Battle Creek Bible Class, April 4, 1868.
By James White
Verses 1, 2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Q. What is meant by the beginning? A. The beginning of Creation—parallel with Gen. i, 1; but this does not show that other things were not created before this system. Angels were created, but before the creation of our system. Job xxxviii, 4-7. A. Christ, the Son of God. Q. Why is he called the Word? A. Because in him was manifested the Divine Power; and God's word is frequently made to express his power. See Ps. xxxiii, 6, 9. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made. . . . He spake and it was done.” The Son executes the will of the Father. A. They were united in the work of creation. Gen. i, 26: “Let us make man.” Heb. i, 2: “By whom he [the Father] made the worlds.” A. Because of his divine nature; he is exalted above all. As the beloved Son of God he takes the name of his Father. Isa. ix, 6, was referred to. Reason as above why he is called the mighty God. Heb. i, 9, shows that he is not called God in the first or highest sense. “Therefore God, even thy God,” &c. “Everlasting Father.” This refers to his relation to his people; the New Jerusalem, his bride (Rev. xxi, 9, 10,) is called their mother, (Gal. iv, 26,) of course he, the bridegroom, is called their Father. But “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. i, 3, &c.,) is certainly Father in a higher sense. It was queried, what bearing does this text have on the doctrine of the trinity? Answered, that it could not possibly favor the doctrine, but rather disproves it; for the term trinity supposes three persons, and that is the doctrine; but if Christ is both Son and Father, there cannot be three, and of course no trinity. Verse 2 is a reiteration of the same. Verse 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. REMARK. Theologians say this was impossible: that creative power can only be exercised by the supreme, self-existent One. But we rest on the plain declarations of the Scriptures, that he derived his power from the Father, and the Father created all things by his Son, who is his representative in creation as well as in salvation. Verse 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Q. What is meant by the expression, in him was life? A. He is the Life-giver; the author of eternal life. A. He brings light in the sense of revealing God and his salvation to us. Verse 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Q. Why is this change of tense? A. Different versions have different renderings of this; but our common version gives as nearly the exact meaning of the original as is possible in our language. It is, in the Greek, in the 2d aorist tense, which is peculiar, and may be used indifferently. Q. How did the light shine in darkness? A. Christ came to give light, but was not known and appreciated. Q. Does this apply to that time? A. Probably refers specially to the time of his advent, when his divine power and mission to the world were not recognized. Verses 6, 7. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. Q. What does this name signify? A. As one who testified in his preaching the coming Messiah. Q. What is meant by “all might believe?” A. All who heard him. His preaching was with a277demonstration and power that carried conviction to all his hearers. Verse 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. A. The multitudes believed John's preaching, and care is taken to distinguish between him and the true light, of which he was only the herald, or forerunner. Verse 9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Q. How was Christ to lighten every man? A. He was the only true light, and he is sent to all, as is said of him in Isa. xlix, 6: “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth.” This denotes that he was sent to all, without respect of persons. Verse 10, 11. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Q. When was this fulfilled? A. In his incarnation, at the time of his ministry. A. Those who believed not in his word, nor the prophecies respecting him. There was also a time, previous to his baptism, when, probably, he was entirely unknown to the world as Messiah, or Son of God. REMARK. The word rendered world three times in verse 11, is Kosmos, literally the world which was made by him; and in the last instance—the world knew him not—is used to represent its inhabitants, showing that it is sometimes used figuratively. A. They were his own people; he was born a Jew; also he was “born King of the Jews,” Matt. ii, 2; therefore, they were legally his subjects. Verse 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Q. What is meant by this power? A. The margin says privilege; but the word power more nearly represents the original; it has the sense of conferring ability to become what they before were not. This was through faith in his name. Verse 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Q. What is here meant by being born? REMARK. The original is the same for born and begotten; and the distinction seems to be correctly made in this manner: In all cases where the agent or cause is in the masculine gender, it should be rendered begotten; where the agent or cause is in the feminine gender, it is properly rendered born; as we should say begotten of the father, but born of the mother. Hence, in all cases where God is referred to, it seems both natural and necessary to render it “begotten of God.” Q. What is meant by this—not of blood, nor man, &c. A. The means and power were divine, not human; and it was not according to kindred or descent. By the Spirit of God. Verse 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Q. How was the word made flesh? Q. Was his nature changed from divine to human? A. No; the divine and human were united in one, so, as this verse expresses it—the word became flesh. Q. If he retained his divinity, what did he sacrifice in coming to the world? A. He left his glory. By an exercise of omnipotent power, his manner of being was so changed as to become subject to death. See Phil. ii, 8. Q. Could divinity suffer? A. It doubtless did, otherwise the offering was only human. On this point Heb. i, 1-3; Col. i, 14-20, &c., were read. John also traces the pre-existent Logos or word from his work of creation, through his incarnation, ministry, to his death, &c., without changing the subject from one person to another; i. e. the same that was with God in the beginning was made flesh and died. Q. When did they behold his glory? A. At his transfiguration. Q. Is Christ the same now, as relates to his body, that he was at his resurrection? A. Probably he is; we cannot suppose that any change has taken place since his resurrection. So his followers will have the bodies in the resurrection they will have forever. Q. Why did not the disciples see his glory? A. Probably for the same reason that they did not know him, because “their eyes were holden,” Luke xxiv, 16. The young man who was with the prophet saw “horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha,” when the Lord opened his eyes, which he could not see before. 2 Kings vi, 15-17. Angels of glory have been seen of men when they were not permitted to behold the glory, and they knew not that they were angels; at other times, when their glory was seen, the beholders have fallen as dead before them. As the day was very stormy, and but few were out, the general questions, given out the week before, were not all answered. The following only were considered: On Matt. xv, 11, the Saviour's words were in answer to a question in regard to eating with unwashed hands; that they could go no further than to refer to the small particles of dust which might adhere to them, or to supposed defilement by contact with others—a question of tradition only. Can not possibly be made to refer to any kind of food or drink. On Rom. xiv, 14, 20; it was remarked that verse 14 must have some limitation, for there are some things unclean, and unfit to eat and drink. Whatever intoxicates, for instance, should not be used, as drunkenness is prohibited in the New Testament. Therefore, we must endeavor to understand what the limitation is. It appears from the first part of the chapter that it concerned their traditions also, and the distinctions therein claimed were quite immaterial, being matters of tradition and not of revelation. It is wrong to violate conscience, however, and do that which we consider wrong, whether wrong in itself or not, as by such violation the conscience is seared, or hardened, and will not reprove when the light comes. Verses 20, 21, should be considered in connection. Here is the same necessity for limitation, as in verse 14. If verse 21, were conscientiously considered, and acted upon, it would be a happy thing for the church. On 1 Tim. iv, 4. The person to whom this text was given was not present. It was briefly considered, however, and generally agreed to, that a satisfactory exposition is given in Eld. Loughborough's report in the Review for March 31, 1868, to which the reader is referred. Other questions laid over. J. H. W.