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]

[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 [pg iv] 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, [pg 002] 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 [pg 003] 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 [pg 005] 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), [pg 006] 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 [pg 008] 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, [pg 010] 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, [pg 011] 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 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 [pg 014] 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 [pg 015] 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 [pg 017] 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. The same was in the beginning with God. To [pg 018] 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. 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 [pg 019] 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 [pg 020] 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 [pg 021] 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, [pg 022] 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 [pg 023] 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 [pg 024] 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. 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 [pg 025] 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. 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), [pg 026] 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. 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 [pg 027] 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. 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 [pg 028] 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. 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 [pg 029] 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. 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 [pg 030] 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. 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, [pg 032] 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. 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. 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 [pg 033] 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 [pg 034] declared” is not so much the Word, as the doctrine contained in this prologue concerning Him.[30]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 [pg 036] arbitrary divorce. See Matt. v. 33-36; xix. 3; xxiii.

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. 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 [pg 037] 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. 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. 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 [pg 038] 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. The Baptist goes on to say that Jesus is that very Person of whom he had said [pg 039] 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. 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).

32-34. 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, [pg 040] 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.

35-38. 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. About the tenth hour. According to those who hold that St. John numbers the [pg 041] 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. 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. 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. Christ's omniscience is left to be inferred from His knowing Simon[31] here at first sight. Cephas, Syro-Chaldaic, [pg 042] 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. 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. 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 [pg 043] daughter of the Roman Emperor Augustus.

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).

47-49. 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 [pg 044]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. 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. 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 [pg 045] 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 [pg 046] 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 [pg 047] 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.

[pg 048]

Chapter II.

1-11. Christ at the marriage feast in Cana changes water into wine.

12. He goes down to Capharnaum.

13-17. At the approach of the Pasch He goes up to Jerusalem, and there drives the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.

18-22. Challenged by the Jews for a sign of His authority, He predicts His own Resurrection, as the disciples called to mind after He had risen.

23-25. On the occasion of this first Pasch of His public life many believe in Him because of His miracles.

1. The Evangelist having narrated how our Lord was witnessed to by the Baptist, and joined by His first disciples, now proceeds to tell how He bore testimony of Himself by His miracles.

The third day. Naturally the third from the point of time last referred to, in verse 43.

The marriage feast was celebrated for a week among the Jews, and this custom had come down from very ancient times, as we learn from the book of Judges, xiv. 12.

Cana of Galilee was situated most probably in the tribe of Zabulon near Capharnaum. There was another Cana in the tribe of Aser, near Sidon (see Jos. xix. 28).

2. And Jesus also was invited; that is to say, He also, as well as the Blessed Virgin, was invited. Mald. holds that καὶ (et) is explanatory: on that account, that is to say, because she was there as a friend of the family, Jesus was invited.

3. And the wine failing (Gr. having failed). Either all the wine was already drunk, or, at least, there was no more to be drawn; the last was on the table. When we take into account what Mary says to the servants (v. 5), it is plain that her object in telling Jesus that the wine had run short, was not that He and His disciples might retire (Bengel), nor that He might exhort the company to patience (Calvin), nor that He might buy wine (Kuin.), but that He might work a miracle. “The Mother of the Lord having heard of the testimony of the Baptist, and seeing the disciples gathered round her Son, the circumstances of whose miraculous birth she treasured in her heart (Luke ii. 19, 51) must have looked now at length for the manifestation of His power, and thought that an occasion only was wanting. Yet even so she leaves all to His will” (Westc., in Speaker's Comm.).

4. Woman, what is it to me and to thee? The Vulgate has. “Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?” But the verb is not in the Greek text (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί γύναι?), which would therefore be better translated: “What to Me and to thee, woman?” The Revised Version of the Church of England renders: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

Most Protestant writers have held that these words of our Lord contain a reproof of His mother. Among Catholics many have held that the words contain the semblance of reproof; to teach us, not Mary, that we are not to be influenced by motives of flesh and blood in the service of God. Others have held (and this is the general opinion of modern Catholic commentators) that the words do not contain even the appearance of reproof.

(1) It is now generally acknowledged even by Protestant commentators that the term γύναι is not reproachful or disrespectful. According to Alford there is no reproach in the term, but rather respect; and Trench says: “So far from any harshness, the compellation has something solemn in it” (Miracles, p. 100). Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, says: “It is often used as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady.” Yet Calvin impiously asserts that our Lord does not deign to call Mary His Mother: “Deinde cur simplici repulsa non contentus eam in vulgarem [pg 050] mulierum ordinem cogit, nec jam matris nomine dignatur?” “Why doubt of the heavenly origin of a reformation wrought by such reasoning as this?” (McCarthy).

Father Coleridge thinks that Mary is addressed here by the title γύναι because that is “what we may call her official and theological title ... for she is the ‘woman’ of whom our Lord was born; she is the ‘woman’ of whom God spake to our first parents when He made them the promise of a Redeemer after the fall; she is the ‘woman’ to whom the whole range of types look forward, who was to conceive and compass a man (Jer. xxxi. 22); she is the ‘woman,’ the second Eve, as our Lord is the Man, and the Son of Man, the second Adam.”[32] But whatever may be thought of this view, enough has been said to show that the term γύναι does not imply reproof or disrespect.

(2) Neither does the phrase “What to Me and to thee?” (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί?). We find exactly the same phrase in Judg. xi. 12; 3 Kings xvii. 18; 4 Kings iii. 13; 2 Paral. xxxv. 21; Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28.[33]

(A). After a candid examination of these texts, it must, we think, appear that the meaning of the phrase is not: What does this concern you and Me? for in some, if not all, of the passages cited the phrase cannot have that meaning. Besides, is it likely Jesus would say that the wants of the poor, who were His hosts, and perhaps His relatives, and their shame consequent upon those wants, did not concern Him?

(B). Neither is the meaning: What have I to do with you, or, what have I in common with you? (as author of a miracle such as you suggest); it must proceed from My Divine nature, while only My human nature has been derived from you (so Augus., Tolet., Patriz.). For—

(a) This is not the meaning of the phrase in the parallel passages.

(b) Christ gives a different reason: My hour is not yet come.

(c) His person hypostatically united to His human nature, had that nature in common with her, and it is of His person (mihi), not of His Divine nature merely that He speaks.

(C). What the precise meaning of the phrase is, it is difficult to determine with certainty. In all the passages where it occurs, it seems to indicate some divergence between the thoughts or wishes of the persons so brought together. Most probably it is here a remonstrance; [pg 051] because the suggestion that Christ should work a miracle is inconvenient or inopportune, inasmuch as it brings moral pressure to bear upon Him to make Him begin His miracles before the time at which, prescinding from this suggestion, His public miracles were to begin. Something similar are the words of God to Moses: “Let Me alone, that My wrath may be kindled against them, and that I may destroy them” (Exod. xxxii. 10). On that occasion God, after remonstrating, granted the prayer of Moses, just as on this occasion, after remonstrating, He yielded to the suggestion of His Mother. So St. Cyril of Alex., St. Amb., Corl, &c.