Notes. John I. 6 —
6. — [Ihere was a man sent from God j.... John.] This is a short and striking description of John the Baptist, He was the messenger whom God promised to send before Messiah's face. He was born when his parents were aged, by God's miraculous interposition. He was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. He received a special commission from God to preach the baptism of repentance, and to proclaim the immediate coming of Christ. In short, he was specially raised up by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. For all these reasons he is here called " a man sent from God." It is, in one sense, the common mark of all true ministers of "the Gospel. Ignorant,
^ bhnd, and unconverted ministers may be ordained and sent by man. But they are not " sent from God."
7. — [ Came for a witness.] This does not mean, as it might at first sight appear, " came to be a witness." The Greek word which we translate '' witness," does not mean " a person," but the testimony which a witness bears.
[To hear witness of the light.] This means, to testify concerning Jesus Christ the hght of the world, that He was the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Bridegroom, the Almighty Saviour, to whom all dark souls ought to apply.
[All men.] This cannot of course signify " all mankind." It means all who heard John's testimony, and all Jews who were really locking for a Redeemer. One end of John the Baptist's testimony was that all such should believe on Christ the true light.
[Through him.] This does not mean "through Christ" and Christ's grace, but through John the Baptist and John's testimony. It is one of those texts which show the immense importance of the ministerial office. It is a means and instrument through which the Holy Spirit is pleased to produce faith lu man's heart. " Faith cometh by hearing." Through John the
Baptist's testimony, Andrew was led to believe in Jesns and become a disciple. Just so now, through the preaching of ministers sinners learn to believe on Christ and are saved.
8. — [He luas not that light] This expression would be more literally rendered, "' He was not the light," the promised light of sinners, the hght of the world. The Greek article " the," is used in a similar emphatic manner, to denote eminence and distinction, in the following passages. " That bread." John vi. 32. "That prophet." John i. 21—25. "That day." 1 Thess. V. 4. " That way." Acts ix. 2.
Let it be noted that our Lord himself calls John the Baptist at a later period, " The burning and shining light." (John v. 35.) But it is a curious fact that the Greek word there rendered "Ught," is not the one used here. It is a word which is frequently translated " candle." John the Baptist was a " candle," but not the light itself Believers are called " the light of the world." (Matt. v. 14,) but only as members of Christ the light, and borrowing light from him. Christ alone is the great sun and fountain of aU light, the light itself
9. — [That was the true light.] The force of the expression " true " in this sentence, is well brought out by Arrowsmith in his commentary on this verse. He saj- s that Christ is " the true Kght " in four respects. Firstly, He is undeceiving light, the true light in opposition to all the false lights of the Gentiles. — Secondly, He is real hght, true in opposition to ceremonial types and shadows. — Thirdly, He is underived light, tr.ue in opposition to all light that is borrowed, communicated, or participated from another.— Fourthly, He is supereminent light, true in opposition to all that is ordinary and common.
[Which lighteth every man....cometh....world.] This sentence haa caused much difference of opinioa among commentators, in. respect to two points.
(o) In the first place, men differ as to the application of the words, "that cometh into the world." Some connect these words with " the true light," and read the words, " this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man." In favour of this view, the words "hght is come into the world," (John iii. 19,) and " I am come a light into the world," (John xii. 46,) deserve notice. — Others connect the words with " every man," and regard them as a sweeping description of every one naturally born of the v^^eed of Adam. That "coming into the world " is a Hebiew phrase for being born, is shown by Nifanius. The construction of the whole verse in the original Greekj is such that either rendering is grammatical and correct.
may be said on either side, that I venture my own judgmont with much hesitiition. But I am inchned to think on the whole, with Chemnitius and Grlassius, that our translators are right, and that the clause " that cometh into the world," is better connected with " every man " than with " the true hght." — If the verse is rendered '' this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man," it seems railier to narrow the blessing of the tiue light, and to confine his illumining benefits to the times after His incarnation. Thi?, be it remembered, is precisely the view of the Socinian. And yet it is unqne>;tionably true that Christ's incarnation increased gi-eatly the spiritual light in the world. St. John says, " The darkness is past and the true light now shineth." (1 John ii. 8.) If, on the other hand, the verse is rendered as our version has it, the words " that cometh into the world," seem very suitably joined to " every man," as expressing the universality of the blessings which Christ confers on man. He is not only the true light of the Jew, but of " every man that is born into the world," of every name, and people, and tongue. To suppose, as some have done, that this application of the words " come into the world," involves the preexistence of souls, is, to say the least, a foolish thought.
The point is, happily, one on which men may agree to differ. Sound doctrine may be got out of either view.
(h.) The second difference of opinion respecting this verse arises from the words, " lighteth every man," This expression has received widely different interpretations. All, except heretics, are agreed that the words cannot mean that aU are converted, and cannot signify the final, universal salvation of all mankind. What then do they mean?
Some think, as Cyril, that Christ " the true light," lighteth every man and woman on earth with the light of reason, intelUgence, and consciousness of right and wrong. This view is partially true, and yet it seems weak and defective.
Some think, as the Quakers are report^^d to do, that Christ lighteth every man and woman on earth with an inward light of grace, sufficient to save him, if he will only use it. This view is a dangerous one, and beside contradicting many texts of Scripture, leads on to downright Pelagianism.
Some think, as Augustine, that Christ lighteth all that are lighted by His grace, and that '' every man " is practically the same as every believer. They quote in support of this view, the verse, "The Lord upholdeth aU that fall," (Psalm cxlv. 141.) where " all " can only mean, " all those that are upheld are upheld by the Lord." A favourite illustration of this view is the saying, that a schoolmaster " teaches aU the boys in a town,** that is, " all who are taught are taught by him." This interpretation, however, is not thoroughly satisfactory, and has an appearance of quibbling and unfairness about it.
Some think, as Chrysostom, and Brentius in his Homilies, and Lightfoot, that Christ is really given to be the light of all mankind. They think that when it is said. He " lighteth every man," it means that He shines suflficiently for the salvation of all mankind, both Jews and G-entiles, (hke the sun shining upon all creation,) though the majority of men are so blinded by sin that they do not see Him. Yet Christ is for every man. " He
lighteth all," says Chrysostom, " as far as in Him lies." — '' There is power and good will in the light," says Chemnitius, " to illumine all; but some love darkness rather than light." Arrowsmith says, " Christ doth dispense to every one hght sufficient to leave him without excuse. But Christ doth not dispense to every one converting light sufficient to bring him to salvation."
I believe this last view to be the most probable one, though I confess that it is not unattended by difficulties. But I rest in the conclusion that Clirist is offered as a light to all the world, and that every one born into the world will prove at last to have been in some way indebted to Christ, even though not saved.
Pearce says of the Greek word rendered '"lighteth," that, "in the Hebrew tongue that which is only intended to be done is often expressed as a thing actually done." He regards thia expression before us as a similar one. He gives, as parallel instances, 1 Cor. x. 33, "please," for "intend to please," Gal. V. 4, "justified," for "intend to be justified," and 1 John ii. 26, "seduce," for "intend to seduce,"
The Greek word rendered " lighteth " is used eleven times in the New Testament, and is translated " to give light, to light, to bring to light, to enlighten, to illuminate."
10. — [He was in the world, dr....knew him not] This verse describes the unbelief of the whole world before Christ's incarnation. He "was in the world " invisibly, before He was born of the Virgin Mary, as in the days of Noah. (1 Pet. iii. 19.) Ha was to be seen in His works and in His providential government of all things, if men had only had eyes to see Him. And yet the very world which He had made, the work of his hands, did not acknowledge, beheve, or obey Him. It knew Him not. At Athens, Paul found an altar " to the unknown God."
That tlie expression applies to Christ before His incarnation, and not after, is said by Lampe to be the unanimous opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Beda, Theophylact, and Euthymius.
There is a striking similarity between the declaration of this verse and the contents of the latter part of the 1st chapter of the Epistle to the Eomans. In fact the line of argument by which St. Paul shows the Grentiles to be guilty, in the first chapter of that epistle, and the Jews to be equally guilty and excuseless in the second chapter, is only a full exposition of what St. John here states briefly in two verses.
11.— [^e cavie unto his own,...received him not] This verse describes the unbehef of the Jewish nation after the incarnation of Christ, and during His ministry among them. He came to a people who were peculiarly His own, by their redemption from Egypt, by their introduction into the land of Canaan, and by their possession of the law of Moses, and the covenants, and yet they did not believe on Him, or receive Him, but actually rejected and slew Him.
There is a peculiarity about the Greek words rendered " his own," in this verse, which ought not to be overlooked. The first " his own " is in the neuter gender, and means literally " his own things." The second '*his own" is in the masculine gender, and means "his own men, servants or subjects." It is probably meant to show that our Lord came to a people whose land, territory, cities, temple, were all His own property, and had been originally granted by Himself. The Jews, Palestine, Jerusalem, the temple, were all Chri'st's peculiar possession. Israel was '^His inheritance." (Psalm Ixxviii. 71.)— This made the sin of those who '^ received Him not," even more sinful.
12. — [As many as received Jlim.] This expression signifies, "as many as believed on Christ, and acknowledged Him as the Messiah." It is only another form of the expression at the end of the verse, "believed on His name." To receive Christ is to accept Him with a willing heart, and to take Him as our Saviour. It is one of many forms of speech, by which that justifying faith which unites the sinner's soul to Christ is expressed in the Bible. To believe on Christ with the heart, is to receive Him, and to receive Him is to believe on Him. — St. Paul says to the Colossians, " As ye have received Christ, so walk ve in Him." (Col. ii. 6.)
The Greek word rendered, " As many as," is literally, "whosoever," " whatsoever persons." Glassius remarks, that the expression denotes the universality of the benefits which Christ conferred. " Whosoever " received Him, Pharisees, Saddueees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God.
[To them gave he power to become the sons of God.] This expression means, "He gave them the privilege of adoption into God's family." They became the " children of God by faith in Ohrist Jesus." (Gal. iii, 26.) " Whosoever beHeveth that
Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (1 John v. 1.) There is
Ibe forgotten. To talk of Gcd being men's Father, and men \ being God's children, while they do not believe on the Son of vGod, is contrary to Scripture. Those are not children of God who have not faith in Jesus.
The word "power" in this sentence requires careful guarding against misrepresentation. It means, as the marginal reading says, " right or privilege." It does not mean strength or abihty. It does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive Him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God's children. No doubt Christ gives to all His people all needful grace to supply all the wants of their hearts, and the necessities of their position. No doubt He gives them strength to carry the cross, fight the good fight, and overcome the world. But that is not the truth taught in the words before us, and must be sought in other places. The words before us only mean that Christ confers the privilege of adoption on all believers, and did 80 especially on His first disciples. While their unbelieving fellow-countrymen were boasting of being children of Abraham, Christ gave His disciples the far higher privilege of being children of God.
The Greek word rendered " power " is used 102 times in the New Testament, and never on one occasion in the sense of physical, moral, or spiritual strength to do a thing. It is generally translated, " authority, right, power, liberty, jurisdiction."
[To them that believe on His name.] These words are added to make clearer, if possible, the character of those who have the privilege of being sons of God. They are they who receive Christ and believe on His name. Arrowsmith remarks, " The
word 'name,' in the Scripture, is often put for person. The receivers of Christ are said to believe on His name, because the direct object of their faith is the person of Christ. It is not the believing that Christ died for all, or for me, or for the elect, or any such proposition, that saveth. It is believing on Christ. The person, or name of Christ, is the object of faith."
The expression, "believe on His name," ought not to be overlooked. Arrowsmith remarks that there is a known distinction amongst divines, between believing God, that there is such a Being, — believing God, that Avhat He says is true, — and believing on God in the way of faith and confidence as our God. And he observes, most truly, that precisely the same distinction exists between faith that there is such a Saviour as Christ, — faith that what Christ says is true, — and faith of reliance on Christ as our
Saviour. ^Believing on Christ's name is exactly this faith of reliance, and is the faith that saves and justifies.
13, — [ Which luere horn, &c., &c....of Godi\ The birth here spoken of is the new birth, or rep-eneration, that complete change of heart and nature which takes place in a'man when he becomes a real Christian. It is a change so great that no other figure but that of birth can fully express it. It is as when a new being, with new appetites, wants, and desires is brought into the world. A person born of Grod is " a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." (2 Cor. V. 17.)
The persons who believe on Christ's name are said to be born " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The interpretation of this expression which is usually given by commentators appears to me neither correct nor seemly. The true meaning of the words, I believe, is this. BeHevers did not become what they are " by blood," that is by descent from Abraham or blood connection with godly people. Grace does not descend from parent to child. — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of the flesh, — that is by the efforts and exertions of their own natural hearts. Nature can never change itself. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of man, — that is by the acts and deeds of others. Neither ordained ministers, nor any one else, can confer grace upon another. Man cannot regenerate hearts. — Believers become v/hat they are solely and entirely by the grace of God. It is to God's free grace, preventing, calling, converting, renewing and sanctifying, that they owx their new birth. They are born of God, or, as the third chapter says more distinctly, " born of the Spirit."
The word which w^e render "blood," in the singular number, is, in the Greek, plural, " bloods." — This peculiarity has made gome conjecture that the expression refers to the blood shed in circumcision and sacrifice, and teaches the inability of these things to regenerate man. But this idea seems far-fetched and improbable. The use of the plural number appears to me intended to exclude aU fleshly confidence in any descent or relationship. It was neither the blood of Abraham, or of David, or of Aaron, or of Judah, or of Levi, which could give grace or make any one a child of God.
This is the first time the new birth is spoken of by name in Scripture. Let us not fail to notice how carefully the doctrine is fenced against errors, and how emphatically we are told what this new birth does not come from, as well as what it does come from. It is a strikins: fact that when St. Peter mentions the new birth, he fences it in like manner, (I Pet. i. 23,) and when he speaks of baptism '' saving " us, he carefallj adds that it is "not the putting away the filtli of the flesh." (1 Pet. iii, 21.) In the face of all these cautions, it is curious to observe the pertinacity with which many overthrow the whole doctrine of the new birth by the assertion that all baptized persons are born again!
We must be careful that we do not interpret the words " w^hich were born " as if the new birth was a change which takes place in a man after he has believed in Christ, and is the jnext step after faith. Saving faith and regeneration are insepa- Irable. The moment that a man really believes in Christ, however feebly, he is born of God. The weakn»ess of his faith may make him unconscious of the change, just as a new-born infant knows little or nothing about itself But w^here there is faith there is always new birth, and where there is no faith there is no regeneration.
14 And the "Word was made flesh, gotten of the Father,) full of grace and dwelt among us, (and we beheld and truth, his glory, the glory as of the only be-,
The passage of Scripture now before us is very short, if we measure it by words. But it is very long, if we measure it by the nature of its contents. The substance of it is so immensely important that we shall do well to give it separate and distinct consideration. This single verse contains more than enough matter for a whole exposition.
The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus ChrisVs incarnation^ or heing made man, St. John tells us that " the "Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Saviour really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man's estate, both in wisdom and in stature. (Luke ii. 52.) Like ourselves, he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marvelled, was moved to anger and compassion. Having be come flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body. He really suffered and shed His blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man!
This union of two natures in Christ's one Person is doubtless one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. It needs to be carefully stated. It is just one of those great truths which are not meant to be curiously pried into, but to be reverently believed. Nowhere, perhaps, shall Ave find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England. " The Son, which is the "Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." This is a most valuable declaration. This is " sound speech, which cannot be condemned."
But while we do not pretend to explain the union of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ's Person, we must not hesitate to fence the subject with well-defined cautions. While we state most carefully what we do believe, we must not shrink from declaring boldly what we do not believe. We must never forget, that though our Lord was God and man at the same time, the divine and human natures in Him were never confounded. One nature did not swallow up the other. The two natures remained perfect and distinct. The divinity of Cln-ist was never for a moment laid aside, although veiled. The manhood of Christ, during His life-time, was never for a moment unlike our own, though by union with the Godhead, greatly dignified. Though perfect God, Christ has always been perfect man from the first moment of His incarnation. He that is gone into heaven, and is sitting at the Father's right hand to intercede for sinners, is man as well as God. Though perfect man, Christ never ceased to be perfect God. He that suflfered for sin on the cross, and was made sin for us, was " God manifest in the flesh." The blood with which the Church was purchased, is called the blood " of God." (Acts XX. 28.) Though He became "flesh" in the fullest sense, when He was born of the Virgin Mary, He never at any period cea,sed to be the Eternal Word. To say that He constantly manifested His divine nature during His earthly ministry, would, of course, be contrary to plain facts. To attempt to explain why His Godhead was sometimes veiled and at other times unveiled, while He was on earth, would be venturing on ground which we had better leave alone. But to say that at any instant of His earthly ministry He was not fully and entirely God, is nothing less than heresy.
The cautions just given may seem at first sight needless, wearisome, and hair-spHtting. It is precisely the neglect of such cautions which ruins many souls. This constant undivided union of two perfect natures in Christ's Person is exactly that which gives infinite value to His mediation, and qualifies Him to be the very Mediator that sinners need. Our Mediator is One who can sympathize with us, because He is very man. And yet, at the same time. He is One who can deal with the Father for us on equal terms, because He is very God. — It is the same union which gives infinite value to His righteousness, when imputed to believers. It is the righteousness of One who was God as well, as man. — It is the same union which gives infinite value to the atoning blood which He shed for sinners on the cross. It is the blood of One who was God as well as man. — It is the same union which gives infinite value to His resurrection. When He rose again, as the Head of the body of believers, He rose not as a mere man, but as God. — Let these things sink deeply into our hearts. The second Adam is far greater than the first Adam was. The first Adam was only man, and so he fell. The second Adam was God as well as man, and so He completely conquered.
Let us leave the subject with feelings of deep gratitude and thankfulness. It is full of abounding consolation for all who know Christ by faith, and believe on Him.
Did the Word become flesh? Then He is One who can be touched with the feeling of His people's infirmities, because He has suffered Himself, being tempted. He is almighty because He is God, and yet He can feel with us, because He is man.
Did the Word become flesh? Then He can supply us with a perfect pattern and example for our daily life. Had he walked among us as an angel or a spirit, we could never have copied Him. But having dwelt among us as a man, we know that the true standard of holiness is to " walk even as He walked." (1 John ii. 6.) He is a perfect pattern, because He is God. But He is also a pattern exactly suited to our wants, because He is man.
Finally, did the Word become flesh? Then let us see in our mortal bodies a real, true dignity, and not defile them by sin. Vile and weak as our body may seem, it is a body which the Eternal Son of God was not ashamed to take upon Himself, and to take up to heaven. That simple fact is a pledge that He will raise our bodies at the last day, and glorify them together with His own.
Notes. John I.
[And the ivord was made flesh.] This sentence means that the eternal Word of God, the second Person in the Trinity, became a man, like one of ourselves in all things, sin only excepted This He accomphshed, by being born of the Virgin Mary, after a miraculous manner, through the operation of the Holy Grhost And tlie end for which He became flesh, was that He might live and die for sinners.
The expression " the "Word," shows clearly that " the Word " who " was with God and was God," must be a Person. It could not reasonably be said of any one but a Person, that He became " flesh and dwelt among us." Whether St. John could have found any other name for the second Person of the Trinity equally proper, we need not trouble ourselves to inquire. It certainly would not have been accurately correct to say that " Jesus was made flesh," because the name Jesus was not given to our lord till after His incarnation. Nor yet would it have been correct to say, " In the beginning was Christ," because the name Christ belongs to the times after the fall of man.
This is the last time that John uses this expression, " The Word," about Christ in his Gospel. From the time of His incarnation he generally speaks of Him as " Jesus," or " the Lord."
[ Was inade.] This expression might perhaps have been better translated " became.". At any rate, we must carefully remember that it does not signify " was created." Tlie Athanasian Creed pays truly, " The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten."
[Flesh.] The use of this word, instead of " man," ought not to be overlooked. It is purposely used in order to show us that when our Lord became incarnate, He took upon Him nothing less than our whole nature, consisting of a true body and a reasonable soul. As Arrowsmith says, " That which was not taken could not be healed. If Christ had not taken the whole man. He could not have saved the sou\"— It also implies that our Lord took upon Him a body liable to those weaknesses, fatigues, and pains, which are inseparable from the idea of tlesh. He' did not become a man like Adam before the fd', with a nature free from all infirmity. He became a man like any one of Adam's children, with a nature hahle to every thing that f dlen humanity is Hable to, except sin. He was made " flesh," and '' all flesh is gra^b."— Finally, it teaches that our Lord did not assume the finman nature of any one family, or class, or people, but that nature which is common to all Adam's children, whether Jews or G-entiles. Ke came to be a Saviour for " all flesh," and so was made " flesh."
The subject of this sentence is a deeply mysterious one, but one about which it is most important to have clear views. Next to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no doctrine on whif h fallen man has built so many deadly heresies as the incarnation of Christ. There is unquestionably much about this union of two natures in one person which we cannot explain, and must be content to beheve. There is much that we cannot understand, be it remembered, in the union of body and soul in our own persons. But there are some points in the subject of Christ's incarnation which we must hold fast, and never let go.
(a.) In the first place, let us carefully remember, that when " the Word became flesh," He became so by the union of two perfect and distinct natures in one Person. The manner of this union we cannot explain, but the fact we must firmly believe.
" Christ," says the Athnnasian Creed, " is God and Man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and man of the substance of His mofhei', born in the world; perfect God and perfect man. Who, although He be God and man, yet He is not two but one Christ; one not by conversion of the godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God." These
words are very important. The Word was not made flesh by changing one nature into another, or by laying aside one nature and taking up another. In all our thoughts about Christ, ht us take care that we do not divide His Person, and that we maintain steadily that He has two distinct and perfect natures. The old Latin line on the subject, quoted by Gomarus, is worth remembering. It represents "the Word made flesh," as saying, "I am what I was, that is God: — I was not what I am, that is man: — I am now called both, that is both God and man."
(&.) Secondly, when " the Word became flesh," He did not cease for a moment to be God. No doubt He was pleased to veil His divinity and to hide His power, and more especially so at some seasons. He emptied Himself of external marks of glory and was called " the carpenter." But He never laid His divinity aside. God cannot cease to be God. It was as God-man that He lived, suffered, died, and rose again. It is writ:en that God '' has purchased the Church with His own blood.'' It was the blood of one who was not man only, but God.
(c.) Thirdly, when " the Word became flesh," He was made a man in the truth of our nature like unto us in all things, ana fiom that hcur has never ceased to be man. His humanity was not a humanity different from our own, and though now glorified is our humanity still. It was perfect man no less than pprfect God, who resisted temptation, fulfilled the law perfectly, endured the contradiction of smners, spent nig-hts in prayer, kept His will in subjecLion to the Father's will, suffered, died, and at length ascended up to heaven with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to man's nature. It is written, that in "all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Moreover, He did not lay aside His humanity when He left the world. He that ascended np on the mount Olives, and is sitting at the right hand of God to intercede for believers, is one who is still man as well as God. Our High Priest in heaven is not God only, but man. Christ's humanity as well as divinity are both in heaven. One in our nature, our elder Brother, has gone as our Forerunner to prepare a place for us.
{d.) Lastly, When "the Word became flesh," He did not take on Him " peccable flesh." It is written that He was made in " the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. viii. 3.) But we must not go beyond this. Christ was " made sin fur us." (2 Cor. 5, 21.) But He " knew no sin," and was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and without taint of corruption. Satan found nothing in Him. Christ's human nature was liable to weakness, but not to sin. The words of the fifteenth Article must never be forgotten, Christ was " void from sin, both in His flesh and in His Spirit."
For want of a clear understanding of this union of two natures in Christ's Person, the heresies which arose in the eaily Church weie many and great. And 3^et Arrowsmith points out that no less than lour of these heresies are at once confuted by a right interpretation of the sentence now before us.
*' The Arians hold that Jesus Christ was not true God. This text calleth Him the Word, and maketh Him a Person in the Trinity.
" The Apollinarians acknowledge Christ to be God, yea, and man too; but they hold that He took only the body of a man, not the soul of a man, while His divinity supplied the room of a soul. We interpret the word ' flesh ' for the whole human nature, both soul and body.
" The Nestorians grant Christ to be both God and man: bu^ then they say the Godhead made one person, and the manhood another person. We interpret the woi-ds ' was made' as implying an union, in which Christ assumed not the person of man, but the nature of man.
"The Eutychians held but one person in Christ; but then they confounded the natures. They say the Godhead and manhood made such a mixture as to produce a third tiling. Here
Miey also are confuted by the right understand! jg of the union between the Word and flesh."
He then goes on to show how the ancient Church met all these heretics with four adverbs, which briefly and conveniently defined the union of two natures in Christ's person. They said that the divine and human natures when " the Word was made flesh," were united truly^ to oppose the Arians, — perfectly, to oppose the ApoUinarians, — undividedly, to oppose the Nestorians, — and unmixedly^ to oppose the Eatychians.
Those who wish to examine this subject further, will do well to consult Pearson on the Creed, Dods on the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, B. v., chap, 51, 52, 53, 54.
[Dwelt among us.'] The Greek word rendered dwelt, means literally " tabernacled," or " dwelt in a tent." The sentence does not mean that Christ dwelt in His human body as in a tabernacle, which He left when He ascended up to heaven. " Christ," says Arrowsmith, "continueth now, and shall for ever, as trae man as when He was born of the Virgin Mary. — He so took human nature as never to lay it down again." The sentence only means that Christ dwelt among men on earth for thirty-three years. He was on earth so long conversing among men, that there could be no doubt of the reality of His incarnation. He did not appear for a few minutes, like a phantom or ghost. He did not come down for a brief visit of a few days, but was living among us in His human body for the duration of a whole generation of men. For thirty-three years He pitched His tent in Palestine, and was going to and fro among its inhabitants.
Arrowsmit^ remarks that three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents; shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. He thinks that the phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christ's life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveller, and a soldier. But it may be doubted whether this is not a somewhat fanciful idea, however pleasing and true. The Greek word rendered " dwelt " is only used in four other places in the New Testament, (Rev. vii. 15; xii. 12; xiii. 6; xxi. 3,) and in each of them is applied to a permanent, and not a temporary dwelling.
[ Wt beheld his glory.] St. John here declares, that although *Hhe Word was made flesh," he and others beheld from time to time His glory, and saw manifest proof that He was not man only, but the " only begotten Son of God."
There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to the right application of these words. Some think that they apply to Christ's aacension, which John witnessed, and to all His mi^ raculous actions tbrougliout His ministry, in all of which, as it is said of the miracle of Cana, He " maniftsted forth his glory," and His disciples saw it. — Others think tliat they aj^iply especially to our Lord's transfiguration, when He put on for a little season His glory, in the presence of John, James, and Peter. I am on the whole mclined to think that this is the true view, and the more so, because of Peter's words in speaking of the transfiguration, (2 Pet. i. 16, 18,) and the words which immediately follow in the verse we are now considering.
[The glory as of the only begotten of the Father.] This sentence means " such glory as became and was suitable to one who is the only begotten Son of Grod the Father." These words will hardly apply to Christ's miracles. They seem to confine the glory which John says " we beheld," to the vision of glory which he and his two companions saw when Christ was transfigured, and they heard the Father saying, " This is my beloved Son."
Lightfoot's paraphrase of this expression is w^orth reading though he does not apply the passage to the transfiguration
" We saw His glory as what was worthy, as became, the only begotten Son of God. He did not glisten in any worldly pomp or grandeur, according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do. But He was dressed with the glory of holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles."
We must carefully remember that the adverb " as " in this place, does not imply comparison, or similitude, as if John only meant that the Word's glory was like that of the only begotten Son of God. Chrysostom says, " The expression ' as ' in this
place does not belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition, as though he said, we beheld glory such as it was becoming and likely that He should possess, who is the only begotten and true Son of God and King
of all." He also remarks that it is a common manner of speaking, when people are describing the appearance of a king in state, to say that " he was like a king," meaning only that he was a real king.
Glassius, in his Philologia, makes the saT,e comment on the expression, and quotes as parallel cases of the use of ths adverb ''as," 2 Pet. j. 3; 1 Pet. i. 19; Philem. 9; Rom. ix. 32; Matt, xiv. 5; 2 Coi. iii. 18. He thinks it a Hebraism, denoting not the similitude, but the reality and truth of a thing, and quotes Psalm cxxii. 3, and Hosea iv. 4, as Old Testament instances.
[The only degoften of the Father.] This remarkable expression describes our Lord's eternal generation, or Sonship. He is that Person who alone has been begotten of the Father from all eternity, and from all eternity has been His beloved Son.
The phrase is only used five times in the New Testament, and only in St. John's writing's. That God always had a Son appears in the Old Testament. " What is his son's name," says Agar. (Prov. XXX, 4.) So also the Father says to Mes-iah, " rhou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psal. ii. 7.) But the Sonship now before us, we must carefully remember, is not to be dated from any " day." It is the everlasting Sonship of which John speaks.
The subject is one of those which we must be content to believe and reverence, but must not attempt to define too narrowly. We are taught distinctly in Scripture that in the unity of the Godhead, there are three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that *' Sonship " describes the everlasting relation which exists between the first and second Persons in the Trinity, and that Christ is the only begotten and eternal Son of God. We are taught, vvdth equal distinctness, that the Father loveth the Son, and loved Him before the foundation of the world. (John xvii. 24.) But here we must be content to pause. Our feeble faculties could not comprehend more if more were told us.
Let us however remember carefully, when we think of Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father, that we must not attach the least idea of inferiority to the idea of His Sonship. As the Athanasian creed says, " The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son." And yet the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The argument of the ancient Arians, that if Christ is the Son of God, he must necessarily be inferior in dignity to God, and subsequent in existence to God, is one that will not stand for a moment. The reply is simple. We are not talking of the relationship of mortal beings, but of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity, who are eternal. All analogies and illustrations drawn from human parents and children are necessarily defective. As Augustine said, so must we say, " Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show you and explain to you an eternal Son." We must believe and not try to explain. Christ's generation, as God, is eternal, — who shall declare it? He was begotten from everlasting of the Father. He was always the beloved Son. And yet " He is equal to the Father as touching his godhead, though inferior to Him as touching his manhood."
[Full of Grace and Truth.] These words do not belong to the Father, though they follow His name so closely. They belong to " the Word." The meaning of them is differently explained.
Some tliink that they describe our Lord Jesus Christ's char«icter, during the time that He was upon the earth, in general terms. Full of grace were His lips, and full of grace was His life. He was full of the grace of G-od, the Spirit dwelling in Him without measure, full of kindness, love, and favour to man; — full of truth in His deeds and words, for in His hps was no guile, full of truth in His preaching concerning God the Father's love to sinners, and the way of salvation, for He was ever unfolding in rich abundance all truths that man can need to know for his soul's good.
Some think that the words describe especially the spiritual riches that Christ brought into the world, when He became incarnate, and set up His kingdom. He came full of the gospel of grace, in contradistinction to the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law. He came full of truth, of real, true, solid comfort, in contradistinction to the types, and figures, and shadows of the law of Moses. In short the full grace of God, and the full truth about the way of acceptance, were never clearly seen until the Word became flesh, dwelt among us on earth, opened the treasure-house, and revealed grace and truth in His own person.
I decidedly prefer the second of these two views. The first is truth, but not the truth of the passage. The second appears to me to harmonize with the 17th verse, which follows almost immediately, where the law and the gospel are contrasted, und we are told that " grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have aU we received, and grace for grace.
1*1 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only beo;otten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The passage before us contains three great declarations about our Lord Jesus Christ. Each of the three is among the foundation principles of Christianity.
We are taught, firstly, that it is Christ alone who supplies all the spiritual wants of all believers, ft is written that " of his fulness have we all received, and grace ioi grace."
There is an infinite fulness in Jesus Christ. As St. Paul says, *' It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." — " In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Coloss. i. 19; ii. 3.) There is laid up in Him, as in a treasury, a boundless supply of all that any sinner can need, either in time or eternity. The Spirit of Life is His special gift to the Church, and conveys from Him, as from a great root, sap and vigour to all the believing branches. He is rich in mercy, grace, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Out of Christ's fulness, all believers in every age of the world, have been supplied. They did not clearly understand the fountain from which their supplies flowed, in Old Testament times. The Old Testament saints only saw Christ afar off, and not face to face. But from Abel downwards, all saved souls have received all they have had from Jesus Christ alone. Every saint in glory will at last acknowledge that he is Christ's debtor for all he is. Jesus will prove to have been all in all.
We are taught, secondly, the vast superiority of Christ to Moses, and of the Gospel to the Law. It is written that *' the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Moses was employed by God " as a servant," to convey to Israel the moral and ceremonial law. (Heb. iii. 5.) As a servant, he was faithful to Him who appointed him, but he was only a servant. The moral law, which he brought down from Mount Sinai, was holy, and just, and good. But it could not justify. It had no healing power. It could wound, but it could not bind up. It " worked wrath." (Rom. iv. 15.) It pronounced a curse against any imperfect obedience. — The ceremonial law, which he was commanded to impose on Israel, was full of deep meaning and typical instruction. Its ordinances and ceremonies made it an excellent schoolmaster to guide men toward Christ. (Gal. iii. 24.) But the ceremonial law was only a schoolmaster. It could not make him that kept it perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Heb. ix. 9.) It laid a grievous yoke on men's hearts, which they were not able to bear. It was a rninistration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor. iii. 7 — 9.) The light which men got from Moses and the law was at best only starlight compared to noon-day.
Christ, on the other hand, came into the world " as a Son," with the keys of God's treasury of grace and truth entirely in His hands. (Heb. iii. 6.) Grace came by Him, when He made fully known God's gracious plan of salvation, by faith in His own blood, and opened the fountain of mercy to all the world. — Truth came by Him, when He fulfilled in His own Person the types of the Old Testament, and revealed Himself as the true Sacrifice, the true mercyseat, and the true Priest. N'o doubt there was much of " grace and truth " under the law of Moses. But the whole of God's grace, and the whole truth about redemption, were never known until Jesus came into the world, and died for sinners.
We are taught, thirdly, that it is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man. It is written that " no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
The eye of mortal man has never beheld God the Father. No man could bear the sight. Even to Moses it was said, " Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) Yet all that mortal man is capable of knowing about God the Father is fully revealed to us by God the Son. He, who was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, has been pleased to take our nature upon Him, and to exhibit to us in the form of man, all that our minds can comprehend of the Father's perfections. In Christ's words, and deeds, and life, and death, we learn as much concerning God the Father as our feeble minds can at present bear. His perfect wisdom, — His almighty power, — His unspeakable love to sinners, — His incomparable holiness, — His hatred of sin, could never be -epresented to our eyes more clearly than we see them in Christ's life and death. In truth, " God was manifest in the flesh," when the Word took on Him a body. "He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person." He says Himself, " I and my Father are one." " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." *' In Him dw^elleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Coloss. ii. 9.) These are deep and mysterious things. But they are true. (1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. i. 3; John x. 30; xiv. 9.)
And now, after reading this passage, can we ever give too much honour to Christ? Can we ever think too highly of Him? Let us banish the unworthy thought from our minds for ever. Let us learn to exalt Him more in our hearts, and to rest more confidingly the whole weight of our souls in His hands. Men may easily fall into error about the three Persons in the holy Trinity if they do not carefully adhere to the teaching of Scripture. But no man ever errs on the side of giving too much honour to God the Son. Christ is the meetingpoint between the Trinity and the sinner's soul. "He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent Him." (John v. 23.)