Chapter 1

1 The divinity, humanity, and office of Jesus Christ. 15 The testimony of John. 39 The calling of Andrew, Peter, &c.

1. In the beginning. [Prologue to John’s Gospel, John 1:1–18.] The Greek phrase lacks the definite article, but is nevertheless definite in meaning. If the definite article were used in the Greek it would tend to imply some particular point of time, or “beginning.” Without the definite article, and in the context of vs. 1–3, the phrase denotes the most remote time conceivable, before the creation of “all things” (v. 3), before any and every other “beginning,” that is, eternity past.

The account of creation opens with the equivalent Hebrew words (see on Gen. 1:1). As Gen. 1 sets forth the nature of creation and the fact that man was originally formed in the image of God, so the prologue to the Gospel of John sets forth the nature of the Creator (vs. 1–4) and the means by which God purposed to make possible the re-creation of His image in man (vs. 5–14). Gen. 1:1 refers to “the beginning” of this world. But the “Word” of John 1:1–4 is the Creator of all things, and therefore antedates “the beginning” of Gen. 1:1. Thus “the beginning” of John 1:1 is prior to “the beginning” of Gen. 1:1. When everything that had a beginning began, the “Word” already “was.”

Was. Gr. eµn, a form of the verb eimi, “to be,” expressing continuity of existence, or being. The Word was, throughout all eternity; He never became such. But, in time, the Word “was made [literally, “became,” Gr. egeneto, a form of ginomai, “to become,” expressing action initiated and completed at a given time] flesh” (v. 14). Thus, Christ has ever been God (John 1:1; Heb. 1:8); but, in contrast, He became man (John 1:14; cf. Phil. 2:7). Thus, both in the words and in their form, John stresses the continuous, timeless, unlimited existence of Christ prior to His incarnation. In eternity past there was no point before which it could be said that the Word was not. The Son was “with the Father from all eternity” (AA 39). “There never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God” (Ev 615). Compare Rev. 22:13, where Jesus proclaims Himself “the beginning and the end.” He is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8).

The word ginomai, used in v. 14, appears also in v. 3 of the creation of all things (literally, “by him everything became”). Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was [Gr. ginomai, literally, “became,” or “came to be”], I am [Gr. eimi]” (ch. 8:58). The same contrast appears in the LXX of Ps. 90:2: “Before the mountains came into being [Gr. ginomai], from age to age thou art [Gr. eimi] God.”

Eчn occurs three times in John 1:1, first of the eternity of the Word, then of His eternal fellowship with the Father, and finally of His eternal equality of nature with the Father. Verse 2 reaffirms the duration of this state of being throughout all eternity.

Word. Gr. logos, “utterance,” “saying,” “speech,” “narrative,” “account,” “treatise,” with emphasis on the systematic, meaningful arrangement of the thoughts thus expressed. Here John uses the term as a designation for Christ, who came to reveal the character, mind, and will of the Father, even as speech is the expression of ideas. In the LXX the word logos is commonly used of both creative (Ps. 33:6; cf. Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, etc.) and communicative (Jer. 1:4; Eze. 1:3; Amos 3:1) expressions of the divine mind and will. No doubt these OT uses of logos were in the mind of John as he wrote. God has expressed His divine will and purpose through creation and through revelation; now (John 1:14) He has done so through the incarnation, His supreme and perfect revelation (see EGW Supplementary Material on v. 18). The word Logos thus epitomizes the dominant theme of the book of John (see ch. 14:8–10; also below under “Word was God”; also Additional Note on Chapter 1). In v. 18 John states his reason for speaking of Christ as “the Word”—He came to “declare” the Father. As a designation for Christ the word Logos is used in the NT only by John, in his Gospel (ch. 1) and in 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13. The term identifies Christ as the incarnate expression of the will of the Father that all men should be saved (see 1 Tim. 2:4), as “God’s thought made audible” (DA 19).

With God. Gr. pros ton theon. The word pros denotes close association and fellowship. Had John meant simply that in the beginning the Word was in proximity to God, he might have been expected to use either the word para, “beside,” or the word meta, “with” (cf. on ch. 6:46). But John intended more than either of these words would convey, as when he wrote, “we have an advocate with [Gr. pros] the Father” (1 John 2:1)—not in the sense that Jesus is simply in the Father’s presence, but that He is closely associated with the Father in the work of salvation. Pros is used in the same sense in Heb. 4:13: “with whom we have to do,” that is, “with whom we have dealings.” The word here implies close personal fellowship in an enterprise of mutual interest and concern. Compare John 17:5.

The fact that the Word was “with God,” that is, with the Father, emphatically declares Him to be a being altogether distinct from the Father. As the context makes clear, the Word was associated with God in a unique and exclusive sense. The Word was “with God” in the eternity past, but He became “flesh” in order to be with “us” (see on v. 14; cf. DA 23–26). He was Immanuel, “God with us” (see on Matt. 1:23). It is impossible to understand the import of the incarnation except against the background of the eternal pre-existence of Christ as God and as associated with God (see EGW Supplementary Material on Rom. 1:20–25).

Word was God. The absence, in the Greek, of the definite article before the word “God” makes it impossible to render the statement, “God was the Word.” Thus to render it would equate God with the Word and thus limit Deity exclusively to the Word. The two terms, “Word” and “God,” are not altogether interchangeable. It would be no more proper to say that “God was the Word” than to say that “love is God” (cf. 1 John 4:16), or, “flesh was made the Word” (cf. John 1:14). Although here in v. 1 the word “God” lacks the definite article, it is still definite. The statement cannot be translated “the Word was a God,” as if the Word were one God among many other gods. In Greek the absence of the article often emphasizes quality expressed by, or inherent in, a word. Accordingly, John means that the Word partook of the essence of Deity, that He was divine in the ultimate and absolute sense. Thus in one terse declaration John denies that the Word was either a God, one among many, or the God, as if He alone were God.

In the prologue (vs. 1–18) John states the objective that guided him in writing the Gospel; namely, to present the man Jesus as God incarnate (cf. 1 John 1:1). From incident to incident and discourse to discourse he faithfully pursues this objective. In his conclusion he observes that his purpose in writing was to lead others to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and that believing they “might have life through his name” (John 20:30, 31). In the introduction to his first epistle John again refers to his personal experiences with “the Word” (1 John 1:1–3). Likewise the opening words of the Revelation declare it to be “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” (ch. 1:1). See Additional Note at end of chapter; see on Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9.

Christ is eternally God in the supreme and unqualified sense of the term (see Additional Note at end of chapter). For comment on the fiction that Jesus was merely a great and good man see on Matt. 16:16.

Evidences of the deity of Christ are many and irrefutable. These may be summed up briefly: (1) the life He lived (Heb. 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22), (2) the words He spoke (John 7:46; 14:10; cf. Matt. 7:29), (3) the miracles He wrought (John 5:20; 14:11), (4) the prophecies He fulfilled (Luke 24:26, 27, 44; John 5:39; DA 799). See DA 406, 407.

2. The same. Verse 2 repeats the essential facts of v. 1, for emphasis.

3. All things. A common philosophical phrase denoting the entire universe (see 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; cf. Heb. 1:1, 2; see on John 1:9).

Were made. Gr. ginomai, “became,” “came into being,” “came to be” (see on v. 1). John describes creation as a completed act. Material things are not eternal; there was a time when they “were made.”

By him. John was not thinking of the Logos, or “Word,” in the abstract, metaphysical sense of Greek philosophy. The association of Christ with the Father in the work of creation is set forth again and again in the NT (see Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:1, 2; cf. Rev. 3:14). Here John presents Christ as the Creator of all things, as in John 1:14 he sets Him forth as the agent of divine mercy and grace for the restoration, or re-creation, of all things. In eternity past the Word was not a passive, inactive entity, but was actively and intimately associated with the Father in the development and administration of “all things.”

Without him. The same truth stated negatively. Uniquely and exclusively, the “Word” is Creator.

4. Life. Gr. zoµeµ, the life principle shared by all living things, the antithesis of death. John evidently thinks also of spiritual life and, more particularly, of everlasting life, to which the one who receives Christ and believes in Him is given access (see v. 12). Through sin man separated himself from the source of life, and therefore became subject to death, but the prospect of eternal life was restored through Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:12, 18; 6:23), and with it all that Adam lost through transgression. See John 10:10; 11:25; 14:6. “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530).

The light of men. In Greek the definite article preceding both “life” and “light” equates “light” with “life.” Spiritual darkness had long shrouded men’s souls, but the “true Light” (v. 9) of divine life and perfection now shines forth to illumine the pathway of every man (cf. Isa. 9:1, 2). Not only does the light of Heaven shine forth through Christ, He is that light (John 1:9). Again and again John quotes Jesus to this effect (see John 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, 46; cf. 1 John 1:5, 6; 2:8). Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence (see on Gen. 3:24). As the first act of creation God flooded the world with light (Gen. 1:3), so when God sets about the work of recreating His image in the souls of men He first illumines their hearts and minds with the light of divine love (2 Cor. 4:6). “With thee,” says the psalmist, “is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (Ps. 36:9).

5. The light. That is, the light of divine love manifested in the incarnate Word (see on v. 4).

Darkness. That is, the moral darkness of sin, the mental darkness of ignorance concerning the love and mercy of God and the hopeless prospect of death (see Eph. 2:12). It was to dispel this pall of darkness that the Light of life came into the world (see 2 Cor. 4:6).

Comprehended. Gr. katalambanoµ, “to apprehend,” “to seize,” “to comprehend,” whether literally with the hands or figuratively with the mind. Katalambanoµ is used in the sense of “perceive” or “comprehend” in Acts 10:34; 25:25; Eph. 3:18, but more often in the sense of “take,” “overtake,” or “seize” in Mark 9:18; John 8:3, 4; 12:35; 1 Thess. 5:4; etc. The English word “apprehend” reflects both shades of meaning. The translation “overcome” (RSV) conveys the idea of good triumphant over evil (cf. Eph. 6:12; Col. 2:15). This translation was possibly influenced by the modernist concept that the Gospel of John reflects the dualism of Mithraism and the Essenes (see pp. 54, 92). However, the development of thought in John 1:9–12 favors the translation “comprehend,” in the sense that the personified darkness of men’s souls neither understood nor appreciated the Light of life (ch. 3:19; cf. DA 80).

6. Sent from God. In these dramatic words the evangelist affirms the divine origin of the Baptist’s witness concerning the Messiah (see on John 1:23; cf. on Amos 7:14, 15; John 4:34).

John. That is, John the Baptist. John the evangelist never refers to himself by name. See on Matt. 3:1–12; Luke 3:1–18. For the meaning of the name see on Luke 1:13.

7. Bear witness. In their state of spiritual blindness men in general were oblivious to the light and not receptive of it (vs. 10, 26). His spiritual perception, however, led John to recognize the Messiah (vs. 32–34). Compare Isa. 6:9; 2 Cor. 4:4; Rev. 3:17, 18.

Light. Gr. phoµs, a source of light. As the context makes evident, Christ is here said to be the light, as in v. 4 He is said to be the bearer of light (see on vs. 4, 5).

Believe. This word appears in the Gospel of John more than 100 times, stressing the vital importance of a positive response to the voice of God.

8. He was not that Light. See on v. 20.

9. The true Light. All other so-called “light” than that which originates with Jesus Christ is false (cf. Isa. 50:11; James 1:17). However it is probable that John does not here use the word “true” in contradistinction to “false,” implying that all other lights are false and misleading, for Christ later spoke of John the Baptist as “a burning and a shining light [Gr. luchnos, “lamp,” “light bearer,” in contradistinction to phoµs, the light itself, see on v. 7]” (ch. 5:35). But John the apostle denies (ch. 1:8) that John the Baptist was “that Light” of which he here speaks. The difference between John the Baptist and Jesus was not the difference between false and true, but between partial and complete (see 1 Cor. 13:10). The witness of John might be likened to the brilliance of the planet Venus, or to that of Sirius (see on Isa. 14:12), but in Jesus the light of truth blazed forth like the noonday sun (see on Mal. 4:2; 2 Peter 1:19). John also sets Jesus forth as the “true bread” (ch. 6:32), the “true vine” (ch. 15:1), the true “door” (ch. 10:7–9), and as truth itself (ch. 14:6).

Lighteth every man. This does not mean that all men are necessarily illuminated by the light, but that if men are illuminated at all it must be by means of this light (cf. John 6:68; Acts 4:12). All the light that men have comes from Christ (DA 464, 465). The true light shines upon all men in the same sense that Jesus died for all men, but this does not mean that all men know about Him or that they will be saved. John here refers, not to a vague spark of light resident in the souls of all men, saints, sinners, and heathen alike, but to the light of a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ (see DA 317). John makes clear in vs. 10–12 that, for the most part, “the world knew him not” and “his own received him not.” These, then, were not illuminated by the “true Light.” As John hastens to add, it is only “as many as received him” and believed in Him who are here particularly designated (v. 12; cf. DA 317).

That cometh. In the Greek this clause may refer either to “every man” (KJV) or to “the true light” (RSV). In ch. 3:19 light is again referred to as coming into the world. In chs. 5:43; 7:28; 10:10; 16:28; 18:37 (cf. chs. 1:31; 6:14; 11:27) Jesus refers to His own coming, not as a babe in Bethlehem, but in His role as the Messiah. In ch. 12:46 Jesus says, “I am come a light into the world.”

In ch. 1:10, John states that Christ, “the true Light,” was in the world. Would it not be appropriate for him to mention His coming into the world in the preceding verse? Some have suggested that if the clause, “that cometh into the world,” refers to “every man,” it would be redundant, whereas if it refers to “the true Light,” it would seem to add meaning to the statement and prepare the way for the incarnation declaration of v. 14. However, the KJV reading is fully as valid grammatically.

The world. Gr. kosmos, generally the “world” from the viewpoint of its harmonious arrangement (see on Matt. 4:8). John uses kosmos some 80 times, as compared with only 15 in the three Synoptics, and by it designates the world of men, particularly those who oppose God and truth.

10. In the world. That is, among men. See on v. 9.

Made by him. See on v. 3.

Knew him not. That is, “the world” did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, “the true Light.” Not only so; it rejected and crucified Him. See on v. 11.

11. His own. Gr. ta idia, an idiomatic expression here meaning “his own [home]” (see John 16:32; 19:27; Acts 21:6; EGW Supplementary Material on John 1:1–3, 14). This is probably not a direct allusion to Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth, His literal “home,” but to “the house of Israel” collectively (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6), the chosen nation. The second occurrence of the expression “his own,” hoi idioi, is in the plural, meaning “his own [people].” Although Jesus’ own brothers (John 7:3–5) and fellow townsmen (Luke 4:28, 29) denied His Messiahship, John here probably refers to the members of “the house of Israel” individually, and particularly to its leaders. These were “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24).

Received him not. The Fourth Gospel is sometimes called the Gospel of Rejection because it traces more fully than do the other Gospels the process by which the leaders of Israel rejected the Messiah (see chs. 3:11; 5:43; 6:66; 8:13; 9:29; 10:25; 12:37, 42; 19:15; etc.). To be sure, many sincere hearts here and there “received him” (ch. 1:12; see chs. 2:11; 3:2; 4:29, 39, 42, 53; 6:14; 7:31, 40, 41, 43; 8:30; 10:19, 42; 11:45; etc.).

12. As many as received. Not merely as a good man or even as a prophet, but as the Son of God, the Sent of God, the Messiah. John here brands as error the belief that simply because Christ died for all men, all will therefore be saved. Marked equally false is the belief that God predestines certain men to be saved and others to be damned. John emphatically declares that the decisive factor lies with men themselves—“as many” as receive and believe are granted access to sonship. Concerning predestination see further on Isa. 55:1; Eph. 1:5; Rev. 22:17.

Power. Gr. exousia, “authority,” “right,” “power of choice,” not dunamis, “power” in the usual sense. In ch. 5:27 exousia is rightly translated “authority.” Because of sin man had lost all his rights and deserved the penalty of death. The plan of salvation restored man’s opportunity to know God and to choose to serve Him.

To become. God does not arbitrarily make men His sons; He enables them to become such if they so choose.

Sons of God. Literally, “children of God,” which expression is a favorite with John (see John 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2), who never, in the Greek, uses “sons of God” when referring to Christians. To become a son, or child, of God is to enter into the covenant relationship (see on Hosea 1:10) by the new birth (John 3:3).

Them that believe. See on v. 7.

On his name. To believe on the name of another is not equivalent to believing him. The latter may simply mean that one gives credence to the words of another. The devils give credence to the fact that there is one God (James 2:19), but this is a very different experience from believing “on the name of God.” The former is an intellectual act; the latter a moral and spiritual one. To believe on the name of Christ is to appropriate the provisions of salvation in Christ Jesus. “Faith is the condition upon which God has seen fit to promise pardon to sinners; not that there is any virtue in faith whereby salvation is merited, but faith can lay hold of the merits of Christ, the remedy provided for sin” (EGW RH Nov. 4, 1890).

The word “name” is here used in an Aramaic idiomatic sense, meaning the person himself.

13. Born. See on ch. 3:3–8.

Not of Blood. That is, not by physical birth.

Will of the flesh. Perhaps sexual desire.

Man. Gr. aneµr, “a male,” probably here a reference to the desire for posterity.

Of God. Human motives and human planning play no part in the birth of which John speaks. It resembles physical birth only in the sense that both mark the beginning of new life (see on John 3:3–8; Rom. 6:3–5). It is not accomplished through human initiative and action, but is altogether a new creation, wholly dependent upon the will and action of God Himself. He it is who works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). John does not exclude the free choice of man with respect to conversion (see on v. 12), nor does he deny the need for human cooperation with divine agencies. He simply affirms that the initiative and the power are God’s.

14. Made flesh. Finite understanding halts at the threshold of infinite love, wisdom, and power—baffled and unable to go further. Paul speaks of the incarnation as a great mystery (1 Tim. 3:16). To stray beyond the bounds of what Inspiration has made known is to delve into mysteries the human mind lacks capacity to comprehend. See on John 6:51; 16:28.

John has already affirmed the true deity of Christ (see on v. 1), and now affirms His true humanity. Christ is divine in the absolute and unqualified sense of the word; He is also human in the same sense, except that He “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). The Scriptures repeatedly and emphatically proclaim this fundamental truth (see Luke 1:35; Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:2, 8; 2:14–18; 10:5; 1 John 1:2; etc.; see on Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9). Though Christ was originally “in the form of God” He “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself,” and, “being born in the likeness of men,” was “found in human form” (Phil. 2:6–8, RSV). In Him was “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9); nevertheless, “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17). “From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father,” but “He chose to give back the scepter into the Father’s hands, and to step down from the throne of the universe,” in order “that He might dwell among us, and make us familiar with His divine character and life” (DA 19, 22, 23).

The two natures, the divine and the human, were mysteriously blended into one person. Divinity was clothed with humanity, not exchanged for it. In no sense did Christ cease to be God when He became man. The two natures became closely and inseparably one, yet each remained distinct. The human nature was not changed into the divine nature, nor the divine nature into the human. See Additional Note at end of chapter; see on Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:14–17; see EGW Supplementary Material on John 1:1–3, 14; Mark 16:6; Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 2:14–17.

Christ “assumed the liabilities of human nature” (EGW ST Aug. 2, 1905), but His humanity was nevertheless “perfect” (DA 664). Although, as a man, He could have sinned, no taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Him; He had no propensity toward sin (EGW letter 8, 1895, see p. 1128). He was “tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (see on Heb. 4:15). See Additional Note at end of chapter.

Dwelt. Gr. skeµnooµ, literally, “tended,” or “pitched [his] tent,” among us (cf. DA 23). Christ became one of us the better to reveal the Father’s love, to share our experiences, to set us an example, to succor us in temptation, to suffer for our sins, and to represent us before the Father (see on Heb. 2:14–17). The eternal Word, who had ever been with the Father (see on John 1:1). was now to become Immanuel, “God with us” (see on Matt. 1:23).

Glory. Gr. doxa, here equivalent to the Heb. kabod, which is used in the OT of the sacred “glory” of the abiding presence of the Lord, the Shekinah (see on Gen. 3:24; Ex. 13:21; cf. on 1 Sam. 4:22). The LXX has doxa 177 times for kabod. John and his fellow disciples bore eyewitness testimony to the historical fact that “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14; see ch. 21:24; 1 John 1:1, 2). Here John doubtless thinks particularly of experiences such as the Transfiguration, when divinity momentarily flashed through humanity. Peter similarly speaks of being an “eyewitness” to the “majesty” and “excellent glory” of Christ at the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16–18). This glory, Peter adds, accompanied the declaration, “This is my beloved Son.” For various occasions during the life of Jesus when the glory of Heaven illumined His countenance see on Luke 2:48. In John 17:5 Jesus prays the Father, “Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The Christian faith rests upon the fact that this divine “glory” rested upon a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Secondarily, John may also have in mind the perfection of character exemplified by the Saviour (see below under “Grace and truth”).

The only begotten. Gr. monogeneµs, from two words meaning “only” and “kind,” and thus properly translated “unique,” “only,” “only one of a kind.” As with the title Logos (see on v. 1), only John uses the word monogeneµs of Christ (see John 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Absence of the definite article in the Greek either makes monogeneµs indefinite, “an only one,” or makes it an expression of quality, in which case John would be saying, “glory as of an only one [who had come] from beside the Father.” This seems evidently the sense here. See on Luke 7:12; 8:42, where monogeneµs is translated “only.”

In Heb. 11:17 monogeneµs is used of Isaac, who was by no means Abraham’s “only begotten,” or even his first-born. But he was the son of the promise, and as such, the one destined to succeed his father as heir to the birthright (Gen. 25:1–6; Gal. 4:22, 23). “Similarly in respect to the five texts in John’s writings of Christ, the translation should be one of the following: ‘unique,’ ‘precious,’ ‘only,’ ‘sole,’ ‘the only one of his kind,’ but not ‘only begotten’” (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 198).

The translation “only begotten,” here and elsewhere, apparently originated with the early Fathers of the Catholic Church, and entered early English translations of the Bible under the influence of the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic Church. Accurately reflecting the Greek, various Old Latin manuscripts which antedate the Vulgate read “only” rather than “only begotten.” The idea that Christ “was born of the Father before all creation” appears first in the writings of Origen, about a.d. 230. Arius, nearly a century later, is the first to use gegennemenon, the correct Greek word for “begotten,” when speaking of Christ, and to affirm that He was “begotten of God before all ages” (see Additional Note at end of chapter). This Greek word is never used in the Bible concerning the preincarnate Christ. The idea that Christ was “begotten” by the Father at some time in eternity past is altogether foreign to the Scriptures. For a detailed discussion of this subject see Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 197–204.

Properly understood of Christ’s unique status as the Son of God, the word monogeneµs distinguishes between Him and all others who, through faith in Him, are given “power to become the sons of God” (v. 12), and who are specifically declared to be “born … of God” (v. 13). Christ is, and always has been, very “God” (see on v. 1), and by virtue of this fact we “become the sons of God” when we receive Christ and believe on His name.

The statement of v. 14 obviously deals with the incarnation, and its purpose is to emphasize the fact that the incarnate Word retained the divine nature, as evidenced by the manifestation of the preincarnate divine glory (see ch. 17:5). Although the word monogeneµs means strictly “unique,” or “only,” rather than “only begotten,” John nevertheless here applies it to Christ at His incarnation, to the time when “the Word was made flesh” in order to dwell among us. Paul confirms this application in Heb. 1:5, 6, where he links the words gegenneka, “have I begotten” (from gennaoµ, “to beget”), and proµtotoktos, “first-born” (from pro, “before,” andtiktoµ, “to beget”), to the time “when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world.” It seems therefore wholly unwarranted to understand monogeneµs as referring to a mysterious begetting of “the Word” at some point of time in eternity past. For a discussion of Christ as the Son of God see on Luke 1:35; and as the Son of man, see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10; see also EGW Supplementary Material on Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9.

Of the Father. Gr. para theou, literally “with the Father,” or “beside the Father,” here probably with the force of “from beside the Father.” The Greek preposition para sometimes has the force of ek, “out of,” “from,” which here agrees best with the context. The incarnate Logos had come forth from the presence of the Father when He entered this world. See on ch. 6:46.

Full of. This clearly applies to the Word incarnate. Dwelling on earth as a man among men, the Word was “full of grace and truth.”

Grace and truth. Gr. charis kai aleµtheia. Charis here means “good will,” “loving-kindness,” “[undeserved] favor,” “mercy.” Aleµtheia refers to the “truth” about the love of God the Father for sinners as revealed in the plan of salvation and in the incarnate Saviour. Here, charis is equivalent to the Heb. chesed (see Additional Note on Psalm 36; see on Job 10:12), as aleµtheia is to the Heb. Хemeth, “faithfulness,” “trustworthiness.” As “mercy” and “truth,” these words appear together in the OT in a clearly Messianic setting, in Ps. 85:10, 11. It was precisely these attributes of God that Christ came particularly to reveal. While on earth He was “full” of them, and could thus give a full and complete revelation of the Father. God is ever faithful to His own character, and His character is revealed most completely in His mercy, or grace.

Fifteen centuries prior to the incarnation God had instructed Israel to build Him a “sanctuary,” or tent, that He might “dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8). As, in times past, the divine presence had appeared in the form of the Shekinah glory above the mercy seat over the ark and elsewhere (see on Gen. 3:24: Ex. 13:21), so now the same glory had been manifested in the person of Jesus. To this fact John and his fellow disciples bore eyewitness, and to them this was incontestable evidence that Jesus had come forth from the Father. Such glory could have come from no other source.

It is worthy of note that in Hebrew the words mishkan, “dwelling place,” “tent,” “tabernacle,” and Shekinah, the glorious “abiding Presence,” are both derived from shakan, “to dwell,” “to abide.” In Greek, skeµneµ, “tent” “tabernacle,” is similarly related to skeµnooµ, “to tent,” “to tabernacle,” and thus “to dwell,” or “to abide.” In times past the divine glory, the holy “Presence,” had dwelt among the chosen people in the literal tabernacle; now, John says, the same glorious “Presence,” God Himself, had come to dwell among His people in the person of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. It is thought that the “glory” of which Paul speaks in Rom. 9:4 is to be identified with the Shekinah glory, as possibly also the “bright cloud” that appeared at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:5). In the clearly Messianic passage of Isa. 11:1–10 the coming of Messiah is foretold, and of Him it is said that, literally, “his abiding shall be glorious.” According to Ps. 85:9, 10, the day of salvation would bring again the “glory” of God to “dwell” in the land, and at that time “mercy [or grace, Heb. chesed, see Additional Note on Psalm 36] and truth [Heb. Хemeth, “faithfulness,” “trustworthiness”]” would meet together (see DA 762). The same two words, chesed and Хemeth, “merciful” and “gracious” are linked together in the proclamation of the “name” of the Lord, when Moses was allowed to behold His “glory [Heb. chabod]” (see on Ex. 33:22; 34:6). These and other Messianic passages of the OT find a very close parallel here in John 1:14, where, at the incarnation, glory that could have come only from the presence of the Father was manifested in the incarnate Word and “dwelt among us,” “full of grace [mercy] and truth.”

Every major aspect of Christ’s life played an important part in the work of salvation. His virgin birth reunited the estranged families of earth and heaven. He brought Deity down to earth in order that He might bear humanity with Him back to heaven. His perfect life as a man provides us with an example of obedience (John 15:10; 1 John 2:6) and sanctification (John 17:19); as God, He imparts to us power to obey (Rom. 8:3, 4). His vicarious death made it possible for us to enjoy a period of probation (CS 137) and for Him to justify “many” (Isa. 53:5, 11; Rom. 5:9; Titus 2:14). By faith in His death we are made free from the guilt of sin, and by faith in His life, from its power (Rom. 5:1, 10; Phil. 4:7). His glorious resurrection assures us that one day we too shall “put on” immortality (1 Cor. 15:12–22, 51–55). His ascension confirms His promise to return and take us with Him to meet the Father (John 14:1–3; Acts 1:9–11), and thereby complete the work of saving “his people.” These five aspects of Christ’s mission to earth were all the subject of prophecy (Isa. 9:6, 7; 53; 61:1–3; Ps. 68:18).

15. John bare witness. Literally, “John bears witness,” or “John testifies.” More than a half a century had passed since the martyrdom of John the Baptist, but his witness to the Christ echoed on down the years. It was true of him as it was of Abel, that “he being dead yet speaketh” (Heb. 11:4). See John 1:19–36; 3:27–36; see on Matt. 3:11, 12; Luke 3:15.

This was he. The Baptist identifies Jesus as the one of whom he had spoken since the beginning of his ministry (see vs. 27, 30).

After me. That is, in point of time. Jesus did not come “after” John in the sense that the disciples, as learners, followed “after” Jesus (see on Matt. 10:37, 38).

Is preferred. Literally, “is become,” or here, “takes precedence.” John never questioned the superior rank and dignity of the Messiah. See ch. 3:28–31.

Before me. Gr. emprosthen mou, “in front of me,” that is, in relative greatness.

He was before me. That is, in point of time. Here, for the word “before” John uses opisoµ, whereas in the preceding clause he uses emprosthen. In view of the fact that John was about six months older than Jesus, reference here is clearly to Jesus’ preincarnate existence.

Some translators and commentators consider v. 15 an interpolation that interrupts the line of though between vs. 14, 16. However, the apostle manifestly introduces the testimony of the Baptist at this point to confirm that of the disciples already mentioned in v. 14, as to Christ’s exalted position and pre-existence. The importance attached by the early church to the witness of John the Baptist reflects the express statements of our Lord Himself (see John 5:32–36; cf. Matt. 11:11).

16. His fulness. See on John 1:14; cf. Col. 1:19; 2:9; EPH 3:19; 4:13.

Grace for grace. Probably meaning, “grace added to grace.” Day by day every true believer goes to the heavenly storehouse for divine grace sufficient to meet the needs of the day. Daily he grows in grace and in understanding God’s purpose for his life (cf. 2 Peter 3:18). He advances steadily toward the goal of a perfect character (see Matt. 5:48).

17. The law. That is, the system of revealed religion under which the Jews lived in OT times, divinely ordained but gradually perverted by human tradition (see on Mark 7:9–13). In the days of Christ the term “law” included not only the Decalogue but all that Moses and the prophets had written (Luke 24:27, 44)—as interpreted by the rabbis. In and of itself, as originally given by God, “the law” was good (cf. Rom. 3:1, 2). It was designed to lead men to salvation through faith in the coming Messiah (John 5:39, 45–47; Luke 24:25–27, 44). The fact that “some did not believe” (Rom. 3:3), but sought salvation “by the works of the law” (ch. 9:32) rather than by faith, and as a result failed to enter into the spiritual rest God intended for them (Heb. 3:18, 19; 4:2), does not mean that the system itself as ordained by God was faulty. All that God does is “perfect” (Deut. 32:4). Many there were in OT times who “obtained a good report through faith” (Heb. 11:39). In fact, there never has been any other way to obtain a “good report” than “through faith.”

Concerning the manner in which human tradition had perverted the plan of salvation by emphasizing the forms of religion rather than its spiritual and moral objectives see on Mark 7:1–13. For Christ’s exposition of the true spirit of the law as applied to the problems of daily living see on Matt. 5:17–22. For a discussion of the word “law” itself see on Gal. 3:24. Concerning the means of salvation in OT times see on Eze. 16:60.

By Moses. Literally, “through Moses.” “The law” did not originate with Moses, but with God. Moses was simply the agent through whom the revealed will of God was imparted to men (see Deut. 5:22 to 6:1; Heb. 1:1).

But. This word has been supplied by the translators. It implies a stronger contrast between “law” and “grace” than John apparently intended. John does not mean to imply that the system revealed through Moses was bad, as compared with that now revealed through Christ, but that, good as Moses’ system was, that of Christ’s is better (see Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34).

Grace and truth. See on vs. 14, 16. These divine attributes were inherent in the system of revealed religion in OT times (see Ex. 34:6, 7), but had, for practical purposes, been lost under a thick layer of human tradition. The contrast between “law” and “grace” is not so much a contrast between the system of religion in OT times, which looked forward to a coming Messiah, and that revealed by Christ (cf. Heb. 1:1, 2), as between the perverted interpretation placed upon the revealed grace and truth of God by the official exponents of the law, the rabbis (cf. Rom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 5:4), and the truth as revealed through Jesus Christ.

By affirming that “truth” comes through Christ, John identifies Him as the reality toward whom pointed all OT types and ceremonies, which were no more than a shadow of better things to come. Type met antitype in Christ (Col. 2:16, 17). In no sense does John imply that the OT system was false or in error.

By Jesus Christ. It was Christ who had spoken through Moses and the prophets (1 Peter 1:9, 10; PP 366). Now He appeared in person to reaffirm the great eternal truths revealed to these holy men of old, and to restore them to their original luster, untarnished by human tradition (see on Matt. 5:17–19). He came to reveal the Father in His true character (cf. Ex. 34:6, 7), to prevail upon men to practice justice and mercy and to be humble before God (Micah 6:6–8). He who “spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” now spoke to men through His own Son (Heb. 1:1, 2).

Here, for the first time, John refers to our Lord by the historical name, Jesus Christ (see on Matt. 1:1). The eternal “Word” has become incarnate, a man among men, and John henceforth speaks of Him as such.

18. No man hath seen God. That is, the Father (cf. PP 366). Sinners cannot see God face to face and live. Not even Moses, the great lawgiver of Israel, was permitted to behold Him (Ex. 33:20; Deut. 4:12). Some have witnessed the glory of the divine presence (see on John 1:14), but, except in vision, none have seen the divine person (cf. Isa. 6:5). Christ came to reveal the Father, and, for all practical purposes, those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:7–11). See also chs. 5:37; 6:46.

Son. See on chs. 1:14; 3:16. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between the readings “Son” and “God.” Either way, reference would be to Christ. If the reading “God” is accepted, the sense would then be: “the unique one, very God, the one abiding in the bosom of the Father,” or, “the only one [who is] God, the one who abides in the bosom of the Father.”

In the bosom. Probably an idiomatic expression indicating the most intimate association possible (cf. ch. 13:23). He who knows the Father best is the very one who came from heaven to make Him known to men (ch. 14:7–9).

Hath declared. Gr. exegeµomai, “to lead forth,” “to unfold [in teaching],” “to reveal,” “to interpret.” Our word “exegesis” is from the same Greek word.

19. The record of John. [Jesus Declared “the Lamb of God,” John 1:19–34. See Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover.] That is, his testimony concerning the Christ, on: (1) the day the delegation from Jerusalem came to investigate him (vs. 19–28), (2) the day following, when he publicly identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (vs. 29–34), and (3) the third day, when he privately introduced two of his own disciples to Jesus (vs. 35, 36). John the evangelist begins his gospel narrative with an account of the witness of the forerunner to the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth. Compare Matt. 3:1, 2; Mark 1:1–4; Luke 3:1–6; Acts 10:37, 38; see on Luke 3:15–18.

When the Jews sent. That is, the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish authority of the time (cf. chs. 5:15–18; 7:13; 9:22; 18:12; see p. 67). The questions now put to John reflect the high esteem in which he was held by the people generally (Matt. 14:5; 21:26), and the serious attention given by the leaders to the popular belief that he was a prophet, and might, perhaps, even be the Messiah (see Luke 3:15). The extent of John’s influence is apparent from the fact that his audience included not only vast throngs of the common people (Matt. 3:5), but the religious (v. 7) and political (see Matt. 14:4; DA 214) leaders of the nation as well. Excitement had reached such a height that the Sanhedrin could no longer evade the issue. The people had no doubt pressed their leaders for an answer to the very questions with which the delegation now challenged John. Presumably (see on John 1:25), the leaders would acknowledge the right of a prophet, as a spokesman direct from God, to teach without their authorization, once the validity of his credentials was established (see on Matt. 12:38; 16:1). Otherwise, they exercised the right to control all public teaching (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 11, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 558–600).

Priests and Levites. See on Ex. 28:1; Deut. 10:8. Although most of the priests and Levites were Sadducees, this delegation was composed of Pharisees (see on John 1:24), perhaps because they felt more concern over the matter. Similarly, it was the Pharisees who later harassed Jesus. Perhaps priests and Levites were assigned to investigate John out of consideration for the fact that his father had been a priest, and his mother the daughter of a priest (Luke 1:5). John was himself eligible to the priesthood, and thus to become a teacher.

From Jerusalem. Perhaps some 25 mi. distant.

Who art thou? Literally, “You, who are you?” They were not concerned with John’s identity as an individual, but with his authority to preach and teach (see v. 25). Later, the authorities put the same question to Jesus (ch. 8:25). Perhaps the delegation half expected John to claim he was the Messiah. Their question apparently reflected this expectation, for John’s answer was a forthright denial of such a claim (ch. 1:20; cf. DA 134).

20. He confessed. John’s categorical denial that he was the Messiah settled that aspect of the question. Characteristically, John the evangelist fortifies this positive declaration with a corresponding negative statement, “denied not” (cf. John 1:3; 3:16; 6:50; 1 John 1:5; 2:4).

I am not the Christ. The personal pronoun “I” is emphatic, as if John said, “I am not the Christ.”

21. What then? John’s denial left unanswered the basic question as to his authority for preaching.

Art thou Elias? It was popularly believed that Elijah would appear in person to proclaim the coming of Messiah (Matt. 17:10; DA 422; cf. Mishnah Shekalim 2.5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 8; Eduyoth 8. 7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 50; Baba Mezia 1. 8; 2. 8; 3. 4, 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 124, 181, 223, 224; etc.).

I am not. John affirmed that he had come to do the work the prophets of old had foretold Elijah would do (John 1:23; cf. Mal. 3:1; 4:5; Mark 1:2, 3), but he would have been misunderstood had he claimed to be Elijah. It was foretold of John that he was to go before Messiah “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:17). For Christ’s declaration that John was Elias see on Matt. 11:14; 17:12.

That prophet. Literally, “the prophet,” that is, the prophet foretold by Moses in Deut. 18:15 (see comment there). There was a popular belief that Moses would be raised from the dead, and some apparently wondered whether John might be he (see DA 135). Later, the people thought the same thing of Jesus (John 6:14; 7:40; cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37).

22. Who art thou? The question was now general rather than specific (see on vs. 19–21).

An answer. Thus far inquiry had resulted only in negative replies. Now the priests and Levites sought from John a positive declaration.

Them that sent us. That is, the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem (see on v. 19).

23. I am the voice. See on Matt. 3:3. John appears to report the exact words of the Baptist, for the quotation as here reported seems to be directly from the Hebrew, by memory. Otherwise, as in the Synoptics, it would probably be from the LXX. Jesus is declared to be “the Word” (John 1:1–3, 14); the Baptist claimed only to be a “voice.” He was only God’s spokesman; Jesus was the Word incarnate.

The way of the Lord. John implies that the leaders of Israel should turn their attention from the one sent to herald Messiah’s coming and begin looking for the Messiah Himself.

24. Of the Pharisees. That is, they were of the sect known as Pharisees. Some have suggested that the delegation was composed of Sadducees sent by the Pharisees, but there seems to be no valid reason for accepting this interpretation. The force of the Greek implies that the delegation was composed of individuals who were “of,” that is, who “belonged to,” the Pharisees. See on v. 19.

25. Why baptizest? Here was the crux of the issue—John’s authority. He did not claim to be Messiah or one of the prophets—what right, then, did he have to pose as a reformer, without their permission? See on v. 19. The question implies acquaintance with the rite of water baptism, and at least a partial understanding of its significance (see on Matt. 3:6). Recent discoveries at QumraЖn reveal that the rite of water baptism was practiced at the time (see on Matt. 3:6; see pp. 63, 91). Concerning the rite of baptism itself see on Matt. 3:6; Rom. 6:3–6.

26. I baptize. See on Matt. 3:11.

There standeth one. Jesus had been baptized (cf. vs. 29–34) at least 40 days before this, and had but recently returned from the wilderness (see on Matt. 3:13 to 4:11; cf. DA 137). John saw Jesus as he spoke and expected Him to respond to the announcement he now made (DA 137).

The Gospel of John says nothing of Jesus’ baptism. One explanation of John’s silence on this and other important incidents is that he pre-supposes acquaintance on the part of his intended readers with accounts already available to them in the Synoptic Gospels. For comment on Christ’s baptism see on Matt. 3:13–17.

Whom ye know not. The word “know” is from the Gr. oida. More than three years later the priests and elders declared that they will could not “tell” (Gr. oida whether John the Baptist had been divinely appointed (Matt. 21:27). The priests and Levites who had come to interrogate John scanned the audience, but saw no one to whom they thought John’s description might apply (DA 136). But John spoke primarily of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy. In the darkness of their souls these spiritual leaders failed to apprehend the true Light (see on John 1:5), they “knew him not” (v. 10) and therefore “received him not” (v. 11; cf. vs. 31–33; chs. 8:19; 14:7, 9; 16:3). Neither they nor those who sent them were able to reach a decision they were prepared to announce publicly and according took a noncommittal attitude (see on Matt. 21:23–27).

27. He it is. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this clause. It seems to have been inserted later because of a failure to recognize that the following clause, translated “who coming after me,” is in apposition to the last part of v. 26, “there standeth one among you, whom ye know not.” The insertion “he it is” entered English Bibles through the influence of the Latin Vulgate. Accordingly, the first part of v. 27 would read, “even the one coming after me.”

After me. See on Matt. 3:11.

Is preferred before me. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the omission of this clause. It is attested by only a few late manuscripts (cf. DA 136). However, textual evidence attests the expression in vs. 15, 30.

I am not worthy. See on Matt. 3:11.

28. Bethabara. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading “Bethany,” called “Bethany Beyond Jordan” to distinguish it from Bethany near Jerusalem. “Bethabara” was adopted by Origen (c. 250 a.d.), who in his day found no town near the Jordan by the name Bethany, but did find one then known as Bethabara. Neither site has been identified in modern times. There is a ford called Abaµrah about 12 mi. south of the Lake of Galilee, but this is too far north. Bethabara may possibly represent a transposition of letters by which BethРФarabah became BethРФabarah. There was a town on the borders of Judah and Benjamin by the name of BethРhaФarabah (see Joshua 15:6, 61; 18:22), but it is not on the river. Bethabara, literally, “house [or place] of crossing,” would be an appropriate name for a village near any one of numerous fords across the Jordan. The traditional site of Jesus’ baptism is Mahaµdet elРHajlah, not far from Bethoglah, now ФAin Hajlah, 4 mi. (6.4 km.) southeast of Jericho. See Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover; Palestine In Biblical Times.

29. Next day. That is, the day after the events of vs. 19–28. Detailed and often precise chronological information is characteristic of John (see chs. 1:29, 39, 43; 2:1, 12; 4:43; 6:22; 11:6, 17; 12:1, 12; 20:26).

John seeth Jesus. The delegation from Jerusalem had departed. Evidently they did not take John seriously, or they would have pressed their investigation further, to discover, if possible, of whom he spoke (see v. 26). The preceding day Jesus had not been identified by John’s indirect reference to Him as the Messiah (v. 26). Now He is singled out from the crowd.

Behold. What a privilege to be the first to herald (see on Matt. 3:1) Jesus, the One to whom all the prophets of old bore witness, as the true sacrifice! Which of the prophets would not have thrilled at the privilege! Little wonder that Jesus later spoke of John as a prophet than whom no greater had arisen in Israel (Luke 7:28)!

Lamb of God. That is, the Lamb provided by God. John alone uses this designation for Christ, though Luke (Acts 8:32) and Peter (1 Peter 1:19) have similar comparisons (cf. Isa. 53:7). John the Baptist introduced Jesus as “the Lamb of God” to John the evangelist (see on John 1:35, 36), and for the disciple this title must have held deep significance. The figure, which stresses Jesus’ innocence and perfection of character, and thus the vicarious nature of His sacrifice (Isa. 53:4–6, 11, 12; see on Ex. 12:5), is reminiscent of the paschal lamb of Egypt, which typified deliverance from the bondage of sin. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). By the figure of a lamb John identifies the suffering Messiah as the one in whom the sacrificial system of OT times reaches reality and has meaning. In the divine foreknowledge and purpose He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

In view of the fact that contemporary Jewish thought found no place for a suffering Messiah, critics doubt that John could have held such a concept (see John 12:34; cf. Mark 9:31, 32; Luke 24:21). But as Robertson has well remarked (Word Pictures in the New Testament, on John 1:29), “Certainly the Baptist did not have to be as ignorant as the rabbis.” John had the Messianic prophecy of Isa. 53 (see on Isa. 53:1, 4–6; see DA 136). Furthermore, it would be strange indeed for God to ordain John the Baptist as herald of the coming of Messiah and not impart to him the knowledge of this fundamental aspect of Messiah’s mission.

Taketh away. Gr. airoµ, “to lift up,” “to bear away,” “to remove.” Only by virtue of the fact that the Lamb of God was without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22) could He “take away [Gr. airoµ] our sins” (1 John 3:5). Because the burden of sin was too heavy for us to bear, Jesus came to lift the load from our shattered lives.

Sin. By the singular form of the word John places emphasis on sin as a principle, rather than on particular sins (see 1 John 2:2; 3:5; 4:10).

30. Of whom. Literally, “on behalf of whom,” not “concerning whom.”

After me … before me. See on v. 15.

31. I knew him not. As if with the emphasis, “Even I did not know him” to be the Messiah. John’s early witness on behalf of the Messiah was based on direct revelation. There had been no collusion between Jesus and John. Knowing of the circumstances attending the early years of Jesus’ life and of His perfection of character, John believed Jesus to be the Promised One, but until the baptism he had no positive evidence that this was so (see DA 109).

Manifest to Israel. John was the “voice” from God (see on v. 23) directing men to “the Lamb of God” (see on v. 29). The baptism of Jesus marked the climax of John’s mission, though his labors continued for perhaps a year and a half more. He declared, after the baptism, that Jesus “must increase,” and he himself “decrease” (ch. 3:30).

32. John bare record. See on v. 19.

I saw the Spirit. See on Matt. 3:16, 17; Luke 3:21, 22.

33. I knew him not. See on vs. 29, 31.

He that sent me. John points to God as the source of his authority (see on v. 6).

34. I saw. John speaks as an eyewitness (cf. 1 John 1:1).

Son of God. There is some textual evidence (cf. p. 146) for the reading “the Elect of God.” See on Luke 1:35; cf. on John 1:1–3, 14. In the OT (Ps. 2:7) and in the pseudepigraphal Book of (Enoch 105:2,) about the 1st century b.c., “Son [of God]” appears as a distinctly Messianic title. Only in the Gospel of John is Jesus reported as using the title of Himself (chs. 5:25; 10:36; 11:4). The Jews of Christ’s time clearly understood the title in its highest sense (see ch. 19:7). John’s objective in writing a Gospel was to provide convincing evidence that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (ch. 20:31).

35. Again the next day. [The First Disciples, John 1:35–51. See Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover; The Ministry of Our Lord] See on v. 19; cf. vs. 29, 43. John often uses the word “again” more as a connective, by way of relating a new section of his narrative to the preceding section, rather than in a repetitive sense (see chs. 8:12, 21; 10:7, 19; 21:1; etc.).

Two of his disciples. One of these was Andrew (v. 40). John’s reticence throughout his Gospel in referring to himself in connection with incidents in which he was a participant strongly implies that he was the other of the two disciples (cf. chs. 20:2; 21:20–25; see DA 138).

36. Looking. Here and in v. 42, fixed, intent, earnest gazing. This is the last occasion on which the gospel record speaks of John’s being with Jesus.

37. Followed. Gr. akoloultheoµ, “to follow,” probably not yet in the sense of becoming disciples (John 8:12; 10:4, 27; 12:26; 21:19, 20, 22; see on Matt. 4:19). Here, Andrew and John “followed” Jesus in the sense that they recognized Him to be “the Lamb of God” (John 1:36). Andrew and John were the first followers. Soon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (Bartholomew) joined them (see John 1:40, 43, 45; see on Mark 3:16–18). The followers did not at this time permanently discontinue their usual occupation and become disciples in the full sense of the word. Not until more than a year later, in the spring of a.d. 29, did they receive the call to permanent discipleship (see on Luke 5:1, 11). Only then could it be said that “they forsook all, and followed him” (Luke 5:11). The formal appointment of the Twelve came even later, during the summer of the same year (see on Mark 3:14).

38. What seek ye? These are the first words of Jesus that are reported by John (cf. Luke 2:49).

Rabbi. Gr. rhabbi, from the Aramaic rabi, meaning “my great one,” generally equivalent to “sir,” but used also in a more restricted sense as a title of distinction and respect for a teacher of the law (see on Matt. 23:7). It has been suggested that, in the latter sense, the word had but recently come into use.

In John, “rabbi” is consistently the term used in addressing Jesus by those who recognize Him as a teacher, perhaps even a prophet, but who either do not as yet realize, or who are unwilling to admit, that He is the Messiah (see chs. 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). Those for whom Jesus performed miracles often called Him “Lord” (chs. 9:36; 11:3, 21, 27, 32). In the early part of their association with Jesus the disciples are quoted by John as calling Him “Rabbi,” but with a deepening conviction that He is indeed the Sent of God they later call Him “Lord” (chs. 6:68; 11:12; 13:6, 25; 14:5, 8, 22; 21:15, 20; etc.). After the resurrection the title “Lord” is always used of Jesus (1 Cor. 16:22), never “Rabbi.” The synoptic writers do not discriminate between these titles as does John. The Baptist’s disciples called him “rabbi” (John 3:26).

Those who addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” thereby expressed their willingness to learn of Him, whereas those who addressed Him as “Lord” (Aramaic Mari, Gr. Kurios) thereby expressed either common respect, or the unquestioning submission of servants. However, the terms were often used without any clear sense of distinction between them.

Being interpreted. Writing for Greek readers, John often provides the original Aramaic words of our Lord, but always translates them into Greek (chs. 1:41, 42; 4:25; 5:2; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13, 17; 20:16, 24; 21:2).

Where dwellest thou? Andrew and John desire a more prolonged and personal interview than seems appropriate in a public place.

39. The tenth hour. That is, about 4:00 p.m. In the days of Jesus, Roman usage, then current in Palestine, divided the light part of the day into 12 hours (see ch. 11:9; p. 50; cf. Josephus Life 54 [279]). John’s vivid memory of the hour reflects the profound impression events of this day made upon his memory. John repeatedly notes the time of day (see chs. 4:6, 52; 18:28; 19:14; 20:19). This exactness comports with his claim to being an eyewitness (John 19:35; 21:24; 1 John 1:1, 2).

40. One of the two. The writer identifies but one of the two. It is generally believed that the other was the writer himself, John the brother of James, who modestly refrains from identifying himself (see on v. 35; cf. ch. 21:20–24; DA 138).

Followed him. John and Andrew desired to converse with Jesus concerning the declaration of v. 36, “Behold the Lamb of God!” They were not yet thinking of following Him in the formal sense of becoming regular followers (see on v. 43). It was now probably the late autumn or early winter of a.d. 27 (see The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2). They followed Jesus intermittently for the next year and a half before He issued the call to permanent discipleship (see on Luke 5:11). Jesus’ formal appointment of the Twelve did not take place till the late summer of a.d. 29 (see on Mark 3:13–19). The five who “followed” Jesus at the Jordan did so simply in the sense of accepting John’s witness to His Messiahship.

Andrew. See on Mark 3:18.

Simon Peter’s. See on Mark 3:16.

41. His own brother. Andrew became the first disciple to begin bringing others to Jesus. He did so “first,” that is, before he did anything else. This testifies to the profound impression made on his mind and heart by that first conversation with Jesus.

Messias. See on Matt. 1:1.

Interpreted. See on v. 38.

42. Jesus beheld him. In v. 36 (see comment there) “looking” is from the same Greek word here translated “beheld.”

Simon … Cephas. See on Matt. 16:18; Mark 3:16. The name “Simon” is from the Greek form of the Hebrew “Simeon” (see on Gen. 29:33).

By interpretation. See on v. 38.

43. The day following. That is, the day after the events of vs. 35–42, and prbably the third day after those of vs. 19–28 (see vs. 29, 35).

Would go. That is, purposed to go, or was about to go.

Findeth Philip. Perhaps as a result of the efforts of the three who had already found Jesus. Concerning Philip see on Mark 3:18.

Follow me. Here, more nearly in the sense of becoming a disciple (see on Mark 2:14), not in the simple sense of walking after someone, as in v. 37. However, see on Luke 5:11; John 1:40.

44. Bethsaida. See on Matt. 11:21.

45. Philip findeth Nathanael. As the day before, Andrew brought his brother to Jesus, so Philip now brings a friend. The first impulse in the heart of one who is truly converted is to share the joy and the blessing of salvation with others, particularly with those who are near and dear. Nathanael is commonly identified with Bartholomew (see on Mark 3:18).

The law. Here, a technical designation for the first five books of the OT (see on Luke 24:44). Philip refers particularly to the prediction of Deut. 18:15 (see comment there) as meeting its fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth (see on John 6:14).

Son of Joseph. See on Matt. 1:20, 21; Luke 2:33, 41.

46. Any good thing. There is a tinge of scorn in Nathanael’s rejoinder to Philip’s thrilling announcement. Nathanael was from Cana (ch. 21:2), but a short distance from Nazareth, and doubtless spoke from firsthand knowledge.

Nazareth. See on Matt. 2:23.

Come and see. Compare v. 29. To meet Jesus face to face would be more convincing evidence than a lengthy argument. Thus it is today. The only way to obtain positive evidence of the certainty of faith in Christ is to experience it.

47. An Israelite indeed. Or, “truly an Israelite,” that is, one who served God in sincerity of heart (see ch. 4:23, 24) and not as a hypocrite (see on Matt. 6:2; 7:5; 23:13). Nathanael was one of that small but devout group who earnestly waited for “the consolation of Israel” (see on Luke 2:25) and aspired to the high ideals set before them by God (see Vol. IV, pp. 26-30). A true Israelite was not necessarily a literal descendant of Abraham (see John 8:33–44), but one who chose to live in harmony with the will of God (see John 8:39; Acts 10:34, 35; Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:6, 7, 25–27; 10:12, 13; Gal. 3:9, 28, 29; 1 Peter 2:9, 10).

Guile. Gr. dolos, literally, “bait,” such as for catching fish, but figuratively, “trickery,” “guile,” “treachery.” False pretenses are the “bait” used by the hypocrite to convince men that he is better than he really is.

48. Whence knowest? Nathanael was startled to find that his life lay open like a book before Jesus.

Fig tree. In Palestine the fig and the olive were the favorite trees cultivated for their fruit. To “sit” under one’s “fig tree” meant to be at home and at peace (see Micah 4:4; Zech. 3:10; etc.).

49. Rabbi. See on v. 38.

Son of God. See on Luke 1:35. The profound impression made by Christ’s declaration (v. 47) is clearly evident from Nathanael’s forthright and unqualified profession of faith (v. 49). Evidently it was his earnest desire for clearer light concerning the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (vs. 29, 36) and as “the Son of God” (v. 34), that had led him to seek an appropriate place for meditation and prayer (see DA 140). In response to that prayer he was now provided with convincing evidence that Jesus was divine. Jesus often read men’s inmost thoughts and the hidden secrets of their lives, thereby giving them evidence of His divinity (see on Mark 2:8). For later declarations by the disciples of faith in the divinity of Jesus see Matt. 14:33; 16:16; John 6:69; 16:30; etc.

King of Israel. An additional Messianic title by which Nathanael acknowledged Jesus as the One the prophets promised should “restore again the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). This title was equivalent to the expression “son of David” (see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 10:48; cf. Zech. 6:13).

50. Greater things. Jesus here refers to the many convincing evidences of divinity Nathanael was to witness during his association with Christ (see DA 142).

51. Verily, verily. See on Matt. 5:18. Of all NT writers only John doubles the word, as here. He does so altogether 25 times, in each instance quoting Jesus.

The Hebrew equivalent of the expression “verily, verily” occurs repeatedly in the Manual of Discipline (1 QS), one of the Dead Sea scrolls (see p. 91), but in a somewhat different sense from that in which John uses it.

Angels of God. In this picturesque figure of speech Jesus envisions His own ministry for mankind (see DA 142, 143). The figure is evidently based on Jacob’s dream at Bethel, while on his way to Haran (Gen. 28:12). Compare Heb. 1:14.

Son of man. See on Mark 2:10. This is Jesus’ first recorded use of the title.

additional note on chapter 1

The Christian faith finds its source, its center, and its certainty in the historical Christ of the NT. As set forth in John 1:1–3, 14 (see comment there) and consistently affirmed throughout the NT, Christ is very God in the absolute and unqualified sense of the word, and truly man in every respect, sin excepted. At the incarnation deity and humanity were inseparably united in the person Jesus Christ, the unique God-man (see on Matt. 1:1).

But the Scriptures also declare that “the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29). The legacy of truth to which the Christian church fell heir thus included the paradox of a triune monotheism and the mystery of an incarnate God, both of which concepts transcend finite understanding and defy ultimate analysis and definition. However, to ardent Christians of apostolic times the dynamic fact of a crucified, risen, and living Lord, whom many of them had seen and heard (see John 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16; John 1:1–3), subordinated the related theological problems to a place of minor importance.

But as, with the passing of that generation (see Rev. 2:4; cf. Joshua 24:31), the vision of a living Lord grew dim and pristine purity and devotion waned, men turned increasingly from the practical realities of the gospel to its intriguing theoretical aspects, under the illusion that by searching with the intricate paraphernalia of philosophy they might, perhaps, find out God (see Job 11:7; Rom. 11:33). Among the diverse heresies that arose to trouble the church none were more serious than those concerned with the nature and person of Christ. Controversy over this problem rocked the church for centuries and was marked by a protracted succession of heresies, councils, and schisms.

For any but students of church history a detailed study of this controversy may appear barren of interest and practical value. But today, no less than in apostolic times, the certainty of the Christian faith centers in the historic Christ of the NT. Also, in one guise or another, various ancient heresies either live on or have been revived. From a brief review of the course of this controversy of earlier times modern Christians may learn to recognize, and to be vigilant against, the same errors that perplexed their devout brethren in ages past (see John 8:32; 1 John 4:1).

The two principal phases of this protracted debate are generally known as the Trinitarian and Christological controversies. The first was concerned with the status of Christ as God, and the second with the incarnate relationship between His divine and human natures. The Trinitarian controversy centered in the battles of the church with Docetism, Monarchianism, and Arianism, from the 1st to the 4th century, and the Christological controversy in its struggles with Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monotheletism, from the 5th to the 7th century.

The Apostolic Church. The belief of the apostolic church concerning Jesus is well summed up in Peter’s affirmation that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), and in the simple declaration of faith quoted by Paul, “Jesus is the Lord [Gr. Kurios, here equivalent to the Heb. Yahweh]” (1 Cor. 12:3). The early Christians believed Him to be God in the highest sense of the word, and made this belief the cornerstone of their faith (see on Matt. 16:18). “Flesh and blood” could not reveal or explain this truth; it must be accepted by faith (see Matt. 16:17). This implicit certainty of the primitive church concerning the Trinity and the divine-human nature of Christ was founded on the explicit teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It was not many years after Christ had ascended to heaven, however, that “grievous wolves” began to make havoc of the flock, and that within the church itself men arose speaking “perverse things” and drawing disciples away after them (see Acts 20:29, 30).

Docetism and Gnosticism. The first error concerning the nature and person of Christ is generally referred to as Docetism. This name comes from a Greek word meaning “to appear.” Docetism assumed various forms, but its basic idea was that Christ only appeared to have a body, that He was a phantom and not a man at all. The Word became incarnate in appearance only. This heresy arose in apostolic times and persisted well on toward the close of the 2d century.

Docetism was particularly characteristic of such groups as the Ebionites and the Gnostics. The former were Jewish Christians who adhered strictly to the rites and practices of Judaism. The latter were primarily Gentile Christians. Gnosticism was little more than a blend of various pagan philosophies masquerading under the guise of Christian terminology.

An early and possibly authentic tradition identifies Simon Magus (see Acts 8:9–24) as the first proponent of error concerning the nature and person of Christ, and as the first Christian Gnostic. A few years later a Christian by the name of Cerinthus arose in Alexandria, a man who is classed by some as an Ebionite and by others as a Gnostic. He denied that Christ had come in the flesh, maintaining that His supposed incarnation was apparent and not real. The Ebionites were not Gnostics but held similar views concerning the humanity of Christ. They regarded Christ as only the literal son of Joseph, but selected by God as the Messiah because He distinguished Himself for piety and observance of the law, and was adopted as the Son of God at His baptism. One group of Ebionites, the Elkesaites, taught that Christ had been literally “begotten” of the Father in ages past, and was thus inferior to Him.

In contrast with the Ebionites, who looked upon Christ as essentially a superior type of human being, the Gnostics, generally speaking, denied that He was a human being at all. They conceived of Christ as a phantom, or “aeon,” that temporarily took possession of Jesus, an ordinary human being. Divinity was not truly incarnate. Concerning the tremendous impact of Gnosticism upon Christianity the church historian Latourette suggests the possibility that “for a time the majority of those who regarded themselves as Christians adhered to one or another of its many forms” (K. S. Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 123). Arising gradually in apostolic times, Gnosticism reached the apex of its influence upon the church during the 2d century. Recognizing the grave threat posed by Gnosticism, the church fought back heroically.

Writing during the latter half of the 2d century, Irenaeus remarks that John wrote his Gospel with the specific purpose of refuting the Docetic views of Cerinthus (Irenaeus Against Heresies xi. 1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 426; see John 1:1–3, 14; 20:30, 31). In the epistles John even more clearly warns against the Docetic heresy, whose advocates he brands as “anti-christ” (1 John 2:18–26; John 4:1–3, 9, 14; 2 John 7, 10). During his first imprisonment in Rome (c. a.d. 62), Paul cautioned the believers in Colossae against Docetic error (Col. 2:4, 8, 9, 18), and about the same time Peter voiced an even stronger warning (2 Peter 2:1–3). Jude (v. 4) refers to the Docetic heresy. The “Nicolaitanes” of Rev. 2:6 were Gnostics, though not necessarily Docetists (Irenaeus Against Heresies xi. 1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 426).

During the first half of the 2d century various Gnostic teachers arose to plague the church with their noxious heresies. Prominent among these were Basilides and Valentinus, both of Alexandria. But perhaps the most influential—and successful—proponent of Docetic ideas was Marcion, during the latter half of the same century. He was by no means a Gnostic, but his views about Christ closely resembled those of the Gnostics. He held that the birth, physical life, and death of Jesus were not real, but merely gave the appearance of reality.

Against the gross errors of Docetism the church struggled courageously. During the latter half of the 2d century Irenaeus came boldly forward as the great champion of orthodoxy against heresy. His polemical work Against Heresies, specifically the Gnostic heresy, has survived to the present day. Irenaeus emphasized the unity of God.

Monarchianism. As the name indicates, Monarchianism stressed the unity of the Godhead. (A “monarch” is literally a “sole ruler.”) It was, in effect, a reaction against the many gods of the Gnostics and the two gods of Marcion—the God of the OT, whom he considered an evil God, and Christ, a God of love. As reactionary movements so often do, it went to the opposite extreme, and as a result became a heresy the church later found it necessary to condemn. The trend of which Monarchianism was characteristic may largely be credited with purging the church of Gnostic teachings, but the cure caused almost as much havoc as the malady it was supposed to remedy. The struggle with Monarchianism began toward the close of the 2d century and continued well into the 3d. There were two types of Monarchians, the Dynamists (from a Greek work meaning “power”), who taught that a divine power animated the human body of Jesus, who supposedly had no proper deity of His own and lacked a true human soul, and the Modalists, who conceived of one God who had revealed Himself in different ways.

In order to maintain the unity of the Godhead the Dynamists utterly denied the deity of Christ, whom they considered a mere man chosen of God to be the Messiah and raised to a level of deity. According to Adoptionism, one variation of this theory, the man Jesus attained to perfection and was adopted as the Son of God, at His baptism.

The Modalists taught that one God had revealed Himself in different ways. Denying any distinction in personality, they abandoned belief in the triune nature of the Godhead altogether. They accepted the true divinity of both Father and Son, but hastened to explain that the two were only different designations for the same divine being. This view is sometimes called Patripassianism, because, presumably, the Father became the Son at the incarnation, and subsequently suffered and died as the Christ. Similarly, at the resurrection, the Son became the Holy Spirit. From the most famous exponent of the theory, Sabellius, this view is also called Sabellianism. The Sabellians held that the names of the Trinity were merely designations by which the same divine person performed various cosmic functions. Thus prior to the incarnation this divine being was the Father; at the incarnation the Father became the Son; and at the resurrection the Son became the Holy Spirit.

Early in the 3d century Tertullian refuted Modalistic Monarchianism, stressing both the personality of the Son of God and the unity of the Godhead. However, he proposed that Christ was a subordinate order of God—a theory known as Subordinationism.

About the middle of the 3d century Origen advanced the theory of eternal generation, according to which the Father alone is God in the highest sense. The Son is coeternal with the Father, but “God” only in a derived sense. Origen believed that Christ’s soul—like all human souls, as he mistakenly supposed—pre-existed, but differed from all others in being pure and unfallen. The Logos, or divine Word, grew into indissoluble union with the human soul of Jesus. Distinguishing between theos, God, and ho theos, the God, in John 1:1, Origen concluded that the Son is not God in the primary and absolute sense, but “God” only by virtue of the communication of a secondary grade of divinity which might be termed theos, but not ho theos. Christ would thus be midway between things created and uncreated. Origen may be called the father of Arianism.

Arianism. Early in the 4th century Arius, a presbyter of the church in Alexandria, adopted Origen’s theory of the Logos, except that he denied any substance intermediate between God and created beings. From this he deduced that the Son is not divine in any sense of the word, but strictly a creature, though the very highest and first of all, and that therefore “there was [a time] when He was not.” He taught that there is only one being—the Father—to whom timeless existence can be attributed, that the Father created the Son out of nothing, and that prior to His generation by an act of the Father’s will the Son did not exist. To Arius, Christ was neither truly human, for He was without a human soul, nor yet truly divine, for He was without the essence and attributes of God. He was simply the most exalted of all created beings. The human being Jesus was chosen, by virtue of God’s foreknowledge of His triumph, to be the Christ.

At the First Council of Nicaea, convened in a.d. 325 to settle the Arian controversy, Athanasius stepped forward as “the father of orthodoxy,” maintaining that Jesus Christ always was, and that He came, not from the previously nonexistent, but from the very same essence as the Father. Applying the term homoousios, “one substance,” to Christ, the council affirmed its belief that He is of one and the same essence as the Father. Homoousios could not be understood otherwise. The council anathematized both Arianism and Sabellianism as the two principal deviations from exact truth, and declared that it was not denying the unity of the Godhead when it asserted the trinity, nor denying the trinity when it asserted the unity. Thus the Nicene Creed states that the Son is “begotten of the Father [… the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (oJmoouv»ion) with the Father” (cited in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, p. 29). This creed became the crucial test of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

The Arians rejected the decision of the council and went into schism, and for centuries Arianism proved to be the most formidable foe of the Roman Catholic Church (see on Dan. 7:8). Following the First Council of Nicaea a group sometimes called semi-Arians also troubled the church. Their key word was homoiousios, by which they described the Son as being of “like substance” with the Father, in contrast with the homoousios (“same substance”) of the Nicene Creed. Prominent among opponents of orthodoxy following the Council of Nicaea were Apollinaris and Marcellus. Both affirmed the true unity of the divine and the human in Christ but denied His true humanity, asserting that the divine will made of the human nature of Jesus a passive instrument. These various problems led to another council in the year 381, at Constantinople. This council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, clarified its meaning, and declared the presence of two real natures in Christ.

Nestorianism. After the Council of Constantinople the attention of the church turned to the so-called Christological aspect of the problem of the nature and person of Christ. Attempts were made to define the nature of the divine and of the human elements in Christ, and to state the relationship between these two. How could two personal natures exist together in one person?

This phase of the controversy centered in two opposing schools of thought, one in Alexandria and the other in Antioch, in Syria. Both acknowledged the true unity of divinity and humanity in the one person, Jesus Christ, but the Alexandrian school emphasized the unity of the two natures and stressed the importance of deity, whereas the Antiochian school emphasized the distinction between the two natures and stressed the importance of the human aspect. Partisans of Antioch held that divinity and humanity had entered into a relation of constant coexistence and cooperation without actually merging. They separated the two natures in the one person, declaring that there was not a complete union but only permanent association. They made a sharp distinction between Christ as the Son of God and Christ as the Son of man, and gave the human nature more distinct recognition. They conceived of the unity of the two natures as accomplished through the unity of the respective wills. They preserved the reality and completeness of Christ’s human nature, but endangered the unity of the person. It was an imperfect, incomplete, loose, mechanical union, in which the two natures were not truly united in a single self-conscious person. The Alexandrians, on the other hand, conceived of a miraculous and complete commingling of the two natures, the human being fused into one with the divine and made subordinate to it. God thus entered humanity, and by means of this union of Godhood and manhood it became possible for Christ to lead mankind back to God.

The collision between these two schools of thought reached its climax in the Nestorian controversy early in the 5th century. Nestorius, of Antioch, conceded true deity and true humanity, but denied their union in a single self-conscious person. The Nestorian Christ is really two persons enjoying a moral and sympathetic union, neither however being decisively affected by the other. Deity is not humbled; humanity is not exalted. There is God and there is man; but there is no God-man.

The third ecumenical church council was called at Ephesus, in 431, for the purpose of settling this contest between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria. The council condemned Nestorius and his teachings, but did not consider it necessary to draw up a new creed to replace the Nicene Creed. Nothing was really settled or accomplished, except to widen the rift, and the ensuing controversy took on such proportions that all other doctrinal problems were laid aside.

Monophysitism. Following the Council at Ephesus still another theory, known as Monophysitism, or Eutychianism, arose and took the stage to set forth a conception of Christ precisely opposite to that of Nestorius. Eutyches, its leading exponent, contended that the original human nature of Jesus was transmuted into the divine nature at the incarnation, with the result that the human Jesus and divine Christ became one person and one nature. He asserted the unity of self-consciousness but so merged the two natures that, for practical purposes, they lost their individual identity.

Convened in 451 to discuss Nestorianism and Monophysitism, the Council of Chalcedon decided against both. Both Nestorius and Eutyches rejected the decision of the council and founded independent sects of Christianity, as Arius had done more than a century earlier.

The Council of Chalcedon affirmed the perfect divinity and the perfect humanity of Christ, declaring Him to be of one substance with the Father as to His divine nature and of one substance with us as to His human nature, except for sin. The identity of each nature was preserved and the two were declared to be distinct, unmingled, immutable, indivisible, inseparable. Divinity, not humanity, was recognized as the basis of Christ’s personality. Because the one person is a union of two natures, the suffering of the God-man was truly infinite; He suffered in His human nature and not in His divine nature, but the passion was infinite because the person is infinite. What later came to be known as the Chalcedon Symbol reads in part:

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [of one substance] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to the acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence” (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62).

The result of the Council of Chalcedon was to perpetuate and intensify schism in the East. Finally the emperor Justinian, convinced that the security of the empire required a settlement of the problem, permanently closed the schools at Antioch and Alexandria, the two centers of controversy. At a second Council of Constantinople, in 553, the church decided upon the forcible suppression of Monophysitism, which went into permanent schism and persists to this day in Christian sects such as the Jacobites, the Copts, and the Abyssinians. Reaffirming the Symbol of Chalcedon, the church achieved a definitive distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Monotheletism. It is true that one question remained unsettled: Are the two natures, the divine and the human, actuated by one will controlling both natures, or by two wills? The Monothelites considered the divine will dominant, and the human will submerged in it. At the third Council of Constantinople, in 680, the church decided that the will is a matter of the natures rather than of the one person, and pronounced in favor of two wills in one volitional person. This completed the orthodox definition of the nature and person of Christ for the Western Church, and brought the protracted Trinitarian and Christological controversies formally to a close. About the year 730 John of Damascus recapitulated these doctrines for the Eastern Church. For both East and West the decisions of the councils became a matter of dogma.

In Reformation Times. The Reformation found both Roman and Protestant branches of Christianity in fundamental agreement on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon proved generally acceptable to both. Luther taught a mutual interchange of characteristics between the two natures, so that what was characteristic of each became common to both. Everything human in Christ was appropriated by the divine nature, and humanity received what belonged to the divine nature. The Reformed churches emphasized the fellowship of the divine and the human in Christ.

Two minor Reformation groups differed from the Nicene position. The first of these was the Socinians, who revived the basic Monarchian idea that a divine Trinity is inconceivable. Modern Unitarianism perpetuates this concept. The second group was the Arminians, who took a view similar, in some respects, to that of certain earlier groups, that the Son is subordinate to the Father. This view is similarly reflected by various Christian sects today.

Seventh-day Adventists. The writers and editors of this commentary frankly confess that there are great mysteries in the Scriptures which transcend the limits of finite understanding and thus defy precise statement in human language. The union of the divine and the human in Christ is one such mystery. In dealing with theological questions of this kind Seventh-day Adventists have ever sought to eschew speculation and finespun philosophizing, lest they darken counsel with words (see 8T 279). If the inspired writers of the Bible have not made clear every detail of the divine mysteries, why should uninspired writers attempt to do so? However, Inspiration has provided sufficient information to enable us to understand in part the mystery of the plan of salvation. Seventh-day Adventists believe in:

1. The Godhead. The Godhead, or Trinity, consists of three persons—the eternal Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal Father, and the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 28:19; John 1:1, 2; 6:27; 14:16, 17, 26; Acts 5:3, 4; Eph. 4:4–6; Heb. 1:1–3, 8; see on John 1:1–3, 14).

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio … the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Ev 615). Christ and the Father are “one in nature, in character, in purpose” (PP 34), but “not in person” (8T 269; cf. 9T 68). The Holy Spirit “is as much a person as God is a person” (Ev 616).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Rom. 1:20–25.

2. The Deity and Pre-existence of Christ. Christ is God in the supreme and unqualified sense of the term—in nature, in wisdom, in authority, and in power (see Isa. 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1–3; 8:58; 14:8–11; Col. 1:15–17; 2:9; Heb. 1:8; see on Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:1, 23; Luke 1:35; John 1:1–3; 16:28; Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9).

“Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. … There never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. … He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent” (Ev 615; cf. DA 469, 470; Ev 614; PP 38, 63).

“Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father” (EGW RH April 5, 1906; cf. DA 19).

See EGW Supplementary Material on John 1:1–3, 14; COL 2:9; 3:10.

3. The Humanity of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ was a true and complete human being, like other men in all respects except that He “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21; see Luke 24:39; John 1:14; Rom. 1:3, 4; 5:15; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:14, 17; 1 John 1:1; 4:2; 2 John 7; see on Matt. 1:23; John 1:14; Phil. 2:6–8).

“Christ was a real man” (EGW YI Oct. 13, 1898), “fully human” (EGW ST June 17, 1897), “a partaker of our nature” (EGW RH Feb. 18, 1890). “He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear” (EGW MS 21, 1895), and “as a member of the human family He was mortal” (EGW RH Sept. 4, 1900). “He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings” (2T 508; cf. MH 422).

See EGW Supplementary Material on John 1:1–3, 14; Col. 1:26, 27; Heb. 2:14–18.

4. The Incarnation of Christ. The incarnation was a true, complete, and indissoluble union of the divine and human natures in the one person, Jesus Christ, each nature, however, being preserved intact and distinct from the other (see Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 1:14; Phil. 2:5–8; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2, 3; see on Matt. 1:18; John 1:14; 16:28; Phil. 2:6–8).

“Christ was a real man. … Yet He was God in the flesh” (EGW YI Oct. 13, 1898). “His divinity was veiled with humanity,—the invisible glory in the visible human form” (DA 23). “He has a two-fold nature, at once human and divine. He is both God and man” (EGW MS 76, 1903).

“Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the Man Christ Jesus” (EGW letter 280, 1904). “The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human” (EGW ST May 10, 1899). “Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place” (EGW RH Feb. 18, 1890).

“He exhibited a perfect humanity, combined with deity; … preserving each nature distinct” (EGW GCB 4th quarter, 1899, p. 102).

“The humanity of Christ could not be separated from His divinity” (EGW MS 106, 1897).

See EGW Supplementary Material on John 1:1–3, 14; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 2:6–8; Col. 2:9.

5. The Subordination of Christ. Voluntarily assuming the limitations of human nature at the incarnation, the Lord Jesus Christ thereby subordinated Himself to the Father for the duration of His earthly ministry (see Ps. 40:8; Matt. 26:39; John 3:16; 4:34; 5:19, 30; 12:49; 14:10; 17:4, 8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:7, 8; Heb. 2:9; see on Luke 1:35; 2:49; John 3:16; 4:34; Phil. 2:7, 8).

“Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown” (9T 68), the The Son of God “chose to give back the scepter into the Father’s hands, and to step down from the throne of the universe” (DA 22, 23). “He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was His own act, and by His own consent” (EGW RH Sept. 4, 1900). “Jesus condescended to humble Himself, to take human nature” (EGW ST Jan. 20, 1890; cf. 5T 702). “He humbled Himself, and took mortality upon Him” (EGW RH Sept. 4, 1900).

“The Son of God was surrendered to the Father’s will, and dependent upon His power. So utterly was Christ emptied of self that He made no plans for Himself. He accepted God’s plans for Him, and day by day the Father unfolded His plans” (DA 208; cf. 664). “While bearing human nature, He was dependent upon the Omnipotent for His life. In His humanity, He laid hold of the divinity of God” (EGW ST June 17, 1897).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Luke 1:35.

6. The Sinless Perfection of Christ. Though susceptible to temptation and “in all points tempted like as we are,” Jesus was nevertheless altogether “without sin” (see Matt. 4:1–11; Rom. 8:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:10; 4:15; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 John 3:5; see on Matt. 4:1–11; 26:38, 41; Luke 2:40, 52; Heb. 2:17; 4:15).

Our Saviour “assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried” (EGW ST Aug. 2, 1905; cf. DA 49, 117, 131). “Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity” (DA 49).

“He could have sinned; … but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity” (EGW letter 8, 1895, see p. 1128). He took “the nature but not the sinfulness of man” (EGW ST May 29, 1901). “He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory” (EGW YI April 25, 1901).

“Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess” (DA 664; cf. 24). “In His human nature He maintained the purity of His divine character” (ML 323). “No trace of sin marred the image of God within Him” (DA 71; cf. 123).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 2:40, 52; Col. 2:9, 10; Heb. 2:14–18; 4:15.

7. The Vicarious Death of Christ. The sacrifice of Christ provided full and complete atonement for the sins of the world (see Isa. 53:4–6; John 3:14–17; 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 9:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 4:1; 1 John 2:2; see on Isa. 53:4; Matt. 16:13).

“He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His” (DA 25).

“In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ suffered in man’s stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin” (EGW MS 35, 1895). “Human nature would then and there have died under the horror of the sense of sin, had not an angel from heaven strengthened Him to bear the agony” (EGW MS 35, 1895).

“Christ’s sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this world had been accomplished” (AA 29; cf. 5T 575).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Matt. 26:36–46; 27:50; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5.

8. The Resurrection of Christ. In His divinity Christ had power not only to lay down His life but to take it up again, when summoned forth from the grave by His Father (see John 10:18; Acts 13:32, 33; Rom. 1:3, 4; 1 Cor. 15:3–22; Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 1:3; see Additional Note on Matt. 28).

“When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ’s tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. … In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death” (DA 785; cf. 780).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Mark 16:6.

9. The Ascension of Christ. Our Saviour ascended to heaven in His glorified body, there to minister on our behalf (see Mark 16:19; Luke 24:39; John 14:1–3; 16:28; 20:17; Acts 1:9–11; Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 7:25; 8:1, 2; 9:24; 1 John 2:1, 2; see on Acts 1:9–11).

“God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. … God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven” (DA 25).

“All need to become more intelligent in regard to the work of the atonement, which is going on in the sanctuary above” (5T 575).

See EGW Supplementary Material on Acts 1:9–11; Heb. 2:14–18.

10. The Exaltation of Christ. Upon His return to heaven Christ resumed the position that He had with the Father prior to the incarnation (see Matt. 28:18; John 12:23; 17:5; Eph. 1:19–22; Phil. 2:8, 9; Col. 1:18; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 1 Peter 1:11; see on Phil. 2:9).

“When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of angels. … Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. … He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth” (AA 38, 39; cf. 8T 268, 269).

These and many other great mysteries connected with the plan of salvation will be the study of the redeemed throughout eternity.

Ellen G. White comments

1 Ev 615

1, 2 PP 34

1–3DA 281; FE 406

1–5TM 63, 138

3 CT 530; DA 288; Ed 134; SC 88

3, 4 MM 7

4 DA 270, 465; Ed 28; MB 39; MH 461; SC 19; 8T 288, 324

4, 5 DA 464; TM 365

5 COL 116; DA 80, 470; FE 167; 1T 406

6 3T 61

9 COL 385; CT 28, 361, 530; DA 317, 464; Ed 14, 29, 134; FE 181, 183, 405, 437, 440, 468, 470 GC 262, 461, 528; GW 50; PK 253, 377; SC 24; TM 419; 8T 256

9–12TM 365

10 5T 737

10–14TM 138

11 COL 116; CW 45; DA 27; PK 710; 9T 229

12 AA 381; AH 36; COL 314; CT 14; DA 464; Ev 308; FE 405; GW 50; ML 176; MH 421; MM 113; TM 94, 221, 283, 485; 6T 60, 363, 372; 7T 39; 8T 102, 177, 207, 267; 9T 23, 141, 152, 218, 287

12, 13 DA 509; Ev 531

14 AA 472, 520, 544; CS 136; CT 259; DA 23, 139, 387, 507; Ed 28; FE 378, 382, 400, 444; GC vi; MM 321; PP 278; TM 63; 5T 576, 747; 6T 59; 7T 20; 8T 207, 286; 9T 228; WM 53

16 AA 521, 544; DA 250; FE 338, 362; MB 21; TM 94, 205; 7T 20; 8T 151

18 DA 464; GW 50; MH 419; PK 693, 696; SC 11; 8T 265, 286

19–23DA 134

19–51DA 132–143

23 PK 689; 8T 333

25 DA 135

25–27DA 136

27 DA 216

29 CH 422, 528; COL 77, 222, 250, 274; CS 289; CSW 12, 109; CT 648; DA 112, 136, 137, 175, 180, 216, 385, 439, 477, 579, 594, 622, 651, 750; Ev 134, 188, 291, 299, 444, 578, 582; EW 154; FE 97, 239, 383; GC 399; GW 26, 56, 148, 155, 172; LS 345; MB 2, 8; ML 171, 220; MH 157; MM 31; SC 19, 79; TM 155, 214, 218; 2T 30; 4T 395; 5T 449, 729; 6T 20, 32, 39, 54, 67, 81, 95, 105, 279, 314; 7T 238; 8T 334; 9T 23, 48, 60, 81, 203

36–38DA 138

38, 39 MB 131

39, 41–43 DA 139

43 DA 292

45 DA 145, 292; FE 365; 6T 428

45, 46 Ev 446; FE 142; 3T 566; 6T 37

45–49DA 140

45–51CSW 25, 26

46 DA 71; MYP 78; Te 224

47 4T 534

47, 48 SC 91; TM 110

50 DA 142, 148

51 DA 142; GC 19; PP 184; SC 20