44
690
ν ver. 7. w Const . Vili. 55, Χχ. ην
36. Pr) νι, => > x Col.i. 19, OTL πρωτος µου ην .
KATA ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ {ο
15. Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ ᾿ περὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ κέκραγε λέγων, “ Οὗτος 5 év εἶπον,ὶ ' Ὁ ὀπίσω µου ἐρχόμενος, ἔμπροσθέν µου yéyover- 16. Kat? ἐκ τοῦ ” πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς
1 Τ.Ε, in ΜΕΡΑ ΒΣΓΙ,, etc. ; οντος ην ο εἴπων, as a parenthesis, in ὃνα 530”.
ΤΕ. in ACSEF; οτι in ΔΡΒΟΡΙ, 33.
Whether there is an allusion to the προ) has been doubted, but it is
probable. The Shekinah meant the token of God’s presence and glory, and among the later Jews at all events it was supposed to be present not only in the temple but with individuals. See Schoettgen in loc. and Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, § 39. What the tabernacle had been, the dwelling of God in the midst of the people, the humanity of the Logos now was.—kat ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, we, among whom He lived, beheld by our own personal ob- servation the glory of the incarnate Logos. ‘‘Beheld,” neither, on the one hand, only by spiritual contemplation (Baur), nor, on the other, merely with the bodily eye, by which the glory could not be seen, This ‘ beholding” John treasured as the wealth and joy of his life. The “‘ glory ” they saw was not like the cloud or dazzling light in which God had manifested His glory in the ancient tabernacle. It was now a true ethical glory, a glory of personality and character, manifesting itself in human conditions. It is described as something unique, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, «κα glory as of an only begotten from a father ””.—a@s introduces an illustrative comparison, as is indicated by the anarthrous μονογενοῦς. Holtzmann ex- pands thus: ‘‘ The impression which the glory made was of so specific a character that it could be taken for nothing less than such a glory as an only son has from a father, that is, as the only one of its kind; for besides the povoyevys a father has no other sons’’. But the ex- pression is no doubt suggested by the immediately preceding statement that as many as received Christ were born of God. The glory of the Incarnate Logos, however, is unique, that of an only begotten. In the connection, therefore, the application of the relation of Father and Son to God and Christ is close at hand and obvious, although not explicitly made. ‘‘The thought centres in the abstract relation of Father and Son, though in the actual connection this
abstract relation passes necessarily into the relation of the Son to the Father.” Westcott.—mapa πατρός more naturally follows δόξαν than povoyevots. The glory proceeds from the Father and dwells in the only begotten wholly, as if there were no other children required to reflect some rays of the Divine glory. Accordingly He is πλήρης. With what is πλήρης to be construed? Erasmus thinks with Ἰωάννης following. Codex Bezae reads πλήρη and joins it to δόξαν. Many interpreters consider it to be one of those slight irregularities such as occur in Mk. xii. 40 and Phil. iii. το and in the Apoc., and would unite it either with αὐτοῦ or μονογενοῦς. But (pace Weiss) there is no good reason why we should not accept it as it stands and con- strue it in agreement with the nominative to ἐσκήνωσε.- χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. His glory consisted in the moral qualities that appeared in Him. What these qualities were will appear more readily from ver. 17.— Ver. 15. ᾿Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ . . . πρῶτός pov ἦν. At first sight this verse seems an irrelevant in- terpolation thrust in between the πλήρης of ver. 14 and the πλήρωμα of νετ. 16. Euthymius gives the connection: et καὶ μὴ ἐγώ, φησι, δοκῶ τισιν tows ἀξιόπισ- τος, ἀλλὰ πρὸ ἐμοῦ 6 Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ. Ιωάννη