Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible · John Chapitre 1

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word,— "In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, or the first production of any created being, a glorious Person existed, who may properly be called the Word of God, not only because God the Father at first created, and still governs, all things by him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so God, by his Son, discovers his gracious designs in the fullest and clearest manner to men. All the various manifestations which he makes of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption; all the revelations that he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through him, and therefore he is, by way of eminence, fitly stiled the Word of God." The evangelist seems here to allude to the first word of Genesis, Berashith, translated by the LXX, εν Αρχη, in the beginning. See on Genesis 1:1. As this divine Word existed at the time when all things were created, (see John 1:3-10.) he existed, consequently, from all eternity. This verse therefore is a direct contradiction of the tenets of Cerinthus, as represented in article 2, 3, and 8, of the foregoingargument. Λογος [Logos,] the name which St.

John applies to the eternal Son of God, signifies, according to the Greek etymology, both discourse and reason. Le Clerc, in his notes on this passage, takes it in the latter sense, when applied to the Son, because, long before St. John wrote, the Platonists, and after them several learned Jews, particularly Philo, had used it in the same sense, to signify the Creator of the world. The Stoics too seem to have affixed a similar idea to the word Logos, when they affirmed that all divine things were formed by reason, or the divine wisdom, in opposition to the Epicurean system, which taught that the world came into being by chance, or was made without reason. Induced by these particulars, Le Clerc fancies, that as the name Logos was familiar to the philosophers and learned Jews, who had imbibed Plato's principles, such Christians as admired the writings of Plato and his followers, must very early have adopted, not the name of Logos only, but all the phrases which the Platonists used in speaking of the person to whom they gave that name, and consequently were in danger of corrupting Christianitywith the errors of Platonism. At the same time he imagines, that though the notions of these philosophers concerning the second person of the Godhead were in general very confused, they had derived certain true ideas of him from tradition; and that the evangelist St. John, for this reason, in speaking of the same Person, made use of the term Logos, to shew in what sense, and how far, it might be used with safety byChristians. But as it is very uncertain whether the primitive Christians studied the writings of Plato and Philo, it is not probable that St. John would think it necessary, in composing his gospel, to adopt the terms and phrases of these philosophers. Accordingly, the generality of commentators have rejected Le Clerc's suppositions, believing that St. John, under the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit, borrowed the name Logos, either from the Mosaic history of the creation, or from Psa 33:6 where, in allusion to that history, it is said, the heavens were created by the word of God; or from the Jewish Targums, particularly the Chaldee Paraphrases, where the word of God is often substituted for what in the text is Jehovah. Nay, the term is used in such a manner, as to have personal attributes, even the attributes of the Godhead, ascribed to it; and is introduced in all or most of those places where the Hebrew mentions the face, the hands, or the eyes of God. St. John asserts that this Word was with God; namely, before any created being had existed. This perhaps is spoken in allusion to what the Wisdom of God says of himself, Proverbs 8:30. Our version of the Greek particle προς, rendered with, is supported by the best classical writers among the Greeks. This sentence is in opposition to the following verses, wherein we are told, that the Word was made flesh, that he dwelt among us, and was seen, which intimates his pre-existence before these circumstances. It is added, and the Word was God; upon which some have remarked, that as there is no article before the word Θεος, God, it should be read, and God was the Word: but this manner of expression is made use of by this same apostolic writer, Ch. John 4:24.; and several of the purest writers among the Greeks have frequently sentences wherein the substantive with an article, though placed after the verb, is to be construed first, and as the nominative to the verb. Many have eagerly contended, that the word God is used here in an inferior sense; the necessary consequence of which is, as they affirm, that this clause should be rendered the Word was a God, that is, a kind of inferior Deity, as governors are called gods: but it is impossible he should here be so called merely as a governor, because he is spoken of as existing before the production of any creatures whom he could govern; and it is most incredible, that when the Jews were so exceedingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles sounhappily prone to it, such a plain writer as this apostle should lay so dangerous a stumbling-block at the threshold of his work, and represent it as the Christian doctrine, that in the beginning of all things there were two Gods, one supreme, and the other subordinate; a difficulty which, if possible, would be yet further increased, by recollecting what has been mentioned in the argument, that this gospel was written with a particular view of opposing Cerinthus and the Ebionites; on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary. There are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see John 1:6; John 1:12-13; John 1:18.) where the word Θεος, without the article, is used to signify God, in the highest sense of the word, that it is surprising any stress should be laid on the want of that article as a proof that it is used in a subordinate sense. But indeed St. Paul has fully determined this point; for he evidently insinuates that no being can be God, who is not God by nature. Galatians 4:8. It is observable, that St. John's discourse here rises by degrees: he tells us, first, that the Word in the beginning of the world existed; thus asserting his eternity: next, that he existed with God, thus asserting his co-eternity: and then, that he was God, and made all things; thus asserting his co-equality. I cannot conclude my annotation on this important passage in propererwords than those with which Dr. Doddridge closes his note: "I am deeply sensible of the sublime and mysterious nature ofthe doctrine of Christ's Deity as here declared; but it would be quite foreign to my purpose to enter into a large discussion of that great foundation of our faith. It has often been done by much abler hands: it was, however, matter of conscience with me, thus strongly to declare my belief of it; and I shall only add, with Bishop Burnet, that had not St. John and the other apostles thought it a doctrine of great importance in the gospel scheme, they would rather have waved than inserted and insisted upon it, considering the critical circumstances in which they wrote."

return to '

John 1:2. The same was in the beginning with God.— The Socinians, who have laboured hard to subvert the authority of this stubborn portion of scripture, most perversely understand this passage of Christ's being taken up into heaven after his baptism, in order to be instructed in the will of God; for which they think they have Christ's own testimony, John 3:13. But they mistake the meaning of that passage (see the note). Besides, the evangelist is here describing the existence of the Word before he was made flesh, Joh 1:14 and therefore he cannot be understood as speaking of any thing which happened after his incarnation.

return to '

John 1:3. All things were made by him;— Although the word make is capable of an extensive sense, yet, as in other passages Jesus is said to have created all things, Col 1:16 we cannot doubt that St. John uses the word εγενετο in the sense of creation, a meaning which it often has in the Jewish scriptures. It is true, this and the other passages which speak of Christ's making all things, are by some explained of his erecting the Christian dispensation. But let it be observed here, once for all, that if the Socinian explication of the texts, which attribute to the Lord Jesus the names, perfections, and actions of the true God, be admitted, it will be impossible to clear the evangelists from the imputation of having laid in man's way a most violent temptation to idolatry: for it is well known that, as in all ages men have been exceedingly prone to worship false gods, so it was the prevailing vice of the Gentile world when the New Testament was written: that the grossest corruption of morals has ever flowed from this poisonous spring, Romans 1:24; Rom 1:32 and that to destroy idolatry, and bring mankind to the spiritual worship of the true God, was the great end proposed by God in all the revelations which he made of himself to men. This being the case, is it to be imagined, that either Christ himself, who brought the last and best revelation of the divine will, or his apostles, who committed that revelation to writing, would on any occasion have used such expressions, as in their plainand obvious meaning could not fail to lead the believers in that revelation to ascribe to Christ the names, perfections, and actions of the true God, and to pay him divine worship as the true God; while in reality they meant no more than that he was miraculously formed, was commissioned to deliver a new religion to the world, was endowed with the power of miracles, and, in consideration of his exemplary death, was raised from the grave, and had divine honours conferred upon him? Instead of reforming the world, this was to have laid in their way such a temptation to idolatry as they could not well resist; nor has the effect been any other than what was to be expected: for the generality, even of nominal Christians, moved by these expressions, have all along considered Christ as God, and honoured him accordingly, as the God who made all things, and without whom was not any thing made that was made: "not so much as any single thing (ουδε εν ) having existence, whether among the noblest or meanest of God's works, was made without him." But, if all things were madeby him, he cannot be himself of the number of the things that were made: he is superior therefore to every created being. Besides, it should be remembered, that in the Old Testament the creation of the heavens and the earth is often mentioned as the prerogative of the true God, whereby he is distinguished from the heathen idols. The design of the evangelist in establishing so particularlyand distinctly the dignity, but especially the divinity of Christ, was, first, to give due weight to the fundamental doctrine of his atonement, and, secondly, to raise in mankind the profoundest veneration for his instructions: and without doubt he who is the Word of God, the interpreter of the divine counsels, and who is himself God, ought to be heard with the deepest attention, and obeyed with the most implicit submission. It is this circumstance,—that the Son of God, who is God, came down from heaven to earth, and in person instituted the Christian religion,—which gives it a dignity beyond any thing that can be imagined by men. It would be the work of a treatise rather than of a note, to represent the Jewish doctrine of the creation of all things by the divine Logos, to which, rather than to the Platonic, there may be some reference here.

return to '

John 1:4. In him was life,— The most ancient fathers who quote this text, so generally join the words at the end of the last verse, ο γεγονεν, which we render that was made, with this 4th verse; and St. John uses so frequently to begin the following sentence with what ended the foregoing, that many judicious commentators think it to be the true reading, and therefore render it,—that which was in him was life; "that fulness of power, wisdom, and benignity which was in him, was the fountain of life to the whole creation;" and the life which was in him, St. John goes on to observe, was the light of men; that is, reason and revelation, the greater and lesser lights of the moral world, were the effects of his energy on the minds of intelligent beings: but, above all, the Light of the divine Spirit, by which alone any thing can be spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:10-14.), is the gift of Jesus, and the purchase of his Blood. The reader will recollect, that Cerinthus (as we have shewn in article 4.)asserted that there were two high aeons distinct from Christ, one called Life, and the other Light; in opposition to which St. John here asserts, that the Word, Life, and Light were the same identical person. As having life in himself is the characteristic of God, St. John, by saying this of Christ, asserts his proper divinity, and intimates, at the same time, that he was the great fountain of life to all creatures. Life and light are frequently connected in scripture; if any one should question how the Logos could be the author of so many things, it is here fully explained, In him was life. And, lest it should be imagined that this power of life could be exhausted in calling so many creatures into being, it is added, that this life was light; light being of that nature, that, though it enlightens many, it is not in the least diminished thereby. The apostle, in another place, tells us, that God is light; here the Word is so-called, and consequently was God, as the evangelist asserts in John 1:1. It is remarkable, that in Midrash the Messiah is described in a most glorious light, exceeding the sun in radiance.

return to '

John 1:5. And the light shineth in darkness;— We have observed in the former verse, that Christ is the fountain of all spiritual light, so that nothing can be spiritually discerned but by his Spirit. This light shone in the heathen world, and under the dispensation of Moses, and still shineth in darkness, even upon the minds of the most ignorant and wicked part of mankind; darkness being not only used for a state of ignorance, whether wilful or natural, but likewise for a state of obstinate wickedness. See Ephesians 5:8. It is not easy to determine with exactness the sense of the original word κατελαβεν, which we render comprehend. Some have observed, that it signifies to attend to, or embrace, so as to attain or enjoy the end and benefit designed by a thing. Thus it is applied to the knowledge of the law, Sir 15:7 and to justice, or righteousness, Sir 27:8 of the same book. Darkness, as we have intimated, is used for persons involved in darkness.—Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are light in the Lord; where we may note the same double use in the word light, which darkness, in St. John's gospel is capable of admitting; as it first signifies persons enlightened, and then simply light itself.

return to '

John 1:6. There was a man sent from God,— The evangelist, in giving the history of the Baptist's ministry, tells us, in the first place that he was merely a man, in opposition to article 10 in the argument wherein Cerinthus represents John as superior to our Saviour, whom the apostle has already shewn to be God. The evangelist tells us next, that John had aspecial commission from God, being called to his office by divine inspiration, as the prophets were of old; and that he was sent to bear witness of the light, or, to point out the Messiah, whom he had called in the 4th verse the light of men; because it was one of the principal prophetic characters of the Messiah, that he was to enlighten the world. Hence he is called by one prophet, the Sun of righteousness, by another, the light of Sion, and a light to lighten the Gentiles. See ch. John 5:35.

return to '

John 1:7. The same came for a witness,— To bear testimony. The next sentence may be understood as explanatory of that which goes before, He came for a testimony, that is, to bear testimony concerning that light. Some commentators apply the word Him, in the next clause, to the Light here spoken of, and others to John, as the instrument of men's belief. By believing we are to understand the acknowledgingwiththeunderstanding and heart, and receiving Christ as the Messiah.

return to '

John 1:9. That was the true light,— "The true light of which he spake, was Christ, even that Sun of righteousness and source of truth, which coming into the world, enlighteneth every man; dispersing his beams, as it were, from one end of the heavens to the other, to the Gentile world, which was in midnight darkness, as well as to the Jews, who enjoyed but a kind of twilight." See John 3:19; John 12:46. Hensius would read the 8th, 9th, and 10th verses, thus: He, John, was not that light, but he was, (that is, he existed or came, taking the ην at the beginning of the 9th verse,) that he might bear witness to that light:—ver. 9. The true light which, &c. John 1:10. Was in the world, &c. Some read John 1:9. The true Light, who came into the world, to enlighten every man, &c. John 1:10. And the world had been made by him, but, &c. To these interpretations it has been objected, that where Christ is said to have come into the world, that expression seems to refer to the manifestation of him to the world, or his appearance in the flesh. Now this appearance of Christ seems to be expressed by St. John, in the two next verses, by the past tense; He was in the world, He came unto his own: whereas the use of the present tense, in the verse before us, rather leads us to think of that spiritual illumination which Christ still imparts,—though no longer manifest in the flesh,—to all who will receive him; according to that of St. Paul, Ephesians 5:14. To which may be added, that as the original word ερχομενον, rendered cometh, immediately follows the word ανθρωπον, man, it seems rather more natural to construe it with that word, than with a word more remote. It may be added further, that this construction is more suitable to St. John's particular design, which was to oppose the doctrine of Cerinthus, who asserted, (article 1.) that the most high God was entirely unknown before the appearance of Christ; in opposition to which the evangelist asserts, that men had received such lights on this head, under the various dispensations through which they passed, as rendered them inexcusable if they remained ignorant. And though this heretic had pretended, (article 7.) that his Demiurgus was the peculiar God and protector of the Israelites; yet is it here shown, that the true Christ had pity and affection for the rest of mankind; and that the light to be diffused by him, was not to be confined to the narrow circle of the Jewish commonwealth, but, like that of the sun, communicated to every man that cometh into the world.

return to '

John 1:10. He was in the world, &c.— The Word and Son of God came down to earth; and though the world was made by him, all the inhabitants thereof being the work of his hands, yet that very world, that is, those inhabitants of it, did not know and acknowledge him as their Creator, and as the Word sent to reveal the will of God to them. This is in opposition to the doctrine of Cerinthus, (article 5.) See the Inferences and Reflections on this chapter.

return to '

John 1:11. He came unto his own,— "He came to the Jewish nation, who were under the most distinguished obligations to him, and to whom he had been expressly promised as their Messiah: yet his own people did not receive him, as they ought, but, on the contrary, treated him in the most contemptuous and ungrateful manner." Thus we have endeavoured to express the difference between the phrase εις τα ιδια, and the other οι ιδιοι, in the original, which is so difficult, that few versions have attempted it: yet, as Grotius has well observed, the energy of the text cannot be understood without attending to it. That the Jewish nation was in some peculiar sense under the care and guardianship of Christ, before his incarnation, this passage strongly intimates, as well as a variety of texts in the Old Testament, where we have not failed to remark this particular.

return to '

Joh 1:12 gave he power, &c.— Gave he the privilege to become sons, &c. Doddridge, &c. See the 12th position in the argument. The word name is frequently used, as we have had occasion to observe, for the person or man who bears it; as likewise for that characteristic by which he is distinguished from all others. The verb πιστευω, to believe, is, in the Greek classics, used with a dative case signifying the person, and with an accusative signifying the thing. Thus when joined to the word man, in the dative, it denotes to believe a man, or to rely upon him; but when joined with the word thing, in the accusative, it signifies to believe that it is true; but in the words to believe in his name, where the word believe is followed with a preposition governing the accusative, the passage has a sense different from the examples produced above, and signifies a religious belief in Christ; which is understood to include a confidence in him as the Saviour of mankind, and ours in particular.

return to '

John 1:13. Which were born, not of blood,— They who thus believed on him, became possessed of this privilege; not in consequence of their being born of blood, or of their being descended from the loinsof the holy patriarchs, or sharing in circumcision and the blood of the sacrifices; nor could they ascribe it to the will of the flesh, or to their own superior wisdom and goodness; as if by the power of corrupted nature they had made themselves to differ; nor to the will of man, or to the wisest advice and most powerful exhortations which their fellow-creatures might address to them; but must humbly acknowledge that they were born of God; and indebted to the efficacious influences of his unmerited and regenerating grace for all their privileges, and for all their hopes. Compare Joh 3:1-8 and Titus 3:3-7. This is a very important and edifying sense of the present passage, which is very difficult, and has been variously translated and understood.

return to '

John 1:14. And the Word was made flesh,— This divine and eternal Word was made flesh;uniteditselftoourinferiormiserablenature,withallitsinnocent infirmities, (see the 9th article in the argument;) and not made a transient visit, but for a considerable time pitched his tabernacle among us,—εσχηνωσεν, which manifestly alludes to the tabernacle of Moses, where the Shechinah, or divine glory, inhabited. So the Logos, or divine nature, shechinized, or tabernacled in the human body, which Christ assumed. The word glory here alludes to this Shechinah, or splendid light, which the Chaldee paraphrase always interprets by the word glory. "We, his disciples, (says St. John,) beheld his glory with admiration, and knew it to be such as became the only-begotten of the Father;" for he was not decked with the glitter of worldly pomp and grandeur, but he shone most beautiful with the glory of the divine perfections; and withal he wrought the greatest and most beneficent miracles, expressly called by this evangelist, His glory, ch. John 2:11. Perhaps also there is an allusion here to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism; to the glory with which his body was adorned at the transfiguration, and to the voice from heaven a little before his crucifixion. The particle ως, rendered as of, does not denote similitude or comparison, but reality and confirmation. In this sense it is used by the LXX, Psalms 73:1. Truly, God, is, &c.—And here it signifies the glory of the true and real Monogenes, or Only-begotten. For this verse asserts, that the Logos and Monogenes were not distinct beings, but one and the same person, in opposition to Cerinthus, (article 2.) The last words full of grace and truth, seem much more naturallyand properly to belong to the Word,—the preceding sentence being read in a parenthesis,—than to the Father, as some wouldconnect them. The meaning is, that as this Word who dwelt among us, was in himself most benevolent and upright, so he made the amplest discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not possibly do; and exhibited the most important and substantial blessings; whereas that was at best but a shadow of good things to come. Truth is here used, as it often is in the scripture, not so much in opposition to falsehood, as to hieroglyphics, types, and shadows. See John 1:17. Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:24. Dan 7:17 and Colossians 3:17.

return to '

John 1:15. John bare witness of him, &c.— This might probably happen at the time when Jesus made his first appearance amongthose who came to be baptized by John; when at this offering to receive his baptism, though John had been a stranger to him before, and knew him not by any personal acquaintance with him, yet, by some powerful impression of the mind, he presently discerned that this was He, whom he before had taught the people to expect, and of whose person he had given them so high a character; for it was plain from his knowledge of Jesus, that John at first would have declined baptizing him, as an honour of which he looked upon himself to be utterly unworthy. Nor is it to be doubted, but that when first, he knew the Person of whose appearance he had raised such expectations by his preaching, he would immediately be ready to acquaint his hearers that this was he who was intended by him; which they themselves might have beenready to conclude, from the uncommon veneration and respect wherewith he was treated by the Baptist, who had been always used to treat men with the greatest plainness. Comp. John 1:27; Joh 1:30 with Matthew 3:14. Erasmus supposes that St. John, in the words, He that cometh after me, is preferred, &c. refers to the honours which he knew had been paid to Jesus in his infancy by the angels, who announced his birth to the shepherds; by the shepherds themselves; by the eastern magi; by Simeon and Anna, &c. honours which could not be paralleled by any thing that had happened to him: but the words have, I doubt not, a more extensive meaning; comprehending the superior dignity of Christ's nature, office, commission, and exaltation as Mediator, as may be collected from Mat 3:11 the passage here referred to. The Baptist adds, For he was before me; "It is fit that Jesus should be raised above me, because he is a Person superior in nature to me; for though he was born after me, he existed before me." This undoubtedly refers to that state of infinite and eternal glory in which Christ existed before his incarnation, of which the Baptist speaks so plainly, ch. John 3:31. See the 10th article in the Argument.

return to '

John 1:16. And of his fulness, &c.— "And I, (John the apostle) who had the honour of being numbered among his most intimate friends, would with pleasure, in my own name, and that of my brethren; add my testimony to that of the Baptist, as I and they have the greatest reason to do; for of his overflowing fulness have we all received whatever we possess as men, as Christians, or as apostles; and he hath given us even grace upon grace—a rich abundance and variety of favours, which will ever make his name most dear and precious to our souls." It is evident, that what is said in this verse, must be considered as the words of the evangelist. John the Baptist had never yet mentioned the name of Jesus; and the expression we all, shews it could not be his words; for those to whom he addressed himself, do not appear to have received grace from Christ. The last French version, with great propriety, includes Joh 1:15 in a parenthesis, and so connects the 16th with the 14th verse; as if it had been said, He dwelt among us,—full of grace and truth;—and of his fulness have we all received, &c. The interpretation which we have given of Και χαριν αντι χαριτος, even grace upon grace, is approved by Sir Richard Ellis, Doddridge, and many others, and seems the most easy sense. Grotius would render it, Grace of mere grace; that is "the freest grace imaginable;" and others approving the present translation, observe, that the meaning is, that under the gospel dispensation all men receive grace for grace;—privileges and advantages, in proportion, to the improvement which they make of those already bestowed upon them. Comp. Matthew 13:12.James 4:6; James 4:6.

return to '

John 1:17. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, &c.— The word εγενετο, rendered came, here implies, that grace and truth were exhibited, or appeared. This verse is delivered in opposition to the Ebionites, who preferred Moses to the Lord Jesus. The gospel is here, as in other places, called grace. The word grace, in its most obvious meaning, signifies favour; favour flowing from mercy and beneficence, to which the person who receives it can make no claim as of right. In this sense, the gospel is most particularly and emphatically grace; in all and every part of it, it was the gift of God, which we could not in any manner be said to deserve. The gospel is grace, as it promises the faithful saints, not only an exemption from punishment, but a resurrection to eternal life. The gospel is grace, as it promises us the divine assistance to comfort us in afflictions, and enable us to work out our salvation. The gospel may be called grace, with respect to the manner in which it was revealed. The law was delivered with a pomp and majesty that struck terror; but the gospel made its appearance with mildness and condescension, and was introduced bythe Son of God, conversing familiarly with men, teaching them by his doctrine and example. Whatsoever was burdensome in the law of Moses, was abolished in the gospel. The gospel is grace, as it contains righteous and equitable laws; the duty that it teaches towards God is a reasonable service, which we are bound in gratitude to perform; and that duty which we owe to our neighbour promotes the happiness of mankind, while that which is enjoined by it to ourselves tends to moderate and subdue every unruly passion. The gospel is grace, as it is a gift offered to all, an invitation from which none are excluded. Again, grace in some places of the New Testament means those extraordinary powers which the Holy Ghost conferred upon the apostles and first believers, as well as the ordinary influences of the Spirit; and in thissense the gospel emphatically is grace. Lastly, grace means holiness, goodness, and moral virtue; in which sense the gospel is grace, as it sets pure morality in a clear light, and enforces the practice of it by the best and most effectual motives. The gospel is called truth, in opposition to the falsehood of paganism, which had over-run the world—truth, as it is the accomplishment of the prophesies of future favours made under the law, and because an image and representation of good things to come was contained in the law; whereas in the gospel these good things are brought to light. The gospel therefore is truth, in opposition to the Jewish dispensation, as it is the substance and reality of all those things which are figured by the law; or as they were mere shadows compared to that solid and substantial truth which Christ has discovered to us.

return to '

John 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time;— Neither Moses nor any of the prophets, who in former ages delivered the will of God to men, ever saw the divine Being in his essence, and therefore they could not make a full discovery of his perfections and counsels to men. The only Person who ever enjoyed this privilege was the Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father: he always was and is the darling object of his tenderest affection, and the intimate partner of his counsels; and therefore he was able fully to declare the great purpose of God concerning the redemption of the world. To be in one's bosom, denotes the greatest familiarity and intimacy, a communication of counsels and designs, and entire and tender affection.

Hence it is used, Deuteronomy 13:6; Deu 28:54 to signify a man's best beloved wife. The word εξηγησατο, rendered declared, signifies to explain, to interpret, to declare, and is particularly applied by the heathen writers to the explanation or declaration of things relating to religion.

return to '

John 1:21. Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.— It is plain by this question, that they were strangers to the parentage of John the Baptist: and with regard to the reply that he makes to this inquiry,there is no scruple to be made, but that the Baptist might justly deny that he was Elijah; that is, the true and real Elijah, whom the Jews expected personally to return before the coming of the Messiah, though he came in his spirit and power. See on Luke 1:17. The Baptist therefore might truly deny himself to be Elijah in the sense of the inquirers. But still some have asked, why he did not express himself more fully, by acquainting them with his true character, and who he really was; which, as they apprehend, would have best suited with the simplicity and openness of his conduct at other times. But in the evangelist, after the answer given them by the Baptist, it is said, John 1:24. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees: which account of the persons was doubtless not subjoined without some good reason; and may seem to intimate, that they came not barely as inquirers, but with some ill design, which they would have improved, had he given them a more explicit answer. So that he treated them in no other manner than Christ himself thought fit to do upon some like occasions;—as in the case of the tribute-money, Matthew 22:17; Mat 22:46 and when they asked him if he was the Christ, John 10:24-25. And this method our Lord took while it was necessary in some measure to conceal himself: but afterwards when his time was come, upon the same question being put to him by the high-priest, he answered I am; Mar 14:62 and added further what he knew they would so interpret as to condemn him. Their next question is, Art thou that prophet? bywhich cannot be meant, as some interpret it, "That prophet, namely, the Messiah, whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are in daily expectation;" (seeDeuteronomy 18:15-18; Deuteronomy 18:15-18. John 6:14.) because he had already assured them that he was not this prophet, John 1:20. I am not the Christ. The Greek should be rendered, Art thou a prophet? That is "of the former generation, raised from the dead!" And it is absolutely necessary that this question should be understood with such a limitation, because John the Baptist was really an illustrious prophet, as we may plainlysee from what is said by Christ himself, Matthew 11:9. This interpretation, which is largely vindicated by Castalio, seems much preferable to that of Theophylact and Erasmus; who, because of the article ο προφητης, would render it as we do, that prophet; concluding, without any proof, that the Jews understood Deu 18:18 not of the Messiah himself, but of some prophet of considerable note, who was to introduce him. Grotius has supposed the question which they offer, to refer to Jeremiah, of whose return to life there was a mighty rumour prevailing among the Jews. See on Matthew 16:14. But there seems no reason to restrain it to a particular prophet; and since, as Limborch well observes, in his dispute with Orobio the Jew, that text in Deuteronomy was the clearest and strongest in all the Mosaic writings, to enforce the necessity of submitting to the Messiah; it is most probable that John would have corrected so great a mistake, if they had put the question to him upon this presumption. The best French versions render it as above; and it seems the word prophet in the evangelist generally signifies one of those holy men, who were the messengers of God to Israel of old; which appears especially from Mar 6:15 where to be a prophet, and to be as one of the prophets, are spoken of as distinct; which they could not be but on this interpretation.

return to '

John 1:23. I am the voice, &c.— It is to be feared that Clemens of Alexandria, and Archbishop Fenelon, lay too great a stress on the word φωνη, voice, when the former of these excellent men says, "Does not John call men to salvation, and is he not entirely an exhortatory voice?"—And then the latter endeavours to illustrate the humility of John the Baptist's reply, as if he had said, "Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice, a sound, which as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more." Had the Baptist said only, I am a voice crying in the wilderness, there might have been more room for such a supposition: but since he calls himself the voice of one crying in the wilderness, the words are plainly to be understood with very great latitude; for they would else imply that he was not the very person that so cried; and designedly referring his hearers to the words of Isaiah, who cannot be imagined to have intended a diminution of this saint's character, they are an instance of that remarkable liberty of expression which the Hebrew language, wherein they were spoken, admits. It is as if he had said, "I am the person of whom Isaiah speaks, when he says, the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness." By a like liberty, the kingdom of heaven is said, Mat 13:24 to be likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field, that is, as Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the words, "The kingdom of heaven, or the Gospel dispensation, may be compared to that which happened to a man who had sown good seed in his ground." Several very considerable Greek writers express themselves in much the same manner.

return to '

John 1:25. Why baptizest thou then,— The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized, either by Messiah himself, or by some of his retinue; which they drew from Zec 13:1.though that prophecy is to be taken in a most spiritual sense. The decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible; wherefore they are mentioned John 1:24.; and as this sect had determined that onlyproselytes were to be baptized, they found fault with John for baptizing the Jews, seeing he was neither the Messiah, nor Elias,nor a prophet. They thought his altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority, which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. It is not to be certainly determined from this text, whether the baptism of proselytes was then in use among the Jews or not. The words indeed will make a strong and well-adapted sense, should they be understood as if it had been said, "Why is it then that thou dost institute such a new rite as this?" But surely too they will be very proper in the other sense, if we understand them to imply, "Why is it then that thou takest upon thee, without any commission from the Sanhedrim, to administer baptism; and that not only, as is usual, unto those who before this were heathens, but even to the Jews?" And this seems to be the more probable sense; while the Baptist's use of this ceremony in such a manner was a strong intimation that Jews, as well as Gentiles, must become proselytes to the new dispensation which was then opening to the world; and that however holy they imagined themselves, yet they all stood in absolute need of being washed from their sins, as he had before most emphatically declared, Matthew 3:8-9.

return to '

John 1:29. The next day John seeth Jesus, &c.— It seems Jesus returned from the wilderness about the time that the priests and Levitesarrived at Bethabara; for the day after they proposed their questions, he happened to pass by while the Baptist was standing with the multitude on the banks of the Jordan. The great business of the Messiah's forerunner being to lead the people to that Messiah, John embraced this new opportunity of pointing him out to them; "Behold," said he, "with the strictest attention and regard that innocent and holy Person, who may properly be called the Lamb of God, as he is the great atoning sacrifice, of which the lambs, daily offered by divine command in the temple, were intended to be types; which expiates and takes away the sin of the whole world; and is set forth to be a propitiation, not only for the Jews, for whom alone the sacrifices of the law were offered, but for the Gentiles too; that throughhis name whosoever believeth in him, may receive remission of sins." It is well observed by the author of the treatise called "Christ the Mediator," that this is the only sense in which a lamb can be said to take away sin. Comp. Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 9:28. Ephesians 1:7. Colossians 1:14.

return to '

John 1:30. For he was before me.— For he existed before me. See John 1:15.

return to '

John 1:31. And I knew him not:— "St. Matthew relates, Matthew 3:14." says Dr. Clarke, "that when Christ came to be baptized, John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? By the history, as given by St. Matthew, John seems to have known Christ before hehad baptized him: whereas in this gospel,

Christ seems to have been first made known to him by the descent of the Holy Ghost after his baptism. See John 1:33. It is most probable that God the Father, having before given John that token to know Christ, did, upon Christ's coming to be baptized, reveal to John that this was the person upon whom he should presently see the signal." Though this supposition be approved by several commentators, there does not appear any necessity for having recourse to it. When the Baptist says, he knew not Jesus, he may be understood to mean that he knew him not with certainty to be the Messiah, and consequently was not yet authorized to declare him such. As he was related to Christ, it is possible that he might personally have known him, and observed him from his infancy; and though we should suppose him not to have been informed by his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth, of the miraculous circumstances which attended Christ's birth, yet a character of such unparalleled sanctity might reasonably draw from so modest and humble a person as St. John, an acknowledgment of his own inferiority, and prompt him to say, "I have need to be baptized of thee, rather than perform this office to a person so far my superior in purity and holiness." A circumstance mentioned by St. Matthew himself in the same chapter, Joh 1:6 and by St. Mar 1:5 makes it still less surprising that the Baptist should thus express himself. Those evangelists inform us, that the people were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins. If these words imply, as well they may, that every person who came to be baptized, confessed his sins; this circumstance alone might sufficiently distinguish the blessed Jesus from all others, as he alone had no sins to confess, and might lead the Baptist to conclude, that he was the Person appointed to take away the sins of the world. Conscious then as he was of his own imperfections, how naturally might he say to this sinless person, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? But however strongly he might thence presume him to be the Messiah, yet he could not be said to know him to be so, nor therefore, as yet, bear testimony to him under that character. In this sense then he might properly say, And I knew him not: that is, I knew him not to be the Messiah; for so the words whom ye know not, Joh 1:26 are probably to be understood; and the same expression is used in a like restrained sense by Christ himself, ch. John 14:9. Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? where the words, Hast thou not known me, certainly did not imply that Philip had no personal knowledge of Christ: nor could Socrates (if Imay compare infinitely small things with great,) mean that his friend Apollodorus had no personal knowledge of him, when, as AElian relates, he said, "If Apollodorus imagines that the corpse, which you will soon see lying at your feet, is Socrates, it is plain that he does not know me."

return to '

John 1:35. Two of his disciples:— It appears from Joh 1:40 that Andrew was one of these, and perhaps John himself might be the other; who frequently conceals his own name in his gospel. See Ch. Joh 13:23 and John 20:2.

return to '

John 1:36. And looking upon Jesus— Looking steadfastly on Jesus, seems the exact signification of the original εμβλεψας . See on John 1:29.

return to '

John 1:40. Which heard John speak,— Who had received information from John; namely, that mentioned John 1:36.

return to '

John 1:41. He first findeth his own brother Simon,— Hence it should seem that both these disciples sought St. Peter different ways. He may perhaps be called Andrew's own brother, to distinguish him from some other who belonged to the family, and who possibly might be his brother-in-law, or was related to him only in half-blood. St. Peter was so remarkable a person, that it might be proper to tell us who was the first instrument of bringing him acquainted with Christ; and if St. John was the other disciple here referred to, he might mean this as a humble intimation, that St. Andrew's zeal in this respect was greater than his own. We may observe here, by the way, that St. Peter was not the first of Christ's disciples,—in which the Papists would have been ready to have gloried; but that another was the occasion of bringing him to an acquaintance with Jesus. The great king whom the Jews expected, is called Messiah by none of the prophets but Daniel; who has named him, Ch. John 9:25. Messiah the Prince: wherefore, as by the present, and many other passages of the gospels, it appears that this name was now familiar to the Jews; it shews how much their attention was turned towards Daniel's prophesy of the seventy weeks, and how firmly they expected the arrival of their king, according to the time fixed in that prop

return to '

John 1:42. Thou art Simon, &c.— Though Jesus had never seen Simon before, immediately on his coming in, he saluted him, in full proof of his omniscience, by his own and his Father's name; adding, in proof of his being possessed of the gift of prophesy, that he should afterwards be called Cephas, which means the same in Syriac that Peter does in the Greek, namely, a rock; a name well adapted to his character, on account of that resolute and patient firmness with which he should maintain the cause of the gospel. See on Matthew 16:18. Some have thought that when our Lord said Thou art Simon, he intended an allusion to the name of Simon, which maysignifyahearer;intimatingthecandourandimpartialitywithwhichhewaswilling to hear Christ's instructions.

return to '

John 1:43. Jesus would go forth— Jesus determined to depart thence. The force of the word θελω seems to be greater than our translation expresses, and perhaps may here intimate, that our Lord on this occasion broke through the importunity of some, who would rather have persuaded him to continue at Bethabara, for the advantage of further testimony from the Baptist; or to have gone to Jerusalem, where they might imagine that his ministry would have opened more honourably than in Galilee; compare John 7:3-4.

return to '

John 1:44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida,— As it appears from the subsequent part of the history, that Philip was already acquainted with our Lord's character, and believed on him, this observation is made by the evangelist to shew by what means he was brought to Jesus. His townsmen Andrew and Peter had done him the favour. Bethsaida was a town in Galilee, on the sea of Tiberias.

return to '

John 1:45. Of whom Moses—and the prophets, did write,— Whom, &c. have described. The verb Γραφω is frequently used in the same sense elsewhere; and in particular is justly rendered thus, Romans 10:5. It seems, Peter and Andrew, in their conversation with Philip, had persuaded him to believe on Jesus, byshewing him how the types and predictions of the law and the prophets were fulfilled in him. Perhaps, this was the method which Jesus himself had taken to confirm Peter and Andrew, Philip's instructors, in the good opinion they had conceived of him, by means of the testimonywhich their master, John the Baptist, had given concerning him; though the evangelist has not thought fit to mention this circumstance. Nathanael is thought, as we have observed on Mat 10:2-4 to have been the same with Bartholomew, that is the son of Tholomew; and the supposition is probable, were it for no other reason but this, that all the other persons who became acquainted with Jesus at Jordan, when he was baptized, and who believed on him there, were chosen to be his apostles.

return to '

John 1:46. Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?— Philip, not knowing that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, calls him Jesus of Nazareth: upon which occasion Nathanael applies a proverb, by which the rest of the Israelites ridiculed the Nazarenes; and he applied it the rather, as the Messiah's nativity had been determined by the prophet Micah to be at Bethlehem. Nazareth was a mean town, inhabited by fishermen and mechanics of the lowest degree, made up of ignorant Jews, and a mixture of Gentiles: as Nathanael was a native of Galilee, it appears that the Galileans themselves had but an ill opinion of Nazareth, as worse than the rest of that country; and, indeed, by the figure its inhabitants make in the evangelists, they seem to have deserved it. See Matthew 13:54; Mat 13:58 and Luke 4:16; Luke 4:28-29. In this place Jesus spent a great part of his life, and in that respect might fairly be called a Nazarene. But the Jews, in calling him Jesus of Nazareth,—the prophet of Nazareth, &c. added, to that of his country, the idea of scorn and contempt: "What! that poor despicable fellow, that mean mortal,—he our Messiah! Can any good, any great and enterprizing person, any thing suitable to the character of Christ, come out of Nazareth?" Pilate wrote his inscription, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, with design probably to have it read in this light. He joins together two contradictory titles, in his opinion, that of Nazareth, and that of a king, in order to expose the Jewish hope, and the Christian belief: but the evangelist prepares his reader against prejudices from this appellation. Though the Jews call him a Nazarene in derision, we are not ashamed of that name. What do they mean by it, but a despised, afflicted, suffering man?—And so the Messiah is foretold to be, not in one, but in all the prophets. While therefore theyreproach Jesus as a Nazarene, they actually fulfil the prophesies which describe him as such, and prove Jesus to be the Messiah. See the note on Matthew 2:23. To obviate Nathanael's objection, Philip replies to him, "Do not suffer yourself to be borne away by a vain popular prejudice; but come and see; converse with him yourself, and you will soon be satisfied." The same answer had been received from our Lord the day before. By the way, we may hence learn how cautiously we should guard against popular prejudices, which possessed so honest a heart as that of Nathanael, and led him to suspect that the blessed Jesus himselfwas an impostor, and that no good could be expected from him, because he had been brought up at Nazareth. But his integrity prevailed over that foolish bias, and laid him open to the conviction of evidence, which a candid inquirer will always be glad to admit, even when it brings the most unexpected discovery.

return to '

John 1:47. Jesus saw Nathanael— Nathanael, being a man of a candid disposition, resolved to go and converse with Jesus, that he might judge with the more certainty concerning his pretensions. He was coming therefore with Philip on this errand, when Jesus, who knew his thoughts, honoured him with the amiable character of a true

Israelite, in whom there was no guile; a plain, upright, honest man, free from hypocrisy, and opento conviction; who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues. Compare Rev 3:9 and John 8:39. This contains the character given to Jacob, Gen 25:27 according to the sense of the Hebrew, which fully shews in what sense our Lord is to be understood, when he calls Nathanael an Israelite without guile.

return to '

John 1:48. Whence knowest thou me?— "I am a perfect stranger to thee: how is it then that thou canst at once undertake to answer for the most secret part of a stranger's character?" Jesus replied; "I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose: nor do I take it merely from uncertain report: for before Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig-tree, I saw thee; and as I was present in spirit to observe what passed in that secret retirement, I know how well thou deservest the testimony which I have now borne to thine integrity." See the next note.

return to '

John 1:49. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God,— It is not improbable but Nathanael had been praying under the fig-tree, and that in his prayer he had made confession of his sins in such a particular and ample manner, as to claim, in that respect, the character which Christ gave of him. Accordingly, when Jesus insinuated that he had given it to him on account of what had passed under the fig-tree, Nathanael immediately perceived that he not only knew what was done at a distance, but could also look into men's hearts; and therefore cried out in great astonishment, that he was the long expected Messiah of the Jews. It may not be improper to observe here, that the Jews universally believed the Son of God would appear on earth, and be that great King whom they had for so many ages expected; as appears from the passage before us, and from John 6:69; John 11:27. Matthew 26:63. It is remarkable, that the woman of Samaria draws the same inference with Nathanael from a similar circumstance; (see ch. John 4:29.) which plainly intimates, that they supposed that the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophesy in the highest degree. There was a great deal of courage in Nathanael's making such a declaration as that before us, if it was made before a mixed company: for Christ's assuming the title of Son of God, was afterwards interpreted to be no less than blasphemy. See ch. Joh 10:36 Joh 19:7 and John 9:22; John 9:34.

return to '

John 1:50. Because I said unto thee, I saw thee— "You believe, because I told you that I had seen you under the fig-tree: You shall see greater things than these." It is supposed that, under the fig-tree, Nathanael had some revelation or divine impression upon his mind concerning the Messiah, to which our Lord here alludes. Schoettgenius proves that it was then the hour of prayer. See the preceding no

return to '