Previous notes on John can be found by clicking on the “Notes On John” link underneath the blog’s header, or by clicking here.
1:15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me : because, he was before me.
loannes testimonium perhibet de ipso, et clamat, dicens: Hie erat quem dixi: Qui post me venturus est, ante me factus est:quia prior me erat.
John. The Baptist (for it is he who is meant:comp. with John 1:27; Mark 1:4, 7; Luke 3:2, 16) is now referred to parenthetically, as confirming what our Evangelist has said, namely, that the eternal Word dwelt among men.
Crieth out. (The Greek construction implies the giving of solemn, public testimony).
This was he of whom I spoke (rather, said). Some, like Patrizi, think that the
testimony of the Baptist here referred to is a distinct testimony not mentioned elsewhere. Others, and with more probability, hold that the Evangelist mentions here by anticipation the same testimony whose circumstances he describes in
verses 29 and 30.
He that shall come after me, in His public ministry, is preferred before me, because he was before me. Some commentators, as Kuinoel and Patrizi, understand “before” in both cases of “time”: is before Me, because He is eternal; others, as St Chrysostom and Toletus, in both cases of dignity: is preferred before Me, because really preferable; and others, as our English version, with St Augustine, St Thomas, Beelen, Alford, in the former case of dignity in the latter of
time is preferred before Me, because He is eternal. The last seems the correct interpretation, and in it the past tense “is preferred” (ante me factus est) is used prophetically for the future, or may be explained as a past: has been preferred in the designs of God.
1:16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.
Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia.
After the parenthetic clause contained in verse 15, the Evangelist, not the Baptist,
continues regarding the Word. And of his fulness (see verse 14) we have all received, and grace for grace. The second “and” is explanatory. Grace for grace; i.e. (1) the grace of eternal life following on the grace of justification here; or (2) abundant grace, according as the grace given to Christ was abundant: gratia nobis pro gratia Christi (Rom 5:155); or (3) the more perfect grace of the New Law, instead of that given under the Old Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, Patrizi); or (4), and best, by a Hebraism, abundant grace. “αντι dicitur de successione,
gratiam unam post aliam (gratiam cumulatam).”(Beel., Gr. Gram., 5 1A.) So also Kuinoel.
1:17 For the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per lesum Christum facta est.
The Evangelist confirms what is stated in verse 16, and at the same time takes occasion to prefer Christ to Moses, as he has already preferred Him to the Baptist. Moses, was but the medium of communicating to the Jews the Mosaic Law, which only pointed out man s duty, without enabling him to fulfil it (Rom 7:7, 8); but Christ was the source and author of grace and truth to us; of all the graces whereby we are to merit heaven, and of the perfect knowledge of the true faith. This is, doubtless, directed against some of the Judaizers, who held that sanctification through the Mosaic Law was at all times possible, even after the Christian religion was established.
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Deum nemo vidit unquam : unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit.
There is considerable difference of opinion as to the drift or bearing of this verse.
Some think that a reason is given why only Christ could give the truth, because only He saw God in His essence. Others, that a reason is given why the gifts of Christ mentioned in the preceding verse, are superior to the Law given by Moses, namely, because Moses never saw God in His essence. Others, that the evangelist explains how he and his fellow Apostles received of Christ s fulness, not only through what Christ did (17), but through what He taught (18); and the necessity for such a Divine teacher is shown by the fact that no one but He ever saw God. So St. Thomas.
Others as Maldonatus and Patrizi, hold that the Evangelist is here adding to his own testimony, and that of the Baptist, the testimony of our Lord Himself, in favor of all that he has said regarding our Lord in this sublime prologue; the meaning being: What I have said regarding the eternity, personality, and Divinity of the Word, regarding His power as creator and regenerator, and regarding His incarnation, I have neither seen with my own eyes, nor learned from anyone who saw, for “no man hath seen God at any time,” but Jesus Christ Himself explained these things to me.
No man hath seen God at any time. If understood of the vision of comprehension this is universally true of every creature, man or angel; if of seeing God in His essence without comprehending Him, it is true of all while they are here below. The latter is the sense here, for the Evangelist wishes to signify that he could not have learned from any mere mortal the foregoing doctrine. The saints in heaven see God in His essence, for as our Evangelist tells us in his First Epistle: “We shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2. See also John 17:3).
The only- begotten Son. Instead of: “The only-be gotten Son,” the reading: “God only-begotten” is found in very many ancient authorities, and is almost equally
probable. Were it certain, it would be an additional proof of Christ s Divinity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, because while He is the natural Son of God, all others are but adopted sons.
Who is in the bosom of the Father (εις τον κολπον του πατρο). This means that
the Son is consubstantial with the Father: “In illo ergo sinu, id est in occultissimo
paternae naturae et essentiae, quae excedit omnem virtutem creaturae,est unigenitus Filius, et ideo consubstantialis est Patri” (St Thomas).
He hath declared him. “Him” is not represented in the original; and if our view of the verse is the correct one, the object of the verb “hath declared” is not so much the Word as the doctrine contained in this prologue concerning Him.~Nolan and Brown
The Divine Lamp 