A.T. Robertson

 

Joh 1:1 - In the beginning (en arch|). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Ge 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence). The Word (o` logoj). Logoj is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logoj is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikoj logoj for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pr 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logoj, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logoj is applied to Christ only in Joh 1:1,14; Re 19:13; 1Jo 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Heb 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co 8:9; Php 2:6f.; Col 1:17) and in Heb 1:2f. and in Joh 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sofia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (proj ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Proj with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo 2:1 we have a like use of proj: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton ecomen proj ton patera). See proswpon proj proswpon (face to face, 1Co 13:12), a triple use of proj. There is a papyrus example of proj in this sense to gnwston thj proj allhlouj sunhqeiaj, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of proj here and in Mr 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In Joh 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeoj hn o` logoj). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o` qeoj hn o` logoj. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o` logoj and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o` logoj) and the predicate without it (qeoj) just as in Joh 4:24 pneuma o` qeoj can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo 4:16 o` qeoj agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh 1:14 o` Logoj sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

 

Joh 1:14 - And the Word became flesh (kai o` logoj sarx egeneto). See verse 3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than hn of verse 1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive sarx, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in Mt 1:16-25; Lu 1:28-38, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also 2Co 8:9; Ga 4:4; Ro 1:3; 8:3; Php 2:7f.; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 2:14. "To explain the exact significance of egeneto in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. Dwelt among us (eskhnwsen en h`min). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of skhnow, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (skhnoj or skhnh), in N.T. only here and Re 7-15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. We beheld his glory (eqeasameqa thn doxan autou). First aorist middle indicative of qeaomai (from qea, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (doxa) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (Jas 2:1). John employs qeaomai again in 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also 4:35; 11:45; 1Jo 1:1f.; 4:12,14. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. As of the only begotten from the Father (w`j monogenouj para patroj). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with monogenouj or with patroj. In Joh 3:16; 1Jo 4:9 we have ton monogenh referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of pathr of God in relation to the Logos. Monogenhj (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (tekna) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in Lu 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. It occurs also in the LXX and Heb 11:17, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words para patroj (from the Father) are to be connected with monogenouj (cf. 6:46; 7:29, etc.) or with doxan (cf. 5:41,44). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. 8:54; 14:9; 17:5. Full (plhrhj). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with doxan (or genitive with monogenouj) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative plhrhj can agree with the subject of eskhnwsen. Of grace and truth (caritoj kai alhqeiaj). Curiously this great word carij (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in 1:14,16,17, though alhqeia (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In 1:17 these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

 

1Jo 1:1 - That which (o`). Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message "concerning the Word of life" (peri tou logou thj zwhj), a phrase that reminds one at once of the Word (Logoj) in Joh 1:1,14; Re 19:14 (an incidental argument for identity of authorship for all these books). For discussion of the Logoj see on Joh 1:1-18. Here the Logoj is described by thj zwhj (of life), while in Joh 1:4 he is called h` zwh (the Life) as here in verse 2 and as Jesus calls himself (Joh 11:25; 14:6), an advance on the phrase here, and in Re 19:14 he is termed o` logoj tou qeou (the Word of God), though in Joh 1:1 the Logoj is flatly named o` qeoj (God). John does use o` in a collective personal sense in Joh 6:37,39. See also pan o` in 1Jo 5:4. From the beginning (apV archj). Anarthrous as in Joh 1:1; 6:64; 16:4. See same phrase in 2:7. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (Joh 3:16), "coeval in some sense with creation" (Westcott). That which we have heard (o` akhkoamen). Note fourfold repetition of o` (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of akouw) stresses John's equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (Joh 21:24). That which we have seen (o` e`wrakamen). Perfect active, again, of o`raw, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. With our eyes (toij ofqalmoij h`mwn). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John's part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. That which we beheld (o` eqeasameqa). Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of qeaomai (the very form in Joh 1:14), "a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision" (D. Smith). Handled (epshlafhsan). First aorist active indicative of pshlafaw, old and graphic verb (from psaw, to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Lu 24:39). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ's humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also "the Word of life" and so God Incarnate.

 

Rev 19:13 - Arrayed (peribeblhmenoj). Perfect passive participle of periballw, to clothe, often in this book. In a garment (i`mation). Accusative case after the passive participle peribeblhmenoj. Sprinkled (rerantismenon). Perfect passive participle of rantizw, in the predicate accusative case agreeing with i`mation. A Q here read bebammenon (perfect passive participle of baptw, to dip). Probably rerantismenon (sprinkled) is correct, because the picture comes from Isa 63:3, where Aquila and Symmachus use rantizw. The use of bebammenon (dipped) is a bolder figure and Charles considers it correct. In either case it is the blood of Christ's enemies with which his raiment (i`mation, perhaps a clamuj Mt 27:28,31) is sprinkled or dipped as the case may be, not his own blood on Calvary (1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11), but proleptically and prophetically the blood of Christ's enemies. ~Aimati can be either locative case with bebammenon (dipped in blood) or instrumental with rerantismenon (sprinkled with blood). The Word of God (o` Logoj tou qeou). Some scholars hold this addition inconsistent with verse 12, but it may be merely the explanation of the secret name or still another name besides that known only to himself. The personal use of the Logos applied to Christ occurs only in the Johannine writings unless that is the idea in Heb 4:12. In Joh 1:1,14 it is merely o` Logoj (the Word), in 1Jo 1:1 o` Logoj thj zwhj (the Word of Life), while here it is o` Logoj tou qeou (the Word of God), one of the strongest arguments for identity of authorship. The idiom here is one common in Luke and Paul for the teaching of Christ (Lu 5:1; 8:11, etc.; 1Co 14:36; 2Co 2:17, etc.). Jesus is himself the final and perfect revelation of God to men (Heb 1:1f.).