But why is Jesus uniquely called ?the Word?? Certainly in Hebrew thought ?the Word? (hebrew - debar) is significant. ?By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth? (Psalm 33.6). This links directly with Genesis 1 where ?God said? and it was done. Thus the term signifies the powerful, creative Word of God, as John 1.3 makes clear, and the Word is the One who carries out the work of creation.

Furthermore the phrase ?the word of the Lord? is constantly used in the Old Testament to signify God?s specific intentions which He is determined to bring about. The idea behind this is exemplified in Isaiah 55.11 where His word is revealed as powerfully effective, ?so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth, it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it?. It is in fact eternal in contrast with nature (Isaiah 40.8). So ?the Word? is the eternal means by which the powerful activity of God is carried out.

Thirdly, we must note that, in the New Testament, the saving message is called ?the word (logos) of God? or ?the word? (Acts 6.2; Acts 11.1 and often in the New Testament). Thus when in 1 John 1.1 John describes Jesus as ?the Word of life?, he is stressing that the word that offers salvation offers the One Who is ?the Word?. It is not just pointing to a doctrine, it is pointing to a person. It is not enough just to receive the word, they must receive The Word.

Thus it is the One Who is the Word Who is the One through Whom God has spoken. He is God?s word personified. Moses had brought God?s instruction (torah = instruction, law) but what the Word has brought in Himself is truth in overflowing measure (John 1.16-17).

So the Word is the source and means of creation, the means of the powerful activity of God in the fulfilling of His purposes, and is the channel of His life-giving truth to men.

But John was living among Greek thought in Ephesus when he wrote these words, and had been for many years. Here he had been brought in contact with Greek ideas on the meaning of the Logos (the Word), and connecting it with the Hebrew ideas, it almost certainly extended its meaning to his mind. For the Greeks used the word Logos of the uncreated ?Reason? which lay behind creation, that which was uncreated and eternal, participating in the creation and sustaining of the Universe, distinct from God and yet partaking of the divine essence.

However, we must not overlook that there was a difference in emphasis between the Greek and Hebrew concepts. The Greeks saw ?Reason? as impersonal and in a sense remote, although always present. The Hebrews saw ?the word? as powerful, active and effective. It was the creative, sustaining word.

So the idea of the ?Word? contained the idea of one who was uncreated and eternal, the source and controller of the Universe, the effective instrument of God. That is why the writer to the Hebrews, in Hebrews 1.1-3, says ?God has spoken to us by a Son --- through Whom also He created the world --- Who --- upholds all things by His powerful word?.

Yet in the end John?s emphasis is surely finally on Jesus as the One who IS the Gospel, Who is the Word of God, Who is God?s saving Word. Certainly we are to see that He was the creative Word, and the sustaining Word, the uncreated who was ever with God and sustains all things, but most importantly He was the saving Word, from which all else takes its meaning. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Thus even from the beginning the idea of the Worker of Salvation was pre-eminent.

So to sum up, the Word is:

• The One through Whom God has created.
• The One through Whom God has acted.
• The One through Whom God has spoken
• The One through Whom God saves.

Let us now consider his words more deeply.

John 1.1 ?In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (face to face with) God, and what God was the Word was.?

?In the beginning.? That is where men?s minds have often wandered, to the beginning of all things, and they have striven to understand. The Jews felt that they had the answer through revelation. ?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.? But John is taking us back beyond that. ?In the beginning?, he says, ?the Word was already there in His eternal existence?.

The verb ?was? sums up the eternity of the Word. When all else began the Word ?was already in perpetual existence?. He Who came to bring light to men pre-existed creation. For when all was created He was already there, and, as verse 3 adds, was the source of the creation of all things.

?The Word was.? This expression is similar to that by which God revealed Himself to Moses. God revealed Himself as the ?I am?, the One Who is (Exodus 3.14). Then the One Who was from the beginning was stressing that He was also now present to act. Here in John?s Gospel is the reverse thought. The One Who has been here and acting is also the One Who ?was? in the beginning.

1.2 ?And the Word was with God.? ?With God? in the Greek is ?pros ton theon? i.e. ?towards God?, signifying close relationship. We might translate ?face to face with God in close relationship?. There was between the Word and God an inter-personal relationship so close that the One blended with the Other.

?And the Word was God? (Gk. theos en ho logos). Here the unique nature of the Word is made clear. Note the growth in movement from existing in the beginning, to being ?face to face? with God in close relation, to being of the very nature of God.

?The Word was essentially of the nature of God?. Some try to lessen the impact of the verse by saying that there is no definite article before theos and therefore it simply means ?divine?, and then they try to water down the meaning of divine to suit their purposes. However while it is true that it means divine, it must also be stressed that it means fully divine. It means being of the very essence of what God is.

To have put a definite article in would have meant the words meant ?God and the Word were absolutely synonymous, the Word was the whole of the Godhead? and this was clearly not what John meant. It is true that ?theos? is an adjectival noun (which the lack of article demonstrates), but it has already been used in the verse to mean God essentially (pros ton theon), and theos immediately follows that statement in close connection, indeed as close as it could be (?theon kai theos?). Thus he is saying ?He was face to face with God and of that very God-nature was the Word?. This can only mean full divinity.

There was no other way John could have said this so concisely. We might translate, as some have done, ?what God was, the Word was?.

1.2 ?He was in the beginning with God.?

This repetition is intended to stress what has been said already. In the beginning, before anything was created, the Word and God were there, already existent. This was something both Jew and Greek would agree on. Where they would differ is concerning what the Word consisted of. John tells them it consisted of Jesus, the full expression of God, the eternal Reason, the powerful saving word of God through Whom He acts.

1.3 ?All things were made by (or through) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.?

The repetition in the two phrases stresses His total control in creation. These words link the Word in John directly with the creation of all things, and therefore with the creative Word of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 creation takes place through the powerful command of God, and the Word is thus powerfully linked with God?s creative power. So, by equating Jesus with the Word, John is directly linking Jesus with God?s act of creating. He is saying that when, for example, God said, by His word, ?Let there be light?, and light resulted, it was through Jesus Christ Himself that He was acting. In other words Jesus Christ, Who walked this earth as a man, was Himself the Creator of all things by His divine power, the Creator of light and the Creator of all that is, to such an extent that nothing that was made was made without Him.

1.4 ?In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.?

The Word was not only the Creator but as such the source of life, for in the beginning it was He Who created life. And it was that life that gave man an awareness shared by no other on earth. Man alone received the light of conscience. Man alone was able to reason profoundly. But, as John?s Gospel will make clear, there is more to it than that. He is not only the source of life but He has come to reveal life in its fullest sense, a life fuller than man has ever known before. He has come to bring to men, to those who will receive it, new life, spiritual life, overflowing life, which has its source in Him.

This life is to be like a light within, more powerful than the conscience or the reason, revealing good and evil (John 3.19-20), and above all revealing God. That is why in 1 John 1.1 Jesus is specifically called ?the Word of life?, for Jesus is essentially the saving Word, the life-giving word.

To the Greeks also the idea of the Logos (the Reason) was a light within revealing morality and understanding, while the connection between the Word and light was known to the Jews as expressed in Psalm 119.105, ?your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path? (compare also Proverbs 6.23). But the one saw it as intellectual and the other as rooted in the Law of God, the Torah. So John seeks to turn their eyes on this One Who went beyond and was the fulfilment of all in which they sought to believe.

1.5 ?And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not lay hold of it.?

His first emphasis here is that the world is in darkness. It is ever waiting for light. Both would have agreed. The Greek would have agreed that they were still seeking greater knowledge and understanding, the Jew that they needed more light on the Torah. Both would have agreed that, while being more enlightened than others, they were still short of the full light.

John deals regularly with the theme of darkness. It is the sphere where men can hide from their sinfulness - ?men loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil? (3.19). This is why they do not respond to Jesus Christ because they do not want to come into the light. Thus in 8.12 and 12.46 we are told that those who follow Jesus ?will not walk or abide in darkness?. And most importantly in 12.35 we read, ?walk while you have the light that darkness may not overtake you? where the verb is the same as here. So to be in darkness is to be away from the truth as revealed through Jesus.

But now, says John, light has come. Jesus, the Word, has come with the light of life to dispel that darkness. He is Himself as a light shining in the darkness, and He will make men aware of their sinfulness and need, and lead them into truth by bringing them to Himself.

As Jesus would say later, ?I am the light of the world, he who walks with me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life? (John 8.12). Thus the word He has brought, and the truth He reveals and the life He offers come as a light to men to take them out of darkness, and reveal to them full truth. The Greeks thought of the light of reason, the Jews the light of the Torah. John is saying that Jesus has come to make that light fully effective within. As he will say later, ?the Torah was given by Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ? (1.17)

?The darkness does not lay hold of it.? The Greek verb has two meanings. This could mean that although the light is shining men refuse to grasp it because they are in darkness, (light has come into the world, but men love darkness rather than light - John 3.19). Or it could mean that the darkness cannot ?lay hold of it? and suppress it. The light is triumphant over all the attempts of darkness to snuff it out. Both are true and would express John?s thought accurately. The darkness is powerless against the true light. However, comparison with 12.35 where Jesus speaks of ?darkness laying hold of you? (same verb), picturing darkness as seeking to engulf men and prevent them responding to the light, suggests that the emphasis is on the second.

Up to now John has been somewhat philosophical, but now he goes on to ground the idea of the Word firmly in history. He is not writing to bring some new ideas for men to consider, but to introduce the Word made flesh and living among us.

1.6-7 ?There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness that he might bear witness of the light that all may believe through him.?

A man came, sent from God, whose name was John (the Baptiser). There is no idea here that this man was just someone who was ?inspired? in a general way, a new thinker. Rather he was a man specifically sent from God. And the purpose of this sending was that he might point to a greater light, that he might bear witness to One Who was the full light of God, so that through his testimony ?all may believe?.

All the Gospels combine in pointing out that John was the preparer of the way (see Mark 1.2-3, 7-8; Matthew 3.11; Luke 3.16; John 1.23, 30), and they all make clear the success of his ministry. People of every kind came to hear him and to respond to his teaching. He was renewing men?s moral awareness in order that they may respond to the coming light.

But notice the verb used. ?There came ---? (egeneto), compare verse 3 where it means ?came into being?. There is a stress that, in contrast to Jesus Who always ?was?, John the Baptiser has ?come into being?. He is of the earth, not of Heaven.

?Whose name was John.? He wants his readers to realise that his was not just a vague someone but a genuine man who lived and taught. John the Baptiser would not be unknown. His powerful ministry had had an impact that had reached much further than Palestine.

1.8-9 ?He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light, which was the true light, which lights every man coming into the world.?

He came to bear witness to the light. He pointed away from himself to Another. He was not himself the light (although Jesus would later say that ?he was a burning and a shining light? - John 5.35) because this coming light was unique, He was the true and full light of God. He, John, could only point to the light that men may believe in Him.

In the time of Jesus and the early church there were many followers of John the Baptiser (compare Acts 19.1-7), who followed John so intensely that they omitted to accept his witness and turn to Jesus. In a sense they were rivals to the early church. John wants men to see that if they follow the teaching of John it can only lead them to Jesus.

?Which lights every man coming into the world.? Whether ?coming into the world? is to be attached as ?lightens every man that comes into the world?, applying it to ?every man?, or whether it should be attached as ?the true light --- that was coming into the world? is open to question. But the essential idea is the same. He was certainly coming into the world, and he was equally certainly coming as a light to every man who was coming into the world. But the latter is more probably the essential meaning. The Light was coming into the world to lighten every man. Though not all would receive the light, it would shine on them, and by their response to it the truth about them would be revealed (John 3.19-21). Compare how Jesus is elsewhere constantly described as the One Who was ?coming into the world? (6.14; 9.39; 11.27; 16.28).

On the other hand we could see it as meaning that the Word was a universal light shining on every man, pleading for response, and yet soon fading as men closed their minds and hearts to Him. This thought is amplified by Paul in Romans 1.19-20. To those whose hearts are open to the light, Nature itself will reveal the truth about God?s eternal power and Godhead.

That this light refers to Jesus is immediately made clear (verses 10-11, 14) and also comes out later in the chapter where John the Baptiser bears his testimony to Jesus (John 1.29-34). It is testimony to how faithful the Gospel writer is to his sources that he does not try to put the term ?the Word? or even ?the light? on the lips of John the Baptiser, but the reader is left in no doubt that Jesus is the One to Whom ?the Word? and ?the light? refer.

1.10 ?He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world did not know him.?

This verse reflects the different meanings of the word ?world? in the Gospel. In the Gospel ?the world? generally refers to the whole of mankind in contrast with God and His true people. God loved ?the world? and wanted to save them (3.16). The Pharisees were ?of this world? (8.23-24). Jesus? disciples were ?not of the world? (17.14, 16). The ?world? does not know God (17.25, and here). Christ?s kingdom is not of this world (18.36). In general ?the world? is seen to be in darkness and separate from God.

But here the true light was ?in the world?. Yet although He had in fact ?made the world?, the world did not know Him. Thus we see different nuances to the term ?world?, the one gliding into the other. In the first case ?the world? consists of all that is created, in the second it combines both meanings, both the created world and the unbelieving world were made by Him, but in the third case ?the world? is the world of unbelieving men, the world of human affairs as opposed to God, the world in darkness, as is more normal in John. John thus moves smoothly from the idea of the created world as a whole to the world without God. That is why we are told later that we are to be in it (John 17.11), but not of it (15.19; 17.14, 16).

?The world did not know him.? ?Know? could mean ?recognise? or it could mean ?personal response?. The word ginosko used here suggests something of the latter. But why did they not respond? Because they were blind? Because they were too busy and He got in the way? Because He did not fit in with their pre-conceived notions? All of these and more. The Creator was rejected because they did not want His kind of world. They were not just blind, they were guilty.

1.11 ?He came to his own, and those who were his own did not receive him.?

He came to His own ?home? (ta idia - translated ?home? correctly in Acts 21.6), and His own people received Him not.

Here now it is made clear that Jesus is being spoken of. This was not just some abstract philosophical idea, but a human being who came as God?s Word, not only to the world, but to ?His own people?, and was rejected by both them, and the world at large. The remainder of the Gospel will expand on this rejection. It was ever a wonder to John that the very people who had looked for His coming, and whose fathers had waited longingly and yearningly through the centuries for that time, were not willing to receive Him when He came. But of course what they had yearned after was not what Jesus had come to be. They yearned for superiority and plenty, for abundance of good things and complete security. They yearned to rule the nations. But He had come to reach the hearts of men, not to pander to their desires.

The verses are full of irony. He made the world, but it did not know Him. He had a chosen people whom He had prepared to act as a home for Him, but they too failed to respond and receive God?s Word. None would make the response He was seeking. When Christians who are fully committed to Christ sometimes feel strangers in their own surroundings they can comfort themselves with the thought that they follow in His steps.

Yet there were those who did respond, and to them was given the great privilege of becoming ?children of God?.

1.12-13 ?But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name.?

In the darkened world there were those who responded, and they received the right to ?become the children of God. John here makes a clear distinction between general humanity, who view themselves as children of God in a general sense, the Jews who saw themselves as God?s children in a special way, and believers in Jesus who become children of God in a unique sense through being born of the Spirit (John 3.6). He stresses that it is the last only who are true children of God. This is the purpose for which the Word has come, to bring men to God and give them the life of the Spirit, and only through that and a loving response to His word can they be His children. For to be the children of God means being ?perfect, even as He is perfect? (Matthew 5.48) and can only be found by response to Jesus, by belief and trust in Him.

?Those that believe on His name?. The verb is followed by eis, ?believe into?. This phrase is used regularly by John denoting personal, responsive faith as apart from just credence (compare 2.24 - but the difference is not always held).

1.13 ?Who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.?

This verse stresses that men can only become children of God when they have had a ?new birth?. When they have received new life from God. So John again stresses the distinction between humanity, who view themselves as children of God in a general sense, and believers in Jesus who are children of God in a unique sense through being ?born of the Spirit? (John 3.6). This is the purpose for which the Word has come, to bring men to God and give them the life of the Spirit.

John is careful to make his meaning clear. ?It is not of bloods?. This birth has no connection with natural birth. It does not refer to normal birth, when there is plenty of blood, taking the plural as intensive. Alternately this may be saying that being born a Jew, or a Roman, or a Greek (each considered themselves special) did not bring this privilege, for it was ?not of bloods?, the plural here expressing the multiplicity of sources.

?Nor of the will of the flesh.? This could signify that it was not a birth that resulted from men exercising their will to follow God?s commandments or to be members of a special community (even the Christian community), for it was not of the will of the flesh. (Note that in John ?the flesh? is not essentially weak or evil. It is humanness. ?The Word was made flesh?). Alternately it may have in mind the natural desires of the flesh which resulted in procreation, or the desire for an heir.

?Nor of the will of man.? It was not something that could be bestowed by any man, whoever he was, whether John the Baptiser, or a priest, or the Pharisees, or any other. It was not of the will of man, or under the control of men. This may include the idea that it is not the result of the decision of a human father to have children, but the primary reference is to exclude all human activity. Thus it excludes anything that man does which can be thought of in terms of ?birth? in any way, whether religious or otherwise. It even excludes baptism carried out simply as a rite. The important lesson is that man has nothing to do with this birth whatsoever. It is something which is between God and the individual alone.

?But of God.? They are ?born of God?. It is the result of a direct person-to-God relationship. And by it they leave ?the world? and become His and members of His chosen ones.

1.14 ?And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.?

Now John declares openly the startling and unique nature of the Christian message. ?The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.? The greatness that was the God of creation, the eternal Reason, became truly human. He was made genuine flesh. The gods were often thought of as taking on human bodies, of dwelling for a time among men, but never as being ?made flesh?. Always they retained their essential natures. But here was the unique miracle. The ?only begotten of the Father? fully took on human nature and became man in the fullest sense of the word.

Thus men could see Him, watch Him, touch Him, talk with Him, from babyhood to the grave. And those who went around with Him saw Him under every circumstance. As John could say elsewhere, ?That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have gazed upon, and touched with our hands - of the Word of life? (1 John 1.1). It was no fleeting glimpse. It was a day by day contact with, and awareness of, the One Who was the Word. They had walked with Him and lived with Him among the everyday problems and trials of life, and what they had seen had only convinced them the more that they had seen ?the glory as of the only begotten of the Father?.

?And tabernacled among us?, eskenosen. The glory of God had come down on the Tabernacle of old, but it was a glory only partly revealed, for when He was there the cloud hid him from men?s sight. Now His glory had again descended, again shielded in a Tabernacle, but this time in a human body, God only begotten having been ?made flesh?.

?We beheld His glory.? Many men have lived glorious lives, some more than others, but always those who knew them best have known of weaknesses that have marred the image. But having known Him so intimately that no fault could have been hidden John could only say of this One, ?we beheld His glory?. There was no weakness, there was nothing that could detract from the image. His glory was as the only begotten of the Father, perfect in all His ways.

This cannot be limited to the glorious revelation of Jesus at the Transfiguration when they saw His glory in a physical sense and He was revealed before them in dazzling light (Matthew 17.2; Mark 9.2-3; Luke 9.29), although that is included. It refers to the totality of the glory of His life in every situation, a glory revealed in the Gospel that is to follow. And he asks his readers to consider this glory for themselves.

?As of the only begotten of the Father.? Some ancient manuscripts have ?as of the only Son of the Father?. But that is clearly the easier reading, easily read in from the first, while the change the other way is inexplicable in the early days. Thus John, in contrast with those who will be begotten of God by new birth, declares Him to be the ?only-begotten?. His begetting was in a unique sense. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (verse 18) in a sense in which no other was.

John continually stresses this uniqueness of Jesus. Israel had been God?s ?firstborn son? (Exodus 4.22; Jeremiah 31.9), because He had adopted them as His own. The Davidic king was to be made His firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth (Psalm 89.27). But again the idea was of adoption. Here, however, Jesus is ?monogenes?, the only one of its kind, something unique in kind, an only Son. He was ?the Son? rather than one of many sons. The contrast is brought out powerfully in Mark 12.6. He alone was of the same nature as the Father.

?Full of grace and truth.? This is what lies at the root of the nature of God. Graciousness, love undeserved, abounding mercy and yet always in the context of what is true and right. God cannot deny Himself. If His grace is to be known it is by response to truth.

So the great uncreated Word, the source and upholder of all things, the light of men, became Himself a man, not just in human guise, but in human flesh. That is why John, along with others, was able to behold His glory, a glory revealed in His life and teaching, in the wonder and purity of His life, and the graciousness with which He lived. And having beheld that life he had to acknowledge that it revealed Jesus? unique relationship with the Father as His only Son. To both Greek and Jew this would be a wonder to be gaped at. The eternal Reason, or the creative, revelatory, saving Word, had become man.

1.15 ?John bears witness of him and cries, saying, ?This was he of whom I said, ?He who comes after me is become before me, for he was before me?.? ?

So as to leave his readers in no doubt the author now stresses again that ?the Word? is the One to whom John the Baptiser bears witness. John, who has been sent by God (verse 6), and whose powerful ministry is everywhere acknowledged, now testifies to the superiority of Jesus. He says of the Word, ?He who comes after me is now ranked and placed before me, for He was before me? (compare verse 30).

?He was before me.? In context the statement must intend here to be seen as giving the significance ?was in existence before me? as well as ?was before me in precedence in God?s purposes?. John is aware of the uniqueness of the One to Whom he testifies. He is aware that He has come from God and from Heaven with a unique pre-existence.

1.16-17 ?For of his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace, for the Law (the Torah) was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.?

The author now stresses the overflowing wonder of what Jesus, the Word, has come to do, and stresses His superiority over Moses. The instruction (the Torah) has been replaced by the Word. Moses had given God?s instruction (Hebrew torah = instruction, law) as a guide to men, and as providing through the sacrifices a way of forgiveness, but the instruction had been made harsh and unreasonable by its interpreters. Jesus has come as God?s direct Word to man and has brought undeserved love and favour and the fullness of truth. Indeed His fullness has overflowed into them in unbounded measure, far exceeding anything offered by Moses.

?Of His fullness.? Out of the abounding fullness of what He is His people receive blessing, strength and power, and guidance in their lives.

?Grace upon grace.? ?Charis? means favour, gracious care and assistance, goodwill, undeserved love. It will be continually self-producing, a continual flow, never ceasing. This fullness abounds towards them. It flows like a river, grace (God?s unmerited love in action) following after grace in an unceasing flow. The writer speaks from personal knowledge of how, when Jesus was among them, He so patiently bore their failures and weaknesses and supplied them with strength and guidance in their daily lives. And he stresses that this is now true for all His people today.

Alternately we may translate ?grace instead of (anti) grace?. The idea being that God revealed His grace through Moses, but now God?s greater grace is revealed in Jesus Christ. But in the next verse there is a contrast between the giving of the Law and the grace that came through Jesus Christ, so that the first interpretation seems the most likely.

?The Law was given by Moses.? It is impossible for us today to appreciate how much stress the Jews laid on this. They saw themselves as the people of the Law, a God-given Law, brought to them by the great Moses, binding them within God?s covenant. And they were excessively proud of the fact. And the writer does not deny this. But he then points out that something better has come.

?Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.? The Law condemned. It pointed the finger. But it left men spiritually exhausted. They could not meet its terms (see Galatians 3.10). It was weak because of man?s weakness (Romans 8.3). But Jesus Christ has brought God?s word, indeed has come as God?s Word, bringing an offer of unmerited love and favour and the fullness of truth that far surpasses the Law. Thus Jesus Christ is greater far than Moses.

1.18 ?No man has seen God at any time. God only begotten, (or ?the only begotten Son?) who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.?

Indeed Jesus is the final revelation of God, as the One Who alone partakes in His essence. He is ?God only begotten?, alone enjoying the very nature and essence of God.

?God only begotten.? Many ancient authorities have here ?God only begotten? instead of ?only begotten Son?, and the evidence is very strong (?monogenes theos? instead of ?ho monogenes ?uios?). But either way the meaning is the same. Both mean of the same nature and essence with the Father. Here was one Who was of the very essence of the Godhead.

?No one has seen God at any time.? There were those who had awesome revelations of God, such as Abraham in Genesis 15.12-17; Moses in Exodus 3.2 and 33.21-23 ; Isaiah in Isaiah 6.1 and Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1, but these were but shadows of the great reality. For God is the One Who dwells in unapproachable light, Whom no man has see nor can see (1 Timothy 6.16; 1 John 4.12).

As the hymn writer put it:

?Who is in the bosom of the Father.? Compare ?pros ton theon in 1.1 - ?in close relationship with God?. To be in someone?s bosom meant to be in favoured relationship, to enjoy the choicest position.

?He has made Him known, (or ?declared Him?).? The verb is exegeomai, ?to explain, interpret, tell, report, describe, and thus make known?. It is used of gods making themselves known to men. In this context therefore it means ?makes God fully known?. He has made God known as none else had or could do.

Through Jesus Christ, God?s final Word to man, God is revealed as never before, not in the sheer glory of a shining brightness, but in the fullness of His personality, in His behaviour, in His thought and in His presence. Now we can know what God is really like, for He has sent us His likeness in human form, His final Word to man.

We can sum up by considering that behind these last verses (14 onwards) there is a deliberate connection with the Exodus narrative, especially Exodus 33. There God came down to dwell among men in His glory within the tabernacle (33.9; 40.34). Here God comes down, made flesh, to dwell in humanity as His tabernacle, and reveals His glory. There the Law was given (32.15; 33.13; 34.1), here grace and truth come. There God was seen in veiled form in a cloud (33.9), here He is more fully revealed, though veiled in flesh. There Moses spoke with God ?face to face? (33.11), yet in a cloud, for he could not see His glory (33.20, 22), here we behold His glory, seeing Him face to face. The new covenant is more real and personal, more glorious, than the old. It is the beginning of a new deliverance.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS