John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh - The word “flesh,” here, is evidently used to denote “human nature” or “man.” See Mat 16:17; Mat 19:5; Mat 24:22; Luk 3:6; Rom 1:3; Rom 9:5. The “Word” was made “man.” This is commonly expressed by saying that he became “incarnate.” When we say that a being becomes “incarnate,” we mean that one of a higher order than man, and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man or becomes a man. Here it is meant that “the Word,” or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he “was made flesh.”

Was made - This is the same word that is used in Joh 1:3; “All things were made by him.” It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but that he was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence, agreeably to Joh 1:1. This is in accordance with the doctrine of the Scriptures elsewhere. Heb 10:5; “a ‘body’ hast thou prepared me.” Heb 2:14; “as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” 1Jo 4:2; “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” See also 1Ti 3:16; Phi 2:6; 2Co 8:9; Luk 1:35. The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was “changed” into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the λόγος Logos, or “Word,” became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or “Word” “became” or “was” a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man.

And dwell among us - The word in the original denotes “dwelt as in a tabernacle or tent;” and some have supposed that John means to say that the human body was a tabernacle or tent for the λόγος Logos to abide in, in allusion to the tabernacle among the Jews, in which the Shechinah, or visible symbol of God, dwelt; but it is not necessary to suppose this. The object of John was to prove that “the Word” became “incarnate.” To do this he appeals to various evidences. One was that he “dwelt” among them; sojourned with them; ate, drank, slept, and was with them for years, so that they “saw him with their eyes, they looked upon him, and their hands handled him,” 1Jo 1:1. To “dwell in a tent with one” is the same as to be in his family; and when John says he “tabernacled” with them, he means that he was with them as a friend and as one of a family, so that they had full opportunity of becoming familiarly acquainted with him, and could not be mistaken in supposing that “he was really a man.”

We beheld his glory - This is a new proof of what he was affirming - “that the word of God became man.” The first was, that they had seen him as a man. He now adds that they had seen him in his proper glory “as God and man united in one person,” constituting him the unequalled Son of the Father. There is no doubt that there is reference here to the transfiguration on the holy mount. See Mat 17:1-9. To this same evidence Peter also appeals, 2Pe 1:16-18. John was one of the witnesses of that scene, and hence he says, “we beheld his glory,” Mar 9:2. The word “glory” here means majesty, dignity, splendor.

The glory as of the only-begotten of the Father - The dignity which was appropriate to the only-begotten Son of God; such glory or splendor as could belong to no other. and as properly expressed his rank and character. This glory was seen eminently on the mount of transfiguration. It was also seen in his miracles, his doctrine, his resurrection, his ascension; all of which were such as to illustrate the perfections, and manifest the glory that belongs only to the Son of God.

Only-begotten - This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9. It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is especially dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, Gen 22:16; Jer 6:26; Zec 12:10. On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour.

As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a special relation to Him in His divine nature, exalted above all human beings and angels, and thus worthy to be called, by way of eminence, His only Son. Saints are called His “sons” or children, because they are born of His Spirit, or are like Him; but the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called His only-begotten Son. He was especially dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed upon him.

Full of grace and truth - The word “full” here refers to the “Word made flesh,” which is declared to be full of grace and truth. The word “grace” means “favors,” gifts, acts of beneficence. He was kind, merciful, gracious, doing good to all, and seeking man’s welfare by great sacrifices and love; so much so, that it might be said to be characteristic of him, or he “abounded” in favors to mankind. He was also “full of truth.” He declared the truth. In him was no falsehood. He was not like the false prophets and false Messiahs, who were wholly impostors; nor was he like the emblems and shadows of the old dispensation, which were only types of the true; but he was truth itself. He represented things as they are, and thus became the “truth” as well as “the way and the life.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Joh_1:14

The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

The God-Man satisfying the desire of humanity

I.

THE DESIRE. The desire of a Saviour had attained its maturity in the period of universal decline which preceded the Advent. This desire was a prophecy of its own satisfaction because inspired, nourished and developed by the God to whom the heart addresses itself. A child is born called Jesus whose name announces all that He came to do. What do men say about Him?

1. That He is a fabulous symbol of that union of man with God realized in the development of reason. But if this be the case why has man desired one outside of his own reason? What meaning is there in the history of religions.

2. That He was a great social reformer. But His gospel is profoundly spiritual and traces all external reform to inward moral renovation. But is mans heart satisfied with the idea of a social reformer? Had Christ swept away every social abuse and satisfied every national need, the human heart would still have yearned for a Saviour.

3. That He was a philosopher, the Socrates of Jerusalem. But man does not need such. The ancient world had more than it required. It had the greatest and purest of sages, but found no rest in their schools. Man desires something higher, shall his Christ then be

4. A prophet? Prophets will not avail, for the greatest have most ardently desired a Saviour and were but men.

5. An angel? No, or Mary would have seen Him in Gabriel. Angels could celebrate His birth but not take His place. Turning now to the desire we shall see that mans cry has been for a God-Man.

Two well-defined sentiments enter with it.

1. The hope of finding God. For this alone has man passed from one religion to another.

(1) This God not the inert and isolated God of philosophy, lost in the solitudes of heaven: but

(2) a living, present God.

2. The sorrow of condemnation. Man longs to appease a justly offended God. He therefore offers sacrifice, the produce of his fields, the first-born of his flocks, nay, his child, his brother. But it avails nothing. A sacrifice must be found that is both pure and human. For many ages man has sighed for an incarnation in order to redeeming sacrifice. This is what has been promised. Ancient prophecy recognized in the Messiahs person the man and the God, the Victim and the King.

II. THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE DESIRE. The Word was made flesh.

1. What is this but that before He existed in God as a personal being. Had the Word been a Divine virtue or influence, it would had in it nothing special or distinctive, and therefore could have been no Saviour. Nor could it have communicated the knowledge of the true God. God is love. A God who did not love would be a God dead. But how should God be from all eternity, a God of love, if He had no object for His love? Where, then, will you find this object if not in that Word which is God, and yet is distinct from Him. The Son gives as the Father.

2. He shows us the living nature of Gods revelations. A perfect revelation of the living and eternal God is living and eternal as Himself: the express image of the Father. Each utterance has life like the Word Himself. God has spoken

(1) In Eternity, and His Word is His only Son,

(2) In Time, and Creation was the echo of the Word.

(3) In Revelation, and each of the syllables of the Word was a fact of mystery.

(4) In redemption and now the Word is made flesh.

While giving full weight to His Divinity, let us not attenuate His humanity. The one is as necessary to our salvation as the other. By being Man and yet one with the Father, He was able to consummate on the cross His redeeming sacrifice, drawing the heart of man to God and the heart of God to man.

III. THE PROOFS OF THIS DOCTRINE.

1. The history of Jesus shows us Divinity and humanity united in His person. His personal humiliation from the manger to the cross side by side with the glory of His morals and perfect character.

2. Jesus was conscious of and professed His union. He speaks of Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of God; and insisted on His oneness with the Father.

3. The apostolic Church confirmed this doctrine, proclaiming His Divinity and worshipping Him.

IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE. Christianity stands or falls with it.

1. For whose sake do the impugners of the doctrine deny it?

(1) For the sake of God? But the Deist gives us instead of the living, consummate God an abstract and distant Divinity. We dont know where to find Him, and He has never dried a single tear nor gladdened a heart. Thus God is libelled and His cause compromised.

(2) For the sake of man? But man has desired this God-Man: He only has blessed the race.

2. If what the impugners say is true, Christianity is an imposture and Christ a deceiver. And yet He is admitted to be the noblest of Beings. Let these considerations be weighed.

V. CHRISTIANS ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THIS DOCTRINE. Let it not slumber in creeds, but be preserved in a living faith and communion. (E. dePressense, D. D.)

Bethlehem and its good news

1. There was nothing great about Bethlehem (Mic_5:2). It was but a shepherd village or small town, yet here the great purpose of God became a fact. It is in facts that Gods purposes come to us that we may take hold of them as realities. The city is poor, but its lowliness makes it more suitable as the birthplace of Him who though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor. And all about it seems to suit Him. It is the house of bread, fit dwelling for Him who is the Bread of God: Ephratah the fruitful, as if pointing to the fruitful One.

2. It is not named in the text; but you cannot read the latter without being transported to it.

3. At Bethlehem our worlds history began, for His birth has influenced all history, sacred and secular, before and behind. As regards our text, let us see

I. WHAT IT IS. Christ, Immanuel, Jesus, are our Lords names in time; but Word and Son are expressive of His eternal standing. The inaccessable Godhead becomes approachable, the incomprehensible, comprehensible. All the nations of the earth God hath made of one blood, and of that one blood the Word was made partaker. Thus Bethlehem becomes a link between heaven and earth. God and man must meet here and look each other in the face.

II. WHAT IT TEACHES. Gods thoughts of peace. The message is a decided but not a finished one. You must associate Bethlehem with Calvary.

1. Would you learn the way to God? Go to Bethlehem: the Infant in the manger is the way.

2. Would you learn the vanity of earth? Go to yon manger where the Lord of Glory lies.

3. Would you hays a safeguard against worldliness and sin and error? Keep the childs companionship.

4. Would you learn to be humble? Go to Bethlehem; there the Highest is lowest.

5. Would you learn self-denial? See the Word made flesh. (H. Bonar, D. D.)

Why God became Man

This Gospel contains no record of the Nativity like the others. They record the fact, this the underlying principle of the fact. Unless you take Johns point of view, you cannot understand Lukes story.

I. THE FACT ITSELF. Three things:

1. The Word: personal, eternal, Divine, the active energy of the Divine Nature.

(1) The Author of creation.

(2) The Source of all life and light.

(3) The medium of all revelation.

2. With the audacity which is the true work of Divine revelation, the text draws together the two discordant ideas Word and flesh; not this tremulous, feeble, mortal body with its needs, weaknesses, pains, desires, corruption, not the whole humanity, body, soul, spirit, the entire sweep and range of what a man is.

3. How He became it; which involves the willing transformation, by the energy of the Person Himself. Became--not assumed. It was not a transcient manifestation such as the Buddhist incarnation or Hindoo avatar; not God coming down in the likeness of men for a moment or two; but so becoming us, He ceased to be the Word. So the living heart of Christianity is supernatural. That round which it turns is the biggest of all miracles, and if you take that all the rest is natural.

II. THE VARIOUS PURPOSES WHICH THIS MIGHTIEST OF ALL MIRACLES SERVES IN THE WORLD. Here is a five-fold star, with five rays.

1. To show God. As the Shekinah glory abode in the Tabernacle, so God tabernacled in Christs flesh. Christ shows God as He was never seen before, full of grace and truth. The mightiest and brightest light that makes God known, is that of gentleness, tenderness, self-oblivlon, patience. If you want to know God, and not to guess Him, not to shrink from Him, and not merely to see the fringe of brightness about the Infinite heart, you must turn away from everything else to Christ.

2. To show what man ought to be. How perfect Christs example is we may gather from the admission of enemies, from our own hearts and consciences. Instead of being handed over to a mere law Do this and live, it means Do as I do, because I love you and you love Me.

3. That He might die. You cannot understand Christmas without Good Friday, the meaning of the cradle unless we see the shadow of the Cross. Christ came to bear our sins that we might be born again unto newness of life.

4. That He might have sympathy with us. He has trodden all the road before us, and is near us to help us on.

5. That manhood might be glorified. He has stooped down that thereby He might befit us to be like Him. Where He is, He will lead us. What He is, He will make us. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The incarnation

I. THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD PLAINLY ASSERTED.

1. THE PERSON ASSUMING. The Word, i.e, the second Person in the most glorious Godhead, called the Word, either because He is the Scope and principal Matter, both of prophetical and promissory Word; or because He expounds and reveals the mind and will of God to men (Joh_1:18).

2. THE NATURE ASSUMED flesh, i.e, the entire human nature, consisting of a true human soul and body (Rom_3:20; Gen_6:12). The word flesh is rather used here than man, on purpose to enhance the admirable condescension and abasement of Christ; there being more of vileness, weakness, and opposition to Spirit in this word than in that, as is pertinently noted by some. Hence the whole nature is denominated by that part, and called flesh.

3. THE ASSUMPTION ITSELF. Not fuit, He was (as Socinus would render it, designing thereby to overthrow the existence of Christs glorified body now in heaven) but factus est, it was made, i.e, He took or assumed the true human nature into the unity of His Divine Person, with all its integral parts and essential properties, and so was made or became a true and real Man by that assumption. The Apostle, speaking of the same act Heb_2:16), uses another word, fitly rendered He took on Him, or He assumed: which assuming, though inchoative, it was the work of the whole Trinity, God the Father, in the Son, by the Spirit, forming or creating that nature; as if three sisters should make a garment betwixt them, which only one of them wears; yet terminative, it was the act of the

Son only; it was He only that was made flesh. And when it is said, He was made flesh, misconceive not, as if there was a mutation of the Godhead into flesh; for this was performed, not by changing what He was, but by assuming what He was not. As when the Scripture, in a like expression, saith, He was made sin (2Co_5:21), and made a curse Gal_3:13), the meaning is not that He was turned into sin, or into a curse; no more may we think here the Godhead was turned into flesh, and lost its own Being and nature, because it is said He was made flesh.

II. THIS ASSERTION STRONGLY CONFIRMED. He dwelt among us, and we saw His glory. This was no phantasm, but a most real and dubitable thing. For He pitched His tent or tabernacled with us. And we are eye-witnesses 1Jn_1:1-3). (J. Flavel.)

.

The Incarnation

I. CHRISTS HUMILIATION. He took the whole nature of man.

1. That He might suffer.

2. That He might obey the law of God in the nature that had broken the Law.

3. That He might die. He could not have died without a body. He could not suffer death while in His Fathers bosom.

4. That He might sympathise with men (Heb_2:17).

II. CHRISTS CONDESCENSION. He tabernacled, as in a tent. He lived on earth for a time, just as a man might live. The word is used particularly

1. As a reference to the tabernacle of old. This was a meeting place between God and His people. Such was Christ. Through Him a just God can meet the sinner.

2. It intimates His condition. A tent is an inferior dwelling to a house or a palace. Christ went about from place to place, and had not where to lay His head. He was dependent upon others for His rest and food.

3. It sanctifies affliction. No one need be ashamed of his poverty, since Christ was poor.

III. CHRISTS GLORY. Amid all His humiliation, His glory burst forth and manifested itself--We beheld, etc. Clad as our Saviour was in the garments of a man, it was impossible entirely to veil His higher nature.

Neither was it advisable. It was necessary that the world should know that He was God. His Divine glory was constantly manifesting itself--when the star led the wise men--when He taught the doctors in the Temple--when He healed the sick and raised the dead. But the chief glory was only visible to spiritual eyes.

1. Divine wisdom. The world considered His wisdom to be folly. It was not His outward manifestation, not His miracles or acts, but the plan of salvation, and the scheme He accomplished when He said, It is finished.

2. Divine love. There is more glory in the love of God than in all the universe of material creation. This can only be discerned by the eye of faith. When a sinner is brought to find peace, he realises the glory of Christ. We have seen. Have you seen?

IV. CHRISTS FULNESS. Full of grace and truth. Hence His glory need not deter us from coming to Him.

1. Full of grace, i.e, He is easy to approach, merciful, loving, gracious, in aspect and nature.

2. Full of truth. Himself the truth. Hence we have a firm foundation for our faith. All Christ does is true. His pardon is a true pardon. His promises are true, etc. (Preachers Analyist.)

.

The necessity of the Incarnation

I. THAT MAN MAY POSSESS A FULL AND FAITHFUL REVELATION OF GODS CHARACTER. Jesus became a medium through whom the dazzling attributes of Deity were modified, and a focus in whom the infinite perfections of Diety were centred.

II. THAT THERE MAY BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE. Precept will often fail, when example will succeed. Christ was made like His brethren that they might be stimulated to be like God.

III. THAT AN ATONEMENT MAY BE MADE FOR SIN, AND MAN RECONCILED TO GOD.

IV. THAT MANY MAY HAVE A SYMPATHETIC AND POWERFUL MEDIATOR at the right hand of God. Conclusion: Jesus is a perfect Saviour--perfect in His power to save, being able to save to the uttermost; perfect in His willingness to save, declaring that whosoever cometh unto Him, He will in no wise cast out; perfect in His sympathy, knowing our frame, remembering that we are dust, and declaring that He will carry the lambs in His arm, and deal with peculiar kindness with those in special trials; perfect in His wisdom, knowing His sheep and knowing the way that they take; perfect in His faithfulness, being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and promising never to leave nor forsake His own disciples. He is a perfect Saviour because in Him dwelt and dwells the fulness of the Godhead. (J. H.Hitchens, D. D.)

The purpose of the Incarnation

I. THE DIGNIFIED CHARACTER WHO WAS MADE FLESH. 1.The Word partakes of the same nature and perfections as the Father and Spirit.

(1) Eternity (Mic_5:2).

(2) Omniscience (Joh_21:17).

(3) Omnipresence (Mat_28:20).

(4) Immutability (Heb_13:8).

2. This dignified Person was made flesh.

(1) He had a true body, not merely the appearance of one.

(2) He had a reasonable soul.

(3) All the Persons of the Trinity were concerned in His Incarnation. The Father prepared His body; the Spirit formed it; the Son assumed it.

3. He dwelt among us

(1) Performing the most astonishing miracles;

(2) Preaching the most interesting truths;

(3) Living the most holy life.

II. SOME REASONS WHY THE SAVIOUR BECAME INCARNATE.

1. That ancient prophecy might be fulfilled (Gen_3:15; Deu_18:15; Isa_9:6; etc.).

2. That the glorious perfections of Deity might be displayed--the glory of Gods infinite wisdom, almighty power, unspotted purity, inflexible justice, boundless compassion, inviolable truth. Hence angels and men combine in singing Glory to God in the highest.

3. That captive sinners might be redeemed.

(1) By nature man is a spiritual slave.

(2) Christ became incarnate to redeem him from

(a) Sin. Sin shall have no more dominion, etc.

(b) Satan. The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet.

(c) The world. This is the victory, etc.

(d) Wrath. Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come.

(3) Jesus redeems us by His blood (1Pe_1:18-19).

(4) In the day of conversion, the believer experiences His redemption.

(5) Christ redeems us to His image, His grace, His heaven (Psa_86:11).

4. That the righteous law of heaven might be honoured.

5. That the empire of Satan might be ruined.

6. That the gates of paradise might be opened. We learn the amazing condescension of the Saviour. Consider

(1) From whence He came;

(2) To whom;

(3) The circumstances in which;

(4) Why. (T. Lewis.)

The double Incarnation; or, the souls Christmas

(text in conjunction with Eph_3:17):--There are two births of Christ--one unto the world, the other into the soul. Men think more of the former than of the latter and celebrate it every year; but the latter is equally momentous. The soul has its births; the rising into conscious existence of every latent sentiment, filial, connubial, parental, Christian.

I. THE ANALOGY between those two Incarnations.

1. Both result from Divine interposition.

2. Both create great epochs; the temporal advent was the crisis of history. The B.C. meets in it, the A.D. starts from it. And from the Spiritual advent all after life takes its date and derives its impulse.

3. Both awaken antagonism, the former Herods hostility, etc., the latter that of the depraved nature.

4. Both are manifestations of God.

II. THE DISSIMILARITY.

1. The one may become a curse to man, the other must be a blessing. Nothing so terrible to a lost soul as the former. It aggravates the worlds guilt and augments its responsibility. The latter brings sunshine to the soul and ever advancing blessedness.

2. The one occurred without mans choice, the other requires his seeking. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The great birthday

Christmas day is the greatest birthday of the year.

I. It is THE BIRTHDAY OF CHRIST. The greatest man, teacher, benefactor, but immeasurably more than this. Men have misconceived and misstated the Incarnation; that two persons were united in Christ instead of two natures in His single person; that the infinite Being was confined within the finate nature which He assumed; that God ceased to be really Himself; that human nature was annihilated by its union with Deity. It was inevitable that the possibility of the Incarnation should be questioned; but what is man but a sample, at an immeasurably lower level of a union of two totally different substances, one material, the other immaterial, under the control of a single human personality? As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. And He who could bring together matter and Spirit in man might surely raise both matter and spirit to union with His own Divinity under the control of His eternal Person. But what moved God to unite Himself with a creative form? Is not such an innovation on the association, if not on the conditions of His Eternal Being? Yes, but so was Creation, and Creation involved possibilities which led to much else beyond. It involved the possibility of the fall. And then as God must have created out of love, so out of love He must bring a remedy to the ruined creature. Of other remedies nothing has been told us, but we know that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

II. THE BIRTHDAY OF HUMAN GREATNESS. Man has alternately depreciated and exaggerated His importance. Just now the deprivatory account is the popular one. It is no longer possible; we are reminded to think of this earth as the centre for whose benefit all else exists. It is only a small satellite of the sun while the sun is but one of thousands of stars which are moving round some undiscovered centre. The insignificance of mans dwelling-place involves its own insignificance. And this impression is deepened by the vicissitudes to which men are exposed, and the cheapness of human life. But apart from Christianity nature also opens out another side to the matter. When we look at any one man, however feeble and worthless, we become conscious of his having some title to a profound and anxious interest. Here is a man who, before he became a criminal, threaded his way unnoticed through the crowd; but put upon his trial for his life he becomes a centre of universal interest. Why, if he is only an animal, should the question of his life be followed more anxiously than that of an ox or a sheep? Men are thus moved because a destiny is being weighed in the balance and at such moments the depreciatory theory of mans nature and origin gives way. The poor prisoner in the dock represents the ineffaceable, indestructible greatness of man. Still mens judgment about himself rises and falls with the varying circumstances of his life and modes of his mind. Left to himself he has no solid ground of confidence in any estimate he may form. To discover the greatness of his need and capacities, he requires some standard utterly independent of himself. Such he finds in the Incarnation which, uniting, his nature to that of the Being who made Him, restores to man his self-respect, and makes him feel his moral poverty without God and his utter dependence upon Him. Think of our Lords life from this point of view, of putting such high and exceptional honour on our nature. The moral beauty of which mankind is capable appeared in Jesus as it never appeared before or since. But we can only surrender ourselves to its power when we admit that it is the life of the Word made flesh. A man might have uttered the Beatitudes, but as mere man, being modest and truthful, could have said, I and my Father are one. All, however, fall into place if He is the God-Man. Embrace this truth and it is not hard to understand how His death on Calvary availed for the worlds redemption. Nor does it matter that His life was lived on a small planet. Since the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him, the vastest stars and suns have no more claim, on account of their size, to His regard. When He became man to elevate and redeem the human family He chose the scene where the Divine work would be best achieved.

III. THE BIRTHDAY OF HUMAN BROTHERHOOD. At the manger of Bethlehem we may dare to look forward to that union of human love, of human hearts, of which the noblest of our race have ever dreamed, a brotherhood sometimes recommended as abstract argument, sometimes dictated by revolutionary terrorism, but which, to be genuine, must be a perfectly free movement of human hearts and wills drawn towards each other by supreme attraction. That attraction we find in the Divine child of Bethlehem, born that He might regenerate the world, and all the courtesies and kindnesses of Christmas between families, households, rich and poor, old and young, are rightly done in His honour who came to unite us to each other in union with Himself. (Canon Liddon.)

The relation of the Incarnation to modern problems

I. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. The soundest, shortest argument for the Being of God is Christ. God is in nature; but nature is dumb. No speech, no language, their voice is not heard. But in the Word God has spoken. The Incarnation teaches Theism by teaching us more than Theism. God is something more than the constructor of this curious clock. What comfort do we get from the conception of an infinite brain? Add the Incarnation to Theism and we have peace, Ye believe in God, believe also in Me. But does not my own nature teach me that God is good? Yes, but Christ corroborates the testimony of our moral nature. The avatars of India and the Apotheoses of Greece are only efforts of the mind to anticipate this great doctrine of Christianity. The sense of guilt and longing for reconciliation may have produced these myths. But that does not prove that the subjective state was a superstition. The ability to appeal to the historic facts concerning the life of our Lord is the strongest confirmation of the truth of our religious instincts. We can proceed by way of philosophy and prove our need of a Saviour, and by way of history prove the fact of a Saviour who reveals the nature and fatherhood of God.

II. TO THE IRRELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE AGE. That is marked by a tone of serious, disheartened scepticism. Yet the Positivist tries to keep his religion after he has denied his God. What he teaches as a substitute for the Gospel is taught by the Gospel itself, is the only form in which it is worthy of a moments consideration. If he would worship an ideal humanity, he must take Christ. If he would see an example of altruism he must take Christs atonement. But infidelity must go back to Christ or forward to despair. When a man has discarded the eternal hope in Christ it is not strange that he should ask Is life worth living? Christ or Pessimism, the gospel of hope or the gospel of despair, salvation or suicide are the sharp antitheses presented by modern thought.

III. TO APOLOGETICS. Applying to Scripture the argument of design, we conclude that it was constructed on a plan which must have existed in a single mind before it was executed in the progressive publication of the separate books. The Incarnation gives to the Bible its unity. The Old Testament is a congruous body of doctrine culminating in Christ; the New Testament is a coherent body of doctrine culminating around the Person of Christ. The doctrine is woven in the very texture of the sacred books. How did this happen? The advanced thinkers will not ask us to believe that organisms grow by chance. The intelligence that built the world, made the Bible.

IV. TO THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE. The paradox of the Bible is the severity with which God looks on sin, and the tenderness with which He regards the sinner. Is there any way in which this dual relationship can be brought into conspicuous pre-eminence? Yes; the Incarnation is Gods testimony to His love for man and to His respect for law. He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The atonement is therefore based upon the Incarnation. Advanced thought a short time since founded the hope of the universal forgiveness on the fatherhood of God. Now it preaches that man is under law to an extent which makes it idle to speak of forgiveness. Sin and suffering are inseparable, they say, and thus those who preached a gospel of love without law, now preach a gospel of law without love. Liberalism does not know how to reconcile these ideas, and by rejecting the Incarnation has rejected the only method of reconciliation.

V. TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNION. A man may be a Christian who does not accept all the doctrines of the creeds. It is equally clear that a man who denies all cannot be invited to the Lords table. Where then shall we draw the line? Here. The acceptance of this doctrine draws towards Christ; its rejection separates from Him by an impassable gulf? The man who worships the Lord Jesus as God, and gives Him the homage of his heart is a Christian, although he may not accept the Athanasian statement. The same principle determines our relations with Romanism. It is not necessary to abate any of our antipathy to her errors, but a church must not be refused a place in Christendom which holds the Incarnation and related doctrines.

VI. TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF RELIGION. Any religion which is to take permanent hold upon the world must offer a theory of the universe and tell me whence I am and whither I am going; must prescribe a code and teach morality; must stir the emotions and take hold of the heart; Christianity unites these three ideas in the Incarnation.

VII. TO PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN LIFE. The incarnate life of Christ stands in close relation to the development of Christian character. That development is gradual, and is concurrent with the study of Christ. And to study Him is to know that He is Divine. If we study the great principles which constitute His doctrine we hear the voice of one who spake as never man spake. So comprehensively, so minutely, so influentially. If we study His example there is that which proclaims His Divine perfections; and yet His human, helpful, imitable brotherhood.

VIII. TO CHRISTIAN WORK IN RELATION TO THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD. The book of Acts is the second volume of the life of Christ, the first being an account of all Jesus began. The Incarnation, then, was but the beginning of a great career which is still in progress. It is Christ who is still doing the evangelization of the world. This is the only true basis of missionary confidence, and the continuously fulfilling prophecy of the final victory.

IX. TO MANS PLACE IS THE SCALE OF BEING: correcting the depreciation of man by science and the exaggerated dignity conferred upon him by Pantheism. He is neither an insignificant atom nor God. The Incarnation shows his reconciliation, not identity with God, and his glorious and elect creatureship.

X. TO THE PURPOSES OF GOD. We know not what we shall be, but we know that we shall be like Him. And He is the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. The perpetuity of Christs human nature is the guarantee of an immortalized personality° And our individual interest in Jesus will not prevent us sharing the enthusiasm we may rightly feel concerning the destiny of His Church. The marriage of God and man eighteen hundred years ago is but the prophecy of a day when the bells of heaven shall ring in the nuptials of a ransomed Church with her royal spouse. (Prof. Patton.)

An argument for the Incarnation

Millions throughout the world hail the annual return of Christmas not because of its festivities, but because it commemorates the birth of Jesus. Class Jesus, as some do, with Plato and Shakespeare, and He would receive no more honour than they. This exuberance of feeling is due to the belief that He is divine. Whence does this belief spring? From the Scriptures. But all people do not accept the Bible; we have therefore to move along other lines of argument. And Christians may find their faith strengthened by finding the conclusions reached by the Bible arrived at by other roads.

I. AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. No doubt it involves a miracle. The process by which the two natures were united in one person is wholly mysterious. But so is that by which spirit and matter, mind and body combine in man. But if the one is not impossible, why the ether? We are not now dealing with the limited powers of men but with the omnipotence of God; and what the Almighty chooses in His wisdom to do, even if it be to assume a human form, He can do.

II. AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS NOT IMPROBABLE.

1. It has always been expected and desired, and the expectation has been expressed in every possible way--in fable, philosophy, religion.

2. This instinct is natural. Man cannot be satisfied with the manifestations of God in nature. They leave the soul with vague, restless desires after a more perfect acquaintance. At best they give a God for philosophers, for the intellect, not one who has influence over life, moulding and fashioning the heart.

3. These two facts point to an incarnation. For who created the desire? God Himself. And shall He who creates the capacity leave it unsatisfied?

III. THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF CHRIST CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT HE, THE WORD MADE FLESH, IS THE SATISFACTION FOR THIS DESIRE. You cannot understand the account of His life unless you recognize His Godhead and manhood.

1. He is the only perfect Man who has ever trod this earth. This is the confession of friends and foes of His own day and ours. How is this to be accounted for? Not by surrounding influences. There was nothing in His age, home, or contemporaries calculated to produce a perfect man.

2. All His actions and words are in harmony with the idea that He was the Word made flesh. His wonderful birth is succeeded by a wonderful life. (W. Braden.)

The relations of the Incarnation

I. The Incarnation in relation to MAN.

1. It shows the dignity of the human body. The material part of our nature has been maligned in every age; but ever since the incarnation it has been respected more and more. Matter is essentially evil, said the Greek philosopher. Whoso layeth his hand on a human body toucheth heaven, said Novalis and Carlyle. The incarnation took place between these utterances.

2. It shows the dignity of the human soul in the human body--of human nature in its totality.

3. Linking man to God it removed the antithesis between them. Something more was requisite to remove the antagonism, even the atonement. Prior to the Incarnation a wide gap divided the Creator from His creation, but the Incarnation filled it up, and did away with the antithesis. There is now not a single break in the chain of existence. From the tiniest atom to Absolute Being there is one continuous ascent.

II. The Incarnation in relation to GOD. It is a revelation of God.

1. It reveals the plurality of persons in the Divine essence. This truth is the exclusive property of the Church of the New Testament because the Incarnation is its exclusive property. The Holy Trinity existed previously, and dim prefigurations of the doctrine are noticeable in the Old Testament. But the doctrine would never have been fully apprehended but for the historic reality.

2. The Incarnation reveals the Fatherhood of God. The glory as of the only Begotten. Deny the Incarnation and you deny the deepest Divine Fatherhood. It reveals the intrinsic Fatherhood. It shows us a Son, not by creation in time, but by generation in eternity, and consequently shows us a Father, not in virtue of His creative, but of His generative energies. By the side of this all other fatherhoods are types and figures.

3. The Incarnation reveals the redeeming character of God. Deny the Incarnation, and you have no positive proof of the Divine love; believe it, and you can never desire a higher proof. He gave His only begotten son; what more could He do? (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The significance of the Incarnation

There was an end sought; by what means should it be reached? There was a tremendous necessity; how should it be met? There was an infinitely gracious wonder to be wrought; in what wondrous way should it be accomplished? This was the problem. Conjectures as to its solution only serve to show that the way taken was the only way.

1. Almighty compulsion would have crushed human freedom, put human virtue aside, turned grace into magic.

2. Moral influence or persuasion would have left mans past disobedience uncancelled, the sanctities of law despised, authority abolished by Him in whom it was established. At best there would have been an invertebrate manhood, a molluscous morality.

3. Voices of audible command or promise spoken perpetually from heaven to earth would have formed a revelation as grotesque as ineffectual.

4. Written communications must have been subject to manifold hindrances and limitations as an agency of salvation, as was shown when they were actually employed.

5. A redemption by sacrifice must depend on the value of the victim sacrificed; human sacrifices would contravene all the teachings of the Divine economy touching the sanctity of human life, and of the insufficiency of the sacrifice of brutes, apart from their typical sense, the religious history of the world affords abundant evidence. We look, then, as we are bidden to look, for the reuniting power between God and man, to the Word made flesh and dwelling among us.

I. This appears in THE TWOFOLD FORM OF A FACT AND A PERSON, both being far more conclusive than any course of abstract reasoning in theodicy, or any theological demonstration. The fact and the person both take their place in the public scenery of events, in inspired Scriptures, in general history, in a line of great transactions inexplicable without them; and they have become imbedded in the experience and enshrined in the reverent and loving faith of millions of men through fifty generations. What is this fact? The life of God appears on the earth not only harmonized, but perfectly blended with the life of man. Humanity begins again with a possibility and offer of a restoration which is salvation to all who will receive it. As the life of God is in Christ, we share in it by being united to Christ. He took our human nature. The Divine nature or life was not naturally ours--it was lost. We become partakers of it. Each individual believer in this covenant of grace, lives eternally. Abiding in the vine, the branch lives, grows, bears fruit. Here is the certainty of immortality.

II. THE RELATION OF THE INCARNATION, THEN, TO THE BODY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is not difficult to be determined.

1. It is the comprehensive truth of revelation. We may take any article of the Christian creed, except those which affirm or imply the unity of God and the natural depravity of men, and attempt to separate it from this supreme and central fact, and we fail.

2. As the doctrine is comprehensive, so it is distinctive. In the ancient ethnic religions, in the Gnostic theosophies and emanations of the East, as in modern Deism, Pantheism, and Positivism, there is nothing that can be mistaken for it.

III. THE DOCTRINE OR THE FACT HOLDS A LIKE CENTRAL AND INCLUSIVE POSITION IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. There is a unity in the sacred writings, and that unity is the person of the Incarnate Word. The development of the kingdom of God among mankind follows naturally a historical method; and so Genesis comes first, with much afterwards, in the preparatory dispensations, before the birth of the Saviour. But the real beginning, or genesis, is given in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John. From that radiant dayspring the light is reflected back to Eden, and shines forward to the Apocalypse. By this reading, innumerable difficulties, which have given superfluous trouble, disappear. The parts take their due proportions.

IV. LOOKING ONWARD, WITH THIS WARRANT, FROM OUR LORDS ASCENSION, WE SEE THE INTERIOR PRINCIPLE OF HIS KINGDOM as it is set up among the nations and expands along the ages. Christ not only watches His family from above, He dwells and works within it. His family is His body, and His body is His bride, and His bride is His Church; and He lives in the members. What began in the past eternity proceeds in the eternity to come, and to the Word there is but one eternity. We see our calling. What an inheritance! What privilege! What responsibilities! (Bp. Huntington.)

Why was the Incarnation delayed

Inasmuch as God is unchangeable, and the love exhibited in Bethlehem was in Him from days of old, I make bold to affirm that He embraced the first opportunity to work out the redemption of the race. What would be the use of sending earlier when the world was not prepared to receive Him? Jesus Christ is the joint product of heaven and earth; He is God and Man; hence the necessity for both to be ready. God was ready, the Son was ready. The earth was not ready. He had to wait till humanity should be ready. The mind of man had to be prepared. Were it a mere question of love or power, He could have been sent earlier; but as it was also a question of wisdom, He must not be sent at a period likely to defeat the end in view. God could not travel faster than the conditions of humanity admitted. He must suit His pace to the tottering steps of man. It took God longer time, perhaps greater pains, to beget Christ in the human mind than to beget Him in the Virgins womb. Four thousand years were needed to accomplish the former; but the instant it was brought to pass, God sent forth His Son into the world, made of a woman, made under the law. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The difference between the Christian and the heathen incarnations

The Greek popular incarnations were, in the main, personifications of natural phenomena. When the court of Olympus was constituted, the conviction--universal among the Indo-European peoples--that the gods could not be strangers to men, made it natural to believe that they came down to earth from time to time. Aristotles and Platos triads, again were simply psychological. These philosophers resolved the unity of the human personality into a triad of principles. The Hindu Trimurtti is a classification for religious purposes of the great natural processes of creation, preservation, and destruction; and the thought of incarnation is easily linked to the idea of Vishnu, as the Preserver uses the agency of heroes or great men to deliver the race from evils by which it would otherwise be overwhelmed. The Scripture Trinity, on the other hand, is a special revelation concerning the constitution of the Divine nature. The Incarnation is based upon the ultimate fact that God is love. If we regard Christianity as a philosophy, the doctrine of the Incarnation is its essence. If we regard Christianity, practically, as salvation for fallen man, the Incarnation is the secret of its exhaustless Divine power. (Principal Grant.)

Voluntary sympathy

One of the secrets of Victor Hugos power over the French people was their memory of the following: When the disasters of the Franco-German war were falling thickly, and the iron band was closing round Paris, word came that Victor Hugo was coming to the city. He came at the very moment that the investment was complete, with the last train, the last breath of free air. On the way he had seen the Bavarians, seen villages burned with petroleum, and he came to imprison himself in Paris. A memorable ovation was given him by the people, and they never forgot his voluntary sharing of their sufferings. (H. O. Mackey.)

Christ clothed in human flesh

The pure Godhead is terrible to behold; we could not see it and live; but clothing Himself with our flesh, makes the Divine nature more amiable and delightful to us. Now we need not be afraid to look upon God, seeing Him through Christs human nature. It was a custom of old among the shepherds, they were wont to clothe themselves with sheep-skins, to be more pleasing to the sheep; so Christ clothed Himself with our flesh, that the Divine nature may be more pleasing to us. The human nature is a glass, through which we may see the love and wisdom and glory of God clearly represented to us. Through the lantern of Christs humanity, we may behold the light of the Deity shining.

God incarnate

Christ did not gain one perfection more by becoming man, nor could He lose anything of what He possessed as God. The almightiness of God now moved in a human arm; the infinite love of God now beat in a human heart; the unbounded compassion of God to sinners now glistened in a human eye; God was love before; but Christ was now love, covered over with flesh. (R. MCheyne.)

The grand purpose of the Incarnation

Christ came down to the tabernacle of our nature which had broken down and become a ruin, and to raise it up and repair it, making it fit for the habitation of God by His own indwelling. (W. Denton, M. A.)

The ideal fitness of the Incarnation

The Incarnation is not true, say the Unitarians. Then it is a great pity; certainly it deserves to be true. Deny it, and the universe loses its unity and integrity; it is despoiled of much of its grandeur and poetry. According to the orthodox view a continuous path stretches from the smallest particle of matter at the very bottom of creation right up and away to the sublimest heights of the Absolute and Unconditioned--all things gathered together in one in Christ, What a grand unity! The two hemispheres of being, the Infinite and finite, wedded in one glorious orb, which is now the Light of the World! In this sublime unity, effected in the Incarnation, is contained the fundamental truth of Pantheism without the grave and multiform errors thereof. Here the advocates of Pantheism will find all they want, the two factors, Infinite and finite, reduced into one. Instead of a God evolving the creation out of Himself, here is a God involving Himself in the creation. Instead of the doctrine of evolution, the one developing into the many, here is the doctrine of involution, the many gathered together in the one. The Unitarian doctrine, because ever confronted with a duality of being, belittles the creation, despoils it of its grandeur and divineness; and its meagreness and poverty are a testimony against its truth. What advantage, then, hath the orthodox faith? or what profit is there of the Incarnation? Much every way. It dignifies the human body, demonstrates the potentiality of human nature, and reduces the duality of being, finite and Infinite, into an adorable unity in the indivisible person of the blessed Saviour. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The beneficent inspirations of the Incarnation

It is often thrown in the face of believers in the Incarnation that we paint human nature in colours too black, that we recklessly and unduly disparage this creature of God. But surely they who fling this taunt in our face know not whereof they speak. True, we do cherish very humble views of it; but humble views are not low views. How can we, who believe the Godhead has found room enough in it to dwell in all His inexhaustible fulness, think low of it? The Incarnation shows us its grand potentialities, and throws upon it a thousandfold stronger light than Unitarlanism possibly can. Believers in the Incarnation, therefore, burn with a quenchless desire to go and rescue poor, down-trodden, despised human nature in lands afar off. Only faith in the Incarnation can create missionaries. You demand a proof: I appeal to the story of missionary enterprise. Where is the roll of the missionaries of Unitarianism? By their fruit ye shall know them--systems as well as men, faiths as well as trees. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

Lessons of the Incarnation

The Incarnation of God in human form involves or foreshadows all the great truths of redemption. It teaches or implies

I. THAT THE CONDITION OF MAN IS A FEARFUL AND EVEN DESPERATE ONE. If sin were a trivial affair God would not have so humbled Himself.

II. THAT GOD IN HIS LOVE HAS SENT DELIVERANCE. Nature does not disclose this manifestation of love. Christ incarnate shows that God has a place in His heart for the guiltiest of men.

III. THAT THE GOD-MAN WAS WILLING TO SUFFER FOR OUR SALVATION. Gods beneficence has in it heart-sorrow and willingness to endure grief for loves sake. God gave His Son, but that Son was one in heart and mind with Himself. The hand that Jesus reaches down to rescue man is the hand of the Almighty. The stormy ages will be calmed only because a Divine voice has said Peace be still. The theology taught by the Incarnation is the worlds hope. (J. H. Barrows, D. D.)

.

The Hypostatic Union

I. ITS NATURE. There are three illustrious unions m Scripture.

1. That of three Persons in one God: essentially.

2. That of two distinct natures and persons by one spirit: mystically.

3. This of two distinct natures in one Person: hypostatically.

For the more distinct management of this latter I shall speak of it

1. Negatively. When Christ assumed our nature it was

(1) Not united consubstantially as the Three Persons in the Godhead are united. They have but one and the same nature and will; but in Christ there are two natures and wills.

(2) Nor physically as soul and body are united. Death dissolves that, but this is indissoluble.

(3) Nor mystically, as Christ is united to believers; for they are not one person with Him.

2. Positively. The human nature was united to the Divine.

(1) Miraculously (Luk_1:34-35); which was necessary to exempt the assumed human nature from Adams sin (Luk_1:15). For God can have no fellowship with sin, and had Christ been a sinner He could not have satisfied for the sins of others (Heb_7:26).

(2) Integrally. Christ took a complete and perfect soul and body that He might heal the whole nature of that sin which had infected every member and faculty.

(3) With all its sinless infirmities (Heb_2:17; Heb_4:15).

(4) So that each nature retains its own essential properties distinct, and the two understandings, wills, powers, etc., the human and the Divine are not confounded as Eutyches held.

(5) Inseparably. Although Christs soul and body were divided at death, yet neither of them from the Divine nature.

II. ITS EFFECTS.

1. By virtue of this union the properties of each nature are attributed to and agree in the whole Person; so that the Lord of glory was crucified (1Co_2:8), the blood of God redeemed the Church (Act_20:28), and Christ is both in heaven and on earth (Joh_3:13). Yet the properties of our nature are not imparted to the other, nor is it proper to say that the Divine nature suffered, or that the human was omniscient. But the properties of both natures are so ascribed to the one Person that it is |proper to affirm any of them of Him in the concrete, though not abstractedly.

2. The singular advancement of Christs human nature, it being hereby replenished with an unparalleled measure of Divine graces (Psa_45:8), and so He becomes the object of worship (Act_7:59).

3. The concourse and co-operation of each nature to His mediatory works, for in them He acts according to both natures. The human doing what is human, suffering, dying, etc.; the Divine stamping all with infinite value 2Co_5:19; Heb_9:14-15).

III. ITS GROUNDS AND REASONS.

1. The Divine did not assume the human necessarily but voluntarily; not out of indigence, but bounty; not because it was to be perfected by it, but to perfect it.

2. And so consequently to qualify and prepare Him for a full discharge of His Mediatorship.

(1) As prophet; for as God He knows the mind and will of God (Joh_1:18; Joh_3:13); as man He is fitted to impart it to us (Deu_18:15 - Act_3:22).

(2) As priest; had He not been man He could have shed no blood; and if not God it had been no value, for us (Heb_2:17; Act_20:28).

(3) As king, had He not been man He had been heterogeneous, and so no fit head for us, and if not God He could not rule or defend His body the Church.

IV. Its uses.

1. Let Christians inform themselves of this momentous trust, and hold it fast against subtle adversaries.

2. Adore the love of the Father and the Son who devised this method for your recovery (Php_2:7; Joh_3:16; Heb_2:16).

3. Infinite wisdom has here left an everlasting mark.

4. Infer the incomparable sweetness of Christianity that shows such a foundation for the sinners hope.

5. Union with our natures is utterly vain without union with our persons.

6. If Jesus Christ has assumed our nature, then He is touched with and has pity for our infirmities (Heb_2:17-18).

7. See to what a height God intends to build up the happiness of man in that He has laid the foundation so deep in the Incarnation of His Son.

8. How wonderful a comfort is it that He who dwells in our flesh is God. (J. Flavel.)

The Word made flesh

I. THE NAME BY WHICH OUR LORD IS DESCRIBED.

1. He was known by this name in the Jewish Church long before His advent.

2. He is so called because He comes forth from God like a word, a revealing medium from us.

II. THE WONDERFUL ORDER OF GODS PROVIDENCE TOWARDS US. This is the mighty Being by whom the world and man was made. After man had fallen He might have refused to repair the injury. But the new creation was to proceed from the same hand as the first.

1. The unsearchable love which showed itself at the beginning brought Him down again from His Fathers bosom.

2. With wonderful condescension He came not as before in power and majesty, but in weakness and shame, in the likeness of the fallen creature whom it was His purpose to restore.

III. THE INCARNATION as a mark of love and tenderness HAS SOMETHING STRIKING ABOUT IT and affecting to the heart. To have taken the nature of angels--to have appeared on earth in the pomp of majesty had been a humiliation.

IV. BUT IT WAS IN THE FORM OF MAN THAT GODS COMMAND HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY DISHONOURED, AND THEREFORE CHRIST ASSUMED IT.

1. It might be inconsistent with the good of the denizens of the unseen world if their disobedience had been left unpunished. And yet, on the other hand, there was the love of God to His creatures. How reconcile justice and mercy? Thus the perfect obedience of the Second Adam atoned for the offence of the first and of His descendants.

2. But how merit this? For all creatures owe this obedience, even unfallen angels. In the Son of God alone could the necessary merit be found.

3. Wherefore when mediator there was none God answered for us: a body hast Thou prepared Me, etc.

4. But men required something more, something to show them how to live and to make themselves ready for their pure inheritance. Therefore to furnish an example the Word was made flesh.

V. JEHOVAH IS AWFUL IN HIS INEFFABLE PURITY, BUT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE COURAGE TO APPROACH HIM the Word was made flesh.

VI. WE WANT SYMPATHY IN OUR WEAKNESS, INFIRMITIES, AND SORROWS; therefore that we may know that He can and does feel for us THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH.

VI. THIS ASSUMPTION OF OUR BODY BY CHRIST IS A PLEDGE OF ITS RESURRECTION, and such being the case, how we ought to reverence it!

VIII. IN THAT BODY CHRIST WILL RETURN.

1. Then the Christian will be like Him, for he will see Him as He is.

2. Then those who have rejected Him will meet their doom. (J. Garbett, M. A.)

The Ward made flesh

I am thinking of a word. Do you know what it is? No, not until I have told you. But as soon as I say John, then you know the word I was thinking of. You know it now because the word was made sound, and you caught it. Were I to write it you would know it, because the word would be made ink, and you see it. Something like that is what our text means. We could not tell what Gods thoughts about us were until He showed us them in a way we could understand. And He let us know them by sending Jesus Christ into the world. He took a body like ours in order that we might know Gods thoughts about us; and the more we know Jesus the more we know of Gods mind. He is the Word; Gods thought made flesh. But then we might see and hear A word and yet not understand it. Did you ever see a Hebrew book? The letters are little, thick, squarish things, with dots all over them, as if the pen had been sputtering when it was writing I Now you could see these words, but you could not understand them by yourself. How then do we come to know Hebrew? We get some person who knows Hebrew, but who also knows English, and he teaches us. He knows the Hebrew word, and he tells us in English what it means, and so we come to learn. It is the same with the Word made flesh--with Jesus. We may see Him, may read about Him, but before we canknow Him we must get help from some one who knows Jesus Christ and also knows us. Who is that Teacher? He is the Holy Spirit. Till He teaches us we cannot know Gods thoughts about us; we might see the words in the Bible, might see the Word made flesh, but yet not be able to understand their true meaning, any more than we could understand a foreign book till some one had taught us the language. (T. R. Howat.)

The Nativity

I. THE WORD.

1. There are some who say this name was given because so many excellent words of prophecy and promise, and all of Him, are spoken in this Book--the Word objective.

2. Because he disclosed all Gods counsel--the Word effective.

3. Because He cometh as the Word to teach us--the Word preceptive.

4. These are all true, but short. He is the only-begotten of the Father. As the Son is to the Father, so is the Word to the mind, They proceed both. The Son refers to a living nature, the Word to an intellectual nature. There is in Him not only the nature, but the wisdom of the Father. The Word showeth the manner, the Son the truth of His proceeding.

(1) With us the Son is begot by propagation; the Word therefore was requisite to show that His proceeding was not after a carnal manner.

(2) But lest we should think that Gods Word is no more to Him than ours is to us, we are told that He is only-begotten, and so of the substance of His Father.

II. FLESH and IN US is used

1. To express His union with human flesh fully. It is part for the whole. If He abhor not the flesh: of the spirit there will be no question.

2. From the flesh came the beginning of transgression: so of all others least likely to be taken. The Word not refusing it, the rest have good hope.

3. Not man, a person; but flesh, our nature.

4. Flesh in Hebrew is the same for good tidings, suggesting that some incarnation should be good news for the world. Why the Word, flesh?

(1) Surely, most kindly. The offended party was the Author of the reconciliation.

(2) Most fit all things were made by Him. He that built repaired.

(3) Most in the way of justice, that He might make full amends for the fleshs fault.

III. The Word was MADE flesh.

1. Made, as against.

(1) Manicheus holding that he had no true body.

(2) Made, not converted into flesh, as Cerenthus, nor the flesh converted into the Word as Valentinus.

(3) Not made as friends are made, who continue two several persons still, and while the flesh suffered the Word stood by and looked on as Nestorius.

(4) Not made by compounding, and so a third thing produced of both, as Eutyches.

2. But by taking the seed of Abraham. His generation eternal as the Word of God is as the inditing of the Word within the heart. His generation in time, the Word made flesh, is as the uttering it forth with the voice. The inward motion of the mind taketh into it a natural body of air, and so becometh vocal; it is not changed into it, the Word remaineth still as it was, yet they two become one voice.

IV. Being past these points of belief, LET US PAUSE TO STIR UP OUR LOVE TO HIM WHO THUS BECAME FLESH FOR US.

1. If we were so much beholden for the Word spoken, how much more for the performance; if for the Word that came to flesh, how, then, for the Word become flesh.

2. The Word, by whom all things were made, came to be made Himself. It is more for Him to be made than to make many worlds.

3. If made, then made the most complete thing of all that ever He had made. But what is man that He should be made him, or the Son of man that He should take His nature upon Him?

4. If man, yet the man hath part--the soul.

5. What flesh?

(1) The flesh of an infant--not able to speak a word.

(2) How born? In a palace, cradle of ivory, robes of estate! No! A stable His palace; a manger His cradle; poor clouts His array.

(3) What flesh afterward? In cold and heat, hungry and thirsty, faint and weary.

(4) Is His end any better? What flesh then? Rent and torn; crowned with thorns; crucified. To be made the Head of angels a humiliation, much more lower than the angels, much more despised and rejected of men. And why? Because He loved us.

V. And DWELT.

1. A word of continuance. Not only made, but made stay.

2. Dwelt in a tent. Not a house to stand for ever, but a tent to be taken down again. He came but of an errand, to sojourn till He had done it, and being done He laid His tabernacle aside.

3. Soldiers dwell in tents. An enemy we had strong and mighty. He came as our champion; set up His pavilion among us; took the military oath with shedding of blood at His circumcision and passion. His engagement with the enemy cost Him His life, but saved ours.

VI. WE BEHELD.

1. He dwelt not invisibly or obscurely. The angels saw Him, and the wise men and the apostles, etc., etc.

2. We, not one but many.

3. We beheld: not at a blush, but at full sight, and at leisure and for long. The word is that from whence a theatre is derived; as men with good heed behold things there. So did we intentively all the acts and scenes of His life.

VII. HIS GLORY FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH. Two streams. Grace refers to the Son, truth to the Word; grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew. Fitly do these follow after glory. Glory terrifies. Grace invites; and His glory is such that it is full of grace; His mercy as great as His Majesty. Grace, too, as opposed to the rigour, threats, and curses of the law; and truth as set against the shadows and ceremonies of the law. Take grace from truth and it is a mere illusion; sever truth from grace and it is unpleasant.

VIII. Now for THE BENEFIT.

1. Being made flesh He will be a benefactor to it. No man hateth his own flesh. He seeth us daily in himself. And if God the Father love the Word He must love, too, our flesh which he has taken from us.

2. Being made flesh, all flesh may come to him to present their request.

3. Being made flesh, He will not suffer this of ours, the same with His, to perish, but repair it again and raise it out of the dust. (Bp. Andrews.)

The Person and work of Christ

I. THE PERSON HERE SPOKEN OF. The Word.

1. The origin of the expression.

(1) Some have traced it to the Jewish Targums, where the angel of the Lord of the Old Testament is designated the Word of God.

(2) Others to Philo, who spoke much of a semi-divine person called the Word of God.

(3) Others to the phrase, the Word of the Lord came upon him, in the prophets, understanding by that not an influence or a communication, but a person. But it is difficult to decide.

2. What is said about the Word.

(1) That He was God.

(2) And yet distinct from God.

(3) The Creator of the universe.

3. The appropriateness of the term. He is especially the revealer of God. Deity in the abstract is unrevealed; only through the Word has He made Himself known. Not that Divine manifestations began at the Advent.

(1) The external world reveals Gods power and Godhead through its Maker, the Word.

(2) Hence for all that men have learned from the universe they have been indebted to the Word.

(3) His are the intimations of God derived through conscience and intuition.

(4) All the truth that man has ever learned has been through Him who is the True Light that enlighteneth every man.

II. THE AFFIRMATION HERE MADE CONCERNING THE WORD became flesh. The other evangelists give us the facts, St. John the soul beneath the facts. Admit the assertion of John, and all that the others say becomes perfectly natural. Deny the truth of what John affirms, and everything that they tell becomes incomprehensible. What is meant is not that He ceased to be the Word, but that in addition to what He had been He took human nature upon Him. This union of Deity and humanity conditioned both.

1. It made it necessary that the humanity should be pure; hence the peculiar manner of Christs birth, wherein the entail of sin was broken, and His body made a holy thing.

2. It required that His Godhead should be manifested under certain limitations. The Incarnation was to man a revelation of God; to angels an inveiling of God.

III. THE PROOF WHICH IS FURNISHED OF THIS TRUTH. We beheld. This verse is the text of the whole gospel, and each succeeding chapter presents us with some new manifestation. In the first, Christ is introduced to us by John the Baptist as the Lamb of God; in the second, He is the Temple of God; in the third, He is the glorious anti-type of the brazen serpent; in the fourth, He says, in answer to the womans question, I Am; in the fifth, He is the Judge of all; in the sixth, He says: I am the Bread of Life; in the seventh, He is the Water of Life; in the eighth and ninth, He says twice: I am the Light of the World; in the tenth, He says: I am the good shepherd; in the eleventh, He says: I am the Resurrection and the Life; in the twelfth, He is the King of Zion riding in triumph to His capital; in the thirteenth, He is the perfect Exemplar; in the fourteenth, He says: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; in the fifteenth, He says: I am the True Vine; in the sixteenth, He is the Precursor of the Comforter; in the seventeenth, He is the great Intercessor; in the eighteenth, He is, by His own solem asseveration to Pilate, the King of a spiritual domain, whose fundamental principle is truth; in the nineteenth, He is the Willing Victim; and in the twentieth, He is again the Resurrection and the Life.

IV. THE RESULTS that flow from the reality of the Incarnation.

1. The reality of Christs Deity gave sacrificial efficacy to His death on our behalf.

2. The reality of Christs manhood assures us of perfect sympathy at His hands.

3. The union of the two makes the resources of Deity available for us. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)

Christ, the word

1. It will be quite unnecessary for us on the present occasion to entangle ourselves in any philosophical discussion of the name employed by St. John--The Word. He who became flesh is the Word, the Revealer of God, at once Power and Wisdom, Light and Life. Creation is part of His handiwork, as the Revealer of God. In order to reveal the Father, the Word must live a mans life amongst men. This, then, is St. Johns contention. By sight, and by touch, and by voice, says he, I became acquainted with a certain human life; a life, which had a peculiar charm, a special glory about it; and that glory I can only describe as the glory of a well-beloved and only son from a father. Utterance, action, suffering, all were one continuous and incessant testimony to an unseen Father in heaven.

2. Thus, then, it appears, on St. Johns showing, that that which became human was truly Divine; and that which became subject to the conditions and limitations of space and time was truly Eternal. Let us endeavour to draw out one or two of the thoughts that are involved in these two statements.

(1) The Divine became human. That is to say, the Divine laid hold of the human in such a way as to make the human, so far as it could be made, a true image and reflection of itself. All, then, that our faith in the Incarnation warrants us in asserting is, that in Jesus Christ we have authentic tidings of invisible things, that in Him the Divine and human are so united and blent, that we can draw certain and reliable conclusions as to the nature of God, so far as that nature can and need be known by us. And oh! think what this means! Think what the difference is between saying, Jesus is only a man seeking God, adding one more to the many guesses as to the nature of God: and saying, In Jesus we see God seeking man, and seeking him out of pure love in order to save him: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. When we have told its isles of light, and fancied all beyond, there must yet be heights and depths in that High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity which no fancy, however soaring, can penetrate. In this sense, and under such limitations as these, did the Divine become human, or the Word become flesh. If I make the Incarnation the measure not only of that in God which it is necessary for our eternal life to know, but also the measure of God Himself, I am exposing your faith and my own in the truth of the Incarnation to a very perilous strain. For my own sake, and for yours, I dare not do this.

(2) As we may say, in this guarded manner, that in the Incarnation the Divine became human; so we may say also, somewhat paradoxically, that in the Incarnation the Eternal became temporal, clothed itself in forms of time and space, in order to reveal that which was before the foundation of the world, which is from everlasting to everlasting. We all know, I should suppose, how easy it is to drift into a notion about the work of Christ, which amounts really to this: that He came not to do the will of God, but to alter it. The Divine did not become human, the Word was not made flesh, if the will of the Son on earth was not at all times and in all things at one with the will of the Father in heaven; and if we may not accept the words, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God, as a full and adequate statement of the mission of Jesus Christ. The work of Christ is, in fact, the invisible becoming visible, the Eternal becoming temporal, the Infinite, finite. The Incarnation is, in short, the sacrament of the eternal grace of God; an outward and visible sign, an effectual sign, of a grace, of which time is no measure.

3. Rejoice in the Lord alway. We can see now what the real ground of all such rejoicing is, and how solid it is. The Incarnation unlocks for us the secret of the Divine, Eternal Will, the Will which is at the root of all things, and which rules all things, and shows us that its first and last word is love. (D. J.Vaughan, M. A.)

Christ, the life and the light

The Word became flesh: such is St. Johns statement. In order to understand the statement thoroughly, we must ask: First, what does St. John mean by The Word? And, secondly, what does he mean when he says, that The Word was made, or became, flesh? In the previous verses of the chapter St. John has been speaking of the Word, though only in the fourteenth verse does he begin to speak of the Word Incarnate. But St. John has much more to say than this. He refers all creation to the instrumentality of One whom he calls the Word; whom, afterwards, he calls the Light; and presently as Incarnate, the Son. Moving on, step by step, St. John at this point introduces another thought. All creation is expressive; but one part of Creation is more expressive than another. Creation is not a dead level, but an ascending series. First the inorganic and inanimate world; then the living being; then the self-conscious life of man. Things first; then, life: then, light; that is, persons, existence, self-conscious, rational and moral. All things were made by Him. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. All is by the Word, expressive: but into the life which is the light of men--that is to say, which in men becomes self-conscious, intelligent, capable of reflecting the Makers image, He, the Word, can pat more meaning, more expression, than he could into the inorganic creation; and so can render it more significant, more declaratory of the Divine thoughts, mind, and will. From the creative Word St. John passes to the indwelling Light, that true Light, which (as he says) lighteth every man. He who is the creative Word is also the indwelling Light. He who is the fount of all being, is also the light of mans being, the illumination of reason and conscience, the son of his soul. So it has been since the Incarnation. And so it was before the Incarnation. Whatever the physical basis of life may be, the metaphysical basis of life is ever one and the same, even the Divine eternal Word. The Word, who was in the beginning, and was in the beginning with God, did not make man, as man makes a thing--a piece of furniture, or a house, or what not--turning it out of hand, and so leaving it to shift for itself. In the moment of creation He became to man the mysterious basis of that strong mysterious thing which we call life; the indwelling light, through whose guidance and illumination man might know God, and become like God. So wondrous, so subtle, so passing thought, are the ties which bind man to Him who made him! In this way, all those long ages before the Incarnation, He was in the world--a world made by Him, yet a world which knew Him not

II. And now we can safely address ourselves to the second part of our subject, and inquire what St. John means, when he says that The Word became flesh. That the Word--being what He has been from the first, and still is, to man, the metaphysical basis of life, the indwelling light--should Himself become a man, and dwell for some thirty-three years amongst men, full of grace and truth, need not surprise us; ought to be no stumbling-block to us; has nothing incredible or unnatural about it. Certainly it would be in the highest degree unnatural and incredible and monstrous, that the Word should become man, if that Word were not, by original constitution, so intimately related to man, But once see the spiritual constitution of man in this living and life-giving Word of God, as John and Paul saw it, and the Incarnation becomes not only unnatural, but, in the highest sense of the word, natural; not merely not incredible, but eminently credible, because so entirely in accordance with mans needs, and with Gods original constitution of human nature. The Light that was only inward; and, being only inward, was dimmed and almost quenched by mans darkness; must needs become outward also, in order that it may shine in all its native purity and strength, and shining thus may reveal God to man, and man to himself. And how could it thus become outward, save in a human life; that sweet and lovely and altogether exquisite human life which the Gospel pages mirror to us? There, in those pages, the inward voice of conscience becomes an outward voice also; the latter attested by the former, the former cleared and deepened and intensified by the latter. The voice of Jesus, be sure, has its echo within every one of us. On this same Rock of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, Life, and Light, we can securely build all the other truths of our most holy faith; the Fatherliness of God, the brotherhood of men, and all else that most concerns us to know and believe for our souls health. Wherever, in human nature, there is a trace or vestige of light, there we have a manifestation of the presence of the indwelling Word, the same Eternal Word, who dwells in our souls as Light. (D. J. Vaughan, M. A.)

And dwelt among us and we beheld His glory. Three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents: shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. The phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christs life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveller, and a soldier. (Arrowsmith.)

Christ the tabernacle of God

The Jews in the wilderness had a tabernacle or tent, wherein they worshipped God, and there the glory of God was seen. Over the mercy seat hovered the Shechinah. A glorious light, the symbol of the Divine presence, shone ever in the sanctuary. In like manner Christ, who is the brightness of the Fathers glory, the true Shechinah, tabernacled among us. His flesh, that is, His body of human nature, was as a tabernacle, in which resided that Divine nature of which the glory in the Jewish tabernacle was the symbol. Thus the Tabernacle of God was with men, and He dwelt among us. (G. J. Brown, M. A.)

God dwelling with men

Here is an answer to Solomons wondering exclamation: But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Here is fulfilment, higher than had yet been known, of the ancient word, I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you, and anticipation of what shall yet be when the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them; and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them--their God. (J. Culross, D. D.)

Christs glory in the flesh

I. His OUTWARD GLORY. When a Jew heard this he must have denied it, inasmuch, as there was little in Christ which answered to his conception of Messianic glory. Yet lowly as was our Lords life in general, there were occasional gleams of it.

1. At the Incarnation.

2. At His Baptism.

3. At His Transfiguration.

4. When the Greeks had an interview with Him.

5. At His Resurrection.

6. At His Ascension.

II. But His INTERNAL GLORY far surpassed this. Love, compassion, justice, truth. Add to these an existence which has neither beginning nor ending, and a power which nothing can resist, and this is God. And such as is the Father, such was the Son.

1. This glory is that to which man, in his fallen condition, is most blind. Offer man a Saviour crowned with visible power, or who shall secure wealth or pleasure, who would not acknowledge Him? Christ did indeed offer these. They who should come to Him should conquer sin and reign in heaven; should have spiritual riches and celestial pleasures--but who would purchase these at the price demanded?

2. Pray to God that He may open your eyes to see the glory of Christ and your glorious privilege. (J. Garbett, M. A.)

The glory of Christ

What was it?

I. Not A NIMBUS or halo as seen in pictures, or it would never have been denied. But that of

II. His CHARACTER and life, and therefore open moral and spiritual eyes were needed to see it.

III. His PERFECT WISDOM, which spake as never man spake.

IV. His ALMIGHTY POWER, able to minister to every need and relieve every suffering.

V. His WONDROUS LOVE, which prompted Him to go about doing good.

VI. A glory, therefore, which could only have come down from THE FATHER, and which led the disciples afterwards from the earthly Master to the heavenly Father. (A. J. Joscelyne, M. A.)

The True Tabernacle and its glory

I. LET US BEHOLD THIS TABERNACLING OF GOD WITH US. Two Divine things are more clearly seen in Christ than aught else.

1. Consider them together.

(1) Grace and truth are spoken of in the concrete; not full of the news of grace and truth. Others were that. There is grace in other men; but they have it as water flowing through a pipe: He as water in its fountain. There is truth in others; but in Him dwell the depth, the essence of the fact. And both evermore abide in Him.

(2) Grace and truth are blended. And is no common conjunction. The two rivers unite in one fulness. The grace is truthful grace; not in fiction, fancy, to be hoped for or dreamed of; but grace, every atom of which is fact, redemption which does redeem, pardon which does blot out sin, renewal which actually regenerates. The truth is gracious truth, steeped in love, saturated with mercy.

(3) Grace and truth balanced. He is full of grace, but He has not neglected the sterner quality. There are many who are loving but not faithful; many sternly honest, but not kind. In Christ there is no defect either way. He does not hide the truth, however terrible; but He utters it with infinite compassion. He does not save unjustly, nor proclaim truth unlovingly.

(4) These qualities in Him are at the full. In Him the immeasurable grace of God is treasured, up; and all truth about God and Divine things hath been declared by Him.

2. Take each by itself.

(1) Full of grace. In Exo_34:1-35, the glory of God lay in His grace. So in Christ. This is seen in His Incarnation; in His being made perfect through sufferings, so that He might be a sympathetic High Priest; in His life, words, and actions; in His death, as our substitute and representative; and in His union with His people.

(2) Full of truth; not merely in what He said and promised, but in Himself He is the fulfilment of all the promises; the substance of all the types.

(3) Full of grace and truth as dealing truthfully in matters of grace concerning our salvation; encouraging many gracious hopes which are all truthfully realized; working both in His people.

II. LET US AVAIL OURSELVES OF THIS TABERNACLING.

1. Let us pitch our tents around this central tabernacle, as the Israelites did round theirs.

2. Let us resort to it to obtain grace to help in time of need.

3. Let us abide in joyful, peaceful confidence in Him who is grace and truth to us.

4. Let us tell everybody about it.

5. What manner of people ought we to be among whom Jehovah dwells. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

The glory of Christ beheld!

The greatest glory of the Jewish Church was thai God tabernacled in its midst. The greatest glory of the Tabernacle was the most holy place. The glory of the holy place was the Shekinah. Jesus Christ was Gods Tabernacle, and the surpassing excellence of this Tabernacle is fulness of grace and truth.

I. A FAVOURED PEOPLE. Who are the we?

1. An elect company.

2. A called company. Special in the case of the apostles. General in the case of all believers.

3. An illuminated company. Christs glory not manifest to the rest of mankind.

II. THEIR EXALTED PRIVILEGE. Beheld His glory: not heard or read of. Many were the privileges of the disciples, but this excelled them all. How can we behold?

1. By faith.

2. Experience.

3. Communion.

III. A MOST BLESSED VISION.

1. Of Christs complex person as God and man.

2. Of the motive for which He undertook His redeeming work.

3. Of His self-sacrifice.

4. Of His endurance and perseverance.

5. Of His triumph.

IV. THE TESTIMONY WHICH WE WHO HAVE SEEN HIS GLORY ARE SURE TO BEAR. That He is

1. The only-begotten of the Father.

2. Full of grace.

3. Full of truth. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Beholding Christs glory

The noblest objects never disclose their best meaning at first sight. Sir Joshua Reynolds says that when he visited Italy to make the acquaintance of the celebrated masterpieces, he was much cast down. The renowned masters maintained towards him a quiet and dignified silence; they refused to confide to him their thoughts. He gazed steadfastly and could not behold their glory. Persevering, however, the pictures gradually began to raise their veils, and permit him to have an occasional peep at their rare beauty: they softly whispered to him a few of their secrets; and as he continued unwavering in his devotion, they at last flung away their reserve, showed themselves with an open face, and revealed to him the wealth of beautiful ideas that was lodged in them. As with pictures, so with characters. The diviner the life, the closer the inspection requisite to understand it. If we begin in the remote past, with Samson and Hercules, we shall not experience any very formidable difficulties in grasping the principle which fashioned their characters. The story of their lives is comparatively simple, having strength for a foundation. But as we wend our way down to later times, we come across more complex characters; new factors come into operation; and the process of analysis is harder of a successful accomplishment. But of all characters, ancient or modern, none demand so much intent gazing as that of Jesus Christ. Potences perfectly novel in the history of the world exert their subtle influence; the human and the Divine, the grace and the truth, are so closely associated, that not at once do we grasp the radical idea, and perceive its subdued, tempered beauty. The depth and manifoldness of Christs character form the reason for the well-nigh two hundred lives and harmonies which have been launched upon the world. A difficult character to understand fully, for its beauty only grows upon us by degrees. Every age discovers a new trait; every fresh generation perceives a fresh excellence; and thus from age to age He increases in loveliness in the estimation of men. He continues to reveal to the loving earnest gaze His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. (J. C. Jones, D. D.)

Beholding the glory of Christ

Though the Israelites were not able to look on the face of Moses, we saw the glory of the only-begotten. No one indeed could see His glory who was not healed by His humiliation; for there had flown into mans eyes, as it were, dust from the earth; the eye itself had become diseased, and earth was sent to heal it again; the flesh had blinded man, the flesh restores him; the soul, by consenting to carnal affection, had become carnal; hence the eye of the mind had been blinded: then the Physician made for us ointment; He came in such wise, as that by the flesh He destroyed the corruption of the flesh. Thus the Word was made flesh, that we might be able to say, we saw His glory. (Augustine.)

Full of grace and truth

The fulness of Christ

It was fulness in presence of the worlds immeasurable need; fulness that stood in contrast with the emptiness of men. The scribe and the Pharisee, the philosopher and the guide into the paths of pleasure, the bringer forth of things new and the bringer forth of things old, whatever their pretensions, alike failed to satisfy the cravings of human hearts, so manifold and deep, and left them sighing, Who will show us any good? Even the sacred ordinances of the Old Covenant, out of which it was designed that with joy men should draw water as from the wells of salvation, had been turned very largely into mere outward ceremonies, and the sacred services into mere bodily exercise --reminding one of the process of dropping buckets into empty wells, and drawing nothing up. The Word is made flesh, and sojourns among men; and they find in Him the very fulness of the Godhead bodily. (J. Culross, D. D.)

The character of Jesus

In the life of Jesus we see

I. INEFFABLE GRACE combined with RESOLUTE FIRMNESS.

1. His character is such as to forbid undue familiarity. Avowed infidels, as well as Christians, feel almost reverent in its hallowed presence.

2. But He was as remarkable for His firmness. Strength is necessary to greatness. Christ possessed tenacity of purpose in an extraordinary degree. His spirit did not faint because of the magnitude of the task He undertook. He successfully stood the test of adversity and of prosperity.

II. The FEMININE AND MASCULINE VIRTUES in sweetest harmony. He was made of a woman, which explains partly those fine feminine traits discoverable in His character. Every great man, especially every poetic genius, is strongly marked by womanly softness and delicacy in countenance, feelings, life. Christ had them pre-eminently.

III. FEELINGS AND KNOWLEDGE, heart and intellect, in perfect accord. No one can read the gospels without being deeply impressed by the exquisite sensibility of Christ. There is more heart in the gospels than in all other books put together. The heart was systematically crushed under ancient forms of civilization. Sensibility was deemed a sign of weakness. Hence men were carefully trained to repress, and, if possible, eradicate all feeling. Witness stoicism. How different with Christ! In Him we witness a dignity, a loftiness, a nobility which never show to better advantage than when compared with the highest ideals of Greek culture. But at the same time He evinces a depth of emotion and delicacy of feeling quite foreign to them. The Greek impresses us with his cleverness: Christ with His greatness and goodness. The Greek sought mind in all things; taught by Christ, the Christian seeks a heart.

IV. THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VIRTUES in beautiful proportion. The hardest of tasks is to suffer in a right spirit. Christ taught it and practised it. No one was ever more energetic in opposition to wickedness; but what strikes us more forcibly is His unprecedented meekness under wrong; and thus He originated a new type of goodness.

V. THE REAL KISSING THE IDEAL. He realized in daily life the highest ideal humanity has ever been able to conceive, the divinest poetry and the sternest reality. Mans ideas were always far in advance of his noblest achievements; in Christ both go hand in hand.

VI. THE HUMAN GENTLY MELTING INTO THE DIVINE.

He moves before our vision in the form of a man; we look inquiringly and affectionately, and then we penetrate the outward guise and behold the inner splendour. He was a man, no doubt; but no man ever looked more like God. The character of Christ can be transferred in its integrity to the Lord of Hosts without degrading the loftiest ideal of Him. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The influence of Christs grace and truth upon art

In classical times the prevailing form of art was sculpture. The hard stone was fetched from the rock, and carefully chiselled and elaborately polished to represent the human form divine. Their sculpture exhibited a simplicity, a severity, a chaste grandeur which far outstrips all efforts of modern ages. Indeed, a vast change has imperceptibly stolen over the minds of men, which is seen in the fact that whereas sculpture was the prevailing form of art among the Greeks, painting is the prevailing form among Christians. We have not been able to cope with the ancients in marble, but it is generally admitted, I believe, that we have greatly surpassed them on canvas. But why has painting superseded sculpture? Because painting is more feminine, and therefore more capable of expressing the softer, gentler virtues. It is the female face of art. One may say with tolerable accuracy that fine art is the creation of Christianity. Art there unmistakably was in the world before--splendid, severe, pure, strong; but we can hardly pronounce it fine. Christianity has softened men, it has softened manners, it has softened art. The heathen ideal was truth; the Christian ideal is grace and truth. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

Jesus Christ the fountain of Grace

The glory of the Mediator consisted, not in His wisdom, by which He knew what was in man--nor in His power, to which a material universe rendered homage--but in His grace, in the kindness of His heart, in the complete and perfect benevolence of His character. In this respect He was the brightness of His Fathers glory. His heart was an overflowing fountain of love, a plenary spring of goodness, which perpetually sent forth streams of grace, to bless a barren and desert world. He is exhibited to us in this character, as the Head of the gospel dispensation, as the Founder of a new order of things, as the Author and Finisher of our faith.

I. TO ILLUSTRATE THE GRACIOUS CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST. He was full of grace.

1. The gracious character of the Saviour appears from the great design of His dispensation. His benevolent mind contemplated a world lost and ruined by sin; a whole race of creatures who were in rebellion against God, and exposed to the penalties of a just and righteous law. His own happiness was unaffected by the apostacy of creatures. He was in the bosom of His father. He was with God, and was God. There was nothing in His immaculate purity, nothing in His essential rectitude, or in His inviolable adherence to justice, that dictated a dispensation of mercy. The world might have perished, its inhabitants might have been lost, and His glory would have been without a stain, His felicity unimpaired. It was only the plenitude of His grace, only the promptings of infinite kindness, that induced Him to undertake our salvation. Believers are destined to a heavenly inheritance, to live with Christ, to enter into His joys, to share in His dominion, to be for ever with the Lord. He effects a great deliverance, and bestows an infinite wisdom. He is full of grace.

2. From the means adopted to secure the design of His mission. The intensity of kindness may always be measured by the sacrifices to which it leads. What think you would be the testimony of the widow of Nain to the gracious character of our Lord? But these miracles of mercy were but the appropriate appendages to His mission; they were not its objects; they were but blessings which He scattered in His way to suffering and to death. In order that suffering on behalf of others should indicate kindness it must be voluntary. It testifies to benevolence of disposition, only in as much as it is a free-will offering. So strong was His kindness, so intense His love, so determined His compassion, that He submitted to the agonizing, the ignominious death of the cross, to accomplish the salvation of sinners. This was compassion like a God.

3. From the characters of those whose salvation He sought. They were all sinners, but many of them were the worst of sinners. But the grace of His heart was not expended by its earthly efforts; after He ascended to glory, He manifested in an equal degree the forbearing kindness of His heart, the distinguishing sovereignty of His grace. Who would have thought that the kindness and grace of our Lord would have rested upon such a man as Saul?

4. From those supplies of grace which are afforded to the believer, from his conversion to his reception into a world of glory. The work of grace would not have been complete had it terminated with the renewal of our hearts. The life of the Saviour imparts must be sustained by the same energy.

5. From the benignant character of His religion.

II. LET US ATTEMPT AN IMPROVEMENT OF OUR SUBJECT.

1. The gracious character of the Saviour is an encouragement to sinners to come to Him.

2. The gracious character of the Saviour will aggravate the punishment of the finally impenitent.

3. The gracious character of the Saviour is a reason why His people should continually apply to Him.

4. Finally, it is the duty of Christians to imitate the example of Christ. It should ever be their aim to be full of grace, to cherish a kind and generous disposition to others. It is not for the Christian, who has had so much done for him, and who constantly needs more, to be a selfish man. (S. Summers, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 1:14. And the Word, &c. — And in order to raise us, sinful creatures, to this dignity and happiness, the Divine and Eternal Word, by a most amazing condescension; was made flesh — That is, united himself to our inferior and miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities. If it be inquired how he did this, we answer, in the language of the Creed, “Not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” Observe, reader, the whole manhood, the complete human nature, consisting of soul and body, and not the body only. Accordingly, we read, (Luk 2:52,) that Jesus increased in wisdom as well as stature, having, as Man 1:1 st, A finite understanding, which gradually received information and knowledge. 2d, A will of his own, distinct from, but resigned to, the will of his heavenly Father; in consequence of which he could say, I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me: Father, not my will, but thine be done. 3d, All the innocent human passions and affections, such as, desire; with desire have I desired to eat this passover, &c., Luk 22:15 : aversion; Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, Luk 22:42 : hope; for the felicity set before him, and expected by him, he endured the cross, &c., Heb 12:2 : fear; he was heard in that he feared, Heb 5:7 : joy; Jesus rejoiced in spirit, Luk 10:21: sorrow; my soul is exceeding sorrowful, Mat 26:38 : a peculiar human love; the disciple whom Jesus loved, Joh 21:20 : all which faculties belonged not to his body, but to his soul. When we read, therefore, that he was made flesh, partook of flesh and blood, (Heb 2:14,) came in the flesh, (1Jn 4:2,) was manifest in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16,) had a body prepared for him, (Heb 10:5,) we must remember, that the whole human nature is intended to be signified by such expressions, and not the body only. It is, however, justly observed by Bishop Horne on this point, that “As the Divinity is an object by no means within the grasp of the human understanding, it were absurd to expect an adequate idea of the mode of its union with flesh, expressed in the text by the word made; (εγενετο;) The word was made flesh. It sufficeth, in this case, to maintain the general truth of the proposition against those, who, in different ways, by subtlety and sophistry, have laboured to oppugn and destroy. We must not, with Arius, deny the Saviour to be truly God, because he became man; nor assert, with Apollinaris, that he was not really man, because he was also God. We must not, with Nestorius, rend Christ asunder, and divide him into two persons; nor, after the example of Eutyches, confound in his person those natures which should be distinguished. These were the four capital errors, which, in the earlier ages, harassed and distracted the Christian church, on the point of the incarnation; and in opposition to which, the four most famous ancient general councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were called. Whatever was by them decreed, either in declaration of Christian belief, or refutation of heresy, may all be comprised, as judicious Hooker well noteth, in four words, αληθως, τελεως, αδιαιρετως, ασυνχυτως, ‘truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; truly God, perfectly man, indivisibly one person, distinctly two natures.’ ‘Within the compass of which,’ said he, ‘I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch the person of Jesus Christ, (whether they have risen in these latter days, or in any age heretofore,) may be with great facility brought to confine themselves.’ Book 5. sect. 54. The apostle to the Hebrews, writing on the subject of the incarnation, thus expresseth himself: ου γαρ δηπου αγγελων επιλαμβανεται, αλλα σπερματος Αβρααμ επιλαμβανεται, He taketh not hold of angels, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham; he took, or assumed, the manhood into God. As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. The soul is not turned into, nor compounded with, the body; yet they two, though distinct in nature, form one man. The natures are preserved, without confusion; the person is entire, without division. ‘Sic factum est Caro, ut maneret verbum; non immutando quod erat, sed assumendo quod non erat; nostra auxit, sua non minuit; nec sacramentum pietatis detrimentum Deitatis.’ Concil. Chalced.” — Horne’s Sermons, vol. 1. pp. 203-205.

And dwelt among us — Not making us a transient visit for an hour, or a day, or appearing occasionally, as he did formerly, but making his abode with us for a considerable time. The original expression, εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν, properly signifies, he tabernacled among us, alluding, as some think, to his dwelling, in ancient times, first in the tabernacle, and afterward in the temple, where he manifested his presence and glory. His human nature was the true tabernacle, or temple of his Deity, and therein resided the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col 2:9. Hence he says, Destroy this temple, meaning his body, and I will build it up in three days. Beza renders the word, Commoratus est, he sojourned, or tarried for a while. Doddridge reads, he pitched his tabernacle: Wesley, he tabernacled. Any of which readings give the primitive signification of the verb σκηνοω, from σκηνη, a tent or tabernacle. But words often come insensibly to deviate from their first signification, and this has evidently happened to the verb now spoken of, which frequently signifies to dwell, or inhabit, in the largest sense, without any limitation from the nature or duration of the dwelling. Hence it is applied, (Rev 12:12; and, Rev 13:6) to the inhabitants of heaven, and is made use of to express God’s abode with his people after the resurrection, which is always represented as eternal, Rev 21:3. And the noun σκηνη, itself, from which the verb is derived, is used (Luk 16:9) for a permanent habitation, and joined with the epithet, αιωνιος, eternal. As the term, however, admits of both interpretations, and may be either rendered, to dwell, or to sojourn, and as our Lord’s life on earth, and especially his ministry, was of short duration, he may much more properly be said to have sojourned, than to have dwelt among us. And we — Who are now recording these things, we his disciples, beheld — Greek, εθεασαμεθα, (the word used 1Jn 1:1,) contemplated his glory; and that with so strict an attention, that, from our own personal knowledge, we can testify it was, in every respect, such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father — For it shone forth, not only in his transfiguration, and in his continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct, through the whole course of his life. In all he appeared full of truth and grace — He was in himself most benevolent and upright: made those ample discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do; and exhibited the most substantial blessings, whereas that was but a shadow of good things to come. Observe, reader, we are all by nature false, depraved, and children of wrath, to whom both truth and grace are unknown; but we are made partakers of them, through him, when we believe in him with our hearts unto righteousness.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THRID SECTION

The Incarnation of the Logos, the Appearance of the real Shekinah among the Faithful

Joh_1:14-18

(1) Incarnation Of The Logos, Or The Absolutely New Birth. Appearance Of The Real Shekinah, Joh_1:14. (2) Testimony Of John In General, Joh_1:15. (3) Experience Of Believers, Or Grace, Joh_1:16. (4) Antithesis Between Moses And Christ, The Law Of The Old Testament And Christianity, In Their Authority And Work, Joh_1:17. (5) Antithesis Between The Whole Old World And Christ In Their Relation To God, Joh_1:18

14And the Word was made [became, ἐγένετο] flesh, and dwelt [sojourned, tabernacled, ἐσχήνωσεν76] among us, (and we beheld his glory [the real Shekinah], the glory as of the [an] only-begotten of [from, παρά the Father,) [omit parenthesis]77 full of 15grace and truth. John bare [beareth]78 witness of him, and cried [crieth],79 saying, This was he of whom I spake [said], He that cometh after me [behind me] is preferred 16[hath come to be] before me; for he was before me [lit. first of me]. And [For]80 of his fulness have all we received [did we all receive], and [even] grace for grace. 17For the law was given by [through] Moses, (but) grace and truth came [came to pass] by [through] Jesus Christ. 18No man hath seen God at any time [No one hath ever seen God]; the only begotten Son [God],81 which [who] is in [toward] the bosom of the Father [of the nature of the Father and in his full confidence and service] he hath declared him [hath interpreted all).82

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Joh_1:14 contains the central idea of the Prologue, the Gospel, and the system of Christianity, yea, central idea of the whole history of the world; for ancient history before the incarnation was a preparation for Christ as the fulfillment of all types, prophecies and nobler aspirations of men; history after that event is subservient to the spread and triumph of Christianity till Christ be all in all. The theology of John is Christological throughout (comp. 1Jn_4:2-3); that of Paul, in the Romans and Galatians, is anthropological and soteriological, but the Colossians and Philippians are likewise Christological, and in 1Ti_3:16 Paul makes the incarnation the central fact of our religion. But the idea of the incarnation, the great mystery of godliness, should not be confined to the mere birth of Christ, but extended to His whole divine human life, death and resurrection; it is “God manifest in the flesh.” Bengel discovers a threefold antithetic correspondence between vers.1 and John 4 :

THE WORD

Was in the beginningbecameGodfleshWith Godand dwelt among us.—P. S.]Joh_1:14 And.—This καὶ has been explained in very different ways: as equivalent, for example to γάρ (for)83 or οὖ (therefore),84 or as signifying the condition of Christ’s becoming man. But it denotes an actual historical advance85 not, however, as De Wette takes it, upon Joh_1:9, but, as Lücke, upon Joh_1:11. First, the universal advent was spoken of; then the theocratical advent in the Old Testament; now, after indicating the transitional distinction of consecrated human birth and birth from God, which were continually approaching each other, the Evangelist comes to the point of incarnation, where birth and new or divine birth coincide.

The Word became flesh.—In this finishing sentence the subject is again named. Not a life only, or a light, from the Logos, was made flesh, but the whole Logos as Life and Light (see Col_1:19; Col_2:9). He became σάρξ; the strongest expression for becoming veritable man.

[This grand sentence: ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο, stands alone in the Bible; but the same idea in somewhat different forms of expression occurs repeatedly, viz.: 1Jn_4:2 (ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθώς, Christ having come in the flesh); 1Ti_3:16 (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, God was manifested in the flesh); Rom_1:3 (γενόμενος ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, born from the seed of David according to the flesh); Joh_8:3 (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, in the likeness of sinful flesh); Php_2:7 (ἑν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, being made in the likeness of men); Heb_2:14 (where it is said that Christ, like other men, partook of αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, of blood and flesh). Flesh (σάρξ) is a strong Hebraizing term (בָּשָׂר) for human nature in its weakness, frailty and mortality. Comp. the English, mortal (the German, der Sterbliche), for man. When used of man, the idea of moral weakness or sinfulness is also often implied, but not necessarily. In the passages where it is ascribed to Christ, sin must be excluded in view of the unanimous testimony of the Apostles to the sinlessness of Jesus. The term is more, comprehensive than body (σῶμα), which is used in distinction from soul (ψυχή) and spirit νοῦς or πνεῦμα), while flesh sometimes includes both; it is more concrete and emphatic than man (ἄνθρωπος), and expresses more strongly the infinite condescension of the Logos, the identity of His human nature with our own, and the universalness of His manhood. Yet it is as correct to speak of Christ’s becoming man (ἐνανθρώπησις, Menschwerdung) as of His becoming flesh (ἐνσάρκωσις, incarnatio, incarnation, Fleischwerdung). The Logos assumed, not an individual man or a single human personality, but human nature into union with His præ-existent divine personality. He moreover assumed human nature, not apparently and transiently (according to the Gnostic Docetic view), but really and permanently; nor partially (as Apollinaris taught), but totally, with all its essential constituents as created by God, body, soul and spirit. For Christ everywhere appears as a full man (comp. Joh_8:40 : “Ye seek to kill me, a man who,” etc.), and He is emphatically called “the Son of Man;” John speaks expressly of the soul (ψυχή) of Christ, Joh_12:27, and of His spirit (πνεῦμα), Joh_11:33; Joh_13:21; Joh_19:30; comp. Mat_27:50. In the O. T., too, flesh often includes the moral or spiritual nature of man, comp. Lev_17:11; Deu_12:15; Job_12:10. It is not the flesh as opposed to the spirit, that is here intended, but human nature, as distinct from the divine. The flesh is the outward tabernacle and the visible representative of the whole man to our senses.86 Finally Christ assumed human nature, not in its primitive state of innocence, but in its fallen, suffering, mortal state, yet without sin (which, does not originally and necessarily belong to man); for He came to save this fallen nature. He was subject to temptation, or temptable, and was perfected through suffering (Heb_2:14-18; Heb_4:15), but He was neither σαρκικός (Rom_7:14), nor ψυκικός (1Co_2:14). He appeared not “in the flesh of sin,” but only “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom_8:2). He bore all the consequences of sin without a share of personal sin and guilt. This amazing miracle of His love is best expressed by the term: The Logos became flesh.87 Comp. 2Co_8:9 : “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye by His poverty might become rich.” At His second advent Christ will appear as man indeed, yet no more in the likeness of sinful flesh, nor in weakness and poverty, but in glory and immortality (comp, Heb_9:28, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας). P. S.]

It imputes a Judaistic [and Apollinarian] nonsense to the Evangelist, to represent him as saying that the Logos took only the human σάρξ, and not a reasonable human soul (Praxeas, Köstlin, Zeller88). The evidence of the contrary lies not only in the impossibility of conceiving a human σάρξ without ψυχή and such a ψυχή without πνεῦμα (see Meyer, p. 65), but especially in the Old Testament usage of the term flesh to denote human nature (Isaiah 40); to say nothing of John’s express designation of the ψυχή of Christ in Joh_12:27, and the πνεῦμα in Joh_11:33; Joh_13:21; Joh_19:30. But while the half-Baur school thus construes John’s statement of the incarnation Judaistically, Hilgenfeld construes it Gnostically: giving Christ (according to the Valentinian system) a real σάρξ, indeed, but such as was exalted above material limitations. Meyer (against Frommann and others) contests without good reason the anti-Docetic force of this expression; though certainly the main force of it is rather anti-Gnostic; for the incipient Gnosticism first asserted an external connection of σάρξ and λόγος, against which the verb ἐγένετο would be more emphatic than the substantive σάρξ.

With the idea of the σάρξ comes also the idea of passibility, but by no means the idea of any weakness of the flesh arising from sin; for Scripture recognizes the flesh in three stages: (1) pure in paradise; (2) weakened by sin; (3) sanctified by the Spirit; and the Logos could become flesh only in the latter sense.

All this carries in it the antithesis between His incarnation and His eternal, immaterial existence; yet neither in the sense of Pantheism, which makes His incarnation an accident (Baur), nor in the sense of the mediæval scholasticism, which sees in it, even as incarnation, a humiliation of the Logos even into an incongruous, heterogeneous nature. The historical humiliation of Christ coincides indeed with His historical incarnation; yet the two are to be distinguished.

The supernatural birth of Christ is unquestionably implied in this passage, in that the origin of Christ as God-Man stands in opposition to the natural births previously described, all which, as such, needed to be completed by the birth from God (contra Meyer).

[Became, ἐγένετο.—Not was, ἦν, as in Joh_1:1, nor ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, as is said of John, Joh_1:6, who had no existence before his birth, but the præ-existent, personal Logos became flesh.89 Comp. LXX., Gen_2:7 : ἐγένετοὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴς ζῶσαν. The word denotes a single and completed act. The Logos was not converted or changed into flesh, nor simply associated with flesh, but endued with human nature, which He assumed once for all into personal and perpetual union with Him.90 The Logos was henceforth Christ Jesus, the God-Man (θεάνθρωπος), and this not only for a transient purpose, but He continues so forever.—P. S.]

Tabernacled among us.—God dwelt as Jehovah in Israel, hidden in the most holy place of the tabernacle (σκηνή); now in the Logos He has tabernacles (ἐσκήνωσεν) among the disciples in the midst of the people, thus making the disciples themselves His tabernacle.91 (On among us, ἐν ἡμῖν, see Joh_1:16. The disciples and witnesses of Christ are meant, but as the central point of the people, and of all mankind). The expression evidently alludes to the Old Testament dwelling of God in Israel. The idea of that dwelling of Jehovah in the holy tabernacle (Exo_25:8; Exo_29:45) is enlarged even in the prophets (Isa_4:5; Isa_57:15). Now the Lord has taken His dwelling among His own people themselves. This reference is confirmed by what follows. “The Targums likewise represent the Word (מימרא) as the Shekinah (שּׁבינא), and the Messiah as the manifestation of the latter” (Meyer).92

And we beheld his glory.—Meyer rightly maintains, against Lücke, De Wette and Tholuck, that this main thought cannot be read as a parenthesis. Such reading has been occasioned by the nominative πλήρης93 χάριτος, at the close of the verse, referring to λόγος. According to Baumgarten-Crusius and Meyer [Brückner, Alford], this nominative refers, by a solecism, to αὐτοῦ, and serves to give more independent prominence to the descriptive clause. But the clause may also be read as a declaration prompted by the contemplation; ἦν being understood.94

We beheld.—The beholding has faith for its organ; it is not a merely outward vision, still less merely inward; nor does it perceive the glory of Christ only in single miracles or in a transfiguration, but in His whole life (comp. 1Jn_1:1). [θεάομαι moreover is richer than ὁράω, and means properly to behold or contemplate with admiration and delight. John speaks here in the name of all the Apostles and eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. The plural adds force to the statement, as in Joh_21:24; 1Jn_1:1; 2Pe_1:16. Faith lifts the veil of Christ’s humanity and worships His divine glory, while to unbelief He is a mere man. Hengstenberg refers to several passages from Isaiah (Isa_40:5; Isa_66:2; Isa_66:18), in which the beholding of the glory of Jehovah is promised. John recognized Jehovah in the incarnate Logos (Joh_12:41).—P. S.]

His glory, δόξα, כָּבוֹד.—The real appearances of the divine glory in the Old Testament must be distinguished from its symbolical signs. Its signs are the cloud and tempest on Sinai, the pillar of smoke and the pillar of fire, the cherubim over the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. Its real manifestations are, from the nature of the Old Testament, transient, and given in visions: manifestations of the Angel of the Lord (see above), or of the Lord Himself attended by a host of angels, Daniel 7. The manifestation of the Angel of the Lord is, in its nature, connected with the manifestation of His glory. The later Jewish theology has designated these manifestations as the Shekinah.95 In Christ the Shekinah appears in full reality.

[We must distinguish four stages of this glory: 1) the præ-existent divine glory of the Logos with the Father, Joh_17:5; John 2) the preparatory shadowy manifestation of His glory in the Old Testament, as seen by the prophetic eye of Isaiah 12:41; Isaiah 3) its visible revelation in human form in the life and work of the incarnate Word, which shone from every miracle, Joh_2:11; John 4) the final and perfect manifestation of His divine-human glory in eternity in which the believers will share, Joh_17:24.—P. S.]

When Meyer, with Hofmann (Schriftbew. II.1, p. 21), makes the incarnation of Christ itself equivalent to His humiliation, and so conceives even theanthropic existence as distinct from simple divine, he has no Scripture for it, either in Joh_12:41; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:22; Joh_17:24, or in Php_2:6. Unquestionably the human δόξα of Christ in His earthly life was to be relatively conceived; but only (1) in that He entered into the historical conditions of humanity, especially into subjection to the law, (2) in that the life of the first man waited in Him for its completion in the higher, imperishable manifestation of the second.

The glory [emphatically repeated] as of an only begotten [δόξανὡςμουογενοῦςπαρὰπατρός].—A closer description of the δόξα. It was alone in its kind, and could be characterized only thus: as of the only begotten. The ὡς expresses literally not the reality (Euthym. Zigabenus: ὄντως), but in similitude, the idea of the only begotten, to which the appearance of Christ corresponded, while assuredly it first awakened that idea and brought it to view.96 Only the μονογενής could manifest Himself so (Joh_1:18; Joh_3:6; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9).97 That John has the term from Christ Himself, is shown by Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18. Paul’s πρωτότοκος, first begotten [Col_1:15; Heb_1:6], is a parallel. Both terms denote not only the trinitarian relation, of the Son of God, but also His theanthropic relation. In the expression of John, however, the incommunicable relation of Christ to God predominates; in that of Paul, His incommunicable relation to the world. In the one, the ontological idea of the Trinity rules; in the other, the economic and soteriological. The notion of the only begotten is closely akin to that of the beloved (ἀγαπητός), not identical with it as Kuinoel holds. The word denotes indeed, according to Meyer, the only begotten; but it thereby makes Christ also the peculiarly begotten (Tholuck), who is the principle of all other births and regenerations.98 The reference of μονογενοῦς to δόξα (Erasmus and others) is wholly without support.

From the Father [belongs to μονογενοῦς, not to δόξαν.—Origen: ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. His origin and issue is from the essence of the Father. His coming forth from the Father (Joh_6:46; Joh_7:29; Joh_16:27) does not exclude, however, His continuance in the heaven of the Father (Joh_3:13; comp. Joh_1:18). His human relations do not supersede His divine.

Full of grace and truth.—Comp. Joh_1:17. The result of the beholding, uttered in an exclamation of astonishment, expressing the main forms in which the δόξα was seen in Him. He was full of grace and truth. Not only did He seem all grace and truth, but grace and truth seemed concentrated in Him. And this was His glory, for grace and truth are the main attributes of Jehovah in the Old Testament, since the Messianic spirit recognized Him as pre-eminently the God of redemption (חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת [in the LXX.: πολυέλεος καὶ ἀλμθινός], Exo_34:6; Psa_25:10; Psa_36:6). This reference to the Old Testament is groundlessly doubted by Meyer;99 for though אֱמֶת denotes also faithfulness, yet faithfulness and truth are one in the divine nature; and the rendering of חֶסֶד by ἔλεος in the Septuagint decides nothing, since ἔλεος finds its more precise equivalent in רַחֲמִים. But Meyer well observes that ἀλήθεια answers to the light-nature (φῶς), χάρις to the life-nature (ζωή) of the Logos. Of course the life is as much concerned in the truth of Christ, as the light in the grace; the latter notions are more soteriologically concrete, than the former. Christ, as absolute redemption, was pure grace; as absolute revelation, pure truth. [Christ is the personal Truth, Joh_14:6, and is in the Apoc. called the ἀληθινός, Joh_3:7; Joh_19:11, is whom there is a perfect harmony between appearance and reality, claim and being, promise and fulfilment.—P. S.]

Joh_1:15. John beareth witness of him.—Having described the advent of Christ to its consummation in the incarnation, the Evangelist comes to the testimony of John concerning Christ. He first introduced John’s mission to bear witness of Christ, Joh_1:6; now he comes to his actual testimony concerning Christ, and that as a testimony even to His præ-existence and His higher nature. Afterwards follows the testimony of the Baptist concerning the Messianic (Joh_1:19) and the soteriological (Joh_1:29 sqq.) character of Jesus.

Beareth witness.—Present. John’s testimony is perpetually living, active and valid. Its continued validity in the present rests upon the past fact that he cried only in Israel, and uttered what he had to say of Christ (κέκραγε λέγων). Hence Christ could appeal to his testimony, Joh_5:33; Mat_21:24. Κράζειν, elsewhere also, Joh_7:28; Joh_7:37, etc., for loud public proclamation. There is no reason for taking the perfect in a present sense. [Comp. Text. Notes 3 and 4.—P. S.]

This was he of whom I said.—Οὖτοςἦν. He it was. Not because John is conceived as speaking in the present. In the testimony of John two periods must be distinguished: before and after the baptism of Jesus. Before the baptism, he preached the Messiah in His higher characters, as approaching, but knew not yet the Messianic individual; after the baptism he could point to Jesus and say: This was He, of whom I declared that præ-existence. Thus this second stage of his testimony is here in hand.

He that cometh after me.—[ ὁ ὀπίσω μουἐρχόμενο ς, ἔμπροσθένμουγέγονεν. A pithy oxymoron exciting attention and reflection, repeated Joh_1:27; Joh_1:30, and probably suggested by the prophetic passage, Mal_3:2 : “Lo, I am sending My messenger, and he hath prepared a way before Me.” The following words, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν, which must be referred to the præ-existence of Christ (comp. ἦν, Joh_1:1; Joh_1:9-10), not to the superiority of rank (which would require ἐστί), contain the clue to the enigmatic and paradoxical sentence. The meaning may be thus explained: My successor (in time) has become (or has come to be) my predecessor (in rank); for He is before me (even in time), being absolutely the first, viz.: the eternal Son of God; while I am only a man born in time and sent to prepare the way for Him.—P. S.]

“He that comes after me, has come before me.” Meyer.100 But it means: was made, has become(γέγονε) before me. John appeared before Christ as His fore-runner and herald; as to his progressive approach in His Old Testament advent, Christ was before him. His coming forth pervaded the Old Testament, and was the impelling power and cause of all prophecy, even the prophecy of John. And this earlier coming had its ground in His earlier (absolutely early, eternal) existence; hence ὅτιπρῶτόςμουἦν. These are, indeed, primarily antitheses of time. But the designation of the one coming after, as being before, implies at the same time a deeper and higher principle of life. According to Aristotle, the posterius in the real development is the prius in the idea or the value of the life. This is true of man in relation to the animal world, of the New Testament in relation to the Old, of Christ in relation to the Baptist. The ἐντιμότερός μου ἐστί of Chrysostom, therefore, is involved in the clause; while Meyer is right, against Lücke, Tholuck and others, in not taking this for its primary sense. Theἔμπροσθένμουγ έγονεν, of course, means not was before me (Luther and others), but: has become [or come to be] before me (against Meyer). Commentators have not been able to reconcile themselves to this γέγονεν, because they have not yet fairly reconciled themselves to the Old Testament incarnation of Christ. Hence Meyer: it is equal to προέρχεσθαι; Luthardt: He who at first came after me, as if He were my disciple, is since come before me, that is, become my master. Baumgarten-Crusius: of the ideal præ-existence of Christ in the divine counsels. This interpretation lies in the right direction, but misses the fact that the præ-existence of the Logos was personal and real, and that the ideal præ-existence of the God-Man was from the first dynamically real, the power of the creation, the central force and the core of the Old Testament (the “roct” of Isaiah), and in Israel was in a continual process of incarnation, which was objectively represented beforehand in the Angel of the Lord.

For he was before me [ὅτιπ ρῶτόςμουἦν].—The eternal præ-existence of Christ is the ground of His theocratic manifestation. Here again Meyer [on account of the ἦν] emphasizes the temporal sense, against the reference of the πρῶτος to rank [which would require ἐστίν], contrary to Chrysostom, Erasmus [Beza, Calvin, Grotius] and many others. He would take the merely temporal conception (i.e., the præ-existence of the Logos); hence πρῶτος in the sense of πρότερος. The comparative, however, could hardly stand here. Such præ-existence itself involves the higher, even divine dignity.101

Meyer justly holds, against Strauss [De Wette, Scholten] and others, that the Baptist could certainly have from Mal_3:1; Isa_6:1 ff. and Dan_7:13 ff., the idea of the præ-existence of Christ, which even the Rabbins attested. [Besides, we must assume a special revelation given to John at the baptism of Christ, Joh_1:33.—P. S.]

Joh_1:16. For [text, rec.: And] of his fulness did we all receive.—Undoubtedly the testimony of the Baptist continued, as Origen,102 Chrysostom [Erasmus, Luther, Mel.] and others take it. We adjust the ἡμεῖς πάντες by referring it to the Old Testament saints (Joh_1:12), and particularly to the prophets, whose line John closed.

From the fullness of Christ have we all drawn our supply, says the last of the prophets, and (even) grace for grace. The last, best, highest, which each one in the end received from His fulness, was grace. Thus the Old Testament experience of salvation looked to its completion in the New Testament. Comp. 1Pe_1:11-12.103

Of his fulness.—See Joh_1:14, πλήρης [also Col_1:19; Col_2:9, according to which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelled in Christ bodily; Eph_1:23, where the church as the body of Christ is called “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.”—P. S.].—That the idea of the πλήρωμα does not necessarily originate in Gnostic soil (as Schwegler and others [of the Tübingen School] hold), to pass thence into a pseudo-Johannean Gospel, a more thorough knowledge of the history of religion might abundantly teach.104 The heathen philosophy knows only an ideal pleroma as the basis of things; in the actual world all proceeds in broken emanations in infinitum, upon the premises of pantheism. But the idea of the real pleroma was an essential principle of the Old Testament religion and promise. In the Messiah the old piece-work was to become a whole,

shadows were to become reality, revelation was to be finished. See Isa_11:1; [comp. Heb_1:1-2] Hence even Matthew, at the outset, speaks repeatedly of positive fulfilment, John 2, etc. Likewise all the Evangelists and Apostles in their way; Eph_1:10; Col_2:9; Col_2:17; Col_1:19. The pleroma of Christ in the world corresponds with the pleroma of the Trinity in heaven; it is absolute revelation and religion concluded and consummated in His personality; and it is patent that this idea could be only borrowed by the Gnostics, to be altered and corrupted. The πλήρωμα of Christ is His fullness of being in its revelation, ontologically present, actively demonstrating itself. He had already partially opened Himself in the Old Testament, so that all the prophets might draw from Him. Comp. Joh_10:6 sqq.; 1Pe_1:11-12.

And (even) grace for grace.—And even; not: and that, or: to wit.105—Grace for grace[חֵן עַל חֵן gratiam super gratiam]. Variously interpreted: (1) Starke: The grace of restoration, for the grace lost in paradise. (2) Chrysostom, Lampe, Paulus and others: The grace of the New Testament instead of or after that of the Old.106 (3) Augustine: First justification, then eternal life.107 (4) Bengel and most moderns: One grace after another [ever growing supplies of grace] from the fullness of Christ.108—At the same time, however, the Baptist doubtless thought of the different developments of religious experience in the course of the Old Testament prophecy. Grace was continually assuming new forms. [This remark loses its force if Joh_1:16 gives the words of the Evangelist, not of the Baptist.—P. S.]

Joh_1:17. For the law, etc.—[Antithetic demonstration of Joh_1:16] The antithesis of the Old and New Testaments, as in Paul (Rom_6:14; Rom_7:3; Gal_4:4, etc.]. It must be remembered that both Apostles (and all the Apostles) recognize likewise the unity of the Old and New Testaments. This unity, even according to our text, is Christ Himself, and it is elsewhere in John [ch. Joh_8:56], as well as in Paul (Rom_4:4), represented by Abraham, or by promise and prophecy, also by the prophetic, typical side of the Mosaic law itself. The law, however, as law, constitutes the opposition of the Old Testament to the New. But the law is here placed in a twofold opposition to the New Testament. (1) As against grace, it is the binding commandment, which cannot give life, but by its demand of righteousness works the death of the sinner, either unto life in repentance, or unto death in the judgment, while it is incapable of giving life, expiating, justifying, sanctifying. Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 5; Galatians 3. (2) As against truth or the reality of salvation and of the kingdom of God, it is first only type, prefiguration, symbol; and then, when the reality is come, shadow, Col_3:17; Heb_10:1. Notice also the further antithesis, that the law was given, set forth, laid down (ἐρόθη), as a lifeless statute; grace and truth came, became (ἐγένετο), unfolded themselves as life.109

Grace and truth.110—Grace as the complete New Testament grace of redemption, “in the distinct and solemn sense” [Meyer, p. 93], yet according to its historical progress, which began with Abraham’s righteousness of faith, Gen_15:6.—Truth, as the full truth of life and the full life of truth, the reality and substance of salvation, in contrast with the shadow. [Redeeming grace is opposed to the condemnation, truth to the typical and shadowy character, of the law, of which Bengel says: iram parans et umbram habens.]

Came through Jesus Christ.—In the historical synthesis: Jesus Christ, who is here for the first time called by His full [historical] name [in harmony with the instinctively artistic arrangement of the Prologue],111 the development of the grace also culminates in the absolutely efficient grace of redemption, But as Christ the Logos was from eternity, so also was the grace, as the power of the love and righteousness of God over the foreseen guilt of the world. Development is therefore no more to be ascribed to the grace in itself, than to the Logos in Himself; but the eternal grace, with the eternal Logos, entered into historical development towards incarnation, and the consummation: Christ in Jesus, was also the consummation of the grace. The thing here expressed, therefore, is the historical completion and operation of grace, not as a mere work of Christ (Clement of Alex.), or of God (Origen), but rather as the vital action of God in Christ. Dorschäus: “ἐδόθη et ἐγένετο eleganter distinguuntur, Ebr. III., prius enim organicam causam, posterius, principalem notat,” Yet leaving the Father the first principle.

Joh_1:18. No man hath seen God at any time.—That these words also might have been spoken by John the Baptist, appears from Joh_3:31-32; and that they are to be actually attributed to him, from the fact that the Evangelist evidently distinguishes the testimony concerning Christ which, from Joh_1:15, the Baptist gave in general, and particularly among His disciples, from his next following testimony, Joh_1:19, before the rulers of the Jews.112 Our verse, however, not only particularizes respecting the ἀλήθεια, Joh_1:17 (Meyer), but at the same time enlarges the preceding thoughts. Christ is so truly the fulfiller of grace and truth, that He stands in contrast not only to Moses, but also to the prophets and to the Baptist himself (see Joh_3:31). No man hitherto has seen and revealed God in the sense in which He has seen and revealed Him. Christ, therefore, as fulfilment, is the first veritable revelation.—God is emphatically put first. God, in His interior essence, and in His fulness and full glory, no man hitherto hath seen.—No man—i.e., not only: not even Moses, but also: none of all the prophets, not even the Baptist.—Seen (ἐώρακε). Not merely perfecte cognovit (Kuinoel); nor does the term refer to intuition without visions (Meyer); still less to such a seeing on the part of the Logos, as was suspended by His incarnation. For as to Christ’s seeing of God, this was in its nature at once internal, intuitive beholding and external seeing. When the prophets beheld, they saw not with the outward eye; when they saw, they beheld not in the prophetic way; and all that they in their prophetic moments beheld, was piece-work, which they beheld in its symbolical image. In Christ the prophetic vision became one with the ordinary external vision. He saw in all the outward works of God His Spirit, His personal love; and what He saw in the Spirit, He saw not merely as idea, but as actual divine operation. To Him all sensible seeing was permanently a sublime seeing of the majesty of God, a blissful seeing of the love of the Father. And of this vision of Christ, though it was grounded in the eternity of the Logos, Brückner justly observes that it was not interrupted by the incarnation. See John 3. [The same perfect knowledge of God, Christ claims for Himself alone, Mat_11:27,—a passage which strongly proves the essential harmony of the Christ of the Synoptists with the Christ of John.—P. S.]

The only begotten Son [God]113 who is on (or toward) the bosom of the Father.—With the præ-existence of the Logos before His incarnation, His co-existence during His incarnation, is so simply put, that we can find in these words nothing too high for the theology of the Baptist. [?] If the Baptist elsewhere called Him the One who baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matthew 3), the Bridegroom of the church (Joh_3:29), the One who cometh from heaven, in contrast with all prophets, he thereby designated Him also as the only begotten Son. We may then leave it entirely undecided, how far he actually understood the Sonship of Christ from Psalms 110 and other passages, and whether the term μονογενής does not belong rather to our Evangelist.—Who is on the bosom of the Father [ὁ ὤν εἰς τὸν κὸλπον—not ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ—τοῦπατρός. The preposition εἰς expresses a leaning on, or direction towards, the bosom of the Father, the union of motion and rest in the love of the Only Begotten to the Father.114 Comp. the notes on πρὸς τὸν θεόν, Joh_1:1. The phrase to be (leaning) on the bosom, like the Latin, in sinu or gremio esse, sedere, and the German, Schoosskind, bosom-child, expresses a relation of the closest intimacy and tenderest affection. Compare what is said of the Wisdom (the Logos) in Pro_8:30 : “Then I was near Him as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Bengel remarks: “The bosom here is divine, paternal, fruitful, mild, sweet, spiritual. Men are said to be in the loins (in lumbis) who are yet to be born; they are in the bosom (in sinu) who have been born. The Son was in the bosom of the Father, because He was never-not born (non natus, ἀγέννητος). The highest unity, and the most intimate knowledge from immediate sight, is here signified.”—P. S.].—Acccording to Hofmann115 and Meyer, the Evangelist is speaking here, and speaking of Christ exalted. From this the εἰς τὸν κόλπον is supposed to explain itself as expressing the exaltation. But this would deprive the clause of all force, and reduce it to a pointless, self-neutralizing announcement. If it means: The only begotten Son, who has now ascended to the bosom of the Father, who once preached to us when He was with us,—the relative clause, besides being unmeaning, would be inaccurate; it should read: Who is again in the bosom of the Father. The passage Joh_1:50 does not prove that during the earthly life of Christ such an εἶναι εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός did not belong to Him.116 The antithesis between His being on earth (Joh_1:51) and His being in heaven (Joh_3:13), between His being with the Father (Joh_8:35), representing the Father (Joh_14:9), and being one with the Father (Joh_10:30), and His coming forth from the Father (Joh_16:28), His being alone with the Father in His passion (Joh_16:32), and His being forsaken by God (Mat_27:46), as well as between His glory (c. Joh_1:14) and His being not yet glorified (Joh_7:39),—is to be explained neither by a dualistic separation between the consciousness of the Logos and the consciousness of Jesus, nor by a pantheistic admission of human limitations into the Logos (Thomasius), but by the alternation of Christ’s moods between His self-subsistent relation to God and His self imposed compassionate relation to the world, or between the predominance of self-limiting grace and that of heaven-embracing omnipotence; between the states of humiliation and exaltation in their essential principle and positive spirit. We therefore, with De Wette, take ὤν as a time- less present, and εἰς, after the analogy of the πρὸς τὸν θεόν in Joh_1:1, as expressing the eternal direction of the Son towards the Father, Lücke rightly refers the being in the bosom of the Father, or for the Father, to the incarnate Logos, as He here appears in the definite character of the only begotten Son. Following the common acceptation, Tholuck considers the figure as borrowed from the place of fellowship at table, at the right hand, Joh_13:23 [ἦν ἀνακείμενος …. ἐν τῶ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ].117 Meyer thinks this unsuitable, but refers the expression to the paternal embrace, Luk_16:22 [ἐν τοῖς κόλποις].118 But the common acceptation is supported by the kindred expression of Christ, that He will come with the Father to His own, to make His abode with them, Joh_14:23; comp. Rev_3:20; Rev_19:9.

He hath, etc.—Ἐκεῖνος [“an epithet of excellency and of distance,” as Bengel observes] is certainly very emphatic [He, and none else]; yet not as looking to the local superiority of heaven,119 but to the majesty of the Son of God.

Interpreted.—Ἐξηγήσατο is hard to explain. Lücke refers it to the grace and truth which Christ has seen in God; Meyer, to the substance of His view of God; [the E. V. (which supplies: Him), Alford, Owen, Godet, to God Himself in the beginning of the verse.—P. S.] Lücke translates: He hath revealed it; De Wette: He hath proclaimed (declared) it, told it; Meyer: He hath explained, interpreted [viz.: the contents of His intuitions of God]. The New Testament parallels, Luk_24:35; Act_15:12; Act_15:14, etc., admit both renderings, but favor that of De Wette; the passage Lev_14:57 (LXX.) seems rather to favor Meyer, especially since the word, in classic usage, is applied particularly to the explaining of divine things.120 As we attribute the word to the Baptist, we conceive that it contains an allusion to the obscure beginnings of revelation in the Old Testament. The Baptist has not understood the historical predictions of Jesus, but has no doubt recognized in Christ the key of the ancient time, the perfect interpretation of the rudiments of revelation. We therefore take ἐξηγήσατο absolutely, with respect to the old covenant. In virtue of His seeing of God He has cleared up the law in grace and truth, brought the Old Testament gloriously to light in the New. He has brought and made solution.

[This very verb argues against Dr. Lange’s view of the authorship of Joh_1:18, which must be as cribed to the Evangelist. The Baptist never came into close personal intimacy with Christ, and died before He had fully revealed the counsel of God and the meaning of the Old Testament. But the Evangelist, in full view of the atoning death and glorious resurrection, could use this term in its most comprehensive sense. With it the Prologue returns to the beginning, and ἐξηγήσατο suggests the best reason why Christ is called the Logos, since He is the Revealer and Interpreter of the hidden being of the Godhead in all that relates to our salvation.—John puts the supreme dignity of Christ, as the eternal Word, the Author of the world, the Giver of life and light, the Fountain of grace and truth, the only and perfect Expounder of God, at the head of his Gospel, because without this dignity Christianity would sink to a position of merely relative superiority above other religions, instead of being the absolute and therefore final religion for all mankind. Luther observes on the Prologue: “These are indeed brief words, but they contain the whole Christian doctrine and life.”—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the preceding exegesis.

2. The Word was made flesh. He was God, He became flesh. What He was, He was not merely in idea (Hegel), but in personal divine subsistency; what He became (ἐγένετο), He became not merely in appearance (Gnosticism), nor in a partial way (joining Himself to the flesh, or veiling Himself in it, according to Nestorianism, or depriving the flesh of its genuineness, and transforming it into a divine manifestation, according to Eutyches), nor only for a particular need and purpose (Anselm), but perfectly and forever. As Word, He was the full expression of the essence of the Godhead, and therefore was also pure eternal being and personal life; in His coming forth, He entered into veritable, integral human nature in its pure essence. The Word could not be changed by the flesh (contrary to modern attempts to carry change into the essence of God), but the flesh was to be perfected by the Word in His coming in it, carried from conditional potentiality to determinate actuality, made the glorified organ of the eternal Spirit. The prosecution of the doctrine of the Communicatio idiomatum lies not on the side of the divine nature, but on the side of the human.

As regards the doctrine of the incarnation, the Logos, as eternal Logos, became man, without change in Himself; that is to say, the incarnation was not occasioned by the sin of man. The doctrine of the flesh must, according to our passage, be so constructed that the flesh shall be as penetrable (and more) to the Spirit as to sin. The union between the divine and human natures is the great mystery of life, and to think of it rightly we must keep the distinction, that the divine being unfolds itself in a conscious way, like a work of art from a human mind, while the human becoming effects itself in an unconscious way, after the manner of the development of a plant. The pure contra-distinction appears in the work of art, which unfolds itself synthetically, subjecting to its service the material originally belonging to it, and the metamorphosis of the plant, which reveals spirit analytically, without attaining any power over itself. In the life of the natural man (in the pure sense of the term) nature predominates, but the spirit comes more and more to power (1Co_15:45); in the life of the spiritual man, who is from heaven, spirittual consciousness predominates, appropriating, pervading, and ruling the human organism. So the Logos, with the absolute master power of His essence as Logos, entered into human nature. He is not only voluntary in His incarnation in general; He is voluntary in each act of His human nature, i.e., of His human self-limitation for the sake of a higher spontaneity. He is voluntarily born (Luk_1:26 sqq.), voluntarily a child (Luk_2:51), voluntarily sleeps (Mar_4:38), is voluntarily ignorant as to the day of judgment (Mar_13:32-33), voluntarily suffers (Mat_26:53), voluntarily dies (Joh_10:18); but all in order that He may truly live (Joh_5:17; Joh_9:4), truly unfold Himself (Joh_10:15-16; Joh_12:24), truly watch (Mat_26:38), truly know (Mar_3:12), truly act and triumph (Joh_12:12), and eternally live (John 17).

In other words, Christ entered into the entire life of man, sin excepted, to raise it to the second, higher life of glorified humanity. This opposition is illustrated by the suspensions of consciousness in our natural life itself; and before we decide respecting the divine mystery of the Logos entering into sleep, we must be clear respecting the human mystery of our own mind’s sleeping. He goes to sleep. Weakness must be transfigured by freedom into rhythm, or determination of power. In the ideal incarnation of Christ, His historical incarnation, His subjection to law, is actually involved.

3. And we beheld His glory. The humiliation of Christ in the form of a servant did not hinder the Evangelist from seeing His glory. The omnipotence which, in the strength of love, puts limits upon itself (Mat_26:53-54), is not entered into an absolute humiliation, but into a humiliation to our human vision, in order to reveal Himself in a higher glory. It remained κρύψις, inasmuch as it remained at every point free; it became κένωσις, inasmuch as it made earnest of the self-humiliation. But it did not leave its riches of power and honor behind in heaven; it yielded them up to the world, 2Co_8:9. The world had the honor of judging the universal Judge; it had the power to put omnipotence to death; the wisdom to judge concerning him; the omnipresence of the Roman empire to bring him down to Golgotha, the grave and Sheol; but it thereby only gained the power to judge itself, that it might be the medium of that revelation of omnipotence in the impotence of Christ whereby it was overcome, judged and reconciled. Full faith in the cross must feel that Christ has humbled Himself by surrender of Himself to the world, not in heavenly reservation towards the world, and that here has taken place on the full scale what occurs elsewhere on smaller scales, or here in one central fact what appears otherwise every where in history: God makes Himself weak, and stands, as bound, in His government, over against the freedom of the sinner, to let him feel in the judgment that physical power is nothing of itself, and that truth, righteousness and love are all.

4. Christ is the Only Begotten (μονογενής), inasmuch as He is the one Word, in whom all things were ideally and virtually included, in distinction from the universe in its development; He is the First Born (πρωτότοκος), inasmuch as He has entered, as a principle, into development.

5. And of His fulness. If John could bear witness of the præ-existence of Christ, he could also testify that the prophets had all drank of His fulness, and that their highest, fairest experience had been the experience of grace.

6. Grace for grace. The reciprocal forms of grace in the Old Testament, and in the whole history of the world.

7. The distinction between the Old and New Testaments: (1) Moses, the servant, serving; Christ, the Son and Lord, reigning in the obedience of the Father; (2) Given, laid down; come; (3) Law; grace and truth (see above).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The combined testimony of the Old Testament John and the New to the incarnation of the Son of God: 1) The agreement of the two testimonies; 2) their difference; 3) their copiousness.—The Old Covenant and the New: 1) In contrast: Moses and Christ; 2) In harmony: John and Christ.—The Old Covenant in its relation to the New: 1) The advent of the New (Christ in the Old Testament); 2) the discipline for the New (Moses and the Law); 3) a shadow vanishing before the New (“No man hath seen God at any time”).—Twofold testimony of the Baptist concerning Christ: 1) Concerning the near approach of Christ, whose person he yet knew not; 2) concerning Jesus, that He is the Christ.—The Incarnation for our salvation: A great mystery in its nature (“the Word was made flesh”); 2) a historical fact in its demonstration (“dwelt among us”); 3) an assured sight of blessed eyewitnesses (“we beheld”); 4) a blessed experience of all believers (“full of grace and truth”).—The consummation of revelation: 1) The revealing Word, which had appeared in the Angel of the Lord, now become man; 2) the glory of God above the most holy place, now bodily manifested in the dwellings of men; 3) the entranced vision of divine tokens, now become the blessed seeing of the divine glory; 4) the law transformed into the fulness of grace and truth.—“The Word was made flesh:” a gospel of the highest knowledge; being 1) a view of Christ; 2) the key of philosophy; 3) a prophecy for Christianity.—The announcement: The Word was made flesh: 1) a preaching of repentance (sin therefore does not belong to the flesh, Rom_8:3); 2) a preaching of faith. Our flesh should be transformed through the Word.—Christ has explained all: 1) The mysteries of the Old Testament; 2) the mysteries of humanity (the Word was made flesh); 3) the mysteries of nature (the Word entered into the process of growth); 4) the mysteries of God.

Starke: O the mystery! God is become man; the Son of God the Father, a son of man; the Word, a child; the Life, a mortal man; the eternal Light is in the midst of darkness, Rom_9:5.—How deeply the Most High has abased Himself, and how gloriously the Humbled has exalted us.121—Canstein: Christ has pitched His tent in our nature, that He might make His abode in each one of us, and He will still more gloriously pitch His tabernacle among men, and more peculiarly manifest His glory, Rev_21:3; Rev_21:11.—Jesus is ever, in His whole office, full of grace and truth. In His prophetical office He preaches [and actually presents] grace and truth; in His priestly office He procures them; in His kingly office He gives and maintains them.—Seest thou how the Word is made flesh? Give diligence that thou mayest be made like Him according to thy measure in glory.—Zeisius: Christ, the one inexhaustible fountain of all graces, from which all believers from the beginning have drawn.—Canstein: The true use of grace received fits us for more grace, so that one grace becomes the reward of another, yet remains grace, Heb_10:1. Christ is the end of all the Mosaic system of shadows, and in Him we have the substance itself, which the shadows only prefigured, Heb_10:1; Col_2:17.—Ibid.: Grace and truth belong together. Where grace is, in the forgiveness of sins, there appears also the truth of a holy and upright nature in Christ. And where the latter fails, grace also is wanting.—Hedinger: Christ a prophet and interpreter of the divine will.

Mosheim: The second word: “Truth” is contrasted with ceremonies. Moses set forth only types and shadows; the Saviour has preached [acted in His life] pure truth, the grace and love of God towards men without figure.—Von Gerlach: “He that cometh after me is preferred,” etc. One of the many sacred enigmas in this Gospel, in which the literary sense gives a paradox to incite us to seek a higher.—From Augustine: The same God who gave the law, has also given grace; but this law He sent by His servant; with the grace He has Himself come down.—Heubner: This sentence [“the Word was made flesh”] contains all: (1) The divinity of Christ—He is the Logos; (2) His true humanity—He is made flesh. This dwelling denotes His true human life, and is a pledge of our future dwelling with Him.—There is no stopping, no limit, in grace, but ever new growth in insight, power, joy and peace.—Schleiermacher: Grace for grace. It is properly equivalent to grace in reward for grace; i.e., for our receiving one grace from Him, another grace is in turn imparted.—Only the One who is from the Father, hath seen the Father (Joh_6:46); only in Him and through Him can man know God the Father, and draw from His fulness grace and truth.

[Schaff: Joh_1:14. The Incarnation the central truth of Christianity and of all religion.: 1) The end of the reign of separation from God, or the reign of sin and death; 2) the beginning of the reign of union and communion with God, or the reign of righteousness and life.—The Incarnation: 1) Its nature: (a) not a change or conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but an assumption of manhood into abiding union with the second person of the Godhead; the two natures remaining distinct, yet inseparably united for ever; (b) not an assumption of a part of human nature, but of the whole, body, soul and spirit; Christ being perfect God and perfect Man in one person; (c) not an assumption of sin, but only of its consequences, in order to remove and destroy them; sin being no part of human nature as originally constituted, but a corruption of that nature by a foreign poison and an abuse of freedom. Christ was tempted, and suffered and died as we, but He never submitted to temptation; He “knew no sin,” and remained “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” 2. Its effects: (a) the redemption of human nature, or of the whole race, from the curse and dominion of sin and death; (b) the elevation of human nature to abiding union with the Godhead.—The Word became flesh: 1) really and truly (against Gnosticism, docetism, Arianism); 2) totally and perfectly (against Apollinarianism); 3) undividedly and inseparably (against Nestorianism); 4) unmixedly, without confusion or absorption of substance (against Eutychianism and Monophysitism).—The incarnation the end and aim of all religion; for religion (religio, from relegare, to rebind, to reunite) implies: 1) an original union of man and God in the state of innocence; 2) a separation of the two by sin and death; 3) a reconciliation and reunion which was effected by the atonement of Christ.—The mystery of the incarnation reversely repeated in every true regeneration by which man becomes a child of God, a partaker of Christ’s “divine nature,” and a “new creature in Christ Jesus.”]

[Burkitt, Joh_1:14 : Christ’s taking flesh implies that He took not only human nature, but all the weaknesses and infirmities of that nature also (sinful infirmities being excepted), such as hunger, thirst, weariness. As man, Christ has an experimental sense of our infirmities and wants; as God, He can supply them all.]

[M. Henry (abridged) on Joh_1:16 : As of old, God dwelt in the tabernacle of Moses, by the Shekinah, between the cherubim, so now He dwells in the human nature of Christ, the true Shekinah, the symbol of God’s peculiar presence. And we are to address God through Christ, and from Him receive divine oracles. All believers receive from Christ’s fulness; the greatest saints cannot live without Him, the weakest may live by Him. This excludes boasting and silences perplexing fear.—Grace is the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. God’s good will works the good work, and the good work qualifies for further tokens of His good will.—As the cistern receives from the fulness of the fountain, the branches from the root, and the air from the sun, so we receive grace from the fulness of Christ.—Grace for grace speaks the freeness of grace; the abundance of grace; the promotion of grace by grace; the substitution of the N. T. grace for the O. T. grace; the augmentation and continuance of grace; the conformity of grace in the saints to the grace that is in Christ, the saints being changed into the same heavenly image. (A combination of different interpretations of χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, which may do for a sermon, but not for exegesis.)]

[Augustine on Joh_1:17 : The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness. But it made ready for the physician, who was to come with grace and truth.—Olshausen: The law induces and elicits the consciousness of sin and the need of redemption; it only typifies the reality; the gospel actually communicates reality and power from above.]

[J. C. Ryle, Joh_1:18 : After reading this Prologue, it is impossible to think too highly of Christ, or to give too much honor to Him. He is the meeting point between the Trinity and the sinner’s soul. “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father who sent Him” (Joh_5:23).—Quesnel calls the Prologue, especially Joh_1:1, “the gospel of the holy Trinity.” Our knowledge of this mystery of mysteries begins with the knowledge of the Son, who reveals and expounds to us the Father, and who is Himself revealed and applied to us by the Holy Spirit.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[77]Joh_1:14.—[The parenthesis marked in this verse in the text. rec. appears to be, like the division of chapters and verses, only conventional; though it serves us the good purpose of showing the true reference of “full” (πλήρης) to “the Word” (ὁ λόγος) rather than to “glory” (δόξα), which could not be otherwise indicated in the English version. The clause itself is not properly parenthetical. See the Exegesis.—E. D. Y]

[78]Joh_1:15. [μαρτνρεῖ, present; the testimony of John goes on. Meyer: “Vergegenwärtigung, als tönte das Zeugniss noch for.”—P. S.]

[79]Joh_1:15. [The perfect κέκραγε likewise implies continuation of the action in its effect. Meyer: “Das Perf, in gewöhnlicher, classischer, präsentischer Bedeutung.” Alford: “the voice is still sounding.” Κράζω (also used of Christ, Joh_7:28; Joh_7:37; Joh_12:44) is an onomato-poëtic word, imitating the hoarse cry of the raven, like the German, krüchzen, the English, to croak; here to call aloud with the confidence and solemnity of a herald. Bengel: “Clamat Joh. cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum præconem decet.”—P. S. ]

[80]Joh_1:16, in most codd. [א. B. C* D. L. X], begins withὅτι, instead of καί: For of his fulness, etc. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf. [Hengstenberg and Godet prefer καί, and conjecture that on was occasioned by the preceding and succeeding ὅτι.—P. S.]

[81] Joh_1:18. B. C* L. Codd. Sin. et al. read θεός for νἱός; probably from Joh_1:1. [So also Meyer.]

[This is the first important difference of reading which occurs in the Gospel of John, and which, on account of its theological character, deserves a fuller notice than it has received from Lange or any other commentator, except Alford, in his sixth edition. The ancient authorities are almost equally divided between θ ε ό ς, the (an) Only-begotten God, and υ ἱ ό ς the Only-begotten Son. A minor difference relates to the article which is omitted by most of the authorities favoring θεός. The reading θεός is supported by the two oldest MSS., the Sinaitic (which has ΘC, the usual abbreviation of θεός, a prima manu, but which, in this very verse, by omitting the words ὁ ὤν, before εἰς τὸν κόλπον betrays the carelessness of the transcriber), and the Vatican (both from the 4th century), also by C.* L.; the Syr. Peshito; Clemens Alex, (once or twice), Excerpta Theodoti (a full quotation), Epiphanius (three times), the Second Synod of Ancyra, Didymus of Alex, (twice). To this must be added that Gregory of Nyssa and other Greek fathers repeatedly call Christ ὁ μονογεὴς θεός, where they do not quote from Joh_1:18. The reading υἱός is favored by a larger number of manuscripts, A. (Cod. Alex, of the 5th cent.), C. (the Ephræm MS. corrected) 10. Δ and nearly all other MSS.; the Curetonian Syriac Vers., the Lat. Vers. (Itala and Vulgata); Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 15), who is older by at least 120 years than the oldest known MSS., Eusebius (in six passages, in one, however, with the significant addition ἢ μονογενὴς θεός after ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, for which reason Tregelles claims him for θεός, though unjustly; see Abbot, Bibl. Sacra, 1861, p. 859), Athanasius (four times), Chrysostom (eight times), Ambrose, Augustine and other fathers, also the emperor Julian (twice). Hilary, in seven places, supports Filius, but in one (De Trin., xii. 24) he reads “unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris.” The evidence from Irenæus, Origen, Basil and Cyril of Alexandria is contradictory and uncertain. Irenæus, the oldest witness in this case (A. D. 170), quotes the passage three times, twice in favor of Filius (Adv.hær. IV. c. 20, §6), or Filius Dei (III. xi., 6), once in favor of Deus (IV. xx., John 11 : “unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit”). Origen reads θεός twice (In Joh. Tom. II. c. 29; XXXII. c. 13, Opp. ed. Delarue 4. p. 89 and 438), υὶός once (Contr. Cels. l. II. c. 71, Opp. 1 p. 440, in a full quotation), besides υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ once (In Joh. Tom. vi. 2, Opp. iv. 102, with a different reading, υἱὸς θεός), and Unigenitus Dei Filius once (in Rufinus’ version of Com. on Son_1:4 Opp. iii. 91). Cyril of Alexandria, as edited by Aubert, has υἱός three times, θεός four times, and favors the latter in his Commentary, as printed. For a fuller statement of patristic testimonies see an elaborate article of Ezra Abbot (the learned librarian of Harvard University) in the Andover Bibliotheca Sacra for Oct. 1861, pp. 840–872. I have verified several of his quotations. He has corrected many errors of former critics and disproved the assertion of Tregelles that θεός is “the ancient reading of the Fathers generally. ” The authorities for υἱός cover a much larger territory than those for θεός, which seem to be almost confined to Egypt. For internal reasons, θεός, being the more difficult reading, has the preference, according to the usual canon; for μονογενής naturally suggested υἱός, while the designation of Christ as “the only begotten God,” stands isolated in the Bible. On the other hand, a change of the abridged form ΥC to ΘC, which is usual in the uncial MSS., was as easy as the change from the latter to the former. There is moreover an inherent propriety for the use of υἱός in connection with μονογενής and with the mention of the Father; while θεός is hardly in place immediately after θεόν at the beginning of the verse, and introduces a harshness without a parallel in the style of John. The Scripture argument for the Divinity of Christ is strong enough, even from the first verse of the Prologue, without the reading θεός in Joh_1:18. In view of all the data before us, I see no sufficient reason here to depart from the received text. Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt θεός (without the article); Abbot, Alford, Tischend. (ed. 8) retain υἱός. Lachmann likewise reads υἱός, but before the authorities in favor of θεός were fully known. Comp. on this subject, besides Tregelles and Tischend. (ed. 8, Vol. 1, p. 745), especially the article of Ezra Abbot already quoted, and a long note in the 6th ed. of Alford (pp. 689–691).—P. S.]

[82]Joh_1:18. [On the meaning of ἐξηγήσατο see the last foot note, p. 78. Christ is the true Exegete or Expounder of God.—P. S.]

[83][So Chrysostom, Theophyl., Grotius, Lampe.]

[84][So Bleek.]

[85][So Meyer: “einfach die Rede fortführend,wie alle καί des Prologs.” Here the copula carrie the reader to the highest pinnacle of contemplation. So far we may say with Godet that it is emphatic, but cannot adopt his translation: Yea, indeed.—P. S.]

[86][Apollinaris had no more right to appeal to this passage for his assertion that Christ had no rational soul, its place being supplied by the divine Logos, than he had a right to draw the same inference from all those passages where man is called flesh. On the Apollinarian Christology comp. my Church History, Vol. III., pp. 708 ff.—P. S.]

[87][Some of the ablest commentators urge this point. Calvin: “Eo usque se Filius Dei submisit, ut carnem istam tot miseriis obnoxiam susciperet.” Hengstenberg, John 1 : p. 49, quotes at length from Luther to the same effect, and says: “There is a wealth of comfort in this fact, a balm for the poor, terrified conscience.” Ewald, p. 127, makes these striking remarks: “Of all the words which express human nature, John chooses the meanest and most contemptible, viz.: flesh, which, in the O. T., denotes the lower, perishing, corruptible part of man; but even this the Logos did not despise, and thus He became man in the fullest sense of the term.”—P. S.]

[88][The same view is ascribed to John by Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift for 1866, p. 260, and by Scholten of Leyden—P. S.]

[89][Bengel remarks that nowhere in the whole range of literature is the difference of the verbs εἰμί and γίγνομαι more studiously observed than in the Prologue of John.—P. S.]

[90][Godet, p. 194, puts a strained view of the κένωσις into ἐγένετο, and makes it to mean that the Logos gave up His divine mode of existence.—P. S.]

[91][Or rather the humanity of Christ. His body (comp. Joh_2:19; Joh_2:21) was the σκηνή, the tabernacle, the temple of God, in which He revealed His presence, the fulness of His grace and truth. The Apostles and the believers generally (comp. Joh_1:12. ὅσοι ἔλαβον αὐτόν) are the spectators and worshippers in this sanctuary.—P. S.]

[92][Hengstenberg: “The indwelling of God among His people, which is implied in the idea of the people of God, was merely a shadow of the temple, and has attained its full truth only in Christ.” Bengel sees in the verb σκηνόω an allusion rather to the transitory abode of Christ on earth: “habitavit, ut in tabernaculo, vere, nec diu, spectaculum sui prœbens.” So also Godet. But this is certainly not applicable to God’s dwelling: with His people on the new earth, Rev_21:3. Ewald, on the contrary, urges the idea of a longer abode, which is equally untenable. The Apostle has no reference to time, but to the reality of God’s abode with man in His incarnate Son as compared with the shadowy indwelling in the old tabernacle and temple. This sojourning implies community of life, as to say: We have eaten together, slept under the same tent, travelled together.—P. S.]

[93][This is the proper reading, while πλήρη, plenam, is conformed to δόξαν, πλήρου, pleni, to αὐτοῦ.— P. S.]

[94][Winer, Gramm., p. John 524: (7th Germ, ed.), likewise regards the comprehensive πλήρης χαρ.κ.ἀλ. as grammatically independent, and refers to Php_3:19; Mar_12:40. Hengstenberg views these words as an abridged relative sentence: (who is) full, etc.; comp. Rev_1:5. But even this supplement is not necessary. Ewald, repeating the main subject, well translates: Er, voll Gnade und Wahrheit.—P. S.]

[95][שְׁכִינָה or שְׁכִינָא (from שָׁכַז, to dwell) does not occur in the O. T. Scriptures, and signifies the glorious presence of God with His people. Buxtorf (Lexicon Chald, Talmud, et Rabbin., ed. Bas. 1640, p. 2394) gives the following definition of it: habitatio, cohabitatio. In specie dicitur de præsentia, gloria et majestate divina aut Divinitate, quando dicitur hominibus esse priæsens, aut cum cis conversari, auxilio suo, gratia et salutari præsentia adesse. Communiter explicatur, gloria vel majestas divina, divinitas gloriosa.” In the same sense John uses σκηνή in Rev_21:3 : ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετ̓ αὐτῶν,θεὸς αὐτῶν. (Comp. Text. Note, 1.)—P. S ]

[96][̔Ως is also here a particle of comparison, not of confirmation (like the falsely so-called Hebrew כְ veritatis); but the comparison here is not between similar things, but between the fact and the idea, the reality and the expectation: as might be expected from one that is the only begotten. Hence the absence of the article before μονογενοῦ. The reality is implied as the basis of the comparison (against Alford).—P. S.]

[97] [John alone uses μονογενής of Christ, namely, in the five passages above referred to. Besides, the term occurs four times of human sons, three times in Luke (Joh_7:12; Joh_8:42; Joh_9:38) and once in the Hebrews (Joh_11:17). The term is called figurative, but it is more correct to say that all earthly relationships of fathers and filial affection are a figure and reflection of the eternal Fatherhood of God and the eternal Sonship of Christ. Comp. Eph_3:14-15 : “The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” I hold with Lange that John learned the word directly from Christ. Lampe and Hengstenberg derive the appellation from Zec_12:10, where the Messiah is compared to an only begotten (יחיד):

“And they have looked unto me whom they pierced,

And they have mourned over it,

Like a mourning over the only One—(הַיָּחִיד, LXX.: ἀγαπητόν Vulg.: unigenitum).

And they have been in bitterness for it,

Like a bitterness over the first-born—(הַבְּכוֹר, LXX.): ἐπὶ τῷ πρωτοτόκῳ—P. S.]

[98][The term refers back to τέκνα θεοῦ, Joh_1:12, and marks the difference between Christ and the believers: 1) He is the only Son in a sense in which there is no other; they are many; 2) He is Son from eternity; they become children in time; 3) He is Son by nature; they are made sons by grace and by adoption; 4) He is of the same essence with the Father; they are of a different substance; in other words, His is a metaphysical, primitive and co-essential, theirs only an ethical and derived, sonship. The idea of generation, as Meyer correctly remarks, is implied in the very term μονογενής. Origen explains μονογενής=ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. This leads logically to the Nicene dogma of the homoousia and the eternal generation, i.e., the eternal communion of love between the Father and the Son. (Comp. Joh_17:24) Luther says: God has many children, but only one only begotten Son, through whom all things and all other children were made.—P. S.]

[99][But defended by Hengstenberg, who sees here a new proof for the identity of Christ with the revealed Jehovah of the O. T. Grace and truth appear here as personal attributes, as in Exo_34:6; while in Joh_1:17, as in Mic_7:20, they appear as gifts which Christ bestows.—P. S.]

[100][“Der hinter mir her Kommende ist mir zuvwgekom-men.” Meyer, like Origen, takes both adverbs in a temporal (or rather local sense; time being represented here in the form of space). So does Hengstenberg: Der nach mir kommt ist mir vorangegangen. Godet: Celui qui vient après moi, m’a precèdè. The objection to this interpretation is that it makes ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἡν a mere repetition. Hence most commentators (Chrys., Lücke, Thol., Olsh., De Wette, Alf.) refer ὀπίσω to time, and ἔμπροσθεν to rank. So also the E. V: “He that cometh after me is preferred (i.e., is advanced) before me.” John’s preparatory office decreased before the rising glory of the Messiah. This interpretation saves the distinction of ἐγένετο, has become, and ἧν, was, so carefully observed throughout the Prologue; ἐγένετο must, of course, not be referred to the divine dignity of the Logos, which is eternal, but to the divine-human dignity of the incarnate Christ, which was acquired. Dr. Lange ingeniously combines the reference to time and that to rank in ἔμπροσθεν and πρῶτος.—P. S.]

[101][John probably chose πρῶτος instead of πρότερος, to raise Christ above all comparison. He is absolutely the first, the Alpha and Omega. Hengstenberg, too, finds in the word the idea of absolute priority, which would have been weakened by the use of the comparative.—P. S.]

[102][Origen (In Evang. Joh., Tom. VI. 2, Vol. IV., p. 102) blames Heracleon, a Gnostic commentator on John, from the middle of the second century, for terminating the testimony of the Baptist at the end of Joh_1:17, and makes it continue to the end of Joh_1:18.—P. S.]

[103][I prefer, with Meyer, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Alford, Godet, to ascribe this and the following verses to the Evangelist, on account of their specific Christian character, and on account of we all (comp. Joh_1:14, ἐθεασάμεθα). The Baptist, after all, belonged to the O. T. dispensation, though standing at the very threshold of the New, as Moses died of the kisses of Jehovah outside, yet in sight of, the holy land. John speaks in the name of the Apostles, Joh_1:14, in the name of all believers, Joh_1:16. Hence πάντες, which already pre-supposes the existence of the Christian Church.—P. S.]

[104][The Gnostic pleroma is the ideal world, containing all the æons, i.e., the divine powers and attributes, such as mind, reason, wisdom, truth, life, which gradually emanate from it in a certain order (according to Valentine, in pairs with sexual polarity, the νοῦς and ἀλήθεια, the λόγος and ζωή, the ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία). Christ is only one of these æons. But according to John, Christ is the whole pleroma from which flow all the benefits of salvation and gifts of grace. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 11, 1, argues from the Prologue of John against the Gnostic idea of the pleroma.—P. S.]

[105][ Und zwar; nämlich, et même. In this epexegetical sense καί is taken by Winer, Gram. p. 407, Meyer and Alford. Comp. Gal_6:16; Eph_6:18; Heb_11:17. But Lange’s interpretation makes καί more forcible. It often means also, even, (eben, ja). See Winer, p 408. Similarly Bengel: omne quod ex ejus plenitudine accipiendum erat, et (speciatim) gratiam pro gratia.—P. S.]

[106][Chrysostom supports this view by Joh_1:17, where the law of Moses is contrasted with the grace of Christ; but for this very reason the law cannot be another kind of grace, and is never so called. Cyril and Euthymius Zigabenus likewise explain: τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην ἀντὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς.—P. S.]

[107][Or rather fides, and vita æterna, as the free reward of faith. “Quia ipsa fides gratia est, says Augustine, et vita æterna gratia est pro gratia.” Tract. III. in Joh., Tom. III. Pars. II. p. 308. The similar interpretation of St Bernard: gratia gloriæ pro gratia militiæ, is equally true and equally insufficient. The glory of the heavenly state is only the last link in this chain of divine grace.—P. S.]

[108][This interpretation is also adopted by Lücke, Thol., Olsh., Mey., Hengstenb., Alf., Wordsw., and falls in most naturally with the idea of πλήρωμα, nor is it inconsistent with the fundamental meaning of ἀντί (grace exchanging with grace). It is an unbroken stream of grace from justification through the various stages of sanctification to life everlasting, every new wave taking the place of and overwhelming, though not superseding or destroying, the other. Ewald refers to the multiplicity of spiritual gifts (χαρίσματα) in the Apostolic Church, 1 Corinthians 12-14, but the ordinary graces and blessings must be included. ‘Αντί does not always mean an exchange that supersedes one thing, but, like παρά and ἐπί, a. succession. Bengel refers for a similar use of ἀντί to Æschylus, Agam., and Chrysostom, De sacerd. VI. 13. Other examples are added by Lücke, Meyer and Alford. John might have said χάριν ἐπὶ χάριτι or χ. ἐ π ὶ χάριν (as Php_2:27) instead of ἀ ν τ ί, but it would not have expressed so strongly the overwhelming flow of grace upon grace. For the idea comp. Rom_5:1 ff.; Gal_5:22; Eph_5:9.—P. S.]

[109][Bengel remarks here that no philosopher so accurately employs words and observes their distinctions as John, especially in this chapter, and explains the difference between ἐδόθη and ἐγένετο: “Mosis non sua est lex, Christi sua est gratia et Veritas.” Alford, after De Wette, finds the reason of the contrast in the fact that the law as a positive enactment was narrow and circumscribed, and hence ἐδόθη, while grace is unlimited. But besides the idea of positive enactment, ἐδόθη implies also the divine origin and solemn promulgation of the law, while ἐγένετο indicates the free, spontaneous and abiding nature of grace. Moses may disappear, for the law was only given through him, but Christ with His grace abides forever. The law commands, the gospel gives; the law condemns, grace justifies; the law kills, grace makes alive. The highest mission of the law is to awaken a sense of sin and guilt, the need of redemption, and thus to lead to Christ.—P. S.]

[110][The conjunction καί before grace, as Bengel remarks, is here elegantly omitted; for a “but” as well as an “and” was in place here.—P. S.]

[111][Comp. here the remarks of Meyer and Godet. The latter says: “Cest áu ce moment du prologue que l' apôtre prononce pour la première fois le grand nom attendu depuis si long temps, Jesus-Christ. A mesure, que la divine kistoire des misericordes de la Parole envers l' humanité se déroule à ses regards, ce spectacle lui inspire des termes toujours plus concrets, plus humains.” First the Word, then Life and Light, then the Only Begotten of the Father, now Jesus Christ, who embraces all that was. said of Him before.—P. S.]

[112][I dissent from this view. See foot notes on page 76.—P. S.]

[113][On this remarkable difference of reading: ὁ μονογενὴς υ ἱ ό ς, generally abbreviated in ancient MSS. YC and (b) (ὁ) μονογενὴς θ ε ό ς or ΘC, see Textual Notes (5).—P. S.]

[114][Winer, Gramm, p. 387 (7th ed.): an den Busen (angelehnt), gegen den Busen hin. Ewald translates am Schoosse.—P. S.]

[115][Schriftbeweis, Vol. I., p. 120, sec. ed,: der in den Schooss des Vaters hingegangen. But Meyer gave this explanation before Hofmann, who also refers to him.—P. S.]

[116][Hengstenberg, Brückner, Godet, Philippi likewise oppose Meyer’s ungrammatical reference of the present participle ὤν to the future state of exaltation. The intimate communion between the Son and the Father was not interrupted or suspended by the incarnation. Christ, while on earth, was at the game time in heaven (Joh_3:13), not simply de jure (as Meyer, in the fifth edition, p. 95, explains it), but de facto in a moss real, though mysterious sense. (Wordsworth is altogether too fanciful if he finds in ὁ ὤν an allusion to the peculiar name of Jehovah, the Being, the ever Existing One.)—P. S.]

[117][So also Winer, Lùcke, Gess, Ewald, Godet, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson.—P. S.]

[118][So also Robinson (Lex. sub κόλπος), Owen (from the idea of embracing a friend and straining him to the bosom) and Hengstenberg, who besides refers to similar expressions, Deu_13:7; Deu_28:36; Mic_7:5; Isa_40:11.—P. S.]

[119][As Meyer explains it in accordance with his reference of the passage to the state of exaltation in heaven.—P. S.]

[120][The words ἐξηγέομαι (properly to lead out, either in the sense of taking the lead, or of bringing out, explaining the hidden sense), ἐξήγησις, ἐξηγητής, are technical terms used by the classic writers of the interpretation of divine oracles, visions, mysteries, prodigies, laws and ceremonies, and hence properly applied by Christian writers to the exposition of the holy Scriptures. See the passages collected by Wetstein, p. 841, and the references in Meyer, p. 96. Lampe, who strictly adheres to this technical sense, like Meyer, supplies no object, and takes ἐξηγήσατο=ἐξηγητής ἐστιν, interpret est, as regnat without the object is equivalent to rex est, and docet to doctor est. The emphasis certainly lies on the verb rather than the object. He has explained, truly and fully, in His words and in His life; His instruction alone merits the name of an explanation; He is the Expounder of God and divine things.—P. S.]

[121] [Richard Crashaw (1646):

“Welcome to our wondering sight,

Eternity shut in a span!

Summer in winter! day in night!

Heaven in earth! and God in man!

Great Little One, whose glorious birth

Lifts earth to heaven, stoops heaven to earth.”

Luther, in his Christmas hymn: “Gelobet seist Du, Jesu Christ,” commemorates the sublime contrasts of the transcending mystery of the incarnation.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

John

THE WORD IN ETERNITY, IN THE WORLD, AND IN THE FLESH

‘THREE TABERNACLES’

Joh 1:14. - Rev 7:15. - Rev 21:3.

The word rendered ‘dwelt’ in these three passages, is a peculiar one. It is only found in the New Testament-in this Gospel and in the Book of Revelation. That fact constitutes one of the many subtle threads of connection between these two books, which at first sight seem so extremely unlike each other; and it is a morsel of evidence in favour of the common authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse, which has often, and very vehemently in these latter days of criticism, been denied.

The force of the word, however, is the matter to which I desire especially to draw attention. It literally means ‘to dwell in a tent,’ or, if we may use such a word, ‘to tabernacle,’ and there is no doubt a reference to the Tabernacle in which the divine Presence abode in the wilderness and in the land of Israel before the erection. In all three passages, then, we may see allusion to that early symbolical dwelling of God with man. ‘The Word tabernacled among us’; so is the truth for earth and time. ‘He that sitteth upon the throne shall spread His tabernacle upon’ the multitude which no man can number, who have made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb; that is the truth for the spirits of just men made perfect, the waiting Church, which expects the redemption of the body. ‘God shall tabernacle with them’; that is the truth for the highest condition of humanity, when the Tabernacle of God shall be with redeemed men in the new earth. ‘Let us build three tabernacles,’ one for the Incarnate Christ, one for the interspace between earth and heaven, and one for the culmination of all things. And it is to these three aspects of the one thought, set forth in rude symbol by the movable tent in the wilderness, that I ask you to turn now.

I. First, then, we have to think of that Tabernacle for earth. ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt, as in a tent, amongst us.’

The human nature, the visible, material body of Jesus Christ, in which there enshrined itself the everlasting Word, which from the beginning was the Agent of all divine revelation, that is the true Temple of God. When we begin to speak about the special presence of Omnipresence in any one place, we soon lose ourselves, and get into deep waters of glory, where there is no standing. And I do not care to deal here with theological definitions or thorny questions, but simply to set forth, as the language of my text sets before us, that one transcendent, wonderful, all-blessed thought that this poor human nature is capable of, and has really once in the history of the world received into itself, the real, actual presence of the whole fulness of the Divinity. What must be the kindred and likeness between Godhood and manhood when into the frail vehicle of our humanity that wondrous treasure can be poured; when the fire of God can burn in the bush of our human nature, and that nature not be consumed? So it has been. ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’

And when we come with our questions, How? In what manner? How can the lesser contain the greater? we have to be content with the recognition that the manner is beyond our fathoming, and to accept the fact, pressed upon our faith, that our hearts may grasp it and be at peace. God hath dwelt in humanity. The everlasting Word, who is the forthcoming of all the fulness of Deity into the realm of finite creatures, was made flesh and dwelt among us.

But the Tabernacle was not only the dwelling-place of God, it was also and, therefore, the place of Revelation of God. So in our text there follows, ‘we beheld His glory.’ As in the tent in the wilderness there hovered between the outstretched wings of the silent cherubim, above the Mercy-seat, the brightness of the symbolical cloud which was expressly named ‘the glory of God,’ and was the visible manifestation of His real presence; so John would have us think that in that lowly humanity, with its curtains and its coverings of flesh, there lay shrined in the inmost place the brightness of the light of the manifest glory of God. ‘We beheld His glory.’ The rapturous adoration of the remembrance overcomes him, and he breaks his sentence, reckless of grammatical connection, as the fulness of the blessed memory floods into his soul. ‘That glory was as of the Only Begotten of the Father.’ The manifestation of God in Christ is unique, as becomes Him who partakes of the nature of that God of whom He is the Representative and the Revealer.

And how did that glory make itself known to us? By miracle? Yes! As we read in the story of the first that Christ wrought, ‘He manifested forth His glory and His disciples believed upon Him.’ By miracle? Yes! As we read His own promise at the grave of Lazarus: ‘Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?’ But, blessed be His name, miracle is not the highest manifestation of Christ’s glory and of God’s. The uniqueness of the revelation of Christ’s glory in God does not depend upon the deeds which He wrought. For, as the context goes on to tell, the Word which tabernacled among us was ‘full of grace and truth,’ and therein is the glory most gloriously revealed.

The lambent light of stooping love that shone forth warning and attracting in His gentle life, and the clear white beam of unmingled truth that streamed from the radiant purity of Christ’s life, revealed God to hearts that pine for love and spirits that hunger for truth, as no others of God’s self-revealing works have done. And that revelation of the glory of God in the fulness of grace and truth is the highest possible revelation. For the divinest thing in God is love, and the true ‘glory of God’ is neither some symbolical flashing light nor the pomp of mere power and majesty; nor even those inconceivable and incommunicable attributes which we christen with names like Omnipotence and Omnipresence and Infinitude, and the like. These are all at the fringes of the brightness. The true central heart and lustrous light of the glory of God lie In His love, and of that glory Christ is the unique Representative and Revealer, because He is the only Begotten Son, and ‘full of grace and truth.’

Thus the Word tabernacled amongst us. And though the Tabernacle to outward seeming was covered by curtains and skins that hid all the glowing splendour within; yet in that lowly life that was lived in the body of His humiliation, and knew our limitations and our weaknesses, ‘the glory of the Lord was revealed; and all flesh hath seen it together’ and acknowledged the divine Presence there.

Still further the Tabernacle was the place of sacrifice. So in the tabernacle of His flesh Jesus offered up the one sacrifice for sins for ever. In the offering up of His human life in continuous obedience, and in the offering up of His body and blood in the bitter Passion of the Cross, He brought men nigh unto God.

Therefore, because of all these things, because the Tabernacle is the dwelling-place of God, the place of revelation, and the place of sacrifice, therefore, finally is it the meeting-place betwixt God and man. In the Old Testament it is always called by the name which our Revised Version has accurately substituted for ‘tabernacle of the congregation,’ namely ‘tent of meeting.’ The correctness of that rendering and the meaning of the name are established by several passages in the Old Testament, as for instance, ‘There I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee, and there I will meet with the children of Israel.’ So in Christ, who by His Incarnation lays His hand upon both, God touches man and man touches God. We who are afar off are made nigh, and in that ‘true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man’ we meet God and are glad.

‘And so the word was flesh, and wrought

With human hands the creed of creeds,

In loveliness of perfect deeds.’

The temple for earth is ‘the temple of His body.’

II. We have the Tabernacle for the Heavens.

In the context of our second passage we have a vision of the great multitude redeemed out of all nations and kindreds, ‘standing before the Throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands.’ The palms in their hands give important help towards understanding the vision. As has been often remarked, there are no heathen emblems in the Book of the Apocalypse. All its metaphors move within the circle of Jewish experiences and facts. So that we are not to think of the Roman palm of victory, but of the Jewish palm which was borne at the Feast of Tabernacles. What was the Feast of Tabernacles? A festival established on purpose to recall to the minds and to the gratitude of the Jews settled in their own land the days of their wandering in the wilderness. Part of the ritual of it was that during its celebration they builded for themselves booths or tabernacles of leaves and boughs of trees, under which they dwelt, thus reminding themselves of their nomad condition.

Now what beauty and power it gives to the word of my text, if we take in this allusion to the Jewish festival! The great multitude bearing the palms are keeping the feast, memorial of past wilderness wanderings; and ‘He that sitteth on the throne shall spread His tabernacle above them,’ as the word might be here rendered. That is to say, He Himself shall build and be the tent in which they dwell; He Himself shall dwell with them in it. He Himself, in closer union than can be conceived of here, shall keep them company during that feast.

What a thought of that condition-the condition as I believe represented in this vision-of the spirits of the just made perfect, ‘who wait for the adoption, to wit, the resurrection of the body,’ is given us if we take this point of view to interpret the whole lovely symbolism. It is all a time of glad, grateful remembrance of the wilderness march. It is all a time in which festal joys shall be theirs, and the memory of the trials and the weariness and the sorrow and the solitude that are past shall deepen to a more exquisite poignancy of delight, the rest and the fellowship and the felicity of that calm Presence, and God Himself shall spread His tent above them, lodge with them, and they with Him.

And so, dear brethren, rest in that assurance, that though we know so little of that state, we know this: ‘Absent from the body, present with the Lord,’ and that the happy company who bear the palms shall dwell in God, and God in them.

III. And now, lastly, look at that final vision which we have in these texts, which we may call the Tabernacle for the renewed earth.

I do not pretend to interpret the scenery and the setting of these Apocalyptic visions with dogmatic confidence, but it seems to me as if the emblems of this final vision coincide with dim hints in many other portions of Scripture; to the effect that some cosmical change having passed upon this material world in which we dwell, it, in some regenerated form, shall be the final abode of a regenerated and redeemed humanity. That, I think, is the natural interpretation of a great deal of Scriptural teaching.

For that highest condition there is set forth this as the all-sufficing light upon it. ‘Behold, the Tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them.’ The climax and the goal of all the divine working, and the long processes of God’s love for, and discipline of, the world, are to be this, that He and men shall abide together in unity and concord. That is God’s wish from the beginning. We read in one of the profound utterances of the Book of Proverbs how from of old the ‘delights’ of the Incarnate Wisdom which foreshadowed the Incarnate Word ‘were with the sons of men.’ And, at the close of all things, when the vision of this final chapter shall be fulfilled, God will say, settling Himself in the midst of a redeemed humanity, ‘Lo! here will I dwell, for I have desired it. This is My rest for ever.’ He will tabernacle with men, and men with Him.

We know not, and never shall know until experience strips the bandages from our eyes, what new methods of participation of the divine nature, and new possibilities of intimacy and intercourse with Him may be ours when the veils of flesh and sense and time have all dropped away. New windows may be opened in our spirits, from which we shall perceive new aspects of the divine character. New doors may be opened in our souls, from out of which we may pass to touch parts of His nature, all impalpable and inconceivable to us now. And when all the veils of a discordant moral nature are taken away, and we are pure, then we shall see, then we shall draw nigh to God. The thing that chiefly separates man from God is man’s sin. When that is removed, the centrifugal force which kept our tiny orb apart from the great central sun being withdrawn, we shall, as it were, fall into the brightness and be one, not losing our sense of individuality, which would be to lose all the blessedness, but united with Him in a union far more intimate than earth can parallel. ‘The Tabernacle of God shall be with men, and He will tabernacle with them.’

Do not let us forget that this highest and ultimate hope that is held forth here, of the union and communion, perfect and perpetual, of humanity with God, does not sweep aside Jesus Christ. For through all eternity the Everlasting Word, the Christ who bears our nature in its glorified form, or, rather, whose nature in its glorified form we shall bear, is the Medium of Revelation, and the Medium of communication between man and God.

‘I saw no Temple therein,’ says this final vision of the Apocalypse, but ‘God Almighty and the Lamb,’ and these are the Temples thereof. Therefore through eternity God shall tabernacle with men, as He does tabernacle with us now through Him, in whom dwelleth as in its perennial habitation, ‘all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’

So we have the three tabernacles, for earth, for heaven, for the renewed earth; and these three, if I may say so, are like the triple division of that ancient Tabernacle in the wilderness: the Outer Court; the Holy Place; the Holiest of all. Let us enter into that outer court, and abide and commune with that God who comes near to us, revealing, forgiving, in the person of His Son, and then we shall pass from court to court, ‘and go from strength to strength, until every one of us in Zion appear before God’; and enter into the Holiest of all, where ‘within the veil’ we shall receive splendours of revelation undreamed of here, and enjoy depths of communion to which the selectest moments of fellowship with God on earth are shallow and poor.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:14 The idea that the Word became human (literally became flesh) stunned both Greeks and Jews. Greeks separated the sphere of God from the mundane world of humanity, which they called flesh (Greek sarx). John wrote that God himself became flesh in Christ (cp. 1:1). Jesus’ humanity and divinity were complete, not partial. The two ideas—Jesus as 100-percent divine and 100-percent human—form the bedrock of a Christian understanding of Christ. • the Word . . . made his home (Greek skēnoō, “pitched his tent”) among us: This Greek word is related to the word used for the Old Testament Tabernacle (Greek skēnē, “tent, tabernacle”), the tent in the wilderness where the Lord’s glory resided and where Israel came to worship (Exod 25:8-9). The Father’s glory in the Tabernacle (Exod 40:34-38) was now present in Jesus Christ (John 2:11; 12:23-28, 41; 17:1-5). • Jesus offered God’s unfailing love and faithfulness. Despite the world’s hostile darkness, Jesus entered the world to save it (3:15-17).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 1:14.[19]) Σάρξ, flesh) Flesh (besides that it denotes as to us our corrupt nature, estranged from the Spirit of God, Joh 1:13), denotes the human body, or, as in this place, the man himself, denominated from his visible part. Comp. 1Ti 3:16, “Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.”—ἐγένετο, was made) not was, as Artemonius maintains, p. 332, 387, etc., 472. [It is not said here; there was made another man, sent by God, whose name was Jesus, comp. Joh 1:6; but The Word was made flesh. John Baptist, before that he was born of Elizabeth, had no existence: but the Word was, before that His mother Mary—before that Abraham—before that the world at all was brought into being: and in His own time the Word was made flesh: i.e. assumed a human nature, in such a way, however, that there were not two Messiahs, but one; not two sons of God, but one.—V. g.] Nowhere in the whole range of literature will any passage be found under the sun, wherein the difference of the words εἰμί and γίνομαι is more studiously observed than John 1. Read from the beginning the whole context, from Joh 1:1-30, and you will agree with this assertion. Since Artemonius, p. 464, acknowledges that the tenses of the verbs are set down by John with great accuracy [discrimination], why not also the verbs themselves?—καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν, and dwelt) From this point to the end of the verse there are four sentences; to the first of which the fourth has reference, by χιασμός: to the second, the third has reference; in very apposite order.

[19] ὁ λὀγος, the Word) John in this place repeats the former denomination in this sense: That same Being, who was previously the Word, who was the Life, who was the Light, the same was now made Flesh. What He had been before, that He did not cease to be; but He was now made what He had not been before.—V. g.

1) And dwelt among us;

2) and we saw His glory,

3) the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father:

4) full of grace and truth

Σκηνή, a tabernacle [tent]; whence σκηνόω [I tabernacle]: He dwelt as in a tabernacle [tent] with as; truly, but not long, giving us a view of [the opportunity of seeing] Himself. The verbs are akin; ἐσκήνωσεν and ἐθεασάμεθα, as a stage-scene [σκηνή] and a theatre. The Dweller was ὁ λόγος, the Word: the flesh was His tabernacle and temple: Heb 9:11 [Christ being come, an high-priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building]; Joh 2:21 [“The temple of His body” destroyed, and then in three days raised up again by Him]. The same letters are in שכינה and σκηνή.—ἡμῖν, us) men who are flesh.—ἐθεασάμεθα, we beheld) we, the apostles, especially Peter, James, and John, Luk 9:32. [These three, at the transfiguration, “saw His glory.”] The apostles, in speaking of that which they had seen, are wont to speak in the plural number: a usage which tends to the greater confirmation [of the things which they attest]. 1Jn 1:1, “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 2Pe 1:16, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His majesty.” Paul uses the singular number, 1Co 9:2, “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” and John the Baptist, Joh 1:32, “I saw the Spirit descending, etc., and it abode upon Him.”—τὴν δόξαν) His glory, His Godhead, ch. Joh 2:11, “Jesus manifested forth His glory.”—ὡς, as) This particle does not compare, but declares. For He, the λόγος, the Word, is Himself the Only-begotten.—μονογενοῦς, the only begotten) There is hereby intimated the reality and unity of the Divine generation. There is reference chiefly to the baptism of Jesus Christ; Joh 1:34, “I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God;” Mat 3:17, “Lo a voice from heaven saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;” although the history itself of Jesus’ baptism, as being fully described by the other Evangelists, John fittingly omits. Comp. Mat 3:14, “John forbade Him, saying, I have need to be baptised of Thee, and comest Thou to me?”—παρὰ, by [or of]) Construe with μονογενοῦς, the Only-begotten: alone, not only-begotten by the Father, but even sent [by Him]: ch. Joh 6:46, “He which is of God;” ch. Joh 7:29, “I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me.”—πλήρης, full) not πεπληρωμένος, filled, which, however, in another point of view, is said of Jesus, Luk 2:40.[20] [We ought to construe the passage thus, The Word dwelt with us full of grace and truth: inasmuch as this was properly the very point intended to be indicated in this verse: for the fact of His being made flesh is repeated from the previous verses.—V. g.]—χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας, grace and truth) The whole of this is repeated, Joh 1:17: Grace alone is named, Joh 1:16, [of which if destitute we could not have endured His glory.—V. g.] Truth is grace clad with a promise, and put forth in exercise. Heb. ואמת חסד, Exo 34:6. Thence Psa 25:5, etc., “Lead me in Thy truth, and teach me, for Thou art the God of my salvation;” Psa 25:10, “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth;” Psa 26:3, “I have walked in Thy truth;” Psa 33:4-5, “All His works are done in truth: He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord;” Psa 36:6, “Thy righteousness is like the great mountains;” Psa 85:11, “Truth shall spring out of the earth: and righteousness shall look down from heaven:” Psa 89:2-3, “Mercy shall be built up for ever: Thy faithfulness shalt Thou establish in the very heavens. I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant;” Psa 89:5; Psa 89:8, “Thy faithfulness;” Psa 89:14, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne; mercy and truth shall go before Thy face;” Psa 89:24, “My faithfulness and mercy shall be with Him;” Psa 89:33, “My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail;” Psa 89:49, “Lord, where are Thy former loving-kindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth?” Psa 92:2, “To show forth Thy loving-kindness every morning, and Thy faithfulness every night;” Psa 98:3, “He hath remembered His mercy and truth toward the house of Israel;” Psa 100:5, “The Lord is good: His mercy is everlasting: and His truth endureth for ever;” Psa 115:1, “Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy and for Thy truth’s sake;” Psa 117:2, “His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.” Add Rom 15:8-9, “Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy;” Col 1:5-6, “the word of the truth of the Gospel,—which bringeth forth fruit—in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.” This grace and truth is by nature unknown to the sons of wrath, and to the untruthful: but it falls to us [is bestowed on us] in the well-beloved Son, in whom the Father is well pleased, Mat 3:17. It is called the grace [of God] in truth, Col 1:6; 2Jn 1:3, “Grace be with you, mercy and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love;” the true grace [of God], 1Pe 5:12.

[20] “The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom:” where His perfect humanity is exhibited.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_1:14. Καὶ] and; not assigning a reason for the sonship just mentioned (Chrys., Theophyl., Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and several others); nor even = οὖν (Bleek), nor in the sense of namely (Frommann), nor yea (Godet), but simply carrying forward the discourse, like every καὶ in the Prologue; and not therefore pointing back to Joh_1:4 (Maldonatus) or to Joh_1:9 (De Wette), nor joining on to Joh_1:11 (Lücke: The Logos came not only to His own possession, but appeared visibly; so, substantially, also Baur and Hilgenfeld), which would be a merely apparent advance in the exposition, because the visible manifestation is already intimated by φαίνει in Joh_1:5 and in Joh_1:9-13. No; after having in Joh_1:4-13 spoken of the Logos as the light, of the melancholy opposition of the darkness of unbelief to that true light which had been attested by the Baptist as divine, and of the exceedingly blessed effects which He exercised on believers through the bestowal of the gift of sonship, the evangelist, on arriving at this last point, which expresses his own deepest and most blessed experience, can no longer hesitate formally and solemnly again to proclaim the great event by which the visible manifestation of the Logospreviously so frequently presupposed and referred tohad, with all its saving power, been brought about; and thus by an outpouring of speech, which, prompted by the holiest recollections, soars involuntarily upwards until it reaches the highest height, to set forth and celebrate the How of that manifestation of the Logos which was attended with such blessed results (Joh_1:12-13), and which he had himself experienced. The transition, therefore, is from what is said in Joh_1:12-13 of the efficacy of the manifested Logos, to the nature and manner of that manifestation itself, i.e. consequently to the incarnation, as a result of which He, as Jesus Christ, exhibited the glory of the Only-begotten, and imparted the fulness of grace and truth,that incarnation which historically determined what is recorded of Him in Joh_1:12-13. Accordingly καὶ is not definitive, under such circumstances, with such consequences (Brückner, who inappropriately compares Heb_3:19, where καὶ connects the answer with the question as in continuous narration), but it carries the discourse onwards, leading up to the highest summit, which even from Joh_1:5 showed itself as in the distance. We must interpret it: andto advance now to the most momentous fact in the work of redemption, namely, how He who had come and wrought so much blessing was manifested and was able to accomplish such a workthe Word was made flesh, etc.

ὁ λόγος] John does not simply say καὶ σὰρξ ἐγένετο, but he names the great subject as he had done in Joh_1:1, to complete the solemnity of the weighty statement, which he now felt himself constrained still to subjoin and to carry onwards, as if in joyful triumph, to the close of the Prologue.

σὰρξ ἐγένετο] The word σάρξ is carefully chosen, not indeed in any sort of opposition to the divine idea of humanity, which in this place is very remote,[89] but as opposed to the purely divine, and hence also to the purely immaterial nature[90] of the Logos (Clem. ad Cor. II. 9, ὢν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα ἐγένετο σάρξ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 197), whose transition, however, into this other form of existence necessarily presupposes that He is conceived of as a personality, not as a principle (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 169); as is, besides, required by the whole Prologue. The actual incarnation of a principle would be for John an unrealizable notion. Just as decidedly is ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο opposed to the representation that the Logos always became more and more completely σάρξ (Beyschlag) during the whole unfolding of His earthly life. The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e. a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1Jn_1:2), which He was not before,[91] and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus, and which was known to the reader, is intended. Ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλήλυθεν (1Jn_4:2; 2Jn_1:7; comp. 1Ti_3:16) is, in fact, the same thing, though expressed from the point of view of that modality of His coming which is conditioned by the σὰρξ ἐγένετο. As, however, ἐγένετο points out that He became what He was not before, the incarnation cannot be a mere accident of His substantial being (against Baur), but is the assumption of another real existence, whereby out of the purely divine Logos-Person, whose specific nature at the same time remained unaltered, and in order to accomplish the work of redemption (chap. 6; Rom_8:3; Heb_2:14-15), a really corporeal personality, i.e. the God-man Jesus Christ (Joh_1:17), came into existence. Comp. on the point, 1Jn_4:2; Php_2:7; 1Ti_3:16; Heb_2:14; Heb_5:7. Since σάρξ necessarily carries with it the idea only of the ψυχή (see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94 ff.; Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 256), it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian notion, that in Christ there was no human νοῦς, but that the λόγος took its place.[92] But it is not really so (see, on the other side, Mau, Progr. de Christolog. N. T., Kiel 1843, p. 13 ff.), because the human ψυχή does not exist by itself, but in necessary connection with the πνεῦμα (Beck, bibl. Seelenl. § 13; Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. § 154), and because the N. T. (comp. Joh_8:40) knows Jesus only as perfect man.[93] In fact, John in particular expressly speaks of the ΨΥΧΉ (Joh_12:27) and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ (Joh_11:33, Joh_13:21, Joh_19:30), which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates as the substratum of the human self-consciousness (Joh_11:38).[94] The transcendental character, however, of this self-consciousness, as necessarily given in the incarnation of the Logos, Weizsäcker has not succeeded, as is plain from his interpretation of the passages referred to, in explaining away by anything Jesus Himself says in this Gospel. The conception of weakness and susceptibility of suffering (see on Act_2:17), which Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others find in σάρξ, is quite remote from this verse (comp. 1Jn_4:2), where the point in question is simply the change in the divine mode of existence, while the σάρξ is that which bears the δόξα; and so also is any anti-Docetic reference, such as Frommann and others, and even De Wette and Lechler, imagine.

The supernatural generation of Jesus is neither presupposed nor included (as even Godet maintains), nor excluded,[95] in Johns representation ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, for the expression contains nothing as to the manner of the incarnation; it is an addition to the primitive apostolical Christology, of which we have no certain trace either in the oldest Gospel (Mark), or in the only one which is fully apostolic (John), or even anywhere in Paul: see on Mat_1:18; comp. Joh_5:27, Rom_1:3-4.

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν] and tabernacled, i.e. took up His abode, among us: ἐσκήνωσεν here is chosen merely to draw our attention to the manifestation of the incarnate Logos, whose holy σκήνωμα (2Pe_1:13) was in fact His human substance,[96] as the fulfilment of the promise of Gods dwelling with His people (Exo_25:8; Exo_29:45; Lev_26:11; Joe_3:21; Eze_37:27; Hag_2:8 : comp. Sir_24:8; Rev_21:3), and therefore as the Shekinah which formerly revealed itself in the tabernacle and in the temple (see on Rom_9:4); an assumption which the context justifies by the words: ἐθεασ. τ. δόξαν αὐτοῦ. The Targums, in like manner, represent the Word (מימרא) as the שׁבינה, and the Messiah as the manifestation of this.

ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ] refers to the ὍΣΟΙ ἜΛΑΒΟΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ, Joh_1:12-13, to whom John belongs, not simply to the Twelve (Tholuck), nor to the Christian consciousness (Hilgenfeld), nor to mankind generally; comp. Joh_1:16. The believers whom Jesus found are the fellowship who, as the holy people, surrounded the incarnate Word, and by whom His glory was beheld (comp. 1Jn_1:1).

ΚΑῚ ἘΘΕΑΣΆΜΕΘΑ, Κ.Τ.Λ.] We must not (as most expositors, even Lücke, Frommann, Maier, De Wette) take this clause as far as ΠΑΤΡΌς to be a lively insertion, interrupting the narrative; for the having beheld the δόξα is the essential element in the progress of the discourse. It is an independent part in the connection; so that ΠΛΉΡΗς ΧΆΡ. Κ. ἈΛ., which is usually joined grammatically with Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς, is to be referred to ΑὐΤΟῦ in an irregular combination of cases, determined by the logical subject (B. Crusius, Brückner, Weiss, comp. Grotius), by which the nominative instead of the dependent case (Augustine read πλήρους) sets forth the statement more emphatically without any governing word. See especially Bernhardy, p. 68; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. 89, Soph. 7; Winer, p. 524 [E. T. p. 705].

τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ] the Majesty (כבוד) of the Logos, i.e. of necessity the divine glory (in the O. T. symbolically revealing itself as the brilliant light which surrounded the manifestation of Deity, Exo_24:17; Exo_40:34 ff.; Act_7:2), so far as the Logos from His nature (see what follows) essentially participated therein, and possessed it in His pre-human state and onwards.[97] It presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it[98] (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1Jn_1:1; comp. chap. Joh_2:11). The idea of an inner contemplation is opposed to the context (against Baur). The δόξα τοῦ λόγου, which before the incarnation could be represented to the prophets eye alone (Joh_12:41), but which otherwise was, in its essence, incapable of being beheld by man, became by means of the incarnation an object of external observation by those who were eye-witnesses (Luk_1:2; 1Jn_4:14) of His actual self-manifestation. We must, however, bear in mind that the manifestation of this divine glory of the Logos in His human state is conceived of relatively, though revealing beyond doubt the divine nature of the Logos, and nothing else than that, yet as limited and conditioned on the one hand by the imperfection of human intuition and knowledge, and on the other by the state of humiliation (Php_2:6 ff.) which was entered upon with the σὰρξ ἐγένετο. For the ΔΌΞΑ absolutely, which as such is also the adequate ΜΟΡΦῊ ΘΕΟῦ, was possessed by Him who became manthe Logos, who entered upon life in its human formonly in His pre-existent state (Joh_17:5), and was resumed only after His exaltation (Joh_12:41, Joh_17:5; Joh_17:22; Joh_17:24); while during His earthly life His δόξα as the manifestation of the ἼΣΑ ΕἾΝΑΙ ΘΕῷ was not the simply divine, but that of the God-man.[99] See on Php_2:8, note, and chap. Joh_17:5. No distinction is hereby made between Gods ΔΌΞΑ and the ΔΌΞΑ of the God-man (as objected by Weiss); the difference is simply in the degrees of manifestation and appearance. Still Weiss is quite right in refusing, as against Köstlin and Reuss, to say that there is in John no idea whatever of humiliation (comp. Joh_12:32; Joh_12:34, Joh_17:5).

ΔΌΞΑΝ] more animated without ΔῈ. Comp. Hom. Od. A, 22 f.; Dem. de. Cor. 143 (p. 275, Reisk.): πόλεμον εἰς τ. Ἀττικὴν εἰσάγεις … πόλεμον Ἀμφικτυονικόν. See Krüger, § 59, 1. 3, 4.

Ὡς ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟῦς] as of an only-begotten, i.e. as belongs to such an one,[100] corresponds to the nature of one who is μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός; Chrysostom: οἵαν ἔπρεπε καὶ εἰκὸς ἔχειν μονογενῆ καὶ γνήσιον υἱὸν ὄντα, κ.τ.λ. The idea of reality (Euthymius Zigabenus: ὄντως) lies as little in ὡς as in the erroneously so-called כְ veritatis (against Olshausen, Klee, and earlier writers); there is rather the supposition of a comparison, which approaches the meaning of quippe (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1002); see Kühner, § 330. 5.

ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς] of Christ, and regarded, indeed, in His divine nature, is Johannean, expressing the apostles own idea of Christs unique relationship as the Son of God, Joh_1:18, Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18, 1Jn_4:9, though it is put into the mouth of Christ Himself in Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18. Comp. the Pauline ΠΡΩΤΟΤΌΚΟς, Col_1:15, Heb_1:6, which as to the thing certainly corresponds with the Johannean μονογενής, but presents the idea in the relation of time to the creation, and in Rom_8:29 to Christendom. Μονογ. designates the Logos as the only Son (Luk_7:12; Luk_8:42; Luk_9:38; Heb_11:17; Tob_8:17; Herod, vii. 221; Plato, Legg. III. p. 691 D; Aesch. Ag. 898; Hes. ἜΡΓ. 378), besides whom the Father has none, who moreover did not become such by any moral generation, as in the case of the ΤΈΚΝΑ ΘΕΟῦ, Joh_1:12-13, nor by adoption, but by the metaphysical relation of existence arising out of the divine essence, whereby He was ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ with God, being Himself divine in nature and person, Joh_1:1-2. He did not first become this by His incarnation, but He is this before all time as the Logos, and He manifests Himself as the μονογ. by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the ΜΟΝΟΓ. ΥἹῸς is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, who may be also conceived of retrospectively (Weizsäcker, 1862, p. 699). In other respects the designation corresponds to human relations, and is anthropomorphic, as is υἱὸς θεοῦ itself,a circumstance which, however, necessarily limited its applicability as an expression of the metaphysical relation, in apprehending which we must also leave out of view the conception of birth as such, so far as it implies the idea of the maternal function. Origen well remarks: ΤῸ ΔῈ Ὡς ΜΟΝΟΓ. ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡ. ΝΟΕῖΝ ὙΠΟΒΆΛΛΕΙ, ἘΚ Τῆς ΟὐΣΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΕἾΝΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΥἹῸΝ … ΕἸ ΓᾺΡ ΚΑῚ ἌΛΛΑ ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἜΧΕΙ ΤῊΝ ὝΠΑΡΞΙΝ, ΜΑΤΑΊΩς Ἡ ΤΟῦ ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟῦς ἜΚΕΙΤΟ ΦΩΝΉ.

ΠΑΤΡΌς] without the article (Winer, p. 116 [E. Tr. p. 151]). ΠΑΡᾺ ΠΑΤΡ. must be joined to ΜΟΝΟΓ., to which it adds the definite idea of having gone forth, i.e. of having come from the Father (Joh_6:46, Joh_7:29, Joh_16:27). Correlative with this is Joh_1:18, ὁ ὢν εἰς τ. κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, where the, only-begotten Son who came forth from the Father is viewed as having again returned to the Father. The conception of having been begotten, consequently of derivation from the essence, would be expressed by the simple genitive (πατρός) or by the dative, or by ἐκ or ἀπό, but lies in the word μονογενοῦς itself; since this expresses the very generation, and therefore the ἘΚ Τῆς ΟὐΣΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΕἾΝΑΙ (Origen). Its connection with ΔΌΞΑΝ (Erasmus, Grotius, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 120, Weiss; already Theophyl.?) is in itself grammatically admissible (Plut. Agis, 2; Plato, Phaedr. p. 232 A; Act_26:12), but is not favoured here either by the position of the words or by the connection, from which the idea of the origin of the ΔΌΞΑ lay far remote, the object being to designate the nature of the δόξα; moreover, the anarthrous μονογ. requires a more precise definition, which is exactly what it has in παρὰ πατρός.

πλήρης χάρ κ. ἀληθ.] To be referred to the subject, though that (αὐτοῦ) stands in the genitive. See above. It explains how the Logos, having become incarnate, manifested Himself to those who beheld His glory. Grace and truth[101] are the two efficaciously saving and inseparable factors of His whole manifestation and ministry, not constituting His δόξα (Luthardt),a notion opposed to Joh_2:11; Joh_2:17,but displaying it and making it known to those who beheld that glory. Through Gods grace to sinful man He became man; and by His whole work on earth up to the time of His return to His Father, He has been the instrument of obtaining for believers the blessing of becoming the children of God. Truth, again, was what He revealed in the whole of His work, especially by His preaching, the theme of which was furnished by His intuition of God (Joh_1:18), and which therefore must necessarily reveal in an adequate manner Gods nature and counsel, and be the opposite of σκοτία and ψεῦδος. Comp. Mat_11:27. The ἀλήθεια corresponds formally to the nature of the Logos as light (φῶς); the χάρις, which bestows everlasting life (Joh_3:15), to His nature as life (ζωή), Joh_1:4-5. That the χάρις κ. ἀλήθεια with which He was filled are divine grace and truth, of which He was the possessor and bearer, so that in Him they attained their complete manifestation (comp. Joh_16:6), is self-evident from what has preceded, but is not specially indicated, as would necessarily have been done by the use of the article, which would have expressed the grace and truth (simply) κατʼ ἐξοχήν. Joh_1:16 f. is decisive against the construction of πληρής with what follows (Erasmus, Paulus). Whether John, moreover, used the words πλήρ. χάριτος κ. ἀληθ. with any reference to Exo_34:6 (Hengstenberg) is very doubtful, for אֱמֶת in that passage has a different meaning (truthfulness, fidelity). John is speaking independently, from his own full experience and authority as a witness. Through a profound living experience, he had come to feel, and here declares his conviction, that all salvation depends on the incarnation of the Logos.

[89] Against Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 459.

[90] Hence also σάρξ is selected for the purpose of expressing the full antithesis, and not σῶμα, because there might be a σῶμα without σάρξ (1Co_15:40; 1Co_15:44); and besides, the expression ὁ λόγος σῶμα ἐγένετο would not necessarily include the possession of a human soul. John might also have written ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο (Joh_5:27, Joh_8:40), but σάρξ presented the antithesis of both forms of existence most sharply and strikingly, and yet at the same time unquestionably designates the human personality (Joh_17:2). According to Baur, indeed, it is said to be impossible to understand by the incarnation any proper assumption of humanity.

[91] Comp. the well-known Sum quod eram, nec eram quod sum, nunc dicor utrumque. In Jesus Christ we have the absolute synthesis of the divine and the human.

[92] Of late, Zeller in particular (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1842, I. 74) has limited the Johannean doctrine of the human element in the person of Jesus simply to His corporeity, excluding any special human anima rationalis. Comp. also Köstlin, p. 148 ff., and Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 362. That σάρξ was the merely formal non-personal clothing of the Logos-subject (Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. 1866, p. 260), does not correspond with the conception of ἄνθρωπος, under which Christ represents Himself (Joh_8:40). This is also in answer to Scholten, who in like manner comes to the conclusion that, in Johns view, Jesus was man as to His body only, but the Logos as to His spirit.

[93] So John in particular. See Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 234 ff., who, however, explains the σὰρξ ἐγένετο from the Valentinian system, and attributes to the evangelist the notion of a corporeity, real indeed, but not fettered by the limitation of a material body, appealing to Joh_6:16 ff., Joh_7:10; Joh_7:15, Joh_8:59, Joh_2:19 ff. Baurs view is similar, though he does not go so far. Baur, p. 367.

[94] Rightly has the church held firmly to the perfection (perfectio) of the divine and human natures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be justified on exegetical grounds, and especially no such doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos became a human soul or a human spirit (comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. 198 f.). This modification, which some apply to the κένωσις, is un-scriptural, and is particularly opposed to Johns testimony throughout his Gospel and First Epistle. How little does Gess succeed in reconciling his view with Joh_5:26, for example,a passage which is always an obstacle in his way! Further, according to Wörner, Verhältn. d. Geistes zum Sohne Gott. p. 27, the Logos became a soul. Against Hahn, see Dorner in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1856, p. 393 ff.

[95] For assuredly the same Subject, which in His divine essence was pre-existent as the eternal Logos, may as a temporal human manifestation come into existence and begin to be, so that in and by itself the manner of this origination, natural or supernatural, makes no difference in the conceivableness of the fact (against Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 222).

[96] In this He tabernacled among us not merely as a divine principle (Beyschlag), but as πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος (Col_2:9), i.e. exactly what He was as the personal Logos. Thus His body was the temple of God (Joh_2:19), the true special dwelling of Gods gracious presence.

[97] Comp. Gess, Person Chr. p. 123.

[98] All limitations to individual points, as e.g. to the miracles, or even specially to the history of the transfiguration (Luk_9:32; Wetstein, Tittmann), are arbitrary.

[99] Which indeed, even after His exaltation, is and ever continues to be that of the God-man, though without limitation and perfect.According to Weiss (Lehrbegr. p. 261), the δόξα of the Logos cannot he that of the originally divine essence itself, but one vouchsafed to Christ for the purpose of His works. This, however, is contrary to the express meaning of the word here, where by the τὴν δόξ. αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ., we can only understand His proper glory brought with Him by the Logos into His incarnate life. As to Joh_17:22, see on that passage.

[100] Therefore μονογ. is without the article. The expression is qualitative.

[101] Where, according to Hilgenfeld, the author must have had in view the female Aeons of the two first Syzygies of the Valentinian system. John undoubtedly has the word χάρις only in the Prologue, but Matthew and Mark also do not use it; while Luke does not employ it in the sense of saving Christian grace, in which sense it first occurs in the Acts and in Paul.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 1:14-18 . The manifestation of the Logos defined as Incarnation .

Joh 1:14 . καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο , “and the Word became flesh”. This is not a mere repetition. John has told us that the Logos came into the world, but now he emphasises the actual mode of His coming and the character of the revelation thus made, καί “simply carrying forward the discourse” (Meyer) and now introducing the chief statement (Luthardt). It is this great statement to which the whole prologue has been directed; and accordingly he names again the great Being to whom he at first introduced us but whom he has not named since the first verse. As forcibly as possible does he put the contrast between the prior and the subsequent conditions, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ; he does not even say ἄνθρωπος but σάρξ . He wishes both to emphasise the interval crossed, λόγος , σάρξ ; and to direct attention to the visibility of the manifestation. Cf. 1Ti 3:16 , ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ; 1Jn 4:2 , ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθώς ; also Heb 2:14 . “Flesh expresses here human nature as a whole regarded under the aspect of its present corporal embodiment, including of necessity the ‘soul’ (Joh 12:27 ) and the ‘spirit’ (Joh 11:33 , Joh 13:21 ) as belonging to the totality of man” (Westcott). The copula is ἐγένετο , and what precisely this word covers has been the problem of theology ever since the Gospel was written. The Logos did not become flesh in the sense that He was turned into flesh or ceased to be what He was before; as a boy who becomes a man ceases to be a boy. By his use of the word ἐκένωσεν in connection with the incarnation Paul intimates that something was left behind when human nature was assumed; but in any case this was not the Divine essence nor the personality. The virtue of the incarnation clearly consists in this, that the very Logos became man. The Logos, retaining His personal identity, “became” man so as to live as man. καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν , “and tabernacled among us”; not only appeared in the flesh for a brief space, manifesting Himself as a Being apart from men and superior to human conditions, but dwelt among us (“non tantum momento uno apparuisse, sed versatum esse inter homines,” Calvin). The “tent,” σκηνή , suggests no doubt temporary occupation, but not more temporary than human life. Cf. 2Co 5:1 , 2Pe 1:13 . And both in classical and N.T. Greek σκηνοῦν had taken the meaning “dwell,” whether for a long or a short time. Cf. Rev 7:15 ; Rev 12:12 , and Raphel, Annot. in loc . From the use of the word in Xenophon to denote living together and eating together Brentius would interpret in a fuller sense: “Filius ille Dei came indutus, inter nos homines vixit, nobiscum locutus est, nobiscum convivatus est”. But the association in John’s mind was of course not military, but was rather with the Divine tabernacle in the wilderness, when Jehovah pitched His tent among the shifting tents of His people, and shared even in their thirty-eight years of punishment. Whether there is an allusion to the שְׁבִינָה has been doubted, but it is probable. The Shekinah meant the token of God’s presence and glory, and among the later Jews at all events it was supposed to be present not only in the temple but with individuals. See Schoettgen in loc. and Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud , § 39. What the tabernacle had been, the dwelling of God in the midst of the people, the humanity of the Logos now was. καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ , we, among whom He lived, beheld by our own personal observation the glory of the incarnate Logos. “Beheld,” neither, on the one hand, only by spiritual contemplation (Baur), nor, on the other, merely with the bodilyeye, by which the glory could not be seen. This “beholding” John treasured as the wealth and joy of his life. The “glory” they saw was not like the cloud or dazzling light in which God had manifested His glory in the ancient tabernacle. It was now a true ethical glory, a glory of personality and character, manifesting itself in human conditions. It is described as something unique, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός , “a glory as of an only begotten from a father”. ὡς introduces an illustrative comparison, as is indicated by the anarthrous μονογενοῦς . Holtzmann expands thus: “The impression which the glory made was of so specific a character that it could be taken for nothing less than such a glory as an only son has from a father, that is, as the only one of its kind: for besides the μονογενής a father has no other sons”. But the expression is no doubt suggested by the immediately preceding statement that as many as received Christ were born of God. The glory of the Incarnate Logos, however, is unique, that of an only begotten. In the connection, therefore, the application of the relation of Father and Son to God and Christ is close at hand and obvious, although not explicitly made. “The thought centres in the abstract relation of Father and Son, though in the actual connection this abstract relation passes necessarily into the relation of the Son to the Father.” Westcott. παρὰ πατρός more naturally follows δόξαν than μονογενοῦς . The glory proceeds from the Father and dwells in the only begotten wholly , as if there were no other children required to reflect some rays of the Divine glory. Accordingly He is πλήρης . With what is πλήρης to be construed? Erasmus thinks with Ἰωάννης following. Codex Bezae reads πλήρη and joins it to δόξαν . Many interpreters consider it to be one of those slight irregularities such as occur in Mar 12:40 and Phi 3:19 and in the Apoc., and would unite it either with αὐτοῦ or μονογενοῦς . But ( pace Weiss) there is no good reason why we should not accept it as it stands and construe it in agreement with the nominative to ἐσκήνωσε . χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας . His glory consisted in the moral qualities that appeared in Him. What these qualities were will appear more readily from Joh 1:17 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The repeated καὶ introducing the next three clauses should be noticed.

Here we have the climax of the Johannine doctrine of Christ as the Word. That the Son of God became man is unmistakably taught by Paul (Rom 1:3, Rom 8:3, Gal 4:4, Php 2:7, Php 2:8): He was “manifested in the flesh” (1Ti 3:16). So, also, according to Heb 2:14, He partook of our flesh and blood. But the contribution of Jn. to this exalted Christology is that he expressly identifies Christ with the “Word of God,” vaguely spoken of in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrews and also in the teaching of Philo and his Greek predecessors. The Logos of philosophy is, Jn. declares, the Jesus of history (cf. v. 11); and this is now stated in terms which cannot be misunderstood. That “the Word became flesh” must have seemed a paradox to many of those who read the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel when it was first made public; but the form of the proposition is deliberate. It would have been impossible for Philo (see Introd., p. cxli).

The heresy of Docetism was always present to the mind of Jn. (while it is most plainly in view in the First Epistle); the idea of Christ as a mere phantasm, without human flesh and blood, was to him destructive of the Gospel. “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1Jn 4:2). But it is the deceiver and the antichrist who “confess not that He is come in the flesh” (2Jn 1:7). The lofty teaching of the Prologue identifies Jesus with the Word, and the explicit declaration that the Word became flesh was necessary to exclude Docetic teaching.1 A characteristic feature of the Fourth Gospel is its frequent insistence on the true humanity of Jesus. He is represented as tired and thirsty (4:6, 7; cf. 19:28). His emotion of spirit is expressed in His voice (see on 11:33). He wept (11:35). His spirit was troubled in the anticipation of His Passion (12:27, 13:21). And the emphasis laid by Jn. on His “flesh” and “blood” (6:53), as well as on the “blood and water” of the Crucifixion scene, shows that Jn. writes thus of set purpose. Cf. also 20:27. At one point (8:40) Jn. attributes to Jesus the use of the word ἄνθρωπος as applied to Himself.

ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Here σάρξ signifies man’s nature as a whole, including his rational soul (cf. 1Th 5:23). Thus the rendering here in the Old Syriac (although not in the Peshitta) of σάρξ by pagar,2 sc. “the Word became a body”—a rendering known to Ephraim3 and Aphrahat4—is inadequate and might mislead. The Logos did not became “a man,” but He became “man” in the fullest sense; the Divine Person assuming human nature in its completeness. To explain the exact significance of ἐγένετο in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter.

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. This sentence has generally in modern times been understood to mean “and He pitched His tent among us,” or dwelt among us, ἡμῖν referring to those who witnessed the public ministry of Jesus, and more particularly to those who associated with Him in daily intercourse. ἐν ἡμῖν, on this rendering, would be equivalent to apud nos or inter nos, a use of ἐν with the dative which may be defended by 10:19, 11:54. A σκήνη or tent is a temporary habitation, and ἐσκήνωσεν might thus indicate the sojourn on earth for a brief season of the Eternal Word. In the N.T., however, the verb does not connote temporary sojourning in any other place where it is found.

Origen5 and Chrysostom6 understand the clause differently, For them, it is parallel to the preceding clause, “the Word became flesh,” and is another statement of the Incarnation.1 The Word took humanity as His tabernacle, ὥσπερ ὁ ναὸς δόξαν εἶχε θεοῦ κατασκηνοῦσαν ἐν αὐτῷ (Origen, l.c. 202). This would be in harmony with Paul’s great phrase ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστέ (1Co 3:16), and gives its proper force to ἐν ἡμῖν. Cf. Ecclus. 24:8 ἐν Ἰακὼβ κατασκήνωσον, as addressed to Wisdom.

In the N.T. the verb only occurs again Rev 7:15, Rev 12:12, Rev 13:6 and 21:3, where it is said that in the New Jerusalem God σκηνώσει μετʼ αὐτῶν. So the prophets had foretold, e.g. κατασκηνώσω ἐν μέσῳ σου, λέγει κύριος (Zec 2:10); ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς (Eze 37:27). Cf. Lev 26:11, Eze 43:7. Such language goes back to the thought of the σκήνη or tabernacle in the desert (Exo 25:8, Exo 25:9), where Yahweh dwelt with Israel. The verb σκηνοῦν would always recall this to a Jew. Philo says that the sacred σκήνη was a symbol of God’s intention to send down to earth from heaven the perfection of His Divine virtue (Quis div. hœr. 23).

The language of this verse recalls Psa 85:9, Psa 85:10:

His salvation is nigh them that fear Him,

That glory (δόξα) may dwell (κατασκηνῶσαι) in our land:

Mercy (ἔλεος) and truth (ἀλήθεια) have met together,

Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.

The connexion of δόξα and the verb σκηνοῦν will presently be examined more closely.

ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. θεᾶσθαι is never used in the N.T. of spiritual vision, while it is used 22 times of “seeing” with the bodily eyes. Cf. 1:32, 38, 4:35, 6:5, 11:45, 1Jn 4:12, 1Jn 4:14 (θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται … ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεθα … ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱόν), and 1Jn 1:1, 1Jn 1:2 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα κτλ. Neither here nor at 1Jn 1:1 is there any question of a supersensuous, mystical perception of spiritual facts, in both passages the claim being that the author has “seen” with his eyes (the aorist points to a definite moment in the historic past) the manifested glory of the Incarnate Word.

The use of the first person plural when speaking of his Christian experience is characteristic of Jn., and runs all through the First Epistle (cf. 1Jn 1:1, 1Jn 1:3:2, 14, 1Jn 1:5:15, 19, 20) He speaks not only for himself but for his fellow-believers (cf. 3:11); and in this passage for such of these (whether living or departed) as had been eye-witnesses of the public ministry of Jesus. (Cf. also 2Pe 1:17, and see Introd., p. lx).

δόξα, δοξάζειν are favourite words with Jn. (although they are not found in the Johannine Epistles). Certain shades of meaning must be distinguished.

As in Greek authors generally, δόξα often means no more than “honour,” and δοξάζειν means “to honour greatly”; e.g. 5:41, 7:18, 8:50, 54, 9:24, 11:4, 12:43, 14:13, 15:8, 16:14, 17:1, 4, 10, 21:19 (See on 4:44). But Jn. uses these words sometimes with special reference to that δόξα which belongs to God alone, e.g. 17:5 recalls the glory of the Eternal Word. According to one interpretation (see above) of ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, δόξα here (cf. 2:11, 11:40) stands for the Divine glory exhibited in the earthly life of Jesus which was perceived by those who companied with Him, and this must in any case be part of the meaning of ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. The crisis of this “glorification” in Jn. is the Passion (7:39, 12:16, 23) consummated in the Risen Life (13:32). See especially on 13:32.

We must, at this point, recall the later Jewish doctrine of the Shekinah or visible dwelling of Yahweh with His people. The word שְׁכִינָה, “that which dwells,” is appropriated in later Judaism to the Divine presence. When in the O.T. Yahweh is said to dwell in a place, the Targums, to avoid anthropomorphism, preferred to say that He “caused His Shekinah to dwell.” The Shekinah was the form of His manifestation, which was glorious; but the glory is distinct from the Shekinah, which is used as equivalent to the Divine Being Himself. Thus the Targum of Isa 60:2 is: “In thee the Shekinah of Yahweh shall dwell, and His glory shall be revealed upon thee.” Again, Lev 26:12, “I will walk among you and be your God,” becomes in the Targum “I will place the glory of my Shekinah among you, and my Memra shall be with you.” Or again, Isa 6:1, “I saw the Lord,” becomes in the Targum “I saw the glory of the Lord” (see on 12:41).1

Now by bilingual Jews the representation of Shekinah by σκήνη was natural, and when σκηνοῦν or κατασκηνοῦν is used in the later books of the LXX or the Apocalypse of the dwelling of God with men, the allusion is generally to the doctrine of the Shekinah (cf. Rev 7:15). Accordingly, ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ also carries a probable allusion to the glory of the Shekinah which was the manifestation on earth of God Himself.2

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. The glory of the Word is described as “a glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.” Neither Son nor Father has yet been mentioned, and the sentence is a parenthesis explanatory of the δόξα of the Word. We may connect παρὰ πατρός either (a) with μονογενοῦς or (b) with δόξαν.

If (a) be adopted, then we have the parallels 6:46, 7:29, 16:27, 17:8, in all of which passages Jesus says of Himself that He is παρὰ θεοῦ or the like, a phrase which means more when applied to Him thus than it means in 1:6, where John Baptist has been described as ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, or in 9:16, 33, where the Pharisees say that Jesus was not παρὰ θεοῦ. But μονογενὴς παρά would be an unusual combination, especially in Jn., who always has ἐκ θεοῦ, not παρὰ θεοῦ, when he wishes to say “begotten of God”1 (cf. 1Jn 2:29, 1Jn 2:3:9, 1Jn 2:4:7, 1Jn 2:5:1, 1Jn 2:4, 1Jn 2:18). It is true, indeed, that the distinctions between παρά, ἀπό, and ἐκ were being gradually obliterated in the first century, and that we cannot always distinguish παρά from ἐκ (see on 6:46), but the point is that Jn. never uses παρά with γεννᾶσθαι.

(b) If we connect δόξαν with παρὰ πατρός, the meaning is “the glory such as the only Son receives from his Father.” Cf. 5:41, 44 for δόξαν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ. “No image but the relation of a μονογενής to a father can express the twofold character of the glory as at once derivative and on a level with its source.”2 The manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son. Cf. 8:54 ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, where see note.

The word μονογενής is generally used of an only child (e.g. Jdg 11:34, Tob. 3:15, 6:10, 14, Luk 7:12, Luk 8:42, Luk 9:38, Heb 11:17), the emphasis being on μονο—rather than on γενής. Thus Plato speaks of μονογενὴς οὐρανός (Tim. 31); and Clement of Rome (§ 25) describes the legendary bird, the phænix, as μονογενές, sc. it is the only one of its kind, unique (cf. the LXX of Psa 25:16). Some of the O.L. texts (a e q) render μονογενής here by unicus, which is the original meaning, rather than by unigenitus, which became the accepted Latin rendering so soon as controversies arose about the Person and Nature of Christ.

An only child is specially dear to its parents; and μονογενής is used to translate יָתִיד in Psa 22:20,3 35:17, where we should expect ἀγαπητός. Conversely ἀγαπητός is used for an only son, Gen 22:2; cf. Amo 8:10.Amo 8:1 And in every place where Jn. has μονογενής (except perhaps in this verse), viz. 1:18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9, we might substitute, as Kattenbusch has pointed out, ἀγαπητός for it, without affecting the sense materially.2

At this point, however, the meaning is clear. The glory of the Incarnate Word was such glory as the only Son of the Eternal Father would derive from Him and so could exhibit to the faithful.

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. If καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα … πατρός is parenthetical, as we take it to be, then πλήρης is in apposition to λόγος at the beginning of the verse, and the construction is regular and simple. If the adj. πλήρης were always treated as declinable (as it is, e.g., Mar 8:19, Mat 14:20, Mat 15:37, Act 6:3), this would be the only possible construction of the passage.

πλήρης, however, is often treated as indeclinable by scribes, in the N.T., the LXX, and the papyri;3 and it is possible, therefore, to take it in the present passage (the only place where it occurs in Jn.) as in apposition either to δόξαν or to αὐτοῦ or μονογενοῦς in the previous line. For πλήρης here D reads πλήρη, which apparently was meant by the scribe to be taken with δόξαν. Turner has shown4 that Irenæus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and later Greek Fathers did not connect πλήρης with ὁ λόγος, but (generally) with δόξαν. And the Curetonian Syriac (Syr. sin. is deficient at this point) will not permit πλήρης to be taken with λόγος.5

On the contrary, Origen seems to favour the connexion of πλήρης with λόγος or μονογενής.6 The O.L. (followed by vulg.) has plenum in apposition with uerbum; and internal evidence seems to favour this construction, despite the authority of most Greek Fathers. For to speak of the glory of Christ as being “full of grace and truth” is not as intelligible as to speak of Christ Himself being πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας; cf. Act 6:8, Στέφανος πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως, and for this constr. of πλήρης as descriptive of a man’s quality, see Act 6:3, Act 6:5, Act 6:7:55, Act 6:11:24. Further, in v. 16 the πλήρωμα from which Christians receive grace is that of Christ Himself, which shows that πλήρης here refers to Him.

The problem is one of grammar rather than of exegesis, for on any rendering grace and truth are specified as characteristic attributes of the Incarnate Word, or of His manifestation of Himself in the world. These two words χάρις and ἀλήθεια must now be examined.

The characteristically Christian word χάρις does not appear in Jn. except at 1:14, 16, 17, in the Prologue. It is never placed in the mouth of Jesus by any evangelist (except in the sense of thanks, Luk 6:32, Luk 6:34, Luk 6:17:9), and is not used at all by Mk. or Mt. In Lk. it is applied occasionally to the special favour of God to individuals (1:30, 2:40, 52), as it is several times in the LXX (e.g. Gen 6:8). But its Christian use as grace is derived from Paul,1 who habitually employs it to designate the condescending love of God in redemption, as contrasted with the legalism of the Mosaic economy (Rom 5:21, Rom 6:14 and passim); and the influence of Paul’s terminology appears in Acts (e.g. 20:24 το εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ), Heb 10:29, 1Pe 1:13, etc. So we have χάρις in the specially Christian sense in Barnabas, § 5, and Ignatius (Magn. 8), and thenceforth in all Christian writers. But Jn. never uses χάρις except here and vv. 16, 17, and this is an indication of the faithfulness with which the primitive Christian phraseology is preserved in the Fourth Gospel. He does not even speak of the grace of God, when he writes ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον (3:16), although what Paul meant by χάρις is behind his thought.

On the other hand, ἀλήθεια is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel. The question of Pilate, “What is truth?” (18:38) has received its answer. It was the purpose of Christ’s mission that He should “bear witness to the truth” (18:37; cf. 5:33). The Word of the Father which He came to proclaim is truth (17:8). He emphasises the truth of His pronouncements to His disciples (16:7) and to the multitude (8:45). He is “a man that hath told you the truth” (8:40). Truth came through Him (1:17); He is “full of truth” (1:14); He is the Truth itself (14:6). So He will send the Spirit of truth (15:26, 14:17; cf. 1Jn 4:6, 1Jn 5:7), who is to guide the faithful into all the truth (16:13). Christ’s disciples will “know the truth, and the truth shall make them free” (8:32); “he that doeth the truth cometh to the light” (3:21; cf. 1Jn 1:6); and Christ’s prayer for His chosen is that they may be “sanctified in the truth” (17:17, 19). Every one that is of the truth hears His voice (18:38).

The word ἀλήθεια occurs 25 times in the Gospel and 20 times in the Johannine Epp., while it is only found 7 times in the Synoptists and not at all in the Apocalypse. The distribution of ἀληθής and ἀληθῶς is similar, while that of ἀληθινός (see on v. 9) is somewhat different, as it is common in the Apocalypse. These figures show that the idea of Truth is dominant with Jn.,1 and that the truth of Christ’s teachings is one of his deepest convictions. He represents Christ as claiming to teach and to be the Truth; and although the Synoptists do not dwell upon it, yet this feature of Christ’s claim appears in their account of His controversy with the Pharisees at Jerusalem during the last week of His public ministry (Mar 12:14, Mat 22:16, Luk 20:21). “We know,” they said, “that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth”; i.e. they began by a verbal recognition of the claim that He had made for Himself, a claim directly recorded by Jn. alone. While then, the emphasis laid in the Fourth Gospel upon the truth of Christ’s teaching is partly due to the circumstances in which the book was produced, and the desire of Jn. to assure his readers not only of the spiritual beauty but also of the solid foundations of Christian doctrine, we need not doubt that it gives a representation faithful to historical fact, when it describes Jesus as Himself claiming to be the Ambassador and Revealer of the Truth. In the Galilæan discourses we should not expect to find this topic prominently brought forward, and the Synoptists are mainly occupied with Galilee. But when they bring Jesus to the critical and intellectual society of Jerusalem, they indicate that His claims to the possession of absolute truth had been noticed by those who wished to disparage and controvert His teaching.

Various explanations have been offered of the combination “grace and truth” as the two pre-eminent attributes of the Incarnate Logos. As we have seen, grace is what Jn. prefers to describe as love (God’s love descending on men), and truth brings light (cf. Psa 43:3)); accordingly some exegetes refer back to v. 4, where the Divine life issues in light. But even if we equate χάρις with ἀγάπη, we cannot equate it with ζωή; and further Jn. does not represent ἀλήθεια as issuing from χάρις. Rather are χάρις and ἀλήθεια co-ordinate.

The combination is found again in v. 17, where grace and truth, which came through Christ, are contrasted with the Law, which was given through Moses. In the O.T. χάρις and ἀλήθεια are not explicitly combined, but ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια occur often in combination as attributes of Yahweh (Psa 40:11 89:14; cf. Exo 34:6), and in Psa 61:7 as attributes of the Messianic King. As we have seen above (p. 21), the meeting of ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια is associated in Psa 85:9, Psa 85:10 with the dwelling (κατασκηνῶσαι) in the Holy Land of the Divine δόξα. And it is to this passage in the Psalter, more than to any other passage in the O.T., that the words and thoughts of Joh 1:14 are akin. The idea of the Divine compassion (ἔλεος), of which the O.T. is full, is enlarged and enriched in the N.T. by the idea of Divine grace (χάρις).1

The Baptist’s Witness to the Pre-Mundane Existence of the Word (V. 15)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[See also the "General Considerations on the Prologue" in the comments of Joh 1:18.]

Ver. 14. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us—and we beheld His glory, a glory as of the only-begotten Son coming from the presence of the Father—full of grace and truth.

The connection between this verse and the preceding, which is involved in καί, and, is expressed in the following thought: If faith can make of a man born of the flesh a child of God, it is because it has for its object the Word made flesh. The coming of Christ upon earth in the flesh had been already mentioned in Joh 1:11, from the point of view of its relation to Israel, and of the unbelief by which it had been met. John proclaims again the great fact, the subject of his narrative, from the point of view of all mankind, and as the object of the faith of the Church. There is, therefore, no tautology in this repetition. It even reflects very faithfully the phases of the development of faith in the heart of those who were formerly Jews, like John and the apostles. They first witness the appearance of the Messiah in Israel (to His own) Joh 1:11, and they see Him ignominiously rejected. But far from joining in this rejection, they receive Him as the promised Messiah, and through their faith in Him find the privileges of adoption and regeneration (Joh 1:12-13).

Then sounding in all its depths the object of a faith which is capable of effecting such wonders, they cry out: “This is the Word who has been made flesh!” The idea of the national Messiah was thus gradually transformed in them into that of the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind. The καί, and, is not, therefore, here a simple connecting copula. How, indeed, can we connect with one another by an and or an and also two ideas which are as unlike as those of 13b and 14a: “They are born of God,” and (and also): “the Word became flesh.” We do not think that the thought of the evangelist is any more successfully apprehended by paraphrasing this καί, as Luthardt does, “and to tell the whole truth,” or, as Bruckner, “and in these circumstances.” The paraphrase of Weiss-Meyer: “And this is the way in which faith in Him was able to take form and produce such happy fruits....,” amounts to nearly the same thing with our own explanation, which was already that of Chrysostom, Grotius, etc.

The emphasis is not on the subject: the Word; this noun is repeated (instead of the simple pronoun) only with the purpose of better emphasizing the contrast between the subject and the predicate became flesh. The Word to which everything owes its existence, which created us ourselves, became a member of the human race. The word fleshproperly denotes, in its strict sense, the soft parts of the body, as opposed either to the hard parts, the bones; thus when it is said, “Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones” (Gen 2:23),—or to the blood (Joh 6:54). From this more restricted sense, a broader one is derived: the entire body, regarded from the view-point of its substance, the animated matter; so 1Co 15:39. Finally, as the flesh is properly the seat of physical sensibility, this word, by metonomy, often designates the entire human being, in so far as he is governed in his natural state by sensibility with respect to pleasure and pain. “For also they are but flesh,” is said of men before the deluge, Gen 6:3. Comp. Joh 17:11; Psa 65:1; Rom 3:20 : all flesh, no flesh, for: every man, no man. Undoubtedly, the desire of enjoyment and the dread of suffering are not in themselves criminal instincts. They are often the precious means by which man escapes from a multitude of losses and injuries of which he would otherwise not be conscious. Still more: without this double natural sensibility, man would never be able to offer to God anything but “sacrifices which cost him nothing.” He could not himself become “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1), and thereby fulfill his noblest destiny, that of glorifying God by the sacrifice of himself. But, on the other hand, it cannot be denied that in these two natural propensities lies the possibility of temptation and sin.

Human nature in this critical condition: such is the form of existence which the Word has consented to take for himself. The expression became flesh, accordingly signifies, first of all, that the Word left the immaterial state of divine being to assume a body, and to confine Himself, like the creature, within the limits of time and space. But the word fleshexpresses much more than this. Since the work of Zeller (Theol. Jahrb. 1842), the Tubingen school makes John say that the Logos borrowed from humanity only the material body, while He Himself filled, in Jesus, the office of thespirit in every other man (the old theory of Apollinaris). But John does not dream of any such thing. We have just proved that the word flesh often designates the entire human person (spirit, soul and body, 1Th 5:23). This is certainly the case in this passage. The expression: “the Word became body,” would have no meaning. It would have been necessary to say: took a body.

Jesus sometimes speaks in our Gospel of His soul, and of His soul as troubled (Joh 12:27). It is related of Him that He groaned or that He was troubled in His spirit (Joh 11:33; Joh 13:21), that He gave up His spirit (Joh 19:30); all this implies that the Logos does not play the part of the spirit in the person of Jesus. The spirit of Jesus is, as in every man, one of the elements of the human nature, like the soul and the body. It follows from this that the flesh denotes, in our passage, complete human nature. Consequently, this term flesh is not intended to describe merely the visibility or corporeity of Jesus (de Wette, Reuss, Baur), or even the poverty and weakness of His earthly manifestation (Olshausen, Tholuck). It designates the reality and integrity of the human mode of existence into which Jesus entered. In virtue of this incarnation, He was able to suffer, to enjoy, to be tempted, to struggle, to learn, to make progress, to love, to pray, exactly like us; comp. Heb 2:17. The phrase ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο, became man, would have expressed nearly the same idea; only it would have described Jesus as a particular personality, as a definite representative of the human type, and it might have been imagined that this man had reserved for Himself an exceptional position in the race. The term flesh, which denotes only the state, the mode of existence, more clearly affirms the complete homogeneity between His condition and ours. Moreover, Jesus does not hesitate to apply to Himself the word ἄνθρωπος, man, Joh 8:40; and the name by which in preference to all others He described Himself, was Son of man (see on Joh 1:51).

The word which fills the interval between the subject, the Word, and the predicate, flesh, is the verb ἐγένετο, became. The word become, when it has a substantive for its predicate, implies a profound transformation in the subject’s mode of being. Thus Joh 2:9 : “The water became wine” (τὸ ὗδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον). When a person is in question, this word become, without implicating his identity, indicates that he has changed his condition; for example, in the expression: The king become a shepherd. Baur and Reuss affirm that, in the evangelist’s thought, the Logos, though becoming flesh, remained in possession not only of His consciousness, but also of His attributes as Logos. He clothed Himself, indeed, with a body, according to them, but as if with a temporary covering. “This incarnation was for Him only something accessory” (Reuss, ii., p. 456). Yet this scholar cannot help saying (p. 451): “There is nothing but the word become which positively affirms that, in coming, He changed the form of His existence.” Certainly! And we affirm nothing more, but nothing less. The wordbecome shows, indeed, that this change reached even the foundation of the existence of the Logos. This natural sense of the word become is not invalidated by the expression is come in the flesh, 1Jn 4:2, in which Reuss finds the affirmation of the preserving of His original nature with all its attributes, but which really involves only the continuity of His personality. The personal subject in the Logos remained the same when He passed from the divine state to the human state, but with the complete surrender of all the divine attributes, the possession of which would have been incompatible with the reality of the human mode of existence. And if He ever recovers the divine state, it will not be by renouncing His human personality, but by exalting it even to the point where it can become the organ of the divine state. This, as it seems to us, is the true Christological conception, as it appears in the Scriptures generally, and in our passage in particular.

The content of John’s declaration, therefore, is not: Two natures or two opposite modes of being co-existing in the same subject; but a single subject passing from one mode of being to another, in order to recover the first by perfectly realizing the second. The teaching of John, as thus understood, is in complete harmony with that of Paul. That apostle says, indeed, Php 2:6-8 : “He who was in the form of God...emptied (divested) Himself, having taken the form of a servant and having become like to men;” and 2Co 8:9 : “Though He was rich, He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.” These passages express, in a form which is completely independent of that of John, a conception which is identically the same: The incarnation by means of a divesting (κένωσις). We shall see that the whole Gospel history, and especially the picture of Jesus which is traced by our evangelist, accords perfectly, notwithstanding all the contrary assertions of Reuss, with the thesis of the Prologue as thus understood.

After having entered the human life, the Word took up His abode there and appropriated it to Himself even to the end; this is expressed by the following clause. The word σκηνοῦν, literally, to dwell in a tent, contains, according to Meyer, Reuss, etc., an allusion to a technical word in the religious philosophy of the later Jews, Shechinah (the dwelling-place), which denoted the visible forms by which Jehovah manifested His presence in the midst of His people. We might see thus in this word σκηνοῦν, to live in a tent, especially with the limiting phrase ἐν ημῖν, among us, an allusion to the Tabernacle in the wilderness, which was, as it were, the tent of Jehovah, Himself a pilgrim among His pilgrim people. To this conformity between the sort of habitation which Jehovah had and that of His people answers the complete community in the mode of existence between the incarnate Word and men, His brethren. Perhaps, these allusions are somewhat refined and John’s thought is merely that of comparing the flesh of Jesus (His humanity) to a tent like ours (2Co 5:1).

This word σκηνοῦν, to camp, denotes, in any case, all the familiar relations which He sustained with His fellow-men; varied relations like those which a pilgrim sustains towards the other members of the caravan. It is as if John had said: “We ate and drank at the same table, slept under the same roof, walked and journeyed together; we knew Him as son, brother, friend, guest, citizen. Even to the end, He remained faithful to the path on which He entered when He became a man.” This expression, therefore, calls to mind all the condescension of that divine being, who thus veiled His majesty in order to share in the existence of the companions of His journey.—The limiting phrase ἐν ἡμῖν, among us, does not refer to men in general, nor even to the Church in its totality. In connection with the word σκηνοῦν, to live in a tent, and with the following phrase, we beheld, it can only designate the immediate witnesses of the earthly existence of Jesus, who sustained towards Him the familiar relations comprised in the notion of life in common. The expression of the general feeling of the Church will come later, Joh 1:16-18.

According as this spectacle presents itself to the thought of the evangelist, and assumes, in the wordsamong us, the character of the most personal recollection, it becomes to him the object of delightful contemplation. The phrase is broken. The word us, of the limiting phrase, suddenly becomes the subject, while the subject, the Word and His glory, passes into the position of the grammatical object: “And we beheld His glory.” How easily may this change of construction be understood in the writing of an eye-witness! We observe the reverse change in the first verses of 1 John: “That which we have heard, that which we beheld of the Word of life..., for the life was manifested and we have seen it, this it is which we declare unto you.” Here, the apostle begins with the impression received—it is a letter—to pass from this to the fact itself. But in the Gospel, where he speaks as a historian, after having started from the fact, he describes the ineffable joy which the witnesses experienced in this sight.

The word θεᾶσθαι (to behold), is richer than ὁρᾶν (to see, to discern); it is the restful seeing, as Luthardt says, with an idea of satisfaction, while to ὁρᾶν attaches rather the idea of knowledge. Baur, Keim, Reuss, apply this word behold here to a purely spiritual act, the inward sight of Christ which is granted to every believer; comp. 1Jn 3:6 : “He that sinneth hath not seen him;” and 2Co 3:18. We may understand the design of this interpretation. These critics refuse to recognize in the evangelist a witness, and yet they would not wish to make him an impostor. This expedient, therefore, alone remains. But this expedient involves inextricable difficulty, as we have shown in the Introduction (pp. 201-202). How could there be a question here of the glorified Christ, as an object of the spiritual contemplation of believers? Are we not at the opening of the narrative of the earthly life of Christ, at the moment when the coming of the Logos in the flesh and His condescension towards the companions of His earthly career have just been pointed out? To attribute to the wordbehold in such a context a purely spiritual sense, is to set at nought the evidence. Undoubtedly, the witnesses had more than the sight of the body. This beholding was an internal perception. But the first was the means of the second.

The object of the beholding was the glory of the Word. The glory of God is the beaming forth of His perfections before the eyes of His creatures. This glory is really unique; every glory which any being whatsoever possesses is only the participation in some measure of the splendor which is sent forth by the perfection of God Himself. The glory which the witnesses of the earthly life of the Logos beheld in Him could not be the splendor which He enjoyed in His pre-existent state. For this glory Jesus asks again in Joh 17:5 : “And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” One does not ask again for what one still possesses. Reuss claims that it is only “the most arbitrary harmonistic,” which can ascribe to John the idea that the Logos divested Himself of the divine attributes when he became incarnate (Theol . johann., p. 120). But as for this harmonistic, it is John himself who suggests it in the prayer of Jesus which we have just quoted, and this is in full harmony with Paul (Php 2:6 ff.). What must we understand, then, by that glory of Jesus, of which John here speaks, and which is not that of the pre-existent Logos? In Chap. 2, Joh 1:11, after the miracle of Cana, John says: “And he manifested his glory.” We might conclude from this that, as Weiss thinks, the earthly glory of the Logos consisted in the works of omnipotence, as well as in the words of omniscience, which the Father gave Him to do and to utter.

Nevertheless, in chap. Joh 17:10, Jesus says: “I am glorified in them,” and this expression leads us to a more spiritual idea of the glory which He possessed here on earth. Even in our verse, the words: full of grace and truth, describe the Word and give us a much more moral notion of His glory than the explanation of Weiss implies. The essential character of this earthly glory of the Logos was, as it appears to me, the stamp of sonship impressed upon the whole human life of Jesus, the intimate communion with the Father which so profoundly distinguished His life from every other. Jesus puts us upon the right path when, before uttering the words: “I am glorified in them,” He says (Joh 17:10): “All things that are mine are thine, and all things that are thine are mine.” Such a relation with God is the most complete glory which can irradiate the face of a human being. It comprehends, of course, all the manifestations of such a relation, thus works of power, words of wisdom, the life of holiness and charity, all of divine grandeur and beauty, that the disciples beheld in Jesus. This explanation agrees with that of John himself in the following words: “A glory as of the only- begotten from the Father.” The conjunction ὡς, as, does not certainly express here a comparison between two similar things, but, as is often the case, the absolute agreement between the fact and the idea: a glory as (must be) that of the Son coming from the presence of the Father. Weiss urges against this explanation the absence of the article τοῦ, of the, before the words: only- begotten Son and Father; and further, the most natural sense of ὡς, as, which is that of comparison.

He translates accordingly, “A glory like to that of an only-begotten Son coming from a father,” in the sense that every only son inherits the rank and fortune of his father. Thus in this case it was seen that God had conveyed all His glory to Jesus. But this explanation would imply that every father, who has an only son, possesses also a great fortune to convey to him, which is by no means true. The absence of the article, which leads Weiss to an explanation which is so forced, is much better explained by the fact that the terms only Son and Father are treated here as proper names, or at least as substantives designating single beings of their kind (Winer’s Grammar, § 18). Indeed, the Father in question is the Father, in the absolute sense, the one from whom every one who is called father in heaven and on earth derives his paternal character (Eph 2:15); and this only Son is the only one, not merely as the sole son of this father, but inasmuch as He is the absolute model and prototype of every one who among the sons of men bears the name of only son, With reference to ὡς, as, used to indicate the complete agreement of the fact with the idea, comp. the quite similar ὡς in Mat 7:29; 1Co 5:3; 2Co 2:17; Gal 3:16, etc. The glory of the incarnate Logos was undoubtedly, therefore, a humbler glory than that of his pre-existent state, but a glory which, nevertheless, marked Him as united to God by the bond of an unparalleled filial intimacy.

There was seen in Him, as never in any man, the assurance of being loved paternally by God, of the power of asking everything of Him with the certainty of being heard, and at the same time the most perfect filial fidelity towards Him. This unique glory of the Word made flesh the apostle describes, when he characterizes the entire earthly manifestation of the Word by that last stroke of his pencil: Full of grace and truth. We refer these words to the principal subject of the whole sentence, the Word. This is the simple and correct construction of the nominative πλήρης, full; it is also that which gives the best sense. Undoubtedly, this adjective might be made a nominative absolute, with Grotius, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss and others, by referring it either to δόξαν: “glory full of grace...” (hence the reading πλήρη in D), or rather to αὐτοῦ of him, “His glory, His who was full of grace...” (hence the reading pleni in Augustine). But these explanations, which are grammatically possible, appear to me to misconceive the true movement of the sentence. Carried away by the charm of the recollection, the evangelist interrupted the historical description of the relations which the Word sustained to those who surrounded Him; he now takes up again the picture which remained unfinished,—not that a parenthesis must be supposed including the words from καί to πατρός; there is no deliberate interruption; the ardor of feeling caused the break in the sentence, which is now completed. In the Old Testament, the two essential features of the character of God were grace and truth (Exo 34:6): “abundant in grace and truth.”

These are also the two features which, in John’s view, distinguished the human life of the Word made flesh, and which served to reveal to Him His filial relation to the Father. Grace: the divine love investing the character with affableness towards friends, with condescension towards inferiors, with compassion towards the wretched, with pardon towards the guilty; God consenting to give Himself. And as it is from grace that life flows forth, the Word became anew for believers, by reason of this first characteristic, what He had been originally for the world (Joh 1:4), the source of life. The second feature, truth, is the reality of things adequately brought to light. And, as the essence of things is the moral idea which presides over the existence of each one of them, truth is the holy and good thought of God completely unveiled; it is God revealed. Through this attribute the incarnate Word also became anew what He originally was, the light of men (Joh 1:4-5). By these two essential attributes of Jesus’ character, therefore, the witnesses of His life were able to recognize in Him the only Son coming from the presence of the Father. Their feeling was this: This being is God given, God revealed in a human existence.

As a man who has made an important discovery recalls with satisfaction the suggestions which caused the first awakening of his thought and set his mind on its way forward, so from this experience, which he had had, the apostle transports himself to the decisive moment when he heard the first revelation of the fact of the incarnation. Not understood at the beginning, but afterwards made clear. For it is to this divine fact that the word of the forerunner which he is about to cite refers. John detaches this testimony from the historical situation in which it was declared, and which will be expressly recalled in Joh 1:30; and he makes use of it, at this time, simply with a didactic purpose, confirming by its means the capital fact of the incarnation, set forth in Joh 1:14. It is the second testimony, that of the official divine herald, following after that of the eye-witnesses.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The glory which he speaketh of here, is that manifestation of Christ’s majesty, which was as it were laid open before our eyes when the Son of God appeared in flesh.

This word (as) doth not in this place betoken a likeness, but the truth of the matter, for his meaning is this, that we saw such a glory, as beseemed and was meet for the true and only begotten Son of God, who is Lord and King over all the world.

He was not only a partaker of grace and truth, but was full of the very substance of grace and truth.

That Son, who is God from everlasting, took upon him man’s nature, that one and the selfsame might be both God and man, which manifestly appeared to many witnesses, that saw him amongst whom he was conversant, and unto whom by sure and undoubted arguments he showed both his natures.

That is, man: so that the part is taken for the whole, by the figure Synecdoche: for he took upon him all our whole nature, that is to say, a true body, and a true soul.

For a season, and when that was ended, he went up into heaven: for the word which he useth, is taken from tents: and yet notwithstanding, his absence from us in body is not such, but that he is always present with us, though not in flesh, yet by the virtue of his Spirit.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

And the Word, &c.--To raise the reader to the altitude of this climax were the thirteen foregoing verses written.

was made flesh--BECAME MAN, in man's present frail, mortal condition, denoted by the word "flesh" (Isa 40:6; Pe1 1:24). It is directed probably against the Docetæ, who held that Christ was not really but only apparently man; against whom this gentle spirit is vehement in his Epistles (Jo1 4:3; Jo2 1:7, Jo2 1:10-11), [LUCKE, &c.]. Nor could He be too much so, for with the verity of the Incarnation all substantial Christianity vanishes. But now, married to our nature, henceforth He is as personally conscious of all that is strictly human as of all that is properly divine; and our nature is in His Person redeemed and quickened, ennobled and transfigured.

and dwelt--tabernacled or pitched his tent; a word peculiar to John, who uses it four times, all in the sense of a permanent stay (Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3). For ever wedded to our "flesh," He has entered this tabernacle to "go no more out." The allusion is to that tabernacle where dwelt the Shekinah (see on Mat 23:38-39), or manifested "GLORY OF THE LORD," and with reference to God's permanent dwelling among His people (Lev 26:11; Psa 68:18; Psa 132:13-14; Eze 37:27). This is put almost beyond doubt by what immediately follows, "And we beheld his glory" [LUCKE, MEYER, DE WETTE which last critic, rising higher than usual, says that thus were perfected all former partial manifestations of God in an essentially Personal and historically Human manifestation].

full of grace and truth--So it should read: "He dwelt among us full of grace and truth"; or, in Old Testament phrase, "Mercy and truth," denoting the whole fruit of God's purposes of love towards sinners of mankind, which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilment at length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, "the SURE MERCIES of David" (Isa 55:3; Act 13:34; compare Sa2 23:5). In His Person all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long in shadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy its broken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filled it full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching of thousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and the family of God sprang into Manhood.

and we beheld his glory--not by the eye of sense, which saw in Him only "the carpenter." His glory was "spiritually discerned" (Co1 2:7-15; Co2 3:18; Co2 4:4, Co2 4:6; Co2 5:16) --the glory of surpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality; majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness, meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at times ravishing the "babes" that followed and forsook all for Him.

the glory as of the only begotten of the Father--(See on Luk 1:35); not like, but "such as (belongs to)," such as became or was befitting the only begotten of the Father [CHRYSOSTOM in LUCKE, CALVIN, &c.], according to a well-known use of the word "as."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 14. And the Word was made flesh] That very person who was in the beginning-who was with God-and who was God, Joh 1:1, in the fulness of time became flesh-became incarnated by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin. Allowing this apostle to have written by Divine inspiration, is not this verse, taken in connection with Joh 1:1, an absolute and incontestable proof of the proper and eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus?

And dwelt among us] και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν, And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah.

The original word, σκηνοω, from σκια, a shadow, signifies:

1. To build a booth, tent, or temporary hut, for present shelter or convenience; and does not properly signify a lasting habitation or dwelling place; and is therefore fitly applied to the human nature of Christ, which, like the tabernacle of old, was to be here only for a temporary residence for the eternal Divinity.

2. It signifies to erect such a building as was used on festival occasions, when a man invited and enjoyed the company of his friends. To this meaning of the word, which is a common one in the best Greek writers, the evangelist might allude, to point out Christ's associating his disciples with himself; living, conversing, eating, and drinking with them: so that, while they had the fullest proof of his Divinity by the miracles which he wrought, they had the clearest evidence of his humanity, by his tabernacling among, eating, drinking, and conversing with them. Concerning the various acceptations of the verb σκηνοω see Raphelius on this verse.

The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the incarnation of the Deity have prevailed among the most ancient nations in the world, and even among those which were not favoured with the letter of Divine revelation. The Hindoos believe that their god has already become incarnate, not less than nine times, to save the wretched race of man.

On this subject, Creeshna, an incarnation of the supreme God, according to the Hindoo theology, is represented in the Bhagvat Geeta, as thus addressing one of his disciples: "Although I am not in my nature subject to birth or decay, and am the Lord of all created beings, yet, having command over my own nature, I am made evident by my own power; and, as often as there is a decline of virtue and an insurrection of vice and injustice in the world, I make myself evident; and thus I appear from age to age, for the preservation of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and the establishment of virtue." Geeta, pp. 51, 52.

The following piece, already mentioned, Lu 1:68, translated from the Sanscreet, found on a stone, in a cave near the ancient city of Gya in the East Indies, is the most astonishing and important of any thing found out of the compass of the Sacred Writings, and a proper illustration of this text.

"The Deity, who is the Lord, the possessor of all, APPEARED in this ocean of natural beings, at the beginning of the Kalee Yoog (the age of contention and baseness.) He who is omnipresent, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme Being, the eternal ONE, the Divinity worthy to be adored-APPEARED here, with a PORTION of his DIVINE NATURE. Reverence be unto thee in the form of (a) Bood-dha! Reverence be unto the Lord of the earth! Reverence be unto thee, an INCARNATION of the Deity, and the Eternal ONE! Reverence be unto thee, O GOD! in the form of the God of mercy! the dispeller of PAIN and TROUBLE, the Lord of ALL things, the Deity who overcometh the sins of the Kalee Yoog, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy towards those who serve thee! (b) O'M! the possessor of all things, in VITAL FORM! Thou art (c) Brahma, (d) Veeshnoo, and (e) Mahesa! Thou art Lord of the universe! Thou art under the form of all things, movable and immovable, the possessor of the whole! And thus I adore thee! Reverence be unto the BESTOWER of SALVATION, and the ruler of the faculties! Reverence be unto thee, the DESTROYER of the EVIL SPIRIT! O Damordara, (f) show me favour! I adore thee who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy! Be propitious, O most high God!" Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284, 285.

We beheld his glory] This refers to the transfiguration, at which John was present, in company with Peter and James.

The glory as of the only begotten] That is, such a glory as became, or was proper to, the Son of God; for thus the particle ως should be here understood. There is also here an allusion to the manifestations of God above the ark in the tabernacle: see Ex 25:22; Nu 7:89; and this connects itself with the first clause, he tabernacled, or fixed his tent among us. While God dwelt in the tabernacle, among the Jews, the priests saw his glory; and while Jesus dwelt among men his glory was manifested in his gracious words and miraculous acts.

The only begotten of the Father] That is, the only person born of a woman, whose human nature never came by the ordinary way of generation; it being a mere creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Ghost.

Full of grace and truth.] Full of favour, kindness, and mercy to men; teaching the way to the kingdom of God, with all the simplicity, plainness, dignity, and energy of truth.

_________________________________________________________________

(a) Bood-dha. The name of the Deity, as author of happiness.

(b) O'M. A mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters a, o o, which in composition coalesce, and make o, and the nasal consonant m. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer. It is the same among the Hindoos as Yehovah is among the Hebrews.

(c) Brahma, the Deity in his creative quality.

(d) Veeshnoo. He who filleth all space: the Deity in his preserving quality.

(c) Mahesa. The Deity in his destroying quality. This is properly the Hindoo Trinity: for these three names belong to the same God. See the notes to the Bhagvat Geeta.

(f) Damordara, or Darmadeve, the Indian god of virtue.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. And the Speech was made flesh. The Evangelist shows what was that coming of Christ which he had mentioned; namely, that having been clothed with our flesh, he showed himself openly to the world. Although the Evangelist touches briefly the unutterable mystery, that the Son of God was clothed with human nature, yet this brevity is wonderfully perspicuous. Here some madmen amuse themselves with foolish and trivial subtleties of this sort: that the Speech is said to have been made flesh, because God sent his Son into the world, according to the conception which he had formed in his mind; as if the Speech were I know not what shadowy image. But we have demonstrated that that word denotes a real hypostasis, or subsistence, in the essence of God.

The word Flesh expresses the meaning of the Evangelist more forcibly than if he had said that he was made man. He intended to show to what a mean and despicable condition the Son of God, on our account, descended from the height of his heavenly glory. When Scripture speaks of man contemptuously, it calls him flesh. Now, though there be so wide a distance between the spiritual glory of the Speech of God and the abominable filth of our flesh, yet the Son of God stooped so low as to take upon himself that flesh, subject to so many miseries. The word flesh is not taken here for corrupt nature, (as it is often used by Paul,) but for mortal man; though it marks disdainfully his frail and perishing nature, as in these and similar passages, for he remembered that they were flesh, (Psalm 78:39;) all flesh is grass, (Isaiah 40:6.) We must at the same time observe, however, that this is a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole; for the lower part includes the whole man. It was therefore highly foolish in Apollinaris to imagine that Christ was merely clothed with a human body without a soul; for it may easily be proved from innumerable passages, that he had a soul as well as a body; and when Scripture calls men flesh, it does not therefore deprive them of a soul.

The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it. And, therefore, as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons. Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs, one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed up by the Divinity.

The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies. When he tells us that the Speech was made flesh, we clearly infer from this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives to the man Christ the name of the Speech, it follows that Christ, when he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh. In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.

And dwelt. Those who explain that the flesh served, as it were, for an abode to Christ, do not perceive the meaning of the Evangelist; for he does not ascribe to Christ a permanent residence amongst us, but says that he remained in it as a guest, for a short time. For the word which he employs (ἐσκήνωσεν) is taken from tabernacles He means nothing else than that Christ discharged on the earth the office which had been appointed to him; or, that he did not merely appear for a single moment, but that he conversed among men until he completed the course of his office.

Among us. It is doubtful whether he speaks of men in general, or only of himself and the rest of the disciples who were eye-witnesses of what he says. For my own part, I approve more highly of the second view for the Evangelist immediately adds:

And we beheld his glory. for though all men might have beheld the glory of Christ, yet it was unknown to the greater part on account of their blindness. It was only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit opened, that saw this manifestation of glory. In a word, Christ was known to be man in such a manner that he exhibited in his Person something far more noble and excellent. Hence it follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated, though it was surrounded by flesh; it was indeed concealed under the low condition of the flesh, but so as to cause its splendor to be seen.

As of the only-begotten of the Father. The word as does not, in this passage, denote an inappropriate comparison, but rather expresses true and hearty approbation; as when Paul says, Walk as children of light, he bids us actually demonstrate by our works that we are the children of light. The Evangelist therefore means, that in Christ was beheld a glory which was worthy of the Son of God, and which was a sure proof of his Divinity. He calls him the Only-begotten, because he is the only Son of God by nature; as if he would place him above men and angels, and would claim for him alone what belongs to no creature.

Full of grace. There were, indeed, other things in which the majesty of Christ appeared, but the Evangelist selected this instance in preference to others, in order to train us to the speculative rather than the practical knowledge of it; and this ought to be carefully observed. Certainly when Christ walked with dry feet upon the waters, (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:48; John 6:19,) when he cast out devils, and when he displayed his power in other miracles, he might be known to be the only-begotten Son of God; but the Evangelist brings forward a part of the approbation, from which faith obtains delightful advantage, because Christ demonstrated that he actually is an inexhaustible fountain of grace and truth. Stephen, too, is said to have been full of grace, but in a different sense; for the fullness of grace in Christ is the fountain from which all of us must draw, as we shall have occasion shortly afterwards to explain more fully.

Grace and truth. This might be taken, by a figure of speech, for true grace, or the latter term might be explanatory, thus: that he was full of grace, which is truth or perfection; but as we shall find that he immediately afterwards repeats the same mode of expression, I think that the meaning is the same in both passages. This grace and truth he afterwards contrasts with the Law; and therefore I interpret it as simply meaning, that the apostles acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, because he had in himself the fulfillment of things which belong to the spiritual kingdom of God; and, in short, that in all things he showed himself to be the Redeemer and Messiah; which is the most striking mark by which he ought to be distinguished from all others.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt.—The reality of the moral power and change wrought in those that believed recalls and is itself evidence of the reality of that in which they believed. Man came to be a son of God, because the Son of God became man. They were not, as the Docetæ of that time said, believers in an appearance. “The Word was made flesh.” The term “flesh” expresses human nature as opposed to the divine, and material nature as opposed to the spiritual, and is for this reason used rather than “body,” for there may be a purely spiritual body (see Note on 1Co_15:40-44); and rather than “man,” which is used in Joh_5:27; Joh_8:40, for of man the spiritual is the highest part. It is not the approach of the divine and human nature in the region of the spiritual which is common to both that strikes the writer with wonder, but that men should have power to become sons of God, and that the Word, of whose glory he has spoken in the earlier verses, should become flesh. (Comp. Php_2:6-8; 2Co_8:9, Notes.)

Dwelt among us.—The Greek word means “tabernacled.” “sojourned” among us. It was, probably, suggested by the similarity of sound with “Shekhînah,” a term frequently applied in the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases, though the substantive nowhere occurs in the Old Testament itself, to the visible symbol of the divine Presence which appeared in the Tabernacle and the Temple. The Targums, moreover, frequently identify the Shekhînah with the “Memra” or Word. (Comp. Excursus A.) The thought, then, of this Presence brings back to the writer’s mind the days and weeks and months they had spent with the Word who had pitched His tent among them. He had been among the first to follow Him, and of the last with Him. He had been of those who had seen the glory of the Transfiguration, who had entered with their Master into the chamber of death, who had been with Him in the garden of Gethsemane. His eye, more than that of any other, had pierced the veil and gazed upon the Presence within. And now the old man, looking forward to the unveiled Presence of the future, loves to think and tell of the past, that the Presence may be to others all it had been to him. He is conscious that the statement of this verse needs evidence of no common order; but this is present in the words and lives of men whose whole moral being declared it true, and the test is within the power of all. (Comp. especially 1 John 1)

The glory.—Comp. Joh_2:11; Joh_11:4. There is probably a special reference here to the Transfiguration. (See Note on Mat_17:2, and comp. the testimony of another eye-witness in 2Pe_1:17.)

As of the only begotten.—Better, as of an only begotten—i.e., glory such as is the attribute of an only begotten Son. The term as applied to the person of our Lord, is found only in St. John, Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9. It is used four times elsewhere in the New Testament, and always of the only child. (Luk_7:12; Luk_8:42; Luk_9:38; Heb_11:17.) The close connection here with the word Father, and the contrast with the sonship by moral generation in Joh_1:12, fixes the sense as the eternal generation of the Word, “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds.”

Of the Father.—The English does not fully express the meaning. It would be better to read, from with the Father. (Comp. Joh_6:46; Joh_7:29; Joh_16:27.) The thought is of the glory witnessed on earth of the only begotten Son who had come from God.

Full of grace and truth.—These words do not refer to the “Father,” or to “the glory,” but to “the Word.” The structure of the English sentence is ambiguous, but the meaning of the Greek words is quite clear. They represent a Hebrew formula, expressing a divine attribute, and the passage which is almost certainly present to the thought here is the revelation of the divine nature to Moses (Exo_34:6. Comp. 2Sa_2:6; Psa_25:10; Psa_57:10; Psa_89:15). These witnesses, too, had seen God, not indeed in the mountain only, but as dwelling among them. Every word a ray of truth, and every act a beam of love, they thought of that life “as one with the divine Essence; of that glory” as of the only begotten of the Father. (Comp. Joh_1:17.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14–18. The Incarnate Word’s revelation of the Father

14. And the Word was made flesh] Or, became flesh. This is the gulf which separates S. John from Philo. Philo would have assented to what precedes; from this he would have shrunk. From Joh_1:9-13 we have the subjective side; the inward result of the Word’s coming to those who receive Him. Here we have the objective; the coming of the Word as a historical fact. The Logos, existing from all eternity with the Father (Joh_1:1-2), not only manifested His power in Creation (Joh_1:3) and in influence on the minds of men (Joh_1:9; Joh_1:12-13), but manifested Himself in the form of a man of flesh. The important point is that the Word became terrestrial and material: and thus the inferior part of man is mentioned, the flesh, to mark His humiliation. He took the whole of man’s nature, including its frailty. “The majestic fulness of this brief sentence,” the Word became flesh, which affirms once for all the union of the Infinite and the finite, “is absolutely unique.” The Word became flesh; did not merely assume a body: and the Incarnate Word is one, not two personalities. Thus various heresies, Gnostic and Eutychian, are refuted by anticipation.

dwelt among us] Literally, tabernacled among us, dwelt as in a tent. The Tabernacle had been the seat of the Divine Presence in the wilderness: when God became incarnate in order to dwell among the Chosen People, ‘to tabernacle’ was a natural word to use. The word forms a link between this Gospel and the Apocalypse: it occurs here, four times in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else. Our translators render it simply ‘dwell,’ which is inadequate. Rev_7:15; Rev_12:12; Rev_13:6; Rev_21:3.

among us] In the midst of those of us who witnessed His life.

we beheld] Or, contemplated. Comp. 1Jn_1:1. No need to make a parenthesis.

his glory] The Shechinah. Comp. Joh_2:11, Joh_11:40, Joh_12:41, Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24; 2Co_3:7-18; Rev_21:11. There is probably a special reference to the Transfiguration (Luk_9:32; 2Pe_1:17); and possibly to the vision at the beginning of the Apocalypse. In any case it is the Evangelist’s own experience that is indicated. Omit ‘the’ before the second ‘glory.’

as of] i.e. exactly like. The glory is altogether such as that of an only-begotten son. Comp. Mat_7:29. He taught exactly as one having full authority. No article before ‘only-begotten;’ He was an only-begotten Son, whereas Moses and the Prophets were but servants.

only begotten] Unigenitus. The Greek word is used of the widow’s son (Luk_7:12), Jairus’ daughter (Joh_8:42), the demoniac boy (Joh_9:38), Isaac (Heb_11:17). As applied to Christ it occurs only in S. John’s writings; here, Joh_1:18, Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9. It marks off His unique Sonship from that of the ‘sons of God’ (Joh_1:12).

of the Father] Literally, from the presence of a father; an only son sent on a mission from a father: comp. Joh_1:6.

full] Looks forward to ‘fulness’ in Joh_1:16.

grace] The original meaning of the Greek word is ‘that which causes pleasure.’ Hence (1) comeliness, winsomeness: ‘the words of grace’ in Luk_4:22 are ‘winning words.’ (2) Kindliness, goodwill: Luk_2:52; Act_2:47. (3) The favour of God towards sinners. This distinctly theological sense has for its central point the freeness of God’s gifts: they are not earned, He gives them spontaneously through Christ. ‘Grace’ covers all these three meanings. The third at its fullest and deepest is the one here. It is as the Life that the Word is ‘full of grace,’ for it is ‘by grace’ that we come to eternal life. Eph_2:5.

truth] It is as the Light that the Word is ‘full of truth.’

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the word was made flesh,.... The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator:

and dwelt among us; or "tabernacled among us"; in allusion to the tabernacle, which was a type of Christ's human nature: the model of the tabernacle was of God, and not of man; it was coarse without, but full of holy things within; here God dwelt, granted his presence, and his glory was seen; here the sacrifices were brought, offered, and accepted. So the human nature of Christ was of God's pitching, and not man's; and though it looked mean without, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in it, as well as a fulness of grace and truth; in the face of Christ the glory of God is seen, and through him, even the vail of his flesh, saints have access unto him, and enjoy his presence; and by him their spiritual sacrifices become acceptable to God: or this is observed, in allusion to the feast of tabernacles, when the Jews dwelt in booths, in remembrance of their manner of living in the wilderness: the feast of tabernacles was typical of Christ, and of his tabernacling in our nature. Solomon's temple, which was also a type of Christ, was dedicated at the time of that feast; and it seems probable, that our Lord was born at that time; for as he suffered at the time of the passover, which had respect unto him, and the pouring forth of the Spirit was on the very day of Pentecost, which that prefigured; so it is highly probable, that Christ was born at the time of the feast of tabernacles, which pointed out his dwelling among us; and is therefore very pertinently hinted at, when mention is here made of his incarnation. However, reference is manifestly had to the Shekinah, and the glory of it, in the tabernacle and temple; and almost the very word is here used. The Targumists sometimes speak of the Shekinah of the word dwelling among the Israelites: so Onkelos in Num 11:20 where the Israelites are threatened with flesh, until they loath it; because, says the paraphrast,

"ye have loathed "the word of the Lord", whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.

Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the same place, expresses it thus,

"because ye have loathed the word of the Lord, the glory of whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.

And it follows here,

and we beheld his glory; the glory of his divine nature, which is essential to him, and underived, is equal to the Father's glory, is transcendent to all creatures, and is ineffable, and incomprehensible; some breakings forth of which there were in his incarnate state, and which were observed by the evangelist, and his companions; who, in various instances, saw plainly, that Christ was possessed of divine perfections, such as omniscience, and omnipotence; since he knew the thoughts of the heart, and could do the things he did: his Father declared him to be his beloved Son; and the miracles he wrought, and the doctrines he taught, manifested forth his glory; and not only there were some beams of his glory at his transfiguration, which were seen by the apostles, among which the Evangelist John was one, and to which he may have here a particular reference; but even at his apprehension, and death, and especially at his resurrection from the dead. The Jews speak of the glory of the Messiah to be seen in the world to come. They say (h),

"If a man is worthy of the world to come, (i.e. the times of the Messiah,) he shall "see the glory" of the King Messiah.

And of Moses, they say (i),

"there was (or will be) no generation like that in which he lived, until the generation in which the King Messiah comes, which shall "behold the glory" of the holy, blessed God, as he.

This our evangelist, and the other disciples of Christ have seen:

the glory, as of the only begotten of the Father; a glory becoming him, suitable to him as such; the very real glory of the Son of God; for the "as", here, is not a note of similitude, but of certainty, as in Mat 14:5 and the word is here called, "the only begotten of the Father"; which cannot be said of Christ, as man; for as such, he was not "begotten" at all: nor on the account of his resurrection from the dead; for so he could not be called the "only begotten", since there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead, besides him: nor by reason of adoption; for if adopted, then not begotten; these two are inconsistent; besides, he could not be called the only begotten, in this sense, because there are many adopted sons, even all the elect of God: nor by virtue of his office, as magistrates are called the sons of God; for then he would be so only in a figurative and metaphorical sense, and not properly; whereas he is called God's own Son, the Son of the same nature with him; and, as here, the only begotten of the Father, begotten by him in the same nature, in a way inconceivable and inexpressible by us:

full of grace and truth; that is, he dwelt among men, and appeared to have a fulness of each of these: for this clause is not to be joined with the glory of the only begotten, as if this was a branch of that; but regards him as incarnate, and in his office, as Mediator; who, as such, was full of "grace"; the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit; of all the blessings of grace, of justifying, pardoning, adopting, sanctifying, and persevering grace; of all the promises of grace; of all light, life, strength, comfort, peace, and joy: and also of truth, of all Gospel truths; and as he had the truth, the sum, and substance of all the types and prophecies concerning him in him; and as he fulfilled all his own engagements, and his Father's promises; and as possessed of sincerity towards men, and faithfulness and integrity to God,

(h) Gloss. in T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 58. 1. (i) Zohar in Lev. fol. 9. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Ver. 14. And the Word was made flesh] Put himself into a lousy, leprosy suit of ours, to expiate our pride and robbery, in reaching after the Deity, and to heal us of our spiritual leprosy; for ακαταληπτον αθεραπευτον, if he had not assumed our flesh he had not saved us. (Nazianzen.) Induit ergo sordes nostras, saith one. He therefore condescended to our rags; and so

Dwelt among us] Dwelt as in a tent or booth, εσκηνωσεν. He alludes to soldiers pitching their tents; or rather to the feast of tabernacles, in or near the time of which celebrated, by consent of many authors of best note, our Saviour was born.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the word was made flesh. This word, or Son of God, who was in the beginning, from all eternity, at the time appointed by the divine decrees, was made flesh, i.e. became man, by a true and physical union of his divine person, (from which the divine nature was inseparable) to our human nature, to a human soul, and a human body, in the womb, and of the substance, of his virgin Mother. From the moment of Christ’s incarnation, as all Christians are taught to believe, he that was God from eternity, became also true man. In Jesus Christ, our blessed Redeemer, we believe one divine Person with two natures, and two wills; the one divine, the other human: by which substantial union, one and the same Person became truly both God and man; not two persons, or two sons, as Nestorius, the heretic, pretended. By this union, and a mutual communication of the proprieties of each nature, it is true to say, that the Son of God, remaining unchangeably God, was made man; and therefore that God was truly conceived and born of the virgin Mary, who, on this account, was truly the Mother of God: that God was born, suffered, and died on the cross, to redeem and save us. The word, in this manner made man, dwelt in us, or among us, by this substantial union with our human nature, not morally only, nor after such a manner, as God is said to dwell in a temple; nor as he is in his faithful servants, by a spiritual union, that the same person is truly both God and man. --- And we saw his glory, manifested to the world by many signs and miracles; we in particular, who were present at his transfiguration. (Matthew xvii.) --- Full of grace and truth. These words, in the construction, are to be joined in this manner: the word dwelt in us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, &c. This fulness of grace in Christ Jesus, infinitely surpassed the limited fulness, which the Scripture attributes to St. Stephen, (Acts vi. 8.) or to the blessed virgin Mother: (Luke i. 28.) they are said to be full of grace, only because of an extraordinary communication and greater share of graces than was given to other saints. But Christ, even as man, his grace and sanctity were infinite, as was his person. --- As of the only begotten of the Father.[3] If we consider Christ in himself, and not only as he was made known to men by outward signs and miracles, St. John Chrysostom and others take notice that the word as, no ways diminisheth the signification; and that the sense is, we have seen the glory of him, who is truly from all eternity the only begotten Son of the Father: who, as the Scriptures assure us, is his true, his proper Son, his only begotten, who was sent into the world, who descended from heaven, and came from the Father, and leaving the world, returned where he was before, returned to his Father. We shall meet with many such Scripture texts, to shew him to be the eternal Son of his eternal Father; or to shew that the Father was always his Father, and the Son always his Son: as it was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, and as such declared in the general council of Nice, that this, his only Son, was born or begotten of the Father before all ages ... God from God, the true God from the true God. It was by denying this truth, "that the Son was the Son always, and the Father always, and from all eternity, the Father;" that the blaspheming Arius began his heresy in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, against his bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander. See the letter copied by St. Epiphanius, Hær. 69. p. 731. Ed. Petavii. (Witham) --- Dwelt among us. In a material body, like ours, clothed with our nature. He is become mortal, and like us in every thing, but sin and concupiscence. The Greek literally translated, is, he has pitched his tent amongst us, like a stranger and passenger, who makes no long stay in one place. The body in Scripture, is sometimes called a tent or tabernacle, in which the soul dwells, as 2 Peter i. 14. (Calmet)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Gloriam quasi Unigeniti, Greek: os monogenous. St. John Chrysostom says, the word quasi, Greek: os, does no ways here diminish, be even confirms and increases the signification; as when we say of a king, that he carries himself like a king. Greek: To de os entauthen ouch omoioseos estin, alla bebaioseos.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Word was made flesh; the Son of God, called the Word, for the reasons before specified, was made truly man, as flesh often signifieth in holy writ, Gen 6:12; Psa 65:2; Isa 40:5,6; not a vile, despicable, mortal man. The evangelist rather saith he was made flesh, than he was made man, more plainly to distinguish the two natures in Christ; to assert the truth of his human nature; to let us know that Christ assumed human nature in common, not the particular nature of any; to commend the love of God, and to let us see, that his plaster was proportioned to our sore, it reached all flesh.

The evangelist saith not he was changed into flesh; but, by assuming, he was made flesh. And dwelt amongst us: and he tabernacled amongst us; amongst us men, or amongst men that were his disciples: the word signifieth properly, he made no long stay.

And we beheld his glory; and we beheld the signs and effects of his glory; many of which were seen, both at the time of his transfiguration, and at his passion, resurrection, and ascension; the glory of his grace, holiness, truth, miraculous operations, &c.

The glory as of the only begotten of the Father; which glory was the glory of the only begotten of the Father; for the particle as here doth not signify likeness, but truth, Neh 7:2; Job 24:14.

Full of grace and truth, as he was God manifested in the flesh. Grace signifieth love and good will, out of which it was that he delivered us from the curse and rigour of the law (to which grace is opposed). He was also full of truth, both as truth is opposed to falsehood, and to the shadows and figures of the law; and Christ was full of truth as he was the antitype to all the ceremonies, and all the promises had and have their completion and reality in him: see Joh 14:17; Rom 15:8; 2Co 1:20. Truth also may signify the sincerity and integrity of Christ’s life, as he was without guile.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Word was made flesh—So that which in the first verse was God, now is made flesh, God incarnate. He is made flesh not by ceasing to be Logos or God, but by investing himself with humanity. He does not become body, for that might imply that the Logos was the proper soul of the body and the substitute for a human soul. The incarnate is one Christ, perfect man and perfect God.

Dwelt among us—There are in the Old Testament appearances of the angel-Jehovah, which have every proof of being transient manifestations of God himself to man. But their phenomenal bodies were not truly flesh, and so the Divine dwelt not among men permanently, but only appeared transiently.

His glory—Moses on the contrary could not stand the effulgence of Jehovah. See Exo_33:18-23. John beheld in vision the glory of Christ, (Rev_1:12-17,) and fell as dead. The apostles beheld his glory at the transfiguration, and were struck with stupor. But this effulgence to the senses is but the symbol of that divinity which shone in the spirit, the words, and the works of the Incarnate.

Only begotten of the Father—He who has thus far been styled the Word is now viewed as the Son. The terms we think beyond all question express essentially the same thing. Remove all physical elements from both, and conceive the pure spiritual import, and they express an ineffable derivation of the second person of the Trinity, in his divine nature, from the first person. We most easily conceive it as identical with the distinction between God as the eternal, unknowable background, and God as self-manifesting. Both are living God. But the latter is the living Word, the living Son, uttered, generated from the former. The difference between the Word and Son is, that, while the former most distinctly expresses revelation, the latter expresses personality. But as the former implies no physical lips or voice in the utterance, so the latter expresses no sex or real physical begetting.

Full— This adjective agrees with the term

Word. Of grace and truth—Grace to bring salvation to man; truth to guide him in the way to that salvation.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(5) The incarnation of the Logos. And the Logos became flesh. The kai has been variously expanded, some giving it the force of "then" or "therefore," as though John was now resuming the entire argument from the beginning; others the sense of "for," as though the apostle needed to introduce a reason or justification for what had been said in vers. 12, 13. It is enough to regard the kai as a simple copula, after the same manner in which it is used in vers. 1, 4, 5, 10, introducing by it a new and suggestive truth or fact which must be added to what has gone before, qualifying, illumining, illustrating, consummating all previous representations of the activity and functions of the Eternal Logos. Meyer, rejecting all the explicative modifications of the copula, nearly approaches the emphasis which Godet would lay upon it, by saying, "John cannot refrain from expressing the how of that appearing which had such blessed results (vers. 12, 13), and which he had himself experienced." The circumstance that in this verse the author goes back to the verbal use of the great term o Logov suggests rather the fact that the fourteenth verse follows directly upon the stupendous definitions of ver. 1, and indicates a powerful antithesis to the several clauses of that opening sentence. The Logos which was in the beginning has now become; the Logos which was God became flesh ; the Logos that was with God has set up his tabernacle among us. If so, the kai does suggest a parenthetical treatment of vers. 2-13, every clause of which has been necessary to prepare the reader for the vast announcement which is here made. Various things, relations, and powers have been asserted with reference to the Logos. All things became through him; not a single exception is allowed. Not one thing can be, or can have come into existence, independently of him; yet he is not said in any sense to have "become all things." More than that, the twofold form of the expression stringently repudiates the pantheistic hypothesis. All life is said to be "in him," to have its being in his activity; yet he is not said to have become life, as if the life-principle were henceforth the mode of his existence, or a state or condition into which he passed, and so the emanation theories of early Gnostics and of modern pantheistic evolutionists are virtually set aside. "The veritable Light which lighteth every man" is the illumination which the Life pours on the understanding and conscience of men, to which all prophecy bears witness; but he is not said to have become that light. Thus the incarnation of the Logos in every man is most certainly foreign to the thought of the apostle. He is said to have been "in the world" which he made, yet in such manifestation and concealment that the world as such did not apprehend the wondrous presence; and he is said also to have been continually coming to his own people "in sundry times" and "divers manners," in prophetic visions and angelic and even the anthropic form or fashion. Elsewhere in this Gospel we hear that Abraham "saw his day," and Isaiah "beheld his glory;" but it is not said that he became, i.e. entered into permanent and unalterable relations with these theophanic glories. Consequently, the deep self-conscious realization of the glory of his Name, enjoyed by greatest saints and sages of the past, was but a faint adumbration of what John declared he and others had bad distinct historical opportunity of seeing, hearing, handling, of that Word of life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. (1Jn_1:1, 1Jn_1:2) The statement of this verse, however, is entirely, absolutely unique. The thought is utterly new. Strauss tells us that the apostolic conception of Jesus can have no historic validity, because it represents a state of things which occurs nowhere else in history.

This is exactly what Christians contend for. He is in the deepest sense absolutely unique in the history of mankind. Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, Socrates, Buddha, Zoroaster, may have borne witness to the Light; but of not one of them can it be said, and at least it was not said or even imagined by St. John, the Logos became flesh in their humanity. Yet this is what he did think and say was the only explanation of the glory of Jesus; this unspeakable relation to the Eternal Logos was sustained by his well known Friend and Master. And the Word was made flesh. Flesh (sarx , answering in the LXX to rcB) is the term used to denote the whole of humanity, with prominent reference to that part of it which is the region of sensibility and visibility. The word is more comprehensive than (swma) "body," which is often used as the antithesis of vows, quch , and pneuma ; for it is unquestionable that the conventional use of sarx , and sarx kai aima , includes oftentimes both soul and spirit includes the whole of human constitution, yet that constitution considered apart from God and grace, answering in this way to kosmov . The flesh is not necessarily connotative of sin, though the conditions, the possibilities, the temptableness of created finite nature are involved in it.It is nearly equivalent to saying anyrwpov , generic manhood, but it is more explicit than such a dictum would have been. It is not said that the Word became a man, although became man" is the solemn and suggestive form in which the great truth is further expressed in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Logos became flesh. " Thus it answers to numerous expressions in the Pauline Epistles, which must have been based in the middle of the first century on the direct and well preserved teachings of our Lord himself (Rom_1:3, Genomenov kata sarka ; Rom_8:3, En omoiwmati sarkoav ; 1Ti_3:16, Ov efanerwyh en sarki ; cf. Php_2:7 Heb_2:14; and above all 1Jn_4:2, where Jesus Christ, the centre of whose personality is the Logos, and is there used in the most transcendent sense, is there spoken of (en sarki elhluyota) as having come in the flesh). Very early in the Christological discussions, even so far back as Praxeas whom Tertullian sought to refute, and by Apollinaris the younger, in the fourth century, it was said that this passage asserted that though the Logos took or became flesh, he did not become or take upon himself the human nouv or pneuma , the reasonable soul or spirit of man, but that the Logos took the place in Jesus of the mind or spirit. Apollinaris explained, in vindication of his view, that thus Christ was neither God nor man, but a blending of the two natures into a new and third nature, neither one nor the other. This view was stoutly resisted by Athanasius and Basil. It reappeared in the fifth century, in the form of Eutychianism, to do duty against the twofold Christ of Nestorianism. The opponents of Praxeas, Apollinaris, and Eutyches were all fain to show that the Gospel of John calls marked attention to the human soul of Jesus (Joh_12:27) and of his human spirit, (Joh_11:33 Joh 13:21 Joh_19:30) to say nothing of Heb_5:8, where "he learned obedience," etc. The flesh of Christ is constitutive and inclusive of his entire humanity. Flesh itself is not human flesh without the human quch , nor can there be a human soul without human spirit. The two terms are used interchangeably, and their functions are not to be regarded as different factors of humanity so much as different departments of human activity. There is a complete humanity, therefore, included in this term, not a humanity destitute of one of its most characteristic features. But the question arises What is meant by egeneto , "became, was made"? A considerable number of modern Lutheran divines have laid such emphasis on the kenwsiv , the "emptying" of his glory on the part of him who was "in the form of God," that nothing short of an absolute depotentiation of the Logos is supposed to have occurred when "he was made flesh" or "man." Gess and Godet have pressed the theory that the egeneto represents a complete transubstantiation and metamorphosis. Thus Logos had been God from eternity, but now, in the greatness of his humiliation, he was no longer Logos at all, nor God, but flesh; so that during the time of the Incarnation the Logos was absolutely concealed, potential only, and that even a consciousness of his eternity and the Divine powers were all in absolute abeyance. This hypothesis, on both its Divine and human side, appears to us hopelessly unthinkable. If the Logos was no longer Logos, and the Godhead thus ineffably truncated, the very argument of the apostle that in him was life and light, etc., must break down. The sources of life and light must have been themselves in eclipse, and God himself was no longer God. Moreover, the hypothetical obliteration of the Logos would deprive the whole argument of the apostle for the Divineness and Godhead of the Lord of its basis in fact. There are many different forms in which this meaning of the egeneto is urged, but they all break to pieces upon the revelation of the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ, the Divine memories and awful centre of his personality, in which the nature of the Godhead and the perfect nature of manhood are blended in one personality. Moreover, the egeneto does not imply annihilation of the Logov , or transubstantiation of Logov into sarx . When the water was made (gegennhmenon) wine, the water was not obliterated, but it took up by the creative power of Christ other substances into itself, constituting it wine. So when the Logov became "flesh," he took up humanity with all its powers and conditions into himself, constituting himself "the Christ." The question arises Wherein was the humiliation and the kenosis, if the Logos throughout the incarnate life of Christ, as a Person, possessed and exercised all his Divine energies? The answer is, that, in taking human nature in its humbled, suffering, tempted form into eternal, absolute union with himself, and by learning through that human nature all that human nature is and fears and needs, there is an infinite fulness of self-humiliating love and sacrifice. Hypostatic union of humanity with the Logos, involving the Logos in the conditions of a complete man, is an infinite humiliation, and seeing that this involved the bitterest conflict and sorrow, brought with it shame, agony, and death, such a stupendous fact is (we believe) assumed to have taken place once in historic time. It is far more than the manifestation in the flesh of Jesus of the Divine light and life. Such a hypothesis would merely consider Jesus as one super eminent display of "the veritable Light which lighteth every man," whereas what is declared by St. John is that the Word himself, after a new exercise of this infinite potency, became flesh. We are not told how this occurred. The fact of the supernatural birth, as stated by the synoptic writers, is their way of announcing a sublime secret, of which John, who was in the confidence of the mother of Jesus, gave a profounder exposition. In such a fact and event we see what St. Paul meant when he said that in the depths of eternity the infinity of love did not consider the undimmed, unclouded, and unchangeable creative majesty of equality with God to be a prize which must never be relinquished, but emptied himself, was made in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and was found in fashion as a man. There was now and forevermore a part of his being in such organic union with "flesh" that he could be born, could team, could be tempted, suffer from all human frailties and privations, die the death of the cross. The phrase, moreover, implies that the Incarnation was in its nature distinct from the Docetic, angelic, transitory manifestations of the older revelation. In the "Word" becoming "flesh" both Word and flesh remain side by side, and neither is the first nor the second absorbed by the other, and so Monophysitism is repudiated, while the statement of what the Word thus incarnate did, viz. "dwelt among us," etc., cuts away the support of the Nestorian division of the Divine and human natures; inasmuch as what is said of the one nature can be said of the other. To this we turn: "And the Word was made flesh, and set up his tabernacle in our midst." The use of this picturesque word eskhnwsen points to the tabernacle in the wilderness, in which God dwelt, (2Sa_7:6 Psa_78:67, etc.) and to which reference is made in Lev_26:11 and Eze_37:28. The localization of Deity, the building a house for the Lord whom the heaven of heavens could not contain, was a wondrous adumbration of the ultimate proof to be given, that, though God was infinitely great, he was yet capable of turning his glorious face upon those who seek him; though unspeakably holy, awful, majestic, omnipotent, he was yet accessible and merciful and able to save and sanctify his people. The glory of the Lord was the central significance of the tabernacle and temple worship. It was always assumed to be present, even if invisible. The Targums in a great variety of passages substitute for the "glory of the Lord," which is a continuous element in the history of the old covenant, the word "Shechinah," "dwelling," and use the term in obvious reference to the biblical use of the verb k he dwelt, when describing the Lord"s familiar and accessible sojourn with his people. It is too much to say that John here adopts the Aramaic phrase, or with certainty refers to it. But eskhnwse recalls the method by which Jehovah impressed his prophets with his nearness, and came veritably to his own possession. "Now," says John, "the Word made flesh took up his tabernacle in our midst." It is not to be forgotten that John subsequently shows that Jesus identified his body with "the temple" of God. (Joh_2:19, etc.) The us" represents the ground of a personal experience which makes the hypothesis of an Alexandrine origin for the entire representation perfectly impossible. The reference to the old covenant is made more conspicuous: And we contemplated his glory. The doxa corresponds with the visible manifestations of the presence of Jehovah under the Old Testament. (Exo_24:17 Exo_40:34 Act_7:2 Isa_6:3 Eze_1:28) Dazzling light at the burning bush, in the pillar of fire, on Mount Sinai, at the dedication of tabernacle and temple, etc., revealed the awful fact of the Divine nearness. The eye of believing men saw the real glory of the Logos made flesh when he set up the tabernacle of his humanity among us. It does not follow that all eyes must have seen what the eye of faith could see. The darkness has resisted all the light, the world has not known the Logos; the susceptibilities of believing men enabled them to perceive the glory of the Lord in regions and by a mode of presentation to which unregenerate men have not attained. The apostles saw it in the absolute moral perfection of his holiness and of his charity; of his grace and truth. We can scarcely exclude here a reference to the wondrous vision upon which (as we learn from Matthew, Mark, Luke) John himself gazed on the Mountain of Transfiguration, when the venerable symbol of Light reappeared from within the person of the Lord, so linking his personal manifestation of "the Word" with the theophanies of the Old Testament; nor can we forget the sublime vision which John undoubtedly records in the beginning of his Apocalypse. Nevertheless, the glory which the apostles beheld must be distinct from the "glory" which he had with the Father before the world was, and to which (Joh_17:24) he prayed that he might return, and the full radiance of which he would ultimately turn upon the eyes of the men whom he had gathered "out of the world.

Before that consummation" we," says he, "contemplated his glory as of an only begotten. The wv implies comparison with the transcendent conception which had entered into his inspired imagining. The word monogenhv is used by John to refer to the supreme and unique relation of the Son to the Father. (Joh_3:16, Joh_3:18, 1Jn_4:9) It is used of human sons in Luke, (Luk_7:12 Luk_8:42 Luk_9:38) and unigenitus is the translation in the Vulgate of the Hebrew dyjiYh, where the LXX gives agaphtov , well beloved. (see Gen_22:2, Gen_22:12, Gen_22:16) It corresponds with the prwtotokov of Col_1:15 and Heb_1:6, showing that an analogous thought filled the apostolic mind. By laying stress here on the "glory," and giving historic value and emphasis to the supernatural conception of Jesus, many see m this a reference to the Incarnation wherein he became an only begotten Son of the Father. This would be far more probable if the article had been placed before monogenouv . Here the apostle seems to labour to express the glory of One who could thus stand in the eternal relation of the Logos to Yeov , making it correspond with the relation also subsisting between monogenhv and the "Father." Great speciality and peculiarity is here bestowed upon the "only begotten," as it stands in close relationship with those to whom he gives power or capability to become "children of God." They are born into the family of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The glory which John says "we beheld" in his earthly flesh was the effulgence of the uncreated beam which broke through the veil of his flesh, and really convinced us that he was "the Word made flesh." The Tubingen critics see a contradiction here with the prayer of Christ (Joh_17:5, Joh_17:24) for "the glory which he had with the Father." If he shone on earth with such glory as John here describes, why should he desire more? Godet resolves it by insisting on the moral glory of his filial consciousness when he had indeed deprived himself of his Divine perfections. Thus Godet repudiates the two natures of his Person. There is no real contradiction, as we have seen. Some difference of opinion occurs also as to the reference of the plhrhv caritov kai alhyeiav . Some nave referred plhrhv to the Father, and some to autoi , though in both cases a break in the construction would be involved, as the antecedent would have been in the genitive. Others, again (founding on the reading of one uncial manuscript, D, which here has plhrh), refer it to doxan , and all who thus construe eschew any parenthetical treatment of the previous clause. The latter method is freer from difficulty, as then this clause, plhrhv caritov kai alhyeiav , is directly and grammatically related with Logov . The Word was made flesh, and, full of grace and of truth, set up his tabernacle in our midst. Grace and truth are the two methods by which the glory as of "an only begotten" shone upon us, and we beheld it. The combination of these two ideas of grace and truth pervades the Old Testament description of the Lord. (cf. Exo_34:6 Psa_40:10, 11 61:7 25:10) "Grace," the free and royal communication of unlooked for and of undeserved love, is the keynote of the New Testament. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" is the compendium of all his powers of benediction, and corresponds with the life which is "in him," and all the gift of himself to those who came into contact with him. "Truth" is the expression of the thought of God. Truth per se can find no larger definition than the perfect revelation of God"s eternal thought concerning himself and his universe, and concerning the relations of all things to each other and to him. That which God thinks about these things must be "truth per se. " Christ claimed to be "the Truth" and "the Life", (Joh_14:6) and John here says that it was in virtue of his being the Logos of God that he was full of these. Grace and truth, love and revelation, were so transcendent in him; in other words, he was so full, so charged, so overflowing with both, that the glory which shone from him gave apostles this conception about it, viz. that it was that of an only begotten (specially and eternally begotten) and with the Father. The para Patrov corresponds with the para sou rather than para soi of Joh_17:5, and does not, therefore, necessarily suggest more than the premundane condition, answering to the pron of ver. 1, and eiv tolpon of ver. 18. Erasmus, Paulus, and a few others have associated the plhrhv , etc., with the following verse. This is eminently unsatisfactory as unsuited to the character of the Baptist. Moreover, the sixteenth verse, by its reference to Christ"s "fulness," positively forbids it.

The reality of the Incarnation.

The apostle explains the saving effects just recorded by the historic fact that "the Word became flesh.

I THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION. "The Word became flesh." The miraculous conception is implied, though not expressed, in these words. It is the last time that John uses the term "Word" about Christ in his Gospel. Henceforth the term is "Jesus," or "the Lord." The word "flesh" denotes human nature the entire human person.

1. It is not said the Word became body;" because the proper phrase would have been, "The Word took a body;" and why should Jesus in that case speak of his "soul"? Yet the true doctrine of the Incarnation is that Christ took a human body and a human soul. The word "flesh" is not designed to express his visibility among men, but his entire human nature.

2. It implies that the Word did not become a man like Adam before the Fall; for he was made in "the likeness of sinful flesh". (Rom_8:3) And "all flesh is grass.

3. It does not imply that the Word took upon him peccable flesh;" for "he knew no sin". (2Co_5:21)

4. It implies that he assumed the human nature common to all Adams descendants. Not that of any race, class, or family. He was to be Saviour for "all flesh.

5. It implies that he became flesh" in such a sense that he still retains the same nature. "Our nature is on the throne.

6. It implies that, though he emptied himself", (Php_2:7) he did not cease to be God; for the Word still existed.

7. It implies, in a word, the union of two perfect and distinct natures in one Person. This doctrine is a great mystery. but it must be firmly held

(1) against the Arians, who denied his Divinity;

(2) against the Apollinarians, who held that the Word became only a body, the Divinity supplying the place of a soul;

(3) against the Nestorians, who made the Godhead one Person, and the manhood another person;

(4) against the Eutychians, who held that in the one Person there was mixture of the natures so as to produce a third.

8. Consider the importance of this doctrine. If "the Word became flesh,

(1) the union of the two natures was designed to give infinite value to Christ"s atoning sacrifice;

(2) it gives us a Saviour who cannot but be touched with a feeling of our infirmities; (Heb_4:15)

(3) who can give us a perfect human example of excellence;

(4) who dignifies the human body, and places his disciples under the most awful obligations not to defile or dishonour it.

II THE HISTORICAL VISIBILITY OF THE INCARNATION. "And dwelt among us." The Word not merely entered human life, but remained in it for a time. The original word signifies "tabernacled," or "dwelt in a tent," implying:

1. The transient nature of his visit to earth.

2. His detached existence among men. Yet his visit lasted for three and thirty years.

III THE PERSONAL WITNESS TO HIS GLORY. "We beheld his glory." The apostle was among those who beheld it with wondering awe, on the Mount of Transfiguration and at the various scenes of miracle in his life of service and suffering. He beheld it; for he speaks in his First Epistle of having heard and seen and handled the Word of life (1Jn_1:1)

IV THE CHARACTER OF THE INCARNATE WORD.

1. It is that of the Only Begotten of the Father. The "glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father." This expression implies the eternal generation of the Son from the Father; for if the Father was Father from all eternity, the Son must have been Son from all eternity, he spoke of "a glory which he had with the Father before the world was". (Joh_17:5) There is no inferiority involved in this sonship. There is a necessary defectiveness in all analogies taken from human parentage. Augustine said, "Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show to you and explain to you an eternal Son.

2. It is the fulness of grace and truth. "Full of grace and truth." This does not signify that his own life was filled, with grace and truth, but that he is the Author of these two blessings, as we may infer from ver. 17, where "grace and truth" are said to have come "by Jesus Christ.

(1) Grace is the revelation of God"s love, (1Jn_4:8, 1Jn_4:16) and the gospel of Christ is full of grace to lost sinners of mankind,

(2) Truth is the revelation of God"s light, (1Jn_1:5) for Christ made known to us the way of acceptance and salvation.

The inference from the human to the Divine.

The parenthesis in this verse is remarkable as written in the first person. There must be a reason for the evangelist"s departure from his ordinary practice of writing in the narrative style. It seems that John was so impressed by the solemnity and value of the witness he was bearing, that he was constrained to break his own rule, and. to speak explicitly of what he himself had actually seen, and of what he himself had come firmly to believe. Regarding this parenthesis only, we find here the record of personal observation, and, in closest connection therewith, the declaration of personal conviction.

I THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS. "We beheld his glory.

1. John and his fellow apostles knew Christ in his humanity in the "flesh" as the expression is in this passage.

2. They knew him as he "tabernacled" among them. John and Andrew, when the Baptist directed their attention to Jesus, inquired of him, "Where dwellest thou?" and at his invitation visited him and abode with him. The writer of this Gospel enjoyed peculiar opportunities of acquaintance, nay, of intimacy, with the Prophet of Nazareth, whose beloved disciple he became. If one human being ever knew another, John knew Jesus; he not only was constantly with him, his disposition and character rendered him specially fit for judging and appreciating him.

3. John and his colleagues bore witness that they recognized their Master"s "glory." Why is such language used? Why his "glory"? He was a peasant woman"s Son, and remained in the condition of life to which he was born. There was nothing in his garb, his appearance, his associations, the outward circumstances of his lot, which, in the view of men generally, could justify such an expression. These men must have had their own conception of "glory." As spiritual Hebrews, they had a noble idea of the majesty, the righteousness, the purity of God, and also of the moral splendour of the Divine Law. Thus it came to pass that, enlightened by the Spirit, they discerned glory where to the eyes of others there was only humiliation. They saw the moral glory of purity and benevolence in the Lord"s Person and character, in the "grace" which he displayed in dealing with suppliants and penitents, in the "truth" which he uttered and embodied. They could not fail to remark the glory of his miracles, of his transfiguration, of his victory over death, of the manner in which he quitted the earth in which he had sojourned. All this, as intelligent and sympathetic witnesses, John and his companions beheld, and to this they testified.

II THE INFERENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN. The glory was "of the Only Begotten of the Father." They knew well that the world to which Jesus came needed a Divine Saviour. Such a Saviour they were encouraged by the word of prophecy to expect. And their familiarity with the character and the mission of Jesus led them to hail the Son of man as Son of God. If Jesus were not the Only Begotten of the Father, how could they account for the facts of his ministry, for the authority he wielded, the claims he made? He had called himself the Son of God; he had lived like the Son of God; he had wrought the works of God. He had been addressed as the Son of the living God, and had accepted the appellation. Were the disciples to forget all this; to persuade themselves that they had been in a mist of bewilderment; to give up their deepest convictions, their purest and most ennobling beliefs? If not, then they must needs assert their belief that the glory they had seen was that of the Only Begotten of the Father. The same inference is binding upon us. To deny of Jesus what John here affirms of him is to leave the Church without a foundation, the heart without a refuge, the world without a hope. If Christ be not what John represents him as being, then the world can never know and rejoice in a full and personal revelation of the supreme mind and heart and will. It may be said that this is the misfortune of humanity, and that it must be accepted as inevitable. But the text points out to us a better way. The sincere and impressive language of John encourages us first to realize to ourselves the unique moral majesty of Jesus, and then to draw from this the inference which he and other witnesses of Jesus" character and life drew so firmly and conclusively the inference, namely, that he was none other than the Son of God, deserving of human reverence and faith, love and devotion. The witness of Christ"s companions we cannot reject. Their convictions concerning their Master and Friend we are abundantly justified in sharing. If we have a heart capable of appreciating the Saviour"s moral glory, we shall not be without guidance in estimating the justice of his claim to superhuman dignity to Divine authority. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Flesh sometimes signifies corrupt nature; sometimes the body; sometimes, as here, the whole man. We beheld his glory - We his apostles, particularly Peter, James, and John, Luke ix, 32. Grace and truth - We are all by nature liars and children of wrath, to whom both grace and truth are unknown. But we are made partakers of them, when we are accepted through the Beloved. The whole verse might be paraphrased thus: And in order to raise us to this dignity and happiness, the eternal Word, by a most amazing condescension, was made flesh, united himself to our miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities. And he did not make us a transient visit, but tabernacled among us on earth, displaying his glory in a more eminent manner, than even of old in the tabernacle of Moses. And we who are now recording these things beheld his glory with so strict an attention, that we can testify, it was in every respect such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father. For it shone forth not only in his transfiguration, and in his continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct through the whole series of his life. In all he appeared full of grace and truth: he was himself most benevolent and upright; made those ample discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do: and really exhibited the most substantial blessings, whereas that was but a shadow of good things to come.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The evangelist having asserted the divinity of Christ in the foregoing verses, comes now to speak of his humanity and manifestation in our nature: The word was made flesh.

Where note, 1. Our Saviour’s incarnation for us.

2. His life and conversation here among us. He dwelt or tabernacled for a season with us. In the incarnation or assumption of our nature,

Observe, 1. The person assuming, The Word, that is, the second person subsisting in the glorious Godhead.

Observe, 2. The nature assumed, flesh; that is, the human nature, consisting of soul and body.

But why is it not said, The Word was made man? but, The Word was made flesh.

Ans. To denote and set forth the wonderful abasement and condescension of Christ; there being more of vileness and weakness, and opposition to spirit, in the word flesh, than in the word man.

Christ’s taking flesh implies, that he did not only take upon him the human nature, but all the weaknesses and infirmities of that nature also, (sinful infirmities and personal infirmities excepted,) he had nothing to do with our sinful flesh. Though Christ loved souls with an infinite and insuperable love, yet he would not sin to save a soul. And he took no personal infirmities upon him, but such as are common to the whole nature, as hunger, thirst, weariness.

Observe, 3. The assummption itself, He was made flesh; that is, he assumed the human nature into an union with his Godhead, and so became a true and real man by that assumption.

Learn hence, That Jesus Christ did really assume the true and perfect nature of man, into a personal union with his divine nature, and still remains true God, and true Man, in one person, for ever.

O blessed union! O thrice happy conjunction! As Man, Christ had an experimental sense of our infirmities and wants; as God, he can support and supply them all.

Note farther, 2. As our Saviour’s incarnation for us, so his life and conversation among us; He dwelt, or tabernacled amongst us. The tabernacle was a type of Christ’s human nature.

1. As the outside of the tabernacle was mean, made of ordinary materials, but its inside glorious; so was the Son of God.

2. God’s special presence was in the tabernacle; there he dwelt, for he had a delight therein. In like manner dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily in Christ; and the glory of his divinity shined forth to the eye and view of his disiples; for they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; that is, whilst Christ appeared as a man amongst us, he gave great and glorious testimonies of his being the Son of God.

Learn hence, That in the day of our Saviour’s incarnation, the divinity of his person did shine forth through the veil of his flesh, and was seen by all them that had spiritual eye to behold it, and a mind disposed to consider it. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. The Word assumed a human form and became incarnate as the child of Mary. We beheld his glory. His Divine glory. See Luke 9:32; John 2:11.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

The Word

This refers to Jesus. Translate as "the Word" if possible. If "Word" is feminine in your language, it could be translated as "the one who is called the Word." See how you translated this in John 1:1.

became flesh

Here "flesh" represents "a person" or "a human being." AT: "became human" or "became a human being" (See: Synecdoche)

the one and only who came from the Father

The phrase "the one an only" means that he is unique, that no one else is like him. The phrase "who came from the Father" means that he is the Father's child. AT: "the unique Son of the Father" or "the only Son of the Father"

Father

This is an important title for God. (See: Translating Son and Father)

full of grace

"full of kind acts towards us, acts we do not deserve"

He who comes after me

John is speaking about Jesus. The phrase "comes after me" means that John's ministry has already started and Jesus' ministry will start later.

is greater than I am

"is more important than I am" or "has more authority than I have"

for he was before me

Be careful not to translate this in a way that suggests that Jesus is more important because he is older than John in human years. Jesus is greater and more important than John because he is God the Son, who has always been alive.

translationWords

word

flesh

glory

God the Father

grace

true

John (the Baptist)

testimony

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

14–18. THE INCARNATE WORD’S REVELATION OF THE FATHER

14. καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. This is the gulf which separates S. John from Philo. Philo would have assented to what precedes; but from this he would have shrunk. From Joh 1:9-13 we have the subjective side; the inward result of the Word’s coming to those who receive Him. Here we have the objective; the coming of the Word as a historical fact. The Logos, existing from all eternity with the Father (Joh 1:1-2), not only manifested His power in Creation (Joh 1:3), and in influence on the minds of men (Joh 1:9; Joh 1:12-13), but manifested Himself in the form of a man of flesh.—The καί is resumptive, taking us back to the opening verses.

σάρξ. Not σῶμα, nor ἄνθρωπος. There might have been a σῶμα without σάρξ (1Co 15:40; 1Co 15:44), and there might have been the form of a man, and yet no σάρξ (Mat 14:26; Luk 24:37-39). Docetism is by implication excluded: Joh 6:21, Joh 7:10, Joh 19:35. The important point is that the Logos became terrestrial and material; the creative Word Himself became a creature. The inferior part of man is mentioned, to mark His humiliation: He took the whole nature of man, including its frailty; all that nature in which He could grow, learn, struggle, be tempted, suffer, and die.

ἐσκήνωσεν. Tabernacled among us. The σκηνή, or Tabernacle, had been the seat of the Divine Presence in the wilderness. When God became incarnate, to dwell among the Chosen People, σκηνοῦν ‘to tabernacle’ was a natural word to use. We have here another link (see above on ἀληθινός Joh 1:9) between this Gospel and the Apocalypse. Σκηνοῦν occurs here, four times in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else. Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3. There is perhaps an association of ideas, suggested by similarity of sound, between σκηνή and the Shechinah or δόξα mentioned in the next clause. “The idea that the Shechinah, the σκηνή, the glory which betokened the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies, and which was wanting in the second temple, would be restored once more in Messiah’s days, was a cherished hope of the Jewish doctors during and after the Apostolic ages.… S. John more than once avails himself of imagery derived from this expectation.… The two writings (this Gospel and the Apocalypse) which attribute the name of the Word of God to the Incarnate Son, are the same also which especially connect Messiah’s Advent with the restitution of the Shechinah, the light or glory which is the visible token of God’s presence among men.” Lightfoot, On Revision, pp. 56, 57. See on Joh 11:44, Joh 15:20, Joh 19:37, Joh 20:16.

ἐθεασάμεθα. Contemplated or beheld: cf. 1Jn 1:1. It is a stronger word than ὁρᾷν, implying enjoyment in beholding.

τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Cf. Joh 2:11; Joh 11:40; Joh 12:41; Joh 17:5; Joh 17:24; 2Co 3:7-18; Rev 21:10. Although the Word in becoming incarnate laid aside His Divine prerogatives, and not merely assumed but ‘became flesh,’ yet the moral and spiritual grandeur of His unique relationship to the Father remained and was manifest to His disciples. There is probably a special reference to the Transfiguration (Luk 9:32; 2Pe 1:17); and possibly to the vision at the beginning of the Apocalypse.

ὡς. This particle does not necessarily signify mere likeness. Here and Mat 7:29 it indicates exact likeness: the glory is altogether such as that of the only-begotten Son of God; He taught exactly as one having full authority.

μονογενοῦς. Only-begotten, ‘unigenitus.’ The word is used of the widow’s son (Luk 7:12), Jairus’ daughter (Joh 8:42), the demoniac boy (Joh 9:38), Isaac (Heb 11:17). As applied to our Lord it occurs only in S. John’s writings; here, Joh 1:18, Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9. It marks off His unique Sonship from that of the τέκνα θεοῦ (Joh 1:12). It refers to His eternal generation from the Father, whereas πρωτότοκος refers to His incarnation as the Messiah and His relation to creatures. See Lightfoot on Col 1:15.

παρὰ πατρός. (See on παρὰ θεοῦ, Joh 1:6.) From a father: S. John never uses πατήρ for the Father without the article: see on Joh 4:21. The meaning is, ‘as of an only son sent on a mission from a father.’

πλήρης. There is no need to make the preceding clause a parenthesis: πλήρης, in spite of the case, may go with αὐτοῦ. In Luk 20:27; Luk 24:47, we have equally irregular constructions.—Πλήρης looks forward to πλήρωμα in Joh 1:16. Winer, p. 705.

χάριτος. Χάρις from χαίρω means originally ‘that which causes pleasure.’ Hence (1) comeliness, winsomeness; from Homer downwards. In Luk 4:22 λόγοι τῆς χ. are ‘winning words.’ (2) Kindliness, good will; both in classical Greek and N.T. Luk 2:52; Act 2:47. (3) The favour of God towards sinners. This distinctly theological sense has for its central point the freeness of God’s gifts: they are not earned, He gives them spontaneously through Christ. This notion of spontaneousness is not prominent in classical Greek: it is the main idea in N.T. Χάρις is neither earned by works nor prevented by sin; it is thus opposed to ἔργα, νόμος, ὀφείλημα, ἁμαρτία, and branches out into various meanings too wide for discussion here. ‘Grace’ covers all meanings. The third meaning, at its deepest and fullest, is the one in this verse.

ἀληθείας. It is as τὸ Φῶς that the Logos is ‘full of truth,’ as ἡ Ζωή that He is ‘full of grace,’ for it is ‘by grace’ that we come to eternal life. Eph 2:5. Moreover the ἀληθεία assures us that the χάρις is real and steadfast: comp. the combination of ἔλεος and ἀληθεία in the LXX. of Psa 89:1-2.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] καί must not be understood (Chrysost., Grot., Lampe, Theophylact, al.) as giving a reason for the verse before; it is only the same copula as in vv. 1, 3, 4, 5; passing on to a further assertion regarding the Word.

σὰρξ ἐγ., became flesh: the most general expression of the great truth that He became man. He became that, of which man is in the body compounded. There is no reference here to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus being the second Adam, as Olshausen thinks; but although there may be no reference to it, it lies at the ground of this wideness of expression. The doctrine in this form may have been, as Lücke observes, alien to John’s habits of thought, but not that which is implied in the doctrine, the taking of the nature of man by the Eternal Word.

The simplicity of this expression is no doubt directed against the Docetæ of the Apostle’s time, who maintained that the Word only apparently took human nature. Therefore he says σὰρξ ἐγένετο, absolutely and literally became flesh: see ref. 1 John. The expression is not guarded against the interpretation of the Apollinarian heretics, who held that the Lord had not a human soul (ψυχή); but this error was not in the Apostle’s view, and is abundantly refuted elsewhere (see Mat 26:38 and note on 36-46, and the references there made to John’s Gospel).

ἐσκήνωσεν, ‘sojourned,’ or ‘tabernacled,’ in us. There is no reference to the flesh being the tabernacle of the Spirit;—but the word is one technically used in Scripture to import the dwelling of God among men. See besides reff., Lev 26:11, Lev 26:12: Eze 43:7; Eze 37:27: Sir. 24:8, 10.

ἡμῖν—“hominibus, qui caro sumus,” Bengel.

καὶ ἐθ. τ. δόξ. αὐτ.] we saw—see 1Jn 1:1: 2Pe 1:16.

This is the Apostle’s testimony as such, see Act 1:21.

The mention of δόξα seems to be suggested by the word ἐσκήνωσεν, so frequently used of the divine Presence or Shechinah, and cognate in its very form with it: “eædem litteræ in שכינה et σκηνή.” Bengel.

This glory was seen by the disciples, ch. 2:11; 11:4: also by Peter, James, and John, specially, on the mount of transfiguration: to which occasion the words ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός seem to refer: but mainly, in the whole converse and teaching and suffering of the Lord, who was full of grace and truth: see below.

On ὡς Chrysostom remarks (Hom. xii. in Joan., vol. viii. p. 66), οὐχ ὁμοιώσεως, οὐδὲ παραβολῆς, ἀλλὰ βεβαιώσεως καὶ ἀναμφισβητήτου δωρισμοῦ· ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν Ἐθ. δόξαν οἵαν ἔπρεπε καὶ εἰκὸς ἔχειν μονογενῆ καὶ γνήσιον υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ πάντων βασιλέως θεοῦ (see reff.).

μονογ.] This word applied to Christ is peculiar to John: see reff. In the N.T. usage it signifies the only son;—in the LXX, Ps. 21:20, the beloved, and Ps. 24:16, one deserted, left alone. It has been attempted to render the word in John, according to the usage in Ps. 21:20. But obviously in the midst of ideas reaching so far deeper than that of regard, or love, of the Father for the Son, the word cannot be interpreted except in accordance with them. It refers to, and contrasts with, the τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ in vv. 12, 13. They receive their divine birth by faith in Him and through Him; but He is the μονογενής of the Father in the higher sense, in which He is γεννηθείς the Son of God.

παρὰ πατρός belongs to μονογενοῦς; not to δόξαν, as Theophyl., Erasm., Grot. suppose.

The ellipse is to be supplied by considering the state in which the λόγος here appears,—that of having become σάρξ and dwelling among us.

πλήρ. χάρ. κ. ἀλ.] These words have been variously connected. The view of Erasmus, who places the period at πατρός, and connects these words with Ἰωάννης, scarcely needs refutation, whether we regard the construction, or the meaning of the sentence. The reading πλήρη has probably arisen from a correction, to connect the adj. with δόξαν. Some do this even with πλήρης, but both the construction and the sense are against it. It was not the δόξα, but He Himself, that was πλήρης χ. κ. ἀλ.: see below, ver. 17. Others suppose πλήρης to refer directly to μονογενοῦς, and justify this by Eph 3:17, Eph 3:18. But besides the unnecessary harshness of this, the sense is against it also; for it cannot be said, ‘we saw His glory, the glory as of one who was full of grace and truth;’ we must have the ὡς referring, in the sense of οἵαν ἔπρεπε (see above), to some mysterious hidden character which the glory testified, whereas the πλήρης χ. κ. ἀλ. is itself a mere matter of fact, to which the Apostles themselves could (ver. 17) bear witness. Another construction is (as usually done and in E. V.) to take καὶ … πατρός as parenthetical, and connect πλήρης immediately with ἐσκήνωσεν. Such parentheses are common in the style of this Gospel: see ch. 6:22-24; 11:2; 19:23, 24; ib. ver. 31. But by far the best is, to regard πλήρης as referring to αὐτοῦ, by an anomaly in concord often found in the N.T. (see Luk 20:27 note; 24:47), and especially in the Apocalypse,—cf. Rev 1:4 al. fr.

χάρ. κ. ἀλ.] Not = χάριτος ἀληθινῆς, which destroys the precision of the expression, and itself conveys no sense whatever; but setting out the two sides of the divine manifestation in Christ,—χάρις, as the result of Love to mankind,—ἀλήθεια (see reff. and ch. 14:6), as the unity, purity, and light of His own Character.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.