Page images
PDF
EPUB

1850.]

John I. 17.

321

side of it. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, not by Moses. Of course the evangelist could not call the Old Testament zápis, in a passage which ascribes zápis to the Messiah. The true meaning of the phrase is somewhat obscure, perhaps, so far as mere idiom is concerned, for άvtí usually means in the room of, instead of. But this meaning does not fit well here. This particle, however, in the later Greek writers, is sometimes used to denote an unbroken succession or continuance of a thing. Not exactly (as some paraphrase it) "grace upon grace," but one grace after another in constant succession. So Chrysostom ἑτέραν ἀντ ̓ ἑτέρας φροντίδα, De Sacerdot. 6. 13. So Theognis αντ' ávær ávías, v. 344. It should be noted, also, that grace has here the same sense as in v. 14, i. e. kindness, goodness; such as bestows favours gratuitously and in abundance. The generic idea of the word rendered it unnecessary, in the view of the writer, to repeat the aλŋDeías of v. 14. Grace exhibited itself in the way of communicating light or truth, for this was an exercise of love or kindness. — The xaí before this last clause is the so named xaí epexegetical, i. e. xaí placed before a clause which is of an epexegetical nature; a meaning of }, the Hebrew which is very common, and also of xaí in the New Testament which is not uncommon. I have translated it even, which corresponds well with its meaning here.

in

V. 17. Ὅτι ὁ νόμος διά Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.

For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth were by Jesus Christ.

Here it becomes clear that yάois does not mean the Old Testament, in the preceding verse. Christ alone gave grace, in the sense here intended. Moses did indeed give the Law, or rather, it was given by him as the leading instrument. But the law is a dispensation very different from the gospel. The language of the first is: "Obey perfectly, and live; the soul that sinneth shall die." The second declares, that the penitent shall be forgiven, and all needed grace and glory bestowed. John assumes here, in regard to the law of Moses, the like position with Paul, who says that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" by the law, Rom. 1: 18; that it denounces a curse on all who fail of perfect obedience, Gal. 3: 10; that the law could not give life, Gal. 3: 21; that it is the ministration of condemnation and of death, and has no glory in comparison with gospel, 2 Cor. 3: 6 -11; that it is only the shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10: 1; that it was not faultless, Heb. 8: 7; that it was a wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Eph. 2: 14; that by its commandments and ordinances it was the occasion of enmity, ib. vs. 15, 16, comp. Rom. 7:

7-10; that, compared with the gospel, it contains weak and beggarly elements, Gal. 4: 9; and many things are said in his epistles of the like tenor. It is in vs. 17, 18, of our text, that John virtually assumes the same ground. Hence he declares that grace and truth, in the high sense which he assigns to them, came or were introduced (¿yéveto) only by Jesus Christ. The whole tenor of his gospel manifests how deeply this sentiment was engraven upon his heart.

But why should the evangelist here introduce such a sentiment? Plainly in order that he might exalt the glory of the only begotten, full of grace and truth, and might show the Jews what abundant reason they had, to lay hold upon the hope set before them in and through him. He does not indeed bring any direct accusations against the law; but by the force of comparison he points out the great deficiency and inability of the law, as a remedy for our present maladies. All men are sinners; and it is only the grace and truth that Christ has exhibited, which can save them from the curse of the law. The oz, at the beginning of the verse, indicates that some proof is to be given, or ground alleged, for the assertion which precedes. The matter stands thus. We have received of his fulness, for he only has such a fulness, i. e. he only is the true source of gospel grace and truth. No other source was adequate to bestow upon us a constant succession of favors. -The verb yévero is here in the singular, in conformity with its next preceding subject, ahora; a principle of syntax common in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and even English.

V. 18. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπου τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him.

Although this verse assigns a fundamental reason, why grace and truth could be exhibited only by the incarnate Logos, yet it has neither a yao nor a oz to introduce it. This, as before remarked, is altogether in conformity with the prevailing aphoristic style of John, and specially of this Prologue. Ovdɛís, no one, is designed to extend the denial to all other Old Testament prophets or writers, as well as to Moses.-'Eopaxe, hath seen, expresses with intensity the action of seeing. It doubtless has a tropical sense here; for merely to say, that no one had seen God corporeally or physically, would amount to very little. The impossibility of this was fully believed by the Jews; for Ex. 33: 20 asserts it, as also do Deut. 5: 24. Judg. 13: 22. 1 Tim. 6: 16, al. The theophanies of the Old Testament, or of the New, are no contradiction of this; for in all these cases, only then, the Shechinah, or 8óža Kvoíov, is exhibited. Besides, mere corporeal δόξα Κυρίου,

1850.]

John I. 18.

323

vision would not confer the power of revealing divine truth or mysteries. The vision, in the case before us, is a mental perception of God in the highest sense, so as to comprehend and understand his designs and purposes. It implies an intuitive knowledge. The Logos alone possessed this. He was with God, and in him was life and light. He therefore understood the divine will and counsel, in a manner entirely discrepant from, and superior to, the perception of any merely human being, whether Moses himself or his successors.

O povoyevns viós is here employed, in the way of contrast with any son who is born of the flesh in a natural way. The incarnate Logos enjoys privileges and advantages to which no merely human being can possibly lay claim; comp. John 6: 46. 14: 7.-'O öv els tòv xóλπov Tov naroós, who is in (or on?) the bosom of the Father. Is the phrase here, εἰς τὸν κόλπον, equivalent to ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ? Somewhat numer ous are the cases in which sig with the Acc. is employed to designate resting or dwelling in a place, even where the Dative with v is more usual; see Rob. Lex. eis, 4. But conceding this, what is the meaning of being in his bosom? Among the Latins, the phrases in gremio patris positum esse — in sinu getari — in gremio matris sedens — in sinu esse, and the like, designate the most internal and hearty friendship and community of feeling. This sense is appropriate in the case before us. By such a union (70òs zòv dɛór), the Son becomes entirely cognisant of all that (so to speak) passes in the Father's mind, and therefore able to make all his revelations of grace and truth. But perhaps there lies at the basis of the form of expression, the idea of leaning on the bosom of another, in the way of affectionate friendship and confidence, as John leaned on the bosom of Jesus at supper, John 21: 20. Our English expressions, bosom-friend, bosom-confident, well express the substance of what is intended in our text.- As to the o or, in the Pres. tense, it is plainly intended to designate what is habitual, constant, and unlimited - a very common meaning of this tense. Some have referred the Participle to the Imperfect; and this, no doubt, the form of the Pres. participle is capable of expressing; see my N. Test. Gramm. § 173. 2. If so rendered here, the meaning would be, that before the Logos became flesh he was in the Father's bosom, i. e. 7o̟ò̟s Tov ɛóv. The sense would be sufficiently appropriate, but not near so energetic and expressive as the Pres. tense makes it. In 3: 13, Jesus speaks of himself in like manner, as o ov ev z ovqarą, i. e. as dwelling habitually in heaven, and knowing all that is disclosed or determined there. His omnipresence is hardly deducible from either of these texts, because a local presence (so to speak) is not the direct object of assertion in either. But still, he who is in the bosom of the

Father and is in heaven, at the same time that he is the incarnate Logos dwelling among men, must at least be a wonderful being (Isa. 9: 6), and cognisant of all things, John 17: 30.

The word nynazo was used by the Greeks to designate the explaining and unfolding of holy things. This is altogether appropriate here. But what is it that the Son reveals or declares? The verb has no Acc. after it, which is expressed. But the context seems plainly to imply ròv ɛóv; not God as to his mere metaphysical nature, but God as the author of grace and truth. It is the Son, and he only, who has placed the character and designs of God in the light that the gospel affords. God was indeed revealed in many respects, in the O. Test. ; but God as Father, and Christ as Son and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier, were, to say the most, only foreshadowed in the Jewish Scriptures. It is Christ, who has "brought life and immortality to light;" Christ who has revealed the new and living way of access to the throne of mercy; and Christ, who has given the clearest views of God, of the way of duty, and of the way of happiness. It is sometimes the case, no doubt, that preachers and theologians inculcate views of the O. Test. revelations, which are quite incompatible with the sentiment of our text, and of other kindred passages in the New Testament. Since all Scripture is of God, they seem to conclude that all is, even now, equally profitable and instructive; a conclusion which full surely neither Paul nor John admits. Grace and truth came, in the highest and most holy sense, only by Jesus Christ. This is the sheet-anchor of all who are embarked on a Christian voyage. The glory of the Mosaic dispensation was indeed true and real. But it was only as the day-star to the rising sun. If then it be only a star, and nothing more, we should not regard it as rivalling the true Sun in all its majesty and glory.

So much room has been occupied already, with the explanation of the text and with remarks on some of the doctrines which it inculcates, that dilation on several topics of interest which the prologue suggests, is precluded. I shall, therefore, close the present part of my undertaking, by a summary or synoptical view of the course of thought or connection of sentiment, in the prologue through which our examination has been extended.

The original state or condition of the Logos, and his essential nature, are first described. He is eternal; was with God; was God. As such, he was the Creator of all things without exception. In particular, he was the source of all life; and as the author of spiritual life, he was the source also of all true spiritual light. His light shone on the darkness of all the ages which preceded his coming; but this darkness

1850.]

[blocks in formation]

was so gross, that little impression was made upon it. To prepare the way for the coming of the Logos to act personally and visibly among men, in order to save the world from its ruinous state, his herald or forerunner, John, was sent from God, in order that he might bear such testimony concerning the Messiah, as would persuade men to believe. Those greatly mistake the real character of John, who suppose him to be the Light of the world. The true light, the only personage entitled to this high character, was he who made the world, and who came into it, although the world in general rejected him. He came in a special manner to his own peculiar heritage and people, yet even they did not receive him. In this last case, however, there were exceptions. Some did receive him, and believe on his name. On them he bestowed the power of claiming and enjoying all the rights and privileges of the children of God, — his children, not in any way of mere natural generation, but by a regeneration spiritual and divine. In the accomplishment of his last great work among his people, the Logos became flesh, i. e. took on him the human form and nature, and thus dwelt among men, and manifested his glory, which was truly that of the Only Begotten of God. John himself bore witness also to this wonderful truth - the consummation of the great plan of salvation. Nor does the account of this mysterious transaction depend, for its confirmation, on the testimony of John only; for of the fulness of grace and truth, which abounded in the incarnate Logos, did all his true disciples abundantly partake. He only could dispense such blessings. The law was given by Moses; but through the perversity of men, it became the occasion of their condemnation and ruin. Neither Moses, nor any other prophet, ever understood and disclosed the character and designs of God, in such a way as was adequate to accomplish the plan of our redemption. He only, who is in the bosom of the Father, and knows all the secrets of that bosom, could show grace and reveal truth in such a way as fully to satisfy our wants and alleviate our woes. This he has done; and therefore he is deserving of our highest confidence, love, and obedience.

Such is the course of thought in this remarkable proem to the gospel of John. The composition is singular in its kind, there being nothing elsewhere in all the N. Test. that resembles it. It brings before us the Logos first in his simple original nature; and then in the developments of himself which had been made, either in the way of creation or of redemption. His incarnation, his dwelling among men, and the reception which he met with from them, are also constituent parts of the picture. Twice does the evangelist refer to the rejection of him who was the light of the world; in the first instance, by the ungodly VOL. VII. No. 26.

28

« PreviousContinue »