Unlike the other Gospels, which commence their story about Jesus with either the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark) or stories about Jesus’ birth (Matthew and Luke), the Gospel of John begins with the pre-existent Logos, who became incarnate in Jesus. The prologue introduces this One to the readers before the story proper begins so that they will know the true identity of the central character. Barrett, speaking of 1:1, says: ‘John intends that the whole of his Gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous.’1
The prologue introduces the main themes which are to appear throughout the Gospel: Jesus’ pre-existence (1:1a/17:5), Jesus’ union with God (1:1c/8:58; 10:30; 20:28), the coming of life in Jesus (1:4a/ 5:26; 6:33; 10:10; 11:25–26; 14:6), the coming of light in Jesus (1:4b, 9/3:19; 8:12; 12:46), the conflict between light and darkness (1:5/3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46), believing in Jesus (1:7, 12/2:11; 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:69; 11:25; 14:1; 16:27; 17:21; 20:25), the rejection of Jesus (1:10c, 11/4:44; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31; 12:37–40; 15:18), divine regeneration (1:13/3:1–7), the glory of Jesus (1:14/12:41; 17:5, 22, 24), the grace and truth of God in Jesus (1:14, 17/4:24; 8:32; 14:6; 17:17; 18:38), Jesus and Moses/the law (1:17/1:45; 3:14; 5:46; 6:32; 7:19; 9:29), only Jesus has seen God (1:18/6:46), and Jesus’ revelation of the Father (1:18/3:34; 8:19, 38; 12:49–50; 14:6–11; 17:8).
The prologue functions as an introduction to the Gospel of John, much as an overture functions as an introduction to an opera. Or, to change the imagery, the prologue is like a foyer of a theatre where various scenes from the drama to be enacted inside are placarded. It appears to have been crafted with a chiastic structure,2 which can be best seen by setting out its content as follows:
(a) In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life,
and that life was the light of all mankind.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
(b) There was a man sent from God
whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light,
so that through him all might believe.
He himself was not the light;
he came only as a witness to the light.
(c) The true light that gives light to everyone
was coming into the world.
He was in the world,
and though the world was made through him,
the world did not recognise him.
He came to that which was his own,
but his own did not receive him.
(d) Yet to all who did receive him,
to those who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God –
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband’s will,
but born of God.
(c') The Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory,
the glory of the one and only Son,
who came from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
(b') (John testified concerning him.
He cried out, saying,
‘This is the one I spoke about when I said,
“He who comes after me has surpassed me
because he was before me.”’)
(a') Out of his fullness
we have all received
grace in place of grace already given.
For the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
No one has ever seen God,
but the one and only Son, who is himself God
and is in the closest relationship with the Father,
has made him known.
In this chiastic structure, the first and last paragraphs (a and a'), the second and second-last paragraphs (b and b') and the third and third-last paragraphs (c and c') all correspond to one another. So in paragraph (a) the Word is introduced as the one who was in intimate relationship with God and who came as light into the world (to make God known). This has its counterpart in paragraph (a'), where the Word made flesh is described as the one who is ‘in closest relationship with the Father’ and who has made him known. Paragraph (b) speaks of John (the Baptist) who came to bear witness to the light, and this corresponds to paragraph (b'), where once again John’s witness to Jesus is the subject. Paragraph (c) speaks about the true light coming into the world and this has its counterpart in paragraph (c'), where we are told that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Later paragraphs, while having clear parallels with their corresponding earlier paragraphs, do not just repeat what was said in those earlier paragraphs; rather, using different terminology, they extend it.
Within chiasms it is generally the central paragraph which contains the most significant statement. Paragraph (d) stresses that the purpose of the Word becoming flesh and bringing life and light into the world was that those who receive him, those who believe in his name, might become children of God. This corresponds to the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:30–31).
The prologue introduces the reader to the ‘Word’ (Logos). Though the idea of the Word (Logos) sounds strange in modern ears, it would have resonated with ancient readers of the Gospel, whether Jew or Gentile. Parallels can be found in (1) the Old Testament ideas of God’s creative and sustaining word, the word of God spoken through the prophets and later Jewish personification of wisdom as the agent of God in creation; (2) Stoic ideas of the logos as divine reason pervading and giving order to creation and relieving human ignorance; (3) Philo’s writings, where the word logos is used extensively to denote the mind of God, the agent of creation and the mediator between God and the creation; (4) rabbinic speculation in which the logos was identified with the pre-existent Torah; and (5) the Gnostic writings in which a heavenly emissary bridges the spiritual and material worlds. All these parallels reveal that when the evangelist chose to identify Jesus as the Logos, he was using a term in wide circulation, but which meant different things to different people. More important than these parallels for our understanding of the Word (Logos) is what the evangelist himself says about him in the prologue.
This opening paragraph of the prologue (a) describes the person and work of the Word in a number of brief but highly significant statements.
1–2. These verses, which describe the pre-existent state of the Word, constitute a short chiasm (within the larger chiasm of vv. 1–18). Keener sets it out as follows:
A In the beginning
B was
C the word
D and the word
E was
F with God
F' and God
E' was
D' the word.
C' This one
B' was
A' in the beginning with God.3
The first statement, In the beginning was the Word, echoes the opening words of Genesis: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1). As God was in the beginning prior to the creation of the world, so too was the Word. This implies something to be stated explicitly shortly: that the Word partakes of divinity.
The second statement, and the Word was with God (houtos ēn en archē pros ton theon, lit. ‘this one was in [the] beginning toward God’), is susceptible to two interpretations. It may simply mean that the Word was with God in the beginning, just as Proverbs 8:27–30 says Wisdom was with God at creation. Alternatively, it could mean that the Word was faced towards God,4 in intimate relationship with God. The final paragraph of the prologue (a'), which balances this first paragraph and extends its meaning, makes just this point when it describes the Son (= the Word) as the one ‘who is close to the Father’s heart’.
The third statement, and the Word was God, on first reading might suggest a unitarian understanding of God, the Word being simply equated with God. The original language (kai theos ēn ho logos) will not, however, allow such an interpretation.5 To read the text in that way also overlooks the stress on the relationship existing between the Word and God (being ‘with God’ and ‘close to the Father’s heart’). Relationship implies different persons, and this moves us away from unitarianism (one God, one person) towards trinitarianism (one God, three persons – Father, Son [= the Word] and Spirit). As the Gospel of John unfolds it becomes clear that this is what is intended. Jesus, the Word incarnate, is one with God (and the Holy Spirit). So when the prologue says the Word was God it is not saying that the Word and God constitute an undifferentiated unity, but rather it is saying, in words aptly coined by Moloney, ‘what God was the Word also was’.6 Towards the end of the Gospel the evangelist reinforces the truth of Jesus’ divinity when he narrates how Thomas addressed Jesus as ‘my Lord and my God’ (20:28).
The two key ideas stated separately in verse 1 are brought together and repeated in verse 2: He was with God in the beginning, that is, the Word was in intimate relationship with God and he was in that relationship at the very beginning (cf. Prov. 8:22–31).
3. The evangelist explains the work of the Word in the beginning: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Genesis 1:1–31 tells how God brought the universe into being by his creative word. The evangelist picks this up when he says that it was through the person of the Word that God brought all things into being; or, putting it negatively, without his agency God brought nothing into being. This teaching is also found in Colossians 1:16–17 and Hebrews 1:2.
4. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Because the Word shares in deity, he shares in the life of God (cf. 5:26: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself’). The evangelist does not make clear how the divine life in the Word illuminated human beings. Some suggest it relates to our creation in the image of God so that we participate in the light of reason in a way lesser created beings do not. Others suggest it refers to the light of general revelation, whereby the character of God is reflected in creation itself to be understood by human beings (cf. Rom. 1:19–20).7
5. The first paragraph concludes with the statement: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The allusion may be to the Genesis creation account, in which darkness covered the face of the earth, and when God said, ‘Let there be light’ (Gen. 1:3), the darkness gave way to the light. Alternatively, it could be an allusion to the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned’ (Isa. 9:2). If the latter, the evangelist is speaking of the coming of the light of God into the world in the person of the incarnate Word. Through him light shone among the Jewish people (cf. Matt. 4:16). He entered their darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it – that is, the repeated attempts of Jesus’ Jewish opponents to extinguish the light failed.
6. Paragraph (b) begins: There was a man sent from God whose name was John. This was the name the angel told his father Zechariah that he was to be given. Unlike other Gospels (cf. Matt. 3:1; 14:2; Luke 7:20, 33), the Gospel of John never uses the expression ‘John the Baptist’. It does not need to do so because no other John is mentioned in this Gospel. John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, is never mentioned by name.
The evangelist describes John as a man sent from God, thus depicting him as a prophet. The Old Testament frequently refers to prophets being sent by God (cf. 2 Chr. 24:19; 25:15; Jer. 7:25; 25:4, 5; 28:9; 35:15; 44:4; Bar. 1:21). The Jewish crowds regarded John as a prophet (cf. Matt. 21:26/Mark 11:32/Luke 20:6), and that is how Jesus also described him (cf. Matt. 11:9/Luke 7:26).
7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. John’s role was to bear witness to the light that came into the world through the Word. In the Synoptic Gospels he appears as one who preaches repentance and baptizes those who heed his call. In the Gospel of John, however, there is no mention of his preaching of repentance, nor are there any descriptions of his baptizing ministry (neither baptizing the crowds nor baptizing Jesus, though there are references to the fact that he did both). The reason for this might be that the evangelist wanted to emphasize John’s role as a witness. The purpose of John’s witness, though sadly not its result, was so that through him all might believe [in Jesus as Messiah].
8. After saying John came as a witness to the light, the evangelist adds: He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. Why he felt it necessary to add this statement has been the subject of speculation. Acts 19:1–5 reports that when Paul came to Ephesus on his third missionary journey,
There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’
They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’
So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’
‘John’s baptism,’ they replied.
Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.
It has been suggested that the reason why the evangelist says that John was not the light is because when he wrote his Gospel there were still people in Ephesus who were disciples of John, and the evangelist wanted them to know that it was Jesus who was the light, not John. Some have even said that there is an anti-Baptist polemic in the Gospel of John, but this is going too far. This Gospel repeatedly portrays John positively as a faithful witness to Christ (cf. e.g. 10:41), and the evangelist’s main reason for including so many references to John (1:6–9, 15, 19–37; 3:22–30; 4:1–2; 5:31–36; 10:40–42) was that he might add to the strength of the witness concerning Christ. John was not the light, but he was an important witness to the light. It is noteworthy that in 5:35 the evangelist says of John that he was a ‘lamp [lychnos, not phōs, ‘light’] that burned and gave light [phōs]’. Bruner comments: ‘A “lamp” is not itself a light, but it is the bearer of a light, and that is what John and all other believing witnesses are.’8
9. This third paragraph (c) opens with the words: The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. The phrase was coming into the world (erchomenon eis ton kosmon) could refer either to ‘the light’, the view adopted in the niv, indicating that it was ‘the true light’ that was coming into the world, or to ‘everyone’, the view adopted in the kjv, indicating that ‘every man’ coming into the world is a recipient of the true light.9 The niv alternative is to be preferred because the following verses (vv. 10–13) speak about the reception accorded to the true light when it came into the world.
The evangelist uses the word true (alēthinos) in several other places to denote what is true or genuine (4:23: ‘true worshippers’; 6:32: ‘true bread’; 15:1: ‘true vine’; 17:3: ‘the true God’), and he uses it here to stress that the Word, not John, was the true light. The evangelist does not say how the true light was coming into the world; readers must wait till 1:14 to find that out. What he does say here is that the true light gives light to everyone. As this Gospel unfolds we find that the Word incarnate in Jesus is ‘the light of the world’ (8:12; 9:5), and that through his person and teaching he brought light to bear upon all those with whom he came into contact. The next two verses indicate that, though he brought light into the world, it was not welcomed by many of those who witnessed it.
10–11. Looking back on the time when the Word came into the world, the evangelist says: He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. The Word was the agent of God in creation (1:3) so it may be said the world was made through him. There is great irony here, for the Word came into the world he had made and yet the people of the world did not know him. This tragic irony is deepened in verse 11: He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. When the evangelist says he came to that which was his own he uses an expression, eis ta idia (neut. pl.), which is found in two other places in the Gospel, where it means ‘to one’s own home’ (16:32; 19:27). However, it is used in 1:11, not in the sense that he came to his own home, which would mean heaven, but that he came into the world which was created through him and was therefore his property. When he says that his own [hoi idioi, masc. pl.] did not receive him, he means that the Jewish people by and large did not receive him. The rejection of the Word/Jesus is a recurring theme throughout the Gospel.
Unlike the previous three paragraphs of the prologue, this fourth paragraph (d) does not have a corresponding one balancing it in the chiastic structure of 1:1–18. Verses 12–13 stand at the centre of the chiastic structure and therefore receive the greatest emphasis. In fact, what is said in these verses encapsulates the purpose of the Gospel as a whole: that those who encounter the Word/Jesus through this Gospel might believe in him and become children of God enjoying eternal life, which is the portion of those who believe.
12. Turning his attention from those who did not receive the Word to those who did, the evangelist says: Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Those who receive him will include many Jews and also Gentiles. To receive him means, as this verse indicates, to believe in his name. To believe in a person’s name is to believe in the person, because the name stands for the person. Receiving him involves accepting the teaching and revelation of God (the ‘light’) he brought. This Gospel speaks repeatedly about those who receive or do not receive Jesus’ testimony (cf. 3:11, 32–33; 5:34; 12:48; 17:8).
To those who received him he gave the right to become children of God. The word translated right (exousia) can mean either ‘power’ or ‘right’, and it is used in both senses in this Gospel (cf. 1:12; 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10–11). Here in 1:12 the niv renders it ‘right’ while the nrsv opts for ‘power’. The niv rendering, ‘the right’, is to be preferred, for it is Jesus as the Word who gives the right to become children of God. The next verse, 1:13, says the power to do so comes from God.
When the evangelist describes those who believe as children of God he uses the word ‘child’ (teknon). He reserves the word ‘son’ (hyios) for Jesus himself. In this way he maintains a distinction between Jesus as the ‘Son’ of God and believers as ‘children’ of God.10 In this respect the evangelist differs from the apostle Paul, who is willing to speak of believers as ‘children/sons [and daughters]’ of God (Rom. 8:14, 19; 9:26; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:6–7).
13. Those who believe are further described as children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. A person has to be born to be a child of God. But this birth is not of natural descent (lit. ‘of bloods’, not ‘of blood’ [sing.] as in the nrsv). In the ancient world procreation was understood to take place through the mixing of bloods (of the father and mother, hence the plural, ‘bloods’). Here it is denied that natural procreation is the way people become children of God. This is reinforced by the words that follow, which deny that children of God are born of human decision (lit. ‘of the will of flesh [sarx] or of a husband’s will’). In John the word ‘flesh’ (sarx) often means ‘human being’ (cf. 1:14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2), so to be born of ‘the will of the flesh’ means to be born because of the desires of human parents, as the niv indicates. Those who become children of God, the evangelist says, are born of God.11 He does not offer any explanation here of what this means. For that we must wait until chapter 3, where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about being born of the Spirit, something which is as mysterious as the wind and yet occurs in conjunction with belief in Jesus.
This fifth paragraph (c') balances the third paragraph (c) and explains how the Word came into the world: The Word became flesh. As Köstenberger explains, the word ‘became’
does not mean ‘changed into’ in the sense that Jesus, by becoming human, ceased to be God. Nor does it mean ‘appeared’ human . . . or even ‘took on’ humanity . . . The main point is that God now has chosen to be with his people in a more personal way than ever before.12
The Word did not cease to be the Word, but in the incarnation he changed his mode of being the Word. How the Word who ‘was God’ could become human is not explained.13 This became the subject of debate in the early centuries of the church. However, the evangelist was not interested in explaining how the Word became human. He was more concerned to explain what the consequences of this were. The first of these was that he made his dwelling among us. The expression made his dwelling translates one word, eskēnōsen, which, rendered literally, means ‘pitched a tent’ or ‘encamped’. The allusion is to the time when God’s presence was localized in the tabernacle in the midst of the camp of Israel (cf. Exod. 40:34–38). The evangelist is saying that the Word becoming flesh and living among us is like God ‘encamping’ among the tribes of Israel. Revelation 21:3 depicts the ultimate blessing of believers thus: ‘And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling-place is now among the people, and he will dwell [skēnōsei] with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.’
The second consequence of the Word becoming flesh is that the evangelist could say, We have seen his glory. The reference to glory is also an allusion to God’s presence in the tabernacle. Exodus 40:34–35 tells us that when Moses completed the construction of the tabernacle,
Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
As the glory of God was once present in the tabernacle, so it was now present in the Word made flesh.
Moreover, the evangelist, including himself among the eyewitnesses, says We have seen his glory, and then describes two aspects of the glory they saw. First, it was the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father. He uses a special word (monogenēs) when describing the Word as the one and only. It stresses the uniqueness of the Word who came from the Father (see ‘Additional note: monogenēs’, pp. 65–66). The evangelist indicates here, as he stresses repeatedly throughout the Gospel, that this unique one whose glory they saw came from the Father into the world (cf. 5:36, 37, 43; 6:42, 57; 8:16, 18, 42; 12:49; 13:3; 14:24; 16:28; 17:21, 25; 20:21). He was the one ‘from above’ (3:31) and as such was the only one who could make the Father known (1:18).
Second, the glory the eyewitnesses saw was full of grace and truth. The expression ‘grace and truth’ (charis kai alētheia) is found only twice in the New Testament: here and in 1:17. It is almost certainly the evangelist’s rendering of a similar expression, ‘kindness and faithfulness’ (eleos kai alētheia), which is used often in the lxx as a translation of the Hebrew expression ḥesed wĕ’ĕmet (cf. e.g. Josh. 2:14; 2 Sam. 2:6; 15:20; Pss 24:10 [et 25:10]; 60:8 [et 61:7]; 83:12 [et 84:11]; 84:11 [et 85:10]; 88:15 [et 89:14]). The expression is used in Exodus 34:6–7, a passage in which God makes his glory known to Moses: ‘And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness [ḥesed wĕ’ĕmet], maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.’ The ‘love and faithfulness’ which constituted the glory of God proclaimed to Moses is now found in the Word incarnate. What was proclaimed to Moses by the Lord as he passed by has now been seen, embodied in the incarnate Word, by the eyewitnesses.
The word ‘grace’ (charis), which the evangelist uses as his equivalent for the Hebrew ḥesed, is found in only three places in John, all in the prologue (1:14, 16, 17) and all of them in descriptions of the Word become flesh. Central to the glory of God revealed in the incarnate Word is his grace: his favour towards people and his loving action in providing for their needs, most importantly in effecting salvation for them. As the Gospel of John unfolds, this grace is seen again and again; for example, Jesus provides abundance of wine at the wedding feast of Cana (2:1–12), heals the official’s son (4:43–54), causes the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda to walk (5:1–15), feeds the five thousand (6:1–15), gives sight to the man born blind (9:1–7) and restores Lazarus to life (11:38–44). His grace is seen most importantly in his laying down his life for his people (10:11, 15), in giving them eternal life (4:14; 6:27; 10:28; 17:2) and in sending them the Holy Spirit (15:26; 16:7).
The Hebrew word ’ĕmet, for which the evangelist substitutes the Greek word alētheia, translated truth, has the root meaning of reliability. God is reliable in both his words and his actions. He can be depended upon to carry out what he promises, and his words are always true. When the evangelist says the Word incarnate was full of . . . truth, he is affirming that the reliability of action and word predicated of God may also be predicated of the Word. The Word is reliable and truthful, he speaks the truth (8:45–46), testifies to the truth (18:37) and embodies the truth about God and his plan for salvation (14:6).
The word monogenēs, rendered ‘the one and only Son’ in 1:14 in the niv, is in some other translations rendered ‘only begotten’. That the word should be translated as ‘the one and only Son’ is confirmed by its usage elsewhere in the New Testament, where it is found a total of nine times. It is found three times in the Gospel of Luke: once to describe the ‘only son’ of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12), once to describe the ‘only daughter’ of Jairus (Luke 8:42) and once to describe the ‘only child’ of the man who sought Jesus’ help for his demon-possessed boy (Luke 9:38). It is found once in Hebrews where Isaac, whom Abraham was about to sacrifice, is described as his ‘one and only’ son (Heb. 11:17) – in Abraham’s case, his one and only son by Sarah. In each case the expression is used to add poignancy to a story by highlighting the fact that it was the person’s ‘one and only’ child who was in dire need, was threatened or had died. The stress is not upon the fact that the person was begotten/born of the father or mother concerned, but upon the fact that the father or mother had only one child and that child was the one who was so sadly affected. It is found once in 1 John 4:9, where the author emphasizes the fact that the one whom God sent into the world was his ‘one and only’ Son. Once again the emphasis is not that Jesus was ‘begotten’ of God, but that God had only one Son, and this ‘one and only’ Son he sent into the world that ‘we might live through him’.
In the Gospel of John monogenēs is used in three other places and in each case it is used in relation to Jesus as God’s Son. In 1:18 we are told that ‘No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son [monogenēs], who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known’. And in 3:16 we find: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only [ton monogenē] Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ Finally, in 3:18 we read: ‘whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only [monogenous] Son.’ In each case monogenēs denotes, not that the Son was ‘begotten’ of the Father, but rather his uniqueness as the ‘one and only’ Son of God.
This verse constitutes the sixth paragraph (b') of the prologue, which balances the second paragraph (b). In paragraph (b) we were told that John was sent from God to bear witness to the light, though it was stressed that John himself was not the light. In this paragraph (b') the evangelist explains the content of John’s testimony: John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, ‘This is the one I spoke about when I said, “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.”’ To indicate that John was making an important public proclamation the evangelist uses the verb ‘to cry out’ (krazō) (recalling Isa. 40:3), as he does in three places later in the Gospel when introducing important public declarations (7:28, 37; 12:44). John refers to Jesus as the one who comes after me, referring to the fact that Jesus’ ministry was begun after his. The Gospel of John does mention a period in which the ministries of Jesus and John overlapped (cf. 3:22–24),14 but essentially John’s ministry was preparation for the ministry of Jesus which was to follow. In this sense John could say He . . . comes after me.
Even though John’s ministry preceded that of Jesus, John emphasized that He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me. He said the reason why Jesus surpassed him was because he was before me. This cannot mean that Jesus surpassed John because he was older than him. The indications from the Gospel of Luke are that the reverse was the case: Jesus was six months younger than John (Luke 1:24–31). The statement that Jesus was before John could be read in the light of the opening verses of the prologue (1:1: ‘In the beginning was the Word’), suggesting that Jesus was ‘before’ John because of his pre-existence as the Word. While the reb interprets 1:15 in this way (‘before I was born, he already was’), there are no indications that John was aware of Jesus’ pre-existence as the Word. It may be that John meant only to say that Jesus surpassed him because he was always greater than him (even though he was born six months later). The evangelist may have introduced a note of ambiguity into the way he reports John’s words so that his readers will recognize that John spoke better than he knew. Later in the Gospel the evangelist points out that Caiaphas spoke better than he knew when he said, ‘it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish’ (11:50–52), as did Pilate when he insisted on referring to Jesus as ‘the king of the Jews’ (18:39; 19:14–15, 19, 21–22).
The last paragraph (a') of the prologue balances the opening one (a). It does in part pick up themes from paragraph (c') when it speaks of receiving of the fullness of the grace of the Word and the relationship of that grace to the grace of God that came through Moses. But paragraph (a') returns to the themes of the opening paragraph when it speaks of the Word being at the Father’s side and making him known.
16. In verse 14 the evangelist spoke about seeing the glory of the incarnate Word, a glory that was ‘full of grace and truth’. Here in 1:16 he speaks, not about seeing that fullness, but about receiving it: Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. Using the first-person plural we the evangelist identifies himself with others and so we hear the testimony of the first witnesses coming down to us across the centuries. They experienced grace in place of grace already given (charin anti charitos). The preposition anti translated by the niv as in place of has by some been translated as ‘upon’, and this latter alternative is adopted for the nrsv translation: ‘From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.’ The niv translation implies that the grace that came through Jesus Christ replaced that which was already given, while the nrsv translation implies that it was added to it. The niv translation is preferable because the consistent use of the preposition anti in the New Testament is to designate replacement of one thing by another.15
17. What the witnesses meant by ‘grace in place of grace already given’ is explained by the words For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The ‘grace’ replaced was the law given by God to Israel through Moses. What replaced it was the grace and truth that came through the Word incarnate. But what, exactly, was the grace that these people experienced and of which they bore witness? Taking our cue from this Gospel we could say at least that they witnessed the miracles Jesus performed. His disciples probably drank some of the wine Jesus provided at the wedding feast in Cana (2:1–11), they probably ate some of the food he miraculously provided for the hungry crowds (6:5–13) and they were saved from a violent storm when he brought their boat safely to shore (6:16–21). However, probably much more than this is intended. They received his grace as they saw the Father revealed in his Son, when Jesus laid down his life for them, when they experienced the eternal life which he gives to all who believe, and when their ascended Lord fulfilled his promise to send them another Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to be with them for ever.
It is noteworthy that only here in verse 17 in the final paragraph (a') of the prologue is the Word identified as Jesus Christ. Everything that precedes is predicated of the Word, but here we discover that the Word was incarnate in Jesus Christ.
18. The grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ far surpassed the blessing of the law given through Moses. One of these surpassing features was the unparalleled revelation of the Father which he brought: No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. The words no one has ever seen God reinforce the fact that Jesus is the unique revelation of God the Father – he has made him known. Elsewhere in this Gospel Jesus declares that his opponents ‘have never heard [the Father’s] voice nor seen his form’ (5:37), and asserts that ‘No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father’ (6:46).
Care needs to be taken when explaining the meaning of texts that say that no-one has seen God, especially in light of passages in the Old Testament that record God appearing to various people (including Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel and David). In addition, Exodus 33:19–20 records that when Moses asked to see God’s glory he was told: ‘I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence . . . you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live’ (italics added). The reason why Moses could not see God’s face was because it would prove fatal. The statement of 1:18, that ‘No one has ever seen God’, and those other passages in the New Testament that speak of God’s ‘invisibility’ (e.g. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Heb. 11:27) are probably best understood to mean that no-one can see God unless God chooses to reveal himself, and that when he does so he protects people so that the sight of him does not prove fatal – in Moses’ case by preventing him from seeing his face.16
The niv’s the one and only Son, who is himself God renders the Greek phrase monogenēs theos (lit. ‘God the one and only’),17 which in fact functions as a striking description of Jesus. It differs from other statements which use monogenēs in relation to Jesus to describe the uniqueness of his status as the one who came from the Father (1:14) or as the Son of God (3:16, 18). This verse speaks of Jesus as ‘God the One and Only’ and echoes the opening paragraph (a) of the prologue, which says ‘the Word was God’.
The niv’s in the closest relationship translates eis ton kolpon. In the lxx the Greek word kolpos means a person’s ‘bosom’ or ‘lap’ and is used of both males and females in relation to the affection, care and protection of a parent for a child. Kolpos is used again in 13:23 to depict the beloved disciple ‘reclining next to him’ (en tō kolpō). The words who . . . is in the closest relationship with the Father, then, highlight the intimate relationship Jesus had with God and echo the description of the Word in the first paragraph (a) of the prologue as the one who ‘was with God’. It is because of his intimate relationship, as well as his being the only one who has ever seen God, that Jesus can make him known.
The word used for ‘making known’ is exēgeomai, which means to ‘report’, ‘set forth in great detail’ or ‘expound’.18 It is found five times elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19), and, as Köstenberger says, it ‘regularly means “to give a full account” in the sense of “telling the whole story”, the probable meaning here also’.19 The evangelist is saying, then, that the Word (Jesus), being the one and only Son, who is himself God, who is in closest relationship with the Father, the only one who has seen God, has made him known. This he did through his person, words and works.
The prologue introduces readers to the pre-existent Word who became incarnate in Jesus Christ, the main character of the Gospel. In so doing it foreshadows themes of major theological importance that are to be teased out as the Gospel unfolds. These include (1) the pre-existent person and work of Christ, who existed at the beginning in intimate relationship with God, sharing his divinity, acted as his agent in creation and who has made God known; (2) Jesus, the true light, who came into the world to give light to everyone, although those in the darkness, especially his Jewish opponents, sought to extinguish that light but were unable to do so; (3) the role of John (the Baptist), who was sent by God to point people to Jesus, the true light, one whom John insisted ranked far above him because he existed before him/was more excellent than him; (4) the rejection of Jesus by the world, especially by many of his own (Jewish) kinspeople, and the power given to those who accepted him, who believed in his name, to become children of God by being born of God; (5) the incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus as he ‘became flesh and lived among us’, so that the evangelist could say, ‘We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ And of this grace, the evangelist says, ‘we have all received grace in place of grace already given’ – that is, the grace received through Jesus Christ replaces the grace that came through the law given by God through Moses.