The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

Synoptists and St John as to the day of the Last Supper, see note on Matt. xxvi. This question is of importance in regard to the Synoptists and not in regard to St John. The narrative of St John is perfectly definite and consistent: it bears every mark of exact accuracy, and is in harmony with what seems to be the natural course of the events.

xix. 25. The ministering women (Matt.

There are also several coincidences in the use of imagery between St John and the Synoptists, and not a few sayings of which the substance is common to parallels (corresponding confessions).

In other parallels there are not a few verbal coincidences:

i. 23. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord.

cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.

v. 8. Arise, take up thy bed and walk.

xii. 5. to be sold for three hundred pence a fid given to the poor. Mark

— 13. Hosanna, blessed 'is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. xiii. 21. One of you shall betray me.

— 38. The cock shall not crow till thou shalt deny me thrice. xix. 3. Hail, King of the Jews. xx. 19. He saith unto them, Peace be

The connexion between St John and St Luke is of especial interest. From the relation of St Luke to St Paul it is natural to expect that the peculiarities of his Gospel would furnish indications of transition to the form of the Gospel which St John has preserved. Instances of this relation have been already given in the notices of Samaritans, and of Martha and Mary (p. Ixxix.). The following coincidences in thought or Ian-

Coincidences more or less striking are found in the following passages.

Such correspondences prove nothing as to the direct literary connexion of the two Gospels, nor do the few significant words which are common to St

/xovoyen;?), but they do shew the currency of a form of the apostolic Gospel with characteristic features approxi- mating to characteristic features in St

St John in regard of the Lord's Person.

But it may be said that even if the considerations which have been urged establish the possibility of reconciling the apparent differences of the Synoptists and St John as to the place, the manner and the duration of the Lord's Teaching: if they shew that there is theoretically room for the events and the discourses of both narratives: if they supply in both cases indications of a wider field and a more varied method than is habitually recorded in the two histories respectively; yet the fundamental difference between the first three Gospels and the Fourth as to the general view of the Lord's Person practically excludes such a reconciliation.

This difficulty unquestionably underlies the other difficulties and gives force to them. It is not possible to do more here than to point out the main arguments by which it can fairly be met.

The Person of the Lord is as truly the centre of the teaching of the Synoptists as of the teaching of St John. It is not His doctrine but Himself which is to redeem the woild (Matt. xx. 28).

The narratives of the Nativity, though they did not form part of the apostolic oral Gospel, are completely harmonious with it. There is no contrast (for example) in passing from the history of the Nativity to that of the Baptism.

The claims of the Lord which are recorded by the Synoptists, if followed to their legitimate consequences, involve the claims recorded by St John.

thee. (Gives power to work

signs.) he that loseth his life for my sake... All things are delivered

unto me... The Son of man will send forth his angels.

— xviii. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I...(as said of Shekinah).

— xx. 28. his life a ransom for

— xxi. 37 ff. They will reverence my

— xxii. 45. If David call him

— xxv. 31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory. Comp. xxvi. 64.

— xxvi. 28. My blood of the cove-

Luke xxi. 15. / will give you a mouth

— xxiv. 49. / send the promise of my Father upon you.

A careful estimate of these passages will make it clear that the Synoptists recognise in the Lord the power of judgment, of redemption, and of fellowship, which are the main topics of the teaching in St John. In one respect only St John adds a new truth to the doctrine of the Lord's Person which has no direct anticipation in the Synoptists. These do not anywhere declare His preexistence. (Yet compare Luke xi. 49 with Matt, xxiii. 34 and John x. 35.)

The general conclusion however stands firm. The Synoptists offer not only historical but also spiritual points of connexion between the teaching which they record and the teaching in the Fourth Gospel; and St John himself in the Apocalypse completes the passage from the one to the other.

The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel. It offers the characteristic thoughts of the Fourth Gospel in that form of development which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It belongs to different historical circumstances, to a different phase of intellectual progress, to a different theological stage, from that of St John's Gospel; and yet it is not only harmonious with it in teaching, but in the order of thought it is the necessary germ out of which the Gospel proceeded by a process of life.

i. Affinities of the Apocalypse with the Gospel. The points of connexion between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St John are far more numerous than are suggested by a first general comparison of the two books. The main idea of both is the same. Both present a view of a supreme conflict between the powers of good and evil In the Gospel this is drawn mainly in moral conceptions; in the Apocalypse mainly in images and visions. In the Gospel the opposing forces are regarded under abstract and absolute forms, as light and darkness, love and hatred; in the Apocalypse under concrete and definite forms, God, Christ, and the Church warring with the devil, the false prophet and the beast.

But in both books alike Christ is the central figure. His victory is the end to which history and vision lead as their consummation (see xvi. 33, note). His Person and Work are the ground of triumph, and of triumph through apparent failure (Rev. i. 5, vi. 16, vii. 14, xii. n).

It follows that in both books the appearance of Christ is shewn to issue in a judgment, a separation, of elements partially confused before. The "hatred" of evil gains a new intensity (Rev. ii. 6; 2 John 10). The Apocalypse gives, so to speak, in an ideal history the analysis of the course of unbelief which is laid open in John viii.

On man's part the conflict with evil is necessarily a conflict in action. The Apocalypse and the Gospel therefore lay stress on obedience and works. To " keep the commandments " is now the fulfilment of Christian duties (John xiv. 23, note; i John ii. 3 f.; v. 2 f.; 2 John 6; Rev. xii. 17, xiv. 12 [xxii. 14, a false reading]).

The universality of the Gospel is an immediate consequence of the proclamation of its moral character. And there is not the least trace in the Apocalypse of the doctrine of the permanent or general obligation of the Law or of circumcision. The particular injunctions which are enforced in ii. 14, 20 are combined in the Acts (xv. 28 f.,xxL 25) with the removal of such an obligation from the Gentiles. External ceremonies fall wholly into the background, as symbols only of that which is universal and spiritual (Rev. v. 8 ff., xiv. 6 f.; comp. i John ii. 2).

At the same time the Apocalypse no less than the Gospel recognises the preparatory office of Judaism. In both it is assumed that " Salvation is of the Jews " (John iv. 22, 38). The Seer shews that the sovereignty which the prophets foretold was established in Jesus, " the Christ" (xii. 5, 10, xi. 15); and the imagery of the old Scriptures is used from first to last to foreshadow the conflict, the victory and the judgment of the divine King (e.g. Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37; Rev. i. 7).

In correspondence with the universality of the' Gospel is the office of personal " witness " on which the firmest stress is laid in all the writings of St John. The experience of the believer finds expression in a testimony which is strong in the face of death. In the Apocalypse the characteristic form in which this " witness " appears is as " the testimony of Jesus" (i. 2, 9, xii. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4). The true humanity of the Saviour is that revelation on which faith reposes.

This testimony to the Incarnation leads to a final correspondence between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel which is of the highest importance. Both present the abiding of God with man as the issue of Christ's work. If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Fatlier will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him (John xiv. 23). Behold I stand at the door and knock: If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me (Rev. iii. 20). Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell (CTKT;VOJO-€I) with them (Rev. xxi. 3).

2. Contrasts of the Apocalypse with the Gospel. Side by side with these coincidences of thought, which reach to the ruling conceptions of the books, there are also important contrasts in their subject-matter and their modes of dealing with common topics.

The most striking contrast lies in the treatment of the doctrine of Christ's Coming in the two books. This is the main subject of the Apocalypse, while it falls into the background in the Gospel and in the Epistles of St John. In the Apocalypse the thought is of an outward coming for the open judgment of men: in the Gospel of a judgment which is spiritual and self-executing. In the Apocalypse the scene of the consummation is a renovated world: in the Gospel " the Father's house." In the former the victory and the transformation are from without, by might, and the " future " is painted under historic imagery: in the latter, the victory and the transformation are from within, by a spiritual influence, and the " future " is present and eternal.

It is part of this same contrast that the progress of the conflict between good and evil is presented very differently in the Apocalypse and in the Gospel. In the Apocalypse it is portrayed under several distinct forms as a conflict of Christ with false Judaism, with idolatry, with the Roman empire allied with false prophecy: in the Gospel it is conceived iu its essence as a continuous conflict between light and darkness. On the one side are outward persecutors; on the other the spirit of falsehood: on the one side, the working of the revelation of Christ; on the other the revelation of Christ itself. Or, to put the facts under another aspect, the Apocalypse gives a view of the action of God in regard to men, in a life full of sorrow, and partial defeats and cries for vengeance: the Gospel gives a view of the action of God with regard to Christ who establishes in the heart of the believer a Presence of completed joy.

In regard to Judaism this contrast assumes a special form. In the Apocalypse the 'triumph of Christianity is described under the imagery of Judaism. The Church is the embodied fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. The outlines are drawn of the universal, ideal, Israel (vii. 4), the ideal Jerusalem (iii. 12, xxi. 2, 10), and the ideal worship (xx. 6, xxii. 3; comp. viii. 3, v. 8), yet so that there is no longer any temple (xxi. 22). In the Gospel Christianity is proclaimed as the absolute truth. Outward Judaism is shewn in its opposition to Christ's word, not as fulfilled by it, standing without, isolated and petrified; and not taken up with it, quickened and glorified (compare Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9, with John viii. 39 ff.).

The conception of God in the 'two books shews corresponding differences. The conception of God in the Apocalypse follows the lines of the Old Testament He is " the Lord God, the Almighty" (i. 8, iv. 8, &c.), "which was and is" (xL 17, xvi. 5. Comp. i. 4, 8, iv. 8), who executes righteous judgment on the world (xi. 18, xiv. 10, xvi. 19, xix. 15). Nothing is said of His love in sending His Son; nor of the Paraclete. In the Gospel God is revealed characteristically by Christ as " the

Father " and not only as " my Father " (see iv. 21, note); and specially in connexion with the work of redemption. In the one case it may be said that His action is revealed in relation to the sinful history of the world: and in the other His being in relation to the purpose of the world '.

Besides these differences of substance there are also differences of language both in vocabulary and style. The difference in the scope of the books accounts in part for these. The irregularities of style in the Apocalypse appear to be due not so much to ignorance of the language as to a free treatment of it, by one who used it as a foreign dialect. Nor is it difficult to see that in any case intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is however very difficult to suppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time in a Greekspeaking country into the language of the Apocalypse.

Such very briefly are the coincidences and differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. Several conclusions appear to follow from them.

The differences answer to differences in situation; and are not inconsistent with identity of authorship.

Of the two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. The symbols are living. On the other hand, to go back from the teaching of the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to clothe clear thought in figures, to reduce the full expression of truth to its rudimentary beginnings, seems to involve a moral miracle, which would introduce confusion into life.

The Apocalypse is after the close of St Paul's work. It shews in its mode of dealing with Old Testament figures a close connexion with the Epistle to the Hebrews (2 Peter, Jude). And on the

1 The difference between the two books as to subordinate spiritual powers, angels and evil spirits, follows from the difference in their structure. Comp. i. 51, note.

other hand it is before the destruction of Jerusalem.

The crisis of the Fall of Jerusalem explains the relation of the Apocalypse to the Gospel. In the Apocalypse that "coming" of Christ was expected, and painted in figures: in the Gospel the " coming " is interpreted.

Under this aspect the Gospel is the spiritual interpretation of the Apocalypse. The materials of the Gospel were treasured up, pondered, illuminated as time went on. Meanwhile the active and manifold religious thought of Ephesus furnished the intellectual assistance which was needed to exhibit Christianity as the absolute and historical religion in contrast with Judaism and Heathenism. The final desolation of the centre of the old Theocracy was the decisive sign of the form which the new Faith must take. Then first, according to the divine law of order, the Spirit would guide the Apostle into all the Truth.

This is not the place to work out in detail the likeness and difference of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel on special points of doctrine; but the Christology of the two books illustrates very remarkably the position which has been assigned to the Apocalypse as connecting the Synoptists and St John. It is necessary then to indicate shortly the teaching of the Apocalypse on Christ's work and being.

The work of Christ is presented summarily as the victory through death of One who was truly man. Christ was the representative of David (v. 5, xxii. 16), pierced (i. 7), crucified (xi. 8), and again quickened (i. 5; comp. Col. i. 18). So He " bought " the redeemed (v. 9, xiv. 3 f.); and His blood brings to them release (i. 5, Au<ravrt O.TTO r. a), cleansing (vii. 14), and victory (xii. n). And in this He fulfilled the divine will for men (i. i [ISwKcv], ii. 26, 5, 10, 16, iii. 10, 5, 21, v. 5, xxi. 23).

The exaltation of Christ followed on the completion of His earthly work. The " Lamb slain " was raised to glory (v. 9, 12). The "seven spirits of God" are His (v. 6, iii. i; comp. i. 4; John xv. 26). In the heavenly sanctuary He is revealed as the divine High Priest (i. 12 — 17; comp. ii. 9, x. 5 f.) " like a son of man " (L 13, xiv. 14); truly man, and yet more

The full importance of these passages is brought out by the stern denunciations against every form of idolatry with which the book abounds (comp. i John v. 21). Christ therefore is wholly separated from creatures. And further, the passages shew that the imagery which is used in the Old Testament to describe the revelation of God is transferred by the writer to Christ (comp. John xii. 41, note).

One other point remains to be noticed. In the Synoptists there is no direct statement of the pre-existence of Christ The truth is recognised in the Apocalypse, but relatively rather than absolutely. Christ is spoken of as the first and the last (i. 17, ii. 8); the beginning of the creation of God (iii. 14; comp. Prov. viii. 22; Col. i. 15); and the Word of God (xix. 13). In these phrases we find the earliest form of the " Logos doctrine," which is still kept within the lines of the Old Testament ideas. But the later unfolding of the truth is included in this earliest confession. If an Apostle was enabled to see in the Master whom he had followed the Being to whom all creation pays homage in the spiritual world, there is no difficulty in apprehending how he could rise, without doing violence to the laws of human thought, to the enunciation of the fact on which the Fourth Gospel is a commentary, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.

In a word, the study of the Synoptists, of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St John in succession enables us to see under what human conditions the full majesty of Christ was perceived and declared, not all at once, but step by step, and by the help of the old prophetic teaching.

The relation of the Gospel of St John to his Epistles is that of a history to its accompanying comment or application. The first Epistle presupposes the Gospel either as a writing or as oral instruction. But while there are numerous and striking resemblances both in form and thought between the Epistle and the Evangelist's record of the Lord's discourses and his own narrative, there are still characteristic differences between them. In the Epistle the doctrine of the Lord's true and perfect humanity (a-dp£) is predominant: in the Gospel that of His divine glory (Sofa). The burden of the Epistle is " the Christ is Jesus:" the writer presses his argument from the divine to the human, from the spiritual and ideal to the historical. The burden of the Gospel is "Jesus is the Christ:" the writer presses his argument from the human to the divine, from the historical to the spiritual and ideal. The former is the natural position of the preacher, and the latter of the historian.

The difference between the Epistle and the Gospel in their eschatological teaching follows from this fundamental difference. In the Gospel the doctrine of the "coming" of the Lord (xxi. 22, xiv. 3), and of " the last day" (vl 40, 44), and of "the judgment" (v. 28 f.), are touched upon generally. In the Epistle "the manifestation" of Christ (ii. 28) and His " presence " stand out as clear facts in the history of the world. He comes, even as He came, "in flesh" (2 John 7); and "antichrists" precede His coming (i John ii. i8ff.).

Again, in the Epistle the doctrine of propitiation is more distinct and fully expressed than in the Gospel (lAao-jno'?, i John ii. 2, iv. 10; comp. Heb. ii. 17; KaOapt&iv, i John i. 7, 9); and in connexion with this the duty of the confession of sins (i John i. 9), and the office of the Lord as Paraclete (Advocate) (i John ii. i; comp. John xiv. 1 6, note). But it is most worthy of notice that no use is made in the Epistle of the language of the discourses in John iii. and vi. On the other hand, the conception of the " unction" of Christians (i John ii. 20, 27; comp. Rev. i. 6) is a later interpretation of the gift of the Spirit which Christ promised.

Generally too it will be found on a comparison of the closest parallels, that the Apostle's own words are more formal in expression than the words of the Lord which he records. The Lord's words have been moulded by the disciple into aphorisms in the Epistle: their historic connexion has been broken. At the same time the language of the Epistle is in the main direct, abstract, and unfigurative. The Apostle's teaching, so to speak, is " plain " (ira/Dp^o-ia), while that of the Lord was " in proverbs " (iv Trapoi- /uais, John xvi. 25).

One or two examples will illustrate the contrast which has been indicated:

John viii. 12. / am the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

i John i. 5, 7. This then is the message we have heard of Aim, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all... If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another...

John xv. 23. He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

i John ii. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; but he that acknowledged the Son hath the Father also.

Generally it will be felt that there is a decisive difference (so to speak) in the atmosphere of the two books. In the Epistle St John deals freely with the truths of the Gospel in direct conflict with the characteristic perils of his own time: in the Gospel he lives again in the presence of Christ and of the immediate enemies of Christ, while he brings out the universal significance of events and teaching not fully understood at the

V. THE HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Text.

The materials for determining the text of the Gospel of St John are, as in the case of the other Gospels, and of the books of the New Testament generally, ample and varied. It will be sufficient to notice the most important authorities in which the Gospel of St John is preserved.

There are besides eight other uncial MSS. containing the Gospel complete or nearly complete; and thirteen which contain more or less considerable fragments.

The cursive mss., which are almost of every degree of excellence, are more than 600.

The Vulgate Syriac (Peshito, Syr. psh.}. The entire Gospel.

(2) The Old Latin (Lat. vt.\ The entire Gospel in several distinct types.

The Memphitic (Coptic, in the dialect of Lower Egypt). The entire Gospel.

The Thebaic (Sahidic, in the dialect of Upper Egypt). Very considerable fragments have been published in the Appendix to Woide's ' Cod. Al. N. T.' of which a collation is given in Schwartze's edition of the Memphitic Gospels.

In addition to isolated quotations there remain, from early times: the Commentaries of CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA (nearly complete); the Explanatory Homilies of AUGUSTINE and CHRYSOSTOM; and large fragments of the Commentaries of ORIGEN and THEODORE of MOPSUESTIA.

This is not the place to enter in detail upon the methods of textual criticism. It must suffice to say that the problem is in the first stage essentially historical. The primary object of the critic is to discover in the case of variations the most ancient reading. When this has been done it remains to take account of any arguments which may be urged against the authenticity of the earliest text. Unless these are of great weight the prerogative of age must prevail. But this first process cannot be accomplished by simply taking the reading of the most ancient copies, or giving a fixed value, so to speak, to each copy according to its antiquity. The most ancient copy is ceteris paribus likely to give the most ancient text on the whole, and with a less degree of probability in each particular case. But the ancient authorities often disagree. Hence it is a necessary condition for the determination of the most ancient text to study the chief authorities as wholes (i) separately, and (2) in their mutual relations. In this way it can be ascertained beyond doubt what MSS. (for example) preserve a distinctly ante-Nicene text. When this is done the mass of evidence can be reduced to manageable dimensions. If it cannot be shewn that a reading has any ante-Nicene authority, it may in almost all cases be confidently set aside.

No one of the existing MSS. of the New Testament is older than the fourth century; but the earliest, which have been already enumerated, represent very different types of text, and are, as far as can be ascertained, of very different origin. To speak of them all as " Alexandrine " is in every way misleading.

(i) A most careful examination of B leaves it in possession of the title to supreme excellence. Its readings have no specific colouring. It is not unlikely that it represents the text preserved in the original Greek Church of Rome.

(2) The texts of tf and D, which have much in common, are of very high antiquity, dating from the end of the second century. Their common element is closely akin to an element in the Old Syriac and Old Latin versions, and shews much license in paraphrase and in the introduction of synonymous phrases and words. The characteristics of these MSS. are probably of Palestinian origin.

(3) The characteristic readings of C and L indicate the work of a careful grammatical revision. They seem to be due to Alexandria.

(4) In the Gospels A gives a revised (Antiochene) text which formed the basis of the later Byzantine texts. These texts were almost exclusively reproduced from the sixth century onwards.

The characteristic readings of B, of fc$D, and of C, L, have all more or less support in the ante-Nicene age. The characteristic readings of A, on the other hand, cannot be traced back beyond the fourth century, though it has also a valuable ancient element in common with BCL rather than with KD.

It follows therefore (speaking generally) that a reading which is found in B and in a primary representative of one of the other groups has very high claims to be considered the original reading. On the other hand a reading which is found only in the representatives of one of the three last groups is likely to be a correction; and the same may be said of a reading which is given only in representatives of the third and fourth groups. Very few readings in the Gospels will be found to stand the test of a comprehensive examination which are not supported by X or B or D.

These conclusions necessarily depend upon an exhaustive induction of particulars. No process can be more precarious than the attempt to settle each case of variation as it arises. A reading, which taken alone may appear to be plausible or even true, is often seen to be an ingenious correction from a consideration of the characteristics of the authorities by which it is supported taken as a group. No authority has an unvarying value. No authority is ever homogeneous. It is only by taking a wide view 01 the grouping of the authorities that a solid conclusion can be gained. And in this respect the evidence which is available for determining the text of the New Testament is so copious and varied that little final doubt can be left.

Very little has been said in detail on various readings in the notes, except on a few passages of unusual interest. It will therefore be useful to give a brief summary of the authorities for a selection of variations which have a critical interest. This may serve as basis for further study to those who wish to pursue the subject; and at the same time it will illustrate the comparative value of the different authorities in their different combinations *.

i. Interpretative or Supplementary Glosses.

i. 24. and they were sent from the Pharisees (KOL aTreoTaA.jnei'oi), K*A*BC*L Memph. See and they that were sent were of the Pharisees (KCU 01 direaroX/teW), NcbA3C3X (MSS. mss.) Latt. Syrr.

iii. 15. may have eternal life.

may not perish but have eternal life. See note.

iv. 42. the Saviour of the world, J$B the Christ the Saviour of the

1 No attempt is made to give a complete summary of the evidence. "MSS." signifies many (or the remainder of) uncial and "mss." many (or the remainder of) cursive manuscripts. Latt. and Syrr. the Latin and Syrian versions in agreement; and verss. versions generally. If the title of an authority is enclosed in (), this indicates that the evidence is modified by some circumstance or other.

except that one (or one), into which his disciples (or the disciples of Jesus) entered, K*D (MSS. mss.) Syrr.

my flesh which I will give for the life of the world, MSS. mss. (A is defective) (Syrr.) Memph. See note.

never man so spake as this man out of the temple, and going through the midst of them went on his way (liropevf.ro) and so passed by, tf^CLX 33 Memph.

out of the temple, going through the midst of them and so passed by, A (MSS. mss.) Syrr.

the stone where he was, A i. the stone where he that was dead was laid, C3 (MSS. mss.).

leave her alone; she hath kept it (renfpr/Kev), A (MSS. mss.). xiii. 14. ye ought also.

by how much more ought ye also, D (Lat. vt.).

If God was glorified in him, God shall also glorify, XCA (MSS. mss.) Vg. Memph.

xiv. 4. and whither I go ye know the

(Lat. vt.). how can we know the wav,

(Lat. vt.) Theb. that they may be one in us,

In connexion with these explanatory additions, a few passages may be noticed in which an easy word has been substituted for a more difficult one.

viiL 1 6. true as satisfying the idea

The group N D Syr. vt. and Lat. vt. are specially marked by paraphrastic variations.

See note, ii. 3. they had not wine for the wine of the marriage was consumed,

— 6. is spirit because God is spirit, and he is born of God, Syr. vt. (Lat. vt.).

x. 38. if ye are not willing to believe

Other examples of readings characteristic of this group will be found in the following passages:

It is not probable that any one of these readings will commend itself to the student; but it must be added that in the case of omission it appears that the authority of this group is sometimes of greater weight. The omissions in St John's Gospel which they support in the following passages are by no means unlikely to be correct:

On the other hand their omissions in vi. 23, x. 8 (before me), xxi. 23, are not to be admitted.

3. Passages in which the sense is considerably affected by the variation are not very numerous:

mss.). hath eaten me lip, a few mss.

mss.) Theb. Syrr. I go not up, KD (some MSS. mss.) Lat. vt. Syr. vt. Memph. In such a case it is right to follow that combination of ancient authority which is elsewhere most trustworthy. For the combination in favour of "not" see note on vi. 15.

viii. 38. do.ye (or ye do) that which ye heard from the father (TOV irarpos) or your father, KCBCLX i 33 Memph. ye do that which 'ye have seen with your father, fc$*D(T) (MSS. mss.) Latt.

X*BLX. a supper having been made

— 24. and saith to him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh, (K)BCLX 33 Ztffc that he should ask who it was of whom he spake, AD MSS. mss. Syrr.

fat/ing upon (eTrwreo-aji'), himself doeth the works, AQ (LX) (MSS. mss.).

Syrr. xvii. ii. keep them in thy name which

Theb. (5 D*X mss.). keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, a few

A careful examination of these passages will shew how rarely A gives a certain ante-Nicene reading when authorities are divided. The relative lateness of its text compared with the texts of XBD and Q will be further apparent from the following passages: i. 26 (Se), 39 (tSere), 49; iv. 21 (Tri'orevcrov), 46 (d 'IijcTovs); v. 3 (TroXv), 15 (<cai); vi. 40

In the case of proper names A seems to have adopted the later corrections, as in writing Capernaum for Capharnaum (J^BCD, &c.); and Jonas for John, as the name of the father of St Peter (i. 42). This remark is not without weight in regard to the readings of A in v. 2; xviii. i (see notes).

On the other hand it will be no less evident that in the examples given the readings of B are almost beyond question correct; and further inquiry will tend to prove that no reading of B which is supported by independent authority, and certainly no reading of B which is supported by a primary uncial (e.g. tf, C, D, A), can be altogether set aside.

The following examples will repay study. Combination of ~

Such considerations carefully checked and followed out lead to conclusions which can be confidently accepted even where the most ancient evidence is unusually divided, e.g. i. 21, iii. 15, vii. 39, viii. 39, x. 29.

In most cases of slight variation the reading of the text from which A.V. was taken has been silently corrected, and a translation of that which seems to be the true text substituted for A.V.

It will be convenient to add a list of these passages in addition to those variations which have been already noticed.

Omit and (i); 52, therefore

Two general conclusions will follow from a careful study of the different lists of variations which include, I believe, all the passages where the text of St John is in any way doubtful, (i) that the utmost extent of variation is comparatively unimportant; and (2) that the most ancient text adds in almost every case some minute touch which increases the vigour or clearness of the language. The criterion of apparent fitness which is most ambiguous when applied to separate readings becomes trustworthy when it is applied to a considerable group of readings.

The first commentary on the Gospel of St John of which any distinct record has been preserved was written by HERACLEON, "the most esteemed (Soxi- /ACOTCZTOS) representative of the School of Valentinus " (Clem. Al. ' Strom.' iv. 9. 73), whose friend he is said to have been. The work must therefore probably be assigned to the first half of the second century. The quotations preserved by Origen shew that Heracleon dealt with long continuous passages of the Gospel (e.g. c. iv.), but it is not certain that he commented on the whole. The text which he followed had one important various reading (iv. 18,!£, six, for 7T€We, five); and the manner in which he treats the book shews that he regarded it as of divine authority in the minutest details, though he frequently distorts its meaning by strange mystical interpretations l.

The Commentary of ORIGEN was written at the injunction of his friend Ambrosius ('in Joh. Tom.' i. §§ 3, 6). The work was begun and the first five books were written at Alexandria (c. A.D. 225, Euseb. 'H.E.' vi. 24), before his ordination at Csesarea (A.D. 228). The troubles which followed this event interrupted the ' task and it seems not to have been completed, if indeed it ever was completed, till more than ten years after its commencement (comp. Tom. vi. § i). Eusebius mentions that of the whole work " only twenty-two books" (TO/AOI) had come down to his time. He does not say how many there were originally. Jerome, according to the common texts, speaks of "thirty-four" or "thirty-nine" books (' Praef. Horn, in Luc.'), but these readings

1 Part of the fragments of Heracleon are printed after Grabe and Massuet in Stieren's Irenseus, I. 938 ff. Jerome mentions a Commentary on the four Gospels attributed to Theophilus of Antioch, but questions its authenticity (' De Virr. 111.' 25; 'Prsef. ad Matt.' Ep. CXXI. 6).

are commonly altered to " thirty-two" on the authority of Rufinus (Huet, Orig. in. 2. 7). At present there remain Books i. ii. (John i. i — 7 a), vi. (John i. 19 — 29), x. (John ii. 12 — 25), xni. (John iv. 13 — 44), xix. (part John viii. 19 — 24), xx. (John viii. 37 — 52), xxvin. (John xi. 39—57), xxxn. (John xiii. 2—33), with fragments of iv. v. At the beginning of the thirty-third book, which deals with c. xiii., Origen speaks with doubt as to the completion of the whole Commentary, nor does he at the end of the book give, as he sometimes does, a promise of the immediate continuation of the work. It is possible therefore that his labours may have ended at this point. Certainly the whole Commentary would have occupied at least fifty books.

The work has Origen's faults and excellencies in full measure. It is lengthy, discursive, fanciful, speculative; but it abounds with noble thoughts and intuitions of the truth. As a commentator Origen created a new form of theological literature.

Little remains of the works of the earlier Greek Commentators of the fourth century, THEODORUS of Heraclea (Perinthus), (Theodor. 'H. E.' II. 3, Hieron. ' De Virr. 111.' 90), and DIDYMUS of Alexandria (Hieron. 'De Virr. 111.' 105). The 'Homilies' of CHRYSOSTOM, composed while he was still at Antioch (before A.D. 398), form the foundation of a historical interpretation of the Gospel. His explanations and applications of the text are clear, vigorous and eloquent. The reader will probably miss the signs of a spontaneous sympathy with the more mysterious aspects of the Gospel.

AUGUSTINE in his ' Lectures on St John' (Tractatus in Joh. cxxiv.) is strongest where Chrysostom is weakest. His ignorance of Greek constantly betrays him into the adoption of a false sense of the words, but his genius no less frequently enables him to enter with the fullest insight into the thought of a passage which may escape the verbal interpreter. I have ventured not unfrequently to quote his terse and pregnant comments in their original form. No translation can do them justice.

The Commentaries of THEODORE of Mopsuestia were popularly considered the best of the Antiochene school. Considerable fragments of his Commentary on St John remain.

At the opposite extreme to Theodore is CYRIL of Alexandria, whose Commentary on St John remains nearly complete. In this dogmatic interests overpower all other considerations. It was natural that Cyril should read the Gospel in the light of the controversies in which he was absorbed; but under his treatment the divine history seems to be dissolved into a docetic drama. At the same time his speculations, like those of the other Alexandrines, abound in isolated thoughts of great subtlety and beauty.

The two distinct 'Catenae' of Corderius and Cramer contain extracts from other Greek Commentaries, Ammonius of Alexandria, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Severus of Antioch, Theodore of Heraclea, &c., but Cyril closes the series of the great patristic interpreters of St John. The Greek Commentaries of THEOPHYLACT (t 1107), and EUTHYMIUS (t c. 1118), are mainly epitomes of Chrysostom, but both are clear and sensible. The Latin Commentaries of Beda and Walafrid Strabo (Glossa ordinaria) depend largely on Augustine.

RUPERT of Deutz ('Comm. in Joh.' Libb. xiv.) in this subject as in others shewed original power. His Commentaries on St John are marked by great fertility in subtle speculation, though he claims to deal more with humble details than Augustine. The fragments of the Commentary of JOHANNES SCOTUS ERI- GENA are not less interesting, and he explains the text carefully.

More comprehensive however and serviceable than these commentaries is the 'Golden Chain' (Catena aurea} of THOMAS AQUINAS, which brings together a large selection of comments from Greek and Latin writers. It must however be used with great caution, for a considerable proportion of the quotations adduced from early writers are taken from spurious books.

Of the Commentaries of the sixteenth century it must be sufficient to mention a few which will serve as representatives. Those of Ferus (/. e. Wild, of Mainz, 1536), Corn, a Lapide (i.e. Van der Steen, Louvain and Rome, 1 1637), and Maldonatus (Maldonato, of Sala- manca and Paris, 1596; St John is unfinished), among Roman Catholic scholars; of Brentius (t. e. Brenz, ' Homilies,' of Stuttgart, 1528), and J. Gerhard (of Jena, 1617), among Lutherans; of Musculus (i.e. Meusslin of Berne, 1548), and R. Gualther (' Homilies,' of Berne, 1565), among the "Reformed," are all conspicuous for thought, research and vigour. Lampe (of Utrecht, 1724) has given a very complete list of the Commentaries down to his own time; and his own work is a mine of learning, which it is, however, painful to work from the form in which he has arranged his materials.

The spread • of idealism in Germany in the first quarter of the present century gave a fresh impulse to the study of St John. Fichte (1806, 'Anw. z. sel. Leben,' vi.) and Schelling (1841, 'Werke,' II. 4, pp. 302 f.), in different ways and with a partial conception of the scope of the Gospel, insisted upon its primary importance for the apprehension of Christian truth in relation to the present age. When Neander began his public work (1813), he lectured on the Gospel of St John, and on his deathbed (1850) he announced as the subject of his next course " The Gospel of St John considered in its true historical position." Meanwhile great light had been thrown upon the composition and contents of the Gospel. The commentaries of Liicke (ist ed. 1820 — 24), ofTholuck (ist ed. 1827), of Klee (1829), of Olshausen (ist ed. 1832), of Meyer (ist ed. 1834), and of De Wette (ist ed. 1837), contributed in various degrees to illustrate its meaning.

It does not fall within my scope to criticise these or later books '.

For obvious reasons I have thought it best to refrain from using modern English Commentaries, with one partial exception. Otherwise I have endeavoured to take account as far as possible of the writings of every school which seemed likely to contribute to the understanding of St John. My one aim has

1 An admirable summary of the literature dealing with the authenticity of St John's Gospel has been added by Dr C. R. Gregory to the English translation of Luthardt's ' St John the Author of the Fourth Gospel,' Edinburgh, 1875-

.been to express what seems to me the sense and teaching of his words. With this view I have, except in a few cases, simply given the conclusion at which I have arrived without reviewing rival opinions, or citing the authorities by which it is supported or opposed. I have not however consciously passed over or extenuated any difficulty which I have been able to feel: nor again, have I called particular attention to details which happen to have come into undue prominence in modern controversy.

It would be an idle task to enumerate all the names of those from whose writings I have sought and gained help; and I should be unable to measure the debts which I owe to scholars who often teach much when they do not command assent. Yet there are some names which cannot be passed over in silence. When I began to work seriously at the Gospel of St John more than twenty-five years ago I felt that I owed most to Origen, Neander, Olshausen, Luthardt, and, from a very different point of view, to F. C. Baur. In arranging my thoughts during the last eight years I feel that I owe most to Godet, whose Commentary, except on questions of textual criticism, seems to me to be unsurpassed. And on the other hand Keim has continually offered criticisms and suggestions which have opened fresh sources of illustration for the text. But throughout this space of Cambridge work, the living voice of friends has been far more helpful to me than books. The fulness of sympathy in common labour brings light and fresh power of vision, and not only materials for thought.

Throughout the notes I have quoted the renderings of the Latin Vulgate in the hope of directing more attention to the study of it. It seems to me that we have lost much in every way from our neglect of a Version which has influenced the Theology of the West more profoundly than we know.

One department of illustration, it must be added, still calls for systematic study. The didactic method and not only the language of St John is essentially Hebraic; and very much has still to be learnt especially from the Midrashim before the full force of his record can be apprehended. The collections which Wetstein has made from Lightfoot and other early Rabbinic scholars, Delitzsch's ' Horae Hebraicae ' (in the 'Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol.'); the recent work of Wiinsche ('Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud u. Midrash,' Gottingen, 1878), which is very useful, but by no means always exact; Siegfried's ' Philon von Alexandria' (indirectly), and Mr Taylor's excellent edition of the 'Sayings of the Jewish Fathers' (Pirke Aboth\ rather point to the rich mine than exhaust it1.

There is a remarkable legend (' Shemoth R.' c. v.), that when the LORD gave the Law from Sinai He wrought great marvels with His voice (Job xxxvii.

5). "The voice sounded from the South; and as the people hastened to the South, lo! it sounded from the North. They turned to the North, and it came from the East. They turned to the East, and it came from the West. They turned thither, and it came from heaven. They lifted up their eyes to heaven,

1 The ' K61 Kore ' of R. Soloweyczyk translated into French under the title 'La Bible, le Talmud et 1'Evangile," Paris, 1875, St Matthew and St Mark, is of little value in this respect.

and it came from the depths of the earth. And they said one to another, Where shall wisdom be found? (Job xxviii. 12).

"And the Voice went forth throughout the world, and was divided into seventy voices, according to the seventy tongues of men, and each nation heard the Voice in its own tongue, and their souls failed them; but Israel heard and suffered not.

"And each one in Israel heard it according to his capacity; old men, and youths, and boys, and sucklings and women: the voice was to each one as each one had the power to receive it"

The student of St John will find the parable fulfilled as he ponders the Apostle's words with growing experience, and unchanged patience. He himself limits the meaning which he finds in them.

"Omnes carnalium sordes affectuum ab oculis cordis abstergendce sunt iis qui in schola Christi venerabilibus student litteris; ut hanc aliquatenus valeant Aquilam prosequi, quam cordis munditia juvit ut claritatem solis aeterni, plus ceteris divinae visionis animalibus, irreverberata posset mentis acie contemplari" (RUPERTUS OF DEUTZ).

IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN] The title of the Gospel, which is found in very different forms in ancient authorities, is no part of the book itself. The earliest authorities, and those which represent the earliest text, give the simplest form: According to John (KOTO, 'icodvvrjv [-dvrjv] KBD; sec undum lohannem (as the running heading) Lat. vt.; and so Syr. vt.: of John). The word Gospel which is implied in this title is supplied by the mass of MSS. (fi)ayyeXioj» KOTO. 'I. [without the article] ACLX, Sec.; and so, as the initial heading, Lat. vt., Syr. vt.). Very many of the later MSS. add the definite article (TO Kara 'l. «i)ayy.), and very many also add an epithet: Tfje holy Gospel according to John (TO Kara 'I. ayiov eu'ayy.). A few MSS. give the remarkable title: Of the [holy] Gospel according to John ((K ToD Kara 'I. [d-y/ou] f uayy.). The printed texts of the Peshito give: The holy Gospel of the preaching of John the preacher. There is a similar variety in the titles given in the English Versions: D<rf Godspell aefter Johannes gerecednesse [narration] (Anglo-Saxon). The Gospel (Euuangelie) of Joon [or Joon simply] (Wycliffe). The Gospel of Saint John (Tyndale 1526, 1534, 1535, Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible). The Gospel after S. John (Taverner 1539, with the running heading The Gospel of S. John). The Gospel by Saint lohn (Bishops' Bible 1568, 1571). The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to John (Geneva 1560, Rheims 1582 with the running heading The Gospel according to S. John, Tomson 1583). The Gospel according to S. John (A. V. 1611).

THE PROLOGUE (i. i. — 18). Though the narrative of St John's Gospel is not marked off by any very distinct line from the introductory verses, it has been generally acknowledged that i. i— 18 forms an introduction to the whole work. This conclusion appears to be completely established by a careful analysis of the contents of the section, which present in a summary form the main truths that are illustrated by the records of the history. The first verse appears to stand by itself: the remaining verses give an outline of the relations of the Word to Creation. The connexion of the different parts, and the order of progress, will be best seen in a tabular form:

In the divine counsel (v. 2). ii. The act of creation (v. 3).

The Word the Quickening Presence (not apart from Him). iii. The being of things created (irv. 4, a. In the divine Idea (v. 4).

b. In human history (v. 5).

The continuous conflict of Light and Darkness following on a critical assault of Darkness.

ii. The manifestations of the Word (as Light) before the Incarnation (vv. 9, 10).

a. By special revelations (v. 9).

iii. The nature of the revelation (vv. 16— 18).

Other arrangements of the Prologue have been proposed which bring out different aspects. It has been divided into two parts: i — 5 (the essential nature of the Word), 6 — 1 8 (the historical manifestation of the Word); and again into three parts: i — 5, 6 — 13, 14 — 1 8, which have been supposed to present the progressive revelation of the Word, either in fuller detail from section to section, or in historical order, as He is essentially, as He was made known under the Old Covenant, as He was made known under the New; and yet again into three parts: i — 4 (the activity of the Word before the Incarnation generally), j — ii (the revelation of unbelief), iz — 18 (the revelation of faith).

The detailed examination of the text will shew how far these arrangements correspond with the structure of the whole passage.

CHAP. I. 1. The first sentence of the Gospel offers a perfect example of the stately symmetry by which the whole narrative is marked. The three clauses of which it consists are set side by side (...and... and...}; the Subject (the Word) is three times repeated; and the substantive verb three times occupies the same relative position. The symmetry of form corresponds with the exhaustiveness of the thought. The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man to realise as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time, and mode of being, and character: He was (i) in the beginning: He was (a) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in v. 14. He who "was God," became Jlesh: He who "was with God," tabernacled among us (comp. i John i. 2): He who "was in the beginning," became (in time).

This revelation is the foundation of the whole Gospel of St John. It sets aside the false notion that the Word became "personal " first at the time of Creation or at the Incarnation. The absolute, eternal, immanent relations of the Persons of the Godhead furnish the basis for revelation. Because the Word was personally distinct from "God" and yet essentially "God," He could make Him known. Compare an interesting passage of Irenasus: n. 30. 9.

In the beginning'] The phrase carries back the thoughts of the reader to Gen. i. i, which necessarily fixes the sense of the beginning. Here, as there, "the beginning" is the initial moment of time and creation; but there is this difference, that Moses dwells on that which starts from the point, and traces the record of divine action from the beginning (comp. i John i. i, ii. 13), while St John lifts our thoughts beyond the beginning and / dwells on that which " was " when time, and with time finite being, began its course. Comp. Prov. viii. 23. Already when "God created the heaven and the earth," "the Word wrt-r." The " being " of the Word is thus necessarily carried beyond the limits of time, though the pre-existence of the Woro^is not definitely stated. The simple affirmation of existence in this connexion suggests a loftier conception than that of pre-existence; which is embarrassed by the idea of time. Preexistence however is affirmed in a different connexion: ch. xvii. 5.

This force of in the beginning is brought out by a comparison with the corresponding phrase in i John i. i, from the beginning. The latter marks the activity of the Word in time from the initial point: the former emphasizes the existence of the Word at the initial point, atad so before time.

<zixw] The verb was does not express a completol past, but rather a continuous state. / The imperfect tense of the original suggests in this relation, as far as human language can do so, the notion of absolute, supra- temporal, existence.

the Word] This translation of the original (Xoyof, Vulg. verbum, though some early Latin authorities give sermo) ought undoubtedly to be kept. It is probable that there is a reference to the language of G«n7l:-^ff. "God said." For the history and meaning of the term Logos see Introduction p. xv. Here it will be sufficient to observe: \^>> i. The personal title Logos is usedaEsolutely only in -w. i, 14 (Rev. xix. 13; Heb. iv. ia — the Word of God). In i John i. i the phrase the Word of life is not personal, but equivalent to "the revelation of the life."

3. St John introduces the term without any explanation. He assumes that his readers are familiar with it.

• Gen. i.i. 2 "The same was in the beginning and without him was not any thing

to be derived directly from the Palestinian Memra, and not from the Alexandrine Logos.

5. Though the term is not used in the apostolic writings in the sense of Reason, yet the first verse deals with the divine relations independently of the actual revelation to men. The " Word" (Xoyov) of i>. i includes the conception of the immanent word (Xdyor tvStadtror) of Greek philosophy in thought though not in language. But the idea is approached from the side of historical revelation. He who has been made known to us as "the Word" <was in the beginning. Thus the economic Trinity, the Trinity of revelation, is shewn to answer to an essential Trinity. The Word as personal (tVvn-ooraror) satisfies every partial conception of the Logos.

6. The personal titles " the Word " and "the Word of God " must be kept in close connexion with the same terms as applied to the sum of the Gospel in the New Testament, and with the phrase "the word of the Lord" in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Word, before the Incarnation, was the one source of the many divine words; and Christ, the Word Incarnate, is Himself the Gospel.

7. The evangelist uses the title Word and not Son here, because he wishes to carry his readers to the most absolute conceptions.

was with God\ The phrase ($y irpos, Vulg. erat apud) is remarkable. It is found also Matt. xiii. 56; Mark vi. 3; Mark ix. 19; Mark xiv. 49; Luke ix. 41; i John i. 2. The idea conveyed by it is not that of simple coexistence, as of two persons contemplated separately in company (dvai furd, iii. 26, &c.), or united under a common conception (rti/nt true, Luke xxii. 56), or (so to speak) in local relation (dvai napd, ch. xvii. 5), but of being (in some sense) directed towards and regulated by that with which the relation is fixed (v. 19). The personal being of the Word was realised in active intercourse with and in perfect communion with God. Compare Gen. i. 26, where the same truth is expressed under distinct human imagery. The Word "was with God" before He revealed God. The main thought is included in the statement that God is Jove (i John iv. 16; comp. ch. xvii. 44); and it finds expression in another form in the description of "the life, the life eternal, which was manifested to men." This life "was with the Father" (qj/ npos TOV iraTtpa., not Trpos TOV 6fov, i John i. 2): it was realised in the intercommunion of the divine Persons when time was not.

the Word 'was God'} The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article (B(6s not o 6e or) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the

Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say "the Word was o 0for." No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare for the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ v. 47 (on vlos av- 6pu>irov ((rriv note).

On the other hand it will be noticed that "the Word" is placed in personal relation to "God" (o 6f6i) spoken of absolutely in the second clause; while in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "God," and sov. included in the unity of the Godhead. Thus x^ we are led to conceive that the divine nature is essentially in the Son, and at the same time that the Son can be regarded, according to that which is His peculiar characteristic^ in relation to God as God. He is the "image of God " (fiKO)i> TOV 6(ov) and not simply of the Father.

The Evangelist having given in the first verse such an idea as man can receive of the Word in Himself, next traces out step by step the mode in which the Word has entered into relation with Creation.

This sub-section lays open the source of creation in the divine counsel (v. 2), the act of creation through the Word and by His Presence (v. 3), the being of things created in the divine idea (v. 4), and as manifested in history C». 5)-

2. In passing from the thought of the Personal Being of the Word in Himself to the revelation of the Word, the Evangelist brings the revelation into the closest connexion with the essential Nature of the Word by the repetition in combination of the three clauses of the ist verse: The same <zvas in the beginning (with God. At the moment of creation that relation, which twos eternally, was actually effective. Creation itself was (in some sense) the result of the eternal fellowship expressed in the relation of the Word to God.

The same'] Literally, This [Word]; He who has just been declared to be God. The pronoun implies and emphasizes the whole previous definition. Comp. vi. 46, vii. 18, &c.

4 In him was life; and the life was 5 And the light shineth in darkness; the light of men. and the darkness comprehended it not.

3. All things'] The exact form (navra) expresses all things taken severally, and not all things regarded as a defined whole (TO Traira, Col. i. 16). The thought to be brought out is that of the vast multiplicity of created things (spirits, matter, &c.). Of all these no one came into being without the Word. For this reason the term "the world" (o *so<r/ios, •vv. 9, 10) is purposely avoided.

were made] Literally, became (iyivero). Creation itself is represented as a "becoming " in contrast with the " being " emphasized before. The same contrast recurs in -w. 6, 9.

Three distinct words are used in the New Testament to convey the conception of creation, (i) to create (icTi'jjVii/), and (a) to make (iroiflv), in reference to the Creator; and (3) to become (yiyvfirdai), in reference to that which is created. The first word (Rev. iv. n, x. 6; Col. i. 1 6, &c.) suggests the idea of design, plan, purpose; the second (Rev. xiv. 7; Mark x. 6, &c.), of an actual result or object produced (comp. Eph. ii. 10); the third, of the law fulfilled in the production of the object. The use of "become" in w. 14, 17, brings out its force as expressive of the unfolding of a divine order.

by him] through Him. The Word is described as the mediate Agent of Creation (Bid, through, not VTTO, by). Comp. Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2. The Father is the one spring, source (707777), and end of all finite being, as He is of the Godhead. All things are of Him...through Jesus Christ...^ Cor. viii. 6). Thus in different relations creation can be attributed to the Father and to the Son. Comp. v. 17.

without him] Literally, apart from Him (comp. xv. 5). Creation is set forth under a twofold aspect, as depending on the divine Agency and on the divine Presence. It is first called into being by the Word, and then sustained in being by Him (Heb. i. 3). Compare the use of in Him, Col. i. 16, 17; Acts xvii. 28.

was not any thing made} The true form of the text gives not even one thing (ov8e «»)» for "not anything" (ov8«V). St John emphasizes the universality of the action of the Word. The same thought is expressed in detail by St Paul: Col. i. 16.

was made~\ hath been made. The change of tense (from lylvfro to yiyovtv) distinguishes the act of creation (aor.~) from the continuance of things created (perf.). Compare Col. i. 16

3, 4....that was made (hath been made). In him was life...~\ The original words admit two very distinct divisions. The last clause of v. 3 may be taken either (i) with the words which precede, as A.V., or (2) with the words which follow. It would be difficult to find a more complete consent of ancient authorities in favour of any reading, than that which supports the second punctuation: Without Him was not anything made. That which hath been made in Him was life. See Note at the end of the Chapter.

4. the life was the light of men] The works of the Word supplied for a time, from within and from without, that which He supplied more completely by His personal manifestations (ix. 5, note), and afterwards by His historical Presence (viii. 12, xii. 46), and yet more completely by His Presence through the Spirit in the Church. He is Himself, however revealed, the Light of men and of the world (viii. 12, ix. 5).

the light] the one light. It must be observed that the Word is not here spoken of directly as "the Light of men." He is "the / Light" through the medium of "Life." In part and according to the divine constitution of things He is made known, and makes Himself known, in and through the vital processes of creation.

of men] of men as a class (rS>v an6pwiru>v) and not of individuals only. Comp. iii. 19, xvii. 6. Man as made in the image of God stood in a special relation to the Word. "He

saith not the Light of the, Jews only but of all men; for all of us, in so far as we have received intellect and reason from that Word which created us, are said to be illuminated by Him" (Theophylact, quoted by Thomas Aqu.).

5. In v. 4 the divine essence and the divine purpose of creation are declared from the side of God; in v. 5 the Evangelist describes the actual state of things from the side of man. The description holds good generally. It embraces the experience of Judaism and Heathendom, of pre-Christian and post- Christian times. The truth which found its most signal fulfilment in the historical Presence of Christ, was established in various ways both before and after it. The conflict of Light and Darkness which represents one aspect of the history of the Gospel, represents also one aspect of all human history.

the light} It is probable that the word must be taken in a somewhat wider sense in this clause than in the last, so as to include not only the manifestations of the Word (as "Life") through "Nature" in the widest sense of the term, but also the Personal manifestations of the Word. It is impossible for us to judge how far the two series of manifestations may be in fact united. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 9.

Matt 3. 5 q f The re was a man sent from 7 The same came for a wit- God, whose name was John. ness, to bear witness of the Light, shineth'] Comp. i John ii. 8. The light does not " appear" only; it "lightens," Gen. i. 17; Ps. Ixxvii. 18, xcvii. 4 (LXX.). It is of the essence of light to invade the realm of darkness. The word ($ai'i/«i/) describes that which is the action of light in itself, as distinguished from its effects as "illuminating" men ((£om'f«i/, v. 9). This action of the Light is not to be limited to any one point. It is continuous from the creation to the consummation of things, though there have been times when it has flashed forth with peculiar splendour.

in darkness'] in the darkness. Side by side with the light the darkness appears suddenly and without preparation. An acquaintance with the history of the Fall is evidently presupposed. The perfect fellowship of man and God has been broken. Man in his selfwill has separated, isolated himself. He has made for himself, so to speak, an atmosphere of darkness, by seeking to sever his life from the Source of life. For all that is without God, apart from Him, is darkness. Comp. i John i. 5.

comprehended (overcame) it not] The verb in the original ((cartXa/S*!/) has received two very different renderings — overcame and apprehended. It is found again in a parallel passage, xii. 35, that darkness overtake you not; and also in an old reading of vi. 17, the darkness overtook them. In these cases the sense cannot be doubtful. The darkness comes down upon, enwraps men. As applied to light this sense includes the further notion of overwhelming, eclipsing. The relation of darkness to light is one of essential antagonism. If the darkness is represented as pursuing the light it can only be to overshadow and not to appropriate it. And this appears to be the meaning here. The existence of the darkness is affirmed, and at the same time the unbroken energy of the light. But the victory of the light is set forth as the result of a past struggle; and the abrupt alteration of tense brings into prominence the change which has passed over the world. It could not but happen that the darkness when it came should seek to cover all; and in this attempt it failed: the light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not.

This general interpretation of the word, which is completely established by the usage of St John (comp. i Thess. v. 4), is supported by the Greek Fathers; but the Latin version gives the rendering comprehenderunty "took hold of," "embraced." This sense, however, and that of "understood" (expressed in the New Testament by the middle voice of the verb: Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25; Eph. iii.

1 8) seem to be inconsistent with the image and foreign to the context. The darkness., as such, could not "seize," "appropriate,'* the light. In doing this it would cease to exist. And yet further, the notion of the historical development of revelation is not at present pursued. The great elements of the moral position of the world are stated: their combinations and issues are outlined afterwards. In this respect v. 5 is parallel with 9 — 13, indicating the existence and continuance of a conflict which is there regarded in its contrasted issues. The whole phrase is indeed a startling paradox. The light does not banish the darkness: the darkness does not overpower the light. Light and darkness coexist in the world side by side.

4. The historic manifestation of the Word generally (vv. 6 — 13). In the former section the great facts which issue in the spiritual conflict of life have been set forth. The Evangelist now traces in outline the course of the conflict which is apprehended in its essential character in the final manifestation of the Light. This manifestation was heralded by prophecy, of which John the Baptist was the last representative (vv. 6 — 8). It had been prepared also by continuous revelations of the Word, as light, at once through special communications (v. 9), and by His immanent Presence (v. 10). But when He came to His own in the fulness of time, He found, as the Incarnate Saviour, national unbelief (v. n) relieved only by individual faith (vv. u, 13). The conflict shadowed out before (v. 5) still continued.

6 — 8. The office of prophecy is shewn through the work of the Baptist; of whom the Evangelist speaks in regard to his personality (v. 6), the end of his mission (v. 7), his nature (v. 8). The abrupt introduction of John is explained by the fact that the review of the revelation, preparatory to the Incarnation, starts from the last, that is the most intelligible, stage in it. The Baptist — a priest and a Nazarite — was the completed type of the Prophet (Matt. xi. 9 f. and parallels); and it was by the Baptist, an interpreter of the Old Dispensation and herald of the New, that St John himself was guided to Christ (vv. 35 ff.).

6. There -was...] More exactly, There arose, became (V-y««To)...Each of the three words in the original which describe the advent of John is expressive. His "becoming" is contrasted with the "being" of the Word (v. 9). He is spoken of as "a man'' with a significant reference to the mystery realised in v. 14. And at the same time he was charged with a divine mission.

sent from God~\ from (irapd) and not simply by God (comp. xv. 26). On the word used here for send (dn-ooreXAw), see xx. 21 note. Comp. Mai. iii. i, ch. iii. 28. The two words (was, sent) are not a mere periphrasis for "was sent:" they fix attention separately on the person and on the mission of the Baptist.

whose name...'] Rather (in accordance with St John's sharp brief style; so iii. i), his name was.... Possibly an allusion to the meaning of the name (Theodore, Gotthold, God's gracious gift) underlies the clause. Compare Luke i. 63.

John] On the use of the simple name without any title in the fourth Gospel, see Introd.

7. The same] He who was of such a nature, so commissioned, so named. Corop. v. 2, and contrast the pronoun in v. 8.

came for a witness, to bear... that... ] came for witness, that lie might bear... that all men... John's mission is first set forth under its generic aspect: he came for witness (fly paprvptav), not for a witness; and then its specific object (u>a /uapr. Trepi r. 0.) and its final object (iva TT. Trtor.) are defined coordinately (that... that...). This combination of successive and related ends under one form of construction, is characteristic of St John's style: comp. xx. 31, xv. 16, xvii. 21, 23 f. For the phrase "for witness " compare the kindred phrase Matt. viii. 4, x. 18, xxiv. 14 ((ls naprvptov); Mark vi. u. The coming of the Baptist (»JX#e) in the fulfilment of his office is contrasted with his personal coming (fycVcro v. 6).

for witness] On the idea of "witness" see Introd. The office of the prophet in the fullest sense is to make known Another. This office had been fulfilled "in many parts and in many fashions" by all God's messengers in earlier times, and at last eminently by the Baptist (comp. iii. 30). He came, as his predecessors, but with a clearer charge, to bear witness concerning the Light, to interpret to men the signs of a divine will and guidance without them and within them, and then to point to Him who was Himself the Life and the Light. In this way provision was made for leading men in human ways to recognise the divine.

all men] The prophets had prepared the way for the extension of the divine call beyond Israel (comp. Isai. xlix. 6). The Baptist at last delivered a message which in its essence was universal. As the last prophet, the last interpreter of the Law, he carried the preparatory discipline to its final application. He spoke to men as men; outward descent, national privileges, disappeared from their place in the divine order from the time of his preaching. The basis of his preaching was repentance— inner self-renunciation — the end was faith. In this connexion it is to be noticed that the conception of faith is sharpened by being left in an absolute form: that all men might believe (contrast -v. 12) through him (John). There can be but one adequate object of faith, even God made known in the Son. Believe is used similarly -v. 51, v. 44, xi. 15, xiv. 29, &c., iv. 41 f., 53, xix. 35, xx.

The character of the Baptist's preaching is implied in its scope. The phrase "all men" is unintelligible except on the supposition that the universal gospel was preceded by a call to repentance. But it is worthy of remark that St John does not notice explicitly his call to repentance, nor do the terms "repent," "repentance" find a place in his Gospel or Epistles ' ("Repent" occurs frequently in the Apocalypse). Thus the correspondence between St John and the Synoptists as to the character of the Baptist's work is complete without a correspondence of letter.

through him] that is the Baptist, not the Light. The message of the Baptist has an absolute and enduring power. He still in spirit goes before Christ.

8. He was not that (the) Light] From this passage and other similar passages (v. 20, iii. 26 flf.) it has been plausibly argued that the Evangelist was familiar with some who unduly exalted the Baptist. Comp. Acts xix.

3 f. John was "the lamp" (v. 35) and not \! the light. The pronoun of reference which y is used (fKflvot) isolates and so fixes attention upon the person referred to. Comp. i. 18, note, ii. 21, note.

but was sent to...'] Literally, but that... The ellipse is best filled up from <v. 7: but came that he might... Comp. ix. 3, xv. 25, note.

9, 10. The preparation of prophecy, represented by John, was one part of the education of the world. The Word Himself as light (v. 5) visited the world which He had made (v. 9), and was in it still (v. 10).

9. That was (There was) the true Light...that cometh (coming) into the world] The original text isNambiguous. The participle. coming (ep^d/ievoi/^may agree either (i) withV man, or (2) with light. Thus there are twpa" distinct series of interpretations, (i) If coming be taken with man, the sense will be either (a) simply " every man " according to a common Hebrew idiom, or (A) "every man at the moment of his birth." But it is scarcely possible that the words "coming into the

lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he ' power to become ' Or, tk* the sons of God, even to them that $*»#£«:

ii He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

worlil" can be without distinct meaning; and, in spite of Wordsworth's greatest ode, it is hardly true to say that the illumination of the Light, which comes through Life, is most complete at man's entrance into the world.

(a) If, on the other hand, coming be taken to agree with light, it may be directly connected either (a) with "lighteth," or (b) with " was." In the first case (a) the sense will be "lighteth every man by coming;" but the context does not call for any statement as to the mode of the action of the Light; and the Light illuminates by "being" as well as by "coming." If then (A) " was...coming " be taken together, there is still some ambiguity remaining. The phrase has been interpreted to mean (a) " was destined to come," and (/3) " was on the point of coming," and (y) " was in the very act of coming."

But it seems best to take it more literally and yet more generally as describing a coming which was progressive, slowly accomplished, combined with a permanent being, so that both the verb (was) and the participle (coming) have their full force, and do not form a periphrasis for an imperfect. The mission of John was one and definite; but all along up to his time "the Light" of which he came to witness continued to shine, being revealed in many parts and in many ways. There was the Light, the true Light, which ligbteth every man; that Light was, and yet more, that Light was coming into the world. The same idea of a constant, continuous coming of the Word to men is found in vi. 33, 5°, where "that cometh" (6 *ara/3aiVa>i/) stands in marked contrast with " that came (o Karafias, w. 51, 58). Taken in relation to the context, the words declare that men were not left alone to interpret the manifestations of the Light in the Life around them and in them. The Light from whom that Life flows made Himself known more directly. From the first He was (so to speak) on His way to the world, advancing towards the Incarnation by preparatory revelations. He came in type and prophecy and judgment.

The identification of "the Word" with " the Light " is natural and prepared by v. 5. But, at the same time, the titles are not coextensive. "The Light" (as the other special titles, the Bread of Life, &c.) describes " the Word " only in a special relation towards creation and particularly towards men.

In this relation the Light is characterized as (i) the true (d\n6ivos) Light, and (a) that which lighteth every man. The former expression (i) marks the essential nature of the Light as that of which all other lights are only partial rays or reflections, as the archetypal Light (see iv. 23, vi. 32, xv. i). The " true light " in this sense is not opposed to a " false light," but to an imperfect, incomplete, transitory light.

The latter (a) describes the universal extent of its action. The words must be taken simply as they stand. No man is wholly destitute of the illumination of " the Light." In nature, and life, and conscience it makes itself felt in various degrees to all. The Word is the spiritual Sun: viii. 12 (xi. 9). This truth, it may be added, is recognised here by St John, but he does not (like Philo) dwell upon it. Before the fact of the Incarnation it falls into the background. For the Jewish idea of "the light of Creation" (Is. xxx. 26), see Taylor's 'Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,' p. 7 a-

UghMh] Comp. Luke xi. 35, 36. The Light is contrasted in each particular with the Witness to the Light. He " arose" (<y<- vt TO); the Light "was" (rjv). He guided his disciples away from himself; the Light illuminated in virtue of its own nature. He came once for all; the Light was ever coming through the ages.

every man] The idea is distinct from that of "all men" (v. 7). The relation is not collective, corporate, as it is here presented, but personal, and universal while personal. The reality of this relation furnished the basis for the crowning fact of the Incarnation. The world was made for this re-gathering, coming into the world] Comp. iii. i9,xii.46. 10, 11. Verse 9, according to the interpretation which has been given, presents a comprehensive view of the action of the Light. This action is now divided into two parts. The first part (v. 10) gathers up the facts and issues of the manifestation of the Light as immanent. The second part (v. u) contains an account of the special personal manifestation of the Light to a chosen race. The two parts are contrasted throughout as to the mode (was, came), the scene (the world, His own home), the recipients (the world, His own people), the end (not know, not receive), of the manifestation. The world failed to recognise Him who was doubly shewn as its Creator and as its Preserver. The people of God failed to welcome Him whom they had been prepared to receive.

10. He was in the world] Comp. v. 5, note. It is impossible to refer these words simply to the historical Presence of the "Word in Jesus as witnessed to by the Baptist. The whole scope and connexion of the passage requires a wider sense. The Word acts by His Presence as well as by His special Advent. The continuance and progress of things, no less than their original constitution, are fitted to make Him known.

the world'] the sum of created being, which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole considered apart from God, and in its moral aspect represented by humanity. See Note at the end of the Chapter.

him] The personal character which has been already implied now finds expression (OVTOV, contrasted with the neuter in v. 5, OVTO). The previous pronoun is ambiguous in the original (6V avroO), but it is most natural to suppose that this also is masculine (as in A.V.).

The form of the sentence is peculiarly characteristic. The clauses are placed simply side by side (...and the world... and the world...). In this way the statement of the issue (and the world knew Him not) gains in pathos. For a similar use of and see viii. 20, note.

11. The Evangelist now passes from the universal action of the Word as the Light to His special action. Creation and mankind were His, and not unvisited by Him; but in " the world " and in humanity one spot and one people were in a peculiar sense devoted to Him. The land of Israel was " His own home," and the children of Israel were " His own people." The Word came to the holy land and to the holy nation, and they " received Him not."

came'] The word forms a climax when combined with those which precede: was, was in the world, came to His own; and in this connexion it appears to contain an allusion to the technical sense of "he that cometh." Comp. ix. 39. The tense (rj\6f, comp. v. 7) seems necessarily to mark a definite advent, the Incarnation, which consummated the former revelations of the Word to Israel. It does not seem possible that the manifestations before the Incarnation and separate from it could be so spoken of. Nor is there anything in this interpretation which detracts from the force of v. 14. The Incarnation is regarded in the two places under different aspects. Here it is regarded in rela-

<tion to the whole scheme of Redemption, as the crowning revelation to the ancient people \ of God; in v. 14, it is regarded in its distinctive character as affecting humanity. Here it is seen from the side of national failure, there of individual faith.

He came... received him not] He came unto his own home and his own people received him not. The Vulgate rightly preserves the significant variation of the original: in propria (sua) venit, et sui eum non receperunt.

It must be noticed that by this appropriation of the Old Testament language that which was before applied to Jehovah is now applied to Christ. Comp. xii. 41 note.

received'] The word used here (irapeXaftov) as distinguished from that used in the next verse (?Aa/3oi/) suggests in this connexion the notion of "receiving that which has been handed down by another" (as opposed to Trape'ScoKa, comp. i Cor. xv. i, 3, xi. 23), as distinct from that of "taking." The divine teachers of Israel, through John their representative, "offered" Christ to the people as Htm whom the Lord had promised; and the leaders of the people refused to acknowledge Him as their King.

12. The Jews as a nation did not receive Christ as Him for whose advent they had been disciplined; but this national rejection was qualified by the personal belief of some. These however believed as men, so to say, and not as Jews. They became on an equality with those who believed from among the heathen. The Christian Church was not, as it might have been, the corporate transfiguration of the old Church, but was built up of individuals. To these, whether Jews or Gentiles by ancestry, as many as received Him [Christ] gave right to become children of God. The privilege of Israel (Ex. iv. 22) was extended to all the faithful.

The irregular construction of the original (oo-ot 8« fXa@ov...(da>Kev avroiy...) gives prominence to the act of personal faith which distinguishes the first-fruits of the new Israel. Thought is first fixed on the character of those who believed, and then by a change of subject on the Word, and what He did.

received] The word indicates the action of him who "takes" that which is within reach as anxious to make it his own. Gomp. v. 43, xiii. 20, xix. 6.

power (right)] The word (f^ova-ia) does not describe mere ability, but legitimate, rightful authority, derived from a competent source which includes the idea of power. Comp. v. 27, x. 18, xvii. 2, xix. 10, n; Rev. ii. 26, &c. This right is not inherent in man, but "given" by God to him. A shadow of it existed in the relation of Israel to God. But that which was in that case outward and independent of the individual will was replaced in the Christian Church by a vital relationship.

As far as we can conceive of " this right to become children," it lies in the potential union with the Son, whereby those who receive Him are enabled to realise their divine fellowship. They are adopted — placed, if we may so speak, in the position of sons — that so they may become children actually. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 3, 4; Gal. iv. 6. The fruit is not given at once, but the seed. It is of God to give, but man must use His gift, which faith appropriates. It is thus important to observe how throughout the passage the divine and human sides of the realisation of Sonship are harmoniously united. The initial act is at once a "begetting" (iytwridrja-av) and a "reception " (?Aa£oi/). The growth follows from the use of a gift. The issue is complete on the part of God, but man must bring it to pass by continuous exertion the sons] children (rticva). Comp. xi. 52; i John iii. i, 2, 10, v. 2; Rom. viii. 16, 17, 21, ix. 8; Phil. ii. 15. The idea of "child," as distinguished from " son," which does not occur in this connexion in St John except Rev. xxi. 7, is that of a community of nature (v. 13) as distinguished from that of a dignity of heirship. It is an illustration of this limitation of the idea of spiritual " childship," that in the divine relation rinvov is not found (as vlos is) in the singular (yet see Tit. i. 4; i Tim. i. 2; Philem. 10). It may be added that the divine Sonship with which the New Testament deals is always regarded in connexion with Christ Yet comp. Acts xvii. 28 f.

even to them that...'] The words are in apposition with the preceding them. The effective reception of Christ is explained to be the continuous energy of faith which relies upon Him as being for the believer that which He has made Himself known to be. The faith is regarded as present and lasting (rois iri- OTfvovcriv), and not simply as triumphant in the crisis of trial (rolr Triorevo-ao-ii', Heb. iv. 3); and its object is the revealed Person of the Incarnate Word. Comp. i John v. 13 (

13. The spring of the new life to which \/ the believer has "right" lies solely in God. /\ The beginning of it cannot be found in the combination of the material elements, by which physical life is represented, nor in the natural instinct, in obedience to which beings are reproduced, nor in the will of the rational man. This appears to be the meaning of the threefold negation. The progress is from that which is lowest in our estimate of the origin of life to that which is highest. At the same time the three clauses naturally admit a moral interpretation. The new birth is not brought about by descent, by desire or by human power.

blood] Lit. bloods. The use of the plural («£ at/idrcof, Vulg. ex sanguinibus) appears to emphasize the idea of the element out of which in various measures the body is framed.

Jles h... man...] These two clauses differ from the former by referring the beginning of life to purpose; and they differ from one another in that the first marks the purpose which comes from the animal nature, and the second that which comes from the higher human nature (avijp).

<were born] Literally, were begotten, as i John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. i, 4, 18. The thought is of the first origin of the new life, and not of the introduction of the living being into a new region. The phrase appears to be parallel with as many as received. The act of reception coincided with the infusion of the divine principle, by which the later growth became possible.

It is important to notice generally that^ St John dwells characteristically upon the communication of a new life, while St Paul dwells upon the gift of a new dignity and relation (yio6«ria, Rom. viii. 15 j Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5). When St Paul brings out the newness or the Christian's being he speaks of him as a new " creation " (imVis, Gal. vi. 15; a Cor. v. 17). The language of St James (i. 1 8) and of St Peter (i Pet. i. 3, 23) corresponds with that of St John.

j^ *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,) and truth.

The statement as to the fact of the new birth is made quite generally, but it is natural to see in it the contrast between the spiritual birth which makes "a child of GOD," and the fleshly descent in which the Jews trusted, and which had been recognised under the old dispensation. Comp. Matt. iii. 9.

This section, like the former, falls into three parts. St John gives first the substance of the apostolic witness (T>. 14); and then the witness of prophecy, represented by the Baptist (-V. 15); and thirdly, a general account of the nature of the revelation (vv. 16 — 18).

14. The construction of the verse is somewhat irregular. It consists of a main clause, which describes the fact and the character of the Incarnation (The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth), broken by a parenthesis (and <we beheld His glory...from the Father), which records the observation of the fact, so that it presents in succession the-lncaoution, the witness to the I near- observation of men.

title, the Word, which is now at length resumed. All that has intervened is in one sense parenthetical. The Incarnation presupposes and interprets the Creation and the later history of man, and of man's relation to God. Thus the thoughts run on in perfect sequence: In the beginning was the Word',... and the Word <was God. And the Word became flesh. This connexion is far more natural than that which has been supposed to exist between -v. 14 and v. 9 or v. ii.

The announcement of the mystery of the Incarnation, embracing and completing all the mysteries of revelation, corresponds (as has been already noticed) to the declaration ot the absolute Being of the Word in i;.-*»_ilHe_ was God;" and "He became flesh:" eternity and time, the divine and the human, are reconciled in Him. " He was with God; " and " He tabernacled among us:" the divine existence is brought into a vital and historical connexion with human life. "He was in the beginning; " and "we beheld His glory:" He who "was" beyond time was revealed for a space to the nation, the character of the Incarnate Word.

The Incarnation, which has been touched upon in v. 11 in its relation to the whole course of revelation, is now presented in its essential character. In the former place the Advent was considered in reference to particular promises (He came) and to a chosen people: now it is revealed in its connexion with humanity. Thus there is no retrogression or repetition, but a distinct progress in the development of thought. The special aspect of Messiah's coming, followed by the national failure to recognise His coming, prepares the way for the universal aspect of it.

3. The personal apostolic witness to the character of that human-divine Life. We beheld His glory.

4. The character of the Incarnate Word as the Revealer of God. Full of grace and truth.

was made (became) flesh~\ (crap£ eyei/ero, Vulg. Verbum caro factum est, Tert. Sermo caro factus est). Owing to the inherent imperfection of human language as applied to the mystery of the Incarnation, both these words are liable to misinterpretation. The word became must not be so understood as to support the belief that the Word ceased to be what He was before; and the word flesh must not be taken to exclude the rational soul of man. The clear apprehension of the meaning of the phrase, so far as we can apprehend it, lies in the recognition of the unity of the Lord's Person, before and after the Incarnation. His Personality is divine. But at the same time we must affirm that His humanity is real and complete. He, remaining the same Person as before, did not simply assume humanity as something which could be laid aside: He became flesh. He did not simply become "a man:" He became "man." The mode of the Lord's existence on earth W3s~ truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; buJLjie never ceased to be God. And the nature whicH~He~s6 assum-

It may be added that the fact of the mira- e3~He" retains in its perfection (i John iv. ^ culous Conception, though not stated, is necessarily implied by the Evangelist. The coming of the Word into flesh is presented as a Creative act in the same way as the coming of all things into being was.

And the Word...'} The conjunction carries the reader back to v. i^ with which this verse is closely connected by this repetition of the tv crapKi eAj;Xv$ora. z John 7 Ipxoptvm tv crapKi). As compared with the corresponding phrase to come in the flesh (i John I.e.), the phrase became flesh brings out especially one aspect of the Incarnation. The former marks the unchanged continuity of the Lord's Personality, and the latter the complete reality of His Manhood.

How this "becoming" was accomplished we cannot clearly grasp. St Paul describes it as an "emptying of Himself" by the Son of God (Phil. ii. 6f.), a laying aside of the mode of divine existence (TO tlvai to-a 0f«); and this declaration carries us as far as we' can go in defining the mystery.

Thus briefly the following main truths must be held as expressed in the words when they are fairly interpreted:

i. The Lord's humanity was complete, as against various forms of Apollinarianism, according to which the divine Logos supplied the place of part of that which belongs to the perfection of Manhood. (The Word became flesh, and not a body or the like.)

a. The Lord's humanity was real and permanent, as against various forms of Gnosticism, according to which He only assumed in appearance, or for a time, that which was and remained foreign to Himself. (The Word became flesh, and did not clothe Himself in flesh.)

3. The Lord's human and divine natures remained without change, each fulfilling its part according to its proper laws, as against various forms of Eutychianism, according to which the result of the Incarnation is a third nature, if the humanity has any real existence. (The Word became flesh, both terms being preserved side by side.)

4. The Lord's humanity was universal and not individual, as including all that belongs to the essence of man, without regard to sex or race or time. (The Word became flesh and not a man.)

5. The Lord's human and divine natures were united in one Person, as against various forms of Nestorianism, according to which He has a human personality and a divine personality, to which the acts &c. belonging to the respective natures must be referred. (The Word became flesh and dwelt, &c., without any change of the subject to the verb.)

6. The Word did not acquire personality by the Incarnation. He is spoken of throughout, not as a principle or an energy, but, whatever may be the inherent imperfection of such language, as a Person.

So far, perhaps, we can see generally a little of the Truth, but the attempt to express the Truth with precision is beset with difficulty and even with peril. Thus in using the words "personality" and " impersonal " in relation to Christ, it is obviously necessary to maintain the greatest reserve. For us "personality" implies limitation or determination, /.*. finite— ness in some direction. As applied to the divine nature therefore the word is not more than a necessary accommodation required to give such distinctness to our ideas as may be attainable. The word "impersonal" again, as applied to the Lord's human nature, is not to be so understood as to exclude in any way the right application of the word "man"

TTO?) to Him, as it is used both by Himself (viii. 40) and by St Paul (i Tim. ii. 5^).

The phrase the Word became flesh is absolutely unique. The phrases which point towards it in St John (i John iv. a), in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 14), and in St Paul (Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7; i Tim. iii. 16) fall short of the majestic fulness of this brief sentence, which affirms once for all the reconciliation of the opposite elements of the final antithesis of life and thought, the finite and the infinite.

became] This term («-y«Wro) forms a link between this verse and verse 3. As "all things became through the Word," so He Himself "became flesh" The first creation and the second creation alike centre in Him. By His own will He "became" that which first "became" through and in Him.

flesh] Humanity from the side of its weakness and dependence and mortality is naturally described as "flesh." In this respect "flesh" expresses here human nature as a whole regarded under the aspect of its present corporeal embodiment, including of necessity the "soul" (xii. ay), and the "spirit" (xi. 33, xiii. ai, xix. 30), as belonging to the totality of man (comp. Heb. ii. 14). At the same time the word marks the points of connexion between man and the material world, so that it has a further significance as presenting in a familiar contrast the spiritual and the material (the Word, flesh). Thus several ante-Nicene Fathers speak of the Word, or the Son, as Spirit with reference to this passage (Tertull. 'de Carne Christi' 18; Hippol. 'c. Noet.' 4; Hennas, •Sim.' v. 6, ix. i; Theoph. 'ad Autol.' n. 10; Clem. ' ii. ad Cor.' ix. with Lightfoot's note).

dwelt (tabernacled)] The original word (ecnc^tKixrfv, Vulg. habitauit [inhabit auit]) describes properly the occupation of a temporary habitation. The tent or tabernacle was easily fixed and easily removed, and hence it furnished a natural term for man's bodily frame. Yet apparently the original idea of "tent" (O-K^ITJ) was lost in the form crKrjpo? which expresses the idea of "frame" apart from any further figurative meaning: Wisd. ix. 15; a Cor. v. i, 4; a Pet. i. 13 f. (o-Kijcu/ja). And so also the verb itself (o-xipoa) is used without any reference to the notion of transitoriness: Rev. vii. 15, xii. 12, xiii. 6, xxi. 3.

Whether however the thought of the temporariness of Christ's sojourn upon earth is indicated by the term or not, there can be no doubt that it serves to contrast the Incarnation with the earlier " Christophanies," which were partial, visionary, evanescent, and at the same time to connect the Personal Presence of the Lord with His earlier Presence in the Tabernacle wh ch foreshadowed it, Ex. xxv. 8; Lev. xxvi n. The Lord in old times walked in a tent and in a tabernacle (a S. vii. 6; cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 67 fF.), as now. He dwelt among men according to the promises expressed after that type (Joel iii. 21; Ezek. xxxvii.). The parallelism becomes more striking if we accept the current view that the Tabernacle was a symbol of the world.

Many also have found in the word itself a distinct reference to the Shekinah; but before any stress can be laid upon the coincidence of form, it is necessary that the history of the term Shekinah should be examined far more carefully than it has been examined at present, with a view to determining: i. The earliest use of the term. 2. The comparative use of the word in the different Targums. 3. The exact senses in which it is used in relation to (a) the Word, and (/3) the Glory.

among us~] in our midst (Iv ijfjuv). Among those who, like the Evangelist, were eye-witnesses of His life. Compare Gen. xxiv. 3 (LXX.).

The supposition that the plural marks the dwelling of the Word as being realised in the nature or in the race, as distinguished from the individual, is quite inconsistent with the historical purport of the whole phrase. Moreover this truth has been already stated by the use of the term " flesh."

and ewe beheld...Father] The breaking ot the construction by this parenthetical clause, marks the pause which the Evangelist makes to contemplate the mystery which he has declared. He looks, as it were, from without upon the record and comments upon it. The same phenomenon in different forms recurs v. 16, iii. 16, 31, xix. 35; i John i. a.

nve beheld"] i John i. i. The abode of the Word among men was only for a brief space, but yet such that those near Him could contemplate His glory at leisure and calmly. His historical Presence was real if transitory. And while the appearance of the Lord was in humility, yet even under the limitations of His human form, those who looked patiently could see the tokens of the divine revelation made through Him. Comp. Luke ix. 32; 2 Pet. i. 16 ff.; i John iv. 14 (rtdfa^fda).

his glory] The word "glory" (8o|a) carries on the parallel between the divine Presence in the Tabernacle and the divine Presence by the Word Incarnate among men. From time to time the Lord manifested His glory in the wilderness (Exod. xvi. 10, xxiv. 16, xl. 34, &c.); in the Temple of Solomon (i K. viii. n); and to the prophets (Isai. vi. 3. Comp. ch. xii. 41; Ezek. i. 28, &c.; Acts vii. 55); and even so Christ's glory flashed forth at crises of His history. It is not possible for us to define exactly in what way this majesty was shewn, by signs, by words, by events. Comp. Luke ix. 31 f. It is enough that the Evangelist records his own experience. The Son of Man had a glory which corresponded with His filial relation to the Father, even when He had laid aside His divine glory (xvii. j).