Chú giải Kinh Thánh

1–5. The Word in His own Nature

1. In the beginning] The meaning must depend on the context. In Genesis 1:1 it is an act done ‘in the beginning;’ here it is a Being existing ‘in the beginning,’ and therefore prior to all beginning. That was the first moment of time; this is eternity, transcending time. Thus we have an intimation that the later dispensation is the confirmation and infinite extension of the first. ‘In the beginning’ here equals ‘before the world was,’ John 17:5. Compare John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; and contrast ‘the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,’ Mark 1:1, which is the historical beginning of the public ministry of the Messiah (John 6:64): ‘the beginning’ here is prior to all history. To interpret ‘Beginning’ of God as the Origin of all things is not correct, as the context shews.

was] Not ‘came into existence,’ but was already in existence before the creation of the world. The generation of the Word or Son of God is thus thrown back into eternity. Thus S. Paul calls Him (Colossians 1:15) ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ or (more accurately translated) ‘begotten before all creation,’ like ‘begotten before all worlds’ in the Nicene creed. Comp. Hebrews 1:8; Hebrews 7:3; Revelation 1:8. On these passages is based the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son: see Articles of Religion, i. and ii. The Arians maintained that there was a period when the Son was not: S. John says distinctly that the Son or Word was existing before time began, i.e. from all eternity.

the Word] As early as the second century Sermo and Verbum were rival translations of the Greek term Logos = Word. Tertullian (fl. a.d. 195–210) gives us both, but seems himself to prefer Ratio. Sermo first became unusual, and finally was disallowed in the Latin Church. The Latin versions all adopted Verbum, and from it comes our translation, ‘the Word.’

None of these translations are at all adequate: but neither Latin nor any modern language supplies anything really satisfactory. Verbum and ‘the Word’ do not give the whole of even one of the two sides of Logos: the other side, which Tertullian tried to express by Ratio, is not touched at all; for ὁ λόγος means not only ‘the spoken word,’ but ‘the thought’ expressed by the spoken word; it is the spoken word as expressive of thought. It is not found in the N.T. in the sense of ‘reason.’

The expression Logos is a remarkable one; all the more so, because S. John assumes that his readers will at once understand it. This shews that his Gospel was written in the first instance for his own disciples, who would be familiar with his teaching and phraseology.

Whence did S. John derive the expression, Logos? It has its origin in the Targums, or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, in use in Palestine, rather than in the mixture of Jewish and Greek philosophy prevalent at Alexandria and Ephesus, as is very commonly asserted.

(1). In the Old Testament we find the Word or Wisdom of God personified, generally as an instrument for executing the Divine Will. We have a faint trace of it in the ‘God said’ of Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:14, &c. The personification of the Word of God begins to appear in the Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 119:89; Psalm 147:15. In Proverbs 8, 9 the Wisdom of God is personified in very striking terms. This Wisdom is manifested in the power and mighty works of God; that God is love is a revelation yet to come. (2) In the Apocrypha the personification is more complete than in O.T. In Ecclesiasticus (c. b. c. 150–100) Sir 1:1-20, Sir 24:1-22, and in the Book of Wisdom (c. b. c. 100) Wis 6:22 to Wis 9:18 we have Wisdom strongly personified. In Wis 18:15 the ‘Almighty Word’ of God appears as an agent of vengeance. (3) In the Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of O.T., the development is carried still further. These, though not yet written down, were in common use among the Jews in our Lord’s time; and they were strongly influenced by the growing tendency to separate the Godhead from immediate contact with the material world. Where Scripture speaks of a direct communication from God to man, the Targums substituted the Memra, or ‘Word of God.’ Thus in Genesis 3:8-9, instead of ‘they heard the voice of the Lord God,’ the Targums have ‘they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God;’ and instead of ‘God called unto Adam,’ they put ‘the Word of the Lord called unto Adam,’ and so on. ‘The Word of the Lord’ is said to occur 150 times in a single Targum of the Pentateuch. In the theosophy of the Alexandrine Jews, which was a compound of theology with philosophy and mysticism, we seem to come nearer to a strictly personal view of the Divine Word or Wisdom, but really move further away from it. Philo, the leading representative of this religious speculation (fl. a.d. 40–50), admitted into his philosophy very various, and not always harmonious elements. Consequently his conception of the Logos is not fixed or clear. On the whole his Logos means some intermediate agency, by means of which God created material things and communicated with them. But whether this Logos is one Being or more, whether it is personal or not, we cannot be sure; and perhaps Philo himself was undecided. Certainly his Logos is very different from that of S. John; for it is scarcely a Person, and it is not the Messiah. And when we note that of the two meanings of Λόγος, Philo dwells most on the side which is less prominent, while the Targums insist on that which is more prominent in the teaching of S. John, we cannot doubt the source of his language. The Logos of Philo is preeminently the Divine Reason. The Memra of the Targums is rather the Divine Word; i.e. the Will of God manifested in personal action; and this rather than a philosophical abstraction of the Divine Intelligence is the starting point of S. John’s expression.

To sum up:—the personification of the Divine Word in O.T. is poetical, in Philo metaphysical, in S. John historical. The Apocrypha and Targums help to fill the chasm between O.T. and Philo; history itself fills the far greater chasm which separates all from S. John. Between Jewish poetry and Alexandrine speculation on the one hand, and the Fourth Gospel on the other, lies the historical fact of the Incarnation of the Logos, the life of Jesus Christ.

The Logos of S. John, therefore, is not a mere attribute of God, but the Son of God, existing from all eternity, and manifested in space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ. In the Logos had been hidden from eternity all that God had to say to man; for the Logos was the living expression of the nature, purposes, and Will of God. (Comp. the impersonal designation of Christ in 1 John 1:1.) Human thought had been searching in vain for some means of connecting the finite with the Infinite, of making God intelligible to man and leading man up to God. S. John knew that he possessed the key to this enigma. He therefore took the phrase which human reason had lighted on in its gropings, stripped it of its misleading associations, fixed it by identifying it with the Christ, and filled it with that fulness of meaning which he himself had derived from Christ’s own teaching.

with God] i.e. with the Father. ‘With’ = apud, or the French chez: it expresses the distinct Personality of the Logos. We might render ‘face to face with God,’ or ‘at home with God.’ So, ‘His sisters, are they not all with us?’ Matthew 13:56; comp. Mark 6:3; Mark 9:19; Mark 14:49; 1 Corinthians 16:7; Galatians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; Philemon 1:13; 1 John 1:2.

the Word was God] i.e. the Word partook of the Divine Nature, not was identical with the Divine Person. The verse may be thus paraphrased, ‘the Logos existed from all eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father.’ Comp. ‘neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.’

Chap. John 1:1-18. The Prologue or Introduction

That the first eighteen verses are introductory is universally admitted: commentators are not so unanimous as to the main divisions of this introduction. A division into three nearly equal parts has much to commend it:

1.  The Word in His own Nature (John 1:1-5).

2.  His Revelation to men and rejection by them (John 1:6-13).

3.  His Revelation of the Father (John 1:14-18).

Some throw the second and third part into one, thus:

2.  The historical manifestation of the Word (John 1:6-18).

Others again divide into two parts thus:

1.  The Word in His absolute eternal Being (John 1:1).

2.  The Word in relation to Creation (John 1:2-18).

And there are other schemes besides these. In any scheme the student can scarcely fail to feel that the first verse is unique. Throughout the prologue the three great characteristics of this Gospel, simplicity, subtlety, and sublimity, are specially conspicuous; and the majesty of the first verse surpasses all. The Gospel of the Son of Thunder opens with a peal.

2. The same] More literally, He or This (Word), with emphasis (comp. John 7:18). This verse takes up the first two clauses and combines them. Such recapitulations are characteristic of S. John.

3. by him] Rather, through Him. The universe was created by the Father through the agency of the Son. Comp. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16 (where see Lightfoot’s note); Romans 11:36; Hebrews 11:10. That no inferiority is necessarily implied by ‘through,’ as if the Son were a mere instrument, is shewn by 1 Corinthians 1:9, where the same construction is used of the Father, ‘through Whom ye were called, &c.’ Note the climax in what follows; the sphere contracts as the blessing enlarges: existence for everything; life for the vegetable and animal world; light for men.

without him, &c.] Better, apart from Him, &c. Comp. John 15:5. Antithetic parallelism; emphatic repetition by contradicting the opposite: frequent in Hebrew: one of the many instances of the Hebrew cast of S. John’s style. Comp. John 1:20, John 10:28; 1 John 1:5; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:27-28; Psalm 89:30-31; Psalm 89:48, &c., &c.

not anything] No, not one; not even one: stronger than ‘nothing.’ Every single thing, however great, however small, throughout all the realms of space, came into being through Him. No event takes place without Him,—apart from His presence and power. Matthew 10:29; Luke 12:6.

that was made] Better, that hath been made. The aorist refers to the fact of creation; the perfect to the permanent result of that fact. Contrast ‘was made’ and ‘hath been made’ here with ‘was’ in John 1:1-2. ‘Was made’ denotes the springing into life of what was once non-existent; ‘was’ denotes the perpetual pre-existence of the Word.

Some both ancient and modern writers would give the last part of John 1:3 to John 1:4, thus: That which hath been made in Him was life; i.e. those who were born again by union with Him felt His influence as life within them. It is very difficult to decide between the two punctuations. Tatian (Orat. ad Graecos, xix.) has ‘All things [were] by Him and without Him hath been made not even one thing.’ See on John 1:5.

4. In him was life] He was the well-spring from which every form of life—physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, eternal—flows. See on John 5:26.

Observe how frequently S. John’s thoughts overlap and run into one another. Creation leads on to life, and life leads on to light. Without life creation would be unintelligible; without light all but the lowest forms of life would be impossible.

the light] Not ‘light,’ but ‘the Light,’ the one true Light; absolute Truth both intellectual and moral, free from all ignorance and all stain. The Source of life is the Source of light.

the light of men] Man shares life with all organic creatures; light, or Revelation, is for him alone. The communication of Divine truth before the Fall is specially meant.

5. shineth] Note the present tense; the only one in the section. It brings us down to the Apostle’s own day: now, as of old, the Light shines—in reason, in creation, in conscience,—and shines in vain. Note also the progress: in John 1:1-2 we have the period before Creation; in John 1:3, the Creation; John 1:4, man before the Fall; John 1:5, man after the Fall.

in darkness] Better, in the darkness. The Fall is presupposed.

and the darkness] Mark the strong connexion between the two halves of John 1:5 as also between John 1:4 and John 1:5, resulting in both cases from a portion of the predicate of one clause becoming the subject of the next clause. Such strong connexions are frequent in St John. Sometimes the whole of the predicate is taken; sometimes the subject or a portion of the subject is repeated.—By ‘the darkness’ is meant all that the Divine Revelation does not reach, whether by God’s decree or their own stubbornness, ignorant Gentile or unbelieving Jew. ‘Darkness’ in a metaphorical sense for spiritual and moral darkness is peculiar to S. John 8:12; John 12:35; John 12:46; 1 John 1:5; 1 John 2:8-9; 1 John 2:11.

comprehended it not] Or, apprehended it not: very appropriate of that which requires mental and moral effort. Comp. Ephesians 3:18. The darkness remained apart, unyielding, and unpenetrated. The words ‘the darkness apprehendeth not the light’ are given by Tatian as a quotation (Orat. ad Graecos, xiii.). He flourished a.d. 150–170: so this is early testimony to the existence of the Gospel. This and the reference to John 1:3 (see note) are quite beyond reasonable dispute.

We have here an instance of what has been called the “tragic tone” in S. John. He frequently states a gracious fact, and in immediate connexion with it the very opposite of what might have been expected to result from it. The Light shines in Darkness, and (instead of yielding and dispersing) the darkness shut it out. Comp. John 1:10-11, (John 2:24,) John 3:11; John 3:19; John 3:32, John 5:39-40, John 6:36; John 6:43, John 8:45, &c. The word rendered ‘comprehended’ may also mean ‘overcame;’ and this makes good sense. Comp. John 12:35.

6–13. The Word revealed to Men and rejected by them

6. There was a man] Rather, There arose a man, in contrast to the ‘was’ in John 1:1. The word was from all eternity; John arose, came into existence, in time. Comp. John 10:19. Note once more the noble simplicity of language.

sent from God] i.e. a Prophet. Comp. ‘I will send my messenger,’ Malachi 3:1; ‘I will send you Elijah the Prophet,’ John 4:5. From the Greek for ‘send’ (apostello) comes our word ‘Apostle.’

whose name was John] In the Fourth Gospel John is mentioned 20 times, and is never once distinguished as ‘the Baptist.’ The other three Evangelists carefully distinguish the Baptist from the son of Zebedee: to the writer of the Fourth Gospel there is only one John. This in itself is strong incidental evidence that he himself is the other John. See on John 11:16.

7. for a witness] Better, for witness, i.e. to bear witness, not to be a witness: what follows shews the meaning. The word ‘witness’ and ‘to bear witness’ are very frequent in S. John’s writings, and this frequency should be marked by retaining the same translation throughout: testimony to the truth is one of his favourite thoughts.

through him] i.e. through the Baptist, the Herald of the Truth. Comp. John 5:33; Acts 10:37; Acts 13:24.

8. not that Light] Better, not the Light. The Baptist was not the Light, but ‘the lamp that is lighted and shineth’ (see on John 5:35). He was lumen illuminatum, not lumen illuminans. At the close of the first century it was still necessary for S. John to insist on this. At Ephesus, where this Gospel was written, S. Paul in his third missionary journey had found disciples still resting in ‘John’s baptism,’ Acts 19:1-6. ‘By lamp-light we may advance to the day’ (Augustine).

but was sent to ‘was sent’ is not in the Greek. ‘But (in order) that’ is an elliptical phrase occurring several times in this Gospel. It calls attention to the Divine purpose. Comp. John 9:3, John 13:18, John 14:31, John 15:25.