conviction of the disciples of the reality of the miracle of 5000 fed, and the resurrection of Lazarus, and others to the relation of St. John xx. 27.6 But this view surely is much too confined! Semler, although in no concordance with the rest of his interpretation, has more correctly referred these words to the ἐλήλυθεν ἐν σαρκὶ (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη), which is so significantly brought out in the epistle; and it is a matter of no doubt that this is the only true connection.7 But, such being the case, the Socinian explanation is untenable, and the contrary interpretation having, in other respects, much that supports it, particularly verse 2, gains the ascendency. Still an unbiassed reader can, if carefully examining the orthodox explanation in its rigid form, not Somewhat 6 Thus the Schol. Matthäi, p. 109, cfr. p. 213. curious is the explanation which we here find, according to which the nλá¶nois is understood to denote the more accurate Scriptural examination (this sense of Ynλápnois also occurs in the Classics,) of the manifestation of Christ, the Messiah of whom the prophets had foretold (and άxnxóuμe is referred to the prophets): οὐχ ὡς ἔτυχε συγκατεθέμεθα τῷ ὀφθέντι ἐν σαρκὶ, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πολλὴν ψηλάφησιν, ἐρευνῶντες τὰς περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρούσας γραφάς. 7 Thus the Schol. Matthi on this passage. Thus also St. Augustin, Clarius, Zeger in the Critica Sacra, and Calovius. Calvin, who likewise has adopted this interpretation, endeavours to secure it against misrepresentation: Videtur tamen ad praesentem causam parum valere sensuum approbatio, neque enim vel oculis vel manibus comprehendi potuit virtus Christi. Respondeo, hic idem dici, quod in primo capite Evangelii, v. 14. fail observing, that although strongly supported by v. 2, and the analogy of the prologue to the gospel, it is subject to many suspicions. For if the Apostle here only was speaking of the personal Logos manifested in the flesh, why did he in v. 1, not put ös, and subsequently ν ? Why not τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς; why rather the indefinite περὶ τοῦ λόγω τῆς ζωῆς? ̓Απαγγέλλομεν, in v. 3, μαρτυροῦμεν κ. ἀπαγγ. in v. 2, would have been very compatible with, and very favourable to ös and öv. Nay the appears the more singular, since in 1 John ii. 13, 14, the Apostle writes ròv ά' ¿gs evidently in the same sense. And why does St. John, in v. 2, exchange ó óyos r. . and 2wn for THY ZWAY THY αiúvov, which, according to the usus loquendi of St. John, cannot well be used directly as an expression for Christ's person? Altogether these difficulties appear to me so considerable, that the conjecture may be entertained, that neither the one interpretation nor the other, has entirely failed, nor entirely succeeded in expressing the meaning of the passage; and that the right interpretation holds the mean between the two. It is undeniable that in v. 1-3, St. John refers to his gospel. And now, recalling to the remembrance of his readers the sum total of it-the person of the Redeemer as λóyos, manifested in the flesh, who lived as a man among men-his doctrine. The divine works, which he did as Messiah-and that he, as a true Messiah, and Son of God and man, has for mankind become the source of all light and life, in such a manner that whosoever believes in him hath eternal life. St. John, in the abundance and over flow of lively remembrance, and endeavouring to be brief, confounds in one the person of the divine λóyos, who was from the beginning, and with the Father, as the life and light of man, with his appearance in the flesh with his history, and doctrine of eternal life-and, taking up at once all this together, (probably having before him the similar commencement of the gospel,) he begins-not ös ñv åπ' àgxñs—but, thinking of the subsequent περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, and ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη— Ο ἦν ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς. And now continuing with the assurance, that what he in the gospel had related of this λóyos . . was founded on his own infallible personal evidence, gathered by all the senses, he forgets in v. 1, to state more precisely the fundamental condition of all experiences and evidences respecting the Redeemer, (viz. Christ's manifestation in the flesh): but in v. 2, parenthetically, (by the words καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη,) bringing up what had been omitted, and enlarging that parenthesis by indicating that the object of this pavégwors is the communication of eternal life by the means of faith-he not only connects this parenthesis with the imperfect commencement in v. 1, by the words is πgis τὸν πατέρα, but he even there begins the apodosis του, καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν, which he then, in the beginning of v. 3, along with the reassumed prodosis, takes up again and brings out more fully. If this is the origin and sense of this complicated passage, all single parts in it retain their true bearing, 8 Camerarius on this passage in the Notatio says: quibus declaratur πληροφορία ἀποστολική. and St. John's peculiar mode of expression and of thought remains uninjured. The question has been raised, whether saadusta is synonymous with the preceding ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ip. nua, v. 1, or of a different meaning? In classical usage igav and Iɛão as probably occur as often synonymous words, as words of a different meaning. But it is clear, that originally, and in precise language, these words differ in signification. 'Ogav rather signifies perceptive vision, vision in general; ão, on the contrary, surveying, beholding, contemplation, contemplari. In the N. T. too, this diversity of signification is to be found. Thus, for example, in Gosp. St. Joh. i. 14, where we find ¿ασάμα analogous with our passage, it can hardly be considered as equivalent with έúgans in i. 18; and as little in i. 32 and 34. As our passage manifestly contains a gradation, and represents the λngopogía ἀποστολικὴ in its advancement from one stage to another, from mere seeing and hearing (autopsy Tois ipd. nuwv,) to a closer contemplation and contact, in short, to a most intimate familiarity with the Saviour; here certainly no tautology exists, and Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius and others are incontestably right in understanding this Isaσáμða of an abiding, closer beholding and contemplation. * But it is wrong to thrust upon the word the secondary 'Ogav not only is seeing in its most general, but specially seeing in its PASSIVE sense; I‹ãoda, is seeing more ACTIVELY, -an actual and spontaneous application of the visual faculties to visible objects. We sometimes cannot avoid seeing; we always can avoid beholding an object.-Transl. signification of cum admiratione, stupore, voluptate, &c., as Ecumenius and some modern authors have done. If our passage has reference to the gospel, there can, in spite of 1 John i. 10, ii. 7, and other passages where λóyos is used in the sense of doctrine, by λóyos rns (was nothing else be understood, but the personal óyos Tou Iɛou, who is the life of man— who is the source of the life of man.9 As before has been observed, this is the abridged formula of the propositions in the gospel i. 1-4. Now, as St. John in the gospel, does not by Aóyos understand any particular divine attribute, but collectively all the powers of the deity manifesting themselves in the world; the manifestation of God in the world in contradistinction to his occult nature;10 thus also he takes the word here in that sense and no other. But St. John, bringing out more strongly the most essential attribute, and the principal act of this óyos To sou, with reference to the human world, calls it here succinctly ỏ λóyos rñs (wñs, nay, immediately after, still more briefly (wn, the life, the divine itself, simply. This w the Evangelist considered, before the λoyos became gagg in Christ, as effective in the world indeed, but not completely manifest, and only perceptible in particular effects. His full manifestation and revelation, its entire abiding activity among mankind first commenced in and by 14 9 Schol. Matthäi, p. 109, rns ans, Tñs autoСwñs, Tñs anyaζούσης τὸ ζῆν 10 See the Author's Commentary on Gosp. i. 1, sqq., 1 |