John · Chapter 1

V. 1. In the beginning-(Referring to Genesis 1:1, and Proverbs 8:23.) When all things began to be made by the Word: in the beginning of heaven and earth, and this whole frame of created beings, the Word existed, without any beginning. He was when all things began to be, whatsoever had a beginning.

The Word-So termed Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6, and frequently by the seventy, and in the Chaldee paraphrase. So that St. John did not borrow this expression from Philo, or any heathen writer. He was not yet named Jesus, or Christ. He is the Word whom the Father begat or spoke from eternity; by whom the Father speaking, maketh all things; who speaketh the Father to us. We have, in John 1:18, both a real description of the Word, and the reason why he is so called. He is the only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and hath declared him.

And the Word was with God-Therefore distinct from God the Father. The word rendered with, denotes a perpetual tendency as it were of the Son to the Father, in unity of essence. He was with God alone; because nothing beside God had then any being.

And the Word was God-Supreme, eternal, independent. There was no creature, in respect of which he could be styled God in a relative sense. Therefore he is styled so in the absolute sense. The Godhead of the Messiah being clearly revealed in the Old Testament, (Jeremiah 23:7; Hosea 1:6; Psalms 23:1Psalm 23:1,) the other evangelists aim at this, to prove that Jesus, a true man, was the Messiah. But when, at length, some from hence began to doubt of his Godhead, then St. John expressly asserted it, and wrote in this book as it were a supplement to the Gospels, as in the Revelation to the prophets.

Verse 1. In the beginning] That is, before any thing was formed-ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Genesis 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, John 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the ETERNAL God.

Was the Word] Or, existed the Logos. This term should be left untranslated, for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. The first I consider as proper an apellative of the Saviour of the world as I do either of the two last. And as it would be highly improper to say, the Deliverer, the Anointed, instead of Jesus Christ, so I deem it improper to say, the Word, instead of the Logos. But as every appellative of the Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work, so the epithet logov, Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him, who is the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world, John 1:9; who is the fountain of all wisdom; who giveth being, life, light, knowledge, and reason, to all men; who is the grand Source of revelation, who has declared God unto mankind; who spake by the prophets, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, Revelation 19:10; who has illustrated life and immortality by his Gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10; and who has fully made manifest the deep mysteries which lay hidden in the bosom of the invisible God from all eternity, John 1:18. The apostle does not borrow this mode of speech from the writings of Plato, as some have imagined: he took it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and from the subsequent style of the ancient Jews. It is true the Platonists make mention of the Logos in this way:-kaqJ on, aei onta, ta genomena egeneto-by whom, eternally existing, all things were made. But as Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and others, travelled among the Jews, and conversed with them, it is reasonable to suppose that they borrowed this, with many others of their most important notions and doctrines, from them.

And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.

Verses 1, 2. In the beginning — Namely, of the creation, (for the evangelist evidently refers to the first word of the book of Genesis, tyvarb, bereshith, rendered by the LXX. en arch, the expression here used,) was the Word — That is, The Word existed at the beginning of the creation, and consequently from eternity. He was when all things began to be; whatsoever had a beginning. And the Word was with God — Namely, before any created being had existed. This is probably spoken in allusion to the well-known passage in Proverbs, (John 8:30, &c.,) where divine wisdom is introduced, saying, The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was, &c. And the Word was God — Was strictly and properly divine. It is observable, “that John’s discourse rises by degrees. He tells us first, that the Word, in the beginning of the world, existed. Next, that he existed with God: and last of all, that he was God, and made all things.” “I know,” says Dr. Doddridge, “how eagerly many have contended, that the word God is used here in an inferior sense; the necessary consequence of which is, as indeed some have expressly avowed, that this clause should be rendered, The Word was a god; that is, a kind of inferior deity, as governors are called gods. See John 10:34; 1 Corinthians 8:5. 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 to me most incredible, that when the Jews were so exceedingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles so unhappily prone to it, such a plain writer as this apostle should lay so dangerous a stumbling- block on the very 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 so many ancient writers assert, that this gospel was written with a particular view of opposing the Cerinthians and Ebionites; on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary.” As to the article o being wanting before qeov, God, which some have urged as a proof that the word is here to be used in a subordinate sense, it must be observed, that there are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see verses 6, 12, 13, 18,) where the same word, 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 that circumstance. “On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct and co-ordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcilable with reason.” The order of the words in the original, qeov hn o logov, has induced some to translate the clause, God was the Word. So it was read in the old English translation, authorized by Henry VIII., and thus Luther rendered it in his German translation, Gott war das wort. But there are almost every where, in several of the purest Greek writers, instances of such a construction as our present version supposes; and one of exactly the same kind occurs John 4:24 of this gospel, namely, pneuma o qeov, which we properly render, God is a spirit: so that there appears to be no sufficient reason for varying from our translation in this important passage. It may be proper to add here, in the words of Bishop Burnet, (On the Articles, p. 40,) “That had not John, and the other apostles, thought it [Christ’s proper deity] a doctrine of great importance in the gospel scheme, they would rather have waived than asserted and insisted upon it, considering the critical circumstances in which they wrote.” The same was in the beginning with God — The apostle repeats what he had before asserted, because of its great importance; and to signify more fully the personality of the Word, or only-begotten Son, (verse 14,) as distinct from that of the Father.

Verse 1. In the beginning was the Word. En arch o logov. John begins the new creation with the words of Moses of the old creation, and continues to speak of Christ in the running language of all the ancient rabbinical theology, — that the Word was before Creation was. And the Word was with God. Kai o logov hn prov ton Qeon. Here the hypostasis, the word used by St. Paul in Hebrews 1:3, or person of Christ is designated. The Father was always a Father, and never without the Son. Therefore our Saviour prayed, “Oh Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:5.

And God was the Word. Kai Qeov hn o logov: et Deus erat Verbum. Here the divine essence, that Christ is one substance with the Father, is designated. Erasmus notes here, that the Greek article is omitted, because the name, God, truly and naturally includes it. This remark commands assent, and applies with equal force to the Greek text of Matthew 4:3, 6, and Mark 1:1; about which the unitarians make a mighty ado to beguile the less instructed student. When the sacred writer says, the Word was God, he meant to remove all scruple and doubt as to the divine essence of Christ. The three plain words, declarative of his eternity, his personality, his essence, stand like a tripod unshaken through every age of fluctuating theories. Hebrews 13:8.

1. In the beginning—Originally: before all things else. Was the Word—Not was created, or brought into existence, but was. Fix any assignable point as the beginning, and the Word was, and still was. That is, the Word is absolutely eternal. The Word—As mind manifests itself in the spoken word, so God, the eternal mind, manifests himself in the eternal LOGOS or Word. And as this Word is in verse 14 said to have been made flesh, and in verses 14 and 18 is called the only begotten of the Father, the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, so this Word by which God manifests his own hidden and unknowable nature is identified with Jesus the Messiah. The propriety and beauty of both the terms Word and Son, to designate that in God by which his absolute essence is revealed in the universe, are such that we might suppose them originated by the mind of the Evangelist himself, under the guidance of inspiration. But we know, historically, that the term Word is used in a somewhat similar sense in the Old Testament, in the old Jewish Targums, in the Jewish apocryphal writings, by the Greek philosopher, Plato, and Greekish Jew, Philo, of Alexandria. Consult Watson’s Institutes, Part II, chap. 12. and Clarke’s excellent notes on John

1. In the Old Testament the first chapter of Genesis describes the creation as taking place at the divine word spoken. We have, Genesis 15:1, “The WORD of the Lord came to Abraham.” 1 Samuel 3:21, “The Lord revealed himself by the word of the Lord.” 2 Samuel 7:21, “For thy word’s sake.” In the Targums we find the term Word, (Memra,) used for God revealing himself. Thus they say, “The Word [Memra] of Jehovah creates man.” “Jehovah thy God, his Word [Memra] goeth before thee.” “The Lord said unto his Word.” Philo applies such passages as we have above quoted from the Old Testament expressly to the Logos. He describes the Logos as being the image of God, the second God, the eldest son of the eternal Father, etc. The term Logos being thus prepared and used by uninspired writers and in different systems, John adapts and limits it to the true Christian use. This Logos, as now defined, is the second person in the Holy Trinity, incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. The term “Word” is used in the New Testament by John alone in this sense. Was with God—Literal Greek, was TO God. The eternal word was inherent to, in, with, God. This mysterious inherence is, as Asthanasius said, “hid by the wings of the cherubim.” The Word was God—The Arians, who hold that the Word is inferior in essence to the supreme God, though superior to all other finite beings, read this clause the Word was a god. But there is no reason for interpreting this word God differently from the same word in the former part of this verse, or from the same word, God, in verses 6, 12, 13, etc. The Arian hypothesis has a strong tendency to polytheism.

V. 2. The same was in the beginning with God-This verse repeats and contracts into one the three points mentioned before. As if he had said, This Word, who was God, was in the beginning, and was with God.

Verses 1, 2. In the beginning — Namely, of the creation, (for the evangelist evidently refers to the first word of the book of Genesis, tyvarb, bereshith, rendered by the LXX. en arch, the expression here used,) was the Word — That is, The Word existed at the beginning of the creation, and consequently from eternity. He was when all things began to be; whatsoever had a beginning. And the Word was with God — Namely, before any created being had existed. This is probably spoken in allusion to the well-known passage in Proverbs, (John 8:30, &c.,) where divine wisdom is introduced, saying, The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was, &c. And the Word was God — Was strictly and properly divine. It is observable, “that John’s discourse rises by degrees. He tells us first, that the Word, in the beginning of the world, existed. Next, that he existed with God: and last of all, that he was God, and made all things.” “I know,” says Dr. Doddridge, “how eagerly many have contended, that the word God is used here in an inferior sense; the necessary consequence of which is, as indeed some have expressly avowed, that this clause should be rendered, The Word was a god; that is, a kind of inferior deity, as governors are called gods. See John 10:34; 1 Corinthians 8:5. 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 to me most incredible, that when the Jews were so exceedingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles so unhappily prone to it, such a plain writer as this apostle should lay so dangerous a stumbling- block on the very 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 so many ancient writers assert, that this gospel was written with a particular view of opposing the Cerinthians and Ebionites; on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary.” As to the article o being wanting before qeov, God, which some have urged as a proof that the word is here to be used in a subordinate sense, it must be observed, that there are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see verses 6, 12, 13, 18,) where the same word, 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 that circumstance. “On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct and co-ordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcilable with reason.” The order of the words in the original, qeov hn o logov, has induced some to translate the clause, God was the Word. So it was read in the old English translation, authorized by Henry VIII., and thus Luther rendered it in his German translation, Gott war das wort. But there are almost every where, in several of the purest Greek writers, instances of such a construction as our present version supposes; and one of exactly the same kind occurs John 4:24 of this gospel, namely, pneuma o qeov, which we properly render, God is a spirit: so that there appears to be no sufficient reason for varying from our translation in this important passage. It may be proper to add here, in the words of Bishop Burnet, (On the Articles, p. 40,) “That had not John, and the other apostles, thought it [Christ’s proper deity] a doctrine of great importance in the gospel scheme, they would rather have waived than asserted and insisted upon it, considering the critical circumstances in which they wrote.” The same was in the beginning with God — The apostle repeats what he had before asserted, because of its great importance; and to signify more fully the personality of the Word, or only-begotten Son, (verse 14,) as distinct from that of the Father.

Ver. 2, 3. The same (Word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Panta di’ autou egeneto: that is, the Word created the heavens and all their hosts; for the evangelist uses the same Greek word as the LXX, in Genesis 1:3. God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The same is Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6. By the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath [Spirit] of his mouth. These two ideas, the essence and work of Christ, like the pillars of Jachin and Boaz, stand in front of the living temple, built on the Rock of ages. Her foundation standeth sure: God is in the midst of her, she shall never be moved. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

The elder rabbins gather around the Messiah here with joyful hope, while the modern jews hide their faces from him. The Chaldaic paraphrase reads on <19B001>Psalm 110:1, “Jehovah said to his Eternal Word, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Rabbi Jonathan also says on Deuteronomy 5., that “Jehovah could not speak these words to himself.” The same paraphrase on Isaiah 45:12, says, “By my Word I have made the earth, and created man upon it.” So likewise the Word of the Lord came in person to Jonah, grieving for his gourd and angry that Nineveh was spared, and indulgently asked, Dost thou well to be angry? The targum of Jerusalem reads on Genesis 3:9, “The Word of the Lord came to Adam.” In short, it was the current language of the ancient targumists, that every revelation of heaven to man was communicated by the Eternal Word or Wisdom of God, who was always rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth, and his delights were with the sons of men. In our most laborious christian rabbi, Dr. Lightfoot, we read many relevant comments. “Moses brought them out of the camp to meet the Word of the Lord. Exodus 19:17. The Word of the Lord accepted the face of Job 42:9. The Word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. Psalms 2:4Psalm 2:4. They believed in the name of the Word. <19A612>Psalm 106:12. My Word spared them. Ezekiel 20:57. To add no more, instead of, I will be with thee, as in Genesis 26:3, the targum reads, my Word shall be thy help. So in Genesis 39:2, the Lord was with Joseph; the targum is, the Word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper.” — What a striking parallel is here drawn between JEHOVAH the Angel, and the WORD, which in the beginning spake creation into existence. He not only made the world, but he is the natural and spiritual life of all, and the light of men.

The learned Erasmus says, Christus ideo dicitur Logov quod quiequid loquitur Pater per Filium loquatur. Christ is therefore called the Word, because whatsoever is spoken by the Father is spoken by the Son. This idea applies to the Word by which the heavens and the earth were created. The words of Paul are to the same effect. Colossians 1:15-17. “By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” Tatian and Irenæus, two of the more ancient fathers, quote the words of John, and regard without hesitation the Lord Jesus as the Creator of heaven and earth.

V. 3. All things beside God were made, and all things which were made, were made by the Word. In John 1:1, 2 is described the state of things before the creation: John 1:3, In the creation: John 1:4, In the time of man's innocency: John 1:5, In the time of man's corruption.

Verse 3. All things were made by him] That is, by this Logos. In Genesis 1:1, GOD is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are ONE. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become GOD; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings.

On these important passages I find that many eminently learned men differ from me: it seems they cannot be of my opinion, and I feel I cannot be of theirs. May He, who is the Light and the Truth, guide them and me into all truth!

Verse 3. All things were made by him — All creatures, whether in heaven or on earth, the whole universe, and every being contained therein, animate or inanimate, intelligent or unintelligent. The Father spoke every thing into being by him, his Eternal Word. Thus, Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, &c. This, however, is not the only reason why the Son of God is termed the Word. “He is not only called so, because God at first created and still governs all things by him; but because, as men discover their minds to one another by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so God, by his Son, discovers his gracious designs to men in the fullest and clearest manner. All the various manifestations which he makes of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, have been, and still are, conveyed to us through him, and therefore he is, by way of eminence, fitly styled here, the Word, and Revelation 19:13, the Word of God.” — Macknight. Thus also Bishop Horne: (Sermons, vol. 1. pp. 199, 200:) “Should it be asked, why this person is styled the Word? the proper answer seems to be, that as a thought, or conception of the understanding, is brought forth and communicated in speech or discourse, so is the divine will made known by the WORD, who is the offspring and emanation of the eternal mind, an emanation pure and undivided, like that of light, which is the proper issue of the sun, and yet coeval with its parent orb; since the sun cannot be supposed, by the most exact and philosophical imagination, to exist a moment without emitting light; and were the one eternal, the other, though strictly and properly produced by it, would be as strictly and properly co-eternal with it. So true is the assertion of the Nicene fathers; so apt the instance subjoined for its illustration, God of God, light of light: in apostolical language, Apaugasma thv doxhv kai carakthr thv upostasewv, The brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. And whether we consider our Lord under the idea of the WORD, or that of LIGHT, it will lead us to the same conclusion respecting his office. For, as no man can discover the mind of another, but by the word which proceedeth from him; as no man can see the sun, but by the light which itself emitteth, even so, No man knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him! It may not be improper to observe further here, that “the term logov, Word, was in use among the ancient philosophers, who sometimes speak of a person under that appellation as the Maker of the universe. So Tertullian informs the Gentiles: ‘Apud vestros quoque sapientes logon, id est, Sermonem atque Rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.’ It appears that among your wise men, the logov, that is, the Word and Reason, was considered as the Former of the universe. And Eusebius, in the eleventh book of his Evangelical Preparation, cites a passage from Amelius, a celebrated admirer and imitator of Plato, in which he speaks of the logov as being eternal, and the Maker of all things. This, he says, was the opinion of Heraclitus, and then introduces the beginning of the gospel of St. John; concerning whom it seems he was wont to complain, that he had transferred into his book the sentiments of his master Plato. But it is not likely that our evangelist either borrowed from, or intended to copy after Plato. And since not only Plato, but Pythagoras and Zeno likewise, conversed with the Jews, it is not at all wonderful that we meet with something about a qeiov logov, or DIVINE WORD, in their writings. Nor, after all, might the philosopher and the apostle use the same term in the same acceptation. It is customary with the writers of the New Testament to express themselves as much as may be in the language of the Old, to which, therefore, we must have recourse for an explanation of their meaning, as the penmen of both, under the direction of one Spirit, used their terms in the same sense. Now, upon looking into the Old Testament, we find, that the Word of Jehovah is frequently and evidently the style of a person who is said to come, to be revealed, or manifested, and the like, as in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, The word of Jehovah came unto Abraham in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abraham, &c. — Behold, the Word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir, and he brought him forth abroad. Thus again, (1 Samuel 3.,) Jehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh, by the Word of Jehovah. The same person is, at other times, characterized by the title, the Name of Jehovah, hwhy µc, as in Isaiah 30:27, Behold, the Name of Jehovah cometh from far, burning with his anger, &c. With regard to the nature of the person thus denominated, whoever shall duly consider the attributes, powers, and actions ascribed to him, will see reason to think of him, not as a created intelligence, but a person of the divine essence, possessed of all its incommunicable properties. And it may be noticed, that the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrasts, continually substitute the Word of Jehovah for Jehovah, ascribing divine characters to the person so named. And the ancient Grecizing Jews speak in the same style. Thus, in that excellent apocryphal book of Wisdom, (ix. 1,) O God, who hast made all things, en logw sou, by thy Word; and again in the passage which so wonderfully describes the horrors of that night, never to be forgotten by an Israelite, wherein the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain: While all things were in quiet silence, and that night was in the midst of her swift course, thine Almighty WORD (logov) leaped down from heaven, out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thy unfeigned commandment, as a sharp sword; and standing up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but stood upon the earth, John 18:14.” Horne’s Discourses, disc. 7. vol. 1. pp. 194-197. And without him was not any thing made — Oude en, not so much as any single thing having existence, whether among the nobler or the meaner works of God, was made without him. See the same truth attested and enlarged upon by Paul, Colossians 1:16. Now, “if all things were made by 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 particularly and distinctly the dignity, but especially the divinity of Christ, was to raise in mankind the most profound veneration for him, and for all his instructions and actions. 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.”

Ver. 2, 3. The same (Word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Panta di’ autou egeneto: that is, the Word created the heavens and all their hosts; for the evangelist uses the same Greek word as the LXX, in Genesis 1:3. God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The same is Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6. By the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath [Spirit] of his mouth. These two ideas, the essence and work of Christ, like the pillars of Jachin and Boaz, stand in front of the living temple, built on the Rock of ages. Her foundation standeth sure: God is in the midst of her, she shall never be moved. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

The elder rabbins gather around the Messiah here with joyful hope, while the modern jews hide their faces from him. The Chaldaic paraphrase reads on <19B001>Psalm 110:1, “Jehovah said to his Eternal Word, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Rabbi Jonathan also says on Deuteronomy 5., that “Jehovah could not speak these words to himself.” The same paraphrase on Isaiah 45:12, says, “By my Word I have made the earth, and created man upon it.” So likewise the Word of the Lord came in person to Jonah, grieving for his gourd and angry that Nineveh was spared, and indulgently asked, Dost thou well to be angry? The targum of Jerusalem reads on Genesis 3:9, “The Word of the Lord came to Adam.” In short, it was the current language of the ancient targumists, that every revelation of heaven to man was communicated by the Eternal Word or Wisdom of God, who was always rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth, and his delights were with the sons of men. In our most laborious christian rabbi, Dr. Lightfoot, we read many relevant comments. “Moses brought them out of the camp to meet the Word of the Lord. Exodus 19:17. The Word of the Lord accepted the face of Job 42:9. The Word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. Psalms 2:4Psalm 2:4. They believed in the name of the Word. <19A612>Psalm 106:12. My Word spared them. Ezekiel 20:57. To add no more, instead of, I will be with thee, as in Genesis 26:3, the targum reads, my Word shall be thy help. So in Genesis 39:2, the Lord was with Joseph; the targum is, the Word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper.” — What a striking parallel is here drawn between JEHOVAH the Angel, and the WORD, which in the beginning spake creation into existence. He not only made the world, but he is the natural and spiritual life of all, and the light of men.

The learned Erasmus says, Christus ideo dicitur Logov quod quiequid loquitur Pater per Filium loquatur. Christ is therefore called the Word, because whatsoever is spoken by the Father is spoken by the Son. This idea applies to the Word by which the heavens and the earth were created. The words of Paul are to the same effect. Colossians 1:15-17. “By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” Tatian and Irenæus, two of the more ancient fathers, quote the words of John, and regard without hesitation the Lord Jesus as the Creator of heaven and earth.

3. All things were made by him—Rather, all things became, or came into existence, by him. The sublime opposite of nothingness. Without… anything—All that from nothing rose, rose not without him. There may be things in their own nature strictly eternal and uncreated, such as space and number; such as the antithesis of right and wrong. Such things the Logos made not; but made all things which were made in accordance with these eternal natures.

V. 4. In him was life-He was the foundation of life to every living thing, as well as of being to all that is.

And the life was the light of men-He who is essential life, and the giver of life to all that liveth, was also the light of men; the fountain of wisdom, holiness, and happiness, to man in his original state.

Verse 4. In him was life] Many MSS., versions, and fathers, connect this with the preceding verse, thus: All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made. What was made had life in it; but THIS LIFE was the light of men. That is, though every thing he made had a principle of life in it, whether vegetable, animal, or intellectual, yet this, that life or animal principle in the human being, was not the light of men; not that light which could guide them to heaven, for the world by wisdom knew not God, 1 Corinthians 1:21. Therefore, the expression, in him was life, is not to be understood of life natural, but of that life eternal which he revealed to the world, 2 Timothy 1:10, to which he taught the way, John 14:6, which he promised to believers, John 10:28, which he purchased for them, John 6:51, 53, 54, which he is appointed to give them, John 17:2, and to which he will raise them up, John 5:29, because he hath the life in himself, John 5:26. All this may be proved: 1. From the like expressions; 1 John 5:11, This is the promise that God hath given unto us, eternal life, and this life is in his Son: whence he is styled the true God and eternal life, 1 John 5:20; the resurrection and the life, John 11:25; the way, the truth, and the life, John 14:6. 2. From these words, John 1:7, John came to bear witness of this light, that all might believe through him, viz. to eternal life, 1 Timothy 1:16; for so John witnesseth, John 3:15, 36. And hence it follows that this life must be the light of men, by giving them the knowledge of this life, and of the way leading to it. See Whitby on the place. Is there any reference here to Genesis 3:20: And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, hwj chava, zwh, LIFE, because she was the mother of all living? And was not Jesus that seed of the woman that was to bruise the head of the serpent, and to give life to the world?

Verses 4, 5. In him — Or, through him, as Beza understands it; was life — He was the living and powerful Word, which was the source of life to every living creature, as well as of being to all that exists. And the life was the light of men — He, who is essential life, and the author of life to all that live, was also the fountain of wisdom, holiness, and happiness to man in his original state. And the light shineth in darkness — Namely, in the darkness, or amid the ignorance and folly, sinfulness and wretchedness of fallen man. This has been the case from the time of man’s fall, through all ages, and in all nations of the world; the light of reason and conscience, as well as the light issuing from the works of creation and providence, and the various discoveries of God and his will made to and by the patriarchs and prophets, being through and from him: But the darkness comprehended it not — Did not advert to it, so as to understand and profit by it, as it might have done by the instruction thus communicated. It became necessary, therefore, in order to the more full illumination and the salvation of mankind, that God should give a more perfect revelation of his mind and will, than he had given in former ages. Of this the evangelist speaks next.

Ver. 4. In him was life. Everflowing as water from a fountain, and by which all the living beings of heaven and earth subsist and move. But John speaks chiefly here of that spiritual and eternal “Life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” 1 John 1:2. Our Saviour’s words correspond with this. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life abiding in him. I am come that ye might have life, and have it more abundantly.” From these texts it follows, that this life, this commandment, or gospel, is the light of the world. He is then, as the Nicene fathers say, the Lord and giver of life. What do the unitarians say to this? In an age so rife with heresy, the young christian must not go out into a world of revolt unarmed. Grotius, the father of modern corruptions, contends that Logos signifies Reason. To this we should not object, for Christ is the Wisdom, and Christ is the Arm or Power of God. But this author so turns the word as to divest Christ of all personality, except as Jesus the son of Mary. Anguis in herba. Dr. George Campbell, in his new translation of the four gospels, with notes, follows Grotius. Of the two words, verbum and sermo, speaking of the beaten track of the versions, he says, “Were I to desert it, I should prefer the word Reason, as suggesting the inward principle or faculty, and not the external emanation which may be called word or speech.” Accordingly, the doctor’s new version reads, “All things were made by it, and without it not a single creature was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”

Our exceptions to these liberties of leaving the beaten path are,

(1) If we allow the unitarians what they very much wish, the liberty of substituting at pleasure the personal pronouns for neuter pronouns, we should have no certainty in the holy scriptures.

(2) We must abandon all the strong bulwarks of the ante-Nicene fathers, who stood like pillars in the temple of God.

(3) We should expose the sacred writers to contempt.

For example: if we strip the above sentence of its complement, and leave only the verb and the two pronouns, the simple reading will be — It — made it. The feeble reason of man thus becomes ridiculous when it attempts to supersede the Reason or Word, whom the Father hath sent into the world. How derogatory of the glory of the great Creator of heaven and earth to say that — it made it! This is a specimen of what the new version of the bible will be, whenever it appears.

4. In him was life—Life original and essential. For had he not possessed original life, neither life, nor motion, nor sense could have ever existed in the universe. And from his original life all other life is derived. And this life is more than mere existence. A thing may exist and yet have no life. Life is the opposite of death; existence is the opposite of annihilation or non-existence. Existence is at the bottom and is the basis, and life overlies it. And the life was the light of men—This life imparted by the Logos to man became the light; that is, the consciousness. It appears as the physical or sensitive consciousness by which men feel; the intellectual consciousness by which they perceive and reason. But this light, thus far, is possessed, more or less distinctly, by mere animals. But it is rather the light possessed by men alone, over and above mere animal nature, that our Evangelist speaks of. There is the moral and spiritual consciousness by which men have eternal and divine conceptions: such as conceptions of God, of absolute right, of holiness, and of immortality. And this highest consciousness of the human spirit is the basis of the operation of the divine Spirit in and upon man, by which he is able to be in himself a responsible and a holy being. Thus have we the climax of existence, of life, and of consciousness, intellectual and spiritual.

V. 5. And the light shineth in darkness-Shines even on fallen man; but the darkness-Dark, sinful man, perceiveth it not.

Verse 5. And the light shineth in darkness] By darkness here may be understood: 1. The heathen world, Ephesians 5:8. 2. The Jewish people. 3. The fallen spirit of man.

Comprehended it not.] auto ou katelaben, Prevented it not-hindered it not, says Mr. Wakefield, who adds the following judicious note:-“Even in the midst of that darkness of ignorance and idolatry which overspread the world, this light of Divine wisdom was not totally eclipsed: the Jewish nation was a lamp perpetually shining to the surrounding nations; and many bright luminaries, among the heathen, were never wanting in just and worthy notions of the attributes and providence of God’s wisdom; which enabled them to shine in some degree, though but as lights in a dark place, 2 Peter 1:19. Compare Acts 14:17; 17:28, 29.”

Verses 4, 5. In him — Or, through him, as Beza understands it; was life — He was the living and powerful Word, which was the source of life to every living creature, as well as of being to all that exists. And the life was the light of men — He, who is essential life, and the author of life to all that live, was also the fountain of wisdom, holiness, and happiness to man in his original state. And the light shineth in darkness — Namely, in the darkness, or amid the ignorance and folly, sinfulness and wretchedness of fallen man. This has been the case from the time of man’s fall, through all ages, and in all nations of the world; the light of reason and conscience, as well as the light issuing from the works of creation and providence, and the various discoveries of God and his will made to and by the patriarchs and prophets, being through and from him: But the darkness comprehended it not — Did not advert to it, so as to understand and profit by it, as it might have done by the instruction thus communicated. It became necessary, therefore, in order to the more full illumination and the salvation of mankind, that God should give a more perfect revelation of his mind and will, than he had given in former ages. Of this the evangelist speaks next.

5. Light shineth in darkness—Not only was there from the Logos a moral consciousness created in man’s original nature; but when, nevertheless, the moral and spiritual consciousness of men through sin again became dark and inert, the Logos, Christ, shed the beams of truth and love into it, unappreciated and unaccepted. This shining and rejecting existed in all ages; but specially during the incarnation, of which John is about to write.

V. 6. There was a man-The evangelist now proceeds to him who testified of the light, which he had spoken of in the five preceding verses.

Verse 6. Whose name was John.] This was John the Baptist; see his name and the nature of his office explained, Mark 1:4, and Matthew 3:1-3.

Verses 6-9. There was a man sent from God — The introducer of a new dispensation, the morning star, preceding the rise of the Sun of righteousness; whose name was JOHN — That is, grace; a name fitly given to the Messiah’s forerunner, who was sent to proclaim the immediate accomplishment of God’s gracious intentions toward men, the expectation of which had been raised in them by all his preceding dispensations. The same came for a witness — Eiv marturian, for, or, in order to give, a testimony of an infinitely important kind; to bear witness of the light — Ina marturhsh peri tou fwtov, that he might testify concerning the light: namely, the light mentioned above, Christ, the light of the world; that all men through him — Through his testimony; might believe — In Christ, the light. He — John, though an extraordinary messenger of God, was himself not that light, but was merely sent to bear witness of that light — And thereby to draw men’s attention to it, and induce them to believe in it; namely, in the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world — Both as he is their Maker, who has put into their minds the light of reason and conscience, and as he visits and strives with them by his Spirit, and is the author of that revelation, which was not intended to be confined to the single nation of the Jews, but to be communicated to all mankind.

6. There was a man—Yes, a man; and that is a noble title; but what is it in comparison with the Logos? Sent from God—And so sent he has a grand going forth; but what is it compared to the eternal goings forth of the Logos?

V. 7. The same came for (that is, in order to give) a testimony-The evangelist, with the most strong and tender affection, interweaves his own testimony with that of John, by noble digressions, wherein he explains the office of the Baptist; partly premises and partly subjoins a farther explication to his short sentences. What St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke term the Gospel, in respect of the promise going before, St. John usually terms the testimony, intimating the certain knowledge of the relator; to testify of the light-Of Christ.

Verse 7. That all men through him might believe.] He testified that Jesus was the true light-the true teacher of the way to the kingdom of glory, and the lamb or sacrifice of God, which was to bear away the sin of the world, John 1:29, and invited men to believe in him for the remission of their sins, that they might receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, John 1:32-34. This was bearing the most direct witness to the light which was now shining in the dark wilderness of Judea; and, from thence, shortly to be diffused over the whole world.

Verses 6-9. There was a man sent from God — The introducer of a new dispensation, the morning star, preceding the rise of the Sun of righteousness; whose name was JOHN — That is, grace; a name fitly given to the Messiah’s forerunner, who was sent to proclaim the immediate accomplishment of God’s gracious intentions toward men, the expectation of which had been raised in them by all his preceding dispensations. The same came for a witness — Eiv marturian, for, or, in order to give, a testimony of an infinitely important kind; to bear witness of the light — Ina marturhsh peri tou fwtov, that he might testify concerning the light: namely, the light mentioned above, Christ, the light of the world; that all men through him — Through his testimony; might believe — In Christ, the light. He — John, though an extraordinary messenger of God, was himself not that light, but was merely sent to bear witness of that light — And thereby to draw men’s attention to it, and induce them to believe in it; namely, in the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world — Both as he is their Maker, who has put into their minds the light of reason and conscience, and as he visits and strives with them by his Spirit, and is the author of that revelation, which was not intended to be confined to the single nation of the Jews, but to be communicated to all mankind.

6-8. Thus far the Evangelist has traced the Word from his eternity into his creation of things, his creation and original enlightening of man’s nature, and his shedding new but rejected light into man’s darkness. He is soon (9-18) to trace the entrance of the Logos into our living world; but he first takes care (6-8) that we shall not be led astray in our thoughts by mistaking for the Logos one who was not the Logos. The disciples of John the Baptist, even to a late date, maintained that he was the superior of Jesus. Our Evangelist John, with his brother James, had both been disciples of the Baptist; and he is, therefore, the very man to correct the error. He does so now by this preliminary statement; in which he brings John into a comparison of overwhelming inferiority with the supreme eternal Light.

Verses 6-9. There was a man sent from God — The introducer of a new dispensation, the morning star, preceding the rise of the Sun of righteousness; whose name was JOHN — That is, grace; a name fitly given to the Messiah’s forerunner, who was sent to proclaim the immediate accomplishment of God’s gracious intentions toward men, the expectation of which had been raised in them by all his preceding dispensations. The same came for a witness — Eiv marturian, for, or, in order to give, a testimony of an infinitely important kind; to bear witness of the light — Ina marturhsh peri tou fwtov, that he might testify concerning the light: namely, the light mentioned above, Christ, the light of the world; that all men through him — Through his testimony; might believe — In Christ, the light. He — John, though an extraordinary messenger of God, was himself not that light, but was merely sent to bear witness of that light — And thereby to draw men’s attention to it, and induce them to believe in it; namely, in the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world — Both as he is their Maker, who has put into their minds the light of reason and conscience, and as he visits and strives with them by his Spirit, and is the author of that revelation, which was not intended to be confined to the single nation of the Jews, but to be communicated to all mankind.

8. Witness of that Light—The Logos, as incarnate, is now by the Evangelist identified as the living Light. We have, then, Jesus and John as the Light and its witness. The entire body of prophets and the whole Old Testament were indeed witnesses to this Light; but John, the last of the prophets, was the only living personal witness to the living and personal Light. The term Light here becomes personal, and is rightly commenced with a capital.

V. 9. Who lighteth every man-By what is vulgarly termed natural conscience, pointing out at least the general lines of good and evil. And this light, if man did not hinder, would shine more and more to the perfect day.

Verse 9. Which lighteth every man] As Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all wisdom, so all the wisdom that is in man comes from him; the human intellect is a ray from his brightness; and reason itself springs from this Logos, the eternal reason. Some of the most eminent rabbins understand Isaiah 60:1, Rise and shine, for thy LIGHT is come, of the Messiah who was to illuminate Israel, and who, they believe, was referred to in that word, Genesis 1:3, And God said, Let there be LIGHT; and there was light. Let a Messiah be provided; and a Messiah was accordingly provided. See Schoettgen.

That cometh into the world.] Or, coming into the world-ercomenon eiv ton kosmon: a common phrase among the rabbins, to express every human being. As the human creature sees the light of the world as soon as it is born, from which it had been excluded while in the womb of its parent; in like manner, this heavenly light shines into the soul of every man, to convince of sin, righteousness, and judgment; and it is through this light, which no man brings into the world with him, but which Christ mercifully gives to him on his coming into it, that what is termed conscience among men is produced. No man could discern good from evil, were it not for this light thus supernaturally and graciously restored. There was much light in the law, but this shone only upon the Jews; but the superior light of the Gospel is to be diffused over the face of the whole earth. The following not only proves what is asserted in this verse, but is also an excellent illustration of it.

The GAYATRI, or holiest verse of the VEDAS, i.e. the ancient Hindoo Scriptures.

“Let us adore the supremacy of that divine Sun, the Godhead who illuminates all, who re-creates all; from whom all proceed; to whom all must return; whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright, in our progress towards his holy seat.”

The ancient comment.

“What the sun and light are to this visible world, that are the supreme good and truth to the intellectual and invisible universe; and, as our corporeal eyes have a distinct perception of objects enlightened by the sun, thus our souls acquire certain knowledge by meditating on the light of truth, which emanates from the Being of beings; that is the light by which alone our minds can be directed in the path to blessedness.” Sir Wm. Jones’s works, vol. vi. p. 417. Sir William observes that the original word Bhargas, which he translates Godhead, consists of three consonants, and is derived from bha, to shine; ram, to delight; and gam, to move:-the Being who is the light, the source of happiness, and the all-pervading energy.

Verses 6-9. There was a man sent from God — The introducer of a new dispensation, the morning star, preceding the rise of the Sun of righteousness; whose name was JOHN — That is, grace; a name fitly given to the Messiah’s forerunner, who was sent to proclaim the immediate accomplishment of God’s gracious intentions toward men, the expectation of which had been raised in them by all his preceding dispensations. The same came for a witness — Eiv marturian, for, or, in order to give, a testimony of an infinitely important kind; to bear witness of the light — Ina marturhsh peri tou fwtov, that he might testify concerning the light: namely, the light mentioned above, Christ, the light of the world; that all men through him — Through his testimony; might believe — In Christ, the light. He — John, though an extraordinary messenger of God, was himself not that light, but was merely sent to bear witness of that light — And thereby to draw men’s attention to it, and induce them to believe in it; namely, in the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world — Both as he is their Maker, who has put into their minds the light of reason and conscience, and as he visits and strives with them by his Spirit, and is the author of that revelation, which was not intended to be confined to the single nation of the Jews, but to be communicated to all mankind.

Ver. 9. The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John, in his labours and travels, was but a revolving light, who shone by reflection; but Christ in himself, and by his life and doctrine, was the true light. He is the sun of righteousness, rising with cheering beams to heal the world of error and of crimes. The gospel delivers the mind from the darkness of the present world, and admits us to the wisdom of God in the work of human redemption. He is the light of life, for knowledge and piety must never be separated. — It is probable that St. Paul had these words in view, when he says, “The grace, or the gospel, of God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed Hope. Titus 2:11- 13.

9. The best commentators render this verse, That was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man. The true Light—In opposition to John, whom some supposed to be the true light; and in opposition to every false light. Coming into the world—For the Evangelist now traces, as before said, the Logos as coming by the incarnation into the living human world. Every man—Every child of Adam. Every human being is endowed by the Logos with a preparatory light, so that he need not be in that darkness which comprehends not the light. (See note on verse 5.)

V. 10. He was in the world-Even from the creation.

Verse 10. He was in the world] From its very commencement-he governed the universe-regulated his Church-spake by his prophets-and often, as the angel or messenger of Jehovah, appeared to them, and to the patriarchs.

The world knew him not.] auton ouk egnw-Did not acknowledge him; for the Jewish rulers knew well enough that he was a teacher come from God; but they did not choose to acknowledge him as such. Men love the world, and this love hinders them from knowing him who made it, though he made it only to make himself known. Christ, by whom all things were made, John 1:3, and by whom all things are continually supported, Colossians 1:16, 17; Hebrews 1:3, has way every where, is continually manifesting himself by his providence and by his grace, and yet the foolish heart of man regardeth it not! See the reason, John 3:19.

Verses 10, 11. He was in the world — From the beginning, frequently appearing, and making known to his servants, the patriarchs and prophets, the divine will, in dreams and visions, and various other ways: and the world was made by him — As has just been shown; and the world, nevertheless, knew him not — Knew not its Maker and Preserver. He came — As the true, the often-predicted, and long-expected Messiah; unto his own — Eiv ta idia, to his own things, namely, his own land; termed, Immanuel’s land; his own city, called the holy city; his own temple, mentioned as such by Malachi 3:1: The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly, or unexpectedly, come to his temple: but, although he answered all the characters given of the Messiah in the Old Testament, oi idioi, his own people, whom he had separated from all the people upon earth, watched over, protected, delivered, and singularly favoured, in a variety of most extraordinary ways, for many ages; received him not — Because he did not countenance and gratify their carnal spirit and worldly views, by coming in that state of wealth, power, and grandeur in which they expected him to come. He came as the prophet like unto Moses, as Moses foretold he should come, (Deuteronomy 18:18, &c.,) and by his holy life, his mighty miracles, extreme sufferings, and glorious resurrection from the dead, proved to a demonstration his divine mission; yet they received him not, because his doctrine contradicted their prejudices, censured their vices, and laid a restraint upon their lusts. He came as the High-priest of their profession, and a Mediator between God and man; but, depending on their being Abraham’s seed, on the ceremony of circumcision, on the Aaronical priesthood and the expiations of their law, and, in general, on their own righteousness, they received him not in these characters. He came as a Redeemer and Saviour; but not feeling, nor even seeing, their want of the redemption and salvation which are through him, and having no desire of any such spiritual blessings, they received him not, in any such relations. He came as the King set upon God’s holy hill of Zion, Psalms 2:6Psalm 2:6; the righteous branch raised unto David, the king that was to reign and prosper, and to execute justice and judgment in the earth, Jeremiah 23:5, 6; Zion’s king, that was to come to her, just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, Zechariah 9:9: but, as his kingdom was not of this world, not earthly, but heavenly, not carnal, but spiritual, and they did not desire one of another world, they would not receive him; declaring openly, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Ver. 10, 11. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own, and his own received him not. Laur. Valla, canon of the Vatican at Rome, died in 1465. In literature he appeared as a morning star after the dark ages. Epitaph.

Laurens Valla jacet, Romanæ gloria linguæ:

Primus enim docuit quâ decet arte loqui.

His note on these words of John is, To what does [the pronoun eum] him refer? Certainly to Verbum the Word, Logos being of the masculine gender, as in ver. 12, even to them that believe on his name, and in John 2:23. Against the Arians who contend that those phrases import, to believe in God, and to believe God, our venerable author quotes a host of texts which cover this heretical logic with shame and confusion. Many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did: John 2:23. Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life: John 3:15. God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved: John 3:17. Now to say that these places are equivalent to, believe in God, and to believe God, is altogether affected; and especially in the words which follow. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore to him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? What dost thou work? John 6:29, 30.

Against the above passages, the words in John 5:24; have been adduced. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my words, and believeth in him who sent me, hath eternal life. It is contended that these expressions are coincident with believing God, or believing in God. They are not indeed coincident, though associated in the same recital; for if I believe Jesus to be God, doubtless I believe him, or in him, as is proved by the words which follow. “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believe not;” that is, you have not believed me to be the Christ, the Son of God: John 6:36. — VALLA.

10. He was in the world—This clause confirms the interpretation just given of the previous verse, which refers the coming into the world to the Logos. Made by him—The Creator came into the world which he had created, but was unrecognized by the world; partly because he was disguised in the incarnation, and partly because the world, that is, the natural heart of man, refused to use the light mentioned in the ninth verse, and so became the darkness which comprehended not the light.

V. 11. He came-In the fulness of time,

to his own-Country, city, temple:

And his own-People, received him not.

Verse 11. He came unto his own] ta idia-to those of his own family, city, country:-and his own people, oi idioi-his own citizens, brethren, subjects.

The Septuagint, Josephus, and Arrian, use these words, ta idioi and oi idioi, in the different senses given them above.

Received him not.] Would not acknowledge him as the Messiah, nor believe in him for salvation.

How very similar to this are the words of Creeshna, (an incarnation of the Supreme Being, according to the theology of the ancient Hindoos!) Addressing one of his disciples, he says: “The foolish, being unacquainted with my supreme and divine nature, as Lord of all things, despise me in this human form; trusting to the evil, diabolic, and deceitful principle within them. They are of vain hope, of vain endeavours, of vain wisdom, and void of reason; whilst men of great minds, trusting to their divine natures, discover that I am before all things, and incorruptible, and serve me with their hearts undiverted by other beings.” See Bhagvat Geeta, p. 79. To receive Christ is to acknowledge him as the promised Messiah; to believe in him as the victim that bears away the sin of the world; to obey his Gospel, and to become a partaker of his holiness, without which no man, on the Gospel plan, can ever see God.

Verses 10, 11. He was in the world — From the beginning, frequently appearing, and making known to his servants, the patriarchs and prophets, the divine will, in dreams and visions, and various other ways: and the world was made by him — As has just been shown; and the world, nevertheless, knew him not — Knew not its Maker and Preserver. He came — As the true, the often-predicted, and long-expected Messiah; unto his own — Eiv ta idia, to his own things, namely, his own land; termed, Immanuel’s land; his own city, called the holy city; his own temple, mentioned as such by Malachi 3:1: The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly, or unexpectedly, come to his temple: but, although he answered all the characters given of the Messiah in the Old Testament, oi idioi, his own people, whom he had separated from all the people upon earth, watched over, protected, delivered, and singularly favoured, in a variety of most extraordinary ways, for many ages; received him not — Because he did not countenance and gratify their carnal spirit and worldly views, by coming in that state of wealth, power, and grandeur in which they expected him to come. He came as the prophet like unto Moses, as Moses foretold he should come, (Deuteronomy 18:18, &c.,) and by his holy life, his mighty miracles, extreme sufferings, and glorious resurrection from the dead, proved to a demonstration his divine mission; yet they received him not, because his doctrine contradicted their prejudices, censured their vices, and laid a restraint upon their lusts. He came as the High-priest of their profession, and a Mediator between God and man; but, depending on their being Abraham’s seed, on the ceremony of circumcision, on the Aaronical priesthood and the expiations of their law, and, in general, on their own righteousness, they received him not in these characters. He came as a Redeemer and Saviour; but not feeling, nor even seeing, their want of the redemption and salvation which are through him, and having no desire of any such spiritual blessings, they received him not, in any such relations. He came as the King set upon God’s holy hill of Zion, Psalms 2:6Psalm 2:6; the righteous branch raised unto David, the king that was to reign and prosper, and to execute justice and judgment in the earth, Jeremiah 23:5, 6; Zion’s king, that was to come to her, just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, Zechariah 9:9: but, as his kingdom was not of this world, not earthly, but heavenly, not carnal, but spiritual, and they did not desire one of another world, they would not receive him; declaring openly, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Ver. 10, 11. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own, and his own received him not. Laur. Valla, canon of the Vatican at Rome, died in 1465. In literature he appeared as a morning star after the dark ages. Epitaph.

Laurens Valla jacet, Romanæ gloria linguæ:

Primus enim docuit quâ decet arte loqui.

His note on these words of John is, To what does [the pronoun eum] him refer? Certainly to Verbum the Word, Logos being of the masculine gender, as in ver. 12, even to them that believe on his name, and in John 2:23. Against the Arians who contend that those phrases import, to believe in God, and to believe God, our venerable author quotes a host of texts which cover this heretical logic with shame and confusion. Many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did: John 2:23. Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life: John 3:15. God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved: John 3:17. Now to say that these places are equivalent to, believe in God, and to believe God, is altogether affected; and especially in the words which follow. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore to him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? What dost thou work? John 6:29, 30.

Against the above passages, the words in John 5:24; have been adduced. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my words, and believeth in him who sent me, hath eternal life. It is contended that these expressions are coincident with believing God, or believing in God. They are not indeed coincident, though associated in the same recital; for if I believe Jesus to be God, doubtless I believe him, or in him, as is proved by the words which follow. “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believe not;” that is, you have not believed me to be the Christ, the Son of God: John 6:36. — VALLA.

11. To his own—This word own is in the plural neuter, and signifies own things, possessions, or properties. The second own is in the plural masculine, and signifies his own living beings; that is, men. As the landlord comes to his own estates, but his own tenants receive him not, so the Logos came to his own world of things, and his own world of creatures, men, did not receive him. This does not refer to his rejecters as Jews or as his countrymen, but to men, as his own responsible subjects.

V. 12. But as many as received him-Jews or Gentiles; that believe on his name-That is, on him. The moment they believe, they are sons; and because they are sons, God sendeth forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Verse 12. Gave he power] exousian, Privilege, honour, dignity, or right. He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest privilege which the Divine Being can confer on this side eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ, as he is offered to them in the Gospel, have, through his blood, a right to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased; and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe. And those who are engrafted in the heavenly family have the highest honour and dignity to which it is possible for a human soul to arrive. What an astonishing thought is this! The sinner, who was an heir to all God’s curses, has, through the sacrifice of Jesus, a claim on the mercy of the Most High, and a right to be saved! Even justice itself, on the ground of its holy and eternal nature, gives salvation to the vilest who take refuge in this atonement; for justice has nothing to grant, or Heaven to give, which the blood of the Son of God has not merited.

Verses 12, 13. But as many as received him — As the true Messiah, and according to the various offices and characters which he sustains: learning of him, as a teacher, the infinitely important lessons of his grace; relying on him with penitent and believing hearts, as a mediator, that is, on his sacrifice and intercession, for acceptance with God; applying to him, in faith and prayer, as a Redeemer and Saviour, for the redemption and salvation which he has to bestow; as many as are subject to him as their King and Governor, and prepare to meet him as their Judge: to them — Whether Jews or Gentiles; gave he power — Or privilege, as exousian implies; to become the sons of God — To stand related to him, not merely as subjects to their king, or servants to their master, but as children to their father; being taken under his peculiar protection, direction, and care; being favoured with liberty of access to him, and intercourse with him, and constituted his heirs, and joint heirs with Christ of the heavenly inheritance: even to them that believe on his name — With their hearts unto righteousness, or with a faith working by love. Nor are they constituted his children merely by adoption, but they are made such also and especially by regeneration, being born, not of blood — Not by descent from Abraham; nor by the will of the flesh — By natural generation, or by the power of corrupt nature; nor by the will of man — Circumcising or baptizing them; but of God — By his Spirit creating them anew.

Ver. 12. To them gave he power to become the sons of God. Our Lord formed the christian church into the new Israel of God. Every believer in his name became a child, according to the promise. He belonged to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. So it is still; these are born, not of the flesh, and the life of sin, but of God, because they have their principle of life emanating from him. They live not in the flesh, but Christ lives in them. Hence they are heirs of God; yes, both of earth and heaven. The word exousia implies their full right and power to all the privileges of adoption; and so it is rendered in Revelation 22:14, that they may have a right to the tree of life. Let us then love God, and his children; let us walk worthy of our vocation, and keep ourselves unspotted from the world.

12. But—There were happy exceptions. Power—Not so much ability as right, prerogative. Sons—Rather, children. His name—Which stands for all that his name comprehends. Our faith must embrace Christ in his fulness. And with how transcendent a fulness does the Evangelist’s description endow him! To receive him is faith in act. It is not, as Olshausen says, a mere susceptibility, but an activity; an appropriation of Christ by a free putting forth of the will.

V. 13. Who were born-Who became the sons of God, not of blood-Not by descent from Abraham, nor by the will of the flesh-By natural generation, nor by the will of man-Adopting them,

but of God-By his Spirit.

Verse 13. Which were born, not of blood] Who were regenerated, ouk ex aimatwn, not of bloods-the union of father and mother, or of a distinguished or illustrious ancestry; for the Hebrew language makes use of the plural to point out the dignity or excellence of a thing: and probably by this the evangelist intended to show his countrymen, that having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant; as no man could lay claim to them, but in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh-any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man-any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God-through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone. It has been already observed that the Jews required circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, in order to make a proselyte. They allow that the Israelites had in Egypt cast off circumcision, and were consequently out of the covenant; but at length they were circumcised, and they mingled the blood of circumcision with the blood of the paschal lamb, and from this union of bloods they were again made the children of God. See Lightfoot. This was the only way by which the Jews could be made the sons of God; but the evangelist shows them that, under the Gospel dispensation, no person could become a child of God, but by being spiritually regenerated.

Verses 12, 13. But as many as received him — As the true Messiah, and according to the various offices and characters which he sustains: learning of him, as a teacher, the infinitely important lessons of his grace; relying on him with penitent and believing hearts, as a mediator, that is, on his sacrifice and intercession, for acceptance with God; applying to him, in faith and prayer, as a Redeemer and Saviour, for the redemption and salvation which he has to bestow; as many as are subject to him as their King and Governor, and prepare to meet him as their Judge: to them — Whether Jews or Gentiles; gave he power — Or privilege, as exousian implies; to become the sons of God — To stand related to him, not merely as subjects to their king, or servants to their master, but as children to their father; being taken under his peculiar protection, direction, and care; being favoured with liberty of access to him, and intercourse with him, and constituted his heirs, and joint heirs with Christ of the heavenly inheritance: even to them that believe on his name — With their hearts unto righteousness, or with a faith working by love. Nor are they constituted his children merely by adoption, but they are made such also and especially by regeneration, being born, not of blood — Not by descent from Abraham; nor by the will of the flesh — By natural generation, or by the power of corrupt nature; nor by the will of man — Circumcising or baptizing them; but of God — By his Spirit creating them anew.

13. Which were born—Though the term regeneration but seldom appears in Scripture, yet the terms which variously express it are abundant. Not of blood—As the blood of the parent flows into the veins of the offspring. Nor of the will of the flesh—Nor from the carnal impulse of sensual nature. Nor of the will of man—Though the will of man be a previous condition upon which God regenerates, the will of man does not regenerate either another man or himself. Self-regeneration is an impossibility in fact and an absurdity in thought. Man consents, and God regenerates. Man repents, and God forgives. Man turns, and God converts. Man believes, and God justifies. But antecedent to either or all of these operations the divine Logos ENLIGHTENS every man, (verse 9,) both by his own truth and power and by his Holy Spirit sent into the heart.

V. 14. Flesh sometimes signifies corrupt nature; sometimes the body; sometimes, as here, the whole man.

We beheld his glory-We his apostles, particularly Peter, James, and John, Luke 9:32.

Grace and truth-We are all by nature liars and children of wrath, to whom both grace and truth are unknown. But we are made partakers of them, when we are accepted through the Beloved.

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

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

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

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

2. It signifies to erect such a building as was used on festival occasions, when a man invited and enjoyed the company of his friends. To this meaning of the word, which is a common one in the best Greek writers, the evangelist might allude, to point out Christ’s associating his disciples with himself; living, conversing, eating, and drinking with them: so that, while they had the fullest proof of his Divinity by the miracles which he wrought, they had the clearest evidence of his humanity, by his tabernacling among, eating, drinking, and conversing with them. Concerning the various acceptations of the verb skhnow see Raphelius on this verse. The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the incarnation of the Deity have prevailed among the most ancient nations in the world, and even among those which were not favoured with the letter of Divine revelation. The Hindoos believe that their god has already become incarnate, not less than nine times, to save the wretched race of man.

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

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

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

—————————————————————

(a) Bood-dha. The name of the Deity, as author of happiness. (b) O’M. A mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters a, o o, which in composition coalesce, and make o, and the nasal consonant m. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer. It is the same among the Hindoos as hwhy Yehovah is among the Hebrews. (c) Brahma, the Deity in his creative quality.

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

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

(f) Damordara, or Darmadeve, the Indian god of virtue. We beheld his glory] This refers to the transfiguration, at which John was present, in company with Peter and James.

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

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

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

Verse 14. And the Word, &c. — And in order to raise us, sinful creatures, to this dignity and happiness, the Divine and Eternal Word, by a most amazing condescension; was made flesh — That is, united himself to our inferior and miserable nature, with all its innocent infirmities. If it be inquired how he did this, we answer, in the language of the Creed, “Not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” Observe, reader, the whole manhood, the complete human nature, consisting of soul and body, and not the body only. Accordingly, we read, (Luke 2:52,) that Jesus increased in wisdom as well as stature, having, as man, 1st, A finite understanding, which gradually received information and knowledge. 2d, A will of his own, distinct from, but resigned to, the will of his heavenly Father; in consequence of which he could say, I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me: Father, not my will, but thine be done. 3d, All the innocent human passions and affections, such as, desire; with desire have I desired to eat this passover, &c., Luke 22:15: aversion; Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, Luke 22:42: hope; for the felicity set before him, and expected by him, he endured the cross, &c., Hebrews 12:2: fear; he was heard in that he feared, Hebrews 5:7: joy; Jesus rejoiced in spirit, Luke 10:21: sorrow; my soul is exceeding sorrowful, Matthew 26:38: a peculiar human love; the disciple whom Jesus loved, John 21:20: all which faculties belonged not to his body, but to his soul. When we read, therefore, that he was made flesh, partook of flesh and blood, (Hebrews 2:14,) came in the flesh, (1 John 4:2,) was manifest in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16,) had a body prepared for him, (Hebrews 10:5,) we must remember, that the whole human nature is intended to be signified by such expressions, and not the body only. It is, however, justly observed by Bishop Horne on this point, that “As the Divinity is an object by no means within the grasp of the human understanding, it were absurd to expect an adequate idea of the mode of its union with flesh, expressed in the text by the word made; (egeneto;) The word was made flesh. It sufficeth, in this case, to maintain the general truth of the proposition against those, who, in different ways, by subtlety and sophistry, have laboured to oppugn and destroy. We must not, with Arius, deny the Saviour to be truly God, because he became man; nor assert, with Apollinaris, that he was not really man, because he was also God. We must not, with Nestorius, rend Christ asunder, and divide him into two persons; nor, after the example of Eutyches, confound in his person those natures which should be distinguished. These were the four capital errors, which, in the earlier ages, harassed and distracted the Christian church, on the point of the incarnation; and in opposition to which, the four most famous ancient general councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were called. Whatever was by them decreed, either in declaration of Christian belief, or refutation of heresy, may all be comprised, as judicious Hooker well noteth, in four words, alhqwv, telewv, adiairetwv, asuncutwv, ‘truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; truly God, perfectly man, indivisibly one person, distinctly two natures.’ ‘Within the compass of which,’ said he, ‘I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch the person of Jesus Christ, (whether they have risen in these latter days, or in any age heretofore,) may be with great facility brought to confine themselves.’ Book 5. sect. 54. The apostle to the Hebrews, writing on the subject of the incarnation, thus expresseth himself: ou gar dhpou aggelwn epilambanetai, alla spermatov Abraam epilambanetai, He

taketh not hold of angels, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham; he took, or assumed, the manhood into God. As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. The soul is not turned into, nor compounded with, the body; yet they two, though distinct in nature, form one man. The natures are preserved, without confusion; the person is entire, without division. ‘Sic factum est Caro, ut maneret verbum; non immutando quod erat, sed assumendo quod non erat; nostra auxit, sua non minuit; nec sacramentum pietatis detrimentum Deitatis.’ Concil. Chalced.” — Horne’s Sermons, vol. 1. pp. 203-205.

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

Ver. 14. The WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Here the divine and human nature of Christ is asserted. He is the God-man: his two natures are so united as to become one person, and yet without confusion of substance. His divine nature is not mixed with the human. The humanity of Christ consists of a real body, and a rational soul, gloriously ennobled as the temple of God, and so much so, that in him dwelt all the fulness of the godhead bodily.

JEHOVAH the Angel, is only another term for JEHOVAH the Word, who walked with the patriarchs, resided on the mercyseat, and dwelt among us incarnate for the help of man.

While he dwelt among us in the flesh, he discovered a glory worthy of the only-begotten of the Father. This was apparent from his wisdom, and grace, and miracles; but more especially from the glory of his baptism, his transfiguration and ascension, as explained in Matthew 3:17. Acts 1:9. This shekinah, doxa, or glory which surrounded the person of Christ, was the identical glory seen in the desert by Moses, when he saw the backward parts of the incarnate Messiah. Exodus 33:18-23. It was seen also by the holy prophets. Isaiah 6:5. John 12:41. Habakkuk 3:3. Ezekiel 1:10. This glory decidedly shows that the Lord Jesus, according to the Nicene Creed, is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, being one substance with the Father.

14. Word was made flesh—So that which in the first verse was God, now is made flesh, God incarnate. He is made flesh not by ceasing to be Logos or God, but by investing himself with humanity. He does not become body; for that might imply that the Logos was the proper soul of the body and the substitute for a human soul. The incarnate is one Christ, perfect man and perfect God. Dwelt among us—There are in the Old Testament appearances of the angel-Jehovah, which have every proof of being transient manifestations of God himself to man. But their phenomenal bodies were not truly flesh, and so the Divine dwelt not among men permanently, but only appeared transiently. His glory—Moses on the contrary could not stand the effulgence of Jehovah. See Exodus 33:18-23. John beheld in vision the glory of Christ, (Revelation 1:12-17,) and fell as dead. The apostles beheld his glory at the transfiguration, and were struck with stupor. But this effulgence to the senses is but the symbol of that divinity which shone in the spirit, the words, and the works of the Incarnate. Only begotten of the Father—He who has thus far been styled the Word is now viewed as the Son. The terms we think beyond all question express essentially the same thing. Remove all physical elements from both, and conceive the pure spiritual import, and they express an ineffable derivation of the second person of the Trinity, in his divine nature, from the first person. We most easily conceive it as identical with the distinction between God as the eternal, unknowable background, and God as self-manifesting. Both are living God. But the latter is the living Word, the living Son, uttered, generated from the former. The difference between the Word and Son is, that, while the former most distinctly expresses revelation, the latter expresses personality. But as the former implies no physical lips or voice in the utterance, so the latter expresses no sex or real physical begetting. Full— This adjective agrees with the term Word. Of grace and truth—Grace to bring salvation to man; truth to guide him in the way to that salvation.

V. 15. John cried-With joy and confidence;

This is he of whom I said-John had said this before our Lord's baptism, although he then knew him not in person: he knew him first at his baptism, and afterward cried, This is he of whom I said. &c. He is preferred before me-in his office:

for he was before me-in his nature.

Verse 15. Of him] The glorious personage before mentioned: John the Baptist, whose history was well known to the persons to whom this Gospel came in the beginning, bare witness; and he cried,-being deeply convinced of the importance and truth of the subject, he delivered his testimony with the utmost zeal and earnestness,-saying, This is he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me-for I am no other than the voice of the crier in the wilderness, Isaiah 40:3, the forerunner of the Messiah. Was before me.] Speaking by the prophets, and warning your fathers to repent and return to God, as I now warn you; for he was before me-he was from eternity, and from him I have derived both my being and my ministry.

Verse 15. John bare witness of him, saying, This is he, &c. — “This might probably happen at the time when Jesus made his first appearance among those that came to be baptized by John; when, at his offering to receive his baptism, though John before had been a stranger to him, and knew him not by any personal acquaintance with him, yet, by some powerful impression on his 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 plainly from his knowledge of him, that John at first would have declined baptizing him as an honour of which he looked upon himself to be unworthy. Nor is it to be doubted, 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 been ready to conclude from the uncommon veneration and respect with which the Baptist treated him, who had been always used to treat men with the greatest plainness.” He that cometh after me is preferred before me — Namely, by God. “Erasmus supposes, that John here refers to the honours which he knew had been paid to Jesus in his infancy, by the angel who announced his birth to the shepherds; by the shepherds themselves; by the eastern sages; by Simeon and Anna; honours which could not be paralleled by any thing which had happened to him. But the words seem to have a more extensive meaning, comprehending the superior dignity of Christ’s nature, office, commission, and exaltation, as Mediator. See Matthew 3:11, the passage here referred to. 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 must undoubtedly refer to the state of glory in which Christ existed before his incarnation, of which the Baptist speaks so plainly, John 3:31.” See Doddridge and Macknight.

15. John bare witness of him—Our Evangelist adduces the Baptist’s testimony not to prove (as he will in verses 19-34) that Jesus, and not himself, was the Messiah; but to prove what he is just now saying, that the Messiah was truly of this exalted nature. And cried—The great truth was maintained with a cry; a lofty voice that made the wilderness ring. Cometh after me… preferred before me—Put in the form of a paradox; my successor is my predecessor. He is my successor in time, my predecessor in a previous eternity. This was indeed crying up the divine Comer to his true divine height. For he was before me—Literally, he was my First. Not merely my former, but my absolute FIRST: first in the train of all my predecessors; therefore at the eternal beginning. The quotation of the Baptist’s words embraces but this verse, and then follows the Evangelist in continuance.

V. 16. And-Here the apostle confirms the Baptist's words: as if he had said, He is indeed preferred before thee: so we have experienced: We all-That believe:

have received-All that we enjoy out of his fulness: and in the particular, grace upon grace-One blessing upon another, immeasurable grace and love.

Verse 16. This verse should be put in place of the fifteenth, and the 15th inserted between the 18th and 19th, which appears to be its proper place: thus John’s testimony is properly connected. {John 1:15-19} And of his fulness] Of the plenitude of his grace and mercy, by which he made an atonement for sin; and of the plenitude of his wisdom and truth, by which the mysteries of heaven have been revealed, and the science of eternal truth taught, we have all received: all we apostles have received grace or mercy to pardon our sins, and truth to enable us so to write and speak, concerning these things, that those who attend to our testimony shall be unerringly directed in the way of salvation, and with us continue to receive grace upon grace, one blessing after another, till they are filled with all the fulness of God. I believe the above to be the meaning of the evangelist, and think it improper to distract the mind of the reader with the various translations and definitions which have been given of the phrase, grace for grace. It is only necessary to add, that John seems here to refer to the Gospel as succeeding the law: the law was certainly a dispensation both of grace and truth; for it pointed out the gracious design of God to save men by Christ Jesus; and it was at least a most expressive and well-defined shadow of good things to come: but the Gospel, which had now taken place, introduced that plenitude of grace and truth to the whole world, which the law had only shadowed forth to the Jewish people, and which they imagined should have been restrained to themselves alone. In the most gracious economy of God, one dispensation of mercy and truth is designed to make way for, and to be followed by, another and a greater: thus the law succeeded the patriarchal dispensation, and the Gospel the law; more and more of the plenitude of the grace of the Gospel becomes daily manifest to the genuine followers of Christ; and, to those who are faithful unto death, a heaven full of eternal glory will soon succeed to the grace of the Gospel. To illustrate this point more fully, the following passage in Philo the Jew has been adduced: “God is always sparing of his first blessings or graces, (prwtav caritav,) and afterwards gives other graces upon them, (antJ ekeinwn,) and a third sort upon the second, and always new ones upon old ones, sometimes of a different kind, and at other times of the same sort.” Vol. i. p. 254, ed. Mang. In the above passage the preposition anti for, is used thrice in the sense of epi, upon. To confirm the above interpretation Bp. Pearce produces the following quotations. Ecclus xxvi. 15: cariv epi cariti gunh aiscunthra-A modest woman is a grace upon a grace, i.e. a double grace or blessing. Euripides uses the very same phrase with John, where he makes Theoclymenus say to Helena. cariv anti caritov elqetw, May grace upon grace come to you! Helen v. 1250. ed. Barn.

Verse 16. And of his fulness have all we received — These are not the words of the Baptist, as the expression, we all, shows; for those to whom he addressed himself do not appear to have received grace from Christ. But here the evangelist confirms the Baptist’s words, spoken in the preceding verse; as if he had said, He is indeed preferred before thee: so we have experienced: for we all, that is, I, John, the apostle, and my brethren, the other apostles, and all that truly believe in him, have received from his fulness, from the plenitude of truth and grace which are in him, all the blessings we enjoy, whether as men, as Christians, or as apostles. “But what,” says Dr. Campbell, “is the import of the clause, grace for grace? Is it that we receive grace in return for the grace we give? So says Le Clerc, availing himself of an ambiguity in the Greek word cariv, which (like grace in French) signifies not only a favour bestowed, but thanks returned: and maintaining that the sense is, that God gives more grace to those who are thankful for that formerly received; a position which, however just, it requires an extraordinary turn of imagination to discover in this passage. Is it, as many render it, grace upon grace, that is, grace added to grace? I should not dislike this interpretation, if this meaning of the preposition, anti, in Scripture, were well supported. It always there denotes, if I mistake not, instead of, answering to, or in return for. Is it a mere pleonasm? Does it mean (as Grotius would have it) grace gratuitous? I do not say that such pleonastic expressions are unexampled in Sacred Writ; but I do say, that this sense given to the idiom is unexampled. The word in such cases is dwrean, as Romans 3:24, Diakaioumenoi dwrean th autou cariti, justified freely by his grace. If, instead of giving scope to fancy, we attend to the context, and the construction of the words, we shall not need to wander so far in quest of the meaning. In verse 14 we are informed that the word became incarnate, and sojourned among us, full of grace and truth. It is plain that the 15th verse, containing the Baptist’s declaration, must be understood as a parenthesis. And it actually is understood so by all expositors; inasmuch as they make autou [his] here refer to logov [the Word] in verse 14. The evangelist, resuming the subject which (for the sake of inserting John’s testimony) he had interrupted, tells us, that all we his disciples, particularly his apostles, have received of his fulness. But of what was he full? It had been said expressly, that he was full of grace. When, therefore, the historian brings this additional clause concerning grace in explanation of the former, is it not manifestly his intention to inform us, that of every grace wherewith he was filled, his disciples received a share? The Word incarnate, he says, resided among us, full of grace and truth; and of his fulness all we have received, even grace for his grace; that is, of every grace, or celestial gift, conferred above measure upon him, his disciples have received a portion according to their measure. If there should remain a doubt whether this were the sense of the passage, the words immediately following seem calculated to remove it. For the law was given by Moses, the grace and the truth came by Jesus Christ. Here the evangelist intimates, that Jesus Christ was as truly the channel of divine grace to his disciples, as Moses had been of the knowledge of God’s law to the Israelites.” If, however, the reader prefer adhering to the common translation, it seems it may be supported by the frequent use of the preposition anti. Thus Romans 12:17, Recompense to no man (kakon anti kakou) evil for evil, or, in return for evil. According to this translation, the meaning of the passage will be, that under the gospel dispensation, all men receive grace for grace, that is, privileges and advantages, in proportion to the improvement which they make of those already bestowed on them.

Ver. 16. Grace for grace. More abundant grace; for if the ministration of condemnation was glorious, the ministration of righteousness exceeds in glory. Romans 5:15. Christ from his fulness inspired the prophets, and endowed the apostles with power from on high; they received the grace of apostleship for the work of grace in the ministry. These words have indeed many comments, but as the law came by Moses, so grace and truth, or redemption and the ministry of grace came by Jesus Christ. — See an elaborate skeleton on this text in Claude’s composition of a Sermon.

16. Of his fulness—Namely, of grace and truth, as mentioned in verse 14. All we received—This all embraces all men; being spoken in our character as men. Grace for grace—Grace additionally bestowed for grace improved. As light previously implanted by the Logos in man is necessary for his reception of light, so grace fundamentally bestowed upon man is the basis of all his possible reception of further grace. But that first grace—”a gracious ability”—must be exerted by the free will of the agent; and then the Only Begotten adds grace additionally bestowed for grace originally improved.

V. 17. The law-Working wrath and containing shadows: was given-No philosopher, poet, or orator, ever chose his words so accurately as St. John.

The law, saith he, was given by Moses: grace was by Jesus Christ. Observe the reason for placing each word thus: The law of Moses was not his own. The grace of Christ was. His grace was opposite to the wrath, his truth to the shadowy ceremonies of the law.

Jesus-St. John having once mentioned the incarnation {John 1:14,) no more uses that name, the Word, in all his book.

Verse 17. The law was given by Moses] Moses received the law from God, and through him it was given to the Jews, Acts 7:38. But grace and truth] Which he had already mentioned, and which were to be the subject of the book which he was now writing, came to all mankind through Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, as Moses was of the old: Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; Galatians 3:19. See a fine discourse on this text by Mr. Claude, “Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,” vol. i. p. 119, &c. edit. Lond. 1788.

The law of Moses, however excellent in itself, was little in comparison of the Gospel: as it proceeded from the justice and holiness of God, and was intended to convict men of sin, that the way of the Gospel might be the better prepared, it was a law of rigour, condemnation, and death: Romans 4:15; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 8. It was a law of shadows, types, and figures: Hebrews 10:1, and incapable of expiating sin by its sacrifices: Romans 8:3; Hebrews 7:18, 19; 10:1, 11. But Christ has brought that grace which is opposed to condemnation: Romans 5:15, 20, 21; 8:1; Galatians 3:10; and he is himself the spirit and substance of all those shadows: Colossians 2:19; Hebrews 10:1. Jesus Christ.] JESUS the CHRIST, the Messiah, or anointed prophet, priest, and king, sent from heaven. To what has already been said on the important name Jesus, (See Matthew 1:21, and the places there referred to,) I shall add the following explanation, chiefly taken from Professor Schultens, who has given a better view of the ideal meaning of the root [vy yasha, than any other divine or critic.

He observes that this root, in its true force, meaning, and majesty, both in Hebrew and Arabic, includes the ideas of amplitude, expansion, and space, and should be translated, he was spacious-open-ample; and, particularly, he possessed a spacious or extensive degree or rank: and is applied, 1. To a person possessing abundance of riches. 2. To one possessing abundant power. 3. To one possessing abundant or extensive knowledge. 4. To one possessing abundance of happiness, beatitude, and glory. Hence we may learn the true meaning of Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion-behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is JUST, and having SALVATION:-[yvwh-he is possessed of all power to enrich, strengthen, teach, enlarge, and raise to glory and happiness, them who trust in him. Man by nature is in want and poverty: in abjectness and weakness: in darkness and ignorance: in straits and captivity: in wretchedness and infamy. His Redeemer is called ישועה JESUS-he who looses, enlarges, and endows with salvation. 1. He enriches man’s poverty: 2. strengthens his weakness: 3. teaches his ignorance: 4. brings him out of straits and difficulties: and 5. raises him to happiness, beatitude, and glory. And the aggregate of these is SALVATION. Hence that saying, His name shall be called JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. See Schultens Origines Hebrææ, p. 15.

Verse 17. For the law — Working wrath, and containing shadows; was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ — Grace, opposed to the condemnation and wrath by the law, and truth, opposed to the ceremonies thereof. Further, in the gospel we have a discovery of the most important truths to be received by the understanding, as well as of the richest grace to be embraced by the will and affections. It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation; that is, it is truth and grace. The offers of grace are sincere, and what we may venture our souls upon. The gospel is grace and truth, with reference to the law; for, 1st, It is the performance of all the Old Testament promises. 2d, It is the substance of all the Old Testament types and shadows. There was a measure of grace, both in the ordinances that were instituted for Israel, and the providences that were concerning Israel; but they were only shadows of good things to come, even of that grace which is brought to us by the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the true paschal lamb, the true scape-goat, the true manna. They had grace in the sign and picture, we have it in the thing signified and the reality. Because, in this passage, the apostle, speaking of the law, says, edoqh, it was given by Moses; but that grace and truth, egeneto, was, or came by Jesus Christ, Erasmus supposes, that the expressions were meant to imply, that whereas Moses was only the messenger of the law, Christ was the original of the grace and truth he brought into the world by the gospel. But it must be observed, that the preposition dia, through, is here used of Christ as well as of Moses, so that, in this passage, both of them seem to be represented as messengers, though of very different dispensations, and the former of infinitely greater dignity than the latter.

Ver. 17. The law was given by Moses, declaring the holiness of God, and making the deformity of sin manifest as in a mirror; and pronouncing condemnation on a guilty race. But grace, the great love of God in the gift of his Son, and all things with him — and truth came by Jesus Christ, the true God, and eternal life. He is the truth of all the prophecies and promises of revelation; the very paschal lamb, the food of the soul, the rock of ages. The shadows of the law vanish away, but Christ in his temple abides for ever.

17. The law was given by Moses—The law is the expression of absolute justice, which in itself knows not grace nor mercy. This was given from God to men by Moses; but if there were nobody better than Moses, we should have had nothing but law alone. There would have been no grace to bring salvation from its penalty; no consequent truth to reveal that grace. These came, even into the Old Testament dispensation, by Jesus Christ. All the mixture of grace with law in the Old Testament is from Christ.

V. 18. No man hath seen God-With bodily eyes: yet believers see him with the eye of faith.

Who is in the bosom of the Father-The expression denotes the highest unity, and the most intimate knowledge.

Verse 18. No man hath seen God at any time] Moses and others heard his voice, and saw the cloud and the fire, which were the symbols of his presence; but such a manifestation of God as had now taken place, in the person of Jesus Christ, had never before been exhibited to the world. It is likely that the word seen, here, is put for known, as in John 3:32; 1 John 3:2, 6, and 3John 1:11; and this sense the latter clause of the verse seems to require:-No man, how highly soever favoured, hath fully known God, at any time, in any nation or age; the only begotten Son, (see Clarke on “John 1:14”,) who is in the bosom of the Father, who was intimately acquainted with all the counsels of the Most High, he hath declared him, exhghsato, hath announced the Divine oracles unto men; for in this sense the word is used by the best Greek writers. See Kypke in loco. 1095

Lying in the bosom, is spoken of in reference to the Asiatic custom of reclining while at meals; the person who was next the other was said to lie in his bosom; and he who had this place in reference to the master of the feast was supposed to share his peculiar regards, and so be in a state of the utmost favour and intimacy with him.

Verse 18. No man hath seen God at any time — Nor, indeed, can see him as he is, an incorporeal, and, therefore, an invisible Being: but the only- begotten Son, &c. — John, having spoken of the incarnation, now calls Christ by this name, and no more terms him the Word, in all his book; who is in the bosom of the Father — And ever favoured with the most endearing and intimate converse with him. The expression denotes the highest unity, and the most perfect knowledge. He hath declared him — Hath revealed him in a much clearer and fuller manner than he was made known before, and that by such discoveries of his nature, attributes, and will, as have the most powerful tendency to render us holy and happy. The following particulars are evidently implied in this passage: 1st, That, as the nature of God is spiritual, he is invisible to our bodily eyes. He is a Being whose essence no man hath seen or can see, (1 Timothy 1:17, and 6:16,) though Moses and others frequently heard his voice, and saw the bright cloud and external glory, that was a symbol of his presence. 2d, That the revelation, which God made of himself under the Old Testament dispensation, was very inferior to that which he has made by Christ; and what was seen and known of him before Christ’s incarnation was little, in comparison with what may now be seen and known; life and immortality being now brought to light in a far higher degree than they were then. And, 3d, That neither Moses, nor any of the Old Testament prophets, were so well qualified to make God and his will known to mankind, as our Lord Jesus Christ was. They never saw, nor perfectly knew the Divine Being, and his eternal counsels, and therefore could not make a full discovery thereof to men. The only person who ever enjoyed this privilege was the only-begotten Son of God, the Word, which was in the beginning with him, or, as it is here expressed, was, and is, in the bosom of the Father: that is, always was, and is the object of his tenderest, yea, of his infinite affection, complacency, and delight, and the intimate partner of his counsels. And this circumstance recommends Christ’s holy religion to us unspeakably before any others; that it was founded by one that had seen God, or that had clear and perfect knowledge of him, and of his mind and will, which no other person ever had, or could have.

Ver. 18. No man hath seen God at any time. No prophet ever received a communication from the eternal Mind but through the Messiah, the Christ, who has declared his perfect pleasure concerning our redemption. See Proverbs 8:22.

18. No man hath seen God… Son hath declared him—The Evangelist winds up this exordium as he began it, with the declaration that the Son, like the Word, is the manifest God, revealing the God invisible and unknowable. In the 17th verse the Son gives, reveals, grace and truth; in the 18th he is the declarer or revealer of the infinite Unseen. The only begotten—This begetting is as truly figurative as the utterance of the Word is figurative. Derivation and infinite wisdom are expressed in the latter; derivation and infinite power are expressed in the former. Only begotten Son—Mr. Tregelles seems to have established the fact that the true reading is only begotten God. The passage thereby becomes a striking proof-text of the divinity of the Son. In the bosom of the Father—As the Word was in the divine intellect before its incarnation, so the Son was in the love, the bosom, the heart of God, before his earthly birth. The Wordship and the Sonship are equally divine, before the creation and the First Advent, and eternal.

The prologue of the Gospel has now terminated, and the narrative proper commences at this point; to which point the forty days’ Temptation in the Wilderness is the last preceding event. Nor is there, as sceptical critics have pretended, the slightest difficulty in finding ample place for the Temptation at this point.

§ 18. THREEFOLD TESTIMONY OF JOHN THAT JESUS, AND NOT HIMSELF, WAS THE MESSIAH,

V. 19. The Jews-Probably the great council sent.

Verse 19. And this is the record of John] He persisted in this assertion, testifying to the Jews that this Jesus was THE CHRIST.

Verses 19-23. And this is the record of John — This is the testimony which he bare publicly to Jesus; when the Jews — Namely, the senate, or great council of the nation; sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem — Persons of the first consideration for learning and office; to ask him, Who art thou — What character dost thou assume to thyself? It is probable, that the reason why the sanhedrim sent these persons, was their having been informed that the Baptist’s extraordinary sanctity, zeal, and powerful preaching, together with the solemnity of his baptizing, had made such an impression on the people, that they were beginning to think he might be the Messiah. These rulers therefore judged it proper to send persons thus to examine him, because it belonged to them to take cognizance of all matters relating to religion, and especially to judge who were true prophets. And as they were evidently jealous of his increasing popularity, they probably hoped to find in his answers to their questions some pretence for taking measures to silence him, especially as they understood his ministry neither agreed with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah’s kingdom. And he confessed, and denied not, &c. — John, according to the natural plainness of his temper, presently replied to their inquiry; I am not the Christ — As if he had said, I know that the people begin to look on me as their long- expected deliverer, but I tell you plainly, they are mistaken: nor do I in the least pretend to arrogate to myself the honours which are due to none but him. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias — Art thou the Prophet Elijah, who, as the Scriptures tell us, is to arise from the dead, and to appear before the coming of the Messiah? And he saith, I am not — There was here an apparent contradiction to the words of our Lord concerning John, (Matthew 11:14,) This is Elias which was to come. But Jesus, in these words, evidently refers to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5; his purpose being to inform his disciples that John was Elijah in the sense of that prophet, and that his prediction was accomplished in the Baptist, inasmuch as he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. But when the question was here proposed to John, the laws of truth required that he should answer it as he did, namely, according to the sense wherein the words were used by the proposers, who expected that the very Prophet Elijah would come in person before the Messiah should appear: a notion which they entertained very early, as is evident from the Septuagint translation of the passage just referred to in Malachi, idou egw apostellw umin Hlian ton qesbithn, literally, Behold, I send you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord come. Therefore the Baptist, on being asked if he was Elias, could not answer otherwise than in the negative, without rendering himself liable to the charge of equivocating. For though the name of Elias did truly belong to the forerunner of the Messiah, Malachi having called him so, John was not the person whom the people expected, and the priests meant, when they asked him, Art thou Elias? He was not that individual prophet returned from heaven to sojourn again upon the earth. It is justly observed by Grotius here, that the persons who made this inquiry show that they were ignorant of the parentage of John the Baptist, or that they were in doubt concerning it; Art thou that prophet — Whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are daily in expectation? (John 6:14:) or their meaning may have been, Art thou Jeremiah, or any other of the old prophets raised from the dead? for it appears from Matthew 16:14, that they thought the Messiah would be preceded by some such extraordinary personage. And he answered, No — He was a prophet, but not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, nor had he his revelations by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer, &c. — We are sent by the supreme council, who have a right to judge persons pretending a commission from God, as thou seemest to do by baptizing and gathering disciples. It becomes thee, therefore, to give an account of thyself to us, that we may lay it before them who have sent us. And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — John, instead of giving a description of his own character and office, refers those who questioned him to the words of the Prophet Isaiah, in which they would find it; and what he here says of himself, is to be understood no otherwise than we understand what Matthew says of him, (Matthew 3:3,) where see the note. He says, in effect, I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks, Isaiah 40:3. Archbishop Fenelon beautifully illustrates the humility of this reply: as if this illustrious prophet had said, “Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice; a sound, that as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more.” Dr. Campbell renders the clause, I am he whose voice proclaimeth in the wilderness, &c.; observing that, in such declarations, the general purport is alone regarded by the speaker, and that the words, therefore, ought not to be interpreted too grammatically; interpretations to be formed from the manifest scope, and not from the syntactic structure of sentences, being not unfrequent in Scripture. Thus, Revelation 1:12, Epestraya blepein thn fwnhn, literally, I turned to see the voice.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

V. 20. I am not the Christ-For many supposed he was.

Verse 20. He confessed, and denied not; but confessed] A common mode of Jewish phraseology. John renounces himself, that Jesus may be all in all. Though God had highly honoured him, and favoured him with peculiar influence in the discharge of his work, yet he considered he had nothing but what he had received, and therefore, giving all praise to his benefactor, takes care to direct the attention of the people to him alone from whom he had received his mercies. He who makes use of God’s gifts to feed and strengthen his pride and vanity will be sure to be stripped of the goods wherein he trusts, and fall down into the condemnation of the devil. We have nothing but what we have received; we deserve nothing of what we possess; and it is only God’s infinite mercy which keeps us in the possession of the blessings which we now enjoy.

Verses 19-23. And this is the record of John — This is the testimony which he bare publicly to Jesus; when the Jews — Namely, the senate, or great council of the nation; sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem — Persons of the first consideration for learning and office; to ask him, Who art thou — What character dost thou assume to thyself? It is probable, that the reason why the sanhedrim sent these persons, was their having been informed that the Baptist’s extraordinary sanctity, zeal, and powerful preaching, together with the solemnity of his baptizing, had made such an impression on the people, that they were beginning to think he might be the Messiah. These rulers therefore judged it proper to send persons thus to examine him, because it belonged to them to take cognizance of all matters relating to religion, and especially to judge who were true prophets. And as they were evidently jealous of his increasing popularity, they probably hoped to find in his answers to their questions some pretence for taking measures to silence him, especially as they understood his ministry neither agreed with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah’s kingdom. And he confessed, and denied not, &c. — John, according to the natural plainness of his temper, presently replied to their inquiry; I am not the Christ — As if he had said, I know that the people begin to look on me as their long- expected deliverer, but I tell you plainly, they are mistaken: nor do I in the least pretend to arrogate to myself the honours which are due to none but him. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias — Art thou the Prophet Elijah, who, as the Scriptures tell us, is to arise from the dead, and to appear before the coming of the Messiah? And he saith, I am not — There was here an apparent contradiction to the words of our Lord concerning John, (Matthew 11:14,) This is Elias which was to come. But Jesus, in these words, evidently refers to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5; his purpose being to inform his disciples that John was Elijah in the sense of that prophet, and that his prediction was accomplished in the Baptist, inasmuch as he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. But when the question was here proposed to John, the laws of truth required that he should answer it as he did, namely, according to the sense wherein the words were used by the proposers, who expected that the very Prophet Elijah would come in person before the Messiah should appear: a notion which they entertained very early, as is evident from the Septuagint translation of the passage just referred to in Malachi, idou egw apostellw umin Hlian ton qesbithn, literally, Behold, I send you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord come. Therefore the Baptist, on being asked if he was Elias, could not answer otherwise than in the negative, without rendering himself liable to the charge of equivocating. For though the name of Elias did truly belong to the forerunner of the Messiah, Malachi having called him so, John was not the person whom the people expected, and the priests meant, when they asked him, Art thou Elias? He was not that individual prophet returned from heaven to sojourn again upon the earth. It is justly observed by Grotius here, that the persons who made this inquiry show that they were ignorant of the parentage of John the Baptist, or that they were in doubt concerning it; Art thou that prophet — Whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are daily in expectation? (John 6:14:) or their meaning may have been, Art thou Jeremiah, or any other of the old prophets raised from the dead? for it appears from Matthew 16:14, that they thought the Messiah would be preceded by some such extraordinary personage. And he answered, No — He was a prophet, but not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, nor had he his revelations by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer, &c. — We are sent by the supreme council, who have a right to judge persons pretending a commission from God, as thou seemest to do by baptizing and gathering disciples. It becomes thee, therefore, to give an account of thyself to us, that we may lay it before them who have sent us. And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — John, instead of giving a description of his own character and office, refers those who questioned him to the words of the Prophet Isaiah, in which they would find it; and what he here says of himself, is to be understood no otherwise than we understand what Matthew says of him, (Matthew 3:3,) where see the note. He says, in effect, I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks, Isaiah 40:3. Archbishop Fenelon beautifully illustrates the humility of this reply: as if this illustrious prophet had said, “Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice; a sound, that as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more.” Dr. Campbell renders the clause, I am he whose voice proclaimeth in the wilderness, &c.; observing that, in such declarations, the general purport is alone regarded by the speaker, and that the words, therefore, ought not to be interpreted too grammatically; interpretations to be formed from the manifest scope, and not from the syntactic structure of sentences, being not unfrequent in Scripture. Thus, Revelation 1:12, Epestraya blepein thn fwnhn, literally, I turned to see the voice.

20. Not the Christ—Some of his disciples may, in their pride, have given out that their master was the Messiah himself. This committee cross-examine him, and thus draw out a prompt and explicit denial, which our Evangelist adduces to silence all false claimants in John’s behalf.

V. 21. Art thou Elijah?-He was not that Elijah (the Tishbite) of whom they spoke.

Art thou the prophet-Of whom Moses speaks, Deuteronomy 18:15.

Verse 21. Art thou Elias?] The scribes themselves had taught that Elijah was to come before the Messiah. See Matthew 17:10; and this belief of theirs they supported by a literal construction of Malachi 4:5. Art thou that prophet?] the prophet spoken of by Moses,

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18. This text they had also misunderstood: for the prophet or teacher promised by Moses was no other than the Messiah himself. See Acts 3:22. But the Jews had a tradition that Jeremiah was to return to life, and restore the pot of manna, the ark of the covenant, &c., which he had hidden that the Babylonians might not get them. Besides this, they had a general expectation that all the prophets should come to life in the days of the Messiah.

I am not.] I am not the prophet which you expect, nor Elijah: though he was the Elijah that was to come; for in the spirit and power of that eminent prophet he came, proclaiming the necessity of reformation in Israel. See Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13.

Verses 19-23. And this is the record of John — This is the testimony which he bare publicly to Jesus; when the Jews — Namely, the senate, or great council of the nation; sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem — Persons of the first consideration for learning and office; to ask him, Who art thou — What character dost thou assume to thyself? It is probable, that the reason why the sanhedrim sent these persons, was their having been informed that the Baptist’s extraordinary sanctity, zeal, and powerful preaching, together with the solemnity of his baptizing, had made such an impression on the people, that they were beginning to think he might be the Messiah. These rulers therefore judged it proper to send persons thus to examine him, because it belonged to them to take cognizance of all matters relating to religion, and especially to judge who were true prophets. And as they were evidently jealous of his increasing popularity, they probably hoped to find in his answers to their questions some pretence for taking measures to silence him, especially as they understood his ministry neither agreed with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah’s kingdom. And he confessed, and denied not, &c. — John, according to the natural plainness of his temper, presently replied to their inquiry; I am not the Christ — As if he had said, I know that the people begin to look on me as their long- expected deliverer, but I tell you plainly, they are mistaken: nor do I in the least pretend to arrogate to myself the honours which are due to none but him. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias — Art thou the Prophet Elijah, who, as the Scriptures tell us, is to arise from the dead, and to appear before the coming of the Messiah? And he saith, I am not — There was here an apparent contradiction to the words of our Lord concerning John, (Matthew 11:14,) This is Elias which was to come. But Jesus, in these words, evidently refers to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5; his purpose being to inform his disciples that John was Elijah in the sense of that prophet, and that his prediction was accomplished in the Baptist, inasmuch as he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. But when the question was here proposed to John, the laws of truth required that he should answer it as he did, namely, according to the sense wherein the words were used by the proposers, who expected that the very Prophet Elijah would come in person before the Messiah should appear: a notion which they entertained very early, as is evident from the Septuagint translation of the passage just referred to in Malachi, idou egw apostellw umin Hlian ton qesbithn, literally, Behold, I send you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord come. Therefore the Baptist, on being asked if he was Elias, could not answer otherwise than in the negative, without rendering himself liable to the charge of equivocating. For though the name of Elias did truly belong to the forerunner of the Messiah, Malachi having called him so, John was not the person whom the people expected, and the priests meant, when they asked him, Art thou Elias? He was not that individual prophet returned from heaven to sojourn again upon the earth. It is justly observed by Grotius here, that the persons who made this inquiry show that they were ignorant of the parentage of John the Baptist, or that they were in doubt concerning it; Art thou that prophet — Whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are daily in expectation? (John 6:14:) or their meaning may have been, Art thou Jeremiah, or any other of the old prophets raised from the dead? for it appears from Matthew 16:14, that they thought the Messiah would be preceded by some such extraordinary personage. And he answered, No — He was a prophet, but not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, nor had he his revelations by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer, &c. — We are sent by the supreme council, who have a right to judge persons pretending a commission from God, as thou seemest to do by baptizing and gathering disciples. It becomes thee, therefore, to give an account of thyself to us, that we may lay it before them who have sent us. And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — John, instead of giving a description of his own character and office, refers those who questioned him to the words of the Prophet Isaiah, in which they would find it; and what he here says of himself, is to be understood no otherwise than we understand what Matthew says of him, (Matthew 3:3,) where see the note. He says, in effect, I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks, Isaiah 40:3. Archbishop Fenelon beautifully illustrates the humility of this reply: as if this illustrious prophet had said, “Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice; a sound, that as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more.” Dr. Campbell renders the clause, I am he whose voice proclaimeth in the wilderness, &c.; observing that, in such declarations, the general purport is alone regarded by the speaker, and that the words, therefore, ought not to be interpreted too grammatically; interpretations to be formed from the manifest scope, and not from the syntactic structure of sentences, being not unfrequent in Scripture. Thus, Revelation 1:12, Epestraya blepein thn fwnhn, literally, I turned to see the voice.

21. Art thou Elias?—John may have quoted the prophecy of Malachi as applicable to himself; and the Jews may have reported that he claimed to be the literal Elijah, risen from the dead. To this supposition, embraced in their question, he gives a prompt negative. That Prophet—The prophet foretold by Moses as like unto himself; (Deuteronomy 18:15,) and which some Jews identified as being Jeremiah. There is perhaps here a descending scale of names, the Messiah, Elijah, Jeremiah. After exhausting all special names, they press John to a full self-description, that they may give answer to those who sent them.

Verse 22. That we may give an answer to them that sent us.] These Pharisees were probably a deputation from the grand Sanhedrin; the members of which, hearing of the success of the Baptist’s preaching, were puzzled to know what to make of him, and seriously desired to hear from himself what he professed to be.

Verses 19-23. And this is the record of John — This is the testimony which he bare publicly to Jesus; when the Jews — Namely, the senate, or great council of the nation; sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem — Persons of the first consideration for learning and office; to ask him, Who art thou — What character dost thou assume to thyself? It is probable, that the reason why the sanhedrim sent these persons, was their having been informed that the Baptist’s extraordinary sanctity, zeal, and powerful preaching, together with the solemnity of his baptizing, had made such an impression on the people, that they were beginning to think he might be the Messiah. These rulers therefore judged it proper to send persons thus to examine him, because it belonged to them to take cognizance of all matters relating to religion, and especially to judge who were true prophets. And as they were evidently jealous of his increasing popularity, they probably hoped to find in his answers to their questions some pretence for taking measures to silence him, especially as they understood his ministry neither agreed with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah’s kingdom. And he confessed, and denied not, &c. — John, according to the natural plainness of his temper, presently replied to their inquiry; I am not the Christ — As if he had said, I know that the people begin to look on me as their long- expected deliverer, but I tell you plainly, they are mistaken: nor do I in the least pretend to arrogate to myself the honours which are due to none but him. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias — Art thou the Prophet Elijah, who, as the Scriptures tell us, is to arise from the dead, and to appear before the coming of the Messiah? And he saith, I am not — There was here an apparent contradiction to the words of our Lord concerning John, (Matthew 11:14,) This is Elias which was to come. But Jesus, in these words, evidently refers to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5; his purpose being to inform his disciples that John was Elijah in the sense of that prophet, and that his prediction was accomplished in the Baptist, inasmuch as he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. But when the question was here proposed to John, the laws of truth required that he should answer it as he did, namely, according to the sense wherein the words were used by the proposers, who expected that the very Prophet Elijah would come in person before the Messiah should appear: a notion which they entertained very early, as is evident from the Septuagint translation of the passage just referred to in Malachi, idou egw apostellw umin Hlian ton qesbithn, literally, Behold, I send you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord come. Therefore the Baptist, on being asked if he was Elias, could not answer otherwise than in the negative, without rendering himself liable to the charge of equivocating. For though the name of Elias did truly belong to the forerunner of the Messiah, Malachi having called him so, John was not the person whom the people expected, and the priests meant, when they asked him, Art thou Elias? He was not that individual prophet returned from heaven to sojourn again upon the earth. It is justly observed by Grotius here, that the persons who made this inquiry show that they were ignorant of the parentage of John the Baptist, or that they were in doubt concerning it; Art thou that prophet — Whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are daily in expectation? (John 6:14:) or their meaning may have been, Art thou Jeremiah, or any other of the old prophets raised from the dead? for it appears from Matthew 16:14, that they thought the Messiah would be preceded by some such extraordinary personage. And he answered, No — He was a prophet, but not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, nor had he his revelations by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer, &c. — We are sent by the supreme council, who have a right to judge persons pretending a commission from God, as thou seemest to do by baptizing and gathering disciples. It becomes thee, therefore, to give an account of thyself to us, that we may lay it before them who have sent us. And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — John, instead of giving a description of his own character and office, refers those who questioned him to the words of the Prophet Isaiah, in which they would find it; and what he here says of himself, is to be understood no otherwise than we understand what Matthew says of him, (Matthew 3:3,) where see the note. He says, in effect, I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks, Isaiah 40:3. Archbishop Fenelon beautifully illustrates the humility of this reply: as if this illustrious prophet had said, “Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice; a sound, that as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more.” Dr. Campbell renders the clause, I am he whose voice proclaimeth in the wilderness, &c.; observing that, in such declarations, the general purport is alone regarded by the speaker, and that the words, therefore, ought not to be interpreted too grammatically; interpretations to be formed from the manifest scope, and not from the syntactic structure of sentences, being not unfrequent in Scripture. Thus, Revelation 1:12, Epestraya blepein thn fwnhn, literally, I turned to see the voice.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

V. 23. He said-I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks. I am the voice-As if he had said, Far from being Christ, or even Elijah, I am nothing but a voice: a sound that so soon as it has expressed the thought of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more. Isaiah 40:3.

Verse 23. I am the voice of one crying] See Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 3:3”; and Mark 1:4, 5.

Verses 19-23. And this is the record of John — This is the testimony which he bare publicly to Jesus; when the Jews — Namely, the senate, or great council of the nation; sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem — Persons of the first consideration for learning and office; to ask him, Who art thou — What character dost thou assume to thyself? It is probable, that the reason why the sanhedrim sent these persons, was their having been informed that the Baptist’s extraordinary sanctity, zeal, and powerful preaching, together with the solemnity of his baptizing, had made such an impression on the people, that they were beginning to think he might be the Messiah. These rulers therefore judged it proper to send persons thus to examine him, because it belonged to them to take cognizance of all matters relating to religion, and especially to judge who were true prophets. And as they were evidently jealous of his increasing popularity, they probably hoped to find in his answers to their questions some pretence for taking measures to silence him, especially as they understood his ministry neither agreed with the Mosaic dispensation which they had been long under, nor with the notions they had formed of the Messiah’s kingdom. And he confessed, and denied not, &c. — John, according to the natural plainness of his temper, presently replied to their inquiry; I am not the Christ — As if he had said, I know that the people begin to look on me as their long- expected deliverer, but I tell you plainly, they are mistaken: nor do I in the least pretend to arrogate to myself the honours which are due to none but him. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias — Art thou the Prophet Elijah, who, as the Scriptures tell us, is to arise from the dead, and to appear before the coming of the Messiah? And he saith, I am not — There was here an apparent contradiction to the words of our Lord concerning John, (Matthew 11:14,) This is Elias which was to come. But Jesus, in these words, evidently refers to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5; his purpose being to inform his disciples that John was Elijah in the sense of that prophet, and that his prediction was accomplished in the Baptist, inasmuch as he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. But when the question was here proposed to John, the laws of truth required that he should answer it as he did, namely, according to the sense wherein the words were used by the proposers, who expected that the very Prophet Elijah would come in person before the Messiah should appear: a notion which they entertained very early, as is evident from the Septuagint translation of the passage just referred to in Malachi, idou egw apostellw umin Hlian ton qesbithn, literally, Behold, I send you Elias the Tishbite before the day of the Lord come. Therefore the Baptist, on being asked if he was Elias, could not answer otherwise than in the negative, without rendering himself liable to the charge of equivocating. For though the name of Elias did truly belong to the forerunner of the Messiah, Malachi having called him so, John was not the person whom the people expected, and the priests meant, when they asked him, Art thou Elias? He was not that individual prophet returned from heaven to sojourn again upon the earth. It is justly observed by Grotius here, that the persons who made this inquiry show that they were ignorant of the parentage of John the Baptist, or that they were in doubt concerning it; Art thou that prophet — Whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are daily in expectation? (John 6:14:) or their meaning may have been, Art thou Jeremiah, or any other of the old prophets raised from the dead? for it appears from Matthew 16:14, that they thought the Messiah would be preceded by some such extraordinary personage. And he answered, No — He was a prophet, but not one of the old prophets raised from the dead, nor had he his revelations by dreams and visions, as the Old Testament prophets had theirs; his commission and work were of another nature, and belonged to another dispensation. Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer, &c. — We are sent by the supreme council, who have a right to judge persons pretending a commission from God, as thou seemest to do by baptizing and gathering disciples. It becomes thee, therefore, to give an account of thyself to us, that we may lay it before them who have sent us. And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — John, instead of giving a description of his own character and office, refers those who questioned him to the words of the Prophet Isaiah, in which they would find it; and what he here says of himself, is to be understood no otherwise than we understand what Matthew says of him, (Matthew 3:3,) where see the note. He says, in effect, I am that forerunner of Christ of whom Isaiah speaks, Isaiah 40:3. Archbishop Fenelon beautifully illustrates the humility of this reply: as if this illustrious prophet had said, “Far from being the Messiah, or Elias, or one of the old prophets, I am nothing but a voice; a sound, that as soon as it has expressed the thought, of which it is the sign, dies into air, and is known no more.” Dr. Campbell renders the clause, I am he whose voice proclaimeth in the wilderness, &c.; observing that, in such declarations, the general purport is alone regarded by the speaker, and that the words, therefore, ought not to be interpreted too grammatically; interpretations to be formed from the manifest scope, and not from the syntactic structure of sentences, being not unfrequent in Scripture. Thus, Revelation 1:12, Epestraya blepein thn fwnhn, literally, I turned to see the voice.

23. I am the voice—John’s answer, while it evades all their malice, invests him with the dignity of being foretold by ancient prophecy. He humbly yet sublimely pronounces himself to be not the WORD, but a voice; yet what a voice! the heraldic voice of a divine warning to prepare the way for the great King.

V. 24. They who were sent were of the Pharisees-Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovation (except those brought in by their own scribes) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of Divine authority.

Verses 24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees — Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then — Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. — The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zechariah 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that John’s altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water — To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. — That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. — Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing — Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Joshua 3:6, and Judges 12:6.

24. Were of the Pharisees—Who held most strenuously that no prophet, after Moses, had a right to introduce any new sacred usage, rite, or ceremony among the Mosaic institutions, except the arrived Messiah himself. The question then in the following verse, Why baptizest thou then? was a very peremptory one.

V. 25. They asked him, Why baptizest thou then?-Without any commission from the sanhedrim? And not only heathens (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision) but Jews also?

Verse 25. Why baptizest thou then?] Baptism was a very common ceremony among the Jews, who never received a proselyte into the full enjoyment of a Jew’s privileges, till he was both baptized and circumcised. But such baptisms were never performed except by an ordinance of the Sanhedrin, or in the presence of three magistrates: besides, they never baptized any Jew or Jewess, nor even those who were the children of their proselytes; for, as all these were considered as born in the covenant, they had no need of baptism, which was used only as an introductory rite. Now, as John had, in this respect, altered the common custom so very essentially, admitting to his baptism the Jews in general, the Sanhedrin took it for granted that no man had authority to make such changes, unless especially commissioned from on high; and that only the prophet, or Elijah, or the Messiah himself; could have authority to act as John did. See the observations at the conclusion of Mark. {See Ancillary Data}

Verses 24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees — Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then — Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. — The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zechariah 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that John’s altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water — To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. — That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. — Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing — Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Joshua 3:6, and Judges 12:6.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

V. 26. John answered, I baptize-To prepare for the Messiah; and indeed to show that Jews, as well as Gentiles, must be proselytes to Christ, and that these as well as those stand in need of being washed from their sins.

Verse 26. I baptize with water] See Clarke on “Mark 1:8”. I use the common form, though I direct the baptized to a different end, viz. that they shall repent of their sins, and believe in the Messiah. There standeth one among you] That is, the person whose forerunner I am is now dwelling in the land of Judea, and will shortly make his appearance among you. Christ was not present when John spoke thus, as may be seen from John 1:29.

Verses 24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees — Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then — Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. — The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zechariah 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that John’s altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water — To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. — That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. — Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing — Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Joshua 3:6, and Judges 12:6.

26. I baptize with water—John’s answer is very pertinent. My baptism is the symbol and precursor of a real baptism by the great Baptizer. Standeth one among you—Not necessary that he was at that moment there standing; but that he was then living and being among the people, to them unknown.

Verse 27. Is preferred before me] oJv emprosqen mou gegonen, Who was before me. This clause is wanting in BC*L, four others, the Coptic, Æthiopic, Slavonic, and two copies of the Itala, and in some of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. It is likely that it was omitted by the above, because it was found in verses 15 and 30. {John 1:15, 30} At the end of this verse, EG, and ten others, with some copies of the Slavonic, add, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

Verses 24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees — Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then — Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. — The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zechariah 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that John’s altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water — To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. — That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. — Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing — Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Joshua 3:6, and Judges 12:6.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

V. 28. Where John was baptizing-That is, used to baptize.

Verse 28. These things were done in Bethabara] It is very probable that the word Bethany should be inserted here, instead of Bethabara. This reading, in the judgment of the best critics, is the genuine one. The following are the authorities by which it is supported: ABCEGHLMSX, BV, of Matthai, upwards of a hundred others, Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, and all the Itala, with some of the most eminent of the primitive fathers, before the time of Origen, who is supposed to have first changed the reading. Bethabara signifies literally the house of passage, and is thought to be the place where the Israelites passed the river Jordan under Joshua. There was a place called Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, at the foot of the mount of Olives. But there was another of the same name, beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben. It was probably of this that the evangelist speaks; and Origen, not knowing of this second Bethany, altered the reading to Bethabara. See Rosenmuller.

Verses 24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees — Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then — Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. — The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zechariah 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that John’s altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water — To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. — That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. — Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing — Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Joshua 3:6, and Judges 12:6.

Ver. 28. These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. This evangelist is here more accurate and minute than the other evangelists. The fords of Jordan were at this place, which made it the more convenient for assembling the people from both sides of the river.

28. In Bethabara—Nearly all the ancient manuscripts read Bethany instead of Bethabara. The latter name was substituted for the former by Origen, because he knew a Bethabara but not a Bethany near the Jordan. Stanley, however, maintains that Bethabara is the right reading. If Bethany or Bethania is the true reading, it nevertheless may be in the Aramaic a different word, as well as a different place from the Bethany of Lazarus and his sisters on Mount Olivet. The former may be a word signifying the place of (ferry) boats; the latter the place of dates.

Perhaps this long-debated question has been rightly settled by a late very scholarly traveller in Palestine, Revelation Mr. Tristam, (1864,) who identifies Bethabara with Beth-Nimrah, a little north of the Bethabara on our map. It is probably the ford passed by the Baptist’s great type, Elijah the Tishbite, on his way to his ascension. Quarantania, the Mount of Temptation, is in sight. It is a place amply supplied with convenient waters. Its very name in the Septuagint, Baethanabra, is about half way between Bethany and Bethabara, and might be transformed either way or both ways. Numbers 32:36; Joshua 13:27.

SECOND testimony of the Baptist to Jesus—That before the people, 29-34.

V. 29. He seeth Jesus coming and saith, Behold the Lamb-Innocent; to be offered up; prophesied of by Isaiah, Isaiah 53:7, typified by the paschal lamb, and by the daily sacrifice:

The Lamb of God-Whom God gave, approves, accepts of;

who taketh away-Atoneth for;

the sin-That is, all the sins:

of the world-Of all mankind. Sin and the world are of equal extent.

Verse 29. The next day] The day after that on which the Jews had been with John, John 1:19.

Behold the Lamb of God, &c.] This was said in allusion to what was spoken Isaiah 53:7. Jesus was the true Lamb or Sacrifice required and appointed by God, of which those offered daily in the tabernacle and temple, Exodus 29:38, 39, and especially the paschal lamb, were only the types and representatives. See Exodus 12:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 5:7. The continual morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb, under the Jewish law, was intended to point out the continual efficacy of the blood of atonement: for even at the throne of God, Jesus Christ is ever represented as a lamb newly slain, Revelation 5:6. But John, pointing to Christ, calls him emphatically, the Lamb of God:-all the lambs which had been hitherto offered had been furnished by men: this was provided by GOD, as the only sufficient and available sacrifice for the sin of the world. In three essential respects, this lamb differed from those by which it was represented. 1st. It was the Lamb of God; the most excellent, and the most available. 2nd. It made an atonement for sin: it carried sin away in reality, the others only representatively. 3rd. It carried away the sin of the WORLD, whereas the other was offered only on behalf of the Jewish people. In Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 30, it is said, “The Messiah shall bear the sins of the Israelites.” But this salvation was now to be extended to the whole world.

Verse 29. The next day — Namely, the day after John had returned the answer mentioned verses 26, 27, to the priests and Levites sent to inquire into his character and mission; John seeth Jesus coming unto him — Having now returned from the desert, in which he had been tempted; and saith, Behold the Lamb of God — That innocent and holy person, who is to be offered up a sacrifice for the sins of mankind; prophesied of by Isaiah, (Isaiah 53:7,) and typified by the paschal lamb, and by the daily sacrifice; which, taketh away the sin of the world — Which so atones for and expiates the guilt of mankind, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, that through his mediation, whosoever, being truly penitent, and bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance, believeth in him, may receive remission of sins. Grotius, indeed, understands this of Christ’s reforming men’s lives; but it plainly refers to his being slain as a piacular victim, (1 Peter 1:19,) to redeem us to God by his blood, (Revelation 5:9,) or to procure for us that redemption which ensures to the penitent, that believe in him with a true and living faith, remission of sins, (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14,) and an exemption from the punishment deserved thereby. To understand this doctrine more fully, the reader must observe that, when a sacrifice was to be offered for sin, he that brought it laid his hand upon the head of the victim, according to the command of God, Leviticus 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; (where see the notes;) and by that rite was supposed to transfer his sins upon the victim, which is said to take them upon itself and to carry them away. Accordingly, in the daily sacrifice of the lamb, the stationary men, says Dr. Lightfoot, who were the representatives of the people, laid their hands upon the lambs thus offered for them; and these two lambs offered for the daily sacrifice were bought with that half shekel which all the Jews yearly paid, eiv lutron thv yuchv autwn, exilasasqai peri twn yuxwn autwn, as the price of redemption of their souls, to make atonement for them, Exodus 12:3, 14, 16. This lamb was therefore offered to take away the guilt of their sin, as this phrase signifies when it relates to sacrifices. Since, therefore, the Baptist had said, he baptized them for the remission of their sins, he here shows them by what means that remission was to be obtained. See Whitby.

Ver. 29. Behold the Lamb of God. This appellation was given to Christ because his atonement was presignified by the innocent, unblemished, and defenceless lamb offered every evening and morning on the jewish altar, which was without spot or blemish. Christ, like these lambs, was led to the slaughter, Isaiah 53:7, to take away the sin of the world. Leigh, in his Critica Sacra, on the word amartia, peccatum, or sin, gives us eight acceptations.

(1) Sin, properly so called. Romans 7:17. Hebrews 5:15.

(2) A sacrifice for sin. Leviticus 4:34. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

(3) Original sin. Romans 5:12. 6:11, 12.

(4) Actual sin. James 1:15.

(5) The punishment of sin. 1 Peter 2:24.

(6) Both guilt and punishment. Matthew 9:2.

(7) False doctrine. John 8:46.

(8) Unbelief. John 16:9.

All branches of sin are here expressed in the singular number, as in Romans 5:12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Hence I know not how language can more correctly express the universality and extent of the atonement. The word world occurs about eighty times in the writings of St. John, and the extent of its import cannot be doubted. See John 3:16. 1 John 2:2. 2 Corinthians 5:19. Leviticus 16.

29. The next day—There were three days of testimony of John to Jesus, verses 19, 29, 35. The last two were testimonies to the present Jesus. Seeth Jesus coming unto him—He who had been standing among them now singles himself out. To others’ eyes he is but an ordinary man; to the divinely-opened eyes of the Baptist there is a dignity in his person above all earthly dignity. And in Jesus there is a silence, at once elevated and meek, by which he waits to be attested, but must not say to the world, I am he, until his official introducer says, “This is he.” Behold the Lamb of God— The Lamb by God supplied for the sacrifice. Genesis 22:8. The term Lamb here used must have been full of meaning to the men of Jerusalem, who were accustomed every day to see two lambs taken to the great altar and sacrificed, one in the morning and one at evening. Dr. Gill tells us that “the Jewish doctors say that the morning daily sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities done in the night; and the evening sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities done by day.” Josephus tells us that “the Jews say that they offer sacrifice twice a day for Caesar and the people of the Romans.” And in his Antiquities, he says, “The law is, that at public expiations a lamb of a year old shall be sacrificed at the opening and closing of each day.” It may indeed be true, that John alludes to Isaiah 53:7, making Jesus to be the lamb of prophecy. But prophecy is but the spoken prediction, of which the sacrifice is the visible sign. The lamb of the daily sacrifice, though not specifically a sin-offering, doubtless had an expiatory force. This lamb of God, not of man, takes away sin in reality; as the lamb of man’s providing did in symbol. Taketh away the sin—On the great day of the atonement the priest, confessing the sins of the people, laid them upon the scape-goat, who both bore them as substitute for the people, and took them away, being sent into the unknown depths of the desert. As the innocence of Jesus is prefigured by the Lamb, so his taking away the sin of the world is borrowed from this act, though not from the animal, on the day of atonement. The lamb is selected to symbolize the personal innocence of the Redeemer; the goat to signify his symbolical or representative guilt as substitute for the sinner. This taking away of sin is, first, by expiation; second, by forgiveness; and third, by sanctification through the Holy Spirit. Of the world—Many of the Jewish doctors limited the atoning power of sacrifice to Israel, but John extends it to the world. Such is the divine design. Christ died for every man alike. No plan or decree excludes any man from its blessed results; nothing but man’s own will; a will fully able to accept when it refuses.

Strauss and others wonder how it is that John should understand the doctrine of the atonement, of which even the apostles at the time of Christ’s resurrection had but little conception. Our reply is, that John at this time was living in inspired communication from God, as is repeatedly declared. He understood it as Isaiah announced it centuries beforehand. We do not doubt that there were numbers of the more spiritual Jews who understood the prophetic and typical doctrines of the atonement; but of all persons in the nation, none should have a more clear view (even if it had to be obtained by immediate prophetic revelation) of the true nature of the Messiah’s office than he, the harbinger himself. His clearness of view, in this the bright morning of his mission, may not only have been clearer than that of the apostles during the Saviour’s sojourn; but clearer than even he possessed, when in the day of darkness and trial he sent his message from prison to Jesus. Nor is it true that the Baptist is represented by our Evangelist as expressing views of the dignity and future history of Jesus in advance of any thing he is made to utter in the first three Gospels. The Baptist is clearly made to declare that the personage whose forerunner he is, is LORD, that is, Jehovah, in Matthew 3:3; he indicates the call of the Gentiles in Matthew 3:9; he ascribes the sending of the Holy Ghost to Christ, Matthew 3:11; and he pronounces Christ the judge and executor of final and eternal retribution, Matthew 3:12. Our present Evangelist is indeed, as he purposes to be, more diffuse and extended in representing the Baptist’s testimony to the high personality of Jesus; but he is not more decisive. The Baptist’s Christ is just as divine a being in the first Evangelist as in the last.

Verses 30-34. This is he, &c. — I now point out to you the very person of whom I formerly said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me — Being incomparably greater and more excellent than I; for he was — That is, he existed; before me — Dr. Hammond abundantly vindicates this interpretation. Had prwtov, rendered before, signified chief here, as in some other places, esti, is, not hn, was, would have been joined with it, and John would have said he is, and not he was, my chief, which would have been a very flat tautology instead of a reason; whereas Christ’s having existed before John, though he was born after him, was a most convincing proof that he was a very extraordinary person, and was the strongest reason that could well have been assigned, to show that he was worthy of their superior regard. And I knew him not — When I testified concerning the Messiah that he was soon to appear, and was a much greater person than I was, I did not know that this was he: I only knew in the general, that my mission and baptism were designed by God as the means of making the Messiah known to the Israelites. See the note on Matthew 3:14. The Baptist made this declaration, lest the surrounding multitude should have imagined that Jesus assumed, and that he gave him, the title of Messiah, by private concert between themselves. But how surprising is this that John here asserts, considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of them both had been. But through the peculiar providence of God, it was ordered that our Saviour should live from his infancy to his baptism at Nazareth, while John lived all that time the life of a hermit, in the deserts of Judea, ninety or more miles from Nazareth. Hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John’s testimony of Christ suspected. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit — From the time that the Baptist had the Messiah discovered to him by supernatural revelation, and the appearance of the sign which God had told him of, he openly pointed him out to the Jews, declaring, at the same time, the ground on which he proceeded in this matter, namely, the descent of the Spirit, which was the sign mentioned by God himself.

30. This is he—See note on verse 15. I knew him not—See note on Matthew 3:14. But how was it possible that John should be the cousin of Jesus and he personally unacquainted with him. Must they not have met at some of the Passovers in Jerusalem? We might reply that John, according to Luke 1:80, was required by a special dispensation to dwell in the wilderness. He may, by a divine speciality, never have attended any Passover; or at least any at which Jesus was present. But if even he had seen Jesus, and had known from human information his whole history, he yet had no right according to the divine order to him given, officially to know and proclaim him as Messiah. As it was the Apostles’ office to be eye-witnesses and not reporters from hearsay, so it was John’s office to be not a second-hand, but an immediate witness from the Holy Spirit himself. He could therefore know the Messiah only as God revealed him.

V. 31. I knew him not-Till he came to be baptized. How surprising is this; considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of both had been. But there was a peculiar providence visible in our Saviour's living, from his infancy to his baptism, at Nazareth: John all the time living the life of a hermit in the deserts of Judea, Luke 1:80, ninety or more miles from Nazareth: hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John's testimony of Christ suspected.

Verse 31. And I knew him not, &c.] John did not know our Lord personally, and perhaps had never seen him, at the time he spoke the words in John 1:15. Nor is it any wonder that the Baptist should have been unacquainted with Christ, as he had spent thirty years in the hill country of Hebron, and our Lord remained in a state of great privacy in the obscure city of Nazareth, in the extreme borders of Galilee. But that he should be made manifest to Israel] One design of my publicly baptizing was, that he, coming to my baptism, should be shown to be what he is, by some extraordinary sign from heaven.

Verses 30-34. This is he, &c. — I now point out to you the very person of whom I formerly said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me — Being incomparably greater and more excellent than I; for he was — That is, he existed; before me — Dr. Hammond abundantly vindicates this interpretation. Had prwtov, rendered before, signified chief here, as in some other places, esti, is, not hn, was, would have been joined with it, and John would have said he is, and not he was, my chief, which would have been a very flat tautology instead of a reason; whereas Christ’s having existed before John, though he was born after him, was a most convincing proof that he was a very extraordinary person, and was the strongest reason that could well have been assigned, to show that he was worthy of their superior regard. And I knew him not — When I testified concerning the Messiah that he was soon to appear, and was a much greater person than I was, I did not know that this was he: I only knew in the general, that my mission and baptism were designed by God as the means of making the Messiah known to the Israelites. See the note on Matthew 3:14. The Baptist made this declaration, lest the surrounding multitude should have imagined that Jesus assumed, and that he gave him, the title of Messiah, by private concert between themselves. But how surprising is this that John here asserts, considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of them both had been. But through the peculiar providence of God, it was ordered that our Saviour should live from his infancy to his baptism at Nazareth, while John lived all that time the life of a hermit, in the deserts of Judea, ninety or more miles from Nazareth. Hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John’s testimony of Christ suspected. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit — From the time that the Baptist had the Messiah discovered to him by supernatural revelation, and the appearance of the sign which God had told him of, he openly pointed him out to the Jews, declaring, at the same time, the ground on which he proceeded in this matter, namely, the descent of the Spirit, which was the sign mentioned by God himself.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

Verse 32. I saw the Spirit descending, &c.] See the notes on Matthew 3:16, 17.

Verses 30-34. This is he, &c. — I now point out to you the very person of whom I formerly said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me — Being incomparably greater and more excellent than I; for he was — That is, he existed; before me — Dr. Hammond abundantly vindicates this interpretation. Had prwtov, rendered before, signified chief here, as in some other places, esti, is, not hn, was, would have been joined with it, and John would have said he is, and not he was, my chief, which would have been a very flat tautology instead of a reason; whereas Christ’s having existed before John, though he was born after him, was a most convincing proof that he was a very extraordinary person, and was the strongest reason that could well have been assigned, to show that he was worthy of their superior regard. And I knew him not — When I testified concerning the Messiah that he was soon to appear, and was a much greater person than I was, I did not know that this was he: I only knew in the general, that my mission and baptism were designed by God as the means of making the Messiah known to the Israelites. See the note on Matthew 3:14. The Baptist made this declaration, lest the surrounding multitude should have imagined that Jesus assumed, and that he gave him, the title of Messiah, by private concert between themselves. But how surprising is this that John here asserts, considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of them both had been. But through the peculiar providence of God, it was ordered that our Saviour should live from his infancy to his baptism at Nazareth, while John lived all that time the life of a hermit, in the deserts of Judea, ninety or more miles from Nazareth. Hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John’s testimony of Christ suspected. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit — From the time that the Baptist had the Messiah discovered to him by supernatural revelation, and the appearance of the sign which God had told him of, he openly pointed him out to the Jews, declaring, at the same time, the ground on which he proceeded in this matter, namely, the descent of the Spirit, which was the sign mentioned by God himself.

32. It abode upon him—The mystic symbol did not alight and then fly off again; it remained until it became invisible, as if fusing down into his person.

Verse 33. He that sent me-said unto me] From this we may clearly perceive that John had a most intimate acquaintance with the Divine Being; and received not only his call and mission at first, but every subsequent direction, by immediate, unequivocal inspiration. Who is fit to proclaim Jesus, but he who has continual intercourse with God; who is constantly receiving light and life from Christ their fountain; who bears a steady, uniform testimony to Jesus, even in the presence of his enemies; and who at all times abases himself, that Jesus alone may be magnified! Reformation of manners, and salvation of souls, will accompany such a person’s labours whithersoever he goeth.

Verses 30-34. This is he, &c. — I now point out to you the very person of whom I formerly said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me — Being incomparably greater and more excellent than I; for he was — That is, he existed; before me — Dr. Hammond abundantly vindicates this interpretation. Had prwtov, rendered before, signified chief here, as in some other places, esti, is, not hn, was, would have been joined with it, and John would have said he is, and not he was, my chief, which would have been a very flat tautology instead of a reason; whereas Christ’s having existed before John, though he was born after him, was a most convincing proof that he was a very extraordinary person, and was the strongest reason that could well have been assigned, to show that he was worthy of their superior regard. And I knew him not — When I testified concerning the Messiah that he was soon to appear, and was a much greater person than I was, I did not know that this was he: I only knew in the general, that my mission and baptism were designed by God as the means of making the Messiah known to the Israelites. See the note on Matthew 3:14. The Baptist made this declaration, lest the surrounding multitude should have imagined that Jesus assumed, and that he gave him, the title of Messiah, by private concert between themselves. But how surprising is this that John here asserts, considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of them both had been. But through the peculiar providence of God, it was ordered that our Saviour should live from his infancy to his baptism at Nazareth, while John lived all that time the life of a hermit, in the deserts of Judea, ninety or more miles from Nazareth. Hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John’s testimony of Christ suspected. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit — From the time that the Baptist had the Messiah discovered to him by supernatural revelation, and the appearance of the sign which God had told him of, he openly pointed him out to the Jews, declaring, at the same time, the ground on which he proceeded in this matter, namely, the descent of the Spirit, which was the sign mentioned by God himself.

33. The same is he—Though John may have recognized Jesus, even as the Messiah, at the moment before his baptism, by spiritual insight or divine prophetic impulse; yet he was bound to wait the divine sign, which marked the Christ out from all the race as the very one and no other, before he could officially know him as Messiah.

V. 34. I saw it-That is, the Spirit so descending and abiding on him. And testified-From that time.

Verses 30-34. This is he, &c. — I now point out to you the very person of whom I formerly said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me — Being incomparably greater and more excellent than I; for he was — That is, he existed; before me — Dr. Hammond abundantly vindicates this interpretation. Had prwtov, rendered before, signified chief here, as in some other places, esti, is, not hn, was, would have been joined with it, and John would have said he is, and not he was, my chief, which would have been a very flat tautology instead of a reason; whereas Christ’s having existed before John, though he was born after him, was a most convincing proof that he was a very extraordinary person, and was the strongest reason that could well have been assigned, to show that he was worthy of their superior regard. And I knew him not — When I testified concerning the Messiah that he was soon to appear, and was a much greater person than I was, I did not know that this was he: I only knew in the general, that my mission and baptism were designed by God as the means of making the Messiah known to the Israelites. See the note on Matthew 3:14. The Baptist made this declaration, lest the surrounding multitude should have imagined that Jesus assumed, and that he gave him, the title of Messiah, by private concert between themselves. But how surprising is this that John here asserts, considering how nearly they were related, and how remarkable the conception and birth of them both had been. But through the peculiar providence of God, it was ordered that our Saviour should live from his infancy to his baptism at Nazareth, while John lived all that time the life of a hermit, in the deserts of Judea, ninety or more miles from Nazareth. Hereby that acquaintance was prevented which might have made John’s testimony of Christ suspected. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit — From the time that the Baptist had the Messiah discovered to him by supernatural revelation, and the appearance of the sign which God had told him of, he openly pointed him out to the Jews, declaring, at the same time, the ground on which he proceeded in this matter, namely, the descent of the Spirit, which was the sign mentioned by God himself.

Ver. 34. I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God. Cyril observes that Christ in the law and the prophets is everywhere called the Son of God, or the Son of the Highest, or by words which imply those titles. Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7. Proverbs 30:4. Isaiah 9:6.

34. This is the Son of God—At the baptism, God’s own voice attested to the Baptist’s ear, This is my beloved Son, marking him to view as the sole and single One among all the beings of the universe.

THIRD testimony of the Baptist to Jesus in the presence of two of his disciples, with the effects, 35-42.

Verse 35. The next day] After that mentioned John 1:29. Two of his disciples] One of them was Andrew, John 1:40, and it is very likely that John himself was the other; in every thing in which he might receive honour he studiously endeavours to conceal his own name.

Verses 35-39. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples — John happening the next day to be with two of his disciples on the banks of Jordan, he saw Jesus passing by a second time, and repeated what he had said to the multitude the day before. Probably he pointed out Jesus to these two disciples because they had been absent when the Spirit descended upon him, and the voice from heaven declared him to be the Son of God. But having now had an account of these things from their master, they desired to become acquainted with Jesus, and for that purpose followed him. Then Jesus turned, &c. — Jesus, knowing their intentions, turned about; and saith, What seek ye? — Thus he spake, not to discountenance and turn them back, but to encourage and invite them to a free converse with him. They said unto him — With the greatest reverence and respect; Rabbi — Which, being interpreted from the Syriac, the language then spoken by the Jews, signifies, Master; where dwellest thou — Pou meneiv, where dost thou lodge? For Jesus had no fixed abode at Jordan, being come thither only to be baptized. By making this reply, John’s disciples intimated that they had a great inclination to converse with Jesus. He gave them, therefore, an invitation to his lodging, which they readily accepted; and abode with him that day — The remainder of it; for it was about the tenth hour — Or, four in the afternoon; so that they had an opportunity of spending the rest of the evening with him, doubtless, much to their satisfaction and delight.

35. John stood—Doubtless upon the banks of the Jordan, contemplating his sacred work. And two of his disciples—Our Evangelist gradually approaches the touching moment when Jesus was made known to himself; not however in the feeling of self-importance (for he delicately omits the mention of his own name) but of tender personal interest. That the unnamed disciple here is John himself, is evident froth his usual method of implying rather than mentioning himself by name.

Verse 36. And looking upon Jesus] Attentively beholding, embleyav, from en, into, and blepw, to look-to view with steadfastness and attention. He who desires to discover the glories and excellencies of this Lamb of God, must thus look on him. At first sight, he appears only as a man among men, and as dying in testimony to the truth, as many others have died. But, on a more attentive consideration, he appears to be no less than God manifest in the flesh, and, by his death, making an atonement for the sin of the world.

Behold the Lamb of God!] By this the Baptist designed to direct the attention of his own disciples to Jesus, not only as the great sacrifice for the sin of the world, but also as the complete teacher of heavenly truth.

Verses 35-39. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples — John happening the next day to be with two of his disciples on the banks of Jordan, he saw Jesus passing by a second time, and repeated what he had said to the multitude the day before. Probably he pointed out Jesus to these two disciples because they had been absent when the Spirit descended upon him, and the voice from heaven declared him to be the Son of God. But having now had an account of these things from their master, they desired to become acquainted with Jesus, and for that purpose followed him. Then Jesus turned, &c. — Jesus, knowing their intentions, turned about; and saith, What seek ye? — Thus he spake, not to discountenance and turn them back, but to encourage and invite them to a free converse with him. They said unto him — With the greatest reverence and respect; Rabbi — Which, being interpreted from the Syriac, the language then spoken by the Jews, signifies, Master; where dwellest thou — Pou meneiv, where dost thou lodge? For Jesus had no fixed abode at Jordan, being come thither only to be baptized. By making this reply, John’s disciples intimated that they had a great inclination to converse with Jesus. He gave them, therefore, an invitation to his lodging, which they readily accepted; and abode with him that day — The remainder of it; for it was about the tenth hour — Or, four in the afternoon; so that they had an opportunity of spending the rest of the evening with him, doubtless, much to their satisfaction and delight.

36. As he walked—Yesterday Jesus was coming fresh from his victory in the Temptation unto John; as if to signify, though silently, that the time to be attested had now come; and nobly did the Baptist then answer it. Jesus is to-day passing, as if in contemplative silence; and the Baptist points his two disciples to the Lamb. For so doing he will lose willingly, though perhaps sadly, his two disciples.

V. 37. They followed Jesus-They walked after him, but had not the courage to speak to him.

Verse 37. And the two disciples heard him] And they perfectly understood their master’s meaning; in consequence of which, they followed Jesus. Happy they who, on hearing of the salvation of Christ, immediately attach themselves to its author! Delays are always dangerous; and, in this case, often fatal. Reader! hast thou ever had Christ as a sacrifice for thy sin pointed out unto thee? If so, hast thou followed him? If not, thou art not in the way to the kingdom of God. Lose not another moment! Eternity is at hand! and thou art not prepared to meet thy God. Pray that he may alarm thy conscience, and stir up thy soul to seek till thou have found.

Verses 35-39. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples — John happening the next day to be with two of his disciples on the banks of Jordan, he saw Jesus passing by a second time, and repeated what he had said to the multitude the day before. Probably he pointed out Jesus to these two disciples because they had been absent when the Spirit descended upon him, and the voice from heaven declared him to be the Son of God. But having now had an account of these things from their master, they desired to become acquainted with Jesus, and for that purpose followed him. Then Jesus turned, &c. — Jesus, knowing their intentions, turned about; and saith, What seek ye? — Thus he spake, not to discountenance and turn them back, but to encourage and invite them to a free converse with him. They said unto him — With the greatest reverence and respect; Rabbi — Which, being interpreted from the Syriac, the language then spoken by the Jews, signifies, Master; where dwellest thou — Pou meneiv, where dost thou lodge? For Jesus had no fixed abode at Jordan, being come thither only to be baptized. By making this reply, John’s disciples intimated that they had a great inclination to converse with Jesus. He gave them, therefore, an invitation to his lodging, which they readily accepted; and abode with him that day — The remainder of it; for it was about the tenth hour — Or, four in the afternoon; so that they had an opportunity of spending the rest of the evening with him, doubtless, much to their satisfaction and delight.

AND ITS EFFECTS, 19-52.

These three testimonies were made by John: first, to the delegation of priests and Levites, 19-28; second, to the people, 29-34; third, to two of his disciples, 35-37. John was now at Bethabara, (or rather Bethania or Bethany,) in the maturity of his ministry. See verse 28. All Jerusalem and Judea had been aroused, and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) had come to his ministry to encounter his stirring admonitions. With perhaps some hostile purpose, the Sanhedrim sent a delegation to him for an explicit declaration of his mission. Our Evangelist, John, and his brother James, were at that time with the Baptist and his disciples, and our John was then able to hear those replies of the Baptist, which decided him afterwards to join Jesus, and which he now quotes in his Gospel to correct those misled disciples of the Baptist who were still claiming him to be superior to Jesus. At the time of John’s receiving this deputation, Jesus, having passed through his baptism and temptation, was now standing among the people, (verse 26,) silently waiting the hour of his manifestation.

FIRST testimony of the Baptist for Jesus, to a delegation from the Sanhedrim, 19-28.

19. Record—Not a written, but a spoken, memorable testimony. The Jews—Our evangelist has a way of using the word Jews, as if he were not himself a Jew, and as if they were a foreign race. This arises, doubtless, not only from the fact that the nation has been overthrown, and that he is writing among and for Gentiles, but also from the fact that the Jews had been the deadly enemies of Christ and persecutors of his followers, and so had become, at the time of writing this Gospel, a distinct and hostile sect. Who art thou?—The scathing denunciation by John of the vices of the age had not spared these dignitaries. If they can get him to profess certain things in regard to his own character and mission, he may be arraigned to make his pretensions good, or undergo the punishment of an impostor. He completely eludes their plots.

Verse 38. What seek ye?] These disciples might have felt some embarrassment in addressing our blessed Lord, after hearing the character which the Baptist gave of him; to remove or prevent this, he graciously accosts them, and gives them an opportunity of explaining themselves to him. Such questions, we may conceive, the blessed Jesus still puts to those who in simplicity of heart desire an acquaintance with him. A question of this nature we may profitably ask ourselves: What seek ye? In this place! In the company you frequent? In the conversation you engage in? In the affairs with which you are occupied? In the works which you perform? Do you seek the humiliation, illumination, justification, edification, or sanctification of your soul? The edification of your neighbour? The good of the Church of Christ? Or, The glory of God? Questions of this nature often put to our hearts, in the fear of God, would induce us to do many things which we now leave undone, and to leave undone many things which we now perform.

Rabbi] Teacher. Behold the modesty of these disciples-we wish to be scholars, we are ignorant-we desire to be taught; we believe thou art a teacher come from God.

Where dwellest thou?] That we may come and receive thy instructions.

Verses 35-39. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples — John happening the next day to be with two of his disciples on the banks of Jordan, he saw Jesus passing by a second time, and repeated what he had said to the multitude the day before. Probably he pointed out Jesus to these two disciples because they had been absent when the Spirit descended upon him, and the voice from heaven declared him to be the Son of God. But having now had an account of these things from their master, they desired to become acquainted with Jesus, and for that purpose followed him. Then Jesus turned, &c. — Jesus, knowing their intentions, turned about; and saith, What seek ye? — Thus he spake, not to discountenance and turn them back, but to encourage and invite them to a free converse with him. They said unto him — With the greatest reverence and respect; Rabbi — Which, being interpreted from the Syriac, the language then spoken by the Jews, signifies, Master; where dwellest thou — Pou meneiv, where dost thou lodge? For Jesus had no fixed abode at Jordan, being come thither only to be baptized. By making this reply, John’s disciples intimated that they had a great inclination to converse with Jesus. He gave them, therefore, an invitation to his lodging, which they readily accepted; and abode with him that day — The remainder of it; for it was about the tenth hour — Or, four in the afternoon; so that they had an opportunity of spending the rest of the evening with him, doubtless, much to their satisfaction and delight.

38. Jesus turned—John still stands to his work; but his disciples will follow the Lamb. How far we know not; but Jesus turns, and our Evangelist arrives at the first thrilling word which the eternal Word uttered in his hearing. That word is not to teach, but to question, and draw out. What seek ye?—This is the word which the great Teacher addresses to us all, to call us to reflection, and to seeking aright the right. Where dwellest thou— They address this to the TRUTH; and so we ask of divine and suffering truth where it dwells.

Verse 39. Come and see.] If those who know not the salvation of God would come at the command of Christ, they should soon see that with him is the fountain of life, and in his light they should see light. Reader, if thou art seriously inquiring where Christ dwelleth, take the following for answer: He dwells not in the tumult of worldly affairs, nor in profane assemblies, nor in worldly pleasures, nor in the place where drunkards proclaim their shame, nor in carelessness and indolence. But he is found in his temple, wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, in secret prayer, in self-denial, in fasting, in self-examination. He also dwells in the humble, contrite spirit, in the spirit of faith, of love, of forgiveness, of universal obedience; in a word, he dwells in the heaven of heavens, whither he graciously purposes to bring thee, if thou wilt come and learn of him, and receive the salvation which he has bought for thee by his own blood.

The tenth hour] Generally supposed to be about what we call four o’clock in the afternoon. According to John 11:9, the Jews reckoned twelve hours in the day; and of course each hour of the day, thus reckoned, must have been something longer or shorter, according to the different times of the year in that climate. The sixth hour with them answered to our twelve o’clock, as appears from what Josephus says in his life, chap. liv. That on the Sabbath day it was the rule for the Jews to go to dinner at the sixth hour, (ekth wra.) The Romans had the same way of reckoning twelve hours in each of their days. Hence what we meet with in Hor. lib. ii. sat. vi. l. 34: ante secundam signifies, as we should express it, before eight o’clock. And when, in lib. i. sat. vi. l. 122, he says, ad quartam jaceo, he means that he lay in bed till ten o’clock. See Bishop Pearce on this place. Dr. Macknight, however, is of opinion that the evangelist is to be understood as speaking of the Roman hour, which was ten o’clock in the morning; and as the evangelist remarks, they abode with him that day, it implies that there was a considerable portion of time spent with our Lord, in which, by his conversation, he removed all their scruples, and convinced them that he was the Messiah. But, had it been the Jewish tenth hour, it would have been useless to remark their abiding with him that day, as there were only two hours of it still remaining. Harmony, vol. i. p. 52.

Verses 35-39. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples — John happening the next day to be with two of his disciples on the banks of Jordan, he saw Jesus passing by a second time, and repeated what he had said to the multitude the day before. Probably he pointed out Jesus to these two disciples because they had been absent when the Spirit descended upon him, and the voice from heaven declared him to be the Son of God. But having now had an account of these things from their master, they desired to become acquainted with Jesus, and for that purpose followed him. Then Jesus turned, &c. — Jesus, knowing their intentions, turned about; and saith, What seek ye? — Thus he spake, not to discountenance and turn them back, but to encourage and invite them to a free converse with him. They said unto him — With the greatest reverence and respect; Rabbi — Which, being interpreted from the Syriac, the language then spoken by the Jews, signifies, Master; where dwellest thou — Pou meneiv, where dost thou lodge? For Jesus had no fixed abode at Jordan, being come thither only to be baptized. By making this reply, John’s disciples intimated that they had a great inclination to converse with Jesus. He gave them, therefore, an invitation to his lodging, which they readily accepted; and abode with him that day — The remainder of it; for it was about the tenth hour — Or, four in the afternoon; so that they had an opportunity of spending the rest of the evening with him, doubtless, much to their satisfaction and delight.

39. Come and see—The usual formula addressed by the rabbi to his pupil when he would invite his attention to some striking point or new doctrine. Where he dwelt—It may have been a house, a tent, or, as is often the case in Palestine, a cave or grot. There did Andrew and John spend the residue of the day in converse with Jesus; and there did they, these two disciples of the Baptist, come to that faith in Jesus by which, without if or qualification, they could say to Simon, We have found the Messiah. See note on verse 45. The tenth hour—Ten o’clock A.M. by Roman time; or four P.M. by Jewish time. See note on 19:4.

Verses 40-42. One of the two who heard John speak — In the manner above related; was Andrew — And probably this evangelist, John, was the other, it being his custom to conceal his own name in his writings. He — Andrew; first findeth his own brother Simon — Simon may perhaps be here called Andrew’s own brother, to distinguish him from some other person that belonged to the family, who possibly might be his brother-in- law, or related to him only in half-blood. Peter was so remarkable a person, that it was proper to mention who was the first means of bringing him acquainted with Christ; and if John was the other disciple that is here referred to, he might intend this as an humble intimation that Andrew’s zeal was, in this respect, greater than his own. We see here, that Peter was not the first of Christ’s disciples, but that another was the means of bringing him to an acquaintance with him. In that respect, therefore, the Papists have no room for glorying. And saith unto him, We have found the Messiah — It seems the Baptist’s testimony, joined with the proofs offered by Christ himself, in the long conversation which the two disciples had with him, fully convinced Andrew. And he brought him to Jesus — That by conversing with him he might be satisfied of the truth of what he had told him. And when Jesus beheld him — Embleyav autw, looking steadfastly upon him, as if he had read in his countenance the traces of his character, and of his future service in the church; he said, Thou art Simon — Though Jesus had never seen Simon before, and no one had told him his name or his parentage, immediately on his coming in Jesus saluted him by his own and his father’s name, which could not but greatly strike Peter. He added, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which — Says the evangelist, (for they are his, and not Christ’s words,) is by interpretation, a stone — Or rock, that is, it signifies the same in the Syriac which the word Peter does in Greek. It must be observed, to account for the insertion of this explanatory clause, that John “wrote his gospel in Greek, and in a Grecian city of Asia Minor; and therefore was the more careful to translate into Greek the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac names, given for a special purpose, whereof they were expressive. And there was the greater reason for doing so in the two cases occurring in this and the preceding verse, as the Greek names were become familiar to the Asiatic converts, who were unacquainted with the oriental names. The sacred writer had a two-fold view in it: 1st, To explain the import of the name; 2d, To prevent his readers from mistaking the persons spoken of. They all knew who, as well as what, was meant by Cristov, Christ, but not by the Hebrew word, Messiah. In like manner, they knew who was called Peter, but might very readily have mistaken Cephas for some other person.” — Campbell.

40. Followed him—Followed him at his invitation to come and see where he dwelt. We note this particularly, as some have interpreted it to follow him as already a chosen apostle; whereas he was not chosen as apostle until the miraculous draft of fishes. See Luke 5:1-11.

V. 41. He first findeth his own brother Simon-Probably both of them sought him:

Which is, being interpreted, the Christ-This the evangelist adds, as likewise those words in John 1:38, that is, being interpreted, Master.

Verse 41. Findeth his own brother Simon] Every discovery of the Gospel of the Son of God produces benevolence, and leads those to whom it is made to communicate it to others. Those who find Jesus find in him a treasure of wisdom and knowledge, through which they may not only become rich themselves, but be instruments, in the hand of God, of enriching others. These disciples, having tasted the good word of Christ, were not willing to eat their bread alone, but went and invited others to partake with them. Thus the knowledge of Christ became diffused-one invited another to come and see: Jesus received all, and the number of disciples was increased, and the attentive hearers were innumerable. Every man who has been brought to an acquaintance with God should endeavour to bring, at least, another with him; and his first attention should be fixed upon those of his own household.

Verses 40-42. One of the two who heard John speak — In the manner above related; was Andrew — And probably this evangelist, John, was the other, it being his custom to conceal his own name in his writings. He — Andrew; first findeth his own brother Simon — Simon may perhaps be here called Andrew’s own brother, to distinguish him from some other person that belonged to the family, who possibly might be his brother-in- law, or related to him only in half-blood. Peter was so remarkable a person, that it was proper to mention who was the first means of bringing him acquainted with Christ; and if John was the other disciple that is here referred to, he might intend this as an humble intimation that Andrew’s zeal was, in this respect, greater than his own. We see here, that Peter was not the first of Christ’s disciples, but that another was the means of bringing him to an acquaintance with him. In that respect, therefore, the Papists have no room for glorying. And saith unto him, We have found the Messiah — It seems the Baptist’s testimony, joined with the proofs offered by Christ himself, in the long conversation which the two disciples had with him, fully convinced Andrew. And he brought him to Jesus — That by conversing with him he might be satisfied of the truth of what he had told him. And when Jesus beheld him — Embleyav autw, looking steadfastly upon him, as if he had read in his countenance the traces of his character, and of his future service in the church; he said, Thou art Simon — Though Jesus had never seen Simon before, and no one had told him his name or his parentage, immediately on his coming in Jesus saluted him by his own and his father’s name, which could not but greatly strike Peter. He added, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which — Says the evangelist, (for they are his, and not Christ’s words,) is by interpretation, a stone — Or rock, that is, it signifies the same in the Syriac which the word Peter does in Greek. It must be observed, to account for the insertion of this explanatory clause, that John “wrote his gospel in Greek, and in a Grecian city of Asia Minor; and therefore was the more careful to translate into Greek the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac names, given for a special purpose, whereof they were expressive. And there was the greater reason for doing so in the two cases occurring in this and the preceding verse, as the Greek names were become familiar to the Asiatic converts, who were unacquainted with the oriental names. The sacred writer had a two-fold view in it: 1st, To explain the import of the name; 2d, To prevent his readers from mistaking the persons spoken of. They all knew who, as well as what, was meant by Cristov, Christ, but not by the Hebrew word, Messiah. In like manner, they knew who was called Peter, but might very readily have mistaken Cephas for some other person.” — Campbell.

41. Findeth his own brother Simon—A circle of friends, it would seem, from Galilee, mostly from Bethsaida, are now at the Jordan, drawn by the ministry of the Baptist, and in more or less close connection with him. Of these Jesus will now form the nucleus of his apostolic college. But they are special disciples rather than apostles. The Messias… the Christ—Inasmuch as our Evangelist writes for Gentiles, in a city distant from Palestine, he interprets the term.

V. 42. Jesus said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah-As none had told our Lord these names, this could not but strike Peter. Cephas, which is Peter-Moaning the same in Syriac which Peter does in Greek, namely, a rock.

Verse 42. Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.] petrov signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock. The reason why this name was given to Simon, who was ever afterwards called Peter, may be seen in the notes on Matthew 16:18, 19, and particularly in Luke, at the end of chap 9. See Clarke “Luke 9:62”

Verses 40-42. One of the two who heard John speak — In the manner above related; was Andrew — And probably this evangelist, John, was the other, it being his custom to conceal his own name in his writings. He — Andrew; first findeth his own brother Simon — Simon may perhaps be here called Andrew’s own brother, to distinguish him from some other person that belonged to the family, who possibly might be his brother-in- law, or related to him only in half-blood. Peter was so remarkable a person, that it was proper to mention who was the first means of bringing him acquainted with Christ; and if John was the other disciple that is here referred to, he might intend this as an humble intimation that Andrew’s zeal was, in this respect, greater than his own. We see here, that Peter was not the first of Christ’s disciples, but that another was the means of bringing him to an acquaintance with him. In that respect, therefore, the Papists have no room for glorying. And saith unto him, We have found the Messiah — It seems the Baptist’s testimony, joined with the proofs offered by Christ himself, in the long conversation which the two disciples had with him, fully convinced Andrew. And he brought him to Jesus — That by conversing with him he might be satisfied of the truth of what he had told him. And when Jesus beheld him — Embleyav autw, looking steadfastly upon him, as if he had read in his countenance the traces of his character, and of his future service in the church; he said, Thou art Simon — Though Jesus had never seen Simon before, and no one had told him his name or his parentage, immediately on his coming in Jesus saluted him by his own and his father’s name, which could not but greatly strike Peter. He added, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which — Says the evangelist, (for they are his, and not Christ’s words,) is by interpretation, a stone — Or rock, that is, it signifies the same in the Syriac which the word Peter does in Greek. It must be observed, to account for the insertion of this explanatory clause, that John “wrote his gospel in Greek, and in a Grecian city of Asia Minor; and therefore was the more careful to translate into Greek the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac names, given for a special purpose, whereof they were expressive. And there was the greater reason for doing so in the two cases occurring in this and the preceding verse, as the Greek names were become familiar to the Asiatic converts, who were unacquainted with the oriental names. The sacred writer had a two-fold view in it: 1st, To explain the import of the name; 2d, To prevent his readers from mistaking the persons spoken of. They all knew who, as well as what, was meant by Cristov, Christ, but not by the Hebrew word, Messiah. In like manner, they knew who was called Peter, but might very readily have mistaken Cephas for some other person.” — Campbell.

42. Jesus beheld him—A memorable glance to fervid Peter. For the first time he meets that Messiah foretold by prophets for ages, whose influence was to shape his future life, and give him a wonderful place in future history. Think of St. Peter’s Church, standing at this day in the ancient capital of imperial Rome, the most magnificent of human structures! Thou art—Though it be the first time that Peter ever saw Jesus, it is not the first time that Jesus, in spirit at least, ever saw Peter. He knows his parentage, his name, and history. A stone—Jesus gives him the new name now, not so much, perhaps, to describe what he already is, as to prophesy and assure him what he may yet become. He had the hardihood of stony material; he may yet acquire the firmness of the rock. When Peter made his memorable confession in Matthew 16:18 our Lord recognized his title, as if the probation had been sufficiently passed to fix his claim, as a basis of his position in the new Church. Both passages are perfectly harmonious.

Verse 43. Philip] This apostle was a native of Bethsaida in Galilee. Eusebius says he was a married man, and had several daughters. Clemens Alexandrinus mentions it as a thing universally acknowledged that it was this apostle who, when commanded by our Lord to follow him, said, Let me first go and bury my father, Matthew 8:21, 22. Theodoret says he preached in the two Phrygias; and Eusebius says he was buried in Phrygia Pacatiana. He must not be confounded with Philip the deacon, spoken of Acts 6:5.

Verses 43, 44. The day following — The next to that last mentioned, on which he met with Peter; Jesus would go forth into Galilee — And there enter on his public ministry; and findeth Philip — Whom he intended to choose to be one of his apostles; and saith to him, Follow me — Which he accordingly did, being secretly influenced by Christ’s grace. When we consider how suddenly some of Christ’s disciples left their stated employments to follow him, it seems reasonable to allow some singular kind of impression on their minds, as there was in the calling of Elisha, (1 Kings 19:19-21,) which, though for the present it superseded the necessity of arguments, yet it did not exclude their attending to that afterward, which might be necessary to defend their conduct to others. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew — “As it appears from the subsequent part of the history, Philip was already acquainted with our Lord’s character, and believed on him, this observation is made by the evangelist, to show by what means he was brought to Jesus; his townsmen, Andrew and Peter, had done him this favour.”

43. The day following—The fourth day. See verses 19, 29, 35. Would go forth into Galilee—Probably on his way home after his baptism and temptation. And findeth Philip—Before he goes into Galilee he finds the entire complement of five disciples; the narration of which finding extends to the close of this chapter.

Verses 43, 44. The day following — The next to that last mentioned, on which he met with Peter; Jesus would go forth into Galilee — And there enter on his public ministry; and findeth Philip — Whom he intended to choose to be one of his apostles; and saith to him, Follow me — Which he accordingly did, being secretly influenced by Christ’s grace. When we consider how suddenly some of Christ’s disciples left their stated employments to follow him, it seems reasonable to allow some singular kind of impression on their minds, as there was in the calling of Elisha, (1 Kings 19:19-21,) which, though for the present it superseded the necessity of arguments, yet it did not exclude their attending to that afterward, which might be necessary to defend their conduct to others. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew — “As it appears from the subsequent part of the history, Philip was already acquainted with our Lord’s character, and believed on him, this observation is made by the evangelist, to show by what means he was brought to Jesus; his townsmen, Andrew and Peter, had done him this favour.”

44. Of Bethsaida—And therefore, being acquainted with Andrew and Peter, was probably prepared by their statements for this ready adherence to Jesus as soon as he received the call.

V. 45. Jesus of Nazareth-So Philip thought, not knowing he was born in Bethlehem. Nathanael was probably the same with Bartholomew, that is, the son of Tholomew. St. Matthew joins Bartholomew with Philip, Matthew 10:3, and St. John places Nathanael in the midst of the apostles, immediately after Thomas, John 21:2, just as Bartholomew is placed, Acts 1:13.

Verse 45. Nathanael] This apostle is supposed to be the same with Bartholomew, which is very likely, for these reasons 1. That the evangelists who mention Bartholomew say nothing of Nathanael; and that St. John, who speaks of Nathanael, says nothing of Bartholomew. 2. No notice is taken any where of Bartholomew’s vocation, unless his and that of Nathanael mentioned here be the same. 3. The name of Bartholomew is not a proper name; it signifies the son of Ptolomy; and Nathanael might have been his own name. 4. St. John seems to rank Nathanael with the apostles, when he says that Peter and Thomas, the two sons of Zebedee, Nathanael, and two other disciples, being gone a fishing, Jesus showed himself to them, John 21:2-4.

Moses in the law] See Genesis 3:16; 22:18; 49:10; Deuteronomy 18:18.

And the prophets] See Isaiah 4:2; 7:14; 9:5; 40:10; 53:1, &c.; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:14, 15; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24; Daniel 9:24; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 6:12; 9:9; 12:10.

Verses 45, 46. Philip findeth Nathanael — Nathanael is supposed by many to have been the person, who, in the catalogue of the apostles, is called Bartholomew, that is, as the word signifies, the son of Tholomew, for Matthew joins Bartholomew with Philip, chap. 10:3; and John places Nathanael in the midst of the apostles, immediately after Thomas, (chap. 21:2,) just as Bartholomew is placed, Acts 1:13. And saith, We have found him of whom Moses did write — “It seems Peter and Andrew, in their conversation with Philip, had induced him to believe on Jesus, by showing him how the predictions of the law and the prophets were fulfilled in him, a method which, perhaps, Jesus himself had taken to confirm Peter and Andrew, Philip’s instructers, in the good opinion they had conceived of him, by means of the testimony which their master, John the Baptist, had given concerning him.” Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? — A proverb, by which the rest of the Israelites ridiculed the Nazarenes. Nathanael, on this occasion, applied it the rather, because the Messiah’s nativity had been determined by the Prophet Micah to Bethlehem. As if he had said, Have we ground from Scripture to expect the Messiah, or any eminent prophet, from Nazareth? As Nathanael was a native of Galilee, it appears from hence 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. Philip saith, Come and see — Come talk with him thyself, and thou wilt soon be convinced that he is the Messiah. How cautiously should we guard against popular prejudices! When these had once possessed so honest a heart as even that of Nathanael, they led him to suspect the blessed Jesus himself for an impostor, because he had been brought up at Nazareth. But his integrity prevailed over that foolish bias, and laid him open to the force of evidence, which a candid inquirer will always be glad to admit, even when it brings the most unexpected discoveries.

45. We have found—A celebrated mathematician of antiquity, while meditating, suddenly solved one of the profoundest problems of geometry. Such was his rapture at the discovery, that he instantly ran through the street clapping his hands and exclaiming, Eureka, I have found. Philip here joyfully uses the same word, We have found. He had discovered the great problem of salvation.

V. 46. Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?-How cautiously should we guard against popular prejudices? When these had once possessed so honest a heart as that of Nathanael, they led him to suspect the blessed Jesus himself for an impostor, because he had been brought up at Nazareth. But his integrity prevailed over that foolish bias, and laid him open to the force of evidence, which a candid inquirer will always be glad to admit, even when it brings the most unexpected discoveries. Can any good thing-That is, have we ground from Scripture to expect the Messiah, or any eminent prophet from Nazareth?

Philip saith, Come and see-The same answer which he had received himself from our Lord the day before.

Verse 46. Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?] Bp. Pearce supposes that the ti agaqon of the evangelist has some particular force in it: for, in Jeremiah 33:14, God says, I will perform that good thing which I promised, &c.; and this, in Jeremiah 33:15 is explained to mean, his causing the branch of righteousness (i.e. the Messiah) to grow up unto David, from whom Jesus was descended: in this view, Nathanael’s question seems to imply, that not Nazareth, but Bethlehem, was to be the birth-place of the Messiah, according to what the chief priests and scribes had determined, Matthew 2:4-6. If this conjecture be not thought solid, we may suppose that Nazareth, at this time, was become so abandoned that no good could be expected from any of those who dwelt in it, and that its wickedness had passed into a proverb: Can any thing good be found in Nazareth? Or, that the question is illiberal, and full of national prejudice.

Come and see.] He who candidly examines the evidences of the religion of Christ will infallibly become a believer. No history ever published among men has so many external and internal proofs of authenticity as this has. A man should judge of nothing by first appearances, or human prejudices. Who are they who cry out, The Bible is a fable? Those who have never read it, or read it only with the fixed purpose to gainsay it. I once met with a person who professed to disbelieve every tittle of the New Testament, a chapter of which, he acknowledged, he had never read. I asked him, had he ever read the Old? He answered, No! And yet this man had the assurance to reject the whole as an imposture! God has mercy on those whose ignorance leads them to form prejudices against the truth; but he confounds those who take them up through envy and malice, and endeavour to communicate them to others.

Verses 45, 46. Philip findeth Nathanael — Nathanael is supposed by many to have been the person, who, in the catalogue of the apostles, is called Bartholomew, that is, as the word signifies, the son of Tholomew, for Matthew joins Bartholomew with Philip, chap. 10:3; and John places Nathanael in the midst of the apostles, immediately after Thomas, (chap. 21:2,) just as Bartholomew is placed, Acts 1:13. And saith, We have found him of whom Moses did write — “It seems Peter and Andrew, in their conversation with Philip, had induced him to believe on Jesus, by showing him how the predictions of the law and the prophets were fulfilled in him, a method which, perhaps, Jesus himself had taken to confirm Peter and Andrew, Philip’s instructers, in the good opinion they had conceived of him, by means of the testimony which their master, John the Baptist, had given concerning him.” Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? — A proverb, by which the rest of the Israelites ridiculed the Nazarenes. Nathanael, on this occasion, applied it the rather, because the Messiah’s nativity had been determined by the Prophet Micah to Bethlehem. As if he had said, Have we ground from Scripture to expect the Messiah, or any eminent prophet, from Nazareth? As Nathanael was a native of Galilee, it appears from hence 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. Philip saith, Come and see — Come talk with him thyself, and thou wilt soon be convinced that he is the Messiah. How cautiously should we guard against popular prejudices! When these had once possessed so honest a heart as even that of Nathanael, they led him to suspect the blessed Jesus himself for an impostor, because he had been brought up at Nazareth. But his integrity prevailed over that foolish bias, and laid him open to the force of evidence, which a candid inquirer will always be glad to admit, even when it brings the most unexpected discoveries.

46. Good thing… out of Nazareth—Some object that there is no proof of any special stigma adhering to Nazareth; and hence apologists have endeavoured to explain these words as simply referring to the insignificance of Nazareth as a very small unknown town. We should rather reply, that the passage itself is ample proof of a contempt attaching to Nazareth. How much know we of any ancient Nazareth at all without the Gospels? It may have had a generally bad reputation; or it may have merely suffered the odium which Nathanael’s neighbouring little town of Cana, with the usual jealousy of rival villages, attached to it.

Verse 47. Behold an Israelite indeed] A worthy descendant of the patriarch Jacob, who not only professes to believe in Israel’s God, but who worships him in sincerity and truth, according to his light. In whom is no guile!] Deceitfulness ever has been, and still is, the deeply marked characteristic of the Jewish people. To find a man, living in the midst of so much corruption, walking in uprightness before his Maker, was a subject worthy the attention of God himself. Behold this man! and, while you see and admire, imitate his conduct.

Verses 47-51. Jesus saw Nathanael coming — “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, one free from hypocrisy, and open to conviction; one who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues.” — Macknight. Nathanael saith, Whence knowest thou me — I am a perfect stranger to thee; how then canst thou know my character? Jesus answered — I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose; nor do I take it from uncertain report. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig- tree, I saw thee — As if he had said, 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. Nathanael was so struck with this express reference to what he was certain none could know but God and his own conscience, that all his prejudices were at once removed; and he immediately replied, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, &c. — So he acknowledges more than he had heard from Philip: he makes a confession both of the person and office of Christ. Happy they that are thus ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God! Just thus the woman of Samaria argued, (John 4:29,) Come see a man who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? — Which plainly intimates, that they supposed the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophecy in the highest degree. Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou — Dost thou believe me to be the Messiah, because of the supernatural knowledge of thy character and secret actions which I have now discovered? Thou shalt see greater things than these — Greater instances of my power and knowledge, consequently more remarkable proofs of my mission. Verily, verily, I say unto you — “There is no doubt that these words are to be taken for a solemn affirmation, in which it was observable that John has constantly repeated the amhn, verily, while it is only mentioned once by the other evangelists; and this we may suppose him to have done, either to excite the greater attention, or in a more emphatical and stronger manner to assert the truth, not only of the thing affirmed, but of the person who affirms it. For as amen in the Hebrew signifies truth, (Isaiah 65:16,) so Christ, as being the true and faithful witness, is called the Amen, Revelation 3:14. This repeated asserveration, therefore, may be considered as an intimation to us, not only that the saying, unto which it is prefixed is true, but that we must regard it as proceeding from the true and faithful witness.” — Doddridge. Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending, &c. — Ye shall see the whole frame of nature subject to my commands, and such a surprising train of miracles wrought by me, in the whole course of my succeeding ministry, with such remarkable interpositions of Providence in my behalf, as will not only leave you no room to doubt of my mission from God, but will make it appear as if heaven was opened, and all the angels of God were continually, (as they appeared in a vision to Jacob, Genesis 28:12,) ascending and descending to wait upon the Son of man, and to receive and execute his orders. Or, if we understand the prediction more literally, we may, with Dr. Hammond, refer it to Christ’s ascension, when the heaven was opened to receive him, and the angels came down from thence to wait on him, and ascended after him. The appearance of an angel in his agony might also be referred to, and of those who waited on him at his resurrection, and so he may be considered as referring his disciples to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, by which the truth of his mission was put beyond all doubt. And even his second and glorious coming may be included, or, as some think, may be principally intended; as if he had said, “All who believe on me now, in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me.”

47. No guile—If he has a prejudice, as this prepossession against Nazareth, he utters it in simplicity; but it prevents not his readiness to come and see, and judge from evidence.

V. 48. Under the fig tree I saw thee-Perhaps at prayer.

Verse 48. Whence knowest thou me?] He was not yet acquainted with the divinity of Christ, could not conceive that he could search his heart, and therefore asks how he could acquire this knowledge of him, or who had given him that character. It is the comfort of the sincere and upright, that God knows their hearts; and it should be the terror of the deceitful and of the hypocrite, that their false dealing is ever noticed by the all-seeing eye of God.

Under the fig tree] Probably engaged in prayer with God, for the speedy appearing of the salvation of Israel; and the shade of this fig tree was perhaps the ordinary place of retreat for this upright man. It is not A fig tree, but thn sukhn, THE fig tree, one particularly distinguished from the others. There are many proofs that the Jewish rabbins chose the shade of trees, and particularly the fig tree, to sit and study under. See many examples in Schoettgen. How true is the saying, The eyes of the Lord are through all the earth, beholding the evil and the good! Wheresoever we are, whatsoever we are about, may a deep conviction of this truth rest upon our hearts, Thou God seest ME!

Verses 47-51. Jesus saw Nathanael coming — “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, one free from hypocrisy, and open to conviction; one who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues.” — Macknight. Nathanael saith, Whence knowest thou me — I am a perfect stranger to thee; how then canst thou know my character? Jesus answered — I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose; nor do I take it from uncertain report. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig- tree, I saw thee — As if he had said, 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. Nathanael was so struck with this express reference to what he was certain none could know but God and his own conscience, that all his prejudices were at once removed; and he immediately replied, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, &c. — So he acknowledges more than he had heard from Philip: he makes a confession both of the person and office of Christ. Happy they that are thus ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God! Just thus the woman of Samaria argued, (John 4:29,) Come see a man who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? — Which plainly intimates, that they supposed the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophecy in the highest degree. Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou — Dost thou believe me to be the Messiah, because of the supernatural knowledge of thy character and secret actions which I have now discovered? Thou shalt see greater things than these — Greater instances of my power and knowledge, consequently more remarkable proofs of my mission. Verily, verily, I say unto you — “There is no doubt that these words are to be taken for a solemn affirmation, in which it was observable that John has constantly repeated the amhn, verily, while it is only mentioned once by the other evangelists; and this we may suppose him to have done, either to excite the greater attention, or in a more emphatical and stronger manner to assert the truth, not only of the thing affirmed, but of the person who affirms it. For as amen in the Hebrew signifies truth, (Isaiah 65:16,) so Christ, as being the true and faithful witness, is called the Amen, Revelation 3:14. This repeated asserveration, therefore, may be considered as an intimation to us, not only that the saying, unto which it is prefixed is true, but that we must regard it as proceeding from the true and faithful witness.” — Doddridge. Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending, &c. — Ye shall see the whole frame of nature subject to my commands, and such a surprising train of miracles wrought by me, in the whole course of my succeeding ministry, with such remarkable interpositions of Providence in my behalf, as will not only leave you no room to doubt of my mission from God, but will make it appear as if heaven was opened, and all the angels of God were continually, (as they appeared in a vision to Jacob, Genesis 28:12,) ascending and descending to wait upon the Son of man, and to receive and execute his orders. Or, if we understand the prediction more literally, we may, with Dr. Hammond, refer it to Christ’s ascension, when the heaven was opened to receive him, and the angels came down from thence to wait on him, and ascended after him. The appearance of an angel in his agony might also be referred to, and of those who waited on him at his resurrection, and so he may be considered as referring his disciples to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, by which the truth of his mission was put beyond all doubt. And even his second and glorious coming may be included, or, as some think, may be principally intended; as if he had said, “All who believe on me now, in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me.”

48. Under the fig-tree—The Jewish writers often speak of the shade of the fig-tree as the place of meditation and prayer. Probably it was in some such shade, within some enclosure secluded from the possible reach of the human eye of Jesus, that Nathanael won his title of Israelite, (as did Jacob of old that of Israel,) by prevailing prayer with God. As the nation was alive with the hope of the Messiah, and as Nathanael’s mind was doubtless agitated by John’s preaching a Messiah at hand, Nathanael’s prayer was very probably for a sight of the Messiah himself. When Jesus, therefore, showed himself acquainted with that secret supplication, who can wonder at the burst of rapture with which he hails Jesus himself as that very demonstrated Messiah?

V. 49. Nathanael answered-Happy are they that are ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God.

Thou art the Son of God-So he acknowledges now more than he had heard from Philip:

The Son of God, the king of Israel-A confession both of the person and office of Christ.

Verse 49. Rabbi] That is, Teacher! and so this word should be translated. Thou art the Son of God] The promised Messiah.

Thou art the King of Israel.] The real descendant of David, who art to sit on that spiritual throne of which the throne of David was the type.

Verses 47-51. Jesus saw Nathanael coming — “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, one free from hypocrisy, and open to conviction; one who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues.” — Macknight. Nathanael saith, Whence knowest thou me — I am a perfect stranger to thee; how then canst thou know my character? Jesus answered — I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose; nor do I take it from uncertain report. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig- tree, I saw thee — As if he had said, 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. Nathanael was so struck with this express reference to what he was certain none could know but God and his own conscience, that all his prejudices were at once removed; and he immediately replied, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, &c. — So he acknowledges more than he had heard from Philip: he makes a confession both of the person and office of Christ. Happy they that are thus ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God! Just thus the woman of Samaria argued, (John 4:29,) Come see a man who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? — Which plainly intimates, that they supposed the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophecy in the highest degree. Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou — Dost thou believe me to be the Messiah, because of the supernatural knowledge of thy character and secret actions which I have now discovered? Thou shalt see greater things than these — Greater instances of my power and knowledge, consequently more remarkable proofs of my mission. Verily, verily, I say unto you — “There is no doubt that these words are to be taken for a solemn affirmation, in which it was observable that John has constantly repeated the amhn, verily, while it is only mentioned once by the other evangelists; and this we may suppose him to have done, either to excite the greater attention, or in a more emphatical and stronger manner to assert the truth, not only of the thing affirmed, but of the person who affirms it. For as amen in the Hebrew signifies truth, (Isaiah 65:16,) so Christ, as being the true and faithful witness, is called the Amen, Revelation 3:14. This repeated asserveration, therefore, may be considered as an intimation to us, not only that the saying, unto which it is prefixed is true, but that we must regard it as proceeding from the true and faithful witness.” — Doddridge. Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending, &c. — Ye shall see the whole frame of nature subject to my commands, and such a surprising train of miracles wrought by me, in the whole course of my succeeding ministry, with such remarkable interpositions of Providence in my behalf, as will not only leave you no room to doubt of my mission from God, but will make it appear as if heaven was opened, and all the angels of God were continually, (as they appeared in a vision to Jacob, Genesis 28:12,) ascending and descending to wait upon the Son of man, and to receive and execute his orders. Or, if we understand the prediction more literally, we may, with Dr. Hammond, refer it to Christ’s ascension, when the heaven was opened to receive him, and the angels came down from thence to wait on him, and ascended after him. The appearance of an angel in his agony might also be referred to, and of those who waited on him at his resurrection, and so he may be considered as referring his disciples to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, by which the truth of his mission was put beyond all doubt. And even his second and glorious coming may be included, or, as some think, may be principally intended; as if he had said, “All who believe on me now, in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me.”

49. Thou art the Son of God—The title which the Baptist had taught them to apply to Jesus, verse 34. King of Israel—King in that kingdom of God for which he perhaps had prayed.

Verse 50. Because I said-I saw thee, &c.] As thou hast credited my Divine mission on this simple proof, that I saw thee when and where no human eye, placed where mine was, could see thee, thy faith shall not rest merely upon this, for thou shalt see greater things than these-more numerous and express proofs of my eternal power and Godhead.

Verses 47-51. Jesus saw Nathanael coming — “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, one free from hypocrisy, and open to conviction; one who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues.” — Macknight. Nathanael saith, Whence knowest thou me — I am a perfect stranger to thee; how then canst thou know my character? Jesus answered — I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose; nor do I take it from uncertain report. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig- tree, I saw thee — As if he had said, 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. Nathanael was so struck with this express reference to what he was certain none could know but God and his own conscience, that all his prejudices were at once removed; and he immediately replied, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, &c. — So he acknowledges more than he had heard from Philip: he makes a confession both of the person and office of Christ. Happy they that are thus ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God! Just thus the woman of Samaria argued, (John 4:29,) Come see a man who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? — Which plainly intimates, that they supposed the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophecy in the highest degree. Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou — Dost thou believe me to be the Messiah, because of the supernatural knowledge of thy character and secret actions which I have now discovered? Thou shalt see greater things than these — Greater instances of my power and knowledge, consequently more remarkable proofs of my mission. Verily, verily, I say unto you — “There is no doubt that these words are to be taken for a solemn affirmation, in which it was observable that John has constantly repeated the amhn, verily, while it is only mentioned once by the other evangelists; and this we may suppose him to have done, either to excite the greater attention, or in a more emphatical and stronger manner to assert the truth, not only of the thing affirmed, but of the person who affirms it. For as amen in the Hebrew signifies truth, (Isaiah 65:16,) so Christ, as being the true and faithful witness, is called the Amen, Revelation 3:14. This repeated asserveration, therefore, may be considered as an intimation to us, not only that the saying, unto which it is prefixed is true, but that we must regard it as proceeding from the true and faithful witness.” — Doddridge. Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending, &c. — Ye shall see the whole frame of nature subject to my commands, and such a surprising train of miracles wrought by me, in the whole course of my succeeding ministry, with such remarkable interpositions of Providence in my behalf, as will not only leave you no room to doubt of my mission from God, but will make it appear as if heaven was opened, and all the angels of God were continually, (as they appeared in a vision to Jacob, Genesis 28:12,) ascending and descending to wait upon the Son of man, and to receive and execute his orders. Or, if we understand the prediction more literally, we may, with Dr. Hammond, refer it to Christ’s ascension, when the heaven was opened to receive him, and the angels came down from thence to wait on him, and ascended after him. The appearance of an angel in his agony might also be referred to, and of those who waited on him at his resurrection, and so he may be considered as referring his disciples to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, by which the truth of his mission was put beyond all doubt. And even his second and glorious coming may be included, or, as some think, may be principally intended; as if he had said, “All who believe on me now, in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me.”

50. Greater things than these—Greater than this, the Lord’s knowledge of his secret prayer. That should be but the beginning of wonders.

V. 51. Hereafter ye shall see-All of these, as well as thou, who believe on me now in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me. This seems the most natural sense of the words, though they may also refer to his ascension.

Verse 51. Verily, verily] Amen, amen. The doubling of this word probably came from this circumstance: that it was written both in Hebrew אמנ and in Greek amhn, signifying, it is true.

Heaven open] This seems to be a figurative expression: 1. Christ may be understood by this saying to mean, that a clear and abundant revelation of God’s will should be now made unto men; that heaven itself should be laid as it were open, and all the mysteries which had been shut up and hidden in it from eternity, relative to the salvation and glorification of man; should be now fully revealed. 2. That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of despatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince. This metaphor will receive considerable light when compared with 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself:-We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to God. The whole concerns of human salvation shall be carried on, from henceforth, through the Son of man; and an incessant intercourse be established between heaven and earth. Some have illustrated this passage by the account of Jacob’s vision, Genesis 28:12. But though that vision may intimate that God had established at that time a communication between heaven and earth, through the medium of angels, yet it does not appear that our Lord’s saying here has any reference to it; but that it should be understood as stated above.

What a glorious view does this give us of the Gospel dispensation! It is heaven opened to earth; and heaven opened on earth. The Church militant and the Church triumphant become one, and the whole heavenly family, in both, see and adore their common Lord. Neither the world nor the Church is left to the caprices of time or chance. The Son of man governs as he upholds all. Wherever we are praying, studying, hearing, meditating, his gracious eye is upon us. He notes our wants, our weakness, and our petitions; and his eye affects his heart. Let us be without guile, deeply, habitually sincere, serious, and upright; and then we may rest assured, that not only the eye, but the hand, of our Lord shall be ever upon us for good. Happy the man whose heart can rejoice in the reflection, Thou God seest me!

1. TESTIMONIES CONCERNING THE LOGOS, OR WORD OF GOD;

From the Chaldee Targums.

The person here styled the Logos is called hwhy rbd debar yehovah, the Word of Jehovah, Genesis 15:1, 4; 1 Samuel 3:7, 21; 15:10; 1 Kings 13:9, 17; 19:9, 15; <19A720>Psalm 107:20; and the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases, frequently substitute yyd armym meymra d’yay, the word of the Lord, for hwhy Jehovah himself. Thus the Jerusalem Targum in Genesis 3:22, and both that and the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, in Genesis 19:24. And Onkelos, on Genesis 3:8, for the voice of the Lord God, has, the voice of the WORD of the Lord. The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 1:27, for, And God created man, has, The WORD of Jehovah created, &c. Compare Targum Jonathan, on Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; Jeremiah 27:5. And on Genesis 22:14, that of Jerusalem says, Abraham invoked, yyd armym בשם beshem meymra d’yay, in the name of the WORD of the Lord, and said, THOU art Jehovah. So Onkelos, Genesis 28:20, 21, If the WORD of Jehovah will be my help-then the WORD of Jehovah shall be my God. See Parkhurst under the word LOGOS. After a serious reading of the Targums, it seems to me evident that the Chaldee term armym meymra, or WORD, is taken personally, in a multitude of places in them. When Jonathan ben Uzziel speaks of the Supreme Being as doing or saying any thing, he generally represents him as performing the whole by this Meymra, or WORD, which he considers, not as a speech or word spoken, but as a person distinct from the Most High, and to whom he attributes all the operations of the Deity. To attempt to give the word any other meaning than this, in various places throughout the Targums, would, in my opinion, be flat opposition to every rule of construction; though, like the Greek word logov, it has other acceptations in certain places. See Lightfoot.

2. Testimonies concerning the personality, attributes, and influence of the WORD of GOD, taken from the Zend Avesta, and other writings attributed to Zoroaster.

“Let thy terrible WORD which I pronounce, O Ormusd! elevate itself on high. May it be great before thee, and satisfy my desires!” ZEND AVESTA, vol. i. Vendidad Sade, p. 104.

Zoroaster consulted Ormusd, and spoke thus to him:

“O Ormusd, absorbed in excellence, just Judge of the world, pure, who existest by thy own power, what is that great WORD given by God, that living and powerful WORD, O Ormusd, tell me plainly, which existed before the heavens, before the water, before the earth, before the flocks, before the fire, the CHILD of ORMUSD, before men, before the whole race of existing beings, before all the benefits, and before all the pure germs given by Ormusd?” Ormusd replied: “Pronounce that great WORD well, that WORD which existed before heaven was made, before the water, before the earth, before brute animals, before men, and before the holy angels (amschaspands.) I pronounced that word with majesty, and all the pure beings which are, and which have been, and which shall be, were formed. I continue to pronounce it in its utmost extent, and abundance is multiplied.” Ibid. p. 138, 139.

“By his original WORD, Ormusd created the world and vanquished Ahriman, the genius of evil.” Ibid. p. 140, not. 1.

“The saints in heaven and earth pronounce the sacred WORD:-under the character of Honover (i.e. pure desire) it is worshipped.” Ibid. 141.

“Ormusd, together with the luminous and excellent WORD, is invoked, to defend the true worshipper from the oppression of evil spirits.” Ibid. p. 174.

“Man is healed by the supreme word.” Ibid. p. 324.

“By this WORD all defiled places are rendered pure: fire, water, earth, trees, flocks, men, women, stars, moon, sun, and the primeval light, with all the blessings given by Ormusd, are purified by it.” Ibid. p. 368.

The word of Ormusd is termed, “Ezem bate, I AM;” and is represented as “putting every thing in a safe state-as the author of abundance; the source of all productions; the holy, pure, precious, and desirable word, which watches over all the creation.” Ibid. Jescht Rashne Rast. vol. ii. p. 239.

It is called,

“The excellent, elevated, and victorious word: the source of light; the principle of action, which smites and triumphs; which gives health; discomfits wicked men and spirits; which exists through all the world, destroying the evil, and fulfilling the desires of the good.” Ibid. Jescht of Ormusd, vol. ii. p. 145.

The Word is invoked as-

“The pure word-the most pure word: the strong-the most strong: the extended and ancient-the most extended and the most ancient: the victorious-the most victorious: the salutary-the most salutary: which gives health-is the abundant source of health, and cures wounds and diseases of all kinds.” Ibid. Jescht of Ardebehesht, vol. ii. p. 157.

It is termed,

“The creator, or creating principle.” Ibid. Jescht of Farvardin, vol. ii. p. 252.

“Prayer is made to the soul of the excellent WORD, the body of which is supremely luminous.” Ibid. p. 262.

“Through the whole government of Ormusd, men are commanded to invoke that most pure and excellent WORD.” Ibid. p. 264. That the word, in the above places, does not mean the sacred books of the Parsees, it is expressly said, that-

“The law of the Mazdejesnans (the disciples of Zoroaster) comes from this superexcellent Word.” Ibid. Si-Rouze; Mansrespand, p. 323, 354.

“The law is the body under which the primitive WORD, which created the world, is manifested. The primitive WORD therefore is worshipped in reading and reverencing that law; and the effects produced in the soul by it are no less than a new creation, in some sort similar to that which this omnific Word formed in the beginning.” Ibid. vol. ii. p. 595.

“The WORD proceeds from the first principle, time without bounds, i.e. eternity: it is before all created beings, and by it all the creation of God has been formed.” Ibid. vol. ii. p. 592.

I find a word of the same import, used in exactly the same sense, in the Zend Avesta, attributed to the ancient Persian lawgiver, Zoroaster. One might suppose that Mohammed had she first chapter of St. John’s Gospel in his eye when he wrote ver. 33, of Surat xix., of his Koran:- [Arabic]

Zalyka Isaiah ibno Mareema Kawlolhokki, This is Jesus the Son of Mary, the WORD of TRUTH.-Some may understand the Arabic differently: This is a true word, that Jesus is the son of Mary.

3. TESTIMONIES CONCERNING THE LOGOS OR WORD OF GOD;

From Philo Judæus.

After I had begun my collections from Philo Judæus relative to the Logos, I casually met with a work of the late very learned Mr. Jacob Bryant, entitled, The sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the LOGOS, or WORD of GOD. 8vo. Cambridge, 1797. From this valuable tract I shall make a few extracts, and beg leave to refer the reader to the pamphlet itself. “Philo Judæus speaks at large, in many places, of the word of God, the second person, which he mentions as (deuterov qeov) the second divinity, the great cause of all things, and styles him, as Plato, as well as the Jews had done before, the LOGOS. Of the Divine Logos, or Word, he speaks in many places, and maintains at large the divinity of the second person, and describes his attributes in a very precise and copious manner, styling him: (a) ton deuteron qeon ov estin ekeinou (qeou prwtou) logov, the second Deity, who is the Word of the Supreme God; (b) prwtogonon uion, his first begotten Son; (c) eikwn qeou, the Image of God; and (d) poimhn thv ierav agelhv, The shepherd of his holy flock. In his treatise upon Creation, he speaks of the WORD, as (e) the Divine operator, by whom all things were disposed; and mentions him as (f) superior to the angels and all created beings, and the image and likeness of God, and says that this image of the true God was esteemed the same as God-(g) wv auton (qeon) katanoousi. (h) This LOGOS, the WORD of GOD, says he, is superior to all the world, and more ancient; being the producter of all that was produced. (i) The eternal Word of the everlasting God is the sure and fixed foundation, upon which all things depend. He mentions man as in need of redemption, and says, What intelligent person, who views mankind engaged in unworthy and wicked pursuits, but (k) must be grieved to the heart, and call upon that only Saviour God, that these crimes may be extenuated, and that, by a ransom and price of redemption being given for his soul, it may again obtain its freedom! It pleased God therefore to appoint his LOGOS to be a mediator. (l) To his WORD the chief and most ancient of all in heaven, the great Author of the world gave this especial gift, that he should stand as a medium (or intercessor) between the Creator and the created; and he is accordingly the advocate for all mortals. The same (m) WORD is the intercessor for man, who is always tending to (n) corruption: and he is the appointed messenger of God, the governor of all things, to man in subjection to him. (o) He, therefore, exhorts every person, who is able, to exert himself in the race which he is to run, to bend his course without (p) remission to the Divine WORD above, who is the fountain of all wisdom; that, by drinking at this sacred spring, he, instead of death, may obtain the reward of everlasting life. He repeats, continually, that the LOGOS is the express image of God. (q) The WORD, by which the world was made, is the image of the supreme Deity. (r) As we perceive the sun’s light, though the sun itself is not seen; and behold the brightness of the moon, though its orb may not appear to the eye; so men look up to, and acknowledge, the likeness of God, in his minister the LOGOS, whom they esteem as God. He attempts to describe his nature by representing him as, (s) not uncreated, like God; nor yet created, as man; but of a Divine substance. (t) For the WORD of God, which is above all the host of heaven, cannot be comprehended by human wisdom, having nothing in his nature that is perceptible to mortal sense. For, being the image of God, and the eldest of all intelligent beings, he is seated immediately next to the one God, without any interval of separation. This, in the language of Scripture, is sitting on the right hand of God. He adds, (u) For not being liable to any voluntary or involuntary change, or falling off, he has God for his lot and portion, and his residence is in God. The like is mentioned in another place, where he is represented again as sinless, and as the great High Priest of the world. (v) We maintain, that by the (true) High Priest is not meant a man, but the Divine WORD, who is free from all voluntary and involuntary transgressions; being of heavenly parentage, born of God, and of that Divine Wisdom by which all things were produced. He speaks to the same purpose in another place, there he makes mention of the WORD. (w) en w kai arciereuv, o prwtogonov autou (qeou) qeiov logov, In which presides that High Priest, the holy WORD, the first-born of God; at other times styled, presbutatov uiov qeou, the Son of God, antecedent to all creation. (x) touton men gar presbutaton uion o twn ontwn aneteile pathr, on eterwqi prwtogonon wnomase. It is manifest that every attribute which the sacred writers have given to Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, Philo has attributed to him in his Divine character, antecedent to creation, page 15-22.

Mr. Bryant thinks that Philo derived all this knowledge, concerning the Logos, from the apostles, and the works and conversation of Christian writers; for it is very probable that Philo was contemporary with our Lord himself. Mr. B. is so well satisfied that Philo derived all this knowledge from these sources that he goes on to ask:-

“Whence else could he have obtained so many terms which bear such an analogy with the expressions and doctrines in the apostolical writings? Such are uiov qeou, logov prwtogonov, presbutatov, aidiov, logov arciereuv, mesov, meqoriov, ikethv tou qnhtou, dhmiourgov, poimhn thv lerav agelhv, uJparcov qeou, sfragiv, eikwn teou, fwv, pneuma qeou,

pneuma pansofon. We read farther concerning redemption, and-lutra kai swstra, the price and ransom for the soul, anti qanatou zwhn aidion, and nouv anqrwpou naov qeou. To

these other instances might be added equally significant; few of which are to be found in the Greek version, or in any Jewish doctrines, at least in the acceptation given. They were obtained either from the conversation, or from the writings, of the first Christians; or rather from both.” Page 202.

At p. 105, Mr. B. gives “A recapitulation of the characters and attributes of the Logos, with the collateral evidence from Scripture.” This, with some other matters of a collateral import, he argues in 52 particulars, from which I have extracted the following, as being most closely allied to the subject, inserting the original words along with the translation. The references, in all cases, are to Dr. Mangey’s edition of Philo, 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1742.

4. A LIST OF SOME OF THE PARTICULAR TERMS AND DOCTRINES FOUND IN PHILO, with parallel passages from the New Testament.

1. The Logos is the Son of God-uiov qeou. Deuteronomy Agric. vol. i. p. 308; Deuteronomy Profug. ib. p. 562: compare Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; John 1:34; Acts 8:37.

2. The second divinity-deuterov qeov logov. Fragm. vol. ii. p. 625: comp. John 1:1: 1 Corinthians 1:24.

3. The first-begotten of God-logov protogonov. Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 653: comp. Hebrews 1:6; Colossians 1:15.

4. The image of God-eikwn tou qeou. Deuteronomy Mundi Opific. vol. i. p. 6, 414, 419, 656. comp. Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:4.

5. Superior to angels-uperanw pantwn (aggelwn) logov qeiov. Deuteronomy Profugis, vol. i. p. 561: comp. Hebrews 1:4, 6.

6. Superior to all the world-oJ logov&uperanw pantov esti. Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 121: comp. Hebrews 2:8.

7. By whom the world was created-ton qeion logon ton tauta diakosmhsanta. Deuteronomy Mund. Opif. vol. i. p. 4: comp. John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2, 10.

8. The great substitute of God-uparcov tou qeou. Deuteronomy Agricult. vol. i. p. 308: comp. John 1:3; 17:4; Ephesians 3:9; <502007> Philippians 2:7.

9. The light of the world-fwv kosmou: and intellectual sun-hliov nohtov. Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 6, 414, 632, 633: comp. John 1:4, 9; 8:12; 1 Peter 2:9.

10. Who only can see God-w monw ton qeon exesti kaqoran. Deuteronomy Confus. Linguar. vol. i. p. 418: comp. John 1:18; 6:46.

11. Who resides in God-en autw monw katoikhsei. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. p. 561: comp. John 1:1, 18; 14:11.

12. The most ancient of God’s works, and before all things-presbutatov twn osa gegone. Deuteronomy Confus. Ling. vol. i. p. 427; Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. ib. p. 121: comp. John 1:2; 17:5, 24; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 1:2.

13. Esteemed the same as God-logon wv auton (qeon) katanoousi. Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 656: comp. Mark 2:7; Romans 9:5; <501706> Philippians 2:6.

14. The Logos is eternal-o aidiov logov. Deuteronomy Plant. Noæ, vol. i. p. 332, and vol. ii. p. 604: comp. John 12:34; 2 Timothy 1:9; 4:18; Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 10:6.

15. Beholds all things-oxuderkestatov, wv panta eforan einai ikanov. Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 121: comp. Hebrews 4:12, 13; Revelation 2:23.

16. He unites, supports, preserves, and perfects the world-o te gar tou ontov logov, desmov wn twn apantwn&sunecei ta merh panta, kai sfiggei&periecei ta ola, kai peplhrwken. Deuteronomy Prof. vol. i. p. 562; Fragm. vol. ii. p. 655: comp. John 3:35; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3.

17. Nearest to God without any separation-o eggutatw mhdenov ontov meqoriou diasthmatov. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. p. 561: comp. John 1:18; 10:30; 14:11; 17:11.

18. Free from all taint of sin, voluntary or involuntary-aneu trophv ekousiou&kai thv akousiou. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. p. 561: comp. John 8:46; Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22.

19. Who presides over the imperfect and weak-outov gar hmwn twn atelwn an eih qeov. Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 128: comp. Matthew 11:5; Luke 5:32; 1 Timothy 1:15.

20. The Logos, the fountain of wisdom-logon qeion, ov sofiav esti phgh. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. p. 560, 566: comp. John 4:14; John 7:38; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Colossians 2:3.

21. A messenger sent from God-presbeuthv tou hgemonov prov to uphkoon. Quis Rer. Div. Hæres. vol. i. p. 501: comp. John 5:36; 8:29, 42; 1 John 4:9.

22. The advocate for mortal man-ikethv men esti tou qnhtou. Quis Rer. Div. Hær. vol. i. p. 501: comp. John 14:16; 17:20; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25.

23. He ordered and disposed of all things-dieile kai dieneime panta. Ib. p. 506: comp. Colossians 1:15, 16; Hebrews 11:3.

24. The shepherd of God’s flock-ton orqon autou logon,&ov thn epimeleian thv ierav tauthv agelhv. Deuteronomy Agricul. vol. i. p. 308: comp. John 10:14; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25.

25. Of the power and royalty of the Logos-o tou hgemonov logov&kai basilikh dunamiv autou. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. p. 561: comp. 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:21, 22; Hebrews 1:2, 3; Revelation 17:14.

28. The Logos is the physician, who heals all evil-ton aggelon (ov esti logov) wsper iatron kakwn. Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 122: comp. Luke 4:18; 7:21; 1 Peter 2:24; James 1:21.

27. The Logos is the seal of God-o de&estin h sfragiv. Deuteronomy Profug. vol. i. pp. 547, 548; Deuteronomy Plant. Noæ, ib. p. 332: comp. John 6:27; Ephesians 1:13; Hebrews 1:3.

28. The sure refuge of those who seek him-efJ on prwton katafeugein&wfelimwtaton. Deuteronomy Profug. ib. p. 560: comp. Matthew 11:28; 1 Peter 2:25.

29. Of heavenly food distributed by the Logos equally to all who seek it-thn ouranion trofhn yuchv. Quis Rer. Divin. Hær. vol. i. p. 499: comp. Matthew 5:6; 7:7; 13:10; 24:14; 28:19; Romans 10:12, 18.

30. Of men’s forsaking their sins, and obtaining spiritual freedom by the Logos-eleuqeria thv yuchv Deuteronomy Cong. Quær. Erud. Grat. vol. i. p. 534; Deuteronomy Prof. ib. pp. 561, 563: comp. John 8:36; 1 Corinthians 7:22; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1, 13.

31. Of men’s being freed by the Logos from all corruption, and entitled to immortality-o ierov logov etimhse, gerav exaireton douv, klhron aqanaton, thn en afqartw genei taxin. Deuteronomy Cong. Quær. Erud. Grat. vol. i. p. 535: comp. Romans 8:21; 1 Corinthians 15:52, 53; 1 Peter 1:3, 4.

32. The Logos mentioned by Philo, not only as uiov qeou, the Son of God; but also, agaphton teknon, his beloved Son. Deuteronomy Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 129: comp. Matthew 3:17; Luke 9:36; Colossians 1:13; 2 Peter 1:17.

33. The just man advanced by the Logos to the presence of his Creator-tw autw logw&idrusav plhsion eautou. Deuteronomy Sacrificiis, vol. i. p. 165: comp. John 6:37, 44; 12:26; 14:6.

34. The Logos, the true high priest-arciereuv, o prwtogonov autou qeiov logov. Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 653; Deuteronomy Profug. ib. p. 562: comp. John 1:41; 8:46; Acts 4:27; Hebrews 4:14; 7:26.

35. The Logos in his mediatorial capacity-logov arciereuv meqoriov: of whom he says, qaumazw kai ton meta spoudhv apneusti dramonta suntonwv ieron logon, ina sth mesov twn teqnhkotwn kai twn zwntwn. “I am astonished to see the Holy Logos running with so much speed and earnestness, that he may stand between the living and the dead.” Quis Rer. Divinar. Hæres. vol. i. p. 501: comp. 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:1-6; 9:11, 12, 24.

These testimonies are truly astonishing: and if we allow, as some contend, that Philo was not acquainted either with the disciples of our Lord, or the writings of the New Testament, we shall be obliged to grant that there must have been some measure of Divine inspiration in that man’s mind, who could, in such a variety of cases, write so many words and sentences, so exactly corresponding to those of the evangelists and apostles.

5. Testimonies concerning a Trinity among the Chinese, and concerning the WORD of God.

Among the ancient Chinese characters which have been preserved, we find the following [Chinese], like the Greek delta, and since written [Chinese]. According to the Chinese Dictionary Kang-hi, this character signifies union. According to Choueouen, a celebrated work, [Chinese] is three united in one. The Lieou chou tsing hoen, which is a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says: “[Chinese] signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of the heaven, and of the earth: it is the union of three.”

The book Se-hi says, “Formerly the emperor made a solemn sacrifice every three years to the Spirit Trinity in Unity.” [Chinese] ehin san Y. The word Tao in ordinary discourse signifies rule, law, wisdom, truth, way, word. In the text of Lao tse it signifies the Divinity. “Tao (says he) is an abyss of perfections which comprehends all beings. The Tao which can be described is not the eternal Tao. The Tao is its own rule and model. The Tao preserves the heavens, and sustains the earth. It is so elevated that none can reach it; so deep that none can fathom it; so immense that it contains the universe; and, notwithstanding, it is complete in the smallest things.”

“He who is as visible, and yet cannot be seen, is denominated lieou [Chinese]; he who can be heard, and yet speaks not to the ears, hi; he who is as tangible, and yet cannot be felt, is named ouci: in vain do you consult your senses concerning these three; your reason alone can discourse of them, and it will tell you that they are but one: above, there is no light; below, there is no darkness. He is eternal. There is no name which can designate him. He bears no similitude to any created thing. He is an image without form; and a form without matter. His light is encompassed with darkness. If you look upwards, you cannot see his commencement: if you follow him, you cannot discover his end. What the Tao has always been, such he continues to be: for he is eternal, and the commencement of wisdom.”

One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letter from which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted that the mystery of the Trinity was known among the ancient Chinese, and that the character [Chinese] was its symbol. Lettre sur les Characteres Chinois, 4to. Bruxelles, 1773. IT is remarkable that Moses and the prophets, the ancient Chaldee Targumists, the author or authors of the Zend Avesta, Plato and the first philosophers of Greece, Philo the Jew, John and the apostles, and perhaps even Mohammed himself, should all so perfectly coincide in their ideas concerning a glorious person in the Godhead! This must have been more than the effect of accident. Moses and the prophets received this Divine doctrine from God himself: it was afterwards confirmed to the apostles by Divine inspiration; and ancient philosophers and lawgivers borrowed from both.

—————————————————————

(a) Philo. Fragm. vol. ii. p. 625.

(b) Deuteronomy Agricult. vol. i. p. 303.

(c) Deuteronomy Mundi Opif. vol. i. p. 6.

(d) Deuteronomy Agricult. vol i. p. 308.

(e) Deuteronomy Mundi Opif. vol. i. p. 4.

(f) Deuteronomy Profugis. vol. i. p. 561.

(g) Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 656.

(h) Deuteronomy Leg. Alleg. vol. i. p. 121.

(i) Deuteronomy Plantatione. Næ, vol. i. p. 331.

(k) Deuteronomy Confus. Ling. vol. i. p. 418. l.50

(l) Quis Rerum Divin. Hæres. vol. i. pp. 501, 502.

(m) Ibid. p. 501. l. 49.

(n) For khrainontov aei prov to afqarton, we should certainly read, prov to fqarton.

(o) Deuteronomy Profugis. vol. i. p. 560. l. 31.

(p) The present reading is apleusti, the meaning of which I do not comprehend. The true reading is probably apneusti, from apneustov, without remission-indesinenter, without stopping to take breath. (q) Deuteronomy Monarchia, vol. ii. l. ii. p. 225. ton de aoraton kai nohton qeion logon eikona legei qeou. Deuteronomy Mundi Opif. vol. i. p. 6.

(r) Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 656. l. 33.

(s) Quis Rerum Divin. Hæres. vol. i. p. 502.

(t) Deuteronomy Profugis. vol. i. p. 561. l. 16.

(u) Ibid, 224.

(v) Ibid. p. 562. l. 13.

(w) Deuteronomy Somniis, vol. i. p. 653.

(x) Deuteronomy Confus. Ling. vol. i. p. 414.

ST. JOHN

Verses 47-51. Jesus saw Nathanael coming — “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, one free from hypocrisy, and open to conviction; one who not only derived his pedigree from Abraham, but who inherited his virtues.” — Macknight. Nathanael saith, Whence knowest thou me — I am a perfect stranger to thee; how then canst thou know my character? Jesus answered — I am not so entire a stranger to thy character as thou art ready to suppose; nor do I take it from uncertain report. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast alone under the fig- tree, I saw thee — As if he had said, 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. Nathanael was so struck with this express reference to what he was certain none could know but God and his own conscience, that all his prejudices were at once removed; and he immediately replied, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, &c. — So he acknowledges more than he had heard from Philip: he makes a confession both of the person and office of Christ. Happy they that are thus ready to believe, swift to receive the truth and grace of God! Just thus the woman of Samaria argued, (John 4:29,) Come see a man who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? — Which plainly intimates, that they supposed the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophecy in the highest degree. Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou — Dost thou believe me to be the Messiah, because of the supernatural knowledge of thy character and secret actions which I have now discovered? Thou shalt see greater things than these — Greater instances of my power and knowledge, consequently more remarkable proofs of my mission. Verily, verily, I say unto you — “There is no doubt that these words are to be taken for a solemn affirmation, in which it was observable that John has constantly repeated the amhn, verily, while it is only mentioned once by the other evangelists; and this we may suppose him to have done, either to excite the greater attention, or in a more emphatical and stronger manner to assert the truth, not only of the thing affirmed, but of the person who affirms it. For as amen in the Hebrew signifies truth, (Isaiah 65:16,) so Christ, as being the true and faithful witness, is called the Amen, Revelation 3:14. This repeated asserveration, therefore, may be considered as an intimation to us, not only that the saying, unto which it is prefixed is true, but that we must regard it as proceeding from the true and faithful witness.” — Doddridge. Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending, &c. — Ye shall see the whole frame of nature subject to my commands, and such a surprising train of miracles wrought by me, in the whole course of my succeeding ministry, with such remarkable interpositions of Providence in my behalf, as will not only leave you no room to doubt of my mission from God, but will make it appear as if heaven was opened, and all the angels of God were continually, (as they appeared in a vision to Jacob, Genesis 28:12,) ascending and descending to wait upon the Son of man, and to receive and execute his orders. Or, if we understand the prediction more literally, we may, with Dr. Hammond, refer it to Christ’s ascension, when the heaven was opened to receive him, and the angels came down from thence to wait on him, and ascended after him. The appearance of an angel in his agony might also be referred to, and of those who waited on him at his resurrection, and so he may be considered as referring his disciples to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, by which the truth of his mission was put beyond all doubt. And even his second and glorious coming may be included, or, as some think, may be principally intended; as if he had said, “All who believe on me now, in my state of humiliation, shall hereafter see me come in my glory, and all the angels of God with me.”

Ver. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you. John repeats the amen twice, no doubt because he heard the Saviour sometimes do it. In Isaiah 64:16, it is rendered “truly,” which justifies us in saying verily. St. Paul, instead of repeating the word twice, says that all the promises in Christ are yea and amen. The word is also doubled in Numbers 5:22. Nehemiah 8:6.

51. Angels… ascending and descending upon the Son of man—Christ now presents himself to this Israelite indeed, as the reality, of which the ladder that ancient Israel saw (Genesis 28:12) is the symbol; as the mediator through which the intercourse of heaven and earth shall be opened in the new dispensation. Prayers and holy intercession should ascend; blessings and holy communions, revelations, miracles, powers, and gifts of the Holy Ghost should descend; blessings of which angels are but the messengers and symbols. The person of the Son of man, with his feet upon the earth and his head above the highest heavens, should be the conduct or of these communications. This miracle of Jesus’s knowledge of Nathanael’s secret prayer was how small compared with these intercourses of the new dispensation! Son of man—Though Nathanael has just acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus himself here appropriates the humbler title of Son of man. See note on Matthew 8:20; Luke 1:35. Jesus thus, having by divine attraction attached these five disciples to himself, proceeds on his return home to Nazareth; whence he had last departed to receive baptism, to undergo temptation, and to attain from his harbinger his due attestation, preparatory to the hour of his ministration to the world, by miracles of power and mercy. It is now full time to receive the narrative of his first miracle.