John E-Book

John Calvin

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Serie: Crossway Classic Commentaries
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 1994

Seitenzahl: 1201

Beschreibung

For hundreds of years Christendom has been blessed with Bible commentaries written by great men of God highly respected for their godly walk and their insight into spiritual truth. The Crossway Classic Commentaries present the very best work on individual Bible books, carefully adapted for maximum understanding and usefulness for today's believers. The Gospel of John, called "the spiritual gospel" in early church history, is among the most profound books of the New Testament. A powerful portrayal of the earthly life and ministry of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, it explores precious tenets of the faith—Christ's nature, His reasons for coming to earth, His determination to fulfill the Father's will by giving His own life for us, the splendor of His miracles, the supremacy of His love. A helpful volume that will enrich the faith of new and mature Christians alike.

Leseprobe

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

FacebookTwitterGoogle +

John

John

© 1994 by Watermark

Published by Crossway Books

a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law..

Generally, Scripture taken from The Holy Bible: New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

Art Direction: Mark Schramm

First printing, 1994

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Calvin, John. 1509-1565

John / by John Calvin.

p. cm. — (Crossway classic commentaries)

1. Bible. N.T. John—Commentaries. I. Title. III. Series.

94-2284

BS2615.C326 1994 226.5’07—dc20

ISBN 13: 978-0-89107-778-7

ISBN 10: 0-89107-778-2

PG         19     18     17     16     15     14     13     12     11     10     09 19     18      17      16      15      14      13      12      11      10      9      8

First British edition 1994

Contents

Series Preface

Introduction

Preface

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Series Preface

The purpose of the Crossway Classic Commentaries is to make some of the most valuable commentaries on the books of the Bible, by some of the greatest Bible teachers and theologians in the last five hundred years, available to a new generation. These books will help today’s readers learn truth, wisdom, and devotion from such authors as J. C. Ryle, Martin Luther, John Calvin, J. B. Lightfoot, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and Matthew Henry.

We do not apologize for the age of some of the items chosen. In the realm of practical exposition promoting godliness, the old is often better than the new. Spiritual vision and authority, based on an accurate handling of the biblical text, are the qualities that have been primarily sought in deciding what to include.

So far as is possible, everything is tailored to the needs and enrichment of thoughtful readers — lay Christians, students, and those in the ministry. The originals, some of which were written at a high technical level, have been abridged as needed, simplified stylistically, and unburdened of foreign words. However, the intention of this series is never to change any thoughts of the original authors, but to faithfully convey them in an understandable fashion.

The publishers are grateful to Dr. Alister McGrath of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, Dr. J. I. Packer of Regent College, Vancouver, and Watermark of Norfolk, England, for the work of selecting and editing that now brings this project to fruition.

THE PUBLISHERS

Crossway Books

Wheaton, Illinois

Introduction

“The chief excellence of a commentator lies in lucid brevity,” wrote Calvin; and following his own precept, he created the modern expository commentary, where the goal is to bring out the sense and thoughtflow of the text as it applies to the readers. A tireless worker who for years kept four secretaries busy, Calvin wrote landmark expositions of most of the Old Testament and all the New Testament except Revelation. They remain standard resources for scholars and students today.

With his cool clarity of mind, Calvin was a typical French scholar, while his ardent zeal for God’s honor and praise marks him out as a model for every disciple of Christ. He had wanted to be an aristocrat of letters like Erasmus, but the outstanding impact of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, published in 1536, followed by his call to church leadership in Geneva later that year, pitchforked him into high exposure and an international role as the Everest among Reformational theologians. Luther’s junior colleague Melanchthon, himself no mean exponent of divine things, always spoke of Calvin simply as “the theologian.” In Geneva, where at first Calvin was slightingly referred to as “the Frenchman” and constantly demeaned and opposed by the top townspeople, he received great honor during the latter years of his life, as the Grand Old Man of the Reformation. Worn out by long-term ill health, he died in Geneva in 1564, having accomplished in his fifty-four years the work of two or three ordinary lifetimes.

Basic to Calvin’s commenting was his view of the Bible as essentially written communication of the mind of God, given (sometimes, he says, dictated) by the Holy Spirit using chosen human agents. The Spirit now authenticates and applies it to God’s people by opening minds and hearts to its self-attesting impact. It is true, and well known, that sola Scriptura — “by Scripture alone” — was the Reformers’ slogan about the knowledge of God; but “alone” there is only excluding tradition as a second source of revealed truth, not discounting the Spirit as the illuminator of our hearts. Without the personal ministration of the Spirit, Calvin believed, we shall not learn from Scripture as we should, however much exegetical brainwork we do. Calvin’s reverence for the God-given written Word — that is, for God, whose didactic utterance the written Word is — comes out in all his commentaries: nowhere, however, more plainly than in his exposition of John.

John’s Gospel — “the spiritual gospel,” as it has been called from very early times — is among the profoundest books of the New Testament, and Calvin matches its profundity in a way that few can rival. Published in 1553, this commentary is one of Calvin’s best pieces of work, and one of the best elucidations of the evangelist’s text ever achieved.

When Calvin began his commenting career he explained that he took as read the full treatment of theological themes offered in the Institutes, so that the commentaries would contain no elaborate discussion of these themes, but just a brief indication of what each particular text actually meant. The reader will find, therefore, in the pages that follow no plugging of any form of the system called Calvinism, but simply some topclass spelling out of key truths about Jesus Christ, whom Calvin hailed as the central focus of all Scripture and whom John in his Gospel exalts stupendously. So read, learn Christ, and be blessed!

J. I. PACKER

Preface

The meaning of the Greek word translated “Gospel” is well known. In Scripture it means, above all, the glad and delightful message of the grace shown to us in Christ. It teaches us to despise the world and its riches and pleasures, which do not last, and wholeheartedly to desire this invaluable blessing, and to embrace it when it is offered to us. We see unbelievers take extreme delight in the empty enjoyments of the world, while they have little if any taste for spiritual blessings. Such conduct is natural to us all. To correct this fault, God calls “Gospel” the message about Christ which he orders to be proclaimed. So he reminds us that nowhere else can true and solid happiness be obtained, and that in him we have all that is needed for a perfect, happy life.

Some people think the word Gospel covers all God’s gracious promises, even the ones scattered in the Law and the Prophets. Certainly, whenever God declares that he will be reconciled to men and women, he shows Christ at the same time. It is Christ’s special role to shed the light of joy wherever he shines. I admit, then, that the patriarchs had the same Gospel of free salvation that we have. But since the Holy Spirit declares in the Scriptures that the Gospel was first proclaimed when Christ came, let us keep to this way of speaking too; and let us keep to this definition of “Gospel”: it is a solemn announcement of the grace revealed in Christ. Thus the Gospel is called “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16) because in it God displays his righteousness. It is also said that we are “Christ’s ambassadors,” imploring people to “be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). As Christ is the pledge of God’s mercy, and of his fatherly love to us, so he is especially the subject of the Gospel.

That is why the stories of Christ’s appearing in the flesh, dying, and at length being taken up into heaven have become known particularly as Gospels. Although the word means the whole of the New Covenant, it has come to mean that part of it which declares that Christ appeared to us in the flesh, and died, and rose from the dead. Merely telling this story would not be enough for salvation — indeed, it would not help at all; so the evangelists also explain why he was born, died and rose again, and what benefit we derive from those events.

The other three Gospels give a fuller narrative of the life and death of Christ, but John dwells at greater length on the teaching about the role of Christ and the power of his death and resurrection. The others certainly say that Christ came to bring salvation to the world, to atone for the sins of the world by the sacrifice of his death, and, in short, to do everything that was required from the Mediator. John, likewise, devotes a portion of his work to historical details. But the teaching which points out to us the power and benefit of the coming of Christ is far more clearly shown by him than by the rest. They all had the same purpose: to point out Christ. The first three Gospels show his body, so to speak, but John shows his soul. For this reason I usually say that this Gospel is a key to understanding the rest; for whoever understands the power of Christ strikingly pictured here will then profit by reading what the others tell about the Redeemer who appeared.

John is believed to have written chiefly in order to emphasize that Christ was God, as against the wicked blasphemies of Ebion and Cerinthus. This is what Eusebius and Jerome say, as did most of their contemporaries. But whatever his motive for writing at the time, there can be no doubt whatever that God intended something far greater for his church. He therefore dictated to the four evangelists what they should write, in such a way that while each had his own part, the whole might be collected into one. It is now our duty to blend the four together so that we may learn from all of them as if by one teacher. As for John being placed fourth, it was done because of when he wrote; but it would be better to read the Gospels in a different order: when we wish to read in Matthew and the others that Christ was given to us by the Father, we should first learn from John the purpose for which he appeared.

John Chapter 1

Verses 1–5

1. In the beginning was the Word.In this introduction the evangelist asserts the eternal divinity of Christ, telling us that he is the eternal God who “appeared in a body” (1 Timothy 3:16). The intention is to show that mankind’s restoration had to be accomplished by the Son of God, since by his power all things were created, and he alone breathes life and energy into all creatures so that they remain as they are, and since in mankind he has uniquely shown both his power and his grace. Even after the fall of Adam he has not stopped being generous and kind to Adam’s descendants.

This teaching is very necessary. Since we should only seek life and salvation in God, how can we put our trust in Christ if we are not sure of what is taught here? The evangelist therefore assures us that when we believe in Christ we are not moving away from the one eternal God, and also that life is now restored to the dead through the kindness of Christ, who was the source and cause of life when mankind was still sinless.

The evangelist calls the Son of Godthe Wordsimply because, first, he is the eternal wisdom and will of God; and secondly, because he is the exact image of God’s purpose. Just as men’s speech is called the expression of their thoughts, so it is not inappropriate to say that God expresses himself to us by his speech orWord.

The other meanings ofthe Wordare not so appropriate. The Greek certainly means “definition” or “reason” or “calculation”; but I do not wish to enter into philosophical discussion beyond the limits of my faith. And we see that the Spirit of God is so far from approving such subtleties that in talking with us his very silence proclaims how sober we should be in our intellectual approach to such high mysteries.

Now, since God in creating the world revealed himself bythe Word, he had previously had Christ hidden in himself. Thusthe Wordhas a double relationship, to God and to men. Servetus, that most arrogant and worthless Spaniard, imagines that the eternalWordcame into being only when Christ was active in the creation of the world. As if he had not been active before his power was made known by his visible work!

The evangelist teaches something quite different here, for he does not ascribe a temporal beginning tothe Wordbut says that he was fromthe beginningand thus transcends all times. I am fully aware how this dog barks against us and what quibbles were once raised by the Arians — that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), but they are not eternal, for “beginning” refers to order and does not indicate eternity. The evangelist, however, forestalls this calumny when he saysand the Word was with God.Ifthe Wordhad a beginning in time, they must find some time sequence in God.

There is no doubt that by this clause John intended to distinguish Christ from all other created things. Many questions could arise: Where actually was thisWord? How did he exercise his power? What was his nature? How could he be known? Therefore the evangelist declares that we must not limit our views to the world and created things, for Christ was always united with God before the world existed. Now, when men makethe beginningrefer to the creation of heaven and earth, do they not reduce Christ to the ordinary order of the world, from which this passage specifically excludes him? By doing this they dreadfully insult not only the Son of God but also his eternal Father, whom they deprive of his Wisdom. If we are not free to think of God without his Wisdom, we are not free to look for the origin ofthe Wordanywhere else but in the eternal Wisdom of God.

Servetus objects thatthe Wordcannot have existed before Moses refers to God as speaking. As if, because he was not yet openly seen, Christ did not exist in God! As if he had no inner existence before he began to show himself outwardly! But the evangelist destroys every excuse for such outrageous rubbish when he affirms, unconditionally, thatthe Word was with God.Here he expressly calls us away from all events in time. Those who infer a continuing existence from the imperfect tense of the verb are in a weak position. They say that “was being” expresses continuity better than if John had said “he was.” But such important matters demand more solid arguments. What I have suggested should suffice — that the evangelist sends us to God’s eternal sanctuary and teaches us thatthe Wordwas, as it were, hidden there before he revealed himself outwardly in the world. Augustine is therefore right when he reminds us thatthe beginningmentioned here has no beginning. For although in a natural sequence the Father is before his Wisdom, yet those who imagine any point of time when he preceded his Wisdom deprive Christ of his glory. And this is the eternal Son who, extending back for an infinite time before the foundation of the world, lay hidden in God (if I may put it like that) and who, after being dimly outlined to the patriarchs under the law for a long succession of years, was at length shown more fully in a human body.

I am surprised that the Latin versions translate the Greek word forthe Word(logos) with the Latin wordverbum, which translates a different Greek word. But even if we allow that translation as a possibility, it cannot be denied that the word “speech” would have been far more appropriate. This shows up the barbarous tyranny of those theologians who harassed Erasmus so fiercely because he changed a single word for the better.

And the Word was with God.We have already said that the Son of God is thus placed above the world and all creatures and before all ages. But at the same time this expression attributes to him a personality distinct from the Father. For it would have been absurd if the evangelist had said thatthe Wordwas alwayswith Godor in God’s presence unless he had a certain subsistence of his own in God. This verse, therefore, refutes the error of Sabellius, since it shows the Son is distinct from the Father. I have already said that such profound mysteries demand sober thinking. But the early church writers can be excused when, because they could not in any other way defend true and pure doctrine against the ambiguous quibbles of the heretics, they were forced to coin certain words which still said nothing but what is taught in the Scriptures in another way. They said that there are threehypostasesor Persons in the one, simple essence of God. The Greek wordhypostasishas this sense in Hebrews 1:3 and corresponds to the Latin for “substance,” as it is used by Hilary. They called distinct properties in God which present themselves for our contemplation Persons. As Gregory of Nazianzus says: “I cannot think of the One (God) without having the Three (Persons) shining around me.”

And the Word was God.In case any doubt should remain about Christ’s divine essence, the evangelist clearly declares that he isGod.Now, sinceGodis one, it follows that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, and yet in some way different. But we have already spoken about the second clause. Arius was extremely wicked about the unity of the essence. To avoid being compelled to confess the eternal divinity of Christ, he prattled on about God being some kind of creature. But when we hear thatthe Word was God, what right have we any longer to question his eternal essence?

2. He was with God in the beginning.In order to impress more deeply into our minds what had already been said, the evangelist condenses the two preceding clauses into a short summary:the Wordalways was, andthe Wordwas with God— so that you may understand that this beginning was before all time.

3. Through him all things were made.Having declared thatthe WordisGodand having asserted his divine essence, John goes on to prove his divinity from his works. And it is in this practical knowledge that we ought especially to be trained. Just attributing the name of God to Christ will leave us cold unless our faith feels this to be the case. But the evangelist correctly declares about the Son of God what strictly applies to the person of God. Sometimes, indeed, Paul simply says that “to him [God] are all things” (Romans 11:36). But when the Son is compared with the Father he is usually distinguished in the ordinary way of speaking used here: the Father made all things by the Son, and all things are made by God through the Son. Now as I have said, the evangelist’s purpose is to show that immediately after the creation of the worldthe Wordof God was seen to be at work. Having previously been incomprehensible in his essence, he was then openly known by the effect of his power. Even some philosophers say God is the architect of the world in a way that makes him the intelligence behind the building of this work. In this they are right, for they agree with Scripture; but as they immediately degenerate into trivial meditations, there is no reason why we should desire their witness eagerly; instead we should be satisfied with this heavenly oracle, knowing that it says much more than our minds can absorb.

Without him nothing was made that has been made.Although this verse has been interpreted in a variety of ways, I have no hesitation in taking it as a single thought:nothing was made that has been made.Nearly all the Greek manuscripts (or at least those with the best authority) agree here. Moreover, the sense undoubtedly demands it. Those who separate the phrasethat has been madefrom the preceding clause, linking it to the following sentence, make it mean, “that which has been made was life in him” — i.e., “lived” or “was sustained in life.” But they cannot show that this expression is ever applied to creatures. Augustine, being an extreme Platonist, is addicted to the teaching of the ideas that before God built the world he had the form of the whole work as a concept in his mind, and since the creation of the world was ordered in Christ, the life of those things which did not yet exist was in him. But this is far from the evangelist’s thinking, as we will now see.

I return now to the former clause. This is no superfluous phrase, as it seems to be at first sight. For since Satan exerts all his strength to detract from Christ, the evangelist wished to declare specifically that there are no exceptions at all, sincewithout him nothing was made that has been made.

4. In him was life.So far he has taught us thatall things were madebythe Wordof God. He now attributes to him in the same way the preservation of what had been created, as if he were saying that in the creation of the world the Word’s power did not simply suddenly appear only to pass quickly away, but that it is seen in the permanence of the stable and settled order of nature. Hebrews 1:3 says he is “sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Moreover, thislifemay either include inanimate creations in general, which do live in their own way though they lack feeling, orlifemay just refer to living creatures. It is of little consequence which you choose, for the simple meaning is thatthe Wordof God was not only the source of life for all creatures, so that those which had not yet existed began to be, but that his life-giving power makes them remain in their state. For if his continuing inspiration did not give life to the world, everything that lives would immediately decay or be reduced to nothing. In summary, what Paul ascribes to God, that “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), John declares is accomplished through the gracious agency ofthe Word.So it is God who gives uslife; but he does so through the eternalWord.

That life was the light of men.I deliberately disregard some other interpretations which disagree with the evangelist’s meaning. In my opinion he refers here to that part of life in which men surpass the other animate creatures. It is as if he were saying that the life given to men was not life in general but life united with the light of reason. Moreover, he separates men from the ranks of other creatures, as we are more aware of God’s power by feeling it in us than by viewing it from a distance. Thus in Acts 17:27 Paul tells us to “seek [God] . . . [as] he is not far from each one of us.” And so, when the evangelist has presented a general consideration of the grace of Christ, to persuade men to give it closer attention he shows what was given especially to them; that is, that they were not created in the likeness of the beasts, but, endowed with reason, they had reached a higher rank. Furthermore, since God effectually illuminates their minds with hislight, it follows that they were created so that they might know that he is the author of such a special blessing. And since thislightbeamed on us from its source,the Word, it should be like a mirror in which we may see clearly the divine power ofthe Word.

5. The light shines in the darkness.It might be objected that because men are called blind in many passages of Scripture, the blindness for which they are condemned is already too well-known. For in all their reasoning powers they collapse miserably. How is it that there are so many labyrinths of errors in the world except that men are always led by their own understanding only into vanity and error? Yet if nolightis visible in men, the evangelist’s witness to the divinity of Christ is destroyed. For, as I have said, in thelifeof men (verse 4) there is something far more excellent than movement and breathing. The evangelist anticipates this question by first of all warning us thatthe lightwhich was originally given to men must not be assessed by their present state, since in this marred and degenerate naturelighthas been turned todarkness.And yet he denies that the light of reason is completely put out; for inthe darknessof the human mind there still shine some sparks of that brightness.

Readers will now understand that there are two ideas in this sentence. He says that men now greatly differ from that perfectly holy nature with which they were originally endowed, because their mind, which should have been completely radiant, has been plunged into darkness and is unhappy in this blindness. And so this corrupt nature shrouds the glory of Christ, as it were, in darkness. But on the other hand, the evangelist maintains that in the middle of the darkness certain remnants still exist which show to a certain extent Christ’s divine power. Therefore the evangelist shows that man’s mind is quite blinded, so that it may reasonably be seen as overwhelmed with darkness. He could have used a weaker word and said that the light was dark or murky; but he wanted to state more clearly how wretched our condition is since the fall of the first man. His statement thatthe light shines in the darknessis not at all meant to praise corrupt nature but rather to deprive ignorance of any excuse.

But the darkness has not understood it.Although the Son of God has always called people to himself through this poor light still left in us, the evangelist says that it did not succeed, because “Though seeing, they do not see” (Matthew 13:13). After man was alienated from God, his mind was so overwhelmed by ignorance that whatever light remains in it is choked and made ineffectual. Experience proves this daily. Even people who are not born again by God’s Spirit still possess some reason, so that we are clearly taught that man was made not only to breathe but to have understanding. Yet, led by their reason they do not reach or even approach God; and so all their understanding is nothing but vanity. So it follows that there is no hope for men’s salvation unless God steps in with a new help. For though the Son of God sheds his light on them, they are so dull that they do not understand the source of that light. They are carried away by foolish and perverse fancies into madness.

There are two main parts to thelightwhich still remains in corrupt nature. First, some seed of religion is sown in everyone; and second, the distinction between good and evil is etched on their consciences. But what are the fruits that eventually come from this, except that religion degenerates to a thousand superstitions, and conscience corrupts all judgment, confusing vice with virtue? In summary, natural reason will never direct men to Christ. The fact that they are endued with wisdom to live their lives by or are born for the humanities and sciences disappears without having any effect.

We must remember that the evangelist is speaking only about natural gifts and is not yet saying anything about the grace of regeneration. For there are two distinct powers which belong to the Son of God. The first appears in the structure of the world and in the order of nature. In the second he renews and restores fallen nature. He is the eternalWordof God, and so by him the world was made; by his power all things keep the life they once received; in particular, man was endued with the unique gift of understanding, and though through his rebellion he lost the light of understanding, he still sees and understands, since what he naturally possesses from the grace of the Son of God is not entirely destroyed. But because of his stupidity and perversity he darkens the light he still has, and so the Son of God has to assume a new office, the role of Mediator, and renew fallen man by the Spirit of regeneration. People who say thelightwhich the evangelist mentions refers to the Gospel and the preaching of salvation are arguing in an absurd and inconclusive way.

Verses 6–13

6. There came a man. The evangelist now begins to discuss the way in which the Wordof God was revealed in the flesh. In case anyone doubts that Christ is the eternal Son of God, he tells how he was publicly heralded by John the Baptist. For Christ did not only show himself to men, but he also wanted to be made known by the witness and preaching of John. Or rather, God the Father sent this witness before his Christ that men might all the more readily receive the salvation he offered.

But at first sight it might appear absurd that anyone should bear witness to Christ, as if he needed it. For, on the contrary, he declares, “Not that I accept human testimony” (5:34). The answer is easy and obvious: this witness was appointed not for Christ’s sake but for ours. If anyone objects that man’s testimony is too weak to prove that Christ is the Son of God, the answer is again easy: the Baptist is not cited as a private witness, but as one who, endowed with divine authority, appeared in the role of an angel rather than of a man. So he is not praised for his own abilities, but just because he was the ambassador of God. Nor does it contradict the self-witness of Christ in the preaching of the Gospel committed to him. The purpose of John’s preaching was to draw his readers’ attention to Christ’s teaching and miracles.

Sent from God.The evangelist does not confirm John’s calling but only mentions it in passing. This assurance is not sufficient for many people who push themselves forward and boast that they are sent by God. But the evangelist, intending to say more later about this witness, thought the one word was enough for now: John had come at God’s commission. We shall see later how John claims that God is the author of his ministry. What we have to grasp now is (as I mentioned before) that what is said about John is required in all church teachers: they must be called by God, so that the authority of teaching may have no other basis than God alone.

He gives him the nameJohnnot only to identify the man, but because the meaning of the name showed who he really was. For there is no doubt that the Lord was referring to the office for which he appointed John when through his angel he commanded that he should be called John. In this way everyone might recognize from this that he was the herald and ambassador of divine grace. Although the nameJohnsignifies grace which would be pleasing to God, yet I unhesitatingly extend it to the benefit which others ought to derive from it.

7. He came as a witness.The purpose of John’s calling is briefly noted: that he should prepare the church for Christ. For when he invites everyone to Christ, he shows plainly enough that he did not come on his own account.

8. He himself was not the light.John had so little need of being commended that the evangelist emphasizes that hewas not the light, in case an excessive brightness ascribed to him should obscure Christ’s glory. For some clung so tightly to John that they neglected Christ, like a man who is overcome at the sight of dawn and does not deign to look at the sun. Now we will see the meaning the evangelist gives to the wordlight.All the godly are “light in the Lord” (Ephesians 5:8) in that, enlightened by his Spirit, not only do they themselves see, but also by their example they direct others to the way of salvation. The apostles are called “light” (Matthew 5:14) because they are the special Gospel torch-bearers, scattering the world’s darkness. But here the evangelist is discussing the unique and eternal source of illumination, as he at once shows more clearly.

9. The true light that gives light.The evangelist was not contrastingthe true lightwith a false light; he wanted to differentiate Christ from all others in case anyone should think that Christ’slightis the same as the light of angels or men. The difference is that heavenly and earthly light has only a derived brightness; but Christ islightshining from himself and through himself and so shining brightly on the whole world. There is no other source of its brightness anywhere. And so the evangelist calls Christthe true lightwhose own nature is to belight.

Gives light to every man.The evangelist emphasizes this so that we may learn that Christ is thelightfrom the effect which each of us feels in himself. He could have argued more subtly that since Christ is eternallight, he has a natural and underived brightness. But instead, he sends us back to the experience we all have. For since Christ makes us all share in his brightness, it must be acknowledged that to him alone strictly belongs the honor of being calledlight.

This verse is often explained in one of two ways. Some limit the universal phraseevery manto those who, born again by the Spirit of God, are made to share in the life-givinglight.Augustine uses the simile of a schoolmaster who, if his is the only school in the town, will be called the master of everyone, even of those who do not attend his school. Therefore they understand this phrase in a comparative sense: all are enlightened by Christ, since no one can boast that he has obtained thelightof life in any other way than through his grace. But as the evangelist uses the general phraselight to every man was coming into the world, I prefer the other meaning, which is that beams from thislightare shed over all mankind, as I said before. For we know that men have this special quality which raises them above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence, and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved on their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternallightdoes not penetrate.

But since fanatics eagerly seize on this verse and twist it into saying that the grace of illumination is offered equally to everyone, let us remember that it is only referring to the commonlightof nature, which is far inferior to faith. No man will penetrate into the kingdom of God through the cleverness and perspicuity of his own mind. Only the Spirit of God opens heaven to his elect. We must also remember that the light of reason which God imparted to men has been so darkened by sin that scarcely a few meager sparks still shine unquenched in this thick darkness or rather dreadful ignorance and abyss of errors.

10. He was in the world.He accuses men of ingratitude, in that they were, as it were, voluntarily blinded — blinded in such a way that they did not know how thelightthey enjoyed was caused. And this is true of every age. Even before Christ was manifest in the flesh he displayed his power everywhere. Therefore those daily effects ought to correct men’s stupidity, for what could be more unreasonable than to draw water from a running stream and never think of the spring it flows from? It follows that the world cannot plead ignorance as a legitimate excuse for not knowing Christ before he was manifest in the flesh. For it arose out of slackness and wicked stupidity in those who always had opportunities of seeing him present in his power. The summary is this: Christ was never so absent from the world that men ought not to have been aroused by his rays and to have looked up to him. So it follows that they are guilty.

11. He came to that which was his own.Here he displays man’s absolutely desperate wickedness and malice, their accursed ungodliness, in that when the Son of God revealed himself in the flesh to the Jews, whom God had separated to himself from the other nations as his own, he was not acknowledged or received. This verse, too, is interpreted in different ways. Some think the evangelist is speaking of the whole world in general, for there is certainly no part of the world which the Son of God may not rightly claim as his own. Thus, according to them, the meaning is: “When Christ came to earth, he did not enter a foreign country, for the whole human race was his own inheritance.” But I prefer the view of those who refer Christ’s coming to the Jews only. The evangelist heightens men’s ingratitude by an implied comparison. The Son of God had chosen a dwelling-place for himself in one nation; when he appeared there, he was rejected, and this shows clearly how wicked men’s blindness is. But the evangelist must have said this simply to remove the offense which the Jews’ unbelief might put in many people’s way. For who would believe that he was the Redeemer of the whole world when he was despised and rejected by that nation to which he had been especially promised? We see what extraordinary care the apostle Paul took in handling this subject.

The emphasis is on both the verb and the noun. The evangelist says the Son of Godcameto where he was formerly. Therefore by this expression he must mean a new and extraordinary kind of presence by which the Son of God manifested himself so that men might see him closer at hand. When he saysto that which was his ownhe is comparing the Jews with other nations; for by a unique privilege they had been elected into the family of God. Christ therefore first offered himself to them as if they were his own family and belonged to his kingdom in their own right. God’s complaint in Isaiah 1:3 has the same intention: “The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” For although he has dominion over the whole world, he becomes the Lord especially to Israel, whom he had gathered, as it were, into a sacred fold.

12. Yet to all who received him.In case anyone should be hindered by the stumbling block that the Jews despised and rejected Christ, the evangelist exalts above heaven the godly who believe in him. He says that the result of their faith is the glory of being counted aschildren of God.The universal termallimplies an antithesis: the Jews were carried away by a blind glorying, as if God belonged exclusively to them. So the evangelist declares that their condition has changed; the Gentiles have succeeded to the place left empty by the disinherited Jews. It is just as if he transferred the rights of adoption to strangers. As Paul says, the downfall of one nation was the life of the whole world (Romans 11:12); for when the Gospel was, as it were, driven out from them, it began to be dispersed far and wide throughout the whole world. Thus they were deprived of their special privilege. But their ungodliness did Christ no harm; for he set up the throne of his kingdom elsewhere and without discrimination called to the hope of salvation all peoples who formerly seemed to be rejected by God.

He gave the right(KJV, “power”). The Greek word translatedrighthere means an honor, and it would be better to translate it so, to refute the Roman Catholics’ false interpretation. Their corruption of this verse is that we are given only a freedom of choice, a privilege we may see fit to make use of. To read free will from this word, as they do, is like extracting fire out of water. At first sight there is some excuse for it, for the evangelist does not say that Christ makes themchildren of Godbut gives them therightto become so. Hence they infer that this grace is only offered to us and that the capacity to make use of it or reject it lies with us. But the context overthrows this paltry quibbling over one word, for the evangelist goes on to say that theybecome children of God — children born not . . . of human decision . . . but born of God.For if faith regenerates us so that we are thechildren of God, and if God breathes faith into us from heaven, the grace of adoption offered to us by Christ is obviously not only potential but actual, as they say. And, indeed, the Greek word forrightdoes occasionally mean “being reckoned worthy”; this meaning suits this passage best.

The circumlocution which the evangelist has used commends the excellence of grace better than if he had said in a single word that all who believe in Christ are madechildren of Godby him. For here he is speaking of the unclean and profane who, condemned to perpetual disgrace, lie in death’s darkness. And so Christ revealed a wonderful example of his grace by conferring this honor on such people, so that they suddenly began to bechildren of God.The evangelist rightly exalts the greatness of this blessing, and so does Paul in Ephesians 2:4-5: “because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ.” But even if anyone prefers the usual meaning of the wordright, yet as used the way the evangelist uses it here, it does not stand for any sort of halfway faculty which does not include the full and complete effect. Rather, it means that Christ gave what seemed to be impossible to the unclean and uncircumcised. For this was an incredible change — that Christ raised up children to God out of stones (see Matthew 3:9).Rightis therefore what Paul speaks of in Colossians 1:12 when he gives thanks to God “who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints.”

Who believed in his name.He indicates briefly how Christ is to bereceived— that is, by “believing” in him. Implanted into Christ by faith, we obtain the right of adoption as thechildren of God.And because he is the one and only Son of God, this honor does not belong to us at all except insofar as we are part of him. This again refutes the false Roman Catholic interpretation about the wordright.The evangelist declares that thisrightis given to those who already believe, and it is certain that they are indeed already thechildren of God.Those who say that by believing, a person becomes nothing more than a son of God if he chooses to, greatly underestimate the value of faith. They replace a present result by an uncertain possibility.

The contradiction is shown to be even more mistaken by what follows. The evangelist says (verse 13) that those who believe are alreadyborn of God.It is not, therefore, merely the liberty of choice that is offered, for they obtain the very privilege itself. Although in Hebrewnameis often used for “power,” it is here a reference to the preaching of the Gospel. For we believe in Christ when he is preached to us. I speak of the usual way by which the Lord leads us to faith. And this must be carefully noted, since many foolishly invent for themselves a faith confused and without any understanding of the Gospel. Christ offers himself to us through the Gospel, and we receive him by faith.

13. Children born not of natural descent(KJV, “blood”). I readily agree with those who think that this refers indirectly to the wicked presumption of the Jews. The worthiness of their line was always on their lips, as if they were naturally holy because they were born of a holy descent. They might justly have been proud that they were descended from Abraham if they had been true sons and not degenerate sons; but the glorying of faith claims nothing at all for human procreation, but declares that it has received all that is good from the grace of God alone. John therefore says that those previously unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ are not sons of God from the womb but are born again by God, that they may start to be his children.Blood(literally, “bloods”) seems to have been put in the plural to bring out the idea of the long succession of the line. For a part of the Jews’ boasting was that they could trace their descendants along an uninterrupted line back to the ­patriarchs.

Nor of human decision or a husband’s will.I think these two phrases mean the same thing, for I do not see whyhuman decisionshould signify “woman” (as many, following Augustine, suppose). The evangelist is rather repeating the same thing in different words, so as to impress and fix it more deeply on our minds. And although he is thinking specifically of the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, a general doctrine can be learned from this verse: we are reckoned the children of God not on account of our own nature, nor from our initiative, but because “he chose to give us birth” (James 1:18), from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth. For the evangelist says that no one can believe except he who is born of God. Therefore faith is a heavenly gift. Moreover, faith is not cold and bare knowledge, for no one can believe unless he is born again by the Spirit of God.

It seems as if the evangelist puts things back to front by making regeneration prior to faith, since it is rather the result of faith and therefore follows it. I reply that both statements are in perfect agreement: by faith we receive the imperishable seed by which we are born again to new and divine life; and also, faith is itself the work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in no one except the children of God. Thus, in many respects faith is a part of our new birth, the entry point into the kingdom of God, that he may count us among his children. The enlightening of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal. So faith flows from its source: new birth. But since by this same faith we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, it is called the beginning of our adoption.

Another solution can be advanced which is clearer and easier. When the Lord breathes faith into us, he gives us new birth in a hidden and secret way that is unknown to us. But when faith has been given, we grasp with a living awareness not only the grace of adoption but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since, as we have said, faith receives Christ, it leads us in a sense to the possession of all his blessings. Thus, so far as our attitude is concerned, we begin to be the children of God only after we believe. For since the inheritance of eternal life is the result of adoption, we see that the evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone. And, indeed, however closely people examine themselves, they will find nothing worthy of the children of God except what Christ has given them.

Verse 14

14. The Word became flesh. The evangelist now teaches the nature of the coming of Christ which he had spoken of — that, clothed in our flesh, he showed himself openly to the world. Although he touches only briefly on the indescribable mystery of the Son of God being clothed in human nature, this brief statement is wonderfully clear. Here some madmen fool about with paltriest sophistries, such as saying that the Word became flesh in that God sent his Son as a mental concept into the world to become man — as if the Word were I know not what kind of shadowy idea. But we have shown that this expresses a genuine personality in the essence of God.

Flesh.This word expresses his meaning more forcibly than if the evangelist had said that Christ was made man. He wanted to show to what a low and abject state the Son of God descended from the height of his heavenly glory, for our sake. When Scripture speaks of man derogatorily it calls him “flesh.” How great is the distance between the spiritual glory ofthe Wordof God and the stinking filth of our flesh! Yet the Son of God stooped so low that he took on himself that flesh which is subject to so many miseries. Herefleshis not used for corrupt nature (as is often the case in Paul), but for mortal man. It denotes derogatorily his frail and almost transient nature: “All men (KJV, “flesh”) are like grass” (Isaiah 40:6 and similar verses). But we must note at the same time that this is a figure of speech, for in the wordfleshthe whole man is included. Apollo was therefore foolish to imagine that Christ was clothed with a human body without a soul. It is easy to prove from innumerable statements that he had a soul as well as a body. When Scripture calls men “flesh,” it does not thereby make them soulless.

Therefore the plain sense is thatthe Wordborn of God before all ages, and always dwelling with the Father, became man. Here are two main articles of belief: first, in Christ two natures were united in one person in such as way that one and the same Christ is true God and man. Secondly, the unity of his person does not prevent his natures from remaining distinct, so that the divinity retains whatever is special to it, and similarly the humanity has separately what belongs to it. And so, when Satan has tried through heretics to overturn sane theology with this or that madness, he has always dragged in one or other of these two errors: either that Christ was the Son of God and son of man in a confused way, so that neither his divinity remained intact, nor did he have the true nature of man; or that he was so clothed with flesh as to be, as it were, double and have two distinct persons. Thus Nestorius specifically acknowledged each nature but imagined one Christ who was God and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, but left him neither of the two natures, as he imagined that they were mingled. Today, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is a confused mixture of the two natures, as if he were a divine man. He certainly declares in words that Christ is God, but if you follow his insane imaginations, at one moment the Divinity was temporarily changed into human nature and at another moment the human nature has been absorbed into the Divinity.

The evangelist’s words are apposite for refuting both these blasphemies. When he says thatthe Word became flesh, we can plainly infer the unity of his person. For it does not make sense that he who is now man should be other than him who was always truly God, since it is God who is said to have become man. Again, since he distinctly attributes the namethe Wordto the man Christ, it follows that when he became man Christ did not cease to be what he was before and that nothing was changed in that eternal essence of God which assumed flesh. In summary, the Son of God began to be man in such a way that he is still that eternalWordwho had no temporal beginning.

. . . lived for a while among us.Those who say thatfleshwas like a home to Christ have not grasped the evangelist’s thought. He does not ascribe a permanent residence among us to Christ, but says that he stayed for a time, as a guest. The Greek word he uses fordwelt(KJV) is derived from “tabernacle.” So he simply means that on earth Christ carried out his appointed office; in other words, he did not only appear for one moment but lived among men while he was fulfilling his office. It is doubtful whether the phraseamong usrefers to men in general or only to John himself and the other disciples who were eyewitnesses of the events he narrates. I prefer the latter explanation, for the evangelist immediately adds:

We have seen his glory.Though thegloryof Christ could have been seen by all, it was unknown to most people because of their blindness; only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit had opened, saw this manifestation ofglory.In a word, Christ was recognized as a man who showed in himself something far greater and more sublime. Hence it follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated though it was clothed in flesh. It was indeed hidden under the lowliness of the flesh, but itsglorywas still seen.

. . . the glory of . . .This does not denote an improper comparison but rather a true and strong assertion. Similarly, when Paul says in Ephesians 5:8, “Live as children of light,” he wants us really to bear witness by our works to this very thing that we are — “children of light.” The evangelist therefore means that in Christ there was to be seen agloryconsistent with the Son of God and witnessing certainly to his divinity.

One and only(“the Only Begotten,”NIVfootnote — Ed.). He calls Christ this because he is by nature theonlySon of God. It is as if he wants to place him above men and angels and claim for him alone that which belongs to no creature.

Full of grace.This confirms the last clause. The majesty of Christ certainly also appeared in other respects, but the evangelist chose this example instead of others to train us in the practical rather than the speculative knowledge of him, and this must be carefully observed. When Christ walked with dry feet on the waters (see 6:19), when he expelled devils and revealed his power in other miracles, he could indeed be recognized as the only begotten Son of God. But the evangelist puts at the center that part of the proof from which faith receives the sweet fruit of Christ, declaring that he is in very truth the inexhaustible source ofgrace and truth.Stephen also was said to have been “full of grace” (Acts 7:55), but in another sense. [This must have been a slip of memory on Calvin’s part as the phrases applied to Stephen are different, though parallel; see Acts 6:5; 6:8; 7:55 — Pringle.] For the fullness of grace in Christ is the well from which we all must draw, as we will shortly explain more fully.

Full of grace and truth.This can be taken as a figure of speech for “true grace,” or it may be an explanation: “He was full of grace, which is truth of perfection.” But since he immediately repeats the same form of words (verse 17), I consider the meaning to be the same in both passages. Thisgrace and truthhe later contrasts with the law; and so I simply understand it to mean that Christ was to be acknowledged the Son of God by the apostles because he had in himself the fullness of all things belonging to the spiritual kingdom of God. In summary, he truly showed himself to be the Redeemer and Messiah in all things, which is the most important characteristic by which he ought to be distinguished from all others.

Verses 15–18

15. John testifies concerning him . . . He now describes John’s proclamation. By using the present tense of the verb testifies, he denotes a continuous activity, and indeed this preaching must always flourish, as if John’s voice was continually sounding in men’s ears. For the same reason, he then uses the word cries out to indicate that John’s preaching was not at all obscure or involved in ambiguities or murmured among the few. He preached Christ publicly in a loud voice. The first sentence refers to his being sent on Christ’s account, so that it would have been senseless for him to be exalted while Christ was humbled.

“This was he of whom I said . . .”By these words he means that from the very first his purpose was to make Christ known, and this was the aim of his preaching; in no other way could he carry out his duties as ambassador than by calling his disciples to Christ.

“‘He who comes after me.’”It is true he was some months older than Christ, but age is not what he is speaking about now. As he had performed the office of prophet for some time before Christ appeared in public, he puts himself first in time. Therefore Christcomes afterJohn so far as public appearance goes.