9 Verse 1.― “In the beginning... WORD... GOD.” Cf., of course, Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1), where, “to begin with” (as to absence of the article, cf. W. Kelly’s “In the Beginning,” p. 14), God is at once introduced, without the writer’s pausing to prove His existence. That was supposed to flow from Creation, attributed to Him (cf. Rom. 1:2020For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)), which is spoken of here also. Some evidential treatises have probably helped on unbelief as much as they have confirmed belief in GOD. Of recent books appealing to a wide circle of readers, mention may be made of Turton (chapters 1 to 3), Kinnear (chapter 1), both of which are really helpful, as also Lotze’s work, of which there is an English edition.
As far back as research goes there has been RELIGION, however we may choose to define it, as with Bousset, “personal relation to God” (p. 23; Liddon, “Elements,” p. 19). As to the discussion whether it lies in conduct (Kant), or knowledge (Fichte), or feeling (Schleiermacher), see Achelis, “Sketch,” pp. 98-100. Surely it extends to the whole man (Mark 12:3030And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Mark 12:30) and parallels).
For “Agnostics” (whose high priest was Herbert Spencer: see his “First Principles,” chapters 3, 5), not denying the existence of God, but saying that He is unknowable (cf. Exposition, p. 429), DUTY takes the place of God; and so Ethical Societies have sprung up with their “Ethical Religion” (Mill’s “Religion of Humanity”), a protagonist of which is Dr. Stanton Coit. As to the relation of morality to religion, see Wentscher, pp. 146 f., and Achelis, “Ethics,” p. 42 ff.
For the Christian, as for the Jew, belief in God goes without saying (Heb. 6:1; 11:61Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1)
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)); it is experienced through His Word (ibid., 4:12 f.). A man like F. W. Newman, who affected to believe in God apart from this, is by such pure rationalists as Mr. Benn deemed a “mystic.” Even those who proclaim themselves without God feel the need of some equivalent, so ingrained in the human breast (as Comte knew) is the religious instinct, taking in the Far East the form of veneration of dead ancestors, as in the West of the memory of a wife (J. S. Mill), or of notable personages in the Positivist calendar. Scripture predicts general acquiescence in this last principle.
A Momentous question still remains. Is JESUS, who is accounted to have revealed Him, Himself GOD? The fourth Evangelist affirms this, and some who are not conventional Trinitarians, such as Mr. Boyd Kinnear (chapter 7), sustain his declaration. But it will be seen that this Gospel has much to say of the FATHER and also of the SPIRIT, the conjoint deity of whom is affirmed by the Nicene Creed so-called. The doctrines of the Godhead and of Redemption are closely knit together. See, further, note on 17:3.
The WORD, Logos. Some moderns have identified the Evangelist’s thought with that of his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, a mystical Jewish philosopher. So Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Wernle, Scott. It may be readily granted that such as Apollos (Acts 18:2424And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. (Acts 18:24)) would carry the Alexandrian phraseology with them to Ephesus. But Harnack and Drummond have abandoned the theory that the writer of the Gospel was indebted to Philo for his doctrine, one holding that “the Logos of John has little more in common with the Logos of Philo than the name” (“History of Dogma,” i., p. 97), while the other says that “nothing can be more unlike than Philo and John” (“Inquiry,” p. 24). Our English writer has shown that, as far as his writings go, Philo never came to regard the Logos―an intermediate agent between God and man―as a personal agent. Meyer and others (including Bishop Gore, “Bampton Lectures,” p. 69) have traced the Logos to the Memra of the Targum, which is Philo’s Rim (cf. Heb. 11:22For by it the elders obtained a good report. (Hebrews 11:2)), used for God’s mouth, voice, spirit, and face―all His relations with the world made and maintained by means of this. But, as Luthardt says, these Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures (see note 22) in their present form belong to the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Some information about them could be derived from Edersheim, “Life of Jesus the Messiah,” i., p. 476, and ii. 659-664 (Appendix on “Philo of Alexandria and Rabbinic Theology”). The only satisfactory view is that of looking for the roots of the idea in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament: so Luthardt, Godet, Liddon (Lecture II.), Weiss (“Theology of the New Testament,” ii. 325, 347). The Evangelist’s Preface no more witnesses to his having received a philosophical education than does use of such a word as “evolution” tell us anything about the intellectual antecedents of any person of the present day in whose mouth it is (Drummond, “Inquiry,” p. 23 f.). Nowhere does the Evangelist put “Logos” into the Lord’s mouth, as any romancer or literary dreamer would certainly have done. Archdeacon Watkins, in a Bampton Lecture, has well remarked that the strain of the Prologue was as appropriate to, in Ephesian as it would have been inappropriate to a Galilean circle of reader. Neither of these wanted nor would have cared for that which suited the other.
In the latter half of the second, or early part of the third, century certain people whom Epiphanius (Hær ., LI., 3, 4) called Alogi (irrationalists), represented by one Caius of Rome, resisted the doctrine of the Logos, and “from the Evangelist’s use of the term” they held that he must have been, not an Apostle, but Cerinthus or other Gnostic. Reference might be made to Stanton (pp. 198-212). Lightfoot remarks that their questioning the Johannine authorship of the Gospel is “just one of those exceptions which strengthen the rule” (p. 61).
Large use was, of course, made of John’s Preface in the Arian controversy; as to which see Dorner’s standard work on “The History of the Person of Christ,” or Pullan’s small but valuable book, “Early Christian Doctrine.” That Christianity itself was at stake Thomas Carlyle owned in his later life, stating to Froude that he had come to see that if the Arians had won it would have dwindled away to a legend (“Life in London,” ii., p. 462). Harnack adds his testimony: “The opponents were right: this doctrine leads back to heathenism.”
See, further, Lightfoot’s note on Col. 1:1515Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15), Jewett, essay on “St. Paul and Philo” (p. 272 of reprint), and Inge, essay in “Contentio Veritatis,” p. 67 1., which is a sequel to his Bampton Lectures, where the Logos is described as “the basis of Christian mysticism” (cf. note 278b.).
9a Verse 1 f.― “With God.” The force of the preposition πρὸς is well brought out by Sanday “face to face with” (“Outlines,” p. 41).
For the correspondence of the three great arguments for the existence of GOD to the three “Persons” of the Godhead, see Turton, p. 261.
For the Biblical cosmogony, see, of course, Gen. 1. The geological accuracy of the first chapter of the Bible has been impeached of late, in the columns of the Guardian, by the clerical Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and his attitude upheld by another learned clergyman of the same University, who has written of “the utterly unscientific conception of the world presented in Gen. i.” Contra, a well-known German geologist, Professor Quenstedt, who does not pretend to any familiarity with Hebrew, but takes the Genesaic record according to its “plain meaning,” in a lecture has been describing Moses as “a great geologist” (einen grossen Geologen), whose statements have “not yet been confuted” (noch nicht widerlegt). Will “conspicuous honesty” in Biblical interpretation, which Dr. Driver’s henchman, Mr. F. H. Woods, claims that they represent, accept as an “ascertained fact” that algœ (see “Encyclopedia Britannica”)―the marine plants used by Quenstedt as his illustration―were the primary organisms? That is, learn from Germans when these can really put English clergy right? Or are Germans to be followed only when they serve the cause of unbelieving criticism?
Again, Darwinism, some twenty years ago, might have served these English Hebraists as a refuge, but at a German Natural History Congress of the present year (1907), the English scientist’s characteristic doctrine (struggle for existence and sexual selection) was declared, without a single dissentient voice, to be im Begriff abzusterben.
May not the “Westminster Commentary” on Genesis within a few years’ time be obsolete, so far as regards its physical science? An Oxford First Classman in Science, holder of the University Scholarship in Geology, and at the same time a Hall-Houghton Greek Testament Prize, who was a firm believer in the accuracy of Genesis, thirty years ago to the present writer described Huxley’s “Elementary Lessons in Physiology” as “written in gold.” The same friend’s brother, himself a biologist, as the present century came in, spoke of that book as “entirely superseded.” We have now a Senior Wrangler publicly declaring that he declines to take his science from Canon Driver. The “ordinary man,” besides, as the Athenœum has just said, “believes the Mosaic incidents to be facts.” Apart from reasons other than these, it is no wonder that churches are depleted of men. “Knowledge comes,” indeed, but what if “wisdom lingers”?
As to alleged connection of evil with creation (Exposition, p. 10, note), cf. Rashdall in “Contentio Veritatis,” pp. 43 ff. In Isa. 45:77I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7), it should be observed, “evil” means adversity.
9b Verse 3.―The preposition &a is commonly taken as instrumental, and yet in 1 Cor. 1:99God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:9) it certainly is used of the original source (Kenrick).
The punctuation by which γέγονεν is taken as part of this verse has had the approval of Meyer (as Alford), Luthardt, Godet and Zahn. Moulton went with Westcott and Hort.
10 Verse 4.―On the general question of the text of the Fourth Gospel, see Blass, “Philology of the Gospels,” chapter 12. This scholar, in his edition, has favored more than most the “Western” text so-called, whilst Weiss differs from Westcott and Hort in always regarding the internal evidence.
11 Gnostics ascribed a distinct personality to both Life and Light. On such errors the standard English work is Mansel’s “Gnostic Heresies,” but reference might be made also to Green, “Handbook of Church History,” pp. 171-176. Mr. E. F. Scott, adopting the theory that the Evangelist made incursions into philosophy (p. 256), imagines that the Life and Light are “related to the Platonic doctrine of Ideas” or archetypes (p. 253). That could only be by way of contrast. Why travel outside Biblical passages, such as Ps. 36:9?
God as Creator (Power or Force: cf. Mark 14. 62) is the Hebrew (5;), Semitic idea, whilst the new revelation exhibits Him also as Light, establishing the Aryan notion (see note 90 on θεὸς). These are combined by the Evangelist in his Preface.
12 Verse 6.― “John.” In this Gospel we have to distinguish (a) the Baptist, never so described by the Evangelist, to whom it does not occur that there could be any confusion of the son of Zacharias with himself; (P) the father of Andrew and Peter (verse 42).
12a Verse 7.― “All.” For the universalism of this Gospel, cf. 3:16 and 12:32, also note on verse 14 with regard to grace.
“Believe.” In the fourth Gospel the verb only is used, not the noun “belief” or “faith.” On the various constructions employed of the verb, see Abbott, “Johannine Grammar,” § 1480 ff., in particular. On Faith as set forth by this Evangelist, see notes on v. 46 f., vi. 69, and xvii. 3. Reference may also be made to Sir R. Anderson’s “The Gospel and its Ministry,” chap. iv., and to Illingworth’s “Christian Character,” chapter 4.
13 Verse 9.― ὄ... ἐρχόμενον. This connection of the words, followed in the Exposition, agrees with the opinion of Grotius, and seems to have the approval of Plummer. Luther adopted it for the first edition of his version. “Come into the world” was a Messianic phrase: cf. 2:27 and John the Baptist’s “He that should come,” from which Govett renders “was to come.” The English Authorized Version has the support of Meyer, Ryle, and McRory, whilst “the true light was coming” represents the construction favored by Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Godet, Westcott (see also Revised Version) and Zahn (p. 66.). That “the light lighteneth every man” remains certain. The words were quoted by the Gnostic Basilides exactly as they stand in this Gospel.
Mr. Carr refers to the ancient use of “enlightened” for the baptized; but only the Fathers, never Scripture, so spoke of them.
14 Verse 10.― “He was in the world.” Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret agreed that these words speak of Christ pre-incarnate, or as Jehovah; so Milligan, Inge, etc. But cf. Zahn, pp. 57 f., 66-68. As to the specially Johannine sense of the world, see “Exposition of the Epistles of John,” pp. 137-142, and note on 15:19 below. This verse bears on the philosophical doctrine of the Transcendence of God, exaggerated by Deist, and the scientific doctrine of His Immanence, exaggerated by Pantheists. As to the latter, see Wentscher, pp. 150-152, Mr. J. R. Illingworth’s book, s. tit., and Bishop Gore’s Third Lecture on “The New Theology.” God is morally transcendent. And so Stevens “The world is separate from God because of its sinfulness” (“Johannine Theology,” p. 97). Cf. T. H. Green, iii. p. 248. The immanence of God should rather be described as that of nature in Him (Acts 7:2828Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? (Acts 7:28); Col. 1:1717And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:17)). The two notions find their reconciliation in the person of Christ, and in Him alone.
With this and the following verso, cf. 1 Cor. 1:2222For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (1 Corinthians 1:22) f., and, of course, 16:8 of this Gospel. “He convicts them, not of mere unbelief in Messiah (as in Matthew), but of the common atheism of man” (Bellett, p. 10).
As to difference between Apprehension and Comprehension of the Infinite, see I. Taylor, “The World of Mind,” p. 822, and cf. Schofield, “The Knowledge of God,” p. 62.
15. Verse 11.―τὰ ἴδια, “His own door.” Segond’s French version (chez les siens for this as for of ἴδιοι) falls short of the conventional idiom of that language, chez soi, used in the “Version Nouvelle” by Mr. J. N. Darby.
16. Verse 12,―The vexed question as to universal “Fatherhood of God” comes in here (see F. W. Robertson, “First Sermon on Baptism,” vol. ii., p. 59 ff., and Bishop Gore, “Creed of the Christian,” p. 9 ff.). God is, of course, “Father of spirits” (Heb. 12:99Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12:9); cf. Acts 17:2929Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (Acts 17:29)). But Rom. 8:1616The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16) is very clear, for all not hampered by reluctance to own the Evangelist’s independence of Pauline doctrine (see general note on chapter 3.) as a parallel to this passage, where “authority” (title) to become is so pronounced. “What is usually meant by the Fatherhood of God is really His Godhood” (Sir R. Anderson, “The Gospel and its Ministry,” p. 182).
Harnack writes (“The Essence of Christianity”): “God’s Fatherhood is the main article in Jesus’ message” (meaning the joint Synoptic record), as to which, however, see the English reply entitled “Christianized Rationalism”: “There was nothing new in the conception of the Divine Fatherhood so conceived” (p. 147). See, further, on 3:16 and on 16:27.
17. “Believe on (trust to) His name.” Origen, on 3:18, regards “trusting to the name” as the initial form of faith (Abbott, op. cit., § 1,486. Cf. note below on 2:23 ff., and see 8:30-32). As to believing “His name” ( without εις) in 1 John 3:2323And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. (1 John 3:23), see “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 340 f. Salvation by His name alone, as set forth by the Evangelist’s fellow-witness Peter in Acts 4:1212Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12), shatters the idea lately broached that all men are “potential Christy.”
18. Verse 14.― “Became flesh.” On the Incarnation, see such works as Bishop Gore’s “Bampton Lectures,” Professor Orr’s “Kerr Lectures,” No. VI., and Turton, p. 262 ff. It was either denied or undermined by Gnosticism, in its earliest form known as “Docetism,” one of the representatives of which was Cerinthus, contemporary with the Apostle John. His errors Irenæus (III., 11, 7) attributed to misuse of the Gospel of Mark. Cerinthus held that JESUS would rise again with the rest of mankind in the day of judgment, for which Henan compares Qoran, iv. 156 (see Manse’, Lecture VIII.). The “Docetæ” derived their name from holding that our Lord had only an apparent body (see 1 John 12:1, 41Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. (John 12:1)
4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, (John 12:4). 2 f., 2 John 77For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7).). They made use of the Apostle’s own writings, as of the Gospel (3:5 f.), in support of the evil of matter. The Apocryphal “Gospel of Peter” issued from this school (see “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 251). Basilides (Mansel, Lecture X.) was an Alexandrian, active between 117-138 A.D.; Valentines (Lectures XI., XII.) was doing his mischief from 140-155 A.D. He, too, quoted this Gospel. The error of Nicolas is referred to in Rev. 2:1515So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15) (see “Exposition of Revelation,” p. 51).
18a “Dwelt.” See below under “glory” (note 20).
19 “We beheld.” The writer was an eyewitness. There are many indications of this in the fourth Gospel. His use of the materials of others must not be mistaken for dependence, as by H. Holtzmann (“Manual Commentary,” p. 3). Cf. Von Soden: “What could have led him, the foremost of eyewitnesses, to depend upon an account second-hand such as the Gospel of Mark?” (p. 442). It were wiser to say that in all cases of such supposed reliance on existing written material the Apostle is confirming the narrative from his own knowledge (Heb. 2:33How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (Hebrews 2:3)).
20 “His glory” (cf. 12:41). The Targumic Shekîna, as at Exod. 25:88And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. (Exodus 25:8), where “dwell” (שבז) is represented by σκηνοῦν (John’s, ἐσκήνωσν) in the Palestinian Greek version by Aquila. See also references to LXX. in Zahn, p. 79. Cf. the Targum at Isa. 53:33He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:3), etc., and note 8 above. An allusion seems to be made to the Transfiguration.
21 “Only begotten from beside a father.” This striking form of expression is the Evangelist’s way of alluding to the Virgin Birth (see Zahn. ii. 505, and p. 72 of his “Exposition”; also Blass, p. xii f. of Preface to critical edition, showing that Tertullian’s text had “was born” (cf. old Lat. codex of Verona) without “who.” Blass attaches importance to the first and of v. 14. Cf. papers of Mr. an in the Expositor and the Expository Times, 1907).
22 “Grace.” It is only in the fourth of the Gospels that we meet with the revelation of grace. “It is not to be found in Mark or Matthew, although foreshadowed in Luke” (Sir R. Anderson, Twentieth Century Papers, p. 189). Cf. note 8 above, and, of course, Tit. 2:1111For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (Titus 2:11), one of the passages in Paul’s writings by which some writers now imagine the Evangelist was influenced. See, further, general note on chapter 3; also chapter 2 of Sir R. Anderson’s “The Gospel and its Ministry.”
23 Verse 16.―On Gnosticism, see note 18 above, and for references in the Pauline epistles to the system in the hands of Jews, see Col. 1:19, 2:9, 1 Tim. 6:2020O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20). The distinction made between “Jesus” and “Christ” has reappeared in the recent work entitled “Science and Health,” textbook of “Christian Science” (110th edition, p. 229). The same work reasserts the evil of matter (p. 258, etc.).
24 “Grace upon grace.” That is, grace taking the place of (ὰντὶ) old grace. The expositor here takes the same view as Bengel, Winer, Olshausen, Alford, Weiss and Zahn. The other view referred to in the text is that of Calvin, which is followed by Govett.
26 Verse 18.―There are four readings: (α) “The only begotten Son,” to which Luthardt, as Kelly, adheres; (β) “The only begotten” (Latin copy, followed by Blass); (γ) “God only begotten” (Westcott and Hort, Weiss, Zahn); (δ) “the only begotten God.” Westcott and Hort have in additional note: “The best attested reading has the advantage of combining the two great predicates of the word which have been previously indicated” (verses 1, 14). But the omission of the article before “God” tells against their reading. Carr (Expositor, April, 1907) avails himself of Dr. Hort’s reading, but what he says on John 1:1414And 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. (John 1:14) needs no such questionable support. Tremens, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all quote “God” (see Tischendorf, 8th edition, or Tregelles), so that the alteration must have been made early, and would secure some recognition when seen to lend itself to Arian views. But it was probably, as Paley says, “an error of transcription” (confusion of υσ and θσ). A recent commentator (Heitmüller) thinks vide the more probable reading.
26a Thus Mr. Ernest Scott writes: “Truth becomes another name for the Divine nature... God the only true” (p. 254). But in John 17:33And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3) the word for true is ἀληθινὸς, “genuine.” Besides the remarks of Mr. Kelly on the present passage of John, reference should be made to his comment on 14:6, and to his “Exposition of the Epistles,” p. 365 f.
26b Verses 16-18.―Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, etc., suppose that these verses were spoken by the Baptist; but Cyril, Chrysostom, Grotius, Alford, Wordsworth and Zahn take them to be the Evangelist’s. Verse 19 clearly marks a resumption of the Baptist’s testimony. Moreover, “who is in the bosom” would be said of the ascended Christ (Zahn, p. 96).
27 Much has been made by recent writers of the different way in which the unfolding of the claims of JESUS to be Messiah is treated in the fourth from its presentation in the other Gospels. Thus H. Holtzmann represents that, according to the Synoptists, it dawns on John the Baptist only when he is in prison that JESUS is the Christ! (“Manual Commentary,” p. 4). So also for the reserve of our Lord on this subject characteristic of the second Gospel, as to which see note on Mark 8:2929And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. (Mark 8:29) (No. 82). But already, according to that Evangelist’s account in his first chapter (verse 44), the leper was told by the Lord to show himself to the priest “for a testimony to them.” See now Garvin, “Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus,” chapter 6: “Early self-disclosure.”
28 Verse 19.― “The Jews.” In verse 24 it is said that the Pharisees sent them. One of the fancies of current criticism is that when “Pharisees” are spoken of in this Gospel you have an earlier, when “Jews,” as usually (2:6, 13, etc.) a later, recension. Apart from a special application of the name “Jews.” to the Lord’s opponents―those who were such only in name (Rev. 3:99Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (Revelation 3:9))―distance of time and scene called for the designation even on the part of a writer himself a Jew by birth.
29 Verse 28.― “Bethany.” Perhaps the Betonim of Josh. 13:2626And from Heshbon unto Ramath-mizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim unto the border of Debir; (Joshua 13:26). The writer of “Supernatural Religion” impeached the Evangelist of ignorance of Palestinian topography, as though he confused the place here spoken of with the village by himself said to be near Jerusalem (2:18). There are other place names, each of which is applied to more than one position in the country (cf. note in G. A. Smith’s “Historical Geography of Palestine,” p. 496). For example, Emmaus in Luke 24:1313And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (Luke 24:13) could not be the same as that spoken of in 1 Macc. 3:40 (cf. note on Cana in ii. 1 here). Moreover, places are liable to change of name. Drummond gives several instances of such variation in the British Isles. And so this Bethany may have become “Bethabara.”
30 Verse 23.―One test of authorship of a New Testament book is the way in which the Old Testament is quoted by the writer. None of John’s citations are from the LXX. against the Hebrew, whilst some are from the Hebrew against the LXX. Such are 12:14 f., 40, 13:18 to 19:37. In this last, as Bishop Lightfoot notes, “the LXX. has not a single word in common with St. John’s text.” This bears on the question of whether a Gentile Christian could have been the writer of the Gospel (cf. notes 18, 92 on Mark).
31 Verse 25.―The Greek article, here as in verse 21, excludes the idea some have had that behind the Jew’s inquiry was the superstitious notion (alluded to in Luke 9:1919They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. (Luke 9:19)) that the old prophets would rise from the dead when Messiah Caine.
32 Verse 26.― “Standeth.” Not that the Lord was just then in the crowd before the Baptist (cf. verse 29). It is, literally, “there hath stood.” Bengel: “hath taken his stand.”
33 Verse 29.― “Taketh away.” So Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Weiss and Zahn. The word capon, was taken by Lucke and De Wette in the sense of “bearing,” as the margin of A.V. With his exposition of the present passage cf. Mr. Kelly’s treatment of 1 John 2: 2 (p. 65 f.).
34 Verse 31.― “Knew Him not.” Comparison with Matt. 3:1414But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? (Matthew 3:14), which is cited as contradicting this, seems to show that ούκ ᾖδειν here can scarcely mean absolutely unacquainted with our Lord, which in itself is very improbable, although allowance has to be made for the fact that they were brought up in different parts of the land. John did not previously know Him as Messiah. So Luthardt, Westcott, Milligan, Dods and Zahn; and see note 136 on Mark. Cf. also Carr’s note. May we not also compare the last words of verse 26 in the Greek with the present passage? The Evangelist seems to speak of the same kind of knowledge here as there.
35 Verse 32 ff.―Several modern critics (e.g., Schmiedel, col. 2,538) treat this section of the first chapter as inconsistent with the Synoptists’ representation of the Baptist’s recognition of the Messiahship of JESUS. Such regard Matt. 11:2-62Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 3And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? 4Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: 5The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 6And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. (Matthew 11:2‑6) (Luke 7:18-2318And the disciples of John showed him of all these things. 19And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? 20When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? 21And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. 22Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. 23And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. (Luke 7:18‑23)) as indicating quite a different state of mind about this in John from what ordinary readers gather from those Gospels. The “critical” view is that the Baptist’s belief in our Lord as the Christ was then not retrograde but hopeful. It is only by assuming that Matthew’s account of the first official relations of the Baptist and JESUS was “doctored” that they can use the first Gospel in support of their theory (see last previous note).
Verse 32 contradicts the Gnostic theory that the Being who descended on JESUS was “the Christ,” and declares that it was the “Spirit.”
36 Verse 40.― “Simon Peter.” The Evangelist assumes knowledge of this disciple from previous records (q. his parenthetical note in 3:24).
“First” is taken with “he” by Tischendorf (eighth edition), Meyer, Godet and Zahn (πρῶτος); with “brother” by Tregelles, Alford, W. and H. (πρῶτον; R.V.: “findeth first”). The Evangelist here intimates indirectly that he followed Andrew’s example in bringing his own brother to JESUS (Zahn, p. 9).
38 Verse 42.― “Simon.” Those bearing the name who come before us in the Gospels arc (a) Simon Peter, (β) Simon the Cananæan, also described as Zealot, (γ) Simon Iscariot, father of Judas the Betrayer, as here; (δ) Simon, one of the brethren of the Lord; (ε) Simon the leper; (ζ) Simon the Pharisee.
39 “Kephas.” This, his Aramaic surname, is peculiar to the fourth Gospel.
40 Verse 44.― “Bethsaida.” There is a question as to whether there were two places of this name, as Trench thought (so now Staerk), one on the western shore of the lake, in Galilee, another on the eastern shore, in Gaulonitis. Thomson considered that there was but one (“The Land and the Book,” p. 373 f.). We have the name again in 12:21, where “Galilee” is added as if by way of distinction (cf. note 232).
41 Verse 45.― “Nathanael.” Nathanael is mentioned again in 21:2, where he is said to have been of Cana, to which the Lord here proceeds. To imagine, as Mr. E. F. Scott does, that his name was used by the Evangelist symbolically, as a counterpart of Paul, is to carry the theory of the unhistorical character of the Gospel as far as the wildest of the Continental writers (see further in note 61). Others have, with no more reason, supposed that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.
42 “Joseph.” Under this name we have to distinguish (α) the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord; (β) one of the brethren of the Lord, introduced under the Greek form “Joses”; (γ) a brother of James the Little; (δ) the disciple from Arimathea. Trench notes “John’s veracity in recording Philip’s imperfect knowledge” (“Studies,” p. 68 f.). The Evangelist’s admission to his record of such descriptions of our Lord (cf. 6:42) falls under what the late Dr. Salmon called John’s “irony,” as against the German suggestion that the Evangelist did not know of the Virgin Birth, or discredited it. This many sidedness of John’s narrative does but confirm the conviction of its never departing from, still less correcting, the common “historical” setting of the Synoptic Gospels. Ο. Boltzmann, whilst one of those lightly esteeming the historical value of the fourth Gospel (p. 108), hesitates not to appraise it highly, as occasion serves, like the present passage, for the belittling of the Synoptic narrative; here to support the idea of a human paternity of the Lord (see, further, on 6:42).
43 Verse 49.― “Son of God, King of Israel.” With Ps. 2, cf. Isa. 44:1-61Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. 3For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: 4And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses. 5One shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel. 6Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:1‑6); Zeph. 3:13-2013The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. 14Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. 15The Lord hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. 16In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack. 17The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. 18I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden. 19Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame. 20At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord. (Zephaniah 3:13‑20). For many Christians the Son of God’s Kingship over Israel is a dead letter. “To such Israel is a broken vessel never more to be used” (Govett, p. 50 f.). So they speak of His “reigning in the hearts of His spiritual people.” But His death was to attest that He is “the King of the Jews,” not “the King of the Church”; Scripture never so describes Him (Exposition, p. 405 f.).
44 Verse 50.― “Verily, verily.” This form of asseveration, characteristic of John’s Gospel, regularly introduces a statement of special solemnity―we may say revelation (see 3:3, 11, 6:26, 32, 47, 53, 8:34, 51, 58, 10:1, 7, 13:16, 20, 21, 38, 14:12, 21:18).
45 Verse 51.― “Son of man.” In this first chapter of John’s Gospel we have had the Lord designated in about twenty different ways. For his title “Son of man,” see note 30 on Mark 2:1010But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) (Mark 2:10), and in this Gospel, 3:13 f., 6:27, 53, 62, 8:28 (9:35, doubtful reading), 12:23, 34. To the references in the note on Mark may here be added Bousset, “Religion of Judaism,” pp. 248-251, which introduces the reader to the Jewish literary sources belonging to the period between the Old and the New Testament, an early English authority on which was Prideaux, and by general readers chiefly but imperfectly known from the “Apocrypha.” Staerk’s little work is the most recent.