The Gospel of St. John
With Notes Critical and Explanatory
By the
Rev. Joseph MacRory, D.D.
Professor of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, Maynooth College
Ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται, ἵνα πιστέυσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.‐‐St. John, xx.
31.
Browne & Nolan, Limited
Dublin
1897
CONTENTS
Preface.
Introduction.
I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.
A.—External Evidence.
B.—Internal Evidence.
II.—Author.
III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.
IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.
V.—Time And Place Of Writing.
VI.—Integrity.
VII.—Language.
VIII.—Christ’s Discourses In The Gospel.
IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.
Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
Chapter VI.
Chapter VII.
Chapter VIII.
Authenticity of John vii. 53‐viii. 11.
Evidence against Authenticity.
Evidence in favour of Authenticity.
Conclusion.
Text.
Chapter IX.
Chapter X.
Chapter XI.
Chapter XII.
Chapter XIII.
Chapter XIV.
Chapter XV.
Chapter XVI.
Chapter XVII.
Chapter XVIII.
Chapter XIX.
Chapter XX.
Chapter XXI.
Footnotes
[Cover Art]
[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter
at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]
_Nihil Obstat._
GUALTERUS MACDONALD, D.D.,
Censor Theolog. Deputat.
IMPRIMATUR.
Gulielmus,
_Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas._
PREFACE.
It may be well to state briefly the object and plan of the present work.
Some years ago their Lordships the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland
decided to lengthen considerably the course of Sacred Scripture read in
this College. As a result of their decision, all our students are now
expected to read the whole of the New Testament with the exception of the
Apocalypse, together with portions of the Old Testament. This change,
while it has the desirable advantage of familiarizing our students with a
larger portion of the Sacred Text, obviously renders it impossible that so
much time as formerly should be devoted to the study of any one portion.
The consequence of this is that it is now impossible for any but the very
ablest students to find time to read the longer commentaries, such as
those of Maldonatus, Estius, and A Lapide. I was not long, therefore, in
charge of the Class of Sacred Scripture, when I became convinced that it
would be useful, if not necessary, to provide the students with a more
compendious exposition of the portions of Scripture that they are expected
to study.
With this object in view, I have not attempted, in the present work, to
give an exhaustive commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Such an attempt,
indeed, would have frustrated my object. I have tried rather, while
omitting nothing of importance, to introduce nothing unnecessary, and to
observe throughout the utmost consistent brevity.
I am prepared to hear that some will consider I have passed too lightly
over the easier portions of the Gospel. I can only say, in reply, that
what I have done, has been done deliberately. Where the meaning of God’s
word is sufficiently clear, I consider that it ought to be left to the
exercise of the student’s intelligence to find it, and I am strongly of
opinion that in such cases a commentator may well be excused from
interposing his remarks between the reader and the Sacred Text.
It might seem that the able and learned commentary of Dr. MacEvilly—the
only Catholic commentary hitherto existing on this Gospel in the English
language—would render such a work as the present unnecessary. But the
length of His Grace’s work, like the works of Maldonatus, Estius, and A
Lapide, renders it not wholly adapted to the present conditions of our
students. Besides, anyone acquainted with the work of a professor will
readily realize how important it is, and how desirable, when possible,
that students should possess in handy and permanent form the professor’s
views. No two men will think alike on all the difficult and intricate
questions arising out of the Gospel of St. John; and while I should feel
it my duty, if lecturing on the work of another, to impose upon the
students of my class the necessity of taking notes, I have hope that the
present work will to a large extent obviate such a necessity. His Grace’s
work will, no doubt, continue to be used by many of our students in
preference to mine, and with all of them it will still hold its place as a
useful book of reference.
The Latin Text that I have followed is a reprint from the Latin Vulgate
published at Turin in 1883: _Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Sixti V.
Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.
Editio emendatissima, Indicis Congregationis decreto probata, et iterum
hoc anno evulgata. Augustae Taurinorum, typis Hyacinthi Marietti_,
MDCCCLXXXIII. In only one instance is there a conscious departure from
this edition, and that is in verses 3 and 4 of the first chapter, where I
have returned to the original punctuation of the Clementine Edition.
The English Text is from the Rhemish New Testament approved by Cardinal
Wiseman, and published by Burns and Oates, Limited.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE,
_Ascension Thursday, 1897_.
INTRODUCTION.
I.—Authenticity Of The Fourth Gospel.
That St. John the Apostle is also an Evangelist, and author of the fourth
Gospel, has been the all but unanimous testimony of tradition. If we
except the Alogi (St. Epiph., _Haer._, li. 3, 4), heretics of the second
century, who denied the Johannine authorship, not on historical, but on
dogmatic grounds, the authenticity of the Gospel was unquestioned down to
the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time, however, it has been
frequently and variously attacked by the so‐called Rationalists, whose
many views in regard to it may be reduced to one or other of the three
following theories:—
1. The patrons of what is sometimes called the “partition theory” hold
that, though the work as a whole cannot be said to be St. John’s, still
considerable portions of it are his. About the extent of these portions
they differ. Weisse, who, in the year 1838, first gave prominence to this
theory, held that the discourses attributed to Christ in the Gospel are
studies from the pen of St. John, representing what he considered to be
the doctrine of Christ; and that St. John’s disciples afterwards set these
discourses in their present historical framework, and thus produced the
Gospel. Others, however, admit that some portions of the narrative, as
well as the discourses, are the work of St. John.
2. The Gospel is in no part the work of St. John; still the historical
portions contain valuable traditions derived from that Apostle. Renan, who
holds this view, says:—“The fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle
John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples, about the year
100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but the narrative
portions contain valuable traditions, which reach back in part to the
Apostle John.”(1)
3. This, like the preceding theory, denies the Johannine authorship; but
it goes farther than the preceding, in denying to our Gospel any
historical value. According to this theory, not only are the discourses
spurious, but the historical portions are wholly unreliable, and the
Gospel was forged in the latter half of the second century. So Baur and
many others.
Against these various adversaries there is abundant evidence, external and
internal, in favour of the authenticity of our Gospel.
A.—External Evidence.(2)
1. The *Apostolic Fathers* do not, indeed, quote our Gospel as the work of
St. John, for it was not their custom to name the author from whom they
quoted; but passages are met with in the works of these fathers which are
very probably founded upon passages in our Gospel. Compare, for instance,
with John xxi. 20, the words of St. Clement of Rome († 101):—“John also,
who leaned upon the bosom of our Lord, whom the Lord loved exceedingly”
(Epis. 1 _De Virgin_, c. 6); or with John iii. 8, the words of St.
Ignatius of Antioch († 107):—“The Spirit, since He is born of God, is not
deceived, _for He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth_” (Ad.
Philad. 7). It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind;(3) but,
as such coincidences are always more or less inconclusive, it is more
important to note here that Papias and Polycarp, two disciples of St.
John, indirectly support the claim of the fourth Gospel to authenticity.
For it is certain that both these writers accepted the First Epistle of
St. John as his.(4) Now, so great is the similarity of style between our
Gospel and that Epistle, and so close the relation between the two, that
we are justified in concluding, with Cornely (Introd. iii. 59, 3), that
Papias and Polycarp, admitting the one, probably admitted also the other
to be the work of St. John. Even Renan admits that “The two writings offer
the most complete identity of style, the same terms, the same favourite
expressions.” Indeed we have now the direct testimony of Papias in a
fragment of his rather recently discovered: “Quant au silence de Papias il
n’est plus possible d’en tirer un argument contre le quatrième Evangile.
Un nouveau fragment de l’évêque d’Hieropolis, cité par Thomasius (i. 344)
... temoigne qu’il connaissait l’œuvre de l’Apotre” (_Didon—Jesus Christ_,
Introd. xxviii.).
2. The *Fathers of the second century* were thoroughly acquainted with our
Gospel, and some of them refer to it as the work of St. John. Thus, when
*Justin Martyr* († 167), in proving the necessity of Baptism (_Apol._ i.
61), says: “For Christ said: ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now that those born once cannot enter
again into the wombs of their mothers, is clear to all,” there can hardly
be a doubt that he had before his mind John iii. 3, 4.
Again, *Tatian*, a disciple of St. Justin, actually wrote a Harmony of the
Four Gospels, known as Tatian’s _Diatessaron_, which commenced with the
opening words of our Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word.”(5)
The *Muratorian Fragment*, which contains a list of canonical books, made
not later than 170 A.D., says: “John, one of the disciples, (is the
author) of the fourth Gospel.”
*Theophilus* of Antioch († 186), who was the sixth successor to St. Peter
in the see of Antioch, says:—“These things we are taught by the Sacred
Scriptures, and by all inspired by the Holy Ghost, _of whom John says_:
‘In the beginning was the Word,’ ” &c.
Finally, *Irenæus* († 202), who was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, from about
the year 180, and who wrote his work, _Against Heresies_, probably between
180 and 190 A.D., says:—“Afterwards John, a disciple of the Lord, who
reclined upon His breast, also wrote a Gospel.” This testimony of Irenæus
is of very special importance; for, besides being a native of Asia Minor,
and a bishop in Gaul, and thus representing in himself the traditions of
both countries, he was moreover a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a
disciple of St. John, so that no one had better opportunities than Irenæus
of learning everything connected with the Apostle.
Indeed, so well was our Gospel known, and its authority recognised in the
second century, that even the heretics of the time sought the sanction of
its authority for their errors. “They use that which is according to
John,” says Irenæus, speaking of the Valentinian heretics of the second
century (Iren., _Haer._, iii. 11. 7).
3. We abstain from quoting Fathers of the *third century*, because it is
not denied that they knew our Gospel, and acknowledged St. John to be the
author. Even Strauss (_Leben Jesu_, § 10, p. 47) says: “It is certain that
towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have
still, are found recognised in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as
the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names
they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers—Irenæus, in
Gaul; Clement, in Alexandria; and Tertullian, in Carthage.”
It is undeniable then that before the close of the second century, the
fourth Gospel was everywhere in the Church received as the genuine work of
St. John. This, we hold, proves that it must be indeed his work. For he
lived on till the end of the first century; his disciples till the middle,
and their disciples till the end, of the second century. Is it possible
then that a spurious work, produced by some forger in the second century,
could have been everywhere so soon received and recognised as the work of
the Apostle?
B.—Internal Evidence.
1. The author himself tells us (xxi. 20, 24), that he is “the disciple
whom Jesus loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper.” Now according
to all the fathers, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” &c., was St. John.
Moreover, the three most favoured disciples were Peter, James, and John.
They alone were permitted to be present at the raising to life of the
daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37), at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1),
and at the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). But Peter cannot be the
writer of our Gospel, from whom he is explicitly distinguished (John xxi.
20); nor James the Greater, for, in the opinion of all, he had been
beheaded by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) many years before our Gospel
was written. It remains then that the writer must be St. John. Nor does
this argument lose its force, even though we admit that the last two
verses of our Gospel (John xxi. 24, 25) were not written by St. John. For
since they have stood in the Gospel from the beginning, they must at least
be the evidence of a contemporary; so that we have here either an internal
argument or another powerful external one in favour of the Johannine
authorship.
2. While the Apostle John plays an important part in the other Gospels, he
is not named even once in the fourth Gospel. If we had only it, we should
not know that there was an Apostle of that name. The fair inference then
is, that he himself being the writer, suppressed his own name through
modesty. Moreover, while the other Evangelists are accustomed, when they
speak of John the Baptist, to distinguish him from John the Apostle, our
author, again through modesty, ignores the Apostle, and refers nineteen
different times to the Baptist as John without any distinguishing
appellative.
3. The style is just such as we should expect from St. John; the Greek
purer than that of the other Gospels, because of the author’s long sojourn
in Asia Minor, yet not untinged by Hebraisms because of his earlier life
spent in Palestine.
4. The whole Gospel points to its author as one who was intimately
acquainted with Palestine and its customs, and who had lived and moved
among the events he describes.(6) Thus the journey from Cana to Capharnaum
is rightly described as a _descent_ (John iv. 47, 51); the author is
acquainted with the pools of Bethsaida and Siloe at Jerusalem (John v. 2,
ix. 7), with the position of the brook of Cedron in relation to Jerusalem
and the Mount of Olives (John xviii. 1), and with the distance of Bethany
from the Holy City (xi. 18).
Among Jewish customs he refers to the manner of purification before meals
(John ii. 6), and to their avoidance of intercourse with Samaritans (iv.
9), and hints at the objection of their teachers to speak publicly with
women (John iv. 27). He shows, too, that he is familiar, not merely with
Jewish festivals, but also with their peculiar solemnities (John vii. 2,
37), and the time of their occurrence (x. 22). Finally, he declares
himself an _eye‐witness_, as well where he says:—“The Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, _and we saw His glory_” (John i. 14), as where he
tells us, “He _that saw it_, hath given testimony ... and he knoweth that
he saith true” (John xix. 35).
II.—Author.
St. John, Apostle, Evangelist, prophet, and martyr, was born in Galilee,
the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of some means, and Salome, one of those
holy women who ministered to our Lord during His public life, and stood by
His cross on Calvary (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 21, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40,
xvi. 1). Before his call by Jesus, John was probably a disciple of the
Baptist, and it is extremely likely that he was one of the two who at the
preaching of their Master first believed in Christ (John i. 37, and
foll.). Called with his brother James, immediately after Peter and Andrew
(Matt. iv. 18, 19, 21), he left all things to follow Christ, and became
the best beloved of all the disciples. With Peter and his own brother
James he was permitted to witness the raising to life of the daughter of
Jairus, and to be present at the transfiguration on Thabor, and the agony
in Gethsemane (Mark v. 27; Matt. xvii. 1; Matt. xxvi. 37). He was
privileged to recline on his Master’s bosom at the Last Supper (John
xviii. 23), and to him alone was given from the cross the blessed trust of
providing for the Mother of God (John xix. 27). Nor did he fail to return
love for love. When the Apostles fled in terror from Gethsemane (Mark xiv.
50), Peter and John followed Jesus into the court of the High‐priest (John
xviii. 15); and at the last tragic scene on Calvary, our Evangelist, brave
with the courage begotten of love, was still close to his Master (John
xix. 26).
After the descent of the Holy Ghost, St. John, with St. Peter, took a
leading part in establishing the Church. He and Peter were the first to
suffer imprisonment for preaching the faith of Christ (Acts iv. 2, 3);
and, again in company with Peter, he was chosen to go down from Jerusalem,
and confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the converted Samaritans. How
long he remained in Palestine, we cannot say with certainty. When St. Paul
went up to the Council of Jerusalem, in 47 A.D.,(7) he found St. John
there; but whether our Apostle had himself gone up specially to the
Council, or had hitherto confined his preaching to Palestine, it seems
impossible to say, for St. Peter was there too, though he had been already
Bishop of Antioch, and was then Bishop of Rome.
In addition to the preceding facts gleaned from the New Testament, we
learn from tradition that the saint remained in Jerusalem till after the
Blessed Virgin’s death (Niceph., _H. E._, ii. 42); that he subsequently
preached in Asia Minor, and, probably after the martyrdom of St. Paul (67
A.D.), settled at Ephesus (Origen, _apud._ Euseb., _H. E._, iii. 1). In
the reign of Domitian (81‐96 A.D.) he was taken to Rome, and thrown into a
cauldron of boiling oil, from which he came forth unhurt (Tertull., _De
Praescr._ 36).(8) He was then banished to the island of Patmos, in the
Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse; was liberated on the accession
of Nerva (96‐98 A.D.), and allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived to
an extreme old age, and died in the sixty‐eighth year after our Lord’s
Passion (Jer., _Advers. Jovin_, i. 14), _i.e._, about 101 of the Dionysian
era.
III.—For Whom Written, And With What Object.
St. Jerome tells us that the fourth Gospel was written for the Christians
of Asia Minor, and at their request.(9)
The object or scope of the Gospel was threefold:—
1. To prove that Jesus was the Son of God made man, and that all
supernatural life must come to us through faith in His name. Hence he
tells us in the very beginning that “the Word was God ... and the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt amongst us” (John i. 14); and in xx. 31: “But these
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,
and that believing you may have life in His name.”
2. As connected with the preceding, indirectly to refute the heresies of
the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaites,(10) all of whom erred in
regard to either the Divinity or humanity of Christ. See below IX., and
Cornely, iii., † 64.
3. To supplement the three Synoptic Gospels. So nearly all the fathers.
And, indeed, it is perfectly evident that an Evangelist who is entirely
silent regarding the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, and who
introduces Him abruptly to the reader at the beginning of His public life,
cannot have meant to write a complete life of Christ. And since St. John
wrote many years after the other Evangelists, it is not surprising to find
that his work partakes more of a supplemental character than any of the
Synoptic Gospels.
IV.—Outline Of The Plan Of The Gospel.
What has just been said regarding the object of the Gospel will enable us
to form a general conception of its plan. It must be carefully borne in
mind that St. John did not intend to write a Life of Christ, nor to give a
general view of His teaching, nor to compile a work on the general history
of his own times. His main object was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was
the Son of God; and the various parts of the Gospel are carefully disposed
with a view to this end. Out of the vast mass of materials at his disposal
(xxi. 25; xx. 30) he selects such incidents, such miracles and discourses
of our Lord, as are best suited to the attainment of this special purpose.
In accordance with this view, we subjoin a brief outline of the _plan_ of
the Gospel.
I. 1‐18.
*The Prologue.* The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; in His relation
to creation generally, and to the spiritual enlightenment and
sanctification of man; His incarnation.
I. 19‐XXI. 23.
_The Narrative_, which divides itself naturally into two parts:—
(_a_) I. 19‐XII. 50. Manifestation of Christ’s Divinity in His _Public
Life_—
By the testimony of the Baptist.
By the testimony of His disciples.
By the testimony of His miracles.
By the testimony of His discourses.
(_b_) XIII. 1‐XXI. 23. Manifestation of Christ’s Divinity in His last
discourses, and in His passion, death, resurrection, and risen life.
XXI. 24, 25.
*The Epilogue*, in which the beloved disciple testifies that he is the
author of the Gospel, and that what he has written is true, though
incomplete.
V.—Time And Place Of Writing.
The exact date of our Gospel is uncertain. One thing is absolutely
certain: that it was written after the other three Gospels. Some have
placed it almost as early as 70 A.D.; but the weight of evidence, external
and internal, places it in the last decade of the first century, that is
to say, between 90 and 100 A.D.
There is great doubt, too, as to the place where it was written. Irenæus
distinctly states that it was written at Ephesus,(11) and many of the
fathers are of the same opinion. On the other hand, a large number of
ancient writers hold, that, like the Apocalypse, it was written in Patmos.
See Patrizzi, lib. i., cap. iv., § 86, who himself inclines to the latter
view.
VI.—Integrity.
With the exception of three passages: v. 4, vii. 53‐viii. 11, and the
whole of the last chapter, which have been attacked as interpolations, the
integrity of the fourth Gospel has not been seriously questioned. These
passages we shall examine as they occur, and there discuss the question of
their authenticity.
VII.—Language.
It is certain that St. John wrote in Greek. Such has been the opinion of
all writers, and it is proved by the fact that he wrote for the Christians
of Asia Minor, whose language we know was Greek.
VIII.—Christ’s Discourses In The Gospel.
St. John’s Gospel has this peculiarity, that it is made up, in great part,
of Christ’s discourses. Judging from the attention which the Evangelist
seems to pay to the order of time, we feel sure that these discourses are
reported in the chronological order in which they were delivered.
But are they reported in the very words used by Christ? We feel convinced
that they are not. The important heads of doctrine, such as iii. 3, 5,
bearing on baptism; or vi. 48, 52, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, are,
doubtless, reported in almost(12) the exact words of our Lord. But the
discourses generally we believe to be reported merely in substance. For
this was sufficient for the Evangelist’s purpose; and, therefore, we have
no reason to suppose a miraculous assistance which would enable him to
remember every word. No doubt the Evangelist had the assistance of
inspiration; but the Catholic view of inspiration warrants us in believing
that in general the ideas only, and not the words, were inspired. We thus
get rid of the Rationalist difficulty that the discourses must be
fictitious, because, they say, no human memory could retain such long
discourses for more than half a century. For in our view it is only the
substance of the discourses that is handed down, and, even if we
abstracted altogether from the assistance given him by inspiration, it is
not difficult to believe that the young and retentive mind of a loving
disciple would treasure up and retain the substance of his Divine Master’s
discourses, aided as it must have been by the fact that these discourses,
besides being the food of his daily meditation, were doubtless again and
again repeated in his apostolic preaching.
IX.—Errors Combated In The Gospel.
There is not one of all the many heresies that have arisen regarding the
Person and natures of Jesus Christ that may not be refuted from the Gospel
of St. John. We intend, however, to speak here only of those errors which
had already arisen in the time of the Evangelist, and against which,
therefore, his Gospel was immediately directed. What these were we learn
from SS. Irenæus and Jerome. The former distinctly says that our Gospel
was directed against the errors of *Cerinthus*, and of “those who are
called *Nicolaites*” (see above, III. 2, note); while the latter says that
it was directed against *Cerinthus*, and *other heretics, especially the
Ebionites*.(13) It is important for us, then, in approaching the study of
this Gospel to understand what was the nature of these errors against
which it was directed.
*Cerinthus*, though professing belief in a Supreme Being, held that the
world was not made by Him, but by an inferior _power_ (virtus) distinct
from Him, and ignorant of Him. (2) That Jesus was not born of a Virgin,
but the child of Joseph and Mary, born according to the ordinary course of
nature. (3) That Christ (the Word) was quite distinct from Jesus; that,
however, He had descended upon Jesus immediately after the latter’s
baptism, and remained with Him filling His soul till shortly before the
Passion; that then Christ departed from Jesus, who suffered and died a
_mere_ man, while Christ suffered nothing, being indeed entirely spiritual
and impassible.(14)
The *Ebionites*, unlike the Cerinthians, admitted that the world was
created by God, but, like them, denied that Christ was anything but a mere
man. They scrupulously observed the Mosaic Law, which they held to be
_obligatory_, by the observance of which Jesus had merited to be called
Christ, and through which every man was able to become a Christ.(15)
About the doctrine of the *Nicolaites*, which they claimed to have derived
from Nicolas the Deacon (Acts vi. 5), we know nothing definite; but it is
generally held that it was akin to that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites.
Among the “other heretics” alluded to by St. Jerome in the passage cited
above were, doubtless, the *Simonians* (followers of Simon Magus, Acts
viii. 9, and foll.), and the *Docetae*.
The *Simonians* agreed with the Cerinthians in denying that the world was
made by God, and that Jesus was God, and St. Irenæus speaks of them as the
originators of the Gnostic heresy. “Simoniani a quibus _falsi nominis
scientia_ accepit initia.” (_Adv. Haer._, i. xxxiii. 4.)
The *Docetae* (δοκεῖν = to seem) held that Christ had only the
_appearance_ of a human body; and hence, that His sufferings and death
were not real, but apparent.
CHAPTER I.
1‐18. *The prologue*(*16*)* declares the Word’s eternity, distinct
personality, and essential unity with God; His relations with
creation generally, and with man in particular; His incarnation,
and the fulness of grace, and perfection of revelation attained
through Him.*
19‐34. *Some of the Baptist’s testimonies to Christ.*
35‐51. *Circumstances in which Christ’s first disciples were
called.*
1. In principio erat Verbum, 1. In the beginning was the
et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Word, and the Word was with
Deus erat Verbum. God, and the Word was God.
1. *In the beginning.* These words most probably mean here, as in Gen. i.
1, at the beginning of all created things; in other words, when time
began. Their meaning must always be determined from the context. Thus we
know from the context in Acts xi. 15, that St. Peter there uses them in
reference to the beginning of the Gospel. Similarly, the context here
determines the reference to be to the beginning of creation; for He who is
here said to have been in the beginning, is declared in verse 3 to be the
creator of all things, and must therefore have already been in existence
at their beginning.
Others, however, have interpreted the words differently. Many of the
fathers understood them to mean: in the Father, and took this first clause
of v. 1, as a declaration that the Word was in the Father. But, though it
is quite true to say that the Word was and is in the Father (x. 38), both
being consubstantial, still such does not seem to be the sense of the
phrase before us. Had St. John meant to state this, surely he would have
written: In God, or, in the Father, was the Word. He names God in the next
two clauses: _And the Word was with God, and the Word was God_. Why then
should he at the risk of being misunderstood, refer to Him in this first
clause under another name? Besides, if this first clause stated the Word’s
consubstantiality with the Father, the third clause: _And the Word was
God_, would then be tautological.
Many of the commentators also urge against this view, that if the first
clause meant, in God (or, in the Father) was the Word, the _second_ clause
would be merely a repetition. But we cannot assent to this, since, as we
shall see, the second clause would add the important statement of the
Word’s distinct personality. However, the view seems to us improbable for
the other reasons already stated.
Others take “beginning” here to mean eternity, so that we should have in
this first clause a _direct_ statement of the Word’s eternity. But against
this is the fact that ἀρχη (beginning) nowhere else bears this meaning,
and can be satisfactorily explained in a different sense here. Hence, as
already explained, “in the beginning” means: when time began.
*Was* (ἦν), _i.e._, was _already_ in existence. Had St. John meant to
declare that at the dawn of creation the Word began to exist, he would
have used ἐγένετο as he does in verse 3 regarding the beginning of the
world, and again in verse 6 regarding the coming of the Baptist. This
cannot fail to be clear to anyone who contrasts verses 1, 2, 4, and 9 of
this chapter with verses 3, 6, and 14. In the former ἦν is used throughout
in reference to the eternal existence of the Word;(17) in the latter
ἐγένετο, when there is question of the beginning of created things (3), or
of the coming of the Baptist (6), or of the assumption by the Word of
human nature at the incarnation (14). At the beginning of creation, then,
the Word was already in existence; and hence it follows that He must be
uncreated, and therefore eternal. St. John’s statement here that the Word
was already in existence in the beginning, is, accordingly, equivalent to
our Lord’s claim to have existed _before_ the world was (xvii. 5), and in
both instances the Word’s eternity, though not directly stated, follows
immediately. Hence we find that the Council of Nice and the fathers
generally inferred, against the Arians, the eternity of the Son of God
from this first clause of verse 1. “If He was in the beginning,” says St.
Basil (_De Div._, _Hom._ xvi. 82), “when was He not?”
*The Word* (ὁ λόγος). St. John here, as well as in his First Epistle (i.
1), and in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), designates by this term the Second
Divine Person. That he speaks of no mere abstraction, or attribute of God,
but of a Being who is a distinct Divine Person, is clear. For this “Word
was with God, was God, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us,” and in the
person of Jesus Christ was witnessed to by the Baptist (i. 1, 14, 15, 29,
30). Outside the writings of St. John there is no _clear_(18) instance in
either Old or New Testament of this use of the term λόγος. Throughout the
rest of the Scriptures its usual meaning is _speech_ or _word_.
What, then, we may ask, led our Evangelist, in the beginning of his
Gospel, to apply this term rather than Son, or Son of God, to the Second
Divine Person? Why did he not say: In the beginning was the Son?
Apart from inspiration, which, of course, may have extended to the
suggestion of an important word like the present, apart also from the
appropriateness of the term, of which we shall speak in a moment, it seems
very probable that St. John was impelled to use the term λόγος because it
had been already used by the heretics of the time in the expression of
their errors.(19) Endowed, too, as St. John was, like the other Apostles,
with a special power of understanding the Sacred Scriptures (Luke xxiv.
46), and privileged as he had been on many an occasion to listen to the
commentaries of Christ Himself on the Old Testament, he may have been
able, where we are not, to see clearly in the Old Testament instances in
which λόγος refers to the Son of God; _e.g._, “Verbo (τῷ λόγῳ) Domini
coeli firmati sunt” (Psalm xxxii. 6).
One thing, at all events, is quite plain, that, whatever may be said
regarding his reason for the application of this _term_ to the Son of God,
St. John did not borrow his _doctrine_ regarding the λόγος from Plato or
Philo or the Alexandrian School. For though the term (λόγος) is frequently
met with in the writings of both Plato and Philo, yet Plato never speaks
of it as a person, but only as an attribute of God; and Philo, though in
our opinion, he held the distinct personality of the Word, yet denied that
he was God, or the creator of matter, which latter Philo held to be
eternal. As to the Alexandrian School, to which Philo belonged, and of
whose doctrines he is the earliest witness, there is not a shadow of
foundation for saying that any of its doctors held the same doctrine as
St. John regarding the Divine Word.
From the teaching of Christ, then, or by inspiration, or in both ways, our
Evangelist received the sublime doctrine regarding the λόγος with which
his Gospel opens.
Having now inquired into the origin of the term λόγος as applied to the
Son of God, and having learned the source whence St. John derived his
doctrine regarding this Divine Word, let us try to understand how it is
that the Son of God could be appropriately referred to as *the Word* (ὁ
λόγος). Many answers have been given, but we will confine ourselves to the
one that seems to us most satisfactory.
We believe, and profess in the Athanasian Creed (Filius a Patre solo est
non factus, nec creatus, sed _genitus_), that the Son is begotten by the
Father; and it is the common teaching that He is begotten through the
Divine intellect. Now, this mysterious procession of the Son from the
Father through the intellect, is implied here in His being called the
Word. For, as our word follows, without passion or carnal feeling, from
our thought, as it is the reflex of our thought, from which it detracts
nothing, and which it faithfully represents; so, only in an infinitely
more perfect way, the Son of God proceeded, without passion or any carnal
imperfection, through the intellect of the Father, detracting nothing from
Him who begot Him, being the image of the Father, “the figure of His
substance.” (Heb. i. 3.) “Verbum proprie dictum,” says St. Thomas, “in
Divinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii,
significat enim quamdam emanationem intellectus. Persona autem quae
procedit in Divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et
hujusmodi processio dicitur generatio” (St. Thom., 1 Qu. 34, a. 2 c.)
*And the Word was with God* (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). Πρός here signifies not
motion towards, but a living union with, God.(20) God refers not to the
Divine Nature, but to the Divine Person of the Father (see 1 John i. 2);
otherwise the _Verbum_ would be unnecessarily and absurdly said here to be
with Himself, since He is the Divine Nature terminated in the Second
Person. Many commentators are of opinion that the use of πρός (with), and
not ἐν (in), proves that the _Verbum_ is not a mere attribute of the
Father, but a distinct Person. So Chrys., Cyril, Theophy., A Lap.,
Patrizzi, M’Evilly.
*And the Word was God.* As our English version indicates, *Word* is the
subject of this clause, God the predicate, for in the Greek λόγος has the
article, Θεός wants it; and besides, as appears from the whole context,
St. John is declaring what the Word is, not what God is. A desire to begin
this clause with the last word of the clause preceding—a favourite
construction with St. John (see verses 4 and 5)—may have led to the
inversion in the original. Or the inversion may have been intended to
throw the Divinity of the Word into greater prominence by placing the
predicate before the verb.
Some, like Corluy, refer *God*, in this third clause, to the Divine
Nature, which is common to the three Divine Persons; others, as Patrizzi,
to the Divine Nature as terminated in the Second Divine Person. We prefer
the latter view, but in either interpretation we have in this clause a
declaration of the Divinity of the Word, a proof that cannot be gainsaid
of His essential unity with the Father. Nor does the absence of the Greek
article before “God” in this third clause, when taken in conjunction with
its presence in the second, imply, as the Arians held, that the Word is
inferior to the Father. For our Evangelist certainly refers sometimes to
the supreme Deity without using the article (i. 6, 12, 18); and the
absence of the article is sufficiently accounted for in the present case
by the fact that Θεός is a predicate standing before the copula.(21)
2. Hoc erat in principio apud 2. The same was in the
Deum. beginning with God.
2. *The same was in the beginning with God*. To emphasize the three great
truths contained in verse 1: namely, the Word’s eternity, His distinct
personality, and essential unity with the Father, they are repeated in
verse 2. The same, that is, this Word who is God, was in the beginning,
and was with God.
Various attempts have been made by the Unitarians to escape the invincible
argument for a Second Divine Person which these opening verses of our
Gospel contain. Thus, they put a full stop after the last “erat” of verse
1; and, taking the words in the order in which they occur in the Greek and
Latin, make the sense of the third clause: _And God was._ Then they join
“_verbum_,” the last word of verse 1, with verse 2: This Word was in the
beginning with God. But even if we granted to the Unitarians this
punctuation of the verses, the sense of the third clause would still be
that the Word was God, and not that God existed. For “Deus” (Θεός without
the article), in the beginning of the third clause ought still to be
regarded as the predicate, with “verbum” of the preceding clauses as the
subject. This follows not merely from the absence of the Greek article
already alluded to, but also from the absurdity of the Unitarian view,
which supposes that St. John thought it necessary, after telling us that
the Word was with God, to tell us that God existed!
Others have tried to explain away the text thus: At the beginning of the
Christian dispensation the Word existed, and the Word was most intimately
united to God by love. But, primum, they have still to explain how this
Word is declared Creator in verses 3 and 10; secundum, the statement in
verse 14: “And the Word was made flesh,” implies transition of the Word to
a state different from that in which He existed “in the beginning;” but
the time of the transition is just the commencement of the Christian
dispensation, which cannot, therefore, be the time referred to in verse 1
as “the beginning.”
3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: 3. All things were made by
et sine ipso factum est nihil, him: and without him was made
quod factum est, nothing that was made.
4. in ipso vita erat, et vita 4. In him was life, and the
erat lux hominum: life was the light of men.
3. St. John passes on to the relations of the Word with creatures. *All
things* (πάντα = τὰ πάντα, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Col. i. 16). The passages
indicated, as well as verse 10 of this chapter: _the world was made by
Him_, make it clear that the Son of God created all things. Nor could this
doctrine be more plainly stated than in the words before us: _All things
were made by Him_, &c. How absurd, then, is the Socinian view, according
to which St. John merely tells us here that all Christian virtues were
introduced, and the whole _moral_ world established by Christ!
*Were made* ἐγένετο, _i.e._, got their whole _being_ from Him, and not
merely were fashioned by Him from pre‐existing matter. The Cerinthian
theory, that the world was made by an inferior being, is here rejected.
*By Him* (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ). We are not to suppose that the Word was an
instrument in the hands of the Father, or inferior to the Father, as the
Arians held. The preposition διά (per) is often used in reference to a
principal efficient cause. Thus, St. Paul says of the Father: God is
faithful, _by whom_ (δι᾽ οὗ) you are called unto the fellowship of His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord (1 Cor. i. 9. See also 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i.
1, Gal. iv. 27, Heb. ii. 10.) And since our Evangelist has just declared
in verse 1 the Word’s divinity, and knew Him to be one with the Father (x.
30), it cannot be implied here that the Word is inferior to the Father.
Some commentators hold that there is no special significance in the use
here of the preposition διά, while others see in it an allusion to the
fact that the Son proceeds from the Father, and derives from Him His
creative power. According to these, creation is _from_ the Father, but
_through_ the Son, because the Son has received His creative power,
together with His essence, from the Father and is not, therefore, like the
Father, “principium sine principio.”
Others think that since all things were created according to the Divine
idea, _i.e._, according to the Divine and eternal wisdom, and since the
Word is that wisdom, therefore all things are rightly said to have been
created through the Word. So St. Thomas on this verse:—“Sic ergo Deus
nihil facit nisi per conceptum sui intellectus, qui est sapientia ab
aeterno concepta, scilicet Dei Verbum, et Dei Filius; et ideo impossibile
est quod aliquid faciat nisi per Filium.” In this view, which seems to us
the most probable, though like all the Divine works that are “ad extra,”
_i.e._ do not terminate in God Himself, creation is common to the Three
Divine Persons, yet, for the reason indicated, it is rightly said to be
through the Son.
*And without him was made nothing* (οὐδὲ ἕν = not anything, emphatic for
οὐδέν nothing) *that was made* (Gr.: hath been made). By a Hebrew
parallelism the same truth is repeated negatively: all things were made by
Him, and nothing was made without Him. To this negative statement,
however, there is added, according to the method of pointing the passage
common at present, an additional clause which gives us the meaning:
nothing was made without Him, of all the things that have been made. This
restrictive clause may then be understood to imply that, together with the
Word, there was something else uncreated, that is to say (besides the
Father, whose uncreated existence would be admitted by all) the Holy Ghost
also.
In this way after the Macedonian heresy arose in the middle of the fourth
century, and blasphemously held that the Word had made the Holy Ghost,
because without Him was made nothing, many of the Fathers replied: Nothing
was made without the Word, of the things that were made; but the Holy
Ghost was not made at all, and is therefore not included among the things
made by the Word. However, this restriction is not necessary to defend the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Even though we understand it to be stated
absolutely that nothing was made without the Son, no difficulty can
follow; for the Holy Ghost was not _made_ (ἐγένετο), but _was_ (ἦν) from
all eternity, as is clearly implied elsewhere. John xvi. 13, 14.
On dogmatic grounds, therefore, there is no necessity for connecting:
_Quod factum est_, in the end of verse 3, with the preceding. And, as a
matter of fact, all the writers of the first three centuries seem to have
connected these words with verse 4,(22) and it appears to us very likely,
that it was because of the Macedonian heresy they began to be connected
with verse 3. St. Chrysostom certainly is very strong in connecting them
with verse 3, but the reason is because the heretics of the time were
abusing the other connection to support their errors. “For neither will
we,” he says, “put a full stop after that ‘nothing,’ as the heretics do”
(Chrysostom on John, Hom. v). We must not, however, conclude, from this
remark of St. Chrysostom that it was the heretics alone who did so; for,
as we have said already, such was the ordinary way of connecting the
clauses during the first three centuries; and it is supported not only by
the Fathers, but by the oldest Latin MSS., and by some of the oldest Greek
MSS. And even after the Macedonian heretics had abused this passage to
blaspheme the Holy Ghost, the old pointing, or to speak more correctly the
old method of connecting the clauses, remained the more common.(23) Not
only did Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine, and Venerable Bede, and St.
Thomas, and a host of others read in this way, but Maldonatus, who himself
prefers the connection in our English version: “Without Him was made
nothing that was made,” admits that the usage of his time was against him,
and that it was then the practice to put a full stop after “nothing”:
“Without Him was made nothing.” Nor can the Sixtine or Clementine edition
of the Vulgate be appealed to in favour of our present pointing. As a
matter of fact, the Sixtine edition _rejected_ it, printing thus: “Et sine
ipso factum est nihil: quod factum est in ipso vita erat;” while the
Clementine Bible left the matter undecided by printing thus: “Et sine ipso
factum est nihil, quod factum est, in ipso vita erat,” &c. We cannot,
therefore, understand to what Roman Bibles A Lapide refers when he says
that the Bibles corrected at Rome connect thus: “And without Him was made
nothing that was made.”
We think it extremely probable, then, that the words: Quod factum est
(_that was made_, or, as we shall render in our interpretation; _what was
made_), standing at present in the end of verse 3, are to be connected
with verse 4. Some may be inclined to blame us for departing from what is
at present the received connection of the words in such a well‐known
passage as this. Let us, therefore, sum up briefly the evidence that has
forced us, we may say reluctantly, to connect the words with verse 4.
1. Though Maldonatus tries to throw doubt upon the fact, this is the
connection adopted by practically all, if not all, the Fathers and other
writers of the first three centuries, and by the majority of writers
afterwards down to the sixteenth century.
2. It is supported by the oldest MSS. of the Vulgate, and, what is more
remarkable, by some of the oldest Greek MSS., notwithstanding the fact
that St. Chrysostom was against it.
3. The parallelism in the verse is better brought out: _All things were
made by Him, and without Him was made nothing._
4. If _Quod factum est_ were intended to be connected with the preceding,
the clause would be certainly unnecessary, and apparently useless, because
it is plain without it that the Evangelist is speaking of what was _made_,
and not including any uncreated Being, like the Father or the Holy Ghost.
We prefer, then, to connect: _Quod factum est_, with what follows. But it
still remains for us to inquire in what way precisely the connection is to
be made, for various views have been held upon the subject.
*A.* Some connect thus: What was made in (_i.e._ by) Him, was life, and
the life was the light of men. *B.* Others thus: What was made was life in
Him, and the life was the light of men. *C.* Others again, adopting the
same punctuation as in the preceding, but understanding differently: What
was made in it was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
The last seems to us the correct view. For *A* is improbable, inasmuch as
it either declares all things to have life, or implies that though what
was made by the Word had life, yet there were other things wanting life,
which proceeded, as the Manichaeans held, from the evil principle.
Nor can we accept *B*, even as explained by St. Augustine in the sense
that all created things are in the mind of God, as the house before
building is in the mind of the architect; and that being in the mind of
God they are God Himself, and “life in Him.” For though this is in a
certain sense true, yet it seems to us unnatural to suppose that St. John
here, in this sublime exordium, thinks it necessary or useful to tell us
that the archetypes of created things lived in the Divine Mind. *C* then
appears to us to be the more probable view regarding the passage: “What
was made, in it was the Life;” or, more plainly: “In that which was made
was the Life;” for here, as elsewhere, St. John begins with the relative
(see i. 45, 1 John i. 1); so that, in this view, the Evangelist after
telling us the relations of the Word to all things at their beginning:
“All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing,” now goes
on to point out His relations to them after their creation: first, His
relations with things generally: “In that which was made was the Life,”
then his relations with man in the supernatural order: “And the Life was
the Light of men.”
5. Adopting this view as to the connection between verses 3 and 4, St.
Cyril of Alexandria thus explains: “The Life (ἡ ζωή), that is to say, the
Only‐begotten Son of God, was in all things that were made. For He, being
by nature life itself, imparts being, and life, and motion to the things
that are ... In all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word
which was in the beginning. The Word, being essential life, was mingling
Himself by participation with all existing things.”
If it be objected to this interpretation that the first ζωή of verse 4,
not having the article, cannot mean the Eternal Life, _i.e._ the Divine
Word, we reply that St. Cyril, one of the greatest of the Greek Fathers,
thought differently; and moreover, that very many of the commentators who
are against us in the interpretation of this passage, are yet with us in
referring ζωή here to the uncreated life of the Divine Word.
But if we follow what is at present the common punctuation, and read: “In
Him was life,” this is commonly interpreted to mean that the Word is the
source of supernatural life to man. S. Amb., S. Ath., Tol., Mald., A Lap.,
Patr., Beel.
But this view is not without difficulty. For, first, if it be merely meant
that life comes to man through the Word, we might rather expect that the
preposition διά of the preceding verse would have been retained.
Secondly, if there be question here of the Word as the life of _man_, how
is it that it is only in the next clause that man is first mentioned?
Surely, if the opinion we are considering were correct, we should rather
expect St. John to have written: “In Him was the life of man, and the life
was the light.” For these reasons, and because of what we have stated
already in favour of connecting “Quod factum est” with what follows, we
prefer to understand this passage, with St. Cyril, as a statement that the
Word, the Essential Life, was present in all things, conserving them in
existence.
*And the Life was the Light of men.* In our view the meaning is that the
Word, the Life, who conserved all things in existence, was, moreover, in
the case of men, their Light—the source and author of their faith. Hence,
we suppose St. John, after referring to the creation of all things, in
verse 3, and the conservation of all things, in the beginning of verse 4,
to pass on now in the end of verse 4 to speak of that new creation that is
effected in man by means of a spiritual illumination: “All things were
made by (or through) Him, and without Him was made nothing. In that which
was made was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men.”
Those who interpret the beginning of the verse to mean that the spiritual
life of man comes through the Word, take the present clause as explaining
how that was so, how the Word was the Life; namely, inasmuch as He was the
Light. He was the source of our life of grace here and glory hereafter,
inasmuch as He was the source of our light, that is to say, our faith. And
some of them, as Patrizzi, hold that the order of the terms in this clause
is inverted, and that we should read: “the light of men was the life,”
“light of men” being the subject.
Maldonatus tells us that almost all writers before his time understood
“light of men” in reference to the light of reason. However, this view is
now generally abandoned, and rightly, for that man owed his reason to the
Word has been already implied in verse 3: “All things were made by Him.”
Besides, the “light” of this fourth verse is doubtless the same as that of
verse 5, which _men did not receive_, and of verse 7, to which the Baptist
was to bear witness. But in neither of the latter verses can there be
question of the light of reason; hence, neither is there in verse 4. The
meaning, then, is that He who was the preserver of all things was moreover
the source of the _spiritual_ light of men.
5. Et lux in tenebris lucet, 5. And the light shineth in
et tenebrae eam non darkness, and the darkness did
comprehenderunt. not comprehend it.
6. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui 6. There was a man sent from
nomen erat Johannes. God, whose name was John.
5. *And the light shineth.* The meaning is, that the Word, as the source
and author of faith, was always, as far as in Him lay, enlightening men.
*Shineth*—the present tense is used, though the latter part of the verse
shows that the past also is meant: “The light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness _did not_ comprehend it.” Probably the Evangelist avoids
using the past tense, lest it might be inferred that the Word had ceased
to shine. Besides, the present is more appropriate, seeing that, in the
sense explained, the Word shines _throughout all time_. From the beginning
the Word shone, as far as in Him lay. If men generally were not
enlightened, it was their own fault. But all who were saved from the
beginning, were saved through faith, and no one ever received the gift of
faith except in view of the merits of the Word Incarnate. “Nulli unquam
contigit vita nisi per lucem fidei, nulli lux fidei nisi intuitu Christi”
(St. August.)
*The darkness* is man shrouded in unbelief. See Luke i. 79, Eph. v. 8.
*And the darkness did not comprehend it.*(24) As we have just said, the
meaning is, that unbelieving men refused to be enlightened. Ordinarily,
indeed, light cannot shine in darkness without dispelling it; but in this
case the darkness was man, a free agent, capable of rejecting the light of
faith through which the Eternal Word was shining. In telling us that men
refused to be enlightened, the Evangelist is stating what was the general
rule, to which at all times there were noble exceptions.
6. The correct rendering of the Greek text is: *There came* (ἐγένετο) *a
man, sent by God, whose name was John*. This reference to the Baptist in
the middle of this sublime exordium is surprising, and has been variously
accounted for. Some think that our Evangelist, after having treated of the
Divinity of the Word, merely wishes, before going on to speak of the
incarnation, to refer to the precursor. But it seems most probable that
the Evangelist wished to remove at once the error of those who, impressed
by the austerity and sanctity of the Baptist’s life, had looked upon him
as the Messias. If any of them still remained at the time when St. John
wrote, or should arise afterwards, they are here told that the Baptist,
though having his mission from Heaven, was only a man intended to bear
witness to Christ. Thus the superior excellence of Christ is thrown into
relief from the fact that a great saint like the Baptist was specially
sent by Heaven to be His herald. The reference in this verse is to the
Baptist’s coming into the world, at his conception, rather than to the
beginning of his preaching, for at the moment of his conception, he came,
sent by God to be the herald of Christ. See Luke i. 13‐17.
*John* is the same name as Jochanan (וחנן), which is itself a shortened
form of Jehochanan = Jehovah hath had mercy. This name was appointed for
the Baptist, before his conception, by the Archangel Gabriel, Luke i. 13.
7. Hic venit in testimonium, 7. This man came for a
ut testimonium perhiberet de witness, to give testimony of
lumine, ut omnes crederent per the light, that all men might
illum: believe through him.
8. Non erat ille lux, sed ut 8. He was not the light, but
testimonium perhiberet de was to give testimony of the
lumine. light.
9. Erat lux vera, quae 9. That was the true light,
illuminat omnem hominem which enlighteneth every man
venientem in hunc mundum that cometh into this world.
7. This man came for witness, namely, in order that he might bear witness
of _the light_, that is to say, the Incarnate Word, to the end that
through him all might believe in the Word.
8. *He was not the light* (τὸ φῶς), that is, he was not the great
uncreated light which enlighteneth all men; though, in his own way, the
Baptist too was a light, nay, as Christ Himself testified “the lamp that
burneth and shineth.” (v. 35). Ἵνα depends on ἦλθεν (he came), which is to
be understood from the preceding verse.
9. *That was the true light* (or, there was the true light), *which
enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world*. The Greek of this
verse may be construed and translated in three different ways:—1. By
connecting ἦν with ἐρχόμενον: The true light, which enlighteneth every
man, was coming into this world. 2. By taking ἐρχόμενον as a nominative
agreeing with φῶς: There was the true light which _at its coming_ into the
world, enlighteneth every man (iii. 19.) 3. By connecting ἐρχόμενον with
ἄνθρωπον, as in the Vulgate and our English version. This is far the most
probable view. In favour of it we have all the Latin Fathers, all the
Greek Fathers except one, and all the ancient versions. Besides, ἐρχόμενον
is thus connected with the nearest substantive with which it agrees in
form. Add to this that the second opinion, the more probable of the other
two, would seem to signify that the Word was not a light to all men before
His coming, but only at His coming; and this, as we have explained above
on verse 5, is false. The meaning, then, is that the Word was the true,
_i.e._ the perfect light, and as far as in Him lies enlighteneth at all
times every man that cometh into this world, be he Jew or Gentile. *That
cometh into this world*, is in our view a Hebrew form of expression
equivalent to: that is born. It is used only here in the New Testament,
but “to be born” was commonly expressed by Jewish Rabbins by בוא בעולס (to
come into the world).
10. In mundo erat et mundus 10. He was in the world, and
per ipsum factus est, et the world was made by him, and
mundus eum non cognovit. the world knew him not.
10. *He was in the world.* The Word, not the light, is the subject here,
as is proved by the masculine pronoun αὐτόν towards the end of the verse.
It is disputed to what presence of the Word in the world there is
reference here. Almost all the Fathers understood the reference to be to
the presence of the Word in the world before the incarnation. According to
this view, which is held also by A Lapide, the Word was in the world, in
the universe, conserving what He had created, “sustaining all things by
the word of His power” (Heb. i. 3). God is everywhere present by His
essence, by His knowledge, and by His power; but it is of the latter
presence, which could be known, that the view we are considering
understands this clause.
Maldonatus, though he admits that the Fathers are against him, holds that
the reference is to the mortal life of the Word Incarnate. He argues from
the fact that the world is blamed, in the next clause, for not having
known the Word; but knowledge of the Word was impossible before the
incarnation. It was possible indeed to know there was a God, but
impossible to know the Second Divine Person, the Word. Whatever may be
thought of the probability of this second view, the arguments ordinarily
adduced against it, from the use of the imperfect “erat” (ἦν) and from the
alleged fact that all the preceding verses refer to the Word before His
incarnation, have no weight. For the imperfect may be used not in
reference to Christ’s existence before His incarnation, but to show that
He not merely appeared among men, but _continued_ to dwell for a time
among them; and the statement that everything before this verse refers to
the Word before His incarnation, cannot be sustained. For the “Light” to
which the Baptist came to bear witness (v. 7) was not the Word before His
incarnation, but the Word Incarnate, as is evident. According to this
second opinion, verse 11: He came unto His own, and His own received Him
not, merely emphasizes the ingratitude of the world towards the incarnate
Word by showing that He was rejected even by His own chosen people.
*And the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.* Those who
interpret the first clause of this verse of the existence of the Word in
the world before the incarnation, understand the world to be blamed, in
the remainder of the verse, for its ignorance of its Creator. The world is
not blamed, they say, for not knowing the Word as the Second Divine
Person, for such knowledge it could not have gathered from the works of
creation, but for not knowing God (Rom. i. 20), who is one in nature with
the Word.
Those who interpret the first part of the verse of the presence of Christ
on earth during His mortal life, hold that in the remainder the world is
blamed for not recognising the Word Incarnate as the Son of God, and
Second Divine Person. The meaning of the whole verse then, in this view,
is: that though the Son of God, who created the world, deigned to live
among men, yet they refused to recognise Him as God.
11. In propria venit, et sui 11. He came unto his own, and
eum non receperunt. his own received him not.
11. *He came unto his own.* It is clear from what we have said on the
preceding verse, that some take this to be the first reference to the
presence on earth of the Word Incarnate; while others regard it as merely
repeating the idea of the preceding verse, with the additional
circumstance that even _His own_ refused to recognise Christ. Some few
have held that the reference here is to the transient coming of the Word
in the apparitions of the Old Testament. But all the Fathers understood
the verse of the coming of the Word as man, and the verses that follow
prove their view to be correct. *His own* is understood by many of His own
world, which He had created; but we prefer to take it as referring to His
own chosen people, the Jews. “Verbum inter Judæos veniens, natumque ex
gente Judæorum, quos sibi Deus elegerat in populum peculiarem (Deut. xiv.
2) percommode dicitur venisse εἰς τὰ ἴδια atque ipsi Judaei Verbo ἴδιοι
esse dicuntur,” Patriz.
*And his own received him not.* That is to say, believed not in Him, but
rejected Him. This was the general rule, to which, of course, there were
exceptions, as the following verse shows. These words together with the
two following verses, we take to be a parenthetic reflexion on the
reception Christ met with, and the happy consequences to some.
12. Quotquot autem receperunt 12. But as many as received
eum, dedit eis potestatem him, he gave them power to be
filios Dei fieri, his qui made the sons of God, to them
credunt in nomine eius. that believe in his name.
13. Qui non ex sanguinibus, 13. Who are born, not of
neque ex voluntate carnis blood, nor of the will of the
neque ex voluntate viri, sed flesh, nor of the will of man,
ex Deo nati sunt. but of God.
12. There were some, however, who believed in Him, or, according to the
Hebraism, in His name, and to these, _whether Jews or Gentiles_, He gave
power to become adopted children of God. That is to say, after they had
co‐operated with His grace and believed, He mercifully gave them further
grace whereby they could be justified, and thus be God’s adopted children.
The last words of this verse: *To them that believe in His name*, explain
what is meant in the beginning of the verse by receiving Him.
13. Some commentators have found great difficulty in this verse, because
they supposed that those who in the preceding verse are said to have got
the power to become children of God are here said to have been already
born of God. But the difficulty vanishes, it seems to us, if verse 13 be
taken as explaining not what those who believed were before they became
sons of God, but the _nature of the filiation_, to which those who
believed got power to raise themselves. It is not faith that makes them
sons of God, but through faith (not as a meritorious cause, but as a
condition) they attained to charity, which made them children of God. This
too is all that is meant in 1 Jn. v. 1. It is not meant that by believing
they are _eo ipso_, through faith alone, sons of God. Faith, as the
Council of Trent lays down, is the root of justification, but it is not
the formal nor even the meritorious cause of justification; it is a
condition “sine qua non.” And just as St. Paul attributes justification to
faith without meaning that it is of itself sufficient, so St. John (1 John
v. 1) attributes to faith Divine sonship without meaning that it comes
from faith alone. See Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sess. vi. Chap. vi.
and viii. The meaning of the two verses, according to this view, is, that
as many as received Christ by believing in Him, got power to become
children of God, children who _were_ born (ἐγεννήθησαν) not of
_bloods_,(25) nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God. Thus verse 13 explains that these sons of God were born not in a
carnal but in a spiritual manner. “Tria hic de generatione humana sic
exponit St. Thomas: _ex sanguinibus_, ut ex causa materiali; _ex voluntate
carnis_,(26) ut ex causa efficiente quantum ad concupiscentiam (in qua est
voluntas sensitiva); _ex voluntate viri_, ut ex causa efficiente
intellectuali (libere actum conjugalem perficiente).” Corl.
To be born of God, implies that we are transferred into a new life wherein
we become in some sense partakers of the Divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4).
Through the seed of Divine grace we are begotten anew and raised to this
higher life.
14. Et Verbum caro factum est, 14. And the Word was made
et habitavit in nobis: et flesh, and dwelt among us (and
vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam we saw his glory, the glory as
quasi Unigeniti a Patre, it were of the only‐begotten
plenum gratiae et veritatis. of the Father) full of grace
and truth.
14. After the reflexion in verses 12 and 13 on the way Christ was received
by men, the Evangelist now states the _manner_ in which He came; namely,
by taking human nature. According to some, the first “and” is equivalent
to “for.” “After He had said that those who received Him are born of God
and sons of God, He adds the cause of this unspeakable honour, namely,
that the Word was made flesh.” (St. Chrys.). Others, however, think that
“and” has merely its ordinary conjunctive force. Note that Ὁ λόγος, not
mentioned since verse 1, is again named, for emphasis, and to put it
beyond doubt or cavil that it is the same Eternal God of verse 1 who is
declared to have become man in verse 14. *Flesh* is a Hebraism for man.
See also Gen. vi. 12; Isai. xl. 5; Ps. lv. 5; John xvii. 2. Probably it is
used here specially against the Docetae, heretics who denied that Christ
had really taken flesh, which they contended was essentially polluted and
corrupt.
“Docetae discernebant in homine tria principia τὴν σάρκα, τὴν ψυχήν, et
τὸν νοῦν vel τὸ πνεῦμα. Duo priora habebant ut essentialiter polluta, cum
quibus ideo Verbum hypostatice uniri non posset. St. Joannes haec tria
Verbi hypostasi fuisse unita docet, τὴν σάρκα hoc loco; τὴν ψυχήν, John
xii. 27; τὸ πνεῦμα, xi. 33; xiii. 21; xix. 30,” Corluy, p. 40, note.
*And dwelt.* Many think, with St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, that the Greek
verb used is employed specially to indicate that the Word did not cease to
be God when He became man, but _dwelt_ in His humanity as in a tent among
men.
*And we saw.* The Greek verb signifies to behold with attention. We beheld
not merely His human nature present among us, but we beheld His glory as
in the transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 1, and ascension, Acts i. 9, 11. For
glory, the Greek word is δόξα, the solemn Scriptural term for the glorious
majesty of God.
*The glory as it were* (quasi, Gr. ὡς) of the only‐begotten; _i.e._, glory
_such as was becoming_ the only‐begotten, &c. Beware of taking the meaning
to be: a glory like that of the Son of God, but not His. As St. Chrys.
points out, the ὡς here expresses not similitude, but the most real
identity(27): “As if he said: We have seen His glory such as it _was
becoming and right_ that the only begotten and true Son of God should
have.” S. Chrys. on John, Hom. xii. *Of the Father* should be *from the
Father*, and may be joined either with “glory,” or with “only‐
begotten.”(28)
*Full of grace and truth.* (πλήρης, in the nominative, is the correct
reading). This is to be connected closely with the beginning of the verse:
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,”
and the other clause, *And we saw His glory*, &c., is parenthetic, thrown
in to prove the preceding statement.
Christ is said to have been full of grace and truth, not merely in
Himself, but also, as the following verses prove, in reference to men with
whom He freely shared them. Kuinoel, followed by Patrizzi, understands by
“grace and truth” true grace or true benefits. But it is more natural to
take grace and truth as two distinct things, seeing that they are again
mentioned separately (ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια) in verse 17. Grace may be
understood in its widest sense; for not only had Christ the “gratia
unionis,” as it is called, whereby His humanity was hypostatically united
to the Divinity; but, moreover, His human soul was replenished to its
utmost capacity with created grace, which not only sanctified Him, but was
also through Him a source of sanctification to us. See St. Thomas, p. 2,
sec. 7, 8. Christ is said to be “full of truth,” not only because “all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him” (Col. ii. 3), but
also because, as verse 17 states, He gave us the knowledge of the true
faith and true way of salvation.
15. Ioannes testimonium 15. John beareth witness of
perhibet de ipso, et clamat, him, and crieth out, saying:
dicens: Hic erat quem dixi: This was he of whom I spoke:
Qui post me venturus est, ante He that shall come after me,
me factus est: quia prior me is preferred before me:
erat. because he was before me.
15. *John.* The Baptist (for it is he who is meant: comp. with John i. 27;
Mark i. 4, 7; Luke iii. 2, 16) is now referred to parenthetically, as
confirming what our Evangelist has said, namely, that the eternal Word
dwelt among men.
*Crieth out.* (Gr. perf. with pres. signif., Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 41, 4
(B) note); viz., gives solemn, public testimony.
*This was he of whom I spoke* (rather, said). Some, like Patrizzi, think
that the testimony of the Baptist here referred to is a distinct testimony
not mentioned elsewhere. Others, and with more probability, hold that the
Evangelist mentions here by anticipation the same testimony whose
circumstances he describes in verses 29 and 30.
*He that shall come after me*, in His public ministry, *is preferred
before me, because he was before me*. Some commentators, as Kuinoel and
Patrizzi, understand “before” in both cases of _time_: is before Me,
because He is eternal; others, as St. Chrys. and Toletus, in both cases of
dignity: is preferred before Me, because really preferable; and others, as
our English version, with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Beelen, Alford, in
the former case of dignity in the latter of time: is preferred before Me,
because He is eternal. The last seems the correct interpretation, and in
it the past tense “is preferred” (ante me factus est) is used
prophetically for the future, or may be explained as a past: has been
preferred in the designs of God.(29)
16. Et de plenitudine eius nos 16. And of his fulness we all
omnes accepimus, et gratiam have received, and grace for
pro gratia. grace.
17. Quia lex per Moysen data 17. For the law was given by
est, gratia et veritas per Moses, grace and truth came by
Iesum Christum facta est. Jesus Christ.
16. After the parenthetic clause contained in verse 15, the Evangelist,
not the Baptist, continues regarding the Word: *And of his fulness* (see
verse 14) *we have all received, and grace for grace*. The second “and” is
explanatory. *Grace for grace*; _i.e._—(1) the grace of eternal life
following on the grace of justification here; or (2) abundant grace,
according as the grace given to Christ was abundant: gratia nobis pro
gratia Christi (Rom. v. 15); or (3) the more perfect grace of the New Law,
instead of that given under the Old Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, Patrizzi); or
(4), and best, by a Hebraism, abundant grace. “aντ’i dicitur de
successione, gratiam unam post aliam (gratiam cumulatam).” (Beel., _Gr.
Gram._, § 51 A.) So also Kuin.
17. The Evangelist confirms what is stated in verse 16, and at the same
time takes occasion to prefer Christ to Moses, as he has already preferred
Him to the Baptist. Moses was but the medium of _communicating_ to the
Jews the Mosaic Law, which only pointed out man’s duty, without enabling
him to fulfil it—Rom. vii. 7, 8; but Christ was the _source_ and _author_
of grace and truth to us; of all the graces whereby we are to merit
heaven, and of the perfect knowledge of the true faith. This is,
doubtless, directed against some of the Judaizers, who held that
sanctification through the Mosaic Law was at all times possible, even
after the Christian religion was established.
18. Deum nemo vidit unquam: 18. No man hath seen God at
unigenitus Filius, qui est in any time: the only‐begotten
sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Son who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.
18. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the drift or bearing
of this verse. Some think that a reason is given why only Christ could
give the truth, because only He saw God in His essence. Others, that a
reason is given why the gifts of Christ mentioned in the preceding verse,
are superior to the Law given by Moses, namely, because Moses never saw
God in His essence. Others, that the evangelist explains how he and his
fellow‐Apostles received of Christ’s fulness, not only through what Christ
did (17), but through what He taught (18); and the necessity for such a
Divine teacher is shown by the fact that no one but He ever saw God. So
St. Thomas.
Others, as Maldonatus and Patrizzi, hold that the Evangelist is here
adding to his own testimony, and that of the Baptist, the testimony of our
Lord Himself, in favour of all that he has said regarding our Lord in this
sublime prologue; the meaning being: What I have said regarding the
eternity, personality, and Divinity of the Word, regarding His power as
creator and regenerator, and regarding His incarnation, I have neither
seen with my own eyes, nor learned from anyone who saw, for “no man hath
seen God at any time,” but Jesus Christ Himself explained these things to
me.
*No man hath seen God at any time.* If understood of the vision of
_comprehension_ this is universally true of every creature, man or angel;
if of seeing God in His essence without comprehending Him, it is true of
all while they are here below. The latter is the sense here, for the
Evangelist wishes to signify that he could not have learned from any mere
mortal the foregoing doctrine. The saints in heaven see God in His
essence, for as our Evangelist tells us in his First Epistle: “We shall
see Him as He is” (1 John iii. 2. See also John xvii. 3).
*The only‐begotten Son.* Instead of: “The only‐begotten Son,” the reading:
“God only‐begotten” is found in very many ancient authorities, and is
almost equally probable. Were it certain, it would be an additional proof
of Christ’s Divinity. Christ is the only‐begotten Son of God, because
while He is the natural Son of God, all others are but adopted sons.
*Who is in the bosom of the Father* (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός). This
means that the Son is consubstantial with the Father: “In illo ergo sinu,
id est in occultissimo paternae naturae et essentiae, quae excedit omnem
virtutem creaturae, est unigenitus Filius, et ideo consubstantialis est
Patri.” St. Thomas on this verse.
*He hath declared him.* “Him” is not represented in the original; and if
our view of the verse is the correct one, the object of the verb “hath
declared” is not so much the Word, as the doctrine contained in this
prologue concerning Him.(30)
19. Et hoc est testimonium 19. And this is the testimony
Ioannis, quando miserunt of John, when the Jews sent
Iudaei ab Ierosolymis from Jerusalem priests and
sacerdotes et Levitas ad eum, Levites to him, to ask him:
ut interrogarent eum: Tu quis Who art thou?
es?
19. The Evangelist now records, with its various circumstances, one of the
most solemn testimonies borne by the Baptist to Christ. The “Jews” are
probably the Sanhedrim, whose duty it was to inquire into the credentials
of preachers. The deputation was, therefore, a most solemn one, sent by
the Sanhedrim, from the Jewish capital, composed of Priests and Levites,
to make inquiries regarding a momentous question.
20. Et confessus est, et non 20. And he confessed, and did
negavit: et confessus est: not deny: and he confessed: I
Quia non sum ego Christus. am not the Christ.
20. The Baptist first confesses what he is not, and what many at the time
believed him to be, namely, the Christ (Luke iii. 15).
21. Et interrogaverunt eum: 21. And they asked him: What
Quid ergo? Elias es tu? Et then? Art thou Elias? And he
dixit: Non sum. Propheta es said: I am not. Art thou the
tu? Et respondit: Non. prophet? And he answered: No.
22. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quis es, 22. They said therefore unto
ut responsum demus his qui him: Who art thou, that we may
miserunt nos? quid dicis de give an answer to them that
teipso? sent us? What sayest thou of
thyself?
21. *Art thou Elias?* This question arose from a misunderstanding of Mal.
iv. 5. *Art thou the prophet?* (ὁ προφήτης), as foretold by Moses (Deut.
xviii. 15). These interrogators evidently regarded “the prophet” as
different from the Messias, though in reality they were the same. See Acts
iii. 22‐24.
23. Ait: Ego vox clamantis in 23. He said: _I am the voice
deserto: Dirigite viam Domini, of one crying in the
sicut dixit Isaias propheta. wilderness, Make straight the
way of the Lord_, as said the
prophet Isaias.
23. The Baptist with striking humility replies that he is merely a voice,
a passing sign—yet that voice spoken of by Isaias, which was to call upon
men to prepare their hearts to receive Christ. The Hebrew of Isaias may be
rendered: “The voice of one that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the
way of the Lord (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our
God.” Or, as is more probable from the Hebrew parallelism: “The voice of
one that crieth: Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God.” The Baptist, in applying to
himself this prophetic passage, which is also applied to him by the three
Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4), gives merely
the substance of the original. It is disputed whether Isaias refers in the
literal sense to preparing the roads by which the people should return
from the Babylonian Captivity, and only in the mystical sense to the
preparation for the Messias, or directly and literally to the preparation
for the Messias. The latter seems the more probable view. At any rate, the
words as applied here mean that the Baptist is the voice to which Isaias
referred (in some sense literal or mystical), and that the burden of his
cry in the desert of Judea is, that men who heard him in the desert should
prepare their hearts for Christ.
The language is metaphorical, and alludes to the custom prevalent in those
days of sending forward couriers to get the roads ready for advancing
princes.
24. Et qui missi fuerant, 24. And they that were sent
erant ex Pharisaeis. were of the Pharisees.
24. The Pharisees were a sect among the Jews, so called according to some
from their founder, Pharos, or more probably, perhaps, from the Hebrew
verb “pharash” (פרשׂ) to separate, as though they were separated from and
above ordinary men, owing to their strict observance of the Law. They held
many erroneous tenets: thus—(1) They relied for God’s favour upon their
carnal descent from Abraham. (2) They taught that no oath was binding in
which the name of God or the gold of the temple was not expressly invoked.
(3) That internal sins were not forbidden; and (4) some of their schools
admitted the right of arbitrary divorce. See Matt. v. 33‐36; xix. 3;
xxiii.
25. Et interrogaverunt eum, et 25. And they asked him, and
dixerunt ei: Quid ergo said to him: Why then dost
baptizas, si tu non es thou baptize, if thou be not
Christus, neque Elias, neque Christ, nor Elias, nor the
propheta? prophet?
26. Respondit eis Ioannes, 26. John answered them,
dicens: Ego baptizo in aqua: saying: I baptize with water;
medius autem vestrum stetit, but there hath stood one in
quem vos nescitis. the midst of you, whom you
know not.
25. Being Pharisees, and therefore versed in the Law, they knew from
Ezech. xxxvi. 25, and Zach. xiii. 1, that in the time of the Messias there
was to be a baptism unto the remission of sins. They concluded, then, that
only the Messias, or some of those that were to accompany Him, could
confer this baptism; and, not understanding the import of the Baptist’s
answer, verse 23, in which he really declared himself the herald of
Christ’s coming, they ask why he presumes to baptize.
26. The Baptist answers that his is not the baptism foretold by the
Prophets, which was to cleanse the sinner, but as he had declared at the
beginning of his preaching, a baptism unto penance (Matt. iii. 21). John’s
baptism consisted in an ablution of the body, accompanied by the
profession of a penitential spirit, preparatory to the coming of Him who
was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire (Matt. iii. 11). It could in
no sense be said to remit sin; while the baptism of Christ really remits
sin (Acts ii. 38). Hence the Council of Trent defined:—“Si quis dixerit
baptismum Joannis habuisse eamdem vim cum baptismo Christi anathema sit.”
(Sess. vii., Can. i.) _De Bapt._
*There hath stood* (ἕστηκεν); rather there *standeth*, the perfect of this
verb having a present signification. Many authorities indeed read the
later present στήκει. The meaning is not that our Lord was then actually
present in the crowd, else St. John would probably have pointed him out,
as he did on the following day (v. 29); but that He was already present
among the Jewish people, was already living among them.
27. Ipse est qui post me 27. The same is he that shall
venturus est, qui ante me come after me, who is
factus est: cuius ego non sum preferred before me: the
dignus ut solvam eius latchet of whose shoe I am not
corrigiam calceamenti. worthy to loose.
27. Many authorities omit the words: “The same is,” and also: “who is
preferred before me,” and then connect with the preceding thus: “But there
hath stood One in the midst of you whom you know not, even He that shall
come (rather, that cometh) after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not
worthy to loose.” So Tisch., Treg., Westcott, and Hort, and the Rev. Vers.
It is not easy to explain why the words are wanting in so many MSS., if
they were written by St. John; certainly it is easier to believe that they
were inserted by some scribe to bring the verse into closer resemblance to
15 and 30.
In the latter part of the verse, the Baptist declares himself unworthy to
perform the lowest menial service for Christ. To loose the sandals of
their masters was the business of slaves; yet for even such service to
Christ the great Prophet confesses himself unfit.
28. Haec in Bethania facta 28. These things were done in
sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat Bethania beyond the Jordan,
Ioannes baptizans. where John was baptizing.
28. *Bethania*, here mentioned, was situated in Peraea, east of the
Jordan, and must be carefully distinguished from the town of the same
name, in which Lazarus lived, about two miles east of Jerusalem, but west
of the Jordan. Many ancient authorities read Bethabara, instead of
Bethania. Origen, though admitting that nearly all the MSS. of his time
read Bethania, changed it, on topographical grounds, for Bethabara, in his
edition of our Gospel. Bethania, according to some, means the house of a
ship (בית אניה), while Bethabara means the house of a ferry‐boat (בית
עברה); so that, perhaps, they may have been different names for the same
place on the Jordan.
29. Altera die vidit Ioannes 29. The next day John saw
Iesum venientem ad se, et ait: Jesus coming to him, and he
Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui saith: Behold the lamb of God,
tollit peccatum mundi. behold him who taketh away the
sin of the world.
29. On the day after that on which the Baptist bore the preceding
testimony, he saw Jesus coming towards him. This is the first time that
the mention of the Holy Name occurs in our Gospel. *Jesus* (Gr. Ἰησοῦς) is
the same as the Hebrew ישׂוע, which is itself a contraction for יהושׂוע,
meaning God the Saviour. That our Lord was so called, to show that He was
to be the Saviour of men, is clear from the words of the angel to St.
Joseph: “And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name
JESUS, _for_ He shall _save_ His people from their sins” (Matt. i. 21). We
cannot be certain whence Jesus was now coming; but it seems very probable
that He was coming from the desert after His forty days’ fast. We know
from St. Mark (i. 12) that as soon as He was baptized, “_immediately_ the
spirit drove Him out into the desert, and He was in the desert forty days
and forty nights.” Since, then, the present occasion was subsequent to His
baptism, as we learn from a comparison of verse 33 with St. Matthew iii.
16 (for the Baptist alludes, on the present occasion, to what took place
at the baptism), it follows that it must have been at least forty days
subsequent. Christ seems too to have been absent when, on the day before
this, the Baptist bore witness to Him, else the Baptist would have
probably pointed Him out as present, just as he does on this occasion. All
things considered, then, it is likely Jesus is now returning, and that the
Baptist here takes the first opportunity of again commending Him to the
people.
*Behold the lamb* (ὁ ἀμνός) of God. The Baptist, in these words, points
out Jesus as the Messias, for there is evident allusion to Isaias liii.
7‐12, where the Messias is compared to a lamb before his shearers, bearing
the sins of many. In referring to Jesus as a lamb, the Baptist recalled
this prophecy, insinuated Christ’s innocence, and perhaps suggested that
he was to be sacrificed. *Lamb of God*, because offered by God for the
sins of men, as we speak of the sacrifice of Abraham, meaning the
sacrifice offered by him; or it may mean simply the Divine Lamb. But the
first opinion seems more probable.
*Who taketh away the sin of the world.* Every word is emphatic. Christ not
merely covers up, or abstains from imputing sin, but He takes it away
altogether, as far as in Him lies. And it is not merely legal impurities
that the sacrifice of this Divine Lamb will remove, but sin; and not
merely the sin of one race, like the Jewish, but the sin of the whole
world. “Sin,” in the singular number, designates as one collective whole
every sin of every kind.
30. Hic est de quo dixi: Post 30. This is he of whom I said:
me venit vir qui ante me After me there cometh a man,
factus est, quia prior me who is preferred before me:
erat: because he was before me.
30. The Baptist goes on to say that Jesus is that very Person of whom he
had said on a previous occasion: *After me*, &c. Some take the reference
here to be to the testimony of the preceding day, when the Baptist bore
witnesses in verse 27; others think the reference is to the occasion
spoken of in verse 15, and regard that testimony as distinct from the one
recorded in verse 27. We prefer the latter view, and distinguish in all
six testimonies of the Baptist recorded in the Gospels. The first, before
Christ’s Baptism, as in Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 16; the
second, as in John i. 15; the third, as in John i. 19‐27; the fourth, as
in John i. 29‐34; the fifth, as in John i. 35‐36; and the sixth and last,
as in John iii. 27‐36.
31. Et ego nesciebam eum, sed 31. And I knew him not, but
ut manifestetur in Israel, that he may be made manifest
propterea veni ego in aqua in Israel, therefore am I come
baptizans. baptizing with water.
31. *And I knew him not*; _i.e._, _officially_, so as to be able to bear
witness to Him publicly; or, better: I knew Him not personally; I was
unacquainted with Him, so that my testimony in His favour then and now
cannot be the result of prejudice or partiality towards Him. The Baptist
was indeed a relative of our Lord (Luke i. 36), and must known what his
father, Zachary, had declared, “Praeibis enim ante faciem Domini parare
vias ejus” (Luke i. 76), that he himself was to herald the public coming
of Jesus. Yet, as Jesus dwelt at Nazareth in Galilee during His private
life; and John, reared in the hill country of Juda (Luke i. 39), spent the
years before his public mission—perhaps from his very childhood (as
Origen, Mald.) in the deserts (Luke i. 80), it is conceivable how he might
not have known Christ’s appearance. “What wonder,” says St. Chrys., “if he
who from his childhood spent his life in the desert, away from his
father’s home, did not know Christ?” But as he had, while still in his
mother’s womb, been divinely moved to recognise Christ (Luke i. 41, 44);
so, immediately before the baptism of the latter, he was enabled to
recognise Him (Matt. iii. 14).
32. Et testimonium perhibuit 32. And John gave testimony,
Ioannes, dicens: Quia vidi saying: I saw the Spirit
Spiritum descendentem quasi coming down as a dove from
columbam de coelo, et mansit heaven, and he remained upon
super eum. him.
33. Et ego nesciebam eum: sed 33. And I knew him not: but
qui misit me baptizare in he, who sent me to baptize
aqua, ille mihi dixit: Super with water, said to me: He
quem videris Spiritum upon whom thou shalt see the
descendentem, et manentem Spirit descending and
super eum, hic est qui remaining upon him, he it is
baptizat in Spiritu Sancto. that baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost.
34. Et ego vidi: et 34. And I saw; and I gave
testimonium perhibui quia hic testimony, that this is the
est Filius Dei. Son of God.
32‐34. Some, as Patrizzi, take this as a new testimony; others, with more
probability, take it as a continuation of the preceding, and say that our
Evangelist inserts the words, *and John gave testimony*, in the middle of
the Baptist’s words, in order to arrest the reader’s attention. The
Baptist here declares what he had beheld after the baptism of Christ
(Matt. iii. 16), and how that sign had been revealed to him beforehand as
one that was to mark out the Messias, and _confirm_ his own faith: and how
he had accordingly on that occasion borne witness that Jesus is the Son of
God.
*That baptizeth with the Holy Ghost*; _i.e._, who will _wash_ you, not
with water, but in the graces of the Holy Ghost. There may be special
reference to the graces conferred in Christian baptism.
35. Altera die iterum stabat 35. The next day again John
Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius stood, and two of his
duo. disciples.
36. Et respiciens Iesum 36. And beholding Jesus
ambulantem, dicit: Ecce Agnus walking, he saith: Behold the
Dei. Lamb of God.
37. Et audierunt eum duo 37. And the two disciples
discipuli loquentem, et secuti heard him speak, and they
sunt Iesum. followed Jesus.
38. Conversus autem Iesus, et 38. And Jesus turning, and
videns eos sequentes se, dicit seeing them following him,
eis: Quid quaeritis? Qui said to them: What seek you?
dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod Who said to him: Rabbi (which
dicitur interpretatum, is to say, being interpreted,
magister), ubi habitas? Master), where dwellest thou?
35‐38. Circumstances in which the first disciples attached themselves to
Jesus. The Evangelist interprets the Syro‐Chaldaic word Rabbi (38),
because he is writing for the Christians of Asia Minor.
39. Dicit eis: Venite, et 39. He saith to them: Come and
videte. Venerunt, et viderunt see. They came, and saw where
ubi maneret, et apud eum he abode, and they staid with
manserunt die illo: hora autem him that day: now it was about
erat quasi decima. the tenth hour.
39. *About the tenth hour.* According to those who hold that St. John
numbers the hours of the day after the Jewish method, the time here
indicated would be about two hours before sunset. For the Jews divided the
natural day or time of light into twelve equal parts, each part being one‐
twelfth of the whole, so that the length of their hour varied according to
the season of the year. If we suppose St. John to number as we do now, and
as the Greeks did then, the time here indicated would be about 10 a.m.
40. Erat autem Andreas frater 40. And Andrew the brother of
Simonis Petri unus ex duobus Simon Peter was one of the two
qui audierant a Ioanne, et who had heard of John, and
secuti fuerant eum. followed him.
40. It is extremely probable that the other who followed, and whose name
is not given, was our Evangelist himself. See Introd. I. B. 2.
41. Invenit hic primum fratrem 41. He findeth first his
suum Simonem, et dicit ei: brother Simon, and saith to
Invenimus Messiam (quod est him: We have found the
interpretatum Christus). Messias, which is, being
interpreted, the Christ.
41. *First*; _i.e._, before the other (our Evangelist) findeth his
brother, James. *Messias* (from the Hebrew root _Mashàch_ (משׂח), to
anoint) = χριστός = anointed. It was the custom to anoint Hebrew kings,
priests, and prophets; and Christ, as combining the three dignities in
Himself, was _the anointed_ by excellence.
42. Et adduxit eum ad Iesum. 42. And he brought him to
Intuitus autem eum Iesus, Jesus. And Jesus looking upon
dixit: Tu es Simon filius him said: Thou art Simon the
Iona: tu vocaberis Cephas, son of Jona: thou shalt be
quod interpretatur Petrus. called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter.
42. Christ’s omniscience is left to be inferred from His knowing Simon(31)
here at first sight. *Cephas*, Syro‐Chaldaic, _Képha_ (כפא); Hebrew _Keph_
(כפ) = πέτρα (rock), from which we have πέτρος with the feminine
termination changed into the masculine. The change of Simon’s name was now
predicted, but was probably not made till afterwards. See Mark iii. 16.
43. In crastinum voluit exire 43. On the following day he
in Galilaeam, et invenit would go forth into Galilee,
Philippum. Et dicit ei Iesus: and he findeth Philip. And
Sequere me. Jesus saith to him: Follow me.
43. *On the following day he would go forth.* The sense is: when He was
about to set out; “cum in eo esset, ut e Judaea abiret” (Kuin.). Jesus had
come from Nazareth, the home of His private life in Galilee, to be
baptized by John, (Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9). He had then spent forty days
in the desert, and been tempted there, (Matt. iii. 16‐iv. 3); had returned
from the desert to the Jordan, and been witnessed to again by the Baptist
(see above John i. 15, 19‐36), and was now on the point of returning to
Galilee.
*Follow me.* Philip to whom these words were addressed was afterwards the
Apostle of that name. The call to follow our Lord on this occasion was not
the formal call to the _Apostleship_, but rather an invitation to him to
become a disciple. The same is to be said regarding the others referred to
in this chapter, Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Nathanael. Four of
these—Peter, Andrew, James, and John, who had in the meantime returned to
Galilee, and were pursuing their calling of fishermen, were again called,
Matt. iv. 18‐22, Luke v. 1‐11; and on this second occasion “leaving all
things they followed Him,” and became inseparably attached to Him as
disciples. Finally, the solemn formal call of the twelve to the
Apostleship is narrated, Matt. x. 2; Luke vi. 13.
44. Erat autem Philippus a 44. Now Philip was of
Bethsaida, civitate Andreae et Bethsaida, the city of Andrew
Petri. and Peter.
44. *Bethsaida.* In our view there were two towns of this name: the one
mentioned here, on the western shore of the sea of Galilee, about four
miles south of Capharnaum; the other Bethsaida Julias, situated to the
north east of the same sea. The latter was enlarged and greatly improved
by Philip the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great, who gave it the name
Julias, in honour of Julia the daughter of the Roman Emperor Augustus.
45. Invenit Philippus 45. Philip findeth Nathanael,
Nathanaël, et dicit ei: Quem and saith to him: We have
scripsit Moyses in lege, et found him of whom Moses in the
prophetae, invenimus Iesum law, and the prophets did
filium Ioseph a Nazareth. write, Jesus the son of Joseph
of Nazareth.
46. Et dixit ei Nathanaël: A 46. And Nathanael said to him:
Nazareth potest aliquid boni Can anything of good come from
esse? Dicit ei Philippus: Nazareth? Philip saith to him:
Veni, et vide. Come and see.
45. Philip not only obeys the call to become a disciple himself, but
brings another disciple with him to Jesus. Nathanael (= _Deus dedit_) was
a native of Cana in Galilee (John xxi. 2), and is most probably identical
with Bartholomew (= son of Tolmai) the Apostle, “For Nathanael and Philip
are coupled in John i. 45, as Bartholomew and Philip are here (Matt. x.
3); Nathanael is named in the very _midst_ of Apostles, John xxi. 2.
‘There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and
Nathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee.’ Would
anyone but an Apostle be so named? Finally, Matthew, Luke, and Mark do not
allude to Nathanael, nor does John to Bartholomew” (M’Carthy on Matt. x.
3).
*The son of Joseph.* Doubtless, he means a son conceived and born in the
ordinary way. So it was generally thought, and so thought Philip, ignorant
of the miraculous conception of Christ, and of His birth at Bethlehem. It
is absurd to charge our Evangelist, as De Wette has done, with ignorance
of Christ’s miraculous birth of a virgin, because he records the ignorance
of Philip.
*Nazareth*, for ever famous as the scene of the incarnation, was a little
town in Lower Galilee, in the tribal territory of Zabulon. It was the
dwelling‐place of our Lord during His private life. Nazareth, indeed all
Galilee, was held in contempt (see John vii. 52), and hence Nathanael’s
doubt, (verse 46), though he was himself a Galilean (John xxi. 2).
47. Vidit Iesus Nathanaël 47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming
venientem ad se, et dicit de to him, and he saith of him:
eo; Ecce vere Israelita, in Behold an Israelite indeed, in
quo dolus non est. whom there is no guile.
48. Dicit ei Nathanaël: Unde 48. Nathanael saith to him:
me nosti? Respondit Iesus, et Whence knowest thou me? Jesus
dixit ei: Priusquam te answered, and said to him:
Philippus vocaret, cum esses Before that Philip called
sub ficu, vidi te. thee, when thou wast under the
fig‐tree, I saw thee.
49. Respondit ei Nathanaël, et 49. Nathanael answered him,
ait: Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei, and said: Rabbi, thou art the
tu es rex Israel. Son of God, thou art the King
of Israel.
47‐49. When Nathanael had approached near enough to be able to hear what
was said, but before he had spoken anything from which our Lord might have
been thought to guess at his character, our Lord said: *Behold an
Israelite ** indeed, in whom there is no guile*; that is to say, one who,
not merely by descent, but by the simplicity and honesty of his character,
is a true son of Jacob. See Gen. xxv. 27; Rom. ix. 6. Jacob’s name was
changed into Israel, after he wrestled with the angel, Gen. xxxii. 28.
47‐49. Nathanael must have felt convinced that he had been hidden from
Christ’s natural view, otherwise he could not draw the inference which,
aided by divine grace, he draws. Whether Nathanael yet recognised Jesus to
be true God, and professed his belief in Him as such, in the words of
verse 49, is disputed. If we are to judge from his words (ὁ υἱός), the
affirmative opinion seems much more probable. The words are an echo of the
Baptist’s testimony (v. 34), but Nathanael confesses not alone Christ’s
Divine origin, but also His human sovereignty: Thou art the Son of God,
Thou art the King of Israel.
50. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 50. Jesus answered and said to
ei: Quia dixi tibi: Vidi te him: Because I said unto thee,
sub ficu, credis: maius his I saw thee under the fig‐tree,
videbis. thou believest: greater things
than these shalt thou see.
50. Jesus promises Nathanael stronger arguments in proof of His Divinity.
In the words: *Greater things than these shalt thou see*, the plural these
seems to point to the class and not merely the special incident.
51. Et dicit ei: Amen, amen. 51. And he saith to him: Amen,
dico vobis, videbitis coelum amen, I say to you, you shall
apertum, et Angelos Dei see the heaven opened, and the
ascendentes, et descendentes Angels of God ascending and
supra Filium hominis. descending upon the son of
man.
51. *Amen, amen*, is peculiar to John. The other Evangelists use “Amen”
only once in such asseverations. “Amen means verily (at the end of a
prayer, so be it); and when doubled, strengthens the asseveration, and
points to the solemnity of the declaration about to follow” (M’Ev.).
*Son of man.* This term, probably derived in its Messianic sense from Dan.
vii. 13, 14, was very rarely applied to Christ, except by Himself, and we
find Him using it very frequently (though not exclusively; see, _e.g._,
Matt. ix. 6; xxiii. 30; Acts vii. 56) in connection with His privations,
sufferings, and death (Matt. viii. 20; xii.40; xvii. 12; xxvi. 21‐25; John
iii. 14, &c.). It indicates that Christ was not only man like Adam; but
that, unlike him, He was _descended_ of man, and therefore our brother in
the truest sense.
*You shall see.* Though Nathanael is addressed (and He saith to _him_),
yet the plural (videbitis) shows that the wondrous sign here promised was
to be seen not by him alone, but at least by Philip also, and probably by
others. The meaning of the prediction is obscure. Evidently some great
sign is promised; but what it is, interpreters are far from agreed. Some
take the words metaphorically, others literally.
Of those who understand them metaphorically, some take the sense to be:
You shall see numerous miracles, such as are usually attributed to angels
(or, in the performance of which angels shall minister to Me) wrought by
Me, the Son of Man, during My public life. So Beelen, Maier, &c. We cannot
accept this view, for it seems highly improbable that our Lord would speak
in language so obscure to the guileless Nathanael and his companions on an
occasion like the present, when Nathanael had only just believed.
Others understand of the spiritual glories of the whole period from the
commencement of Christ’s public mission till the end of the world. Alford,
explaining this view (which, by the way, he calmly claims to have been
“the interpretation of all commentators of any depth in all times”!) says:
“It is not the outward visible opening of the material heavens nor ascent
or descent of angels in the sight of men, which the Lord here announces,
but the series of glories which was about to be unfolded in His Person and
work, from that time forward.” Our difficulty in regard to this view is
the same as in regard to the preceding.
St. Augustine is generally supposed to have understood this text in
reference to the preachers of the New Testament, “ascending” when they
preach the more sublime, “descending,” when they preach the more
elementary doctrines of religion. If St. Augustine meant this as a
_literal_ interpretation of the passage, as he certainly seems to do in
Tract vii. on this Gospel, we cannot accept it. Surely, something stranger
and more striking is promised here, after the opening of the heavens, than
the sight of preachers!
Others hold that we must interpret this passage entirely in the light of
Jacob’s dream, Gen. xxviii. 12. Jacob saw a ladder reaching from earth to
heaven, with angels ascending and descending upon it. That vision meant in
his regard that God would make him the object of His special protection
(see Gen. xxviii. 13‐15). And now Nathanael, who is _an Israelite indeed_,
a true son of Jacob (v. 47), is told that he and others shall see that
Divine favour and protection which Jacob’s vision signified, extended in
such an extraordinary manner to Christ, during His life, that it will be
most manifest He is the Son of God.
This view we regard as probable. The Fathers tell us that Nathanael was
particularly well versed in the Scriptures, and our Lord’s words might
readily recall to his mind Jacob’s dream, with all its significance of
Divine favour and protection.
Of the opinions that attempt to explain the words literally, some may be
dismissed at once. Thus there cannot be reference to the angels who
appeared at Christ’s birth, or after His temptations (Matt. iv. 11), for
Christ speaks of an event still to come, whereas His birth and temptations
were already past. Nor can there be reference to the transfiguration, even
if we suppose angels to have been present; nor to the agony in the garden;
nor to the resurrection; for on none of these occasions did Philip and
Nathanael see the angels. Less improbable, perhaps, is the view that there
is reference to the ascension, and the two angels that appeared then (Acts
i. 10). But this opinion too we reject without hesitation. In the passage
of the Acts referred to, St. Luke tells us: “And while they were beholding
Him going up to heaven, behold two men _stood by them_ in white garments.”
Now, it is clear that angels who stood by the apostles and disciples,
cannot possibly be those referred to here as “ascending and descending
upon the Son of Man.”
A Lapide refers the prediction to some miraculous vision seen by the
disciples during our Lord’s life, and not recorded in the Gospels. But it
seems improbable that the fulfilment of such a prediction would be passed
over in silence by all the Evangelists.
Finally, there is the opinion, which is held by Maldonatus, that there is
reference to the last judgment, when the heavens shall be opened, and
Christ shall come riding on the clouds of heaven, accompanied by angels,
and all men shall be forced to confess Him God. This seems to us the most
probable interpretation. For, first, it is likely that our Lord refers to
the clearest and most incontrovertible proof that shall be given of His
Divinity; and such will be His coming in majesty to judge the world.
Secondly, we know that on another occasion, when he was challenged by the
Jewish High Priest to say if he was the Son of God, He appealed to this
same proof of His Divinity: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou
tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou
hast said it. Nevertheless, I say to you: Hereafter you shall see the Son
of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the
clouds of heaven” (Matt. xxvi. 63‐64). Probably the expression: *ascending
and descending* is to be understood metaphorically, even in this opinion,
and means merely that the angels shall be _attendant upon_ the great
Judge, ready to execute His will. The order is remarkable: they are said
first to ascend, and then to descend, as was the case also in Jacob’s
vision.