John 1:1-5
1. In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God,
and the Speech was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things
were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light
shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
1. In the beginning was the Speech. In this introduction he asserts
the eternal Divinity of Christ, in order to inform us that he is the eternal
God, who was manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 4:16.) The design is,
to show it to have been necessary that the restoration of mankind should
be accomplished by the Son of God, since by his power all things were created,
since he alone breathes into all the creatures life and energy, so that
they remain in their condition; and since in man himself he has given a
remarkable display both of his power and of his grace, and even subsequently
to the fall of man has not ceased to show liberality and kindness towards
his posterity. And this doctrine is highly necessary to be known; for since
apart from God we ought not at all to seek life and salvation, how could
our faith rest on Christ, if we did not know with certainty what is here
taught? By these words, therefore, the Evangelist assures us that we do
not withdraw from the only and eternal God, when we believe in Christ,
and likewise that life is now restored to the dead through the kindness
of him who was the source and cause of life, when the nature of man was
still uncorrupted.
As to the Evangelist calling the Son of God the Speech, the simple reason
appears to me to be, first, because he is the eternal Wisdom and Will of
God; and, secondly, because he is the lively image of His purpose; for,
as Speech is said to be among men the image of the mind, so it is not inappropriate
to apply this to God, and to say that He reveals himself to us by his Speech.
The other significations of the Greek word lo>gov (Logos) do not apply
so well. It means, no doubt, definition, and reasoning, and calculation;
but I am unwilling to carry the abstruseness of philosophy beyond the measure
of my faith. And we perceive that the Spirit of God is so far from approving
of such subtleties that, in prattling with us, by his very silence he cries
aloud with what sobriety we ought to handle such lofty mysteries.
Now as God, in creating the world, revealed himself by that Speech,
so he formerly had him concealed with himself, so that there is a twofold
relation; the former to God, and the latter to men. Servetus, a haughty
scoundrel belonging to the Spanish nation, invents the statement, that
this eternal Speech began to exist at that time when he was displayed in
the creation of the world, as if he did not exist before his power was
made known by external operation. Very differently does the Evangelist
teach in this passage; for he does not ascribe to the Speech a beginning
of time, but says that he was from the beginning, and thus rises beyond
all ages. I am fully aware how this dog barks against us, and what cavils
were formerly raised by the Arians, namely, that
in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
(Genesis 1:1)
which nevertheless are not eternal, because the word beginning refers
to order, instead of denoting eternity. But the Evangelist meets this calumny
when he says,
And the Speech was with God. If the Speech began to be at some
time, they must find out some succession of time in God; and undoubtedly
by this clause John intended to distinguish him from all created things.
For many questions might arise, Where was this Speech? How did he exert
his power? What was his nature? How might he be known? The Evangelist,
therefore, declares that we must not confine our views to the world and
to created things; for he was always united to God, before the world existed.
Now when men date the beginning from the origin of heaven and earth, do
they not reduce Christ to the common order of the world, from which he
is excluded in express terms by this passage? By this proceeding they offer
an egregious insult not only to the Son of God, but to his eternal Father,
whom they deprive of his wisdom. If we are not at liberty to conceive of
God without his wisdom, it must be acknowledged that we ought not to seek
the origin of the Speech any where else than in the Eternal Wisdom of God.
Servetus objects that the Speech cannot be admitted to have existed
any earlier than when Moses introduces God as speaking. As if he did not
subsist in God, because he was not publicly made known: that is, as if
he did not exist within, until he began to appear without. But every pretense
for outrageously absurd fancies of this description is cut off by the Evangelist,
when he affirms without reservation, that the Speech was with God; for
he expressly withdraws us from every moment of time.
Those who infer from the imperfect tense of the verb which is here used,
that it denotes continued existence, have little strength of argument to
support them. Was, they say, is a word more fitted to express the idea
of uninterrupted succession, than if John had said, Has been. But on matters
so weighty we ought to employ more solid arguments; and, indeed, the argument
which I have brought forward ought to be reckoned by us sufficient; namely,
that the Evangelist sends us to the eternal secrets of God, that we may
there learn that the Speech was, as it were hidden, before he revealed
himself in the external structure of the world. Justly, therefore, does
Augustine remark, that this beginning, which is now mentioned, has no beginning;
for though, in the order of nature, the Father came before his Wisdom,
yet those who conceive of any point of time when he went before his Wisdom,
deprive Him of his glory. And this is the eternal generation, which, during
a period of infinite extent before the foundation of the world, lay hid
in God, so to speak — which, for a long succession of years, was obscurely
shadowed out to the Fathers under the Law, and at length was more fully
manifested in flesh.
I wonder what induced the Latins to render oJ lo>gov by Verbum, (the
Word;) for that would rather have been the translation of to< rJh~ma.
But granting that they had some plausible reason, still it cannot be denied
that Sermo (the Speech) would have been far more appropriate. Hence it
is evident, what barbarous tyranny was exercised by the theologians of
the Sorbonne, who teased and stormed at Erasmus in such a manner, because
he had changed a single word for the better.
And the Speech was with God. We have already said that the Son
of God is thus placed above the world and above all the creatures, and
is declared to have existed before all ages. But at the same time this
mode of expression attributes to him a distinct personality from the Father;
for it would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that the Speech
was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to
himself in God. This passage serves, therefore, to refute the error of
Sabellius; for it shows that the Son is distinct from the Father. I have
already remarked that we ought to be sober in thinking, and modest in speaking,
about such high mysteries. And yet the ancient writers of the Church were
excusable, when, finding that they could not in any other way maintain
sound and pure doctrine in opposition to the perplexed and ambiguous phraseology
of the heretics, they were compelled to invent some words, which after
all had no other meaning than what is taught in the Scriptures. They said
that there are three Hypostases, or Subsistences, or Persons, in the one
and simple essence of God. The word; uJpo>stasiv (Hypostasis) occurs in
this sense in Hebrews 1:3, to which corresponds the Latin word Substaatia,
(substance) as it is employed by Hilary. The Persons (ta< pro>swpa)
were called by them distinct properties in God, which present themselves
to the view of our minds; as Gregory Nazianzen says, “I cannot think of
the One (God) without having the Three (Persons) shining around me.
And the Speech was God. That there may be no remaining doubt
as to Christ’s divine essence, the Evangelist distinctly asserts that he
is God. Now since there is but one God, it follows that Christ is of the
same essence with the Father, and yet that, in some respect, he is distinct
from the Father. But of the second clause we have already spoken. As to
the unity of the divine essence, Arius showed prodigious wickedness, when,
to avoid being compelled to acknowledge the eternal Divinity of Christ,
he prattled about I know not what imaginary Deity; but for our part, when
we are informed that the Speech was God, what right have we any longer
to call in question his eternal essence?
2. He was in the beginning. In order to impress more deeply on
our minds what had been already said, the Evangelist condenses the two
preceding clauses into a brief summary, that the Speech always was, and
that he was with God; so that it may be understood that the beginning was
before all time.
3. All things were made by him. Having affirmed that the Speech
is God, and having asserted his eternal essence, he now proves his Divinity
from his works. And this is the practical knowledge, to which we ought
to be chiefly accustomed; for the mere name of God attributed to Christ
will affect us little, if our faith do not feel it to be such by experience.
In reference to the Son of God, he makes an assertion which strictly and
properly applies to his person. Sometimes, indeed, Paul simply declares
that all things are by God, (Romans 11:36) but whenever the Son is compared
with the Father, he is usually distinguished by this mark. Accordingly,
the ordinary mode of expression is here employed, that the Father made
all things by the Son, and that all things are by God through the Son.
Now the design of the Evangelist is, as I have already said, to show that
no sooner was the world created than the Speech of God came forth into
external operation; for having formerly been incomprehensible in his essence,
he then became publicly known by the effect of his power. There are some,
indeed, even among philosophers, who make God to be the Master-builder
of the world in such a manner as to ascribe to him intelligence in framing
this work. So far they are in the right, for they agree with Scripture;
but as they immediately fly off into frivolous speculations, there is no
reason why we should eagerly desire to have their testimonies; but, on
the contrary, we ought to be satisfied with this inspired declaration,
well knowing that it conveys far more than our mind is able to comprehend.
And without him was not any thing made that was made. Though
there is a variety of readings in this passage, yet for my own part, I
have no hesitation in taking it continuously thus: not any thing was made
that was made; and in this almost all the Greek manuscripts, or at least
those of them which are most approved, are found to agree; besides, the
sense requires it. Those who separate the words, which was made, from the
preceding clause, so as to connect them with the following one, bring out
a forced sense: what was made was in him life; that is, lived, or was sustained
in life. But they will never show that this mode of expression is, in any
instance, applied to creatures. Augustine, who is excessively addicted
to the philosophy of Plato, is carried along, according to custom, to the
doctrine of ideas; that before God made the world, he had the form of the
whole building conceived in his mind; and so the life of those things which
did not yet exist was in Christ, because the creation of the world was
appointed in him. But how widely different this is From the intention of
the Evangelist we shall immediately see.
I now return to the former clause. This is not a faulty redundancy,
(perittologi>a) as it appears to be; for as Satan endeavors, by every possible
method, to take any thing from Christ, the Evangelist intended to declare
expressly, that of those things which have been made there is no exception
whatever.
4. In him was life. Hitherto he has taught us, that by the Speech
of God all things were created. He now attributes to him, in the same manner,
the preservation of those things which had been created, as if he had said,
that in the creation of the world there was not merely displayed a sudden
exercise of his power, which soon passed away, but that it is manifested
in the steady and regular order of nature, as he is said to uphold all
things by the word or will of his power, (Hebrews 1:3). This life may be
extended either to inanimate creatures, (which live after their own manner,
though they are devoid of feeling,) or may be explained in reference to
living creatures alone. It is of little consequence which you choose; for
the simple meaning is, that the Speech of God was not only the source of
life to all the creatures, so that those which were not began to be, but
that his life-giving power causes them to remain in their condition; for
were it not that his continued inspiration gives vigor to the world, every
thing that lives would immediately decay, or be reduced to nothing. In
a word, what Paul ascribes to God, that in him we are, and move, and live,
(Acts 17:28,) John declares to be accomplished by the gracious agency of
the Speech; so that it is God who gives us life, but it is by the eternal
Speech.
The life was the light of men. The other interpretations, which
do not accord with the meaning of the Evangelist, I intentionally pass
by. He speaks here, in my opinion, of that part of life in which men excel
other animals; and informs us that the life which was bestowed on men was
not of an ordinary description, but was united to the light of understanding.
He separates man from the rank of other creatures; because we perceive
more readily the power of God by feeling it in us than by beholding it
at a distance. Thus Paul charges us not to seek God at a distance, because
he makes himself to be felt within us, (Acts 17:27.) After having presented
a general exhibition of the kindness of Christ, in order to induce men
to take a nearer view of it, he points out what has been bestowed peculiarly
on themselves; namely, that they were not created like the beasts, but
having been endued with reason, they had obtained a higher rank. As it
is not in vain that God imparts his light to their minds, it follows that
the purpose for which they were created was, that they might acknowledge
Him who is the Author of so excellent a blessing. And since this light,
of which the Speech was the source, has been conveyed from him to us, it
ought to serve as a mirror, in which we may clearly behold the divine power
of the Speech.
5. And the light shineth in darkness. It might be objected, that
the passages of Scripture in which men are called blind are so numerous
and that the blindness for which they are condemned is but too well known.
For in all their reasoning faculties they miserably fail. How comes it
that there are so many labyrinths of errors in the world, but because men,
by their own guidance, are led only to vanity and lies? But if no light
appears in men, that testimony of the divinity of Christ, which the Evangelist
lately mentioned, is destroyed; for that is the third step, as I have said,
that in the life of men there is something more excellent than motion and
breathing. The Evangelist anticipates this question, and first of all lays
down this caution, that the light which was originally bestowed on men
must not be estimated by their present condition; because in this corrupted
and degenerate nature light has been turned into darkness. And yet he affirms
that the light of understanding is not wholly extinguished; for, amidst
the thick darkness of the human mind, some remaining sparks of the brightness
still shine.
My readers now understand that this sentence contains two clauses; for
he says that men are now widely distant from that perfectly holy nature
with which they were originally endued; because their understanding, which
ought to have shed light in every direction, has been plunged in darkness,
and is wretchedly blinded; and that thus the glory of Christ may be said
to be darkened amidst this corruption of nature. But, on the other hand,
the Evangelist maintains that, in the midst of the darkness:, there are
still some remains of light, which show in some degree the divine power
of Christ. The Evangelist admits, therefore, that the mind of man is blinded;
so that it may justly be pronounced to be covered with darkness. For he
might have used a milder term, and might have said that the light is dark
or cloudy; but he chose to state more distinctly how wretched our condition
has become since the fall of the first man. The statement that the light
shineth in darkness is not at all intended for the commendation of depraved
nature, but rather for taking away every excuse for ignorance.
And the darkness did not comprehend it. Although by that small
measure of light which still remains in us, the Son of God has always invited
men to himself, yet the Evangelist says that this was attended by no advantage,
because seeing, they did not see, (Matthew 13:13.) For since man lost the
favor of God, his mind is so completely overwhelmed by the thralldom of
ignorance, that any portion of light which remains in it is quenched and
useless. This is daily proved by experience; for all who are not regenerated
by the Spirit of God possess some reason, and this is an undeniable proof
that man was made not only to breathe, but to have understanding. But by
that guidance of their reason they do not come to God, and do not even
approach to him; so that all their understanding is nothing else than mere
vanity. Hence it follows that there is no hope of the salvation of men,
unless God grant new aid; for though the Son of God sheds his light upon
them, they are so dull that they do not comprehend whence that light proceeds,
but are carried away by foolish and wicked imaginations to absolute madness.
The light which still dwells in corrupt nature consists chiefly of two
parts; for, first, all men naturally possess some seed of religion; and,
secondly, the distinction between good and evil is engraven on their consciences.
But what are the fruits that ultimately spring from it, except that religion
degenerates into a thousand monsters of superstition, and conscience perverts
every decision, so as to confound vice with virtue? In short, natural reason
never will direct men to Christ; and as to their being endued with prudence
for regulating their lives, or born to cultivate the liberal arts and sciences,
all this passes away without yielding any advantage.
It ought to be understood that the Evangelist speaks of natural gifts
only, and does not as yet say any thing about the grace of regeneration.
For there are two distinct powers which belong to the Son of God: the first,
which is manifested in the structure of the world and the order of nature;
and the second, by which he renews and restores fallen nature. As he is
the eternal Speech of God, by him the world was made; by his power all
things continue to possess the life which they once received; man especially
was endued with an extraordinary gift of understanding; and though by his
revolt he lost the light of understanding, yet he still sees and understands,
so that what he naturally possesses from the grace of the Son of God is
not entirely destroyed. But since by his stupidity and perverseness he
darkens the light which still dwells in him, it remains that a new office
be undertaken by the Son of God, the office of Mediator, to renew, by the
Spirit of regeneration, man who had been ruined. Those persons, therefore,
reason absurdly and inconclusively, who refer this light, which the Evangelist
mentions, to the gospel and the doctrine of salvation.
John 1:6-13
6. There was a man sent by God, whose name was John. 7. He came
for a testimony, that he might testify of the light; that by him all might
believe. 8. He was not that light, but that he might testify concerning
the light. 9. The true light was that which enlighteneth every man who
cometh into the world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made
by him, and the world knew him not. 11. He came into his own, and his own
received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God; namely, to those who believe in his name; 13.
Who were born not of bloods nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God.
6. There was a man. The Evangelist now begins to discourse about
the manner in which the Son of God was manifested in flesh; and that none
may doubt that Christ is the eternal Son of God, he relates that Christ
was announced by John the Baptist, as his herald. For not only did Christ
exhibit himself to be seen by men, but he chose also to be made known by
the testimony and doctrine of John; or rather, God the Father sent this
witness before his Christ, that they might more willingly receive the salvation
offered by him.
But it might at first sight appear ridiculous that Christ should receive
testimony from another, as if he needed it; while, on the contrary, he
declares that he does not seek testimony from man, (John 5:34.) The answer
is easy and obvious, that this witness was appointed, not for the sake
of Christ, but for our sake. If it be objected that the testimony of man
is too weak to prove that Christ is the Son of God, it is likewise easy
to reply, that the Baptist is not adduced as a private witness, but as
one who, having received authority from God, sustained the character rather
of an angel than of a man. Accordingly, he receives commendation not for
his own virtues, but for this single circumstance, that he was the ambassador
of God. Nor is this at variance with the fact, that the preaching of the
gospel was committed to Christ, that he might be a witness to himself;
for the design contemplated by the preaching of John was, that men might
attend to the doctrine and miracles of Christ.
Sent by God. He does not say so for the purpose of confirming
the baptism of John, but only mentions it in passing. This circumstance
is not sufficient to produce certainty, since many run of their own accord,
and boast that God has sent them; but the Evangelist, intending afterwards
to speak more fully about this witness, reckoned it enough, for the present,
to say in a single word, that John did not come but by the command of God.
We shall afterwards see how he himself affirms that God is the Author of
his ministry. We must now recollect — what I formerly noticed — that what
is asserted about John is required in all the teachers of the Church, that
they be called by God; so that the authority of teaching may not be founded
on any other than on God alone.
Whose name was John. He states the name, not only for the purpose
of pointing out the man, but because it was given to him in accordance
with what he really was. There is no room to doubt that the Lord had reference
to the office to which he appointed John, when he commanded by the angel
that he should be so called, that by means of it all might acknowledge
him to be the herald of divine grace. For though the name ˆnjwhy (Jehohannan)
may be taken in a passive signification, and may thus be referred to the
person, as denoting that John was acceptable to God; yet for my own part,
I willingly extend it to the benefit which others ought to derive from
him.
7. He came for a testimony. The end of his calling is briefly
noticed; which was, that he might prepare a Church for Christ, as, by inviting
all to Christ, he shows plainly enough that he did not come on his own
account.
8. He was not that light. So far was John from needing commendation,
that the Evangelist gives this warning, lest his excessive brightness might
obscure the glory of Christ. For there were some who gazed so eagerly upon
him that they neglected Christ; just as if a person, enraptured with beholding
the dawning of the day, would not deign to turn his eyes towards the sun.
In what sense the Evangelist employs the word light we shall immediately
see. All the godly, indeed, are light in the Lord, (Ephesians 5:8,) because,
in consequence of their being enlightened by his Spirit, they not only
see for themselves, but likewise direct others by their example to the
way of salvation. The apostles likewise are peculiarly called light, (Matthew
5:14,) because they go before, holding out the torch of the Gospel, to
dispel the darkness of the world. But here the Evangelist speaks of him
who is the only and eternal source of illumination, as he immediately shows
more clearly.
9. The true light was. The Evangelist did not intend to contrast
the true light with the false, but to distinguish Christ from all others,
that none might imagine that what is called light belongs to him in common
with angels or men. The distinction is, that whatever is luminous in heaven
and in earth borrows its splendor from some other object; but Christ is
the light, shining from itself and by itself, and enlightening the whole
world by its radiance; so that no other source or cause of splendor is
anywhere to be found. He gave the name of the true light, therefore, to
that which has by nature the power of giving light.
Which enlighteneth every man. The Evangelist insists chiefly
on this point, in order to show, from the effect which every one of us
perceives in him, that Christ is the light. He might have reasoned more
ingeniously, that Christ, as the eternal light, has a splendor which is
natural, and not brought from any other quarter; but instead of doing so,
he sends us back to the experience which we all possess. For as Christ
makes us all partakers of his brightness, it must be acknowledged that
to him alone belongs strictly this honor of being called light.
This passage is commonly explained in two ways. Some restrict the phrase,
every man, to those who, having been renewed by the Spirit of God, become
partakers of the life-giving light. Augustine employs the comparison of
a schoolmaster who, if he happen to be the only person who has a school
in the town, will be called the teacher of all, though there be many persons
that do not go to his school. They therefore understand the phrase in a
comparative sense, that all are enlightened by Christ, because no man can
boast of having obtained the light of life in any other way than by his
grace. But since the Evangelist employs the general phrase, every man that
cometh into the world, I am more inclined to adopt the other meaning, which
is, that from this light the rays are diffused over all mankind, as I have
already said. For we know that men have this peculiar excellence which
raises them above other animals, that they are endued with reason and intelligence,
and that they carry the distinction between right and wrong engraven on
their conscience. There is no man, therefore, whom some perception of the
eternal light does not reach.
But as there are fanatics who rashly strain and torture this passage,
so as to infer from it that the grace of illumination is equally offered
to all, let us remember that the only subject here treated is the common
light of nature, which is far inferior to faith; for never will any man,
by all the acuteness and sagacity of his own mind, penetrate into the kingdom
of God. It is the Spirit of God alone who opens the gate of heaven to the
elect. Next, let us remember that the light of reason which God implanted
in men has been so obscured by sin, that amidst the thick darkness, and
shocking ignorance, and gulf of errors, there are hardly a few shining
sparks that are not utterly extinguished.
10. He was in the world. He accuses men of ingratitude, because
of their own accord, as it were, they were so blinded, that the cause of
the light which they enjoyed was unknown to them. This extends to every
age of the world; for before Christ was manifested in the flesh, his power
was everywhere displayed; and therefore those daily effects ought to correct
the stupidity of men. What can be more unreasonable than to draw water
from a running stream, and never to think of the fountain from which that
stream flows? It follows that no proper excuse can be found for the ignorance
of the world in not knowing Christ, before he was manifested in the flesh;
for it arose from the indolence and wicked stupidity of those who had opportunities
of seeing Him always present by his power. The whole may be summed up by
saying, that never was Christ in such a manner absent from the world, but
that men, aroused by his rays, ought to have raised their eyes towards
him. Hence it follows, that the blame must be imputed to themselves.
11. He came into his own. Here is displayed the absolutely desperate
wickedness and malice of men; here is displayed their execrable impiety,
that when the Son of God was manifested in flesh to the Jews, whom God
had separated to himself from the other nations to be His own heritage,
he was not acknowledged or received. This passage also has received various
explanations. For some think that the Evangelist speaks of the whole world
indiscriminately; and certainly there is no part of the world which the
Son of God may not lawfully claim as his own property. According to them,
the meaning is: “When Christ came down into the world, he did not enter
into another person’s territories, for the whole human race was his own
inheritance.” But I approve more highly of the opinion of those who refer
it to the Jews alone; for there is an implied comparison, by which the
Evangelist represents the heinous ingratitude of men. The Son of God had
solicited an abode for himself in one nation; when he appeared there, he
was rejected; and this shows clearly the awfully wicked blindness of men.
In making this statement, the sole object of the Evangelist must have been
to remove the offense which many would be apt to take in consequence of
the unbelief of the Jews. For when he was despised and rejected by that
nation to which he had been especially promised, who would reckon him to
be the Redeemer of the whole world? We see what extraordinary pains the
Apostle Paul takes in handling this subject.
Here both the Verb and the Noun are highly emphatic. He came. The Evangelist
says that the Son of God came to that place where he formerly was; and
by this expression he must mean a new and extraordinary kind of presence,
by which the Son of God was manifested, so that men might have a nearer
view of him. Into his own. By this phrase the Evangelist compares the Jews
with other nations; because by an extraordinary privilege they had been
adopted into the family of God. Christ therefore was first offered to them
as his own household, and as belonging to his empire by a peculiar right.
To the same purpose is that complaint of God by Isaiah:
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib, but Israel
knoweth me not, (Isaiah 1:3;)
for though he has dominion over the whole world, yet he represents himself
to be, in peculiar manner, the Lord of Israel, whom he had collected, as
it were, into a sacred fold.
12. But to as many as received him. That none may be retarded
by this stumbling-block, that the Jews despised and rejected Christ, the
Evangelist exalts above heaven the godly who believe in him; for he says
that by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of God.
The universal term, as many, contains an implied contrast; for the Jews
were carried away by a blind vaunting, as if they exclusively had God bound
to themselves. The Evangelist declares that their condition is changed,
because the Jews have been rejected, and their place, which had been left
empty, is occupied by the Jews; for it is as if he transferred the right
of adoption to strangers. This is what Paul says, that the destruction
of one nation was the life of the whole world, (Romans 11:12;) for the
Gospel, which might be said to have been banished from them, began to be
spread far and wide throughout the whole world. They were thus deprived
of the privilege which they enjoyed above others. But their impiety was
no obstruction to Christ; for he erected elsewhere the throne of his kingdom,
and called indiscriminately to the hope of salvation all nations which
formerly appeared to have been rejected by God.
He gave them power. The word ejxousi>a here appears to me to
mean a right, or claim; and it would be better to translate it so, in order
to refute the false opinions of the Papists; for they wickedly pervert
this passage by understanding it to mean, that nothing more than a choice
is allowed to us, if we think fit to avail ourselves of this privilege.
In this way they extract free-will from this phrase; but as well might
they extract fire from water. There is some plausibility in this at first
sight; for the Evangelist does not say that Christ makes them sons of God,
but that he gives them power to become such. Hence they infer that it is
this grace only that is offered to us, and that the liberty to enjoy or
to reject it is placed at our disposal. But this frivolous attempt to catch
at a single word is set aside by what immediately follows; for the Evangelist
adds, that they become the sons of God, not by the will which belongs to
the flesh, but when they are born of God. But if faith regenerates us,
so that we are the sons of God, and if God breathes faith into us from
heaven, it plainly appears that not by possibility only, but actually —
as we say — is the grace of adoption offered to us by Christ. And, indeed,
the Greek word, ejxousi>a is sometimes put for ajxi>wsiv, (a claim,) a
meaning which falls in admirably with this passage.
The circumlocution which the Evangelist has employed tends more to magnify
the excellence of grace, than if he had said in a single word, that all
who believe in Christ are made by him sons of God. For he speaks here of
the unclean and profane, who, having been condemned to perpetual ignominy,
lay in the darkness of death. Christ exhibited an astonishing instance
of his grace in conferring this honor on such persons, so that they began,
all at once, to be sons of God; and the greatness of this privilege is
justly extolled by the Evangelist, as also by Paul, when he ascribes it
to
God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love
with which he loved us, (Ephesians 2:4.)
But if any person shall prefer to take the word power in its ordinary
acceptation, still the Evangelist does not mean by it any intermediate
faculty, or one which does not include the full and complete effect; but,
on the contrary, means that Christ gave to the unclean and the uncircumcised
what appeared to be impossible; for an incredible change took place when
out of stones Christ raised up children to God, (Matthew 3:9.) The power,
therefore, is that fitness (iJkano>thv) which Paul mentions, when he
gives thanks to God, who hath made us fit (or meet) to be partakers
of the inheritance of the saints, (Colossians 1:12.)
Who believe in his name. He expresses briefly the manner of receiving
Christ, that is, believing in him. Having been engrafted into Christ by
faith, we obtain the right of adoption, so as to be the sons of God. And,
indeed, as he is the only-begotten Son of God, it is only so far as we
are members of him that this honor at all belongs to us. Here again the
notion of the Papists about the word power is refuted. The Evangelist declares
that this power is given to those who already believe. Now it is certain
that such persons are in reality the sons of God. They detract too much
from the value of faith who say that, by believing, a man obtains nothing
more than that he may become a son of God, if he chooses; for instead of
present effect they put a power which is held in uncertainty and suspense.
The contradiction appears still more glaring from what immediately follows.
The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God. It
is not therefore, a mere liberty of choice that is offered, since they
obtain the privilege itself that is in question. Although the Hebrew word,
_c (Name) is sometimes used to denote power, yet here it denotes a relation
to the doctrine of the Gospel; for when Christ is preached to us, then
it is that we believe in him. I speak of the ordinary method by which the
Lord leads us to faith; and this ought to be carefully observed, for there
are many who foolishly contrive for themselves a confused faith, without
any understanding of doctrine, as nothing is more common among the Papists
than the word believe, though there is not among them any knowledge of
Christ from hearing the Gospel. Christ, therefore, offers himself to us
by the Gospel, and we receive him by faith.
13. Who were born not of blood. Some think that an indirect reference
is here made to the preposterous confidence of the Jews, and I willingly
adopt that opinion. They had continually in their mouth the nobleness of
their lineage, as if, because they were descended from a holy stock, they
were naturally holy. And justly might they have gloried in their descent
from Abraham, if they had been lawful sons, and not bastards; but the glowing
of faith ascribes nothing whatever to carnal generation, but acknowledges
its obligation to the grace of God alone for all that is good. John, therefore,
says, that those among the formerly unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ
are not born the sons of God from the womb, but are renewed by God, that
they may begin to be his sons. The reason why he uses the word blood in
the plural number appears to have been, that he might express more fully
a long succession of lineage; for this was a part of the boasting among
the Jews, that they could trace their descent, by an uninterrupted line,
upwards to the patriarchs.
The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same
thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman,
as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist
repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more
fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers
directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a
general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God
does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because
God begat us willingly, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence
it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the
fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man
can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly
gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since
no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by
making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an
effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that
both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible
seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life.
And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but
the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our
regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon
us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit
belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from
its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who
sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning
of our adoption.
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when
the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that
is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive,
by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but
also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since
faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to
speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only
after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the
inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist
ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and,
indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing
that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed
on them.
John 1:14
14. And the Speech was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth.
14. And the Speech was made flesh. The Evangelist shows what
was that coming of Christ which he had mentioned; namely, that having been
clothed with our flesh, he showed himself openly to the world. Although
the Evangelist touches briefly the unutterable mystery, that the Son of
God was clothed with human nature, yet this brevity is wonderfully perspicuous.
Here some madmen amuse themselves with foolish and trivial subtleties of
this sort: that the Speech is said to have been made flesh, because God
sent his Son into the world, according to the conception which he had formed
in his mind; as if the Speech were I know not what shadowy image. But we
have demonstrated that that word denotes a real hypostasis, or subsistence,
in the essence of God.
The word Flesh expresses the meaning of the Evangelist more forcibly
than if he had said that he was made man. He intended to show to what a
mean and despicable condition the Son of God, on our account, descended
from the height of his heavenly glory. When Scripture speaks of man contemptuously,
it calls him flesh. Now, though there be so wide a distance between the
spiritual glory of the Speech of God and the abominable filth of our flesh,
yet the Son of God stooped so low as to take upon himself that flesh, subject
to so many miseries. The word flesh is not taken here for corrupt nature,
(as it is often used by Paul,) but for mortal man; though it marks disdainfully
his frail and perishing nature, as in these and similar passages, for he
remembered that they were flesh, (Psalm 78:39;) all flesh is grass, (Isaiah
40:6.) We must at the same time observe, however, that this is a figure
of speech in which a part is taken for the whole; for the lower part includes
the whole man. It was therefore highly foolish in Apollinaris to imagine
that Christ was merely clothed with a human body without a soul; for it
may easily be proved from innumerable passages, that he had a soul as well
as a body; and when Scripture calls men flesh, it does not therefore deprive
them of a soul.
The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before
all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article
there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures
were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is
true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not
hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains
all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever
belongs to it. And, therefore, as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts
to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one
or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the
Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained
entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed
with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons.
Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs,
one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand,
while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son
of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were
mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists
invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were
a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but
if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed
into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed
up by the Divinity.
The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies.
When he tells us that the Speech was made flesh, we clearly infer from
this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a
man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is
said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives
to the man Christ the name of the Speech, it follows that Christ, when
he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change
took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh.
In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still
continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.
And dwelt. Those who explain that the flesh served, as it were,
for an abode to Christ, do not perceive the meaning of the Evangelist;
for he does not ascribe to Christ a permanent residence amongst us, but
says that he remained in it as a guest, for a short time. For the word
which he employs (ejskh>nwsen) is taken from tabernacles. He means nothing
else than that Christ discharged on the earth the office which had been
appointed to him; or, that he did not merely appear for a single moment,
but that he conversed among men until he completed the course of his office.
Among us. It is doubtful whether he speaks of men in general,
or only of himself and the rest of the disciples who were eye-witnesses
of what he says. For my own part, I approve more highly of the second view
for the Evangelist immediately adds :
And we beheld his glory. for though all men might have beheld the glory
of Christ, yet it was unknown to the greater part on account of their blindness.
It was only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit opened, that saw this manifestation
of glory. In a word, Christ was known to be man in such a manner that he
exhibited in his Person something far more noble and excellent. Hence it
follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated, though it was surrounded
by flesh; it was indeed concealed under the low condition of the flesh,
but so as to cause its splendor to be seen.
As of the only-begotten of the Father. The word as does not,
in this passage, denote an inappropriate comparison, but rather expresses
true and hearty approbation; as when Paul says, Walk as children of light,
he bids us actually demonstrate by our works that we are the children of
light. The Evangelist therefore means, that in Christ was beheld a glory
which was worthy of the Son of God, and which was a sure proof of his Divinity.
He calls him the Only-begotten, because he is the only Son of God by nature;
as if he would place him above men and angels, and would claim for him
alone what belongs to no creature.
Full of grace. There were, indeed, other things in which the
majesty of Christ appeared, but the Evangelist selected this instance in
preference to others, in order to train us to the speculative rather than
the practical knowledge of it; and this ought to be carefully observed.
Certainly when Christ walked with dry feet upon the waters, (Matthew 14:26;
Mark 6:48; John 6:19,) when he cast out devils, and when he displayed his
power in other miracles, he might be known to be the only-begotten Son
of God; but the Evangelist brings forward a part of the approbation, from
which faith obtains delightful advantage, because Christ demonstrated that
he actually is an inexhaustible fountain of grace and truth. Stephen, too,
is said to have been full of grace, but in a different sense; for the fullness
of grace in Christ is the fountain from which all of us must draw, as we
shall have occasion shortly afterwards to explain more fully.
Grace and truth. This might be taken, by a figure of speech,
for true grace, or the latter term might be explanatory, thus: that he
was full of grace, which is truth or perfection; but as we shall find that
he immediately afterwards repeats the same mode of expression, I think
that the meaning is the same in both passages. This grace and truth he
afterwards contrasts with the Law; and therefore I interpret it as simply
meaning, that the apostles acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, because
he had in himself the fulfillment of things which belong to the spiritual
kingdom of God; and, in short, that in all things he showed himself to
be the Redeemer and Messiah; which is the most striking mark by which he
ought to be distinguished from all others.
