The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 165

part of the original utteranoe of John. After of moue, which have been produced from the bnptiem, the whole truth hnd broken the eternal "bythos," or abyss, one only of upon the Baptist, ancl he clenchecl or saw which is supposed, on Valentinian principlea, an explauation of the mystery. to he.ve assumed a, phantasmic form in Jesus Vere. 16-18.-{7) The ezperienoe of the Christ. Nothing could be less resemblin~ writer, the position of the author of this Goepel, who Ver. 16.-Thero co.n be little doubt thO:t clearly regards the Logos incarnate e.s coin- the fifteenth verse is e. parentheticnl clause, cident with the fulness of the Godhead, as answering to the sixth e.nd seventh verses, containing in himself, in complete self-posses- and standing to ver. 14 very much in the sion, all the energies ancl beneficence of the same kind of relation the.t vers. 6, 7 <lo Eternal. With the apostle's doctrine of the t.o vere. 1-5. '.rhero is e. further reason; Logos as identical with God, as the Creator the verHee which follow a.re clearly not, of everything, ne the Life, as the Light ot oe Lange suggests, the continuance of the men; e.nd, as becoming the Source of all these Baptist's µa.p-rupla, but the Jongue.ge of the ene1·giee to men in his incarnation, there is evangelist, e.nd e. dete.il of hie personal no basis for Valentinianism. Though the experience. The entire context would en- phra.seology of the Gnostics was bon-owed tirely forbid our ta.king the a.G-roii of ver. 16 in part from the Gospel, and though Valen- as referring to the Baptist. This is stm tinus may have fancied hi:nself justified more evident from the true reading of /in in in his misnse of texts; the ideas of the ple.ce of 1Cal.' The "bece.uee" points back Gospel and the Gnostic were direct! y contra- at once t.o the statements of \"Br. 14. Heng- dictory of one another (see Introduction). stenberg and Godet:think there is no need Long before John used this word, St. Paul to transform the fifteenth verse into o had used it in writing to the Ephesians ancl parenthesis, in order, after the recital of Colossians, as though., even in his day, the John the Be.ptist's testimony, to proceed to e. word had acquired e. distinct theologic.,J further experience of the evangelist; trans- meaning, and one that had naturally arisen lating "and even," Lange makes the whole from it3 etymology and usage in Greek utterance to be that of the Baptist, which writers. Bishop Lightfoot bas shown in bis appears to be profoundly inconsistent with dissertation (' Epistle to Colossians,' 2nd the position of the Baptist, either then or edit., pp. 257-273) that the form of the subsequently. The grand declaration, that word demands a passive sense, id quod the Logos inco.rne.te was "full of grace and impletur, and not e.n active one which some truth," is justified by the author of the pro- have given to it in certain New Testament logue, from his C'.onscious experience of the passages, as if it had the meaning of ill exhe.ustless plenitude of the manifestation. quad implet. By his examination of nume- Beoause from his fu.lness we all reoeived. He rous passages, he shows that it al ways has speaks e.e from the bosom of e. society of fundamentally the sense of completeness, persons, who have not been dependent on "the full compleml'II!,'' lhe plenitude. n;1.11- vision or on individual contact with the his- pwµa. is the passive verbal from 1rM1poiiv, toric revelation (comp. eh. xx., "Blessed ure to make complete. Thus Col. i. 19, "The they [Jesus said] who have not seen [touched Father was pleased that all the fulness, or handled], and yet have believed," but have the totality, should dwell in him," explaineu nevertheless discovered e. perennial supply elsewhere in the same Epistle, "all the of grace and truth in him). We all, my completeness, the plenitude of the Godhead" fellow-e.poetlee and e. multitude which no (ii. 9). The widespread diffusion of the man can number, received from this source, idea of emanations, the hypostatizing of e.e from the Divinity itself, all that we he.ve perfections and attributes, the virtual mytho- needed. An effort has been made, from the logy which was creeping through mete.phy- evangelist's use of the word pleroma, to father sical subtleties, even into J ude.fam an,1 the "prologue" upon one familiar with the Christianity, demanded positive repudiation; Ve.lentinian metaphysic, and thus to postpone nnd, while the whole Church was united in its origin t.o the middle of the second century; its recognition of the Di vine energy of Christ, but the Ve.lentinian pleroma is the sum total it became needful to refer to his Di ~-ine• of the Divine emanations of the thirty pe.ira human personality e.ll the fuluess of tlrn Godhead bodily. In Ephesians St. Paul 1 lit, B, a•, D, L, X, 83, with versions and speaks, however, of the Church which is his folios, read the former, and a.re followed body e.e identified with him, and as (in by Griesbach, L11chme.nn, Tischeudorf (8th Eph. v. 27) a. bride ma.de one flesh with her edit.), 'l'regellee, Westcott and Hort. There husband, without spot or wrinkle, ideally per- is considerable authority for 1ta.l, whioh fect, as the part of one colossal indiviuunlity is still preferred by Godet and Hengsten- of which Christ is the Head; or, the one build- herg, and in margin of Le.ohmann and Bi\le ing of which he is the Foundation and the Revisers. Comer-stono. Hence " the fulness of Christ"  22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 1'0 sr. JOHN [on. I, 1-51.