The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 121

..-dp(, or any psilimthropical interpretation. The simple fact that he wae conecioue of "a glory with the Father before the world was," and that ho was about to return to it (eh. XYii. 5, 24) and reveal it to his disciples; tha~ he was conscious while on earth of heiug " in heaven," having come down thence (eh. iii. 13); that his earthly life wne a "coming down from heaven" as heavenly manna; that he was about to ascend to where he was before (eh. vi. 33, 51, 62); that before Abraham came into being he could say, " l AM "-furnish abundant proof of his self-conscious pre-existence, and show that the Eoo in and of which he spa.kc was more than the a-dpt-was nothing short of the Ail-yos. Reuss is very urge.nt in calling attention to the fact that the human life of the Logos was not (according to the Fourth Gospel) any humiliation, or exinanition; that even death itself was his B&t.. and his ~,i,oii,r8.., (eh. iii. 14; viii. 28; xii. 23, 32; xiii. 31). Yet it must be admitted that the author of the Fourth Gospel calls more express attention to the humanit.y, and 1.o the dogma. of Christ having come "in the flesh," than any other writer of the New Testament. He was Son of a human mother, was interested in the domestic affairs of his neighbourhood (eh. ii. l"-12), had brothers who were unable frankly to admit his claims to Mcssiahship (eh. vii. 3-6), was influenced by the movements of different tendencies at work in J udrea. and Gaillee, was "weary and thirsty " with his wayfaring in the heat of the day (eh. iv. 1--3, 6, 7), "wept" at the grave of a friend (eh. xi. 35), was pierced by the treachery and unsusceptibility of his disciples (eh. vi. 66, 67, 70) as well as by the Roman soldier's spear (eh. xi.x. 34--37), was con- cerned about his mother even when hanging on the cross (eh. :xix. 25-27), and a.bout the physical need of his disciples a.ft& he had risen from the dead (eh. xxi 9). We can accept the position that his essential Person was never obliterated, but we consider that the Fourt.h Gospel represents the very union of this humanity with the Divine nature to be a humbling of himself to human conditions that is altogether unspeakable. The limitation of human knowledge, the consciousness of physical need, the pain and suffer- ing, temptation and resistance, experienced throughout his career, were the exprefsion of an infiriite love and condescension. The closeness of the union, the perfect blending iota one Person of the purely human with the Logos who was with God (or with the Only Begotten of the Father), involved two things: (a) the humiliation of the Logos. and (b) the glory of the Only Begotten, full of grace a.nJ truth. The eyes of the apostles saw and received this fulness, perceived the continuous glori.fic.ation of the humanity by which they were being drawn, mastered, overwhelmed; but it is perfectly compatible with this conception that the Lord by his Divine nature was actuaUy made participant in the humiliation and weakness of the flesh and the bitter hostility and prejudice'.-of the world. It is abundantly evident that only a few men roEe to the full apprehension of his glory. Co:asequently, he must have had the perpetual consciousness of indescribable lonelir:ess and sorrow. The almost feminine inquiry, "Do ye now believe?" (eh. xvi. 31, 32), enforces the opposite of the contention of Reuss. It is often said that prayer on the part of Christ is in itself an unmistakable indication of the depotentiation c,f the Logos, or else it was a meaniogless display of what was inn~ sense genuine prayer. We do not regard it as either one or the other. John's Gospel especially reveals the necessity on the part of our Lord's humanity for the exercise of prayer, and so far indicates the humiliation of the Son of God in the mediatorial work he had undertaken ( eh. vi 15; xi 41; xii. 27; xvii.). But why should the Logos be supposed, in these prayers, to have retired into inaccessible depths of Deity? It is the Logos now ma.de flesh of whom the apostle is speaking, and therefore experiencing in his media.- torial work the need of prayer, and giving, moreover, the true conception, and embodying the fundamental ideal of prayer, viz. of the human in perfect harmony with the Divine, knowing that God hears him always, anticipating the conscious acts of God. Prayer, like death, is a Divine a.et of the Son of God, only capable of being enacted through the humanity that he assumed. 'l'he " Logos ma.de flesh " corresponds with " water which became [ was ma.de] wine" 1n this-that, as water was not transubstantia.ted into something essentially different from itself, but rather took up into itself elements not previously in the water, so the Logos took human nature up into itself, and the Ego of the Incarnate Word could u1;:uccfwth foi;l \l.Ud decmre th.at, though t4e !father WI\S "~re11ter than ho," the F11t4er  'l't=tt<; GOSPEL ACCORDTNG TO ST. JOTIN. oxx:dll _. --~--- - - - - - - - - - - nnd he were e~sontially one (eh. xiv. 28). The Father and the Son were one In l'O deep n sonse (eh. x. 80) thnt all men were to honour the Son even as they honour the Father (eh. v. 23, 24). In the question, "Have I been so long time with you and yet hnst thou not known me, Philip?" (eh. xiv. 9), Jesus felt that h1 had ~ot been recognized by his d_iscipli;s if they hnd_ not per~eived ~he Father in him. They must have formod an entirely madequatc not10n ot himself 1f they had found notking more than his human perfections. Even the outline of the Man must have been blurred and the impression of the humanity imperfect. Notably so; the very tone of hi~ prayers, the quality of hie assumptions, the greatness of his human claims, the declaration that he would quicken the dead and judge the world, would be sure to have led those who heard these words into wrong notions of his humanity, unless they could have also penetrated to the amazing truth that he was in the Father, and the Father in him. (6) The Boo of God, the Ohrist, the Son of man. These relations between the God- Man and the Father justify the two great name.~ by which the Lord desi!!'Tlated himself. He calls himself "Son of God." He did not reprove Nathanael (eh. i. 50, 51) when he attributed this title to him in a theocratic sense, but he took much higher ground when he spoke of himself as "the Son of God," or "the Son," sent by the Father to save the world (eh. ill. 16, 17), to give eternal life (eh. xvii. 2), to judge (eh. v. 27) and exercise authority over all flesh (eh. xvii. 2), as the Agent of the Father, the Messenger of the Father, and as "sent into the world" to " do the Father's will" and "to finish his work." '.l.'he "Son of God" is the eternal Companion and Co-operator with the Father; he knows the Father, and is the Object of the Father's love. The Father is the Potency, the Son is the Reality of all creative and redemptive oper~tions; the Father is the eternal Ground, the Son is the Means and Organ and Executor of all the Divine activity in nature and grace. In all these respects the Divine aspect of his Personality comes into view, almost separated from the humanity, or overshadowing it with glory. The Word made flesh tabernacled among us, took up his habitation among us as in the temple of his body, and the glory which flashed from the adytum of this temple was the grace and truth of the Only Begotten of the Father (eh. i. 14). The identity of the "Logos made flesh" with "the Christ" receives the gre:itest prominence in the Gospel (eh. i.17). Grace and truth (which are said in ver.14 to have streamed forth from the Logos made flesh) came by Jesus Christ (cf.1 John v. 20, "We are in the true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ"). In the intercessory prayer (eh. xvii. 3), "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only veritable God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." While the Baptist repudiates the assumption of being the Christ (eh. i. 20), it is clear that some of the mighty things done by him whom a, yet they knew not 0 were associated with the Christ of whom :Moses and the prorhets had spoken (eh. i. 41, 45). The "King of Israel" is but another name to express N athanael's conviction. The following chapters reveal the purifying process passing over the conception (eh. iii. 28, 29). The Samaritan8 hail him as the Christ (eh. iv. 25, 26, 29). The effect produced by his great sign (eh. vi. 14) involves the confession, "This is the Prophet coming into the world." He refuses the temporal kingship, but he raises their conception to the transcendent gift of his Divine Person. The text of many manuscripts makes the confession of Peter (eh. vi. 68) an acknowledgment of Messiahship (see notes). The whole argument of eh. vii. 25--13 shows that Jesus is accepting, and that the author is assigning, the idea of the Christ to the Lord (cf. eh. ix. 22, 35). Martha, without rebuke, ascribes the same function to him (eh. xi. 27), and all that follows refines, matures, illumines, the mighty Name. The public assumption of Messio.nic glory (eh. xii. 12-19) suffers further exposition (eh. xii. 34-36). All the revelations of eh. xiii.-xvii. proceed on the assumption. The conversation with Pilate, the title of the cross, but above all the declaration of the evangelist (eh. xx. 31), show the full identification of the Christ, the Logos made flesh, and the Son of God. It is eciually remarkable that our Lord, in the Fourth Gospel, ciuite as freciuently desi!mated himself as "Son of man "-a term probably derived from the Old 'l'est'.\- 111cnt usaae, which, though occasionally denoting the bare idea of "man" (in Ezekiel), in Daniei"'is associated with the highest manifestation of God (Dan. vii.). The phrase there seems to mean the ideal of man, the perfect Image of God, the heavenly Man, realizing the conception of what St. _Pau~ ~alls the Seeon~ Ad~m. ~hrist, in t~o synoptists, adopts the nnmo, though his d1sc1plcs never attribute 1t to hl!11 (except lll  INTRODUCTION TO