped for and to be dreamed of, but grace every atom of which is fact; redemption which does redeem, pardon which does blot out sin, renewal which actually regenerates, salvation which completely saves. We have not here blessings which charm the ear and cheat the soul; but real, substantial favours from God that cannot lie. Then blend these things the other way. Grace and truth: the Lord has come to bring us truth, but it is not the kind of truth which censures, condemns, and punishes; it is gracious truth, truth steeped in love, truth saturated with mercy. The truth which Jesus brings to His people comes not from the judgment-seat, but from the mercy-seat; it has a gracious drift and aim about it, and ever tends to salvation. His light is the life of men. The grace is all true, and the truth is all gracious.

There are souls which easily bestow grace, which find it not hard to forgive, but they have often a dim perception of the majesty of that truth which has been violated. There are souls which have a clear perception of the majesty of truth and a deep sense of the sin that swerves from it, but they are often inexorable in their justice and unable to pardon; they have more truth than grace. Here there is a perfect blending of extremesfulness of grace united to fulness of truth. There is a forgiveness which is valueless because there is no sense of wrong; there is a sense of wrong which is forbidding because there is no power of forgiveness. Here perfect forgiveness is joined with perfect perception. The glory of Christs love is that it comes not from darkness but from light; He forgave the sinner because He bore the sin.1 [Note: G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 221.]

I was eight years old, I believe, when another boy, a little older than myself, told me that we owed the Christmas gifts to our parents, that they did not come from heaven. This gave me such a shock that I fell with both my fists upon the boy, pommelling him with all my might; but I got the worst of the battle, almost the only one I fought in my life, and came home crying to ask for confirmation of the dreadful tale. My dear mother had to give it, but did it in such a delicate way that, although I felt the mysterious poetry of that night was gone, my love for my parents was increased.2 [Note: Life and Letters of Sir Charles Hall, 20.]

i. Grace

Men who had been accustomed to hear of religion solely as stereotyped tradition or condemning law, wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, so full was He of the revealed mercy of God to sinners. That was the general impression made by His life and ministry. And it is the impression made to-day by the record of it. We see Him still across the distance of ages, as that Divine head rises above the corn-fields through which He walked; we see Him under the trees at eventide, or sitting on Jacobs well at noon, or in the boat at the edge of Tiberias, or standing in the meadows above Bethsaida. Everywhere the impression made concerning Him is the same. It is Divine Love in earnest, seeking and saving that which was lost. We here look, not upon a speculative teacher, or a great analyst of the mystery of human life, or a disputatious theologue pouring forth doctrines and articles of belief, or a mighty intellect addressing the human understanding so as to found a school, but on a living practical love, descending into the midst of mens sufferings and sins; and earnestly labouring to relieve them.

Grace is power. That power whereby God works in nature is called power. That power whereby He works in the wills of His reasonable creatures is called grace.3 [Note: J. B. Mozley, On Predestination, 302.]

Grace is a force in the spiritual order, not simply Gods unmerited kindness in the abstract, but such kindness in action as a movement of His Spirit within the soul, resulting from the Incarnation, and imparting to the will and the affections a new capacity of obedience and love.1 [Note: W. Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, x.]

Grace is not simply kindly feeling on the part of God, but a positive boon conferred on man. Grace is a real and active force: it is the power that worketh in us, illuminating the intellect, warming the heart, strengthening the will of redeemed humanity. It is the might of the Everlasting Spirit, renovating man by uniting him, whether immediately or through the Sacraments, to the Sacred Manhood of the Word Incarnate.2 [Note: H. P. Liddon, University Sermons, i. 44.]

1. Grace is a revelation of the will of God now. A child knows something of the mind and will of the parent from personal contact with that parent, but not from the rules, or only to a very slender degree from the rules, which are laid down for its guidance. But when we turn from Law to Grace, then we see at once that we are now dealing with a revelation of the mind and the will of Him from whom the grace proceeds. Each act of favour which a parent bestows upon his child, or which a sovereign bestows upon his subject, is a revelation, so far as it goes, of the mind and will of the parent towards that particular child, or of the sovereign towards that particular subject, as the case may be. And even so every act of grace which we receive from God is a revelation, so far as it goes, of the mind and will of God towards us who are affected by the act. And if it be so with each of these acts of favour, obviously grace as a whole must be regarded as nothing less than a complete manifestation of the mind and will of God Himself towards us, that is to say, so far as any manifestation of the Infinite to finite intelligence can be complete.

2. The words full of grace not only comprise the supply of all that sinners need on earth, they include heaven itself in reversion. These sunbeams fly over an eternal future. Other rays of light are lost in distance, swallowed up at last in darkness, absorbed in the bosom of eternal night; but these go forward, bright as at first, into the profound, and reveal along the surface of that shoreless ocean the isles of the blessed stretching onward to an horizon beyond which no eye but One can direct a space-penetrating beam. He seeth under the whole heaven; and that which He sees is an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

ii. Truth

The living Word, the voice of God walking among men, was full of truth, as well as of grace. The expressions of the Evangelist, being prompted by a very real inspiration of Him who is Light, resemble sun-rays. They contain more than a single element of meaning, they fly in complex glory through the ages. If St. John had been asked what he meant by his phrase full of truth, he would doubtless have said, I mean that He was full of reality, full of sincerity, full of instruction. There is no sense in which you can employ the word Truth without making it describe Him, who was the Amen, the faithful and true witness. Let us think, then, of Jesus Christ under each aspect. Let the three rays, the violet, the crimson, the gold, as they pass through the prism of our analysis, fall in succession upon the sacred head of this Prince of the Kings of the Earth.

1. He was full of Reality.We know what we mean when we say that we have met with a real man. This is a world of false appearances, of poverty striving to set up and maintain a respectable exterior, of cheap materials set forth so as to look rich and fine; a world of paint, varnish, stucco, and veneer. So is it in character; a world much more than half filled with people trying to pass themselves off for something greater and better than the reality, for wiser, richer, more learned, and more beautiful than they actually are. The experience of life deepens the persuasion that the majority will not bear a close examination of the inward parts. The religious public is in the same condemnation. In Christs time religious society was one complicated pretence. But look at the Christ! He is real, genuine, solid to the centre. He is at the heart what He is at the surface. We shall never find Him different from that which we see Him now. The zeal of God burns in an inextinguishable flame in the deepest recesses of His spirit. He means all that He says. His acts are exactly parallel with His words. His passions move by the same rule as His thoughts. We never know any man thoroughly until we see him under excitement. Jesus when excited is animated by the same inspiration as in repose. The zeal of Gods house is the fiery cloak which enfolds Him.

Professor Huxley was no model man, but his son describes some characteristics that ought to be felt to be model when he sets forth that passion for veracity which was perhaps his strongest characteristic, an uncompromising passion for truth in thought, which would admit no particle of self-deception, no assertion beyond what could be verified; for truth in act, perfect straightforwardness and sincerity, with complete disregard of personal consequences for uttering unpalatable fact. Truthfulness in his eyes was the cardinal virtue, without which no stable society can exist. The lie from interested motives was only more hateful to him than the lie from self-delusion or foggy thinking. In his mind, no compromise was possible between truth and untruth.1 [Note: R. E. Speer, The Marks of a Man, 24.]

2. He was full of Sincerity.This is one of the chief impressions made on all readers of the Gospels, that Jesus of Nazareth was perfectly honest, that He was not a conscious impostor, that He spoke with a strength and depth of sincerity which raised Him far above the level of ordinary witnesses. The frank and penetrating beam of His holy eye rests on every one who contemplates Him in the mirror of the gospel history. The goodness of His nature was a pledge of His honesty.

Perhaps no warmer encomium was ever passed upon faulty man than this of Mrs. Hutchinson upon her husband, who was Governor of Nottingham Castle during the English Civil War: He never professed the thing he intended not, nor promised what he believed out of his power, nor failed in the performance of anything that was in his power to fulfil.

3. He was full of truth in being full of Instruction.He made human nature appear to be what it is, a grand and solemn thing. He made human life in its moral aspects seem an arena where issues of infinite importance are at stake. He made the soul of man seem an awfully real existence within him. He made right and wrong seem as distinct as noon and midnight. He made the Almighty appear a Being real and near, overshadowing the earth with His excellent glory. His countenance blazed like the sun with the splendour of God. Aforetime the Deity had been faintly revealed in events, in descriptions, in institutions, in nature; but in Him God became visible. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. He caused the invisible world to appear to the soul as real as the visible. He was in manifest communion with the unseen. He opened the Scriptures, and the world of the present, and the realms of the dead, and the future eternity, and compelled men to feel that these bursts of supreme inspiration were but the first outbreakings of a fountain which would flow through eternity.1 [Note: E. White, The Mystery of Growth, 91.]

Truth lives and thrives in her fair house of Learned Theory. But its grand, pillared front is too high, its wide doors too rich and ponderous; her form as she moves within is too fair and proud and queenly for common men to dare to come and enter her great gates and ask to learn of God and Nature and their own humanity from her lips. Rather will they stand without for ever, looking from far away upon the towers of her wondrous home and see the great Mistress walking with a few bold scholars through the greenness of her trees, deeming it all a thing in which there is no part for them. So then, fair Truth, that she may claim her right to govern from her readiness to help all men, lays by her gorgeous robes, takes the plain white mantle of most simple faith, comes down from her great house, and goes along the crowded street and close lanes of poor mens homes, with a lesson and a smile for each, a soothing touch for the sick childs forehead, a helping word for the poor working woman, a passing look that makes the strong mans heart more strong and happy, long after she has passed back to her house.2 [Note: Phillips Brooks, 73.]

This inner admonition which compels us to the thought of God, to the thirst for Him, to the search after Him, comes to us from the source of all Truth. It is the sun which shines within our souls. It is the truth which we divine when, our eyes being too feeble, or too suddenly opened, we are afraid to look it in the face. It is none other than God Himself, in His changeless perfection. So long as we persist in seeking to satisfy our thirst elsewhere than at this fountain, we must admit that we have not attained our proper goal, and therefore, though God be for us, we are neither wise nor happy. Complete satisfaction of soul, the truly happy life, is to know purely and fully what Truth itself is, what conducts in the search after it, and by what relations it connects us with the supreme perfection. These three demonstrate to purified souls the one only God, the one only Reality, in distinction from the self-contradicting fables of superstition.3 [Note: St. Augustine, Soliloquies, xxxvi.]

Despised! Rejected by the priest-led roar

Of the multitude! The imperial purple flung

About the form the hissing scourge had stung,

Witnessing naked to the truth it bore!

True Son of Father true, I Thee adore,

Even the mocking purple truthful hung

On Thy true shoulders, bleeding its folds among,

For Thou wast king, art king for evermore!

I know the Father: he knows me the truth.

Truth-witness, therefore the one essential king,

With Thee I die, with Thee live worshipping!

O human God, O brother, eldest born,

Never but Thee was there a man in sooth,

Never a true crown but Thy crown of thorn!1 [Note: George MacDonald, Poetical Works, i. 259.]

III

Divinity discovered in Humanity

We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

The New Testament embodies this unique Apostolic experience. There are critical considerations which give a graduated value to its materials. Some portions are more near the centre than others. Some passages and sections are relegated to the fringe. Some may have a doubtful claim. There is a certain variance in tone: a certain growth: a certain personal element. All this can be allowed for, and rationally examined and classified and estimated. But the main bulk is there, as the record of the impression which was made on those who came within that incomparable and authoritative experience. This is what they said who saw and touched and handled and proved the living Presence of the Christ. This is what it came to. This is the thing that happened to them, and this is the language in which they came to express it. They could not say what they had passed through in any other way. They could not find any other type of terms that would adequately convey to themselves or to others the fact which experience had pressed home upon their innermost being.

And how would they express it? What are the words in which they present it? Well, they could not stop short of an ultimate verdict, which became quite inevitable to all those who came under the supreme experience. They might tremble to say it; or wonder how it came to be so inevitable; or brood over it before they said it; or find it break from them in a single outburst of irresistible inspiration. But one and all come to it. One and all say it. One and all feel that nothing short of it will adequately signalize their inward conviction. It was impossible to be inside that experience of living with Jesus, or of seeing Him in His Risen Reality, without letting their belief culminate and crystallize in a simple victorious expression. The Word had been made Flesh. It was the Word of God in human flesh. God had sent forth His Son. Truly, this was the Christ, the Son of the Highest. God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, the express image of his Person. We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh. It must come to that. That is the heart and core of the whole matter. That is the joy and the fellowship into which believers are invited by those to whom the Life was manifestedthe Eternal Life which was with the Father. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you. We know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and Eternal Life.

I know what beauty is, for Thou

Hast set the world within my heart;

Of me Thou madest it a part;

I never loved it more than now.

I know the Sabbath afternoons;

The light asleep upon the graves;

Against the sky the poplar waves;

The river murmurs organ tunes.

I know the spring with bud and bell;

The hush in summer woods at night;

Autumn, when leaves let in more light;

Fantastic winters lovely spell.

I know the rapture music gives,

Its mystery of ordered tones:

Dream-muffled soul, it loves and moans,

And, half-alive, comes in and lives.

And verse I know, whose concord high

Of thought and music lifts the soul

Where many a glimmering starry shoal

Glides through the Godheads living sky.

Yea, Beautys regnant All I know

The imperial head, the thoughtful eyes;

The God-imprisoned harmonies

That out in gracious motions go.

But I leave all, O Son of man,

Put off my shoes, and come to Thee,

Most lovely Thou of all I see,

Most potent Thou of all that can!

As child forsakes his favourite toy,

His sisters sport, his new-found nest,

And, climbing to his mothers breast,

Enjoys yet more his late-left joy

I lose to find. On fair-browed bride

Fair pearls their fairest light afford;

So, gathered round Thy glory, Lord,

All glory else is glorified.1 [Note: George MacDonald.]

1. We beheld his glory. St. John is telling us what of his own immediate knowledge he knowstestifying what he had heard, what he had seen with his eyes, what he had beheld and his hands had handled. An eye-witness to Christs majesty, he had seen His glory and bears his willing witness to it. Nor must we fancy that he gives us merely a subjective opinion of his own, as if he were telling us only that the man Jesus was so full of grace and truth in His daily walk that he, looking upon Him admiringly, had been led to conjecture that He was more than man. He testifies not to subjective opinion but to objective fact. And precisely what St. John witnesses is that the Word did become flesh, and dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, and that the blaze of His glory was manifest to every seeing eye that looked upon Him.

2. There would be several facts which would stand out with peculiar prominence before St. Johns mind when he thought of the glory of the Divine Word as manifested in the human life of Jesus Christ.

(1) He might probably have in mind, for example, that vision which was granted to St. Peter, St. James, and himself, when the Lord was transfigured on the Mount. He who had been taken apart by Christ, and had seen the fashion of his Lords visage changed, so as to shine bright as the light, and His raiment to become white and glistering,that visage, which was so marred more than any man, made for the while fairer than the fairest, and those poor garments changed for the vesture of angels,he who had witnessed (whether in the body, or out of the body) such a transfiguration as this might well say that even in the midst of His humiliation the glory of the Incarnate Word had been seen by him.

(2) Or again, the Evangelist might have in his thoughts those works of wonder, and at the same time of mercy, whereby the Lord had given evidence from time to time of the advent of a new power in the world. He might remember how the blind had received their sight, how the deaf had been made to hear, how the sick had been healed, and the lepers cleansed, nay, how the dead had risen up as if from sleep when bid to do so by the voice of Christ; he who had witnessed for the space of three years and more such works as these must have been blind indeed if the veil of human flesh had quite prevented him from recognizing the glory which was ever manifesting itself forth in acts of Divine goodness and power.

(3) Or still further, it may be that in using such language as that of the text, St. John had reference to those two great events to which the mind of any disciple who was taunted with worshipping a crucified Lord would instinctively turn, namely, the Resurrection and the Ascension. We can easily understand how the patent fact of the crucifixion should have appeared, to those who knew no more of Christ, to have reduced His claims to an absurdity, how the Cross should have proved a stumbling-block to one class of minds and folly to another,there is nothing to surprise us in this,but the death of their Master would imply to His disciples no destruction of the faith, because they knew that He who was dead and buried rose again from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. And how could St. John above all, who had been first of the disciples at the empty sepulchre, and had been one of the company from whose presence the Lord was taken up,how could he fail to testify that, however much the weakness of human flesh, the acknowledged truth that Jesus Christ had died, might seem to Jews and Greeks a fatal obstacle to the faith, it was very different with those who had beheld the glory of Christ, declared to be the only begotten Son by the Resurrection from the dead and the Ascension to the right hand of God?

3. We beheld his glory. That is the Apostles deliberate answer; that is his description of the process which gained them conviction. We beheld. They used the help both of eyes and of mind; for the word suggests that they saw as men see when they let their minds follow their eyeswhen they watch and think and learn as they look. The Apostles had had no brief and unsteady sight of the Master. They had had time given them to rest their gaze upon Him, and to continue looking, as He moved, as He spoke, as He went up and down with them. In many moods and varied scenes, in hope and in fear, in exaltation and in depression, by day and by night, alone and in a crowd, as a Prophet in the glare of the public sun, as a Friend in the secrecy of confidence, in a thousand incidents unforeseen and surprisingin all they had been close, very close, to Him, and had looked with all their eyes, and had hung upon Him with all their souls, and had meditated over all that they saw, and had pondered and had brooded, and had done this slowly, by degrees, habitually, moving forward step by step to this great conclusion. So they had seen; in this sure and tested study of Him, they had lived and walked; and what was it they found by so looking?

4. Of one thing they were convinced. That which they found in Him was something that had not been in the world at all before Jesus came. It was not merely a higher form of that which had been already in others, even in the highestin the Baptist, or in Moses. As they had known all that the Baptist could do, so, too, they had felt all that Moses could bring them. He had brought them a great gift. He had given them a law from God. But this peculiar grace and life which they now had received came into the world in Jesus Christ, and in Him only. So strange, so new, so marvellous, so incomparable was this deep secret on which they had found themselves gazing. And what was it, then, this secret? How could it be told, this discovery? Well, the Apostle says, it was nothing short of the supreme vision of all visions. It was (and we, as we waited and watched, became more and more certain of it)it was the disclosure, the unveiling of God Himself. It was in character, in substance, in reality, Gods own glory. Whatever men have found God to be, whatever our fathers of old time felt God to be, as He shone in upon their hearts through the splendour of the Shekinah in the Tabernacle of Moses, that same thing Jesus showed Himself to be to us who so closely studied and loved Him. We saw Him, saw Him long, saw Him very near, saw Him very carefully; and what we saw in Him was the glory of Godthe glory as of the only begotten Son of the Almighty Father.

That human character, what was it? Was it simply one character among many? Was it a superlatively good man side by side with whom there were the Caiaphases and the Pilates, the weak men and the desperately wicked men? Was it simply one out of many? No, it had dawned upon them more and more that here He had not only one human character, He had something which drew from deeper depths than that, and covered an infinitely wider area. True, He was very Man, the Word was indeed made flesh, but that which they saw here in the reality of human nature was nothing less than the Divine Being, no other than the Eternal Son. The Word, the Son of God, had been made flesh; this human character was Gods character; this human love, this human justice, this human severity, this human compassion, are the Divine love, the eternal love, the eternal justice, the eternal severity, the eternal compassion. Verily, it is God made man! And here in the intelligible form of a human character we have disclosed to us the great secret of God. No man has seen God at any time, but the only begotten SonGod only begottenHe declared it.

In the rays of the sun, the topaz surpasses in splendour all precious stones; and even so does the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ excel in glory and in majesty all the saints and all the angels because of His union with the eternal Father. And in this union the reflection of the Divine Sun is so clear and glorious that it attracts and reflects in its clearness all the eyes of saints and angels in immediate vision, and those also of just men to whom its splendour is revealed. So likewise does the topaz attract and reflect in itself the eyes of those who behold it, because of its great clearness. But if you were to cut the topaz it would darken, while if you leave it in its natural state it will remain clear. And so, too, if you examine and try to penetrate the splendour of the eternal Word, that splendour will darken and you will lose it. But leave it as it is, and follow it with earnest gaze, and with self-abnegation, and it will give you light.1 [Note: M. Maeterlinck, Ruysbroeck and The Mystics, 61.]

5. The doctrine of the Incarnation involves the reality of the Divine Sonship of Jesus. The Word was God. We have here a substantive used as an adjective. The Word was Divine in essential being. And this essentially Divine Being became flesh and dwelt among us. The man Christ Jesus was the Son of God. Translate the term Word into the language of personality, it becomes Son. Such was the faith to which the Apostles bore witness, into which many who had seen Jesus of Nazareth, and heard His voice, and followed Him, grew. It was a faith which had power to propagate itself; it knows not how to die.

The first preachers of the gospel were aware how the language they used about Jesus would strike the ear, how it would startle men to be told that Jesus had come from heaven to earth; that the Father had singled Him out from all others, had watched and guarded and glorified Him as the Son of His begetting and His love. They were Jews, with the first commandment ringing in their ears, followed by the second and the third, which fence about the Divine Name from intrusive curiosity and undisciplined fancy and too fervent speech. They knew what their words meant; how the faith they aimed at awakening would draw mens thoughts more and more to Jesus; how worshippers would no longer seek to scale the distant heavens, but would let affection settle, and the hearts worship centre, in a human life. They knew that a passionate loyalty would be kindled toward Christ; that tragedies of devotion would result from it; that when once that faith was rooted in the soul it would mean a

Toiling up new Calvaries ever,

With the Cross that turns not back.

And they could not but speak the things which they had seen and known; this was their deepest faith, their clearest knowledge, their surest certainty, and it must be spoken. And the generations which have followed them have felt the same necessity. The same solemn constraint of faith and confession is upon us.1 [Note: A. Mackennal, The Eternal Son of God and The Human Sonship, 18.]

The Incarnation of the Word

Literature

Barrow (E. P.), The Way not a Sect, 23.

Briggs (C. A.), The Incarnation of the Lord, 190.

Brooke (S. A.), Christ in Modern Life, 63, 75.

Campbell (R. J.), A Faith for To-day, 197.

Church (R. W.), The Message of Peace, 159.

Dale (R. W.), Christian Doctrine, 45.

Dods (M.), Footsteps in the Path of Life, 19.

Douglas (A. H.), Sermons, 249.

Goodwin (H.), Hulsean Lectures for 1856, 1.

Gregory (J. R.), Scripture Truths made Simple, 41.

Holland (H. S.), Creed and Character, 3.

Holland (H. S.), Fibres of Faith, 92.

Hughes (H. P.), Essential Christianity, 44.

Kelman (J.), Ephemera Eternitatis, 306.

Mackennal (A.), The Eternal Son of God and the Human Sonship, 9.

Macleod (D.), Christ and Society, 141.

Matheson (G.), Moments on the Mount, 221.

Maurice (F. D.), Christmas Day, 1.

Murphy (J. B. C.), The Service of the Master, 36.

Ramage (W.), Sermons, 1.

Spurgeon (C. H.), Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, xxxi. (1885), No. 1862.

Taylor (W. M.), The Limitations of Life, 15.

Thomas (J.), The Mysteries of Grace, 16.

Warfield (B. B.), in Princeton Sermons, 94.

Westcott (B. F.), The Historic Faith, 43, 58.

Westcott (B. F.), Village Sermons, 33.

White (E.), The Mystery of Growth, 79.

Christian World Pulpit, xx. 198 (Haynes); lii. 371 (Storey); liii. 24 (Gore); lv. 236 (Lynch).

Churchmans Pulpit: Christmas Day: ii. 208 (Scott), 223 (Swanson).

Homiletic Review, lvi. 45 (Mair).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

the Word: Joh 1:1, Isa 7:14, Mat 1:16, Mat 1:20-23, Luk 1:31-35, Luk 2:7, Luk 2:11, Rom 1:3, Rom 1:4, Rom 9:5, 1Co 15:47, Gal 4:4, Phi 2:6-8, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 2:11, Heb 2:14-17, Heb 10:5, 1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3, 2Jo 1:7

we: Joh 2:11, Joh 11:40, Joh 12:40, Joh 12:41, Joh 14:9, Isa 40:5, Isa 53:2, Isa 60:1, Isa 60:2, Mat 17:1-5, 2Co 4:4-6, Heb 1:3, 1Pe 2:4-7, 2Pe 1:17, 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2

the only: Joh 1:18, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18, Psa 2:7, Act 13:33, Heb 1:5, Heb 5:5, 1Jo 4:9

full: Joh 1:16, Joh 1:17, Psa 45:2, 2Co 12:9, Eph 3:8, Eph 3:18, Eph 3:19, Col 1:19, Col 2:3, Col 2:9, 1Ti 1:14-16

Reciprocal: Gen 22:14 – In Gen 41:55 – Go unto Exo 3:2 – bush burned Exo 17:7 – Is the Lord Exo 26:1 – the tabernacle with ten curtains Exo 28:2 – glory Exo 37:10 – General Exo 40:18 – reared Lev 8:26 – General Lev 23:34 – The fifteenth Num 29:12 – the fifteenth day Deu 32:4 – a God 1Ki 8:11 – for the glory 1Ki 8:27 – But will Neh 8:17 – sat under Psa 25:10 – mercy Psa 85:9 – glory Pro 8:24 – I was Son 2:3 – my beloved Son 5:9 – What is Son 8:1 – find thee Isa 4:2 – beautiful and glorious Isa 9:6 – unto us a son Isa 33:17 – eyes Isa 65:16 – in the God Eze 37:27 – tabernacle Eze 43:7 – where I Dan 2:11 – whose Hag 2:7 – I will fill Hag 2:9 – glory Zec 2:10 – and I Zec 8:3 – dwell Zec 9:17 – how great is his beauty Mal 4:2 – the Sun Mat 1:23 – God Mat 12:42 – behold Mat 17:2 – his face Mar 1:1 – son Mar 8:38 – the Son Mar 9:2 – transfigured Mar 12:6 – one Luk 2:40 – the grace Luk 9:29 – General Luk 9:32 – they saw Joh 2:21 – he Joh 6:40 – seeth Joh 8:23 – Ye are from Joh 8:42 – for Joh 14:6 – the truth Act 7:2 – The God 2Co 3:18 – the glory 2Co 4:6 – in the 2Co 8:9 – the grace Phi 2:7 – in the Col 1:15 – the firstborn 1Ti 2:5 – the man Tit 2:11 – the grace Heb 1:2 – spoken Heb 1:6 – And again Heb 5:7 – the Heb 9:11 – by a greater Jam 3:17 – full 1Pe 1:25 – this 2Pe 1:16 – were 1Jo 4:14 – we have Rev 2:18 – the Son Rev 7:15 – dwell Rev 13:6 – and his Rev 19:13 – The Rev 21:3 – Behold Rev 21:23 – the Lamb

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

EMMANUEL!

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

Joh 1:14

This verse refers to the most important event in the history of the world. The Word was made flesh.

I. A perfect Saviour.And He became not only flesh, but a perfect Saviour. You can trust Him, for He was God of God, Light of Light. He was true God, begotten for us men and for our salvation. John tells us to think of the Incarnation not as an evanescent thing, for the Word was tabernacled amongst us. He took up His abiding place here. I am with you always are the words of His mouth, and He Who came between God and man, the Saviour and friend of the world, came to stay. The Saviour of mankind is a living, present Saviour to-day.

II. Is there room for Him?Is there room in your hearts for Jesus? Have you opened your very souls to Him? Have you opened your whole life to Him? Make room for Him, for sad indeed is the conditionawful will be the eternityof that one to whom He comes and who receives Him not. Listen to what Isaiah says about the wonderful life of Christ: The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. There are men and women to-day who would give anything for light. More light! More light! Take the light of the Babe of Bethlehemfollow the Star to the manger, and it will lead you to everlasting life, it will bring you perfect peace.

III. Let the Prince of Peace give you peace always.What will it mean to you as well? It will mean life; it will mean power. The government shall be upon His shoulder: and He shall be called the mighty God. The power belongeth unto God and that helpless Babe of Bethlehem. And look at the helpless Babe of Bethlehema Herod cannot kill Him. A Csar cannot slay Him. The devils in hell cannot silence Him, for He is the mighty God. Do you want power to overcome sin? Do you want to live an upright and godly lifetake Him as Gods gift to the world. Do you want hope and strength and sustenance for life? You will find it not merely in His power, but in His eternal life. Take Him to-day, make room in your hearts for Him.

Rev. R. W. Atkinson.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

THE IMMENSITY OF DIVINE LOVE

The secret of our Christmas joy cannot be expressed in fewer or in better words than those. It may without any difficulty be expanded into at least twice as many more.

I. This is the central truth, the one grand event which makes Christmas Day so precious to every believers heart. And you will have no difficulty in seeing how naturally out of this main stream of joy all the other lesser rills of social bliss come trickling through the wilderness of life. Why are we so kind to children at this time especially but because Christ was made a little Child for us, and has consecrated the age, the habits, all the delightful little ways of infancy and early childhood, by exhibiting them all in His Divine Person? What are our gifts to each other and our twelfth-night entertainments, but a memorial of the coming of the Magi with their threefold offerings of gold and frankincense and myrrh. Do we not consider the poor at this season especially, because Joseph and the Blessed Virgin were of such low estate? And all our festivity, what is it but the natural expression of our joy, even though we may have half forgotten the Fountain from which it flows?

II. In order to make anything of this great subject, we must perforce take one aspect of it only at a time.Thus, we shall do well if we seek to realise the immensity of Divine love which such an emptying of glory implies. Or else we shall seek to form a notion of the nature of Divine condescension, by dwelling in the thought that it is the Creator of heaven and earth of Whom we speak. Or let us understand how grand and august is the event which we celebrate to-day; we shall call to remembrance the long retinue of types and shadows, the vast machinery and preparation which Almighty love set agoing four thousand years before, to enable His servants at last to go forth and say, Come, for all things are now ready!

But whichever of these things you do, be faithful enough to find some moments, at least, for the more central truth in its simplicity.

Dean Burgon.

(THIRD OUTLINE)

THE MOST STUPENDOUS FACT IN HISTORY

The birth of Jesus Christ has two aspects: The Nativity itself, the most stupendous fact in history; the Incarnation, a revelation of eternity, the great doctrine of our religion.

I. Look at man in the light of nature.We look upwards at the myriads of planets, and a sense of our own nothingness tempts us to think of ourselves as the creatures of a passing moment, the prey of blind forces in the blinding whirl of chance. We look downwards at the earth, wrinkled with innumerable gravesthe very dust composed of the decay of unnumbered organisms; and we are tempted to believe that nothing remains for us but dust to dust. We look around, and, seeing the vanity and vileness of mankind, not savage tribes alone, but communities nominally Christian tainted by greed, by dishonesty, besotted by drink, the bondslaves of base and brutal passions, we are tempted to despise our raceour own selves. It is such thoughts that drive men into the devils gospel of despair, and lead so many to cry wearily that life is not worth living. But

II. Turn from the shadowsface the sun!Turn your eyes from the phenomena of evil and ruin, and behold the manger-cradle of Bethlehem! Look at man in the light of the Incarnation, and see how all is changed! Jesus, Who is Christ the Lord, was the Perfect Man, the Representative Man; God as a Man with men; God, not merely revealing Himself to man, not merely uniting Himself to man, but God becoming Man. And so we take our estimate of man, not from the churl and villain, the liar and scoundrel, the selfish miser and staggering drunkard, not from the harlot and the felon, and those yet more guilty who made them what they are, but from the pure, the good, the spiritually-minded. These alone are true men and women. In the light of Bethlehems candle we see man not as he often is, but as he may be, as we trust he yet will be. God became Man that man might become as God; that he might be a little higher than the angels, instead of a little lower than the brutes. Thus, in the light of this truth, we escape from the snare of the devil, which would lead us to despise human nature. We say, I trust in the nobleness of human nature, in the majesty of its faculties, in the fullness of its mercy, in the joy of its love.

III. Do not regard this lesson of the Incarnation as a mere vague trust, a mere abstract speculation.It is a belief which affects our estimate of ourselvesour conduct to others. There is not one degradation of our being which does not spring from lack of self-reverence, of reverence for beings whom Christ hath redeemed, to whom He has given a right to be children of God. The Incarnation teaches us that our part is in Christ, our bodies His temple, our nature His image, our hearts His shrine. He who regards himself as akin to the beasts that perish will live as they do. He who regards himself as an immortal being, partaker of the nature which Christ wore and Christ redeemed, will aim at a noble and godly life.

Dean Farrar.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

4

The Word was wholly spiritual until the time for God’s great “will” (Heb 10:7; Heb 10:9) to be carried out, the purpose of which was to have a Son begotten by His own bodily vitality, but clothed upon by the flesh, so that He could become a complete sacrifice for sin. (See the comments on Luk 1:34-35.) Full of grace and truth denotes that through Christ we are furnished completely in those blessings.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

[The glory as of the only begotten.] This glory in this place imports the same thing as worthy. We saw his glory as what was worthy or became the only-begotten Son of God. He did not glister in any worldly pomp or grandeur according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do; but he was decked with the glory, holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

THE passage of Scripture now before us is very short, if we measure it by words. But it is very long, if we measure it by the nature of its contents. The substance of it is so immensely important that we shall do well to give it separate and distinct consideration. This single verse contains more than enough matter for a whole exposition.

The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ’s incarnation, or being made man. John tells us that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Savior really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born [conceived] in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man’s estate, both in wisdom and in stature. (Luk 2:52.) Like ourselves, he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marveled, was moved to anger and compassion. Having become flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body, He really suffered and shed His blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man!

This union of two natures in Christ’s one Person is doubtless one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. It needs to be carefully stated. It is just one of those great truths which are not meant to be curiously pried into, but to be reverently believed. Nowhere, perhaps, shall we find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England. “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.” This is a most valuable declaration. This is “sound speech, which cannot be condemned.”

But while we do not pretend to explain the union of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ’s Person, we must not hesitate to fence the subject with well-defined cautions. While we state most carefully what we do believe, we must not shrink from declaring boldly what we do not believe. We must never forget, that though our Lord was God and man at the same time, the divine and human natures in Him were never confounded. One nature did not swallow up the other. The two natures remained perfect and distinct. The divinity of Christ was never for a moment laid aside, although veiled. The manhood of Christ, during His life-time, was never for a moment unlike our own, though by union with the Godhead, greatly dignified. Though perfect God, Christ has always been perfect man from the first moment of His incarnation. He that is gone into heaven, and is sitting at the Father’s right hand to intercede for sinners, is man as well as God. Though perfect man, Christ never ceased to be perfect God. He that suffered for sin on the cross, and was made sin for us, was “God manifest in the flesh.” The blood with which the Church was purchased, is called the blood “of God.” (Act 20:28.) Though He became “flesh” in the fullest sense, when He was born of the virgin Mary, He never at any period ceased to be the Eternal Word. To say that He constantly manifested His divine nature during His earthly ministry, would, of course, be contrary to plain facts. To attempt to explain why His Godhead was sometimes veiled and at other times unveiled, while He was on earth, would be venturing on ground which we had better leave alone. But to say that at any instant of His earthly ministry He was not fully and entirely God, is nothing less than heresy.

The cautions just given may seem at first sight needless, wearisome, and hair-splitting. It is precisely the neglect of such cautions which ruins many souls. This constant undivided union of two perfect natures in Christ’s Person is exactly that which gives infinite value to His mediation, and qualifies Him to be the very Mediator that sinners need. Our Mediator is One who can sympathize with us, because He is very man. And yet, at the same time, He is One who can deal with the Father for us on equal terms, because He is very God.-It is the same union which gives infinite value to His righteousness, when imputed to believers. It is the righteousness of One who was God as well as man.-It is the same union which gives infinite value to the atoning blood which He shed for sinners on the cross. It is the blood of One who was God as well as man.-It is the same union which gives infinite value to His resurrection. When He rose again, as the Head of the body of believers, He rose not as a mere man, but as God.-Let these things sink deeply into our hearts. The second Adam is far greater than the first Adam was. The first Adam was only man, and so he fell. The second Adam was God as well as man, and so He completely conquered.

Let us leave the subject with feelings of deep gratitude and thankfulness. It is full of abounding consolation for all who know Christ by faith, and believe on Him.

Did the Word become flesh? Then He is One who can be touched with the feeling of His people’s infirmities, because He has suffered Himself, being tempted. He is almighty because He is God, and yet He can feel with us, because He is man.

Did the Word become flesh? Then He can supply us with a perfect pattern and example for our daily life. Had he walked among us as an angel or a spirit, we could never have copied Him. But having dwelt among us as a man, we know that the true standard of holiness is to “walk even as He walked.” (1Jn 2:6.) He is a perfect pattern, because He is God. But He is also a pattern exactly suited to our wants, because He is man.

Finally, did the Word become flesh? Then let us see in our mortal bodies a real, true dignity, and not defile them by sin. Vile and weak as our body may seem, it is a body which the Eternal Son of God was not ashamed to take upon Himself, and to take up to heaven. That simple fact is a pledge that He will raise our bodies at the last day, and glorify them together with His own.

==================

Notes-

v14.-[And the word was made flesh.] This sentence means that the eternal Word of God, the second Person in the Trinity, became a man, like one of ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. This He accomplished, by being born of the virgin Mary, after a miraculous manner, through the operation of the Holy Ghost. And the end for which He became flesh, was that He might live and die for sinners.

The expression “the ‘Word,” shows clearly that “the Word” who “was with God and was God,” must be a Person. It could not reasonably be said of any one but a Person, that He became “flesh and dwelt among us.” Whether John could have found any other name for the second Person of the Trinity equally proper, we need not trouble ourselves to inquire. It certainly would not have been accurately correct to say that “Jesus was made flesh,” because the name Jesus was not given to our Lord till after His incarnation. Nor yet would it have been correct to say, “In the beginning was Christ,” because the name Christ belongs to the times after the fall of man.

This is the last time that John uses this expression, “The Word,” about Christ in his Gospel. From the time of His incarnation he generally speaks of Him as “Jesus,” or “the Lord.”

[Was made.] This expression might perhaps have been better translated “became.” At any rate, we must carefully remember that it does not signify “was created.” The Athanasian Creed says truly, “The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten.”

[Flesh.] The use of this word, instead of “man,” ought not to be overlooked. It is purposely used in order to show us that when our Lord became incarnate, He took upon Him nothing less than our whole nature, consisting of a true body and a reasonable soul. As Arrowsmith says, “That which was not taken could not be healed. If Christ had not taken the whole man, He could not have saved the soul.”-It also implies that our Lord took upon Him a body liable to those weaknesses, fatigues, and pains, which are inseparable from the idea of flesh. He did not become a man like Adam before the fall, with a nature free from all infirmity. He became a man like anyone of Adam’s children, with a nature liable to every thing that fallen humanity is liable to, except sin. He was made “flesh,” and “all flesh is grass.”-Finally, it teaches that our Lord did not assume the human nature of any one family, or class, or people, but that nature which is common to all Adam’s children, whether Jews or Gentiles. He came to be a Saviour for “all flesh,” and so was made “flesh.”

The subject of this sentence is a deeply mysterious one, but one about which it is most important to have clear views. Next to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no doctrine on which fallen man has built so many deadly heresies as the incarnation of Christ. There is unquestionably much about this union of two natures in one person which we cannot explain, and must be content to believe. There is much that we cannot understand, be it remembered, in the union of body and soul in our own persons. But there are some points in the subject of Christ’s incarnation which we must hold fast, and never let go.

(a.) In the first place, let us carefully remember, that when “the Word became flesh,” He became so by the union of two perfect and distinct natures in one Person. The manner of this union we cannot explain, but the fact we must firmly believe. “Christ,” says the Athanasian Creed, “is God and Man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man. Who, although He be God and man, yet He is not two but one Christ; one not by conversion of the godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” These words are very important. The Word was not made flesh by changing one nature into another, or by laying aside one nature and taking up another. In all our thoughts about Christ, let us take care that we do not divide His Person, and that we maintain steadily that He has two distinct and perfect natures. The old Latin line on the subject, quoted by Gomarus, is worth remembering. It represents “the Word made flesh,” as saying, “I am what I was, that is God:-I was not what I am, that is man:-I am now called both, that is both God and man.”

(b.) Secondly, when “the Word became flesh,” He did not cease for a moment to be God. No doubt He was pleased to veil His divinity and to hide His power, and more especially so at some seasons. He emptied Himself of external marks of glory and was called “the carpenter.” But He never laid His divinity aside. God cannot cease to be God. It was as God-man that He lived, suffered, died, and rose again. It is written that God ”has purchased the Church with His own blood.” It was the blood of one who was not man only, but God.

(c.) Thirdly, when “the Word became flesh,” He was made a man in the truth of our nature like unto us in all things, and from that hour has never ceased to be man. His humanity was not a humanity different from our own, and though now glorified is our humanity still. It was perfect man no less than perfect God, who resisted temptation, fulfilled the law perfectly, endured the contradiction of sinners, spent nights in prayer, kept His will in subjection to the Father’s will, suffered, died, and at length ascended up to heaven with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to man’s nature. It is written, that in “all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” Moreover, He did not lay aside His humanity when He left the world. He that ascended up on the mount of Olives, and is sitting at the right hand of God to intercede for believers, is one who is still man as well as God. Our High Priest in heaven is not God only, but man. Christ’s humanity as well as divinity are both in heaven. One in our nature, our elder Brother has gone as our Forerunner to prepare a place for us.

(d.) Lastly, when “the Word became flesh,” He did not take on Him “peccable flesh.” It is written that He was made in “the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom 8:3.) But we must not go beyond this. Christ was “made sin for us.” (2Co 5:21.) But He “knew no sin,” and was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and without taint of corruption. Satan found nothing in Him. Christ’s human nature was liable to weakness, but not to sin. The words of the fifteenth Article must never be forgotten, Christ was “void from sin, both in His flesh and in His Spirit.”

For want of a clear understanding of this union of two natures in Christ’s Person, the heresies which arose in the early Church were many and great. And yet Arrowsmith points out that no less than four of these heresies are at once confuted by a right interpretation of the sentence now before us.

“The Arians hold that Jesus Christ was not true God. This text calleth Him the Word, and maketh Him a Person in the Trinity.

“The Apollinarians acknowledge Christ to be God, yea, and man too; but they hold that He took only the body of a man, not the soul of a man, while His divinity supplied the room of a soul. We interpret the word ‘flesh’ for the whole human nature, both soul and body.

“The Nestorians grant Christ to be both God and man: but then they say the Godhead made one person, and the manhood another person. We interpret the words ‘was made’ as implying an union, in which Christ assumed not the person of man, but the nature of man.

“The Eutychians held but one person in Christ; but then they confounded the natures. They say the Godhead and manhood made such a mixture as to produce a third thing. Here they also are confuted by the right understanding of the union between the Word and flesh.”

He then goes on to show how the ancient Church met all these heretics with four adverbs, which briefly and conveniently defined the union of two natures in Christ’s person. They said that the divine and human natures when “the Word was made flesh,” were united truly, to oppose the Arians,-perfectly, to oppose the Apollinarians,-undividedly, to oppose the Nestorians,-and unmixedly, to oppose the Eutychians.

Those who wish to examine this subject further, will do well to consult Pearson on the Creed, Dods on the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, B. v., chap. 51, 52, 53, 54.

[Dwelt among us.] The Greek word rendered dwelt, means literally “tabernacled,” or “dwelt in a tent.” The sentence does not mean that Christ dwelt in His human body as in a tabernacle, which He left when He ascended up to heaven. “Christ,” says Arrowsmith, “continueth now, and shall for ever, as true man as when He was born of the virgin Mary.-He so took human nature as never to lay it down again.” The sentence only means that Christ dwelt among men on earth for thirty-three years. He was on earth so long conversing among men, that there could be no doubt of the reality of His incarnation. He did not appear for a few minutes, like a phantom or ghost. He did not come down for a brief visit of a few days, but was living among us in His human body for the duration of a whole generation of men. For thirty-three years He pitched His tent in Palestine, and was going to and fro among its inhabitants.

Arrowsmith remarks that three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents; shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. He thinks that the phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christ’s life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveller, and a soldier. But it may be doubted whether this is not a somewhat fanciful idea, however pleasing and true. The Greek word rendered “dwelt” is only used in four other places in the New Testament, (Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3,) and in each of them is applied to a permanent, and not a temporary dwelling.

[We beheld his glory.] John here declares, that although “the Word was made flesh,” he and others beheld from time to time His glory, and saw manifest proof that He was not man only, but the “only begotten Son of God.”

There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to the right application of these words. Some think that they apply to Christ’s ascension, which John witnessed, and to all His miraculous actions throughout His ministry, in all of which, as it is said of the miracle of Cana, He “manifested forth his glory,” and His disciples saw it.-Others think that they apply especially to our Lord’s transfiguration, when He put on for a little season His glory, in the presence of John, James, and Peter. I am on the whole inclined to think that this is the true view, and the more so, because of Peter’s words in speaking of the transfiguration, (2Pe 1:16, 2Pe 1:18,) and the words which immediately follow in the verse we are now considering.

[The glory as of the only begotten of the Father.] This sentence means “such glory as became and was suitable to one who is the only begotten Son of God the Father.” These words will hardly apply to Christ’s miracles. They seem to confine the glory which John says “we beheld,” to the vision of glory which he and his two companions saw when Christ was transfigured, and they heard the Father saying, “This is my beloved Son.”

Lightfoot’s paraphrase of this expression is worth reading though he does not apply the passage to the transfiguration: “We saw His glory as what was worthy, as became, the only begotten Son of God. He did not glisten in any worldly pomp or grandeur, according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do. But He was dressed with the glory of holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.”

We must carefully remember that the adverb “as” in this place, does not imply comparison, or similitude, as if John only meant that the Word’s glory was like that of the only begotten Son of God. Chrysostom says, “The expression ‘as’ in this place does not belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition, as though he said, we beheld glory such as it was becoming and likely that He should possess, who is the only begotten and true Son of God and King of all.” He also remarks that it is a common manner of speaking, when people are describing the appearance of a king in state, to say that “he was like a king,” meaning only that he was a real king.

Glassius, in his Philologia, makes the same comment on the expression, and quotes as parallel cases of the use of the adverb “as,” 2Pe 1:3; 1Pe 1:19; Phm 1:9; Rom 9:32; Mat 14:5; 2Co 3:18. He thinks it a Hebraism, denoting not the similitude, but the reality and truth of a thing, and quotes Psa 122:3, and Hos 4:4, as Old Testament instances.

[The only begotten of the Father.] This remarkable expression describes our Lord’s eternal generation, or Sonship. He is that Person who alone has been begotten of the Father from all eternity, and from all eternity has been His beloved Son.

The phrase is only used five times in the New Testament, and only in John’s writings. That God always had a Son appears in the Old Testament. “What is his son’s name,” says Agur. (Pro 30:4.) So also the Father says to Messiah, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.” (Psa 2:7.) But the Sonship now before us, we must carefully remember, is not to be dated from any “day.” It is the everlasting Sonship of which John speaks.

The subject is one of those which we must be content to believe and reverence, but must not attempt to define too narrowly. We are taught distinctly in Scripture that in the unity of the Godhead, there are three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that “Sonship” describes the everlasting relation which exists between the first and second Persons in the Trinity, an that Christ is the only begotten and eternal Son of God. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that the Father loveth the Son, and loved Him before the foundation of the world. (Joh 17:24.) But here we must be content to pause. Our feeble faculties could not comprehend more if more were told us.

Let us however remember carefully, when we think of Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father, that we must not attach the least idea of inferiority to the idea of His Sonship. As the Athanasian creed says, “The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son.” And yet the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The argument of the ancient Arians, that if Christ is the Son of God, he must necessarily be inferior in dignity to God, and subsequent in existence to God, is one that will not stand for a moment. The reply is simple. We are not talking of the relationship of mortal beings, but of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity, who are eternal. All analogies and illustrations drawn from human parents and children are necessarily defective. As Augustine said, so must we say, “Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show you and explain to you an eternal Son.” We must believe and not try to explain. Christ’s generation, as God, is eternal,-who shall declare it? He was begotten from everlasting of the Father. He was always the beloved Son. And yet “He is equal to the Father as touching his godhead, though inferior to Him as touching his manhood.”

[Full of grace and truth.] These words do not refer to the Father, though they follow His name so closely. They belong to “the Word.” The meaning of them is differently explained.

Some think that they describe our Lord Jesus Christ’s character, during the time that He was upon the earth, in general terms. Full of grace were His lips, and full of grace was His life. He was full of the grace of God, the Spirit dwelling in Him without measure, full of kindness, love, and favour to man;-full of truth in His deeds and words, for in His lips was no guile, full of truth in His preaching concerning God the Father’s love to sinners, and the way of salvation, for He was ever unfolding in rich abundance all truths that man can need to know for his soul’s good.

Some think that the words describe especially the spiritual riches that Christ brought into the world, when He became incarnate, and set up His kingdom. He came full of the gospel of grace, in contradistinction to the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law. He came full of truth, of real, true, solid comfort, in contradistinction to the types, and figures, and shadows of the law of Moses. In short the full grace of God, and the full truth about the way of acceptance, were never clearly seen until the Word became flesh, dwelt among us on earth, opened the treasure-house, and revealed grace and truth in His own person.

I decidedly prefer the second of these two views. The first is truth, but not the truth of the passage. The second appears to me to harmonize with the 17th verse, which follows almost immediately, where the law and the gospel are contrasted, and we are told that “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 1:14. And the Word became flesh. With this verse we enter upon the fuller and more concrete aspect of the Word appearing among men. As personally come in the flesh, however, the Word contrasts with what He was in His preexistent state; and hence, before we have the Baptist introduced to us, we have statements exactly parallel to those of Joh 1:1-5. That now before us corresponds to Joh 1:1, for the Incarnate Word in Himself is here spoken of. He who was in the beginning, who was with God, who was God, became flesh; did not merely take to Him a human body, did not merely become an individual man, but assumed human nature in its entireness (see chaps, Joh 12:27, soul; Joh 13:21, spirit), identified Himself with the race, entered into such a condition that He could have perfect communion and fellowship with us, and we with Him. The word became does not denote that His divine nature was laid aside, and that His mode of being was simply human until, in the accomplishment of His work, He gradually transformed His human mode of being and regained for it all the glory of the divine. Were such a view correct, it would follow that when the divine was regained the human was laid aside, and that the humanity of the exalted Redeemer is not now as real as it was during His earthly course. No such thought is suggested by became, for this word does not imply that the former state of being exists no longer. What is really indicated is the passing into a new state,a transition rather than a transformation. The Word remains, with all His essential properties; there is added a new mode of being, the assumption of a new nature, denoted by flesh. The most important parallels to this verse are 1Jn 4:2 and 2Jn 1:7; these passages differ from the present in that the historical name Jesus Christ is substituted for the Word, and that for the mysterious words became flesh we read hath come (or cometh) in flesh.

And he set his tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory (glory as of an only begotten from a father),full of grace and truth. As the first clause of this verse corresponded to Joh 1:1, so these clauses correspond to Joh 1:2-5; only that, whereas there we had those properties of the Word in virtue of which He gives life and light in their most general form to all, here we have those in virtue of which, as the now completed revelation of the Father, He carries this life and light onward to perfection in such as truly receive Him. Still, however, it is the glory of the Word in Himself that is before us; if men are introduced in the words which follow as beholders of His glory, it is that our thought may rest, not on the blessing man thus receives (that is expressed below, Joh 1:16-18), but on the witness borne to the glory of the Incarnate Word. The figure of this verse is taken from the Old Testament (Lev 26:11; Eze 37:27, etc.); the Tabernacle was the meeting-place of God and Israel, the house in which Jehovah dwelt in the midst of his people. With the image of a tent or tabernacle is often associated the thought of transitoriness; but that the word used here does not necessarily carry with it this thought is sufficiently proved by the language of the final promise, The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall set His tabernacle with them: (Rev 21:3). As the Shechinah dwelt in the Tabernacle, in the midst of the camp of Israel, so the Word become flesh dwelt among us. Some have taken the last words to mean in us, and to contain a new reference to the assumption of human nature; but this view seems plainly inconsistent with the words which follow, we beheld His glory, the meaning of which is fixed by the opening passage in the First Epistle (1Jn 1:1-3). The glory was like that of an only son sent from a father; no image but this, it has been well said, can express the twofold character of the glory, as at once derivative and on a level with its source. In the only son are concentrated all the characteristics of the father; on him all the fathers love is poured; to him belongs the whole inheritance; on him the father, when he sends him forth on an embassy, bestows all the plenitude of his power. The translation we have given is, we believe, that which the Greek words absolutely demand; it appears to us, moreover, to be the only rendering that gives meaning to the word of comparison as, or preserves the progress of the Evangelist’s thought. As yet there has been no word bringing in the thought of Divine Sonship. The attributes and working of the Divine Word have been continually before us; here the glory of the Word become flesh is compared with that of an only son sent from a father; but it is not until Joh 1:18 that these elements are combined into one supreme utterance of truth. The last words of the verse must be connected with the subject of the sentence: He (the Word) set His tabernacle among us, full of grace and truth. They go far towards explaining the glory which the disciples beheld. That the Word has been from the beginning of the worlds history the bestower of grace and truth, is implied in the imagery of the earlier verses (Joh 1:4; Joh 1:9); that which has been involved in the teaching respecting the Pre-incarnate Word is clearly stated here of the Word become flesh. But this fulness of grace and truth does not exhaust the meaning of the glory. In the glory of the Incarnate Word there are two elements, as His one Person unites two natures: in part the glory is unique (in kind and not only in degree), belonging to the God-man and not to the perfect Man; in part it is communicable to men, as Jesus Himself says, The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The evangelist having asserted the divinity of Christ in the foregoing verses, comes now to speak of his humanity and manifestation in our nature: The word was made flesh.

Where note, 1. Our Saviour’s incarnation for us.

2. His life and conversation here among us. He dwelt or tabernacled for a season with us. In the incarnation or assumption of our nature,

Observe, 1. The person assuming, The Word, that is, the second person subsisting in the glorious Godhead.

Observe, 2. The nature assumed, flesh; that is, the human nature, consisting of soul and body.

But why is it not said, The Word was made man? but, The Word was made flesh.

Ans. To denote and set forth the wonderful abasement and condescension of Christ; there being more of vileness and weakness, and opposition to spirit, in the word flesh, than in the word man.

Christ’s taking flesh implies, that he did not only take upon him the human nature, but all the weaknesses and infirmities of that nature also, (sinful infirmities and personal infirmities excepted,) he had nothing to do with our sinful flesh. Though Christ loved souls with an infinite and insuperable love, yet he would not sin to save a soul. And he took no personal infirmities upon him, but such as are common to the whole nature, as hunger, thirst, weariness.

Observe, 3. The assummption itself, He was made flesh; that is, he assumed the human nature into an union with his Godhead, and so became a true and real man by that assumption.

Learn hence, That Jesus Christ did really assume the true and perfect nature of man, into a personal union with his divine nature, and still remains true God, and true Man, in one person, for ever.

O blessed union! O thrice happy conjunction! As Man, Christ had an experimental sense of our infirmities and wants; as God, he can support and supply them all.

Note farther, 2. As our Saviour’s incarnation for us, so his life and conversation among us; He dwelt, or tabernacled amongst us. The tabernacle was a type of Christ’s human nature.

1. As the outside of the tabernacle was mean, made of ordinary materials, but its inside glorious; so was the Son of God.

2. God’s special presence was in the tabernacle; there he dwelt, for he had a delight therein. In like manner dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily in Christ; and the glory of his divinity shined forth to the eye and view of his disiples; for they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; that is, whilst Christ appeared as a man amongst us, he gave great and glorious testimonies of his being the Son of God.

Learn hence, That in the day of our Saviour’s incarnation, the divinity of his person did shine forth through the veil of his flesh, and was seen by all them that had spiritual eye to behold it, and a mind disposed to consider it. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 1:14. And the Word, &c. And in order to raise us, sinful creatures, to this dignity and happiness, the Divine and Eternal Word, by a most amazing condescension; was made flesh That is, united himself to our inferior and miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities. If it be inquired how he did this, we answer, in the language of the Creed, Not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. Observe, reader, the whole manhood, the complete human nature, consisting of soul and body, and not the body only. Accordingly, we read, (Luk 2:52,) that Jesus increased in wisdom as well as stature, having, as Man 1:1 st, A finite understanding, which gradually received information and knowledge. 2d, A will of his own, distinct from, but resigned to, the will of his heavenly Father; in consequence of which he could say, I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me: Father, not my will, but thine be done. 3d, All the innocent human passions and affections, such as, desire; with desire have I desired to eat this passover, &c., Luk 22:15 : aversion; Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, Luk 22:42 : hope; for the felicity set before him, and expected by him, he endured the cross, &c., Heb 12:2 : fear; he was heard in that he feared, Heb 5:7 : joy; Jesus rejoiced in spirit, Luk 10:21 : sorrow; my soul is exceeding sorrowful, Mat 26:38 : a peculiar human love; the disciple whom Jesus loved, Joh 21:20 : all which faculties belonged not to his body, but to his soul. When we read, therefore, that he was made flesh, partook of flesh and blood, (Heb 2:14,) came in the flesh, (1Jn 4:2,) was manifest in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16,) had a body prepared for him, (Heb 10:5,) we must remember, that the whole human nature is intended to be signified by such expressions, and not the body only. It is, however, justly observed by Bishop Horne on this point, that As the Divinity is an object by no means within the grasp of the human understanding, it were absurd to expect an adequate idea of the mode of its union with flesh, expressed in the text by the word made; (;) The word was made flesh. It sufficeth, in this case, to maintain the general truth of the proposition against those, who, in different ways, by subtlety and sophistry, have laboured to oppugn and destroy. We must not, with Arius, deny the Saviour to be truly God, because he became man; nor assert, with Apollinaris, that he was not really man, because he was also God. We must not, with Nestorius, rend Christ asunder, and divide him into two persons; nor, after the example of Eutyches, confound in his person those natures which should be distinguished. These were the four capital errors, which, in the earlier ages, harassed and distracted the Christian church, on the point of the incarnation; and in opposition to which, the four most famous ancient general councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were called. Whatever was by them decreed, either in declaration of Christian belief, or refutation of heresy, may all be comprised, as judicious Hooker well noteth, in four words, , , , , truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; truly God, perfectly man, indivisibly one person, distinctly two natures. Within the compass of which, said he, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch the person of Jesus Christ, (whether they have risen in these latter days, or in any age heretofore,) may be with great facility brought to confine themselves. Book 5. sect. 54. The apostle to the Hebrews, writing on the subject of the incarnation, thus expresseth himself: , , He taketh not hold of angels, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham; he took, or assumed, the manhood into God. As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. The soul is not turned into, nor compounded with, the body; yet they two, though distinct in nature, form one man. The natures are preserved, without confusion; the person is entire, without division. Sic factum est Caro, ut maneret verbum; non immutando quod erat, sed assumendo quod non erat; nostra auxit, sua non minuit; nec sacramentum pietatis detrimentum Deitatis. Concil. Chalced. Hornes Sermons, vol. 1. pp. 203-205.

And dwelt among us Not making us a transient visit for an hour, or a day, or appearing occasionally, as he did formerly, but making his abode with us for a considerable time. The original expression, , properly signifies, he tabernacled among us, alluding, as some think, to his dwelling, in ancient times, first in the tabernacle, and afterward in the temple, where he manifested his presence and glory. His human nature was the true tabernacle, or temple of his Deity, and therein resided the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col 2:9. Hence he says, Destroy this temple, meaning his body, and I will build it up in three days. Beza renders the word, Commoratus est, he sojourned, or tarried for a while. Doddridge reads, he pitched his tabernacle: Wesley, he tabernacled. Any of which readings give the primitive signification of the verb , from , a tent or tabernacle. But words often come insensibly to deviate from their first signification, and this has evidently happened to the verb now spoken of, which frequently signifies to dwell, or inhabit, in the largest sense, without any limitation from the nature or duration of the dwelling. Hence it is applied, (Rev 12:12; and, Rev 13:6) to the inhabitants of heaven, and is made use of to express Gods abode with his people after the resurrection, which is always represented as eternal, Rev 21:3. And the noun , itself, from which the verb is derived, is used (Luk 16:9) for a permanent habitation, and joined with the epithet, , eternal. As the term, however, admits of both interpretations, and may be either rendered, to dwell, or to sojourn, and as our Lords life on earth, and especially his ministry, was of short duration, he may much more properly be said to have sojourned, than to have dwelt among us. And we Who are now recording these things, we his disciples, beheld Greek, , (the word used 1Jn 1:1,) contemplated his glory; and that with so strict an attention, that, from our own personal knowledge, we can testify it was, in every respect, such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father For it shone forth, not only in his transfiguration, and in his continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct, through the whole course of his life. In all he appeared full of truth and grace He was in himself most benevolent and upright: made those ample discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do; and exhibited the most substantial blessings, whereas that was but a shadow of good things to come. Observe, reader, we are all by nature false, depraved, and children of wrath, to whom both truth and grace are unknown; but we are made partakers of them, through him, when we believe in him with our hearts unto righteousness.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

[See also the “General Considerations on the Prologue” in the comments of Joh 1:18.]

Ver. 14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among usand we beheld His glory, a glory as of the only-begotten Son coming from the presence of the Fatherfull of grace and truth.

The connection between this verse and the preceding, which is involved in , and, is expressed in the following thought: If faith can make of a man born of the flesh a child of God, it is because it has for its object the Word made flesh. The coming of Christ upon earth in the flesh had been already mentioned in Joh 1:11, from the point of view of its relation to Israel, and of the unbelief by which it had been met. John proclaims again the great fact, the subject of his narrative, from the point of view of all mankind, and as the object of the faith of the Church. There is, therefore, no tautology in this repetition. It even reflects very faithfully the phases of the development of faith in the heart of those who were formerly Jews, like John and the apostles. They first witness the appearance of the Messiah in Israel (to His own) Joh 1:11, and they see Him ignominiously rejected. But far from joining in this rejection, they receive Him as the promised Messiah, and through their faith in Him find the privileges of adoption and regeneration (Joh 1:12-13).

Then sounding in all its depths the object of a faith which is capable of effecting such wonders, they cry out: This is the Word who has been made flesh! The idea of the national Messiah was thus gradually transformed in them into that of the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind. The , and, is not, therefore, here a simple connecting copula. How, indeed, can we connect with one another by an and or an and also two ideas which are as unlike as those of 13b and 14a: They are born of God, and (and also): the Word became flesh. We do not think that the thought of the evangelist is any more successfully apprehended by paraphrasing this , as Luthardt does, and to tell the whole truth, or, as Bruckner, and in these circumstances. The paraphrase of Weiss-Meyer: And this is the way in which faith in Him was able to take form and produce such happy fruits…., amounts to nearly the same thing with our own explanation, which was already that of Chrysostom, Grotius, etc.

The emphasis is not on the subject: the Word; this noun is repeated (instead of the simple pronoun) only with the purpose of better emphasizing the contrast between the subject and the predicate became flesh. The Word to which everything owes its existence, which created us ourselves, became a member of the human race. The word fleshproperly denotes, in its strict sense, the soft parts of the body, as opposed either to the hard parts, the bones; thus when it is said, Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones (Gen 2:23),or to the blood (Joh 6:54). From this more restricted sense, a broader one is derived: the entire body, regarded from the view-point of its substance, the animated matter; so 1Co 15:39. Finally, as the flesh is properly the seat of physical sensibility, this word, by metonomy, often designates the entire human being, in so far as he is governed in his natural state by sensibility with respect to pleasure and pain. For also they are but flesh, is said of men before the deluge, Gen 6:3. Comp. Joh 17:11; Psa 65:1; Rom 3:20 : all flesh, no flesh, for: every man, no man. Undoubtedly, the desire of enjoyment and the dread of suffering are not in themselves criminal instincts. They are often the precious means by which man escapes from a multitude of losses and injuries of which he would otherwise not be conscious. Still more: without this double natural sensibility, man would never be able to offer to God anything but sacrifices which cost him nothing. He could not himself become a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God (Rom 12:1), and thereby fulfill his noblest destiny, that of glorifying God by the sacrifice of himself. But, on the other hand, it cannot be denied that in these two natural propensities lies the possibility of temptation and sin.

Human nature in this critical condition: such is the form of existence which the Word has consented to take for himself. The expression became flesh, accordingly signifies, first of all, that the Word left the immaterial state of divine being to assume a body, and to confine Himself, like the creature, within the limits of time and space. But the word fleshexpresses much more than this. Since the work of Zeller (Theol. Jahrb. 1842), the Tubingen school makes John say that the Logos borrowed from humanity only the material body, while He Himself filled, in Jesus, the office of thespirit in every other man (the old theory of Apollinaris). But John does not dream of any such thing. We have just proved that the word flesh often designates the entire human person (spirit, soul and body, 1Th 5:23). This is certainly the case in this passage. The expression: the Word became body, would have no meaning. It would have been necessary to say: took a body.

Jesus sometimes speaks in our Gospel of His soul, and of His soul as troubled (Joh 12:27). It is related of Him that He groaned or that He was troubled in His spirit (Joh 11:33; Joh 13:21), that He gave up His spirit (Joh 19:30); all this implies that the Logos does not play the part of the spirit in the person of Jesus. The spirit of Jesus is, as in every man, one of the elements of the human nature, like the soul and the body. It follows from this that the flesh denotes, in our passage, complete human nature. Consequently, this term flesh is not intended to describe merely the visibility or corporeity of Jesus (de Wette, Reuss, Baur), or even the poverty and weakness of His earthly manifestation (Olshausen, Tholuck). It designates the reality and integrity of the human mode of existence into which Jesus entered. In virtue of this incarnation, He was able to suffer, to enjoy, to be tempted, to struggle, to learn, to make progress, to love, to pray, exactly like us; comp. Heb 2:17. The phrase , became man, would have expressed nearly the same idea; only it would have described Jesus as a particular personality, as a definite representative of the human type, and it might have been imagined that this man had reserved for Himself an exceptional position in the race. The term flesh, which denotes only the state, the mode of existence, more clearly affirms the complete homogeneity between His condition and ours. Moreover, Jesus does not hesitate to apply to Himself the word , man, Joh 8:40; and the name by which in preference to all others He described Himself, was Son of man (see on Joh 1:51).

The word which fills the interval between the subject, the Word, and the predicate, flesh, is the verb , became. The word become, when it has a substantive for its predicate, implies a profound transformation in the subject’s mode of being. Thus Joh 2:9 : The water became wine ( ). When a person is in question, this word become, without implicating his identity, indicates that he has changed his condition; for example, in the expression: The king become a shepherd. Baur and Reuss affirm that, in the evangelist’s thought, the Logos, though becoming flesh, remained in possession not only of His consciousness, but also of His attributes as Logos. He clothed Himself, indeed, with a body, according to them, but as if with a temporary covering. This incarnation was for Him only something accessory (Reuss, ii., p. 456). Yet this scholar cannot help saying (p. 451): There is nothing but the word become which positively affirms that, in coming, He changed the form of His existence. Certainly! And we affirm nothing more, but nothing less. The wordbecome shows, indeed, that this change reached even the foundation of the existence of the Logos. This natural sense of the word become is not invalidated by the expression is come in the flesh, 1Jn 4:2, in which Reuss finds the affirmation of the preserving of His original nature with all its attributes, but which really involves only the continuity of His personality. The personal subject in the Logos remained the same when He passed from the divine state to the human state, but with the complete surrender of all the divine attributes, the possession of which would have been incompatible with the reality of the human mode of existence. And if He ever recovers the divine state, it will not be by renouncing His human personality, but by exalting it even to the point where it can become the organ of the divine state. This, as it seems to us, is the true Christological conception, as it appears in the Scriptures generally, and in our passage in particular.

The content of John’s declaration, therefore, is not: Two natures or two opposite modes of being co-existing in the same subject; but a single subject passing from one mode of being to another, in order to recover the first by perfectly realizing the second. The teaching of John, as thus understood, is in complete harmony with that of Paul. That apostle says, indeed, Php 2:6-8 : He who was in the form of God…emptied (divested) Himself, having taken the form of a servant and having become like to men; and 2Co 8:9 : Though He was rich, He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich. These passages express, in a form which is completely independent of that of John, a conception which is identically the same: The incarnation by means of a divesting (). We shall see that the whole Gospel history, and especially the picture of Jesus which is traced by our evangelist, accords perfectly, notwithstanding all the contrary assertions of Reuss, with the thesis of the Prologue as thus understood.

After having entered the human life, the Word took up His abode there and appropriated it to Himself even to the end; this is expressed by the following clause. The word , literally, to dwell in a tent, contains, according to Meyer, Reuss, etc., an allusion to a technical word in the religious philosophy of the later Jews, Shechinah (the dwelling-place), which denoted the visible forms by which Jehovah manifested His presence in the midst of His people. We might see thus in this word , to live in a tent, especially with the limiting phrase , among us, an allusion to the Tabernacle in the wilderness, which was, as it were, the tent of Jehovah, Himself a pilgrim among His pilgrim people. To this conformity between the sort of habitation which Jehovah had and that of His people answers the complete community in the mode of existence between the incarnate Word and men, His brethren. Perhaps, these allusions are somewhat refined and John’s thought is merely that of comparing the flesh of Jesus (His humanity) to a tent like ours (2Co 5:1).

This word , to camp, denotes, in any case, all the familiar relations which He sustained with His fellow-men; varied relations like those which a pilgrim sustains towards the other members of the caravan. It is as if John had said: We ate and drank at the same table, slept under the same roof, walked and journeyed together; we knew Him as son, brother, friend, guest, citizen. Even to the end, He remained faithful to the path on which He entered when He became a man. This expression, therefore, calls to mind all the condescension of that divine being, who thus veiled His majesty in order to share in the existence of the companions of His journey.The limiting phrase , among us, does not refer to men in general, nor even to the Church in its totality. In connection with the word , to live in a tent, and with the following phrase, we beheld, it can only designate the immediate witnesses of the earthly existence of Jesus, who sustained towards Him the familiar relations comprised in the notion of life in common. The expression of the general feeling of the Church will come later, Joh 1:16-18.

According as this spectacle presents itself to the thought of the evangelist, and assumes, in the wordsamong us, the character of the most personal recollection, it becomes to him the object of delightful contemplation. The phrase is broken. The word us, of the limiting phrase, suddenly becomes the subject, while the subject, the Word and His glory, passes into the position of the grammatical object: And we beheld His glory. How easily may this change of construction be understood in the writing of an eye-witness! We observe the reverse change in the first verses of 1 John: That which we have heard, that which we beheld of the Word of life…, for the life was manifested and we have seen it, this it is which we declare unto you. Here, the apostle begins with the impression receivedit is a letterto pass from this to the fact itself. But in the Gospel, where he speaks as a historian, after having started from the fact, he describes the ineffable joy which the witnesses experienced in this sight.

The word (to behold), is richer than (to see, to discern); it is the restful seeing, as Luthardt says, with an idea of satisfaction, while to attaches rather the idea of knowledge. Baur, Keim, Reuss, apply this word behold here to a purely spiritual act, the inward sight of Christ which is granted to every believer; comp. 1Jn 3:6 : He that sinneth hath not seen him; and 2Co 3:18. We may understand the design of this interpretation. These critics refuse to recognize in the evangelist a witness, and yet they would not wish to make him an impostor. This expedient, therefore, alone remains. But this expedient involves inextricable difficulty, as we have shown in the Introduction (pp. 201-202). How could there be a question here of the glorified Christ, as an object of the spiritual contemplation of believers? Are we not at the opening of the narrative of the earthly life of Christ, at the moment when the coming of the Logos in the flesh and His condescension towards the companions of His earthly career have just been pointed out? To attribute to the wordbehold in such a context a purely spiritual sense, is to set at nought the evidence. Undoubtedly, the witnesses had more than the sight of the body. This beholding was an internal perception. But the first was the means of the second.

The object of the beholding was the glory of the Word. The glory of God is the beaming forth of His perfections before the eyes of His creatures. This glory is really unique; every glory which any being whatsoever possesses is only the participation in some measure of the splendor which is sent forth by the perfection of God Himself. The glory which the witnesses of the earthly life of the Logos beheld in Him could not be the splendor which He enjoyed in His pre-existent state. For this glory Jesus asks again in Joh 17:5 : And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. One does not ask again for what one still possesses. Reuss claims that it is only the most arbitrary harmonistic, which can ascribe to John the idea that the Logos divested Himself of the divine attributes when he became incarnate (Theol . johann., p. 120). But as for this harmonistic, it is John himself who suggests it in the prayer of Jesus which we have just quoted, and this is in full harmony with Paul (Php 2:6 ff.). What must we understand, then, by that glory of Jesus, of which John here speaks, and which is not that of the pre-existent Logos? In Chap. 2, Joh 1:11, after the miracle of Cana, John says: And he manifested his glory. We might conclude from this that, as Weiss thinks, the earthly glory of the Logos consisted in the works of omnipotence, as well as in the words of omniscience, which the Father gave Him to do and to utter.

Nevertheless, in chap. Joh 17:10, Jesus says: I am glorified in them, and this expression leads us to a more spiritual idea of the glory which He possessed here on earth. Even in our verse, the words: full of grace and truth, describe the Word and give us a much more moral notion of His glory than the explanation of Weiss implies. The essential character of this earthly glory of the Logos was, as it appears to me, the stamp of sonship impressed upon the whole human life of Jesus, the intimate communion with the Father which so profoundly distinguished His life from every other. Jesus puts us upon the right path when, before uttering the words: I am glorified in them, He says (Joh 17:10): All things that are mine are thine, and all things that are thine are mine. Such a relation with God is the most complete glory which can irradiate the face of a human being. It comprehends, of course, all the manifestations of such a relation, thus works of power, words of wisdom, the life of holiness and charity, all of divine grandeur and beauty, that the disciples beheld in Jesus. This explanation agrees with that of John himself in the following words: A glory as of the only- begotten from the Father. The conjunction , as, does not certainly express here a comparison between two similar things, but, as is often the case, the absolute agreement between the fact and the idea: a glory as (must be) that of the Son coming from the presence of the Father. Weiss urges against this explanation the absence of the article , of the, before the words: only- begotten Son and Father; and further, the most natural sense of , as, which is that of comparison.

He translates accordingly, A glory like to that of an only-begotten Son coming from a father, in the sense that every only son inherits the rank and fortune of his father. Thus in this case it was seen that God had conveyed all His glory to Jesus. But this explanation would imply that every father, who has an only son, possesses also a great fortune to convey to him, which is by no means true. The absence of the article, which leads Weiss to an explanation which is so forced, is much better explained by the fact that the terms only Son and Father are treated here as proper names, or at least as substantives designating single beings of their kind (Winer’s Grammar, 18). Indeed, the Father in question is the Father, in the absolute sense, the one from whom every one who is called father in heaven and on earth derives his paternal character (Eph 2:15); and this only Son is the only one, not merely as the sole son of this father, but inasmuch as He is the absolute model and prototype of every one who among the sons of men bears the name of only son, With reference to , as, used to indicate the complete agreement of the fact with the idea, comp. the quite similar in Mat 7:29; 1Co 5:3; 2Co 2:17; Gal 3:16, etc. The glory of the incarnate Logos was undoubtedly, therefore, a humbler glory than that of his pre-existent state, but a glory which, nevertheless, marked Him as united to God by the bond of an unparalleled filial intimacy.

There was seen in Him, as never in any man, the assurance of being loved paternally by God, of the power of asking everything of Him with the certainty of being heard, and at the same time the most perfect filial fidelity towards Him. This unique glory of the Word made flesh the apostle describes, when he characterizes the entire earthly manifestation of the Word by that last stroke of his pencil: Full of grace and truth. We refer these words to the principal subject of the whole sentence, the Word. This is the simple and correct construction of the nominative , full; it is also that which gives the best sense. Undoubtedly, this adjective might be made a nominative absolute, with Grotius, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss and others, by referring it either to : glory full of grace… (hence the reading in D), or rather to of him, His glory, His who was full of grace… (hence the reading pleni in Augustine). But these explanations, which are grammatically possible, appear to me to misconceive the true movement of the sentence. Carried away by the charm of the recollection, the evangelist interrupted the historical description of the relations which the Word sustained to those who surrounded Him; he now takes up again the picture which remained unfinished,not that a parenthesis must be supposed including the words from to ; there is no deliberate interruption; the ardor of feeling caused the break in the sentence, which is now completed. In the Old Testament, the two essential features of the character of God were grace and truth (Exo 34:6): abundant in grace and truth.

These are also the two features which, in John’s view, distinguished the human life of the Word made flesh, and which served to reveal to Him His filial relation to the Father. Grace: the divine love investing the character with affableness towards friends, with condescension towards inferiors, with compassion towards the wretched, with pardon towards the guilty; God consenting to give Himself. And as it is from grace that life flows forth, the Word became anew for believers, by reason of this first characteristic, what He had been originally for the world (Joh 1:4), the source of life. The second feature, truth, is the reality of things adequately brought to light. And, as the essence of things is the moral idea which presides over the existence of each one of them, truth is the holy and good thought of God completely unveiled; it is God revealed. Through this attribute the incarnate Word also became anew what He originally was, the light of men (Joh 1:4-5). By these two essential attributes of Jesus’ character, therefore, the witnesses of His life were able to recognize in Him the only Son coming from the presence of the Father. Their feeling was this: This being is God given, God revealed in a human existence.

As a man who has made an important discovery recalls with satisfaction the suggestions which caused the first awakening of his thought and set his mind on its way forward, so from this experience, which he had had, the apostle transports himself to the decisive moment when he heard the first revelation of the fact of the incarnation. Not understood at the beginning, but afterwards made clear. For it is to this divine fact that the word of the forerunner which he is about to cite refers. John detaches this testimony from the historical situation in which it was declared, and which will be expressly recalled in Joh 1:30; and he makes use of it, at this time, simply with a didactic purpose, confirming by its means the capital fact of the incarnation, set forth in Joh 1:14. It is the second testimony, that of the official divine herald, following after that of the eye-witnesses.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Joh 1:14-18. The Full and Final Revelation.The work of the Logos culminated in what alone could give to men a complete and intelligible revelation, so far as man can grasp it, of the nature and being of God. The Divine Logos, who, as God, has the knowledge of God which none else can have, entered into the life of men, under the ordinary conditions of humanity, so that He could speak to men in their own language. His disciples had seen how, when He dwelt in the tent of flesh (cf. 2Co 5:1 fT.), as the Shechinah appeared in Israel in the Tent (Exo 25:8 f.), His true character and being shone forth, the glory of an only-begotten son, on whom the Father of all had bestowed all that He had to give, full of the attractiveness that Gods favour gives, and of truth, so that He could make God known to men. The only natural explanation of Joh 1:14 is that it refers to bodily and not spiritual vision (cf. 1Jn 1:1 f.). It was rendered possible by the Word becoming flesh.

Once more (Joh 1:15) there is an appeal to Johns witness. He spoke with no uncertain voice (cf. Rom 9:27). It is given in words which are practically a quotation of Joh 1:30, where the phrase of whom I spake is a natural reference to Joh 1:27. (Here the words are awkward, hence the correction noted in mg.) He was before me must imply belief in His pre-existence. The Book of Enoch shows that One who was regarded as Messiah would be so thought of. The difficulty is bound up with that of Johns recognition of Jesus as Messiah. Joh 1:16 and even Joh 1:17 f. are sometimes attributed to the Baptist. But they clearly take up the thought of Joh 1:14. We saw and knew, for we all received from His fullness in ever-increasing supply. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is sharply pointedlegal precepts, powerless to give life, imposed through the agency of a man, and the gift of true life and true knowledge brought into being and implanted in men by the creative energy of a greater than Moses. No man has seen or can tell of God. God only begotten, (mg.) the Word who is Divine and possesses the whole power of God, with whom He lives in active communion, has made God known. The sense will be the same if the easier, but less forcible, reading the only-begotten Son (cf. Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18, 1Jn 4:9) is adopted.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 14

Was made flesh; became man. The statement here made, taken in connection with what is said of the Word in the opening verses of the chapter, seems to be so direct and unequivocal, that the doctrine of the inhering of a divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ, and that of the inspiration of the Word, of God, must be received or rejected together. It seems impossible to reject the one without renouncing the other.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Was made: not that the Word was changed into flesh, or flesh into the Word, for, as S. Chrysostom says, “far from that immortal nature is transmutation.” For how could flesh become God, that is, how could the creature become the Creator? Neither does it mean that the Word was made flesh, that is, became a man, in such a sense that He assumed not only human nature, but a human person, as Nestorius thought. “It is not as if,” says Theophylact, “the Word had found a man endued with virtues, and united him to Himself,” as the Holy Ghost united Himself to the prophets, the angel Raphael to Tobias. But it is that He united the nature of man to His own Hypostasis, and caused that the man Jesus should subsist in- the same Hypostasis as God the Word, God the Son. Moreover, the Word was made flesh, not in imagination, nor appearance, nor fancy, as the Manichans maintained, but in the very truth and reality of actual fact. The Word was made man, I say, not by Himself alone, but by the whole Trinity. For all the Holy Trinity way the efficient cause of the Incarnation of the Word, but still in such a manner that the Hypostatic Union was with the sole Person of the Word, not with that of the Father, or the Holy Ghost: and the Son alone became man. “For the Trinity itself made the Word only to be flesh,” says S. Fulgentius (lib. de fide ad Petr.)

The Word therefore clothed with flesh was as the sun vested with a cloud, or as fire burning iron, or as a burning coal, as S. Cyril says. Wherefore its type and symbol is a carbuncle, as I have said on Rev 21:29. Again, it was like unto a pearl in a shell, or as lightning in a cloud, or as gold in a furnace, or an angel in a body. Moreover S. Augustine says (lib. 15. de Trin. c. 11), “As our speech becomes a voice, and yet is not changed into a voice, so the Word of God being made flesh was not changed into flesh.”

I have said more on the subject of the Incarnation in the first chapter of S. John’s Epistle. Among other things I have shown that it was with this end and object in view, that the Word which before, as God, was our Father, might become, as it were, our Mother, through the Humanity which He assumed. And I added from Damascene, that God assumed human nature, that He might unite the whole world to Himself by it, and, as it were, make it godlike.

And dwelt among us: Greek, , i.e., tabernacled amongst us for a short time, like a guest and a foreigner in a strange land. For He was a citizen and an inhabitant, and the Lord of Heaven and Paradise. As it is said in Jeremiah (xiv. 8), “Wherefore wilt thou be as a sojourner in the land, and as a wayfarer turning aside to lodge?” Christ therefore wished to teach us by His own example that this world is, as it were, a guest-house, but that heaven is our country, which we ought to strive to attain, despising earthly things.

SS. Chrysostom and Cyril explain a little differently. Among us, i.e., in us, in our nature, namely, in the Humanity which He assumed, that He might redeem us. S. Chrysostom gives the reason. “The Word constructed a holy temple for Himself, and by means of it introduced from heaven a way in which we should spend our life.”

And we have seen His glory: Greek, , we have gazed upon, as on a new and wonderful spectacle in a theatre, that the Word veiled in flesh might indeed show us the glory of His Godhead by means of miracles and Divine wisdom. Thus the Apostle says (1Co 4:9), “We were made a spectacle (Greek, a theatre) to the world, to angels and to men.” Listen to S. Austin, “By that His nativity He made an eye-salve, whereby the eyes of our heart might be cleansed. No man could see His glory unless he would be healed by the humility of the flesh. Flesh had blinded thee: flesh healeth thee. Thus cometh the physician that by the flesh He may heal the vices of the flesh.”

The glory as of the only Begotten. The meaning is, we have seen the glory of Christ, being such and so great as became the Only Begotten Son: or that it was such as might manifest Him to be the Only Begotten Son of God. For to Him, as S. Basil says, hath God the Father given all His glory, all His substance, as parents are wont to leave all their inheritance to an only begotten son. This glory of Christ did S. John with his fellows behold in the Transfiguration upon Mount Tabor, in His glorious Resurrection, in His Ascension, and in His Divine life and miracles. Therefore the word as here denotes not similitude, but reality. So S. Chrysostom says, “The word as in this place is an expression not of similarity, but of confirmation, and certain definition.” And Theophylact says, “We behold His glory, not such as that which Moses had, nor glory such as that with which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet, but glory such as that which became the Only Begotten of the Father, the glory which appertains to Him by His nature.”

Moreover, the glory of the Godhead of Christ shone through the flesh which He assumed, as through a veil, as Euthymius says, who further adds, “What was that grace of the Word? Surely it was the performance of miracles such as had never been beheld before: it was His bright and supernatural Transfiguration, the preternatural darkening of the sun at the time of His Passion, the fearful rending of the veil, the terrible earthquake, the rending of the rocks, the opening of the graves, the raising of the dead, and that which is the chief of all, wonderful beyond speech or thought, the Resurrection of the Lord.”

Of the Father. This is added, saith S. Bernard, “because Christ hath brought to us from the Father’s heart everything that is paternal, that fear itself might perceive nothing in the Son of God but what is sweet and fatherly towards the human race.” More loftily, and more literally, says St. Cyril, “That supernatural grace is ever firm and immutable, ever the same, ever equally full of its own dignity. Wherefore, although the Word was made flesh, He was not overcome by the infirmity of the flesh, nor did He fall from His ancient majesty and omnipotence, because He became man. For we saw, he says, the glory of Christ from God, more lofty than the glory of creatures, that every one who is in possession of his senses might confess that it could belong to no other than to the Only Begotten Son of God.”

Full of grace and truth. Erasmus and Cajetan join these words to what follows, and refer them to John the Baptist. They connect and translate as follows, John being full of grace and truth bears witness of Him, namely, of Jesus, that He is the Christ. They support their view by saying that the Greek for full is in the nominative masculine. But this pointing and translation is opposed to all the Fathers, and the perpetual consent of the Church, contrary, too, to the pointing of the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic versions, which place a full stop after truth. It is moreover inconsistent with what follows, for John, explaining how Christ was full of grace and truth, subjoins, of His fulness have all we received. The Greek for full being in the nominative, is inconclusive, as well because many MSS. have in the accusative, and others have in the margin, as also because the preceding words, And we have seen His glory, the glory &c., should be read as in a parenthesis. For , the nominative refers to , meaning, the Word was made flesh, being full of grace and truth. Thee is a reference to human speech, the greatest commendation of which is, when it is gracious and true. So also the Divine Word, not merely as He is in Himself, but also as He became flesh, carried with Him most excellent grace, as it were in a fountainhead, and was most abundantly endowed by God with every gift of grace, both in word and deed, according as it was said, “And all marvelled at the words of grace which proceeded out of His mouth” (Luk 4:22.). The same Word made flesh was full of truth also, because He was exposed all errors, and banished the shadows of tie Old Law, and brought to light the very truth itself which was promised by the prophets. “In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:5).

Full of grace: “For we have not see the glory of power or splendour,” says S. Bernard, “but the glory of paternal kindness,” the glory of grace, of which the Apostle saith, “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph 1:6). Wherefore the Apostle exclaims, (1Ti 3:16), “Great is the mystery of piety” (namely, the Word made flesh), “which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” For how full and altogether perfect was the grace of Christ, see the teaching of S. Thomas (3 p. q. 7.art. 9 et seq.)

And truth. A symbol of the union of grace and truth is found in the breastplate of the high priest Aaron, which bore the inscription of Urim and Thummim, that is, doctrines and truth, or, literally, illumination and perfection, that is, truth and grace. These two superabounded in Christ, and are especially needful for every priest that he may be like Christ.

Therefore although the Blessed Virgin, S. Stephen, and other saints are said to be full of grace above other men, yet in respect of Christ were they not full. For Christ is, as it were, an ocean flowing out in rivers of grace to all the faithful, to apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins. As the Apostle says (Col 2:9), “in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And again, “To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (Eph 4:7), and “To the Son God hath not given the Spirit by measure.”

Ver. 15.-John bears witness, &c. He proves what he had said concerning the Word Incarnate, and that He was full of grace and truth, by the irrefragable testimony of John the Baptist. For him the Jews accounted as a prophet and divine. It is as if he said, “Not only have we seen Jesus Christ full of grace and truth, but John, who was sent from God, openly and plainly has testified the same concerning Him.”

And crieth: the Greek is, , i.e., cried out. For he himself was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isa 40:23). “Whom not I myself alone have heard,” says S. Cyril, “but far and wide among all hath his cry come. For it was not in secret, nor with low and stammering accents, but louder than a trumpet.” As S. Chrysostom says, “Freely and confidently, casting away fear, he preached the advent of God.”

This was He of whom I spake: see verses 27 and 30. It means, “Before John had seen and known Christ, he said, that He was about to come to save man. And when he had seen Him, he repeated and confirmed it.” As Theophylact says, “Lest he should seem to please merely the person of Jesus, in speaking in too much praise of Him, he saith, of whom I spake, that is, even before I had seen Him.”

He who cometh, i.e., who is about to preach, says S. Chrysostom, after me, was before me. That is, He is preferred in honour before me, because He was the destined Redeemer of the world. As Bede says, “not in order of time, but of dignity.” And S. Augustine, “He was not made before I was made” (for John was born six months before Christ), but He was placed before me.”

For He was before me: for since Jesus is true God, He was from eternity. So SS. Augustine and Chrysostom. Again, before means, greater by nature, more worthy in majesty. S. Chrysostom remarks, “John does not say, Christ, by making advance in grace and virtue, hath surpassed me; but He was before me, i.e., ‘He was always my superior, always more glorious than I,'” as Cyril adds, because He was very God.”

And of His fulness, &c. He follows up and unfolds what he had said in the fourteenth verse that the Word Incarnate was full of grace and truth: for of this plenitude of grace and truth have all we, apostles and Christians, yea, all the faithful before Christ, received. For Enoch, Noab, Moses, and all the rest of the prophets and patriarchs, have been sanctified and saved by the aforeseen merits of Christ. Origen and Theophylact think that these are a continuation of the words of John the Baptist; but SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others better take them as the words of S. John the Evangelist, confirming the preceding words of the Baptist.

Of His fulness: i.e., of Him who is most full. For Christ as the Head of the Church sheds abroad upon all the faithful, who are His members, not the whole fulness of His grace, but a portion thereof according to His will. “The saints,” says Bede, “receive not the fulness of His Spirit, but of His fulness what He giveth.” “For from the fulness of the Son,” says S. Cyril, “as a perpetual fountain, the gifts of grace flow out abroad to each soul that is worthy of them.” This is what the Apostle says, “He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places,” i.e., by “Christ,” (Eph 1:3) “For He is the fountain and the root of all good,” says S. Chrysostom; “He is life, He is light, He is truth, not keeping in Himself the riches of His goodness, but diffusing them to all, and when He bath diffused them remaining full. Neither is there any diminution in Him of that which He supplies to others, but He ever bestows His riches yet more abundantly; and when He has imparted to all He still abides in the same perfectness.”

And grace for grace: Greek, , where , for, is the same as instead of. First some expound thus, grace for grace, i.e., grace upon grace, or, all grace have we received from Christ. As it might be said in Hebrew, chen al chen. But this would require instead of in the Greek. Johannes Alba, however, defends this interpretation. Grace for grace, he says, means copious and superabundant grace. He quotes the Hebrew expressions in the Prophets, stroke upon stroke, for a very great stroke, or plague: and Job’s skin for skin, i.e., skin upon skin, meaning all a man’s flocks and herds, skin after skin, will he give for his life. Suarez takes the same view: Grace for grace, i.e., second grace instead of first grace. That is to say, we all, not men only, but angels, have received increasing grace.

2. Maldonatus, grace for grace; i.e., one man has received one grace or favour; another, instead of it, another grace. But this does not suit the meaning of the Greek , which signifies succession, not distribution.

3. S. Austin says, we receive the grace of life eternal, that is, beatific glory, here in hope, and after death in reality, instead of the grace of this life. For, on the one hand, grace is the seed of glory; and on the other hand, glory is the consummation of grace.

4. Others say, we have received from Christ the evangelical instead of the ancient Law. For each is grace, because given gratis by God. So S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Jansen, &c.

5. Others expound, In the grace of Christ we have all received grace, and by Him have been made pleasing to God. Wherefore Paul declares constantly that we are justified and sanctified in Christ. This is a useful, but not an exact meaning, for the Greek means instead of, not in.

6. And exactly: The Greek has two meanings; chiefly and precisely it denotes vicarious succession, answering to the Hebrew tachath, in the place, or room of. “For the grace of Christ we, as it were, His sons and successors, have received like grace with Him. For as the grace of Christ made Him well-pleasing unto God, so likewise does the same grace make us pleasing unto God, and sons of God by adoption.” So SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. Secondly, is often used, though improperly, for on account of: “on account of, or, through the grace of Christ as a fountain, we have received grace.” It is explanatory of what precedes-and of His fulness have all we received-by means of what follows, even grace for grace. For grace flows down from God through Christ as our Head unto us, who are, as it were, His members, as the Apostle teaches (Eph. i.) For God has willed to appoint Christ to be, as it were, the universal fountain of grace, from whence every grace should flow down to the faithful, that we may owe everything to Christ, and render unto Him endless and infinite thanks. For the sake of Christ, who is well-pleasing and most beloved in His sight, who is also the Mediator, God has reconciled us unto Himself, and enriched us with His grace and friendship, according to the words in S. Mat 3:7, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;” and no man pleases Me except through Him. From hence it is plain that we receive from Christ the same grace which He has in Himself-the same, I say, in kind, not in degree, which would be, ordinarily speaking, unbecoming and impossible, though some have even maintained this. Thirdly, the word “for” () might denote a certain equality. For this is the meaning of the Greek compound , that is to say, the equal of God, or he who makes himself a god, as Lucifer did, and Antichrist will do. So also antitype (), is that which is set over against and corresponds, that which is equal, and of the same form. And the antipodes are properly those who walk with their feet planted exactly opposite to our own. The meaning then would be-Through Christ we have received grace as it were equal to the grace of Christ, because by it we have been lifted up, and made to belong to the Divine order of things, that is to say, sons of God, and “partakers of the Divine nature” (2Pe 1:4). Thus the Apostles were in some sense the fellows and peers of Christ, for He calls them His brethren. Thus the Pope calls the cardinals brethren, and so, in some sort, equals them to himself. Let a believer then, more especially a priest, or a religious, think with himself how he ought to live like Christ and lead the heavenly life which Christ led, that whosoever shall see him, or hear him, may say he has seen and heard Christ in his lively image.

Under the word grace here include truth also. For Christ is spoken of as full of grace and truth. And of His fulness of both have we all received. For through Christ have we received truth, that is, knowledge of God, faith, wisdom, understanding of salvation and things Divine: also remission of sins, reconciliation with God, the adoption of sons, charity, humility and all other virtues and gifts. All are here comprehended under the word grace.

Ver. 16.-For the law was given by Moses, &c. He gives the reason why through Christ we have received grace for grace. It is because Moses, who was the Jews’ greatest prophet and lawgiver, could only give a law which taught and commanded the precepts of God, but could not bestow grace to keep those commandments. Hence the need of Christ to give grace to fulfil the law. Wherefore the Arabic translates, grace the and truth were needful through Jesus Christ. The Evangelist therefore opposes, and prefers Christ to Moses, grace to law. 1. Because Moses in the law only taught directly what God willed the Jews to do, namely the precepts of the Decalogue, under the promise of temporal blessings, such as abundance of corn, wine and oil. But the way of salvation, remission of sins, justification, and holiness, by which we arrive at life eternal, he did not teach, much less bestow that life. But Christ hath both taught it, and hath also bestowed it, through that grace and truth which He hath brought from heaven. That is what Zacharias sings of in the first chapter of Luke, “To give knowledge of salvation unto His people for the remission of sins.” Thus too S. Chrysostom, “Grace came by Christ because with authority He forgave sins, and bestowed regeneration. Truth came by Him because He fulfilled the types and figures.”

2. In the law was a threefold commandment, the moral law, or the Decalogue; the judicial, and the ceremonial law. To the two first the Evangelist opposes grace, without which they could not be observed. And the effect of grace is that a believer fulfilling the same law from love of God, deserves eternal life. To the ceremonial law he opposes truth, because those ceremonies were types and shadows of Christ and His sacraments, which shadows Christ fulfilled, and so brought in truth. Wherefore S. Austin saith, “When the Law itself was fulfilled” (through Christ), “grace and truth came in. Grace pertains to the fulness of charity, truth to accomplishment of prophecy” (cont. Faust. c. 6).

3. Because Moses gave only an obscure and slight knowledge of God and the Holy Trinity, but Christ a knowledge that was clear and full. Wherefore Bede thus comprises the whole of what we have been saying. “Christ being made man hath declared what we ought to think concerning the truth of the Trinity, in what manner we ought to hasten to the contemplation of It, by what acts we ought to arrive at It.”

Symbolically, S. Austin (lib. de. Trin. 13, cap. 19) by grace understands the Word Himself, incarnate in time; by truth the eternal vision of God, to which He leads us. This is what he says: “In things that have their origin in time, the highest grace is, that man is united to God by unity of person; but in things eternal the highest truth is rightly attributed to the Word of God. Now in that He is the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, it is brought to pass that He should be the same in the things which are done for us in time, for whom we are cleansed by the like faith, so that we may steadfastly contemplate Him in the things eternal.”

Ver. 18.-No man hath seen God, &c. He gives the reason why neither Moses, nor any one else, but Christ alone, hath taught us the perfect truth concerning God and Divine things-because He alone hath seen God. It is as though he said, those things of which thus far I have been speaking, concerning God and the Word, are so sublime, that inasmuch as no mortal man (and therefore not Moses), except the Son of God, hath seen God, therefore that Incarnate Son alone is able perfectly to declare these things. Thus the Fathers passim; who teach from this passage that Moses saw not the essence of God, but only a certain luminous substance assumed by an angel, in some manner representing to the eyes of Moses the glory of God. Thus S. Gregory says in the Catena: “So long as we live here in mortal flesh, God may be seen by certain manifestations or images of Him, but as He is in His own nature He cannot be seen.”

Tropologically, & Gregory teaches (lib. 18, Mor. cap. ult. et. penult.), that no one can behold God and Divine things, unless he first die to this world and its pleasures. For thus he expounds the words in the 18th chapter of Job, It is hid from the eyes of the living: “Because whoever seeth wisdom, which is God Himself, dieth wholly to this life, lest he should be holden of its love. For no man seeth It who still liveth to the flesh, because no man can at the same time embrace God and the world. For he who seeth God dieth in this respect, either in will, or in reality, for with his whole soul he is separated from the pleasures of this life.”

The Only Begotten who is in the bosom: Syriac, in the lap: S. Cyril, in the womb, for this is one meaning of the Greek . It is a figure of speech. For by bosom is signified the highest possible union of the Son with the Father. It means that the Son, who is most closely united, and consubstantial with the Father, is partaker of the wisdom of the Father, and conscious of His most secret counsels. And because He knoweth them most perfectly and intimately, therefore He alone is able most fully and plainly to declare them. And so in fact He has declared them. Thus SS. Chryostom, Cyril, and Augustine. S. Athanasius observes (lib. 3 de Unica Trin. substant.) that this expression, the Only Begotten, which is in the bosom of the Father, is made use of lest when it is said that He was made flesh, it should be supposed that He was divided from the Father. For in truth He abideth, and is with the Father, even as He was in the beginning, and everlasting.

Listen to S. Chrysostom, who by this word bosom thinks it is signified that the Son not only sees, but comprehends the Father. “Many,” saith he, “know God, yet none but the Only Begotten Son know of what nature His substance is. He has certain knowledge, sight, and comprehension, such as it is befitting a son to have of his father. For as the Father knoweth Me, He said, so also know I the Father, (John x. 15). Observe therefore with what fulness of language the Evangelist speaks; for when he says, no man hath seen God at any time, he does not go on to say, the Son who hath seen, hath declared Him, but He who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared Him. For he who only seeth hath not certain knowledge of the thing seen: but he who dwelleth in the bosom, to him are all things plain and certain. Lest therefore when you hear, no man knoweth the Father save the Son (Matt. xi. 27), you should say that though He hath greater knowledge of the Father than others have, and yet knows not what His nature is, therefore the Evangelist says, ‘He is in the bosom of the Father.'”

There is an allusion to the words of David concerning, Christ in the 110th Psalm (Psa 110:3), “From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee” (Vulg.) That is, “From my fruitful understanding I have, as it were, as a Word spoken this, and as a Son have I begotten thee.” S. Jerome says, “From the womb, i.e., of My substance, of My nature, of the very essence of My substance, have I begotten Thee.” So also Theodoret says, “From the womb,” that is, “of My substance. For as human beings produce from the womb, and that which they bring forth hath the same nature as those who bring it forth, so art Thou begotten of Me, and Thou showest forth in Thyself the substance of Him who begat.” Moreover, Jerome himself translates this verse of the 110th Psalm thus, “The dew of Thy youth shall arise to Thee as it were from the womb;” Aquila, “The dew of Thy childhood arising to Thee early from the womb.” It means, “Of My Deity have I begotten Thee God:” as it is in the Creed, “God of God.” So SS. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, and others against the Arians. For dew means in Hebrew the same as flower in English. “Dew,” says R. Solomon, “means sweetness, joyfulness, purity of heavenly generation, as it were dew born of the heavenly dayspring.”

He hath declared: that is, He hath clearly explained and set forth to His disciples, and through them to the whole world. The Greek is , which S. Chrysostom says means clearly to explain secret and hidden things, as Christ has explained to us the secrets of the Father concerning the Trinity and the Word, concerning the vocation of man, grace, resurrection, heavenly glory, and such like. “This word,” says S. Chrysostom, “sets forth more express and certain doctrine: wherefore also Christ is called the Word, and (the Angel) of great counsel.”

Ver. 19.-And this is the witness of John, &c. John the Baptist often bare witness to Jesus, that He was the Messias, or the Christ, both before and after His baptism. John the Evangelist therefore, omitting in this place the testimony which the Baptist bore to Jesus before His baptism, which had been related by the three other Evangelists, gives his testimony concerning Him after he had baptised Him. For this testimony was public, judicial, and most celebrated. It had been judicially demanded by the chief priests and magistrates, and had been received by them through the ambassadors whom they sent to John. The reason of this embassy was because the chief priests saw John leading in the desert an angelic life, preaching with great power, baptising, and moving men to repentance, as none of the other prophets had done. The chief priests thought therefore that it was their duty to ask him who he was, especially because they knew that the sceptre had passed from Judah to Herod, and the seventy weeks of Daniel being completed, the coming of Messias must be nigh at hand. Wherefore, suspecting that John was the Messias, they ask him, Who art thou?

S. Chrysostom gives another reason-that they asked out of envy and hatred of Jesus, in order that they might show that Jesus was not the Messiah. They would have preferred to bestow the title upon John. They disliked John’s preferring Jesus to himself, and calling Him the Messias or Christ. But although there might be some envy mingled with it, the true reason was, as I have said, that it was the counsel of God so to exalt John, that the chief priests might be driven to ask him whether he were the Christ or not, that being asked he might authoritatively answer that which was the truth, namely, that not he, but Jesus, was the Messias, and that, being convicted by this testimony of John, they might be compelled either to receive Jesus as the Messias or to be without excuse.

Who art thou? The chief priests appear tacitly at least to have inquired of John, whether he were the Christ or not; for John replies, I am not the Christ.

Moreover, they were aware that John was the son of the priest Zacharias, and therefore a priest himself. When therefore they say, Who art thou? they ask virtually, What office hast thou received from God ? With what object has God sent thee to preach and baptize? For God was wont to commit greater offices to priests.

Tropologically, let every one often ask himself, Who art Thou? Firstly, as regards our substance. Listen to thy conscience making answer to thyself-the name of God my Creator is, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14) My name therefore as a creature is “I am that am not,” because I am nothing of myself, but out of my nothingness have been brought forth by God, and made a man. Wherefore my body and soul are not my own, but God’s, who has given them, or rather lent them, to me. As S. Francis was wont to say, “Who art Thou, Lord? Who am I? Thou art an abyss of wisdom and long-suffering, and all goodness. I am an abyss of ignorance, weakness, of all evil and wretchedness. Thou art an abyss of being, I of nothingness.” So when Christ appeared to S. Catherine of Sienna, He said, “Blessed art thou if thou knowest who I am, and who thou art. I am He who is, thou art she who is not.”

Secondly, as to quality. Who? that is, of what sort art thou? Answer, As regards my body, I am weak, miserable, and wretched. As to my soul, as regards my reason, I am like unto the angels. As regards my sensual appetite, and concupiscence, I am like the brutes. Therefore I will follow my reason, and so become assimilated to the angels.

Thirdly, as regards relation. Who? that is, whose son art thou? Reply, I am the son of Adam, the first sinner, and therefore being born in sin, I am living in sin, and must die in sin, unless the grace of Christ rescue me from my sins, and sanctify and save me.

Fourthly, as regards employment. Who art thou? what trade or profession art thou? I am a carpenter, a baker, a governor, a shepherd, a lawyer. See then that thou exercise thyself in thy calling, whatsoever it be, as the law of God requires, namely, in such wise that thou live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God, that thou mayest so pass through things temporal, that thou lose not, but gain the things eternal. Work, study, live for eternity. As S. Bernard was wont often to say to himself, “Bernard, tell me, wherefore art thou here?” And with this goad, as it were, he stirred himself up to zeal for all virtues.

Fifthly, as regards suffering. Who art thou? that is to say, what dost thou suffer? Reply, In the body I suffer hunger, thirst, disease, continual afflictions, so that there is scarcely the smallest space of time: in which I have not many things to bear. As regards my soul, I have far greater and more bitter afflictions, griefs, and anguish, anxieties, sorrows, angers, indignation, darkness, fear, &c., so that I seem to be, as it were, a mark at which all afflictions hurl their darts, and thrust me through with their arrows. Be thou therefore a very adamant of patience, that thou mayest patiently and generously endure all things, and win the everlasting crown of patience in heaven.

Sixthly, as regards place. Who? that is, where art thou? Answer, I am on earth, placed between heaven and hell, in such wise, that if I live holily, I may pass to heaven, if wickedly, to hell. Live therefore carefully, warily, and holily, that not hell, but heaven may receive thee, when this short mortal life is over.

Seventhly, as regards time. Who art thou? When wast thou born? How long hast thou lived? When shalt thou die? Answer, Born yesterday, today I live, to-morrow I die. “For we are of yesterday, and know nothing; all our days upon the earth are but a shadow” (Job viii. 9). Therefore despise all things temporal, which fly past as a bird doth. Love and covet heavenly things, which endure forever with God and the angels. So shalt thou, being eternal, be happy eternally, and abide in everlasting delights. For as S. Gregory says, “That we may be eternal, and happy eternally, let us imitate eternity. And this is to us a great eternity, even the imitation of eternity.”

Lastly, as regards posture and clothing. Who art thou? that is, what posture, or clothing hast thou? Reply, I stand, I sit, I lie. I wear the habit of a Christian, a priest, a bishop, a religious. Take heed then that thou live conformably to thy habit. For it is not the habit which makes the Christian, or the monk, but purity of life, humility, charity.

Ver. 20.-And he confessed, &c. That is, publicly, plainly, and fully that he was not the Christ. For when the Hebrews wished very strongly to assert anything, they doubled the affirmative, and trebled the negative. Observe the great humility of S. John: how firmly he refused the name of Christ when it was offered to him. For he loved the truth, and Jesus, to whom this name belonged. Men of the world love to boast, and say, I am a nobleman, a governor, a canon, a bishop. But John teaches us to say, “I am nothing,” because if I am anything, I have it from God.

Ver. 21.-And they asked him, &c. When John denied that he was the Christ, the messengers asked him if he were Elias. For him God took away, that he might be the forerunner of Christ. And of him they were then in expectation, according to the words of Malachi (Mal 4:5), “Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come,” meaning the day of judgment, when Christ shall return to be the judge of all. But the Scribes did not understand this. They thought that there would be but one advent of Christ, and that a glorious one, the precursor of which would be Elias. Thus the Jews think even now that Christ has not yet come, but is about to come with Elias. And yet they ought to have known from the same Malachi (Mal 3:1) that there would be another precursor of Christ’s first coming in the flesh, even John the Baptist. “For I,” saith the Lord, “do send My messenger, and he shall prepare My way before My face.”

Art thou that prophet? Greek, , the prophet par excellence. “Art thou a new and great prophet, such an one as we think will come with Messiah, to be His herald?” So SS. Chrysostom and Cyril. But they (the Jews) were in error. For Christ needed not a prophet, as Moses, who was not eloquent, needed Aaron. But Christ was His own prophet, herald, priest, and lawgiver. Moreover John was not a prophet in the sense that he foretold things to come. But he pointed out with his finger, as it were, Christ present. Therefore was he more than a prophet, as Christ says in the 11th of Matthew.

Ver. 23.-I am the Voice, &c. (Isa 40:3), where I have expounded the meaning. Listen to what the Fathers say about it. “I am a servant, and prepare paths, your hearts, for the Lord,” says Theophylact. “I come, he says, to say that He is at the doors who is expected, that you may be prepared to go whithersoever He may bid you,” says Cyril.

Ver. 24.-And they that were sent, &c. John adds this, to suggest the occasion why they examined John the Baptist concerning baptism. These messengers who were sent to John were Pharisees, and therefore were well versed in the Scriptures. Consequently they knew that Messiah would baptize for the remission of sins, because Ezekiel (Eze 36:25) and Zechariah (Zec 13:1) had predicted that He would do so. But concerning other prophets and saints they had not read in Scripture that they would baptize. They ask John therefore to tell them by what authority he baptized, especially since he not only asserted that he was not Christ, but not even a prophet.

Ver. 25.-And they asked him, &c. “These Pharisees,” says S. Cyril, in their arrogancy insult John, as though they said, Neither Elias, nor Eliseus, nor any of the other prophets dared to take upon themselves the office of baptizing. With what face then, or boldness, dost thou, who art not a prophet, arrogate this office to thyself?”

Ver. 26.-John answered them, &c. As though he had said, “God hath sent me to baptize with water, that I might stir you up to repentance and tears, so as to fit you for Christ’s baptism. For He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins,” as the remaining three Evangelists declare. Therefore John is silent about this.

There standeth one, &c. That is, Christ is living in the midst of you, and yet ye know Him not. That is, you do not recognise Him as Messiah, but look upon Him as a mere man, as vile and abject.

Ver. 27.-He it is who, coming after me, &c. After me Christ shall come to baptize you, that by His baptism He may perfect mine, and may wash and justify them that are penitent. As S. Cyril paraphrases, “I in preparation wash with water those who are polluted with sins as a beginning of repentance, and by this means leading you from what is lower I prepare you for more lofty things. For He who is the giver of greater things, and of the highest perfection, is about to come after me.” Or, as S. Chrysostom says,

“My baptism is only a disposition and preparation for the baptism of Christ. Mine is of water and corporeal, Christ’s is of fire and spiritual.”

Whose shoe’s latchet, &c. As though he said, “I am not worthy to be reckoned amongst the last of the servants of Christ, on account of the greatness of the Deity which is in Him.”

Ver 28.-These things were done in, &c. Bethany is the reading of the Latin, Syriac, Arabic versions, of many codices, including the Vatican, of Bede, Alcuin, the Gloss, &c. But instead of Bethany, Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Epiphanius, and S. Jerome (in loc. Heb.) read Bethabara, where Gideon slew the Midianites. I observe with Toletus that Bethany and Bethabara were one and the same place, or at least that one was nigh the other, or on opposite banks of the Jordan. This was the place in which the Hebrews, when they came out of Egypt first crossed the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua, to enter the promised land. For Bethabara means in Hebrew a house of passage; Bethany, a house of ships. For vessels were waiting here to carry passengers over Jordan. This Bethany is derived from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with alpha, a ship. The Bethany of Martha and Lazarus was a different place, and spelt differently in Hebrew. That Bethany means the house of humility, from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with ain, humility.

John, then, chose this place wherein to baptize for several reasons, because of the abundance of water, also in memory of the ancient passage of the Israelites. S. Jerome says (loc. Hebris), “Even at this present time many of our brethren who believe, desiring there to be born again, are baptized in the life-giving flood.” They did this in memory of Christ, who was there baptized by John. This place is distant about four leagues from the Dead Sea.

Observe, Christ was baptized on the 6th of January. It was fifty-five days afterwards that John bore this witness to Christ, or about the 1st of March, when Jesus was absent. On the day following Jesus presented Himself before John, when John renewed his testimony, saying, Behold the Lamb of God. (See Epiphan. Hres. 51.)

Whence there follows (Ver. 29), The next day again John saw, &c. Observe that after Jesus was baptized He went into the desert, where He fasted for forty days, as is plain from S. Mat 4:2. Then He came down from the Mount of Temptation, and returned to John, to visit and hear him; but especially that John might in His presence confirm the testimony which in His absence he had given to the messengers of the Jews; that he might point Him out with his very finger, and leave no place for hesitation to any.

Behold the Lamb of God. Nonnus paraphrases, “He lifted up his finger, and pointed Him out as He drew near to the people who beheld Him.” “The word Behold,” says S. Chrysostom, “is used because many were inquiring for Him: therefore he pointed Him out being present, saying, “This is He of whom I have been speaking.”

Lamb, Greek, , the Lamb divinely prefigured and predicted by Moses and Isaiah. “He is led as a lamb to the slaughter,” &c. (Isa 40:7).

Christ is thus called the Lamb by S. John the Baptist, and by His Apostle, S. John the Evangelist, in the Apocalypse. 1. Because He was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb, and by the daily morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb to God in the Temple, and by the other lambs which were offered for sin, according to the Law, and yet they could not take away sins. Wherefore they represented Christ, who was to take away sin by His Blood. So Origen, &c.

2. Because Christ was called a Lamb by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jer 11:19), who was to be offered for the redemption of the world.

3. He is called a Lamb because of his lamb-like innocence, meekness, patience, and obedience, even unto death, which, like a lamb, He bore in silence. As S. Peter says, “Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously” (1Pe 2:23).

Christ truly is called the Lamb of God, i.e., the offspring, not of sheep, but of God, who by the will of God was offered for man’s redemption. Thus the sacrifice which Abraham offered is called Abraham’s sacrifice, as Theophylact says. Or because He was offered up to God Himself. Or the Lamb of God is the Divine Lamb, because of the Deity which was in Him. Or as S. Clement of Alexandria says, because He was made for us the child and babe of the Father. So we call children, lambs. These are the words of Clement, Since the Scripture calls boys and infants lambs, he called God who is the Word, who for us was made man, who wished in all things to be made like unto us, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Infant of the Father” (Pdag. lib. 1 c. 5).

Moreover, Christ for His strength and His victory is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” He was a Lamb in His Passion, a Lion in His Resurrection.

Who taketh away the sins: taketh away, both as regards the stain which sin in act imprints upon the soul, and as regards the guilt of sin, which makes the sinner liable to hell. This He takes away by making expiation, and bearing the punishment in Himself, thus in justice and equity satisfying for sin by His death upon the cross. John said this, that no one might think Christ came to his baptism to wash away His own sins, as others did; for He had no sin, but was most innocent and most holy. Therefore God made Him the victim for the sins of the whole world, that He might sanctify all who repent and believe in Him. As S. Augustine says, “He who had no participation in our sinfulness is He who takes away our sin.”

Sin: this is the reading of the Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The Arabic reads sins; but the sense is the same. By sin here is to be understood the first and universal sin of Adam, that is, original sin, which he by generation transmitted to all his posterity, and out of which all actual sins, whether venial or mortal, spring. Christ therefore, in taking away sin, takes away its source as well as its filth. So Bede, S. Thomas, Jansen, &c. As Isaiah saith, “The Lord laid upon Him the iniquities of us all.” And, “He shall bear their iniquities;” and 1Jo 2:2, “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

As S. Cyril says, “One is slain for all, that the whole human race may be won to God the Father.” For there is in Christ a perpetual power of making expiation for sin in all ages and all nations, and in all men who are willing to receive His faith, His baptism, His repentance.

Ver. 31.-And I knew Him not, &c. As though he said, “Think not, 0 ye Jews, that I affirm Jesus to be the Messiah for the sake of friendship, or relationship, as though I were His friend and companion; for I declare unto you that I knew Him not, that I never saw Him, or spoke to Him, before His baptism. But as soon as I saw Him I recognised Him by the inspiration of God.” “What wonder,” says S. Chrysostom, “that he who from a child dwelt in the desert away from his father’s house knew not Christ?”

But that He should be manifested, &c. That is, to the Jews, to whom the Messiah was promised, “that they all might be brought to believe in Him.” Wherefore Nonnus paraphrases, “But that He whose face was unknown might be manifested to all the children of Israel, who have no ruler, I am come a precursor of the way not declared, baptizing an unlearned, ignorant, erring people.”

Ver. 33.-And I knew Him not, &c With water. Nonnus, “in the laver without fire and the Holy Ghost.” A second time S. John declares that he knew not Jesus was the Christ by sight and converse, but by revelation from God, that no one might dare to dispute his testimony. So S. Cyril.

Note the expression abiding. From this it is clear that it is peculiar to Christ to have all the graces of the Holy Spirit, and prophecy, by way of habit; but that in others only those gifts abide which are necessary for holiness of life: according to the words in chap. xiv., “He shall abide with you.” (See Suarez, Tract. de fide. disp. 8, sect. 6, n. 6.)

Ver. 35.-The next day, &c. The Evangelist says that John bare witness to Jesus in three consecutive days that He was the Christ. He did this to make his witness the more sure and solid. The first testimony that he gave was judicial, when he was asked by the messengers of the Jews. This was in the first day. The second he gave on the day following, which was the 2d of March. The third time was here on the 3d of March, before his own disciples, that he might cause them to pass from himself to Jesus.

Ver. 36.-And seeing Jesus as he walked, &c. As though he said, “Behold Christ like a spotless Lamb, destined for a victim, that He may be offered to God upon the cross, for the sins of the whole world.” When John spoke thus it was as though he said to his disciples, “Why do you follow me? follow Him who is the Lamb of God, the ransom of the world.”

Here observe the prudence and modesty of John. He does not compel or urge his disciples to follow Christ, but only points Him out to them, that they might the more ardently pursue after so great a good when it was discovered by themselves. Like a man who, when a jewel is being sold for a small price, points out to merchants how great is its worth, and causes them of their own accord to long to purchase it.

Ver. 37.-And two of his disciples, &c. S. Chrysostom says, “There were indeed others of S. John’s disciples, but they not only did not follow Christ, but were jealous of John’s, their master’s, honour, and preferred him to Christ, as is plain from Joh 3:26.

Two: one of those was Andrew, as appears from verse 40; who the other was is not known. S. Chrysostom asks, “Why is not the name of the other given? Either because it was the writer himself, S. John the Apostle, or because it was a person of no note.” The first idea is the more probable. And what favours the conjecture is that John and James were companions in fishing with Peter and Andrew (Mat 4:18-21), when, shortly after Andrew and Peter, Christ calls John and James. Lastly, the great purity, the virginity, and holiness of S. John the Evangelist seem to have been the result of the teaching, the purity, and holiness of S. John the Baptist.

They followed Jesus: that they might know Him more fully, says Euthymius, and contract a friendship with Him: and if they should experience that advantage, they would follow Him wholly, and be altogether His disciples. For from what follows it is plain they had not given themselves up entirely to Christ, but only desired to make trial of Him.

Ver. 38.-Jesus turning, &c. What seek ye? It is the voice not of one who is ignorant, but of one who invites, and deals gently with their bashfulness. As S. Cyril says, “He asks what they sought, not as ignorant, for He knew all things as God, but that His question might afford the beginning of conversation.”

Rabbi: Syriac, Rabboni, i.e., our master; Arabic, Rabban, or master. By this expression the disciples honoured Christ, and sought His favour, and intimated that they wished to become His disciples. As Bede saith, “The question itself is an indication of faith: for when they say Rabbi, which means master, they follow and call Him their Master.” And S. Cyril says, “They called Him Master from whom they desired to learn.”

Where dwellest thou? Greek, , i.e., where remainest thou? For Christ had but a hospice on earth, and no proper habitation or house, according to the words in Matthew: “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” The disciples ask this question, that they may be able to converse privately with Christ in the house, and be instructed by Him in Divine things, and those which pertain to the more perfect life. They show that they wish to become His friends and servants.

Ver. 39.-He said unto them, Come and see, &c. The tenth hour, i.e., four o’clock in the afternoon, or about two hours before sunset. S. John adds these words, to show both the zeal of Christ, who though night was nigh, would not put them off to the following day, but entered immediately upon the things pertaining to salvation; as also to show the ardent devotion of the disciples to Christ, who, careless about their night’s lodging, had rather spend the night in listening to Christ, than at home in their beds. So Euthymius. For they remained with Him not merely the two hours which were left of daylight, as some suppose, but the whole night. For those two hours were not sufficient to speak about their affairs, and to know Christ. Neither could they have returned to John before nightfall. For, as Cyril says, “It is not fitting that we should speedily be satisfied with Divine things, and leave them.”

Moreover, what great things they heard from Christ, what draughts of piety they drank, what flames of love they felt kindled by Christ those only know who have had experience of them. Wherefore S. Austin exclaims, “How blessed they accounted the day! how blessed the night! Who can tell us the things which they heard from the Lord?” Certainly we may gather what was said from the effect produced: for Andrew was so inflamed with love for Christ that he forthwith strove to gain his brother Peter to Christ, and inflame him with love for Him.

Ver. 40.-Now one of the two, &c. John inserts this to show in what way Peter, who was to be the prince of the Apostles, and the head of the whole Church, was led to Christ. It was because Andrew, being glad at finding and hearing Christ, brought his own brother Peter, for whom he had a singular love, to Him, that he might make him partaker in so great a good. For this zeal, which burns to make others, especially those nearest to us, partakers with us, and to draw them to God, is a mark and an effect of the Divine Vocation. For as fire kindles fire, so does zeal kindle zeal. Moreover, Peter, as well as Andrew, seems to have been a disciple, or at least a diligent hearer of John the Baptist. Which of the two was the elder is not known. The conversion of Peter is the glory and praise of Andrew.

Ver. 41.-He first findeth, &c. . . . the Christ, that is, the Anointed, not indued with corporeal anointing, but with spiritual grace, both that of the Hypostatic Union, as well as that grace which was habitual and specially excellent. This last was the grace by which as man He was created by God, and, as it were, Consecrated, first a priest, secondly, a teacher, thirdly, a prophet, fourthly, a king, fifthly, a lawgiver, sixthly, the Redeemer of the world. The Greek is , i.e., that Christ, that Anointed One: the one, only, special Prophet, predicted by the rest, whom all were eagerly expecting as the Restorer of Israel. So Euthymius.

We have found the Messiah, whom I and thou are most eagerly expecting. It would seem that both Andrew and Peter, partly from the prophetic oracles, and partly from the testimony of John, were inflamed with the desire of seeing Christ. For, as Bede says, “No one finds but he who seeks: he who saith that he hath found shows that he had been a long while seeking.” Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, as he is wont, saith, “This is the speech of one who is very glad; We have found Him whom we sought, whom we hoped should come, whom the Scriptures announced.” Andrew, therefore, that he might communicate his great joy at finding Christ, to his brother Peter exclaims, “We have found the Messiah.” Wherefore “they no more returned to S. John,” as S. Chrysostom says, “but were so closely united to Christ, that they undertook John’s office, and themselves preached Christ.”

Hence we learn, morally, that God by His grace meets the longing soul, and so fills it that it may the more desire and thirst for Him. Yea, God is wont first to put this desire of Himself into the soul, that He may thereby prepare the soul for Himself and His gifts, and make it capable of receiving them.

Ver. 42.-And he brought him to Jesus. “It is probable,” says S. Chrysostom, “that Andrew related many other things calculated to persuade. The other disciple was also present to confirm what he said. But Andrew, since it was not his office, and because he was not sufficient to tell of so great a light, brings him to that very fountain which he had discovered.” Moreover, the mind of Peter, like a straw in presence of the fire, was inflamed with the desire of seeing and hearing Christ. Wherefore S. Chrysostom proceeds, “Consider the obedient mind of Peter from the beginning, and how full of good will. He brought him to Jesus; but let no one find fault with his too great readiness in believing. For it is not said that he immediately persuaded him, but only that he brought him to Jesus, there to learn all.”

Jesus beholding him (as it were a fitting subject to preach and make known His glory, and therefore designing him to be His successor and vicar, that is, the Pontiff of the Church) said, &c. Simon Peter’s father was called Johanan or John, by contraction Jona, as Jehoshua is contracted into Joshua and Jesus. Christ says this that He may reveal secrets, and show him that He is the Searcher of hearts and his God.

Thou shall be called Cephas. Christ promises to Simon the name of Cephas, or Peter, as much as to say, I will give thee, Simon, another name. I will call thee Cephas, i.e., a rock or Peter, for I will make thee the rock of the Church, so that on thee and thy faith, and thy government the fabric of My Church may rest securely as upon a most solid foundation of rock. (See what is said on S. Mat 16:18)

Ver. 43.-On the morrow, &c. That out of Galilee He might call untutored fishermen, to create them His Apostles, and the preachers of His Gospel, lest the Christian faith should be supposed to be the work of man, not of God. For the Apostles were Galileans. For the Galileans were poor and ignoble in comparison with the Jews who were sprung from Judah, which was the royal tribe.

He findeth Philip, not by chance, but going of set purpose to the place where He knew Philip was. There He found him whom He carefully sought, and whom He destined to be an Apostle.

And Jesus saith unto him. This is the first exterior calling by Christ. For Peter and Andrew were first called by an inward inspiration, not outwardly by Christ’s external voice, but by hearing the voice of John the Baptist their master saying of Christ, Behold the Lamb of God! They were not called by Him, but of their own accord they came to Jesus, in order to find out His doctrine and life, but not, as it were, about to become His sure and firm disciples. Thus Toletus. To Philip therefore this praise and glory is due that he was the first of all to hear Christ say, follow Me, and to experience an outward call at the same time that the Holy Ghost influenced his mind inwardly; and obedient to this vocation he straightway followed Christ, for he was himself a student of the Mosaic law, and anxious about the coming of Christ, as Theophylact says. Theophylact gives as the cause of his following the attractive voice of Christ, “The voice of the Lord seems to have touched his mind as it were with a goad of love.” For it was not merely the Saviour’s voice which spoke, but He forthwith made those to whom He spoke worthy to be inflamed with His love, even as Cleophas said, “Did not our heart burn within us, whilst He talked with us by the way?”

Ver. 44.-Now Philip was of Bethsaida, &c. John adds this, says Theophylact, to intimate that Andrew and Peter had previously

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

1:14 {7} And the Word was made {u} flesh, and {x} dwelt among us, (and we beheld his {y} glory, the glory {z} as of the only begotten of the Father,) {a} full of grace and truth.

(7) That Son who is God from everlasting took upon himself man’s nature, so that one and the selfsame might be both God and man, who manifestly appeared to many witnesses that saw him, amongst whom he was conversant and unto whom by sure and undoubted arguments he showed both of his natures.

(u) That is, man: so that, by the figure of speech synecdoche, the part is taken for the whole: for he took upon himself our entire nature, that is to say, a true body, and a true soul.

(x) For a time, and when that was ended, he went up into heaven: for the word which he uses is used with reference to tents: and yet nonetheless he is always present with us, though not in flesh, but by the power of his spirit.

(y) The glory which he speaks of here is that manifestation of Christ’s majesty, which was as it were openly placed before our eyes when the Son of God appeared in the flesh.

(z) This word “as” does not indicate here a likeness, but rather the truth of the matter, for his meaning is this, that we saw such a glory which suited and was proper for the true and only begotten Son of God, who is Lord and King over all the world.

(a) He was not only a partaker of grace and truth, but was full of the very substance of grace and truth.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

John’s return to the Word in Joh 1:14 from Joh 1:1 introduces new revelation about Him. Though still part of the prologue, the present section focuses on the Incarnation of the Word.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The Word, who existed equal with God before anything else came into being, became a human being. [Note: See Harris, pp. 189-92, or Morris, pp. 102-11, for fuller discussions of the title Logos.] This is the most concise statement of the Incarnation. He did not just appear to be a man; He became one (cf. Php 2:5-9). Yet He maintained His full deity. The word "became" (Gr. egeneto) usually implies a complete change, but that was not true in Jesus’ case. He did not cease to be God. Flesh in Scripture has a literal meaning, namely, material human flesh, and a metaphorical meaning, human nature. A second, less used, metaphorical meaning is all that we were in Adam before our regeneration (cf. Rom 7:5). Here John used it in the first metaphorical sense. God the Son assumed a human, though not sinful, nature.

 

"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." [Note: Ibid., pp. 90-91.]

Jesus literally lived among His disciples. The Greek word eskenosen, translated "dwelt" or "lived," is related to skene, meaning tabernacle. As God’s presence dwelt among the Israelites in the tabernacle, so it lived among them in the person of Jesus temporarily (cf. Exo 25:8-9; Exo 33:7; Exo 33:11). [Note: See Merrill C. Tenney, "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8, for discussion of the influence of the Hebrew Bible on John’s teaching in this Gospel.] The Gospel of John contains the second largest number of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the Gospels after Matthew. [Note: Ibid., p. 303.] Solomon thought it incredible that God would dwell on the earth (1Ki 8:27), but that is precisely what He did in Jesus.

For the first time, John equated the Word and Jesus, but this is the last reference to the Word in this Gospel. From now on, John referred to the Word by His historical name, Jesus, and to the personal terms "Father" and "Son."

"As the preexistent Son of God, he was the Creator of the world and the Executor of the will of the Father. As the incarnate Son of God, he exercised in his human existence these same powers and revealed effectively the person of the Father." [Note: Idem, "John," p. 33.]

The glory that John and the other disciples beheld as eyewitnesses refers to the god-like characteristics of Jesus (cf. Exo 33:22; Deu 5:22; Isa 60:1; 1Jn 1:1-2). God’s character and qualities came through Jesus as a human son resembles his human father, except that the likeness in Jesus’ case was exact (Php 2:6). The disciples saw Jesus’ glory clearest at the Transfiguration (Mat 17:2-8; Mar 9:2-8; Luk 9:28-36). His relationship to the Father was unique, and so was His similarity to the Father. Jesus’ relationship to God as His Son was unique (Gr. monogenous, cf. Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9) even though we can become children of God (Joh 1:12-13). He is eternal and of the same essence as the Father. "Only begotten" does not mean that there was a time when Jesus was not, and then the Father brought Him into being. Monogenes, literally "one kind," means unique or only, (i.e., the only one of its kind).

Particularly, grace and truth marked the glory of God that Jesus manifested. Grace in this context refers to graciousness (i.e., goodness, Heb. hesed), and truth means integrity (i.e., truthfulness, Heb. yemet, cf. Joh 1:17). The Incarnation was the greatest possible expression of God’s grace to humankind. It was also the best way to communicate truth accurately to human understanding. Nevertheless many people who encountered Jesus during His ministry failed to see these things (Joh 1:10). Neither grace nor truth is knowable apart from God who has revealed them through Jesus Christ. [Note: Morris, p. 95. See also David J. MacLeod, "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:641 (January-March 2004):72-88.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)