[817] For the theology of the Apocalypse as compared with that of the Gospel and Epistles of John, see especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apoc., transl. by Jefferson, Edinb., 1878.
[818] John 1:14 (etheasametha ten doxan autou); 1 John 1:1-3.
[819] In the strictest sense of theologos as the chief champion of the eternal deity of the Logos: John 1:1:theos hen ho logos.So in the superscription of the Apocalypse in several cursive MSS.
[820] John 17 3; 15:11; 16:24; 1 John 1:4.
[821] Comp. John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:1-3.
[822] John 4:24; 1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16. The first definition or oracle is from Christ's dialogue with the woman of Samaria, who could, of course, not grasp the full meaning, but understood sufficiently its immediate practical application to the question of dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews concerning the worship on Gerizim or Jerusalem.
[823] There is a remarkable variation of reading in John 1:18 between monogenes theos ,one who is God only-begotten, andho monogenes huios ,the only-begotten Son. (A third reading: ho monogenes theos ,"the only-begotten God," found in '' and 33, arose simply from a combination of the two readings, the article being improperly transferred from the second to the first.) The two readings are of equal antiquity; theos is supported by the oldest Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian ('* BC*L, also the Peshitto Syr.);huios by the oldest versions (Itala Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary uncials and all known cursives except 33). The usual abbreviations in the uncial MS., Tho-for theos and UO for huios ,may easily be confounded. The connection of monogenes withtheosis less natural than with huios although John undoubtedly could call the Son theos (not ho theos), and did so in 1:1. Monogenes theossimply combines the two attributes of the Logos, theos 1:1, and monogenes, 1:14. For a learned and ingenious defence of theos see Hort's Dissertations (Cambridge, 1877), Westcott on St. John (p. 71), and Westcott and Hort's Gr. Test. Introd. and Append., p. 74. Tischendorf and nearly all the German commentators (except Weiss) adopt huios, and Dr. Abbot, of Cambridge, Mass., has written two very able papers in favor of this reading, one in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 840-872, and another in the " Unitarian Review" for June, 1875. The Westminster Revision first adopted " God" in the text, but afterwards put it on the margin. Both readings are intrinsically unobjectionable, and the sense is essentially the same. Monogenes does not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of eternal generation, but simply the unique character and superiority of the eternal and uncreated sonship of Christ over the sonship of believers which is a gift of grace. It shows his intimate relation to the Father, as the Pauline prototokos his sovereign relation to the world.
[824] Lit."towards the bosom" (eis ton kolpon), i.e., leaning on, and moving to the bosom. It expresses the union of motion and rest and the closest and tenderest intimacy, as between mother and child, like the German term Schoosskind, bosom-child. Comp. pros ton theon John 1:1 and Prov. 8:30, where Wisdom (the Logos) says: "I was near Him as one brought up with Him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him."
[825] With this sentence the Prologue returns to the beginning and suggests the best reason why Christ is called Logos. He is the Exegete, the Expounder, the Interpreter of the hidden being, of God. "The word exegesato used by classical writers of the interpretation of divine mysteries. The absence of the object in the original is remarkable. Thus the literal rendering is simply, he made declaration (Vulg. ipse enarravit). Comp. Acts 15: 4. Westcott, in loc. See the classical parallels in Wetstein.
[826] John 1:1, 14:1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13. The Logos theory of John is the fruitful germ of the speculations of the Greek church on the mysteries of the incarnation and the trinity. See my ed. of Lange's Com. on John, pp. 51 and 55 sqq., where also the literature is given. On the latest discussions see Weiss in the sixth ed. of Meyer's Com. on John (1880), pp. 49 sqq. Logos means both ratio andoratio reason and speech, which are inseparably connected. " Logos," being masculine in Greek, is better fitted as a designation of Christ than our neuter " Word." Hence Ewald, in defiance of German grammar, renders it "der Wort."On the apocalyptic designation ho logos tou thuou and on the christology of the Apocalypse, see Gebhardt, l.c., 94 and 333 sqq. On Philo's idea of the Logos I refer to Schürer, Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte, pp. 648 sqq., and the works of Gfrörer, Zeller, Frankel, etc., there quoted.
[827] These three ideas are contained in the first verse of the Gospel, which has stimulated and puzzled the profoundest minds from Origen and Augustin to Schelling and Goethe. Mark the unique union of transparent simplicity and inexhaustible depth, and the symmetry of the three clauses. The subject (logos) and the verb (hen) are three times repeated. " The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man to realize as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time and mode of being and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in John 1:14. He who 'was God,' became flesh: He who 'was with God,' tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who 'was in the beginning,' became (in time)." Westcott (in Speaker's Com.). A similar interpretation is given by Lange. The personality of the Logos is denied by Beyschlag. See Notes (in text at end of § 72).
[828] Here we have the germ (but the germ only) of the orthodox distinction between unity of essence and trinity of persons or hypostases; also of the distinction between an immanent, eternal trinity, and an economical trinity, which is revealed in time (in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification). A Hebrew monotheist could not conceive of an eternal and independent being of a different essence (heteroousis) existing besides the one God. This would be dualism.
[829] John 1:3, with a probable allusion to Gen. 1:3, "God said," as en arche refers to bereshith, Gen. 1:1. The negative repetition oude en, prorsus nihil, not even one thing (stronger than ouden nihil), excludes every form of dualism (against the Gnostics), and makes the panta absolutely unlimited. The Socinian interpretation, which confines it to the moral creation, is grammatically impossible.
[830] John 1:14: ho logos sarx egeneto a sentence of immeasurable import, the leading idea not only of the Prologue, but of the Christian religion and of the history of mankind. It marks the close of the preparation for Christianity and the beginning of its introduction into the human race. Bengel calls attention to the threefold antithetic correspondence between 1:1 and 1:14: The Logos was (hen) in the beginning became (egeneto) God, flesh, with God. and dwelt among us.
[831] Paul expresses the same idea: God sent his Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," Rom. 8:3; comp. Heb. 2:17; 4:15. See the note at the close of the section.
[832] John 1:14: eskenosen en hemin, in allusion to the indwelling of Jehovah in the holy of holies of the tabernacle (skene) and the temple. The humanity of Christ is now the tabernacle of God, and the believers are the spectators of that glory. Comp. Rev. 7:15; 21:3
[833] John 17:5, 24; 1 John 3:2.
[834] John 20:31.
[835] 1 John 3:5, 8; comp. the words of Christ, John 8:44.
[836] John 6:52-58; 10:11, 15; 1 John 2:2: autos hilasmos estin peri ton hamartion hemon, ou peri ton hemeteron de monon, alla kai peri olou tou kosmou.. The universality of the atonement could not be more clearly expressed; but there is a difference between universal sufficiency and universal efficiency.
[837] 1 John 1:10; John 1:29; 11:50; comp. 18:14.
[838] 1 John 2:1: ean tis hamarte, parakleton echomen pros ton patera Iesoun Christon dikaion.
[839] 1 John 1:2: he zoe ephanerothe, kai heorakamen kai marturoumen kai apangellomen huminten zoen ten aionion hetis hen pros ton patera kai ephanerothe hemin. Comp. John 1:4; 5; 26; 14:6. The passage 1 John 5:20: houtos estin ho alithinos theos kai zoe aionios , is of doubtful application. The natural connection of houtoswith the immediately preceding Iesou Christo, and the parallel passages where Christ is called " life," favor the reference to Christ; while the words ho alethinos theos suit better for the Father. See Braune, Huther, Ebrard, Haupt, Rothe, in loc.
[840] John 6:47; and the whole mysterious discourse which explains the spiritual meaning of the preceding miracle.
[841] Apoc. 12:1-12; 20:2. Comp. with 1 John 3:8; John 8:44; 12:31, 13:2, 27; 14 30; 16:11.
[842] Apoc. 1:6; 5:6, 9, 12, 13;7: 14, etc. Comp. John 1:29; 17:19; 19:36; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 5:6. The apocalyptic diminutive arnion(agnellus, lambkin, pet-lamb) for amnos is used to sharpen the contrast with the Lion. Paul Gerhardt has reproduced it in his beautiful passion hymn: "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld."
[843] Apoc. 1:5: "Unto him that loveth us," etc.; comp. John 15:13; 1 John 3:16.
[844] Apoc. 1:5, 17, 18 2:8; comp. John 5:21, 25; 6:39, 40 -11:25.
[845] Apoc. 1:5; 3:21; 17:14; 19:16.
[846] Apoc. 2:10; 3:21; 7:17; 14:1-5; 21:6, 7; 22:1-5. Comp. Gebhardt, l.c., 106-128, 343-353.
[847] John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Comp. also 1 John 2:1, where Christ is likewise called parakletos. He is our Advocate objectively at the throne of the Father, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate subjectively in our spiritual experience. The E. V. renders the word in all these passages, except the last, by " Comforter" (Consolator), which rests on a confusion of the passive parakletos with the active parakletor. See my notes in Lange's Com. on John, pp. 440 sqq., 468 sqq.
[848] There is a distinction between the eternal procession (ekporeusis)of the Spirit from the Father (para tou Patros ekporeuetai, procedit, John 15:26), and the temporal mission (pempsis) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (15:26, where Christ says of the Spirit: hon ego pempso, to, and 14:26, where he says: ho pempsei ho pater en to onomati mou). The Greek church to this day strongly insists on this distinction, and teaches an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and a temporal mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son. The difference between the present ekporeuetai and the future pempso seems to favor such a distinction, but the exclusive alone (monon) in regard to the procession is an addition of the Greek church as much as the Filioque is an addition of the Latin church to the original Nicene Creed. It is doubtful whether John meant to make a metaphysical distinction between procession and mission. But the distinction between the eternal trinity of the divine being and the temporal trinity of the divine revelation has an exegetical basis in the pre-existence of the Logos and the Spirit. The trinitarian revelation reflects the trinitarian essence; in other words, God reveals himself as he is, as Father, Son, and Spirit. We have a right to reason from the revelation of God to his nature, but with proper reverence and modesty; for who can exhaust the ocean of the Deity!
[849] 1 John 5:8. There are different interpretations of water and blood: 1st, reference to the miraculous flow of blood and water from the wounded side of Christ, John 19:34; 2d, Christ's baptism, and Christ's atoning death; 3d, the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. I would adopt the last view, if it were not for to aima, which nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and more naturally refers to the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in 5:7, formerly quoted as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity, is now generally given up as a mediaeval interpolation, and must be rejected on internal as well as external grounds; for John would never have written: "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," but either "the Father, the Son, and the Spirit," or God, the Word (Logos), and the Spirit."