|
Chapter 1
1. In the
beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
Deity.
This verse provides the
framework not only for the prologue that encompasses verses
one through eighteen, but for the entire Gospel itself. The
prologue functions, I believe, as an "interpretive window" for
the entire Gospel. John means us to read the rest of his work
with the foundational understanding of the nature of Jesus
Christ, as presented in these verses, clearly in mind. It is
just the rejection of the lofty teaching of these verses that
has caused the myriad of inconsistent and illogical
interpretations of the words of Jesus later in the Gospel.
1.1 takes us back beyond
creation itself. Some refer the "beginning" here to that of
Genesis 1.1, and this may be so, but the verb "was" (Gr: en,
imperfect of eimi) takes us before whatever "beginning" we may
wish to choose. The continuous action in the past of the
imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the
"beginning" was, the Word was already in existence. In other
words, the Word is eternal - timeless - without a "beginning."
Note also the fact that
John will very carefully differentiate between the verbs “was”
and “became” (Gr: egeneto, the aorist form of ginomai). The
reason for this, I believe, is that he wishes to emphasize the
eternal, non-created nature of the Logos over against the
finite, temporal, created nature of all other things. This
will come sharply into view in 1.14.
Just why John chose to use
the Greek term Logos is a matter of quite some debate. The
term had great meaning in Greek philosophy as the impersonal
but rational ordering principle of the universe. The Logos is
what made sense Out of the universe. But John does not use
Logos in just this way - in fact, he radically alters the use
of the word while still maintaining some of the inherent
meaning it would have for his readers. The Logos of John is
personal - the Logos. is not an ordering principle but rather
a personal being. As John’s explanation of the Logos
unfolds, we shall see that the Logos makes Gad known and is,
in fact, incarnated in Jesus Christ. For John, then, Jesus
Christ is the revelation of God in the flesh (1.14) but He did
not start revealing God at that time - instead, His
relationship to God the Father (1.18) has always
been one of revelation - the Logos always makes God known for
it is the Father’s gracious choice to be revealed by
the Word. This will be important as well in seeing that John
clearly identifies Jesus Christ as YHWH in different ways -
sometimes through the usage of the phrase “I Am” (Gr: ego eimi)
and sometimes by direct ascription, as in John 12.39-41/Isaiah
6.1.
"and the Word was with
God... "The Apostle John walks an exceptionally fine line in
this verse. In the first clause he asserts the eternality of
the Logos. Now he states that the Logos is personally eternal
- that is, that the Logos has been in communion and
communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the
same as the first clause, and the preposition pros ("with”)
pictures for us face-to-face communication. John does not yet
identify those persons for us - we must wait till verses 14
through 18 to see that John is speaking of Jesus Christ the
Son and God the Father. What he wishes to emphasize here is
the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of
distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not
the Father nor vice-versa - there are two persons under
discussion here.
The third clause of this
verse has occasioned great debate and controversy, mainly due
to the fact that the Greek word for God, theos, does not have
the definite article (“the”) before it. Some pseudo-Christian
or Arian groups have said that this means that the Word was
a
“god” or a god-like being like an angel (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
But is this the case? Other Christian scholars have put great
weight into the idea that the term them is being used as an
adjective to describe the Logos, and that is why John did not
put the article there.
Actually, the answer to the whole question seems fairly
obvious, even to a first-year Greek student. The third clause
of 1.1 is a copulative sentence - that is, it follows the form
“The (mourn) is (predicate nomimative). In Greek, one
distinguishes the subject of a copulative sentence by which
noun has an article in front of It. For example, in 1 John 4:8
we have the last clause reading “God is love.” Now, in Greek
this is ho theos agape estin. There are two nominative nouns
in this sentence - God (theos) and love (agape). However, the
first noun, God, has the article ho before it. This indicates
that “God” is the subject of the sentence, and love is the
predicate nominative. It would be wrong, then, to translate 1
John 4:8 as Love is God.” The only way to make the two nouns
interchangeable is to either put the article with both nouns,
or to not put the article there at all. As long as one has the
article and the other does not, one is definitely the subject
and the other the predicate. Hence, 1 John 4:8 does not teach
that all love is God, nor that God and love are
interchangeable things. Rather, the term “love” tells us
something about God - it functions almost as an adjective,
describing the noun (God) that it modifies.
We have the same situation
in 1.1c. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that
the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does
not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the
Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was
the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of
the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative,
and it functions just as love” did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us
something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of
the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1
John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term
“God” by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a
“divine nature” as in something like the angels have - rather,
it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my
translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time
professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the
phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”
Before summing up the
verse, then, let the reader note that when groups such as
Jehovah’s Witnesses quote from Dr. Philip Harner’s article on
the nature of anarthrous (=without the article) predicate
nominatives, they don’t understand what they are talking
about. Harner accurately pointed out that the anarthrous
predicate nominative functions as a descriptive term rather
than a specific term. Problem is, the Jehovah’s Witnesses make
“God” in John 1.1 just as definite as the translations they
attack! The point Harner is making is that it is not the
definite “God” that is in view, far less the JW translation of
“a god” (both are definite) but rather the nature of the Logos
that is important.
Hence, 1.1 tells us some
immensely important things. First, we see that the Logos is
eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine
Persons in view in John’s mind - the Father and the Logos.
Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship
between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the
Logos shares the nature of God. These items will be important
for a proper understanding of many of the statements made by
our Lord in this book. It seems to me that John felt it was
vitally important that we understand the majesty of the Person
of Jesus Christ right from the start. We will see these
concepts played out through the rest of the book.
2.
He was in the beginning with God.
This
verse ties together some of the concepts of 1.1 and reiterates
them. It takes the “beginning” of 1.1a, and the “with God” of
1.lb, and puts them together to emphasize (I feel) the eternal
nature of the relationship between God and Logos. Also, it
might be noted that literally the phrase reads “This one was
in the beginning with God...” referring specifically to the
Logos.
3.
All things were made through Him and without Him was nothing
made which has been made.
Here
we see the fact of the “uncreatedness’ of the Logos asserted,
for the Logos is the
Creator! All things
were made “through” Him. He is the agent of creation. But,
lest one should think that He Himself was created, and then
all other things were made through Him as a second-workman,
John makes sure to add “and without (or “aside from”) Him was
nothing made which has been made.” There is nothing in the
created order that was not made through the agency of the
Logos. This is important for John. The Gospel of John draws
heavily from the Old Testament, and hence we should make sure
to look into what this means from an Old Testament
perspective. Yabweh said in Isaiah 44:24, “1 am Yahweh, who
has made all things, who alone stretched Out the
heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.”
Surely
here we see the first direct allusion to an astounding fact
that will underlie much of John’s discussion of Jesus - that
Jesus is Yahweh! Not only this, but John will quickly add a
second startling fact - Yahweh is tri-personal - i.e., Father,
Son and Spirit! I feel that John is carefully explaining how
he, a monotheistic Jew, can call Jesus “Lord” and “God”
(20.28) and yet still maintain that the Father and Son are
separate Persons, and that there is but one God!
The fact of the creatorship
of Jesus is found in other NT writings as well, most notably
in Paul’s discussion in Colossians 1:15-17, and in Hebrews
1:1-3. Given the wide variety of literature in which this
concept is found, it is evident that this belief was
foundational to the Christian community, and certainly was not
some late emendation that evolved over time in the Church, as
is so commonly asserted by liberal scholars.
One punctuation difficulty
should be addressed. Some translations (following Nestle’s
Greek text) will render the punctuation differently, resulting
in “and without Him was not anything made. That which was made
in Him was life...” Basically, this view sees what was created
by the Logos was life, not all the created universe. This
reading does have the support of nearly all the early church
Fathers up to the time of Chrysostom; after that, the
consensus shifted to reading it as it is translated above. I
see some real problems with the resulting text if this
punctuation variant is allowed to stand. First, the “all
things” of verse 3 does not fit with “life” of verse four.
Secondly, the resulting “that which was made in him was life’
is extremely awkward - in fact, more awkward in Greek than in
English! It seems by far the best to punctuate the passage as
it has traditionally been done since the time of Chrysostom.
4. In Him was life, and
the life
was the light of men.
John
here asserts that the Logos is the source of life (again, OT
references to Yahweh could be produced in regards to Yahweh
being the source of life). But John then says that this life
“was the light of men.” What does this mean? It seems to me
that the author is thinking of the fact that all that is owes
its existence to the Logos, including man himself. The Logos
gives meaning and purpose to man. Man, as created by the
personal Logos hence has purpose, meaning, a goal in life. All
is not chance. Life is not a roll of the cosmic die. We are
not fashioned by impersonal, unfeeling celestial forces. It
may be here that the philosophical elements of the logos idea
are most prominent in John’s mind, or should I say that it is
here that John allows the non-Christian meaning to have its
greatest expression while not in any way surrendering the
distinctives of the Logos that he has already asserted. The
logos of philosophy was the guiding principle - the ordering
force of the universe. The Greeks looked to the logos as their
guiding light, so to speak. Possibly the idea of the laps as
one that guides or gives light is here taken over by John and
filled with personal meaning. All men, irrespective of their
personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate
(1.14) are still lighted by His creative acts and providential
blessings. I feel this is John’s idea here.
5. And the light Is shining
in the darkness and the
darkness has
not overcome
it.
Here we encounter a
structure that will occur over and over and over again in the
Gospel of John - that of dualism. We see two opposites here -
light and darkness. It has been on this basis that many have
accused John of accepting or having leanings toward
Gnosticism, which is dualistic to the core. But if we look
closely at John’s words, we will see that he disagrees with
Gnosticism at the most basic levels. Certainly he sees
opposites and often speaks in opposites. We will see over and
over that John will use two meanings for the same word,
sometimes at the same time (as he may just do in this verse -
see below). But John is not personifying these opposites. God
is still creator of all that is, which to the Gnostics was a
terribly horrid concept. God is still providentially in
control. The Logos, actually takes on physical, human flesh in
1.14 - so John’s opposition to the most basic concepts of
Gnosticism is clearly delineated.
Here, then, is the first
pair of opposites - light and darkness. This pair will reoccur
in the teachings of Jesus. What does it mean that the light is
shining in the darkness? Possibly this refers to the fact that
the light of the Logos shines despite man’s condition in sin
(i.e., darkness). Is there significance to the present tense
of ‘shining”? I think so - I believe this refers to the
continuous action of the shining of the light of the Logos -
that light cannot be extinguished or overcome.
The Greek term translated
“overcome” (Gr: katalambano) is capable of numerous meanings,
two of which are possible in our context. One is to overcome
or conquer, and I feel that this is the best understanding in
1.5, for there will always be conflict between light and
darkness in John’s thought. But, another possible meaning is
‘to comprehend” or ‘to understand.’ In fact, one lexicon says
of this term in 1.5, “It is possible that in in 1.5 a word
play involving both meanings may be intended, something which
is typical of Johannine style.” I agree, though I lean toward
the sense “to conquer.”
6. There came a
man sent from God whose name was John.
7. This one came for a testimony in
order that he
might testify concerning the light in order that all might
believe through him. 8. This one was not the light but [he
came] in order that he might testify concerning the light,
Verses 6-8 form somewhat of
an excursus. John here introduces the forerunner to Christ,
John the Baptist. It is interesting to note that the author
uses a different verb (mentioned above) of John - carrying on
that important differentiation of verbs. John’s ministry is
validated when the author states that John the Baptist was
"sent by God.” There are some writers who feel that John was
reacting against a continued presence of disciples of the
Baptist, even later into the first century. Though there may
be some merit to the idea, it certainly does not seem to be a
major reason for the writing. John is careful to assert that
the Baptist’s mission was one with divine approval.
The purpose of John’s
ministry, however, is given by the author as one of testimony
- of witnessing. The greek term martureo (noun form used here)
means ‘to give witness or testimony” and it appears often in
John’s Gospel (47 times). We derive our English term “martyr”
from it. John the Baptist was sent by God to ‘testify of the
light” - which seems to clearly refer here to the Lord Jesus
Himself. His was a preparatory work, so that “all might
believe through him.” He was not to be gathering disciples for
himself, but rather gathering a group of those who would
follow and believe in the light, when that light came. It is
important to remember that some of the most important of
Jesus’ disciples came from amongst John’s followers (see
below).
John then makes sure that
it is clear that the Baptist was not the light, but rather one
whose mission It was to point to the light.
9.
Which
was the true light, which lights every man by coming into the
world.
John
returns then from his brief discussion of the Baptist (which
he will pick up later) to the subject of the Logos once
again. We must remember that the purpose of the prologue is to
identify and describe one person - the Logos. So here John
asserts that the Logos, is the true light (in opposition, we
would think, to many “false’ lights who had come before and
would come after). But how is it that the “true light” “lights
every man by coming into the world”? First, there are more
than a few ways of rendering the final phrase of this verse.
The difficulty lies in just how one is to take the participle
erchomenon (= “coming’). I take the participle to be a
“circumstantial instrumental’ - that is, the participle refers
to the means by which the action of the main verb is
accomplished. In this case, that would mean that every man is
‘lighted” by the coming into the world of the one who does the
lighting - viz, the Logos. It is difficult to say just what it
means that all men have received light because of the coming
of Christ into the world. There are about as many opinions as
to just how to work that out as there are interpreters of the
Gospel.
10. He was in the world,
and
the world was made through Him, and the
world did not know him.
One of the major questions
facing the understanding of this verse is the time frame
involved. To what is John referring? He uses the timeless en
that we saw in 1.1 when he says that ‘He w in the world...”
which would suggest to me that he is referring to a pre-incarnational
time where God the Son, in His providence, was active in the
world.
John also asserts, again,
the created nature of the world and the identity of the
Creator. But, despite the fact that He created the world, “the
world did not know Him.” Many have referred this to the
rejection of Christ, and again this takes us back to the
question of the time frame. We know that in verse 14 we get a
particular historical anchor to work with - the incarnation.
But it seems that John is not particularly worried about
keeping some chronological order intact. But just where he
refers to post-incarnation before 14 (which it seems rather
certain that he does) is hard to say. Personally, I feel he
does so in verse 11 (“He came unto His own...”) though even
here a case could be made for the other side. So, if the
phrase “the world did not know Him” is actually pre-incarnational,
to what does this refer? Some commentator’s have suggested,
not without plausibility, that there are actually two thoughts
in John’s mind - that this section refers to both the pre-incarnational
period, as well as to Jesus’ ministry. The dualistic usage
would not be out of character for our author.
To complicate the matters
even more, how is John using the term “world’ (Gr: kosmos)?
Unfortunately for us, John uses this very term in
many
different ways - you can’t pin down any one usage, that’s for
sure! So does the “world’ refer to all creation, to all men,
to only those men who reject Christ - who? It is obviously
impossible to dogmatize here, but it would seem that there is
a subtle shift of meaning for the term ‘world” even within
this very verse!
11.
He came unto His own things, and His own people did not
receive Him.
The
first phrase might be rendered “He came home..." and is so
suggested by Leon Morris. The exact phrase occurs at John
19:27 where John (we assume) takes Mary “into his own home...”
The neuter gender used here seems to indicate that Jesus came
to those “things” that were His - the created order. But, what
many translations don’t show you is that the first “His own”
is different from the second “His own” (see LIV for example -
above translation does differentiate between the usages). The
second clause refers to coming to one’s own people and not
being received by them. It seems hard to see how this could
not refer to Jesus’ ministry, for who was His ‘people’ before
He took flesh and dwelt amongst us? Sadly, the continued fact
of the Jewish rejection of the Messiah will be a part of the
very fabric of the story to follow.
12. But as many as did
receive Him, to them He gave authority to become children of
God, to the ones believing in
His name, 13. whIch ones are not born of bloods neither of the
fleshly will neither of the human will but they are
born
from God.
To
those who receive Him (in obvious contradistinction to those
of His own people who rejected Him), He gives authority be
become the children of God. Note that one is not a child of
God simply by virtue of being a human being - John will very,
very carefully choose his terms in regards to this issue. In
fact, it should be noted that John will never call
anyone ~‘Son of God (or ‘son”) other than Jesus Himself. The
LIV renders this “sons of God” but that is misleading - the
Greek term is tekna (children) not huios (son).
It seems that the author is
paralleling “receive Him’ and “believe in His name.” It does
not seem wise to differentiate between the two descriptions.
Those who believe are then
described in a very curious way in verse 13. Those who believe
are “not born of bloods...” The term is plural, though often
translated in the singular. There are many, many ideas as to
just what this refers to. First there is the problem of a
minor textual variant that has led some to think that this is
referring to Jesus, and hence to the Virgin Birth. But the
evidence against this variant seems overwhelming. Secondly, it
seems that the entire verse is trying to make only one point -
that being that the act of regeneration (or more obviously,
the fact of being born into God’s family) is not a human
action and does not have its ground in human desire, action,
or will. It is not an action that is based upon anything
within the person, including race or parentage. Rather, if one
is born into God’s family, that is the direct action of God
and
God alone. I realize that much more could be speculated
upon in this verse, but I feel that this is the main idea that
is being communicated.
14. And the Word became
flesh
and tabernacled
among us and we beheld His glory, glory as
of the unique
one from the Father, full of grace and truth.
We approach here a signal
verse that ranks amongst the most important Christological
passages in the Word. Jn 1.1, 1.14, 1.18, 8.58, 10.30, and
20.28 all are massively important, and if you add to these
such passages as Phil. 2.5-11, Col. 1.13-17 and Hebrews
1.1-3, you have most of the material that has been debated for
years and years in regards to the Person of Christ.
First, note that the Word
became flesh. It was not the Father who was born in Bethlehem.
Some early heretics such as Praxeas and Noctus, and most
notably Sabellius, taught just such a thing. But the Church
has always rejected such a concept, for it is pre-eminently
unbiblical.
Secondly, note that the
Word became flesh. The Word did not just seem to be flesh - He
became flesh. The Word did not just dwell inside flesh, but He
was joined to flesh, and lived as a man. Note also that right
here John for the first time uses the aorist verb egeneto of
the Word. As mentioned before, John had up to this time only
used the imperfect form of eimi to refer to the logos and His
eternal nature. But here John uses a verb that points to a
specific place in time, and the reason is clear. The Word did
not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a
particular point in time He became flesh. This is the
incarnation. To me, this use of the verb proves beyond all
question that John’s differentiation between en and egeneto is
specific and intentional.
Thirdly, note that the Word
became flesh. To this the Gnostics and the Docetics would cry
“heresy” for neither group could think of such an absurdity.
See, both groups felt that all matter was inherently evil. So,
the Docetics came up with the idea that Jesus only “seemed” to
be here. The Greek word for "seem” is dokein from which we get
‘Docetic.” They would circulate stories about Jesus walking
along the seashore with a disciple, and when the disciple
turned around he would see only one set of footprints - his
own. Jesus wasn’t really human, so He didn’t leave footprints,
or so the Docetics thought. There is a marked anti-docetism in
John’s writings (see especially the introduction to 1 John).
1.14 is the clearest
statement of the incarnation we have; yet, it answers almost
no questions about the
mechanics of
the incarnation. How did the Word become flesh without ceasing
to be the Word (it is evident from the language that the Word
did not stop being the Word - He simply became flesh). How was
the divine Logos joined to the human nature? These questions
would not find even a creedal formulation until 451
A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon, and even then all we really
have a positive statements that assert what we know, and
exclude any errors on those points - but the formulation does
not answer the questions of “how”. The mystery of the
Incarnation is a great one, and, given its unique character,
one that only God can explain.
John says that He
tabernacled amongst us. The term was used of ‘pitching a tent”
and this would seem rather appropriate, given the character of
the One who became flesh! Some see a connection here with the
Old Testament term shecan from which we get the
‘shekinah glory” of God. The Hebrew term refers to the
dwelling place of God, and hence by extension, the dwelling
place of the glory of God. Jesus is described as having the
“glory of the unique one from the Father”, hence the
connection seems to be well founded. There seems to be more
anti-docetism in John’s thought here (some have conjectured
that John wrote this in response to some who took Paul’s
teaching of a ‘cosmic Christ’ beyond what Paul actually said,
and John is trying to reinforce the teaching that Jesus was
true God and true man, not just one or the other) for he gives
testimony of the fact that we have seen His glory... The
believers had not just heard about Him, or thought they saw
Him, but they actually saw His glory.
The “glory” is that of the
"unique one from the Father." The term monogenes has been
translated for a long time as "only-begotten." This is not
necessarily a wrong translation, but a bad one. It is bad in
the sense that the idea of generation” or “begettal” is absent
from the term as we have it. See, originally it was thought
that monogenes came from two Greek terms, monos meaning “one”
and a verb genao which means to beget. But, we have discovered
through further study that it actually comes from monos and a
noun genes which means ‘kind or type.’ Hence, monogenes means
“one of a kind’ or “unique’ rather than “only-begotten.” I
feel this is very important to John’s thought. Jesus is the
“unique one from the Father.” There are none other like Him in
any way. He is the total and complete and only revelation of
God to man, and as such can utter such words as 14.6 without
sounding blasphemous!
Jesus is described by John
as being “full of grace and truth.” Basically this seems to
mean that Jesus is the source of grace and truth, most
probably because He is grace and truth. Jesus is the
embodiment of God’s grace, and God’s truth. When one needs
grace, one turns to Jesus. When one searches for truth, one is
searching for a person - Jesus Christ.
15.
John bore
witness concerning Him and cried out saying, ‘This is He of
whom I said, the One coming after me has been made higher than
I because He existed before me.’
John
is intent on making sure that his readers understand the role
of John the Baptist as a forerunner and herald of the coming
King, who is Jesus. So he here quotes the ‘testimony’ of John
concerning Jesus, and, following with the context, tells us
that John knew of the supernatural character of Jesus the
Messiah, for he states that Jesus ‘existed before me.” Now,
chronologically Jesus was born after John, but John is not
referring to chronological age. He is referring to absolute
being Jesus was ‘before” John, for as we have already seen,
Jesus is before all things - He, as the Logos, is eternal.
Because of this, Jesus holds the pre-eminent position above
John.
16. Because of His fulness
we have all received, and
grace upon
grace; 17. for
the Law was
given through Moses; grace and truth
came through Jesus Christ.
This section doesn’t seem
to be a continuation of John’s statement in verse 15, though
it could be. It would seem somewhat strange, however, for John
to have such an in-depth knowledge of the nature of Jesus and
his mission. I have punctuated the translation so as to have
this section as commentary on the part of the author.
The term “grace” appears
here three times - and that will be it for the rest of the
entire book! This is somewhat of a “minor mystery’ as Morris
has
put it.
There are two ways to take the first clause “ one, that all
mankind has benefited in some way from the work of Jesus
Christ - that in some way “all” have received of His “fulness.”
The other way, and seemingly the proper way, is to see it as
referring particularly to the redeemed, for our reception of
the fulness of Christ is clearly stated elsewhere, and the
next clause seems to modify the first by identifying that
which we have received - that is, grace upon grace.
Most probably the phrase
charin anti charin is a way of expressing a fulness of grace -
the literal translation “grace against grace’ doesn’t seem to
make any sense.
John somewhat parallels
some of the thought of the writer of Hebrews when he contrasts
the avenue by which law was introduced by God - that is, by
Moses - and that of the entrance of grace, by Jesus Christ. I
think there is an important connection between law and grace
that is only alluded to here, but is expressly taught by Paul
- that is, that the law functions to show man his sin, and
Jesus then saves them from their sin. It is law first, then
grace. We are steeped in our culture today with a ‘gospel
presentation” that skips the first part - Jesus is held out as
a way out of our problems, a way to have a nicer, fuller life.
His grace becomes yet another self-help method that is peddled
as working real well. The first part, that of law and our sin,
is left out, for we know that the natural man
will not have
anything to do with such a teaching. Yet, the order is the
same - God introduced the law first, then demonstrated His
grace in Jesus Christ. We would do well to maintain the
Biblical balance.
Two things are said to have
come through Jesus Christ - grace and truth. Grace we know is
not just unmerited favor - it is demerited favor - that
is, it is favor and mercy given to one who not only doesn’t
deserve it, but actually deserves wrath and punishment
instead. Through Jesus Christ, we can know the Father, and
that is all made available only by God’s grace.
“Truth” in John is not the
bare intellectual concept of that which is real and right over
against that which is false and in error. Truth is a person in
John 14:6, and is the embodiment of the entire system called
‘Christianity” in John’s thought. To know the “truth” is to be
a Christian, to know Christ, and to follow Him. Knowing the
“truth” in John is not simply knowing facts, but knowing
Christ.
18. No one has seen God at
any time; the unique God, the one who eternally exists in
relationship with the Father, this One has made Him known.
This verse not only closes
the Prologue, but it gives us vital information that, had the
Holy Spirit not provided this to us, would have caused no end
of problems. Verse 18 ties up the loose strings on the central
issues of the Prologue and provides a transition into the
terminology that John will use for the rest of the Gospel.
He first asserts that no
one has ‘seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells
us that men have indeed seen God in the past - Isaiah saw God
on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in
Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the
one he is speaking of here is the Father - that is, no one has
seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen
by Isaiah or by Abraham?
John tells us - the unique
God.
Here the phrase is in monogenes theos. There is a textual
variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique
Son) - and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest
reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?
The
term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
Jesus is here described as the “unique God” - John is not
asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this
‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with
the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the
Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the
unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship
together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central
fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The
unique God makes the Father known - He “explains’ Him. What we
know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the
Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what
Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the
Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with
the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New
Testament writers use the same theme - for Paul Jesus is the
“image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews
Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s)
person...” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul
indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the
revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the
above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that
was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion
to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the
glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it
be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John
8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with
Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?
With
this John transitions into his story of the Gospel. But one
must never let the facts of the Prologue slip from view. John
truly intends for the awesome majesty of the subject of the
Prologue - the Logos in human flesh, Jesus the Son, the
Revealer of the Father, Creator of all things, Light and Life,
bringer of grace and truth - to remain in the forefront of our
thinking. It is only when we follow John’s advice that we can
correctly interpret and understand the passages that follow.
So many misinterpretations of the clear evidences of the deity
of Christ provided by John are based upon the
disjunction of the Prologue and its message from the rest of
the book. This is a tragic mistake. John has begun his
book with a set of blueprints that we are wise to follow.
-JRW |
