(Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible)
Preface to St. John (continued)
What the design of St. John was, in writing this Gospel, has divided and perplexed many critics and learned divines. Some suppose that it was to refute the errors taught by one Cerinthus, who rose up at that time, and asserted that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the real son of Joseph and Mary; that, at his baptism, the Christ, what we term the Divine nature, descended into him, in the form of a dove, by whose influence he worked all his miracles; and that, when he was about to suffer, this Christ, or Divine nature, departed from him, and left the man Jesus to suffer death. See Irenaeus, advers. Haereses.
Others suppose he wrote with the prime design of confuting the heresy of the Gnostics, a class of mongrels who derived their existence from Simon Magus, and who formed their system out of Heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity; and whose peculiar, involved, and obscure opinions cannot be all introduced in this place. It is enough to know that, concerning the person of our Lord, they held opinions similar to those of Cerinthus; and that they arrogated to themselves the highest degrees of knowledge and spirituality. They supposed that the Supreme Being had all things and beings included, in a certain seminal manner, in himself; and that out of Him they were produced. From God, or Bythos, the infinite Abyss, they derived a multitude of subaltern governors, called Aeons; whom they divided into several classes, among which we may distinguish the following nine. Πατηρ, Father; Χαρις, Grace; Μονογενης, First-begotten; Αληθεια, Truth; Λογος, Word; Φως, Light; Ζωη, Life; Ανθρωπος, Man; and Εκκλησια, Church; all these merging in what they termed Πληρωμα, Fulness, or complete round of being and blessings: terms which are of frequent occurrence in John's Gospel, and which some think he has introduced to fix their proper sense, and to rescue them from being abused by the Gnostics. But this is not very likely, as the Gnostics themselves appealed to St. John's Gospel for a confirmation of their peculiar opinions, because of his frequent use of the above terms. These sentiments, therefore, do not appear to be tenable.
Professor Michaelis has espoused the opinion, that it was written against the Gnostics and Sabians, and has advanced several arguments in its favor; the chief of which are the following.
"The plan which St. John adopted, to confute the tenets of the Gnostics and the Sabians, was first to deliver a set of aphorisms, as counterpositions to these tenets; and then to relate such speeches and miracles of Christ as confirmed the truth of what he had advanced. We must not suppose that the confutation of the Gnostic and Sabian errors is confined to the fourteen first verses of St. John's Gospel; for, in the first place, it is evident that many of Christ's speeches which occur in the following part of the Gospel, were selected by the evangelist with a view of proving the positions laid down in these fourteen verses; and, secondly, the positions themselves are not proofs, but merely declarations made by the evangelist. It is true that for us Christians, who acknowledge the Divine authority of St. John, his bare word is sufficient; but as the apostle had to combat with adversaries who made no such acknowledgment, the only method of convincing them was to support his assertion by the authority of Christ himself.
"Some of the Gnostics placed the 'Word' above all the other Aeons, and next to the Supreme Being: but Cerinthus placed the 'Only begotten' first, and then the 'Word.' Now St. John lays down the following positions: -
"1. The Word and the Only begotten are not different, but the same person, Joh 1:14. 'We beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.' This is a strong position against the Gnostics, who usually ascribed all the Divine qualities to the Only begotten. The proofs of this position are: the testimony of John the Baptist, Joh 1:18, Joh 1:34; Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36; the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18, in which Christ calls himself the only begotten Son; the speech delivered by Christ to the Jews, John 5:17-47; and other passages, in which he calls God his Father.
"2. The Word was never made, but existed from the beginning, Joh 1:1. The Gnostics granted that the Word existed before the creation; but they did not admit that the Word existed from all eternity. The Supreme Being, according to their tenets, and, according to Cerinthus, the only begotten Son likewise, as also the matter from which the world was formed, were prior in existence to the Word. This notion is contradicted by St. John, who asserts that the Word existed from all eternity. As a proof of this position may be alleged perhaps what Christ says, Joh 8:58.
"3. The Word was in the beginning with God, Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2. The Gnostics must have maintained a contrary doctrine, or St. John, in confuting their tenets, would not have thought it necessary to advance this position, since God is omnipresent, and therefore all things are present with him.
"4. The Word was God, Joh 1:1. The expression, God, must be here taken in its highest sense or this position will contain nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Gnostics. For they admitted that the Word was an Aeon, and therefore a deity in the lower sense of the word. The proofs of this position are contained in the 5th, 10th, (Joh 10:30), and 14th (Joh 14:7, Joh 14:11) chapters.
"5. The Word was the creator of all things, Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10. This is one of St. John's principal positions against the Gnostics, who asserted that the world was made by a malevolent being. The assertion, that the Word was the creator of the world, is equivalent to the assertion, that he was God in the highest possible sense. In whatever form or manner we may think of God, the notion of Creator is inseparable from the notion of Supreme Being. We argue from the creation to the Creator; and this very argument is one proof of the existence of God.
"6. In the Word was life, Joh 1:4. The Gnostics, who considered the different attributes or operations of the Almighty, not as so many separate energies, but as so many separate persons, considered Life as a distinct Aeon from the Word. Without this Aeon, the world, they said, would be in a state of torpor; and hence they called it not only Life, but the Mother of the living; from this Aeon, therefore, might be expected the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. The proofs of this position are in Joh 3:15, Joh 3:21; the whole of the sixth, and the greatest part of the eighth chapter, as also Joh 14:6, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:19. But no part of St. John's Gospel is a more complete proof of this position than his full and circumstantial account of the resurrection of Lazarus, which the other evangelists had omitted." - See more in Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament. And, for a general account of the Logos, see John 1, at the end.
Though it is likely that the Gnostics held all these strange doctrines, and that many parts in John's Gospel may be successfully quoted against them, yet I must own I think the evangelist had a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. It is more likely that he wrote for the express purpose of giving the Jews, his countrymen, proper notions of the Messiah and his kingdom; and to prove that Jesus, who had lately appeared among them, was this Christ. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive, object, and design, in writing this Gospel: These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye might have life through his name, Joh 20:31. This is a design as noble as it is simple; and every way highly becoming the wisdom and goodness of God.
|
