Jesus was the revealer of god

JESUS WAS THE REVEALER OF GOD
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
John 1:18 18No one has ever seen God, but the one
and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest
relationshipwith the Father, has made him known.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
The Divine Revealer
John 1:18
B. Thomas
We have here -
I. CHRIST AS THE REVEALER OF GOD. "He hath declaredhim."
1. He brought much that was known of God into a clearerlight. In this respect
his revelation
(1) was confirmative, confirming people in their notions of God as far as they
were right.
(2) It was corrective - correcting the false notions of heathenism and Judaism,
so that the God of Christ is very different from and far superior to that of the
heathen and even that of the Jews.

2. He revealedmuch that was new, which was not known before. Such as:
(1) The spirituality of God.
(2) His fatherhood.
(3) His gracious will to fallen humanity in the greatscheme of redemption
which Christ came, not only to reveal, but to work out in his Divine-human
life and death.
(4) The way of accessto and reconciliationwith God.
(5) His spiritual reign in his people on earth, and they with and in him for
over in heaven.
II. CHRIST AS A PERFECTREVEALER OF GOD. "He hath declared
him."
1. Perfectin the characterof his knowledge.
(1) His knowledge was direct. Notborrowed or derived; but as the Sonof
God, and God himself, it was relationally direct and personallyintuitive. He
was not only the Channel, but the Fountain.
(2) His knowledge was absolute andexact. In this respecthe was the truth
itself. He could speak, not about something he had seensome time, but about
what was actually present to him then; was not dependent upon memory and
association, but on his present vision and personalconsciousness.
(3) His knowledge was full, covering his subjectin all its vastness and
meaning, its fathomless depths, its dizzy heights, and boundless breadth.
2. Perfectin his revealing qualifications. In a perfect revealerof God to man
there must be:
(1) Oneness of nature with both parties. Mere man or angelwould be
deficient. But Christ is perfectly qualified in this respect, being the Son of God
and the Son of man, the EternalWord which was God, but which "became
flesh." An inferior mind cannotinterpret a superior one. The bed of a brook
cannot containthe Amazon. Christ being equal with God, and having

assumedhuman nature, was in a position to reveal God perfectly to the
human race;being God-Man, he could speak ofGod as man to men, in their
nature and language.
(2) Intimate fellowshipwith both parties. Christ was in the bosomof the
Father - a position of the most intimate fellowship; and not merely "he
became flesh," but also "dweltamong us," lived in the closestfellowshipwith
the human family, and was most intimately acquainted with all their wants,
weaknesses, peculiarities, anddifficulties.
(3) Thorough sympathy with both parties. This Jesus pre-eminently possessed.
Being "the only begottenSon in the bosomof the Father" - a position, not
merely of the closestfellowship, but also of tenderestaffectionand mutual
sympathy - his heart and will were tenderly sympathetic with the heart of
God, and with the saving purposes of his love with regard to the human
family. And as the "Word made flesh," he was in tenderest sympathy with
mankind - with all their spiritual wants and aspirations;the faintest sigh for
God would find in him a most ready and helpful response.
3. Perfectin his mode of revelation. Think of:
(1) Its clearness. It is clearly simple and simply clear, so that a child can
understand it, and the blind almost see it. He would talk of God with the same
ease and simplicity as he would talk of an objectreally present to him.
(2) Its suggestiveness. Itstirs up the latent aspirations and powers of man to
seek forand receive the knowledge ofGod.
(3) The prominence he gave to his subject. He declaredGod in all he said, kept
him continually before the minds of his hearers;he kept himself in the
background, and, as a Teacher, made himself of no reputation, that God his
Father and our Father might be known.
(4) Its exemplification. He declaredGod, not only by precept, but by example.
He used homely illustrations from nature, but found the homeliest illustration
of God in his own Personand life, so that he could say, "He that hath seen
me," etc. And he shirked not even from dying in order to declare God, so that

in his. tragic death on the cross we have the most striking and convincing
illustration of the love of God to a guilty world.
4. Perfectin the scope of his revelation. "He declaredGod" - as much as God
wished and man required. Less would not do; more would be unnecessaryand
perhaps injurious. While curiosity is not satisfied, the wants of faith are met;
so that God can now be known, "which is life eternal."
III. CHRIST AS THE ONLY PERFECT REVEALER OF GOD. "No man
hath seenGod," etc.
1. To declare God fully he must be seen. A full vision of him no man ever had,
not even Moses, therefore couldnot fully declare him. Man's knowledge of
God at best is limited and imperfect, and therefore incapable of being the
medium of the full and essentialrevelationof God to the world.
2. Christ alone saw God, and he is the only perfect Revealerof him. His
position is unique, He stands alone, he occupieda position in relation to God
which no other one could occupy - "the Only Begotten,"etc.
3. His revelation is infinitely valuable. Because:
(1) Supremely important. All knowledge is valuable, but, compared with the
knowledge ofGod, every other knowledge fails into insignificance. Our
eternal wellbeing hangs upon it.
(2) Most reliable. It comes from the highest source, through the highest and
most suitable medium, and in the most intelligible and convincing manner.
(3) It is most rare. It is a revelationwhich we could never getin any other way
or from any other source - a revelationwhich God alone could give, and could
only give through his Son.
LESSONS.
1. We should hold Jesus in the highest esteemas the RevealerofGod to us. No
one else could revealhim as he did. We should magnify his grace in making
known to us, at an infinite sacrifice, his Father's character, will, and purposes.

2. The gospelis an absolute truth. For what is it but the Son's revelationof the
Father? - what he had seenand heard and experiencedof him, and been sent
to declare:his gracious purposes ofgrace towards the fallen human family?
3. As such the gospelshould be acceptedin implicit faith and burning
gratitude. To reject is the greatestsin, to receive is the most urgent duty. "It is
a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,"etc. - B.T.
Biblical Illustrator
No man hath seenGod
John 1:18
The limitations of human vision
E. Mellor, D. D.
Some men have seenmuch, for all have not the same power of vision. Some
have seenmuch more than others with —

I. THE NATURAL EYE. They have travelled far and near; seenwonders
upon the deep and on the mountains, and the marvels of creationliving and
lifeless — but no man hath seenGod.
II. THE INTELLECTUAL EYE.
1. The eye of science. Theycaninvade worlds of truth which are veiled and
shut to souls of lesserpower;ascendinto the heavens and see the harmony
which rules all the movements of those gleaming worlds, descendinto the
deeps of the earth and of the ages whichhave measured out its history, and
read the records which are there inscribed. They cansee something of the
unity which pervades the whole universe; that all sciences are but chapters in
one greatilluminated book, or are but notes in one sublime and never-ceasing
song — but they have not seenGod.
2. Some men have the poet's eye which canglance from heaven to earth, from
earth to heaven, and detectbehind what is natural and changeful the truths
which are typified, and which abide for ever — but even they have not seen
God.
III. THE MORAL EYE. Patriarchs, prophets, apostles beheld wonderful
visions. Some of them were favoured with glimpses and manifestations and
tokens of His presence, and so impressive and overpowering were these that
they felt as if they had seenGod, but even they were no exceptionto the rule
that "no man hath seenGodat any time."
(E. Mellor, D. D.)
The invisible and revealedGod
E. Mellor, D. D.
I. THE INVISIBLE GOD.
1. We are invisible to eachanother; nay, to ourselves. There is a veil between
our spirit and another that, while our words and looks may serve to indicate
what is passing within, they cannot unveil the indwelling soul. And so utterly

can the soul tyrannize over the house in which it dwells, that it can compelit
to illuminate its windows with festive joy when all is woe within, or compel it
to darken them when all within is mirth and revelry. And if we cannot see
man, much less canwe see God.
2. There is no law that God has impressedon nature that we cansee. Form
and colourwe cansee, and that things move, but not the pervading life nor the
gravitation which holds them togetherin their orbits.
3. The material universe is but a faint indication of God's greatness, nordoes
it seempossible for even omnipotence to embody itself in matter. We might
imagine the sun robbed of its beams, and heaven, earth, and sea combining to
surrender whateverof beauty or grandeur they contain, still the result would
be miserably insufficient to portray the glory of the invisible God.
4. The mind is baffled in its attempt to graspthe fundamental mystery. The
loftiest conceptionwe have is that of infinity. And yet this is a mere negation,
and must be affirmed of eachseparate attribute as well as the totality of God's
being.
5. Without the guidance of revelationno one has ever reachedany fair
conceptionof the unity, spirituality, and moral characterof God. Though day
unto day has been uttering speech, and night unto night showing knowledge,
the mass of the rude and unlearned have everywhere, divided the empire of
the universe among gods many and lords many. And as to the philosophers,
such of them as have been able to emancipate themselves from gross
polytheism, have either guessedatthe truth that there is one God, and have
contentedthemselves with a cold deduction of reason, orthey have merged
God and nature in one, thus destroying His personality in Pantheism. The
world never by wisdom knew God. And were we to close the Book of
Revelationin a few generations we should relapse into a heathenism as
absolute as that of Greece and Rome.
6. And as for the supposedteachings of natural religion, they are but flashes
from the revealedWord. We are astonishedthat any eye can miss the Divine
monogram written large in the heavens, small in the flower. But we do not
searchnature for the invisible, we take the idea with us.

II. THE DECLARED GOD. Christ has revealedthe Father in three ways
which meet and satisfy these corresponding necessities in man.
1. The incarnation, e.g., of the spiritual in the bodily meets that necessity
which feels how impossible it is to grasp the purely spiritual. We do not feel
happy at the thought of what is both infinite and invisible. Who has not felt at
times the all but intolerable oppressionthat comes upon the spirit when one
has stoodin the shadow of Alpine mountains! We are bewilderedby the
unmanageable vastness ofthe conceptionof an all-prevailing God. We long
for something that we can more effectually compass. We wishto pray; are
heavy laden and sad; but infinitude is too grand for us in such hours, and we
long for a friend who cantake our hand and say, "Fearnot I am with thee."
But God, the greatand glorious mystery, has been manifest in the flesh. As He
had to revealHimself to man, He found no better medium than man, the form
with which we were most familiar, and of which we should be leastafraid.
2. By His characterand life Christ declares to us the moral characterofGod.
There is much in God which humanity, evenin its highest and purest type, is
inadequate to represent. The medium is tarnished and dimmed so that the
heavenly light cannot shine through it, or only brokenly. Once only has
humanity formed a medium through which, in its unmingled brightness and
beauty, the moral characterof God might pour its beams. To learn the mural
characterof God we must learn it in Christ; its holiness, its tenderness, its
mercy for the sinful.
3. Christ has declaredto us the Fatherly characterof God. God we are told is
love. This He is in Himself, and this He has been pre-eminently to us. We need
more than words, and then, when we receive but words from those who might
give us more real help, we learn bitterly that all friends are not true. Now
there is no better test of love than the test of endurance and suffering, but
Divine love has made for us the highestsacrifice, "forGod so loved the
world," etc.
(E. Mellor, D. D.)

Invisible things
J. Caird, D. D.
There are even material agents in existence around us so subtle as to elude the
cognisanceofthe senses. There are powers in nature whose ever-present
influence we perceive, yet which themselves are never directly discerned. The
varied forms and colours of material objects around us the eye candetect, but
not the latent electricity that pervades them. The masses andmotions of the
planetary bodies are appreciable by the sight; but the keenestorgans ofsense
cannot see gravitation, cannotdetect that mysterious power, as it flies through
space, binding orb to orb. And if thus on the confines, so to speak, ofthe
material and spiritual worlds, there are agents impalpable to sense, much
more, when we pass those limits, do we enter into a region where bodily
organs fail us, and a vision and faculty far more divine is needed, Who has
seenthought What eye has ever rested on that mysterious essence whichwe
designate mind, soul, spirit? If it be that spiritual intelligences surround us, if
millions of spiritual beings walk the earth both when we wake and sleep, yet,
as they pass hither and thither on their heavenly ministries, does the faintest
sign of the presence ofthese glorious beings ever flash on the dull sense of
man? Nay, are we not dwellers in a world of embodied spirits, holding
continual intercourse with them, witnessing constantlythe proofs of their
existence and the effects oftheir activity: yet has one human spirit ever
become visible to another? No l it is but the forms of spirit that are visible to
sense. We see in the busy world around us the mere houses of souls. In this
sense, then, God is now and ever must be invisible. If even a finite spirit
cannot be seenby the bodily eye, how much less the infinite spirit?
(J. Caird, D. D.)
The invisibility of God
E. Mellor, D. D.
We are much in the condition of children for whom their father has built a
magnificent house, and storedit with all needful provisions, and ornamented

it with the most exquisite decorations, a house which the more it is examined
the more it reveals forethought and arrangement, startling its inmates
constantly with unexpected anticipation for their comfort and happiness. But
their father, for some reasonor other, is concealedfrom their view. "Now
every house is builded by some man, but He that built all things is God." We
dwell in His house. Its roofdeclares His handiwork. Its chambers are
garnished with a wondrous glory. Its table is supplied day by day with food
convenient for us. The house is renewedyear by year. But the Hand which
accomplishes it all is unseen. We sometimes long to getbehind the intercepting
veil. We would fain see the Great Workerat His work, see the arm of power,
gaze on the fountain of fight, rise above and through all phenomena, leave the
fleeting behind us, and stand in the presence of the changeless. Butno man
hath seenGod at any time, and what is more, "no man can see Godand five."
(E. Mellor, D. D.)
God invisible to sense
J. Caird, D. D.
Could we entertain for a moment the supposition of Godcondescending to
contrive some resplendent form, some radiant shape of superhuman majesty
and loveliness, by which to convey to man a conceptionof His spiritual glory,
we might conceive the universe to be searchedin vain for the materials of such
a production. We might give the rein to fancy, and imagine the sun robbed of
its glory and the stars of their splendours, and heaven, earth, sea, skies, allthe
myriad worlds in space, combining to surrender whateverof beauty or
grandeur they contain; still would the result be miserably insufficient to
portray the unapproachable glory of the invisible Being of God. "These are
but parts of His ways;how little a portion is heard of Him! but the thunder of
His powerwho can understand?"
(J. Caird, D. D.)

The incomprehensibility
ArchdeaconFarrar., Hooker.
of God: — In the Greek legendshe who desired to see the deity in his
splendour is instantly reduced to ashes. In the Hindoo mythology when
Brahma, the supreme, shoots down a pillar of light betweenthe two
contending deities, Siva and Vishnu, one deity wings his way upwards for a
thousand years with the speedof lightning, but cannot reachits summit; the
other wings his way downwards with the speed of lightning for a thousand
years yet cannotfind its base. Christian theologyhas felt this no less clearly
that God in His own Being is incomprehensible. There is a picture of the
vision of St. , who, when he was writing a treatise on the Trinity, saw a child
trying to empty the oceanwith a shell into a little hole in the sand. "What art
thou doing?" askedthe saint. "I am trying to empty the sea with this shell into
this hole," answeredthe child. "But that is impossible," said Augustine. "Not
more impossible, O Augustine, than for thee in thy treatise to explain the
mystery of the Trinity."
(ArchdeaconFarrar.)As regards God, our soundestknowledge is to know that
we know Him, and our safesteloquence concerning Him is silence, when we
confess without confessionthat His glory is inexplicable, His greatness above
our capacityor reach.
(Hooker.)
The
The only-begottenSon
J. Edmund, D. D.
This "only-begottenSon" is the same Personwho, in the previous portion of
the chapter, is designatedthe Word, and of whom it is said in language of
which it is impossible for us to mistake the reference, "He was made flesh and
dwelt among us," and so dwelling among men there was beheld in Him "the
glory of the only begottenof the Father, full of grace and truth." The Person,

then, who is thus named is none other than He who was more familiarly
known as the Lord Jesus Christ.
I. Briefly, then, let me try to unfold to you THE IMPORT OF THIS GREAT
NAME — the Son, the only-begottenSon of God. There is a previous inquiry
to which I may, in a very few words, refer. What is the reference ofthe text —
it being ascertainedthat it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ? Does it refer to
Him as Divine, or simply as MediatorbetweenGod and man? It is evident to
my ownmind that the Scriptures give the name Son to the secondPersonof
the Godhead, as a Personof the Godhead, and that it belongs to Him as
Divine, and that, apart altogetherfrom His becoming incarnate and doing
work for the salvation of sinners, He is the only-begotten Son in the bosomof
the Father. Further, there is nothing in the name itself that makes it
inapplicable to the Divine Person. It is quite true that, as applied to man, it
does include those ideas of derivation of beings, which are totally inconsistent
with the notion of eternal existence;but when we find figures of any sort
applied to God, we must strain them no further than is consistentwith a
notion of His Divinity. Yet farther: if this name be not descriptive of a Divine
relation, then the name "Father" also is not descriptive of a Divine relation.
And if you take it away, then have we no manifestation of the first Personof
the Godheadby any personally distinctive name whatever. As, therefore, you
say the "Father" is a name belonging to the first Personof the Godhead as
Divine, so is the "Son." We must take notice, in an introductory way, of the
expression"only." This name, whateverbe its import, belongs to Christ as it
belongs to no one else. There is but one Son of God in the sense of my text.
You do not need to go far back into the previous contextto find that there are
others who in a certainsense are the sons of God.
II. We now proceedto notice SOME OF THE THOUGHTS SUGGESTED
BY THIS INCOMMUNICABLE TITLE.
1. I think that insteadof suggesting to us, when wiselyinterpreted, some. thing
inconsistentwith Divinity, this title in its sole and incommunicable
preeminence suggests the very idea of Divinity. Indeed that is the very first
thought I find in it — sameness ofnature with the Father. The Son of man is
not angelic;the Son of man is man. And so when you speak of Him in the full

and true and proper sense, the Son of God is God. Nay, so far may you carry
this principle that you cannotdescribe a creature as the son or child of God
without his being, as far as a creature may be, partaker of the Divine nature.
It was because there was something of it in him that Adam was calledthe son
of God. But in the full sense, in which it belongs to no other, it is true only of
Jesus Christ that He is God.
2. Then there is secondthought. There is resemblance in character. The Son
of God resembles the Father, and the resemblance in this Divine nature is so
perfect as to come to identity. "He that hath seenMe hath seenthe Father."
3. Then, thirdly, these words Father and Son suggestintimacy of fellowship.
"The Father showeththe Son all things that He Himself doeth!"
4. But perhaps the most prominent of all ideas connectedwith the title is
intensity of mutual Divine affection. The Father loveth the Son.
5. There is another idea which is brought out also in Scripture, namely,
community of interests. All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son.
6. But I should be omitting one thought of greatimportance if I did not say
that the title "Son," as applied to the secondPersonin the Trinity, does, after
all, indicate a certain distinction. The Fatheris not personally the Son, nor the
Son the Father. And now for one or two particular inferences from what I
have been unfolding in this somewhatdry and formal manner. And first — if
these things be so — oh, what love is that of the Father towards sinful men?
The secondinference is this — I wish I could bring it out as it presents itself,
in its attractive phase, to my own mind. If the Saviour be God's beloved Son
— His only Son — the objectof infinite, unfathomable, everlasting delight —
what an argument the sinner has when he goes to God for pardon, love, and
all spiritual blessings!What a plea does God put in the sinner's mouth, when
He says to the sinner, "Ask of Me for My Son's sake."Butthere is another
side to this argument. If the Saviour be God's only Son, what becomes ofthose
that will not know Him — of those who dishonour and reject Him?
(J. Edmund, D. D.)

He hath declared Him
Christ; the revelation of the invisible God
J. Caird, D. D.
The obvious import of these words is, not that Jesus Christ has told or taught
us verbally who and what God is, but that in His own person and life He is the
silent inarticulate manifestation of God to the world. A child may declare or
describe to you the appearance andcharacterof his father; a pupil may tell
you of his teacher;an author may give an accountof himself in his book; but
there may be in eachof these casesaninvoluntary and indirect description,
much more clearand emphatic than the direct one. For in his writings, the
author, especiallyif he be an earnestwriter, unconsciouslyportrays himself,
so that we may know as much of the heart and soul of a favourite author by
familiarity with his books as if we had lived for years in personalintercourse
with him. So the pupil has caught the revered master's manner; or the child
bears, not only in his person, but in his temper, habits, sentiments, prevailing
tone of thought and feeling, a strong family-likeness to the parent; and though
there may be much in the father which, from inferiority of talents or
attainments, the characterof the child may be inadequate to represent, yet,
according to his measure, he may convey to us a better idea of what the father
is than by any express and formal description of him we could attain. Now, so
it is in the case before us. Jesus manifests the Fatherby His person, by His life
and character, and especiallyby His sufferings and death.
(J. Caird, D. D.)
The unseenGod made visible in Christ
W. M. Taylor, D. D.
In looking at the sun through a telescope, if we use unstained glass the eye will
be burned to the socket, and we shall see nothing; but if we employ a coloured
medium, we can examine it with safety. So no man cansee God and live. But if
we contemplate Him through Christ, that is, if we come to Him through the

medium of humanity, we behold Him without being destroyed, nay, the sight
of Him thus imparts salvationto us; for we behold His glory as that of the
only. begotten, and lo! it is full of grace and truth.
(W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Christ's relation to the GreatFather
D. Thomas, D. D.
I. He is the NEAREST RELATION to the GreatFather. The phrase "only-
begotten" which occurs only here and John 1:14; John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9,
implies an essentialrelationperfectly unique as appears. —
1. From the interpretation which the Jews put upon it (chap. John 5:18).
2. From the extraordinary manifestation of Divine love which the sacred
writers saw in His mission.
3. From severalevents of His history —
(1)His miraculous conception;
(2)His persistent self-assertion;
(3)His wondrous miracles;
(4)His atoning death;
(5)His resurrection and ascension.
II. He is TENDEREST IN AFFECTION to the GreatFather.
1. In His preincarnate life (Proverbs 8:30).
2. In prophecy (Isaiah 42:1).
3. At His baptism.
4. At His transfiguration (2 Peter1:17, 18).

5. In the Epistles (Colossians 1:13). From this we learn —
(1)That God loves;He is not mere infinite Intellectuality; He is infinite
Sensibility too;
(2)Christ is the highest objectof His love. That love is not the love of pity, of
gratitude, but of infinite complacency.
III. He is the MOST ACCURATE IN THE KNOWLEDGE of the Great
Father.
1. He alone is intellectually qualified to know God. The highest createdbeing
only knows Godin some of His aspects;Christ knows Him in all, in His being.
2. He alone is morally qualified to know God. He alone is —
(1)Sufficiently pure: only the pure in heart can see God;
(2)Sufficiently powerful: Moses, Isaiah, Johncould not stand a slight
manifestation.
IV. He is THE MOST COMPLETEREVELATION ofthe GreatFather
(Matthew 11:27). He is the Logos, the only word which can express the Divine
heart. He has revealed. —
1. God's Being: a Spirit, etc.
2. His relation: a Father. If Christ is the correctrevelationof God—
(1)All other revelations must be testedby His.
(2)Much that is prevalent in religious societymust be repudiated as un-Christ-
like.
(3)Christ alone must be held as the Masterof seals.
(D. Thomas, D. D.)
A BlessedEvangel

T. Whitelaw, D. D.
Concerning —
I. THE CHARACTER OF GOD, Who is —
1. Notan abstraction, but a Person.
2. Nota Supreme Intelligence merely, but an infinite Heart.
3. Nota Divinity enthroned in the serene altitudes of His measureless
perfections, but a Father interestedin the affairs and providing help for the
necessitiesofHis children, yea, coming near them in the person of His Son.
II. THE DESTINYOF MAN.
1. By establishing the inherent dignity of human nature, since it was capable
of union with Divine.
2. By revealing its lofty possibilities when so allied.
3. And so discovering that man must have a future not bounded by time. The
first prediction of this was man's creation(Leviticus 1:27), the secondthe
Incarnator (Hebrews 2:14).
III. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE GOSPELwhich is announced to be grace
and truth, without which the nature of God could not be revealednor the
destiny of man attained. Lessons:
1. Do we believe in the Incarnation? Our answerdiscloses the inner quality of
our souls (1 John 4:2, 3).
2. Have we acceptedthe gospelit brings? This also is heart searching,
characterrevealing, destiny fixing inquiry (John 3:33, 36; 1 John 5:10).
3. Can we confirm from personalexperience these truths? If so our faith will
be invincible againstmodern doubt.
(T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

The RevealerofGod
J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.
Jesus Christ declared—
I. THE UNITY OF GOD. By this we do not understand that this truth was
absolutely unknown before His advent, but that it receivednew importance
and fresh vitality in the religion He established.
1. There is but one God— a very vital truth. Whence came it? From nature?
Let us ask the pupils of nature, the numerous nations of antiquity. How many
gods are there? "There are gods many," not that nature taught polytheism,
but her pupils learnt it in her school. The mildest departure from the
monotheistic faith was that of Persia and the adjoining countries. Their
populations lookedaround, and beheld, as we behold, the presence oflight
and darkness, ofgoodand evil. These two powers were in perpetual
antagonism. How did they accountfor them? By the adoption of a creedin
which there were two gods, Ormuzd and Ahriman, a god of goodand a godof
evil.
2. Turn from nature to philosophy. Philosophy and idolatry were attached
twins. The capitalof the one was the centre of the other (Acts 17:16). There
were a few there who dared to ridicule the gravenimages;but what had they
to offer instead? Nothing. The alternative lay betweenpolytheism and
atheism. One here and there gave utterance to lofty truths about God. But to
their thinking the existence ofinferior deities was not inconsistentwith that of
the Lord of all. Socrateson his deathbed ordered a fowl to be sacrificedon his
behalf to the god AEsculapius. Besides, the idea of one God, supreme among
the many, was counteractedin its influence by the absurd notion that in
proportion to His greatnesswas He removed from the ordinary affairs of
mankind.
3. This truth, absent from every other, is prominent in the literature of the
Hebrews. The Jewishcreedteaches it, but its Author is God.
4. This Old Testamenttruth Christ appropriated, and made it the cardinal
doctrine of the new religion. He amplified it and gave it a vitality it never had

before. Its novelty on Christ's lips consistin its representationthat God is
near man and interestedin his concerns. Judaismshowedmen a greatGod,
but he was distant. Paganismshowedthem a near god, but he was small. In
Christianity, however, we see the greatGod of the Jews without being far, and
the near godof the Greek without being small.
II. THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. Not that this was totally unknown to the
ancient leaders of thought, but that it receivedfrom Christ a new impulse,
power, and application.
1. That God is a Spirit is a thought than which there is none more familiar to
the modern mind. Whence came it? From nature? Decidedly not. Matterdoes
not give the idea of spirit; it cannotgive an idea which is not in it.
2. Whence then came it? We are conscious ofmind, a substance essentially
different from matter; but the most influential modern schooldenies that
mind is different from matter, being only the natural result of the happy
organisationof matter. And this was practically the doctrine of ancient
stoicism, whose Godwas refined matter.
3. Let us turn to the Hebrew Scriptures, where we find very Spiritual views of
God; but the ideas in the Jewishmind were low and carnal. Hence the
proneness of the nation to idolatry, which is materialism of the grossestkind.
4. At this crisis Jesus Christ makes His appearance onthe arena of history,
and proclaims, with an emphasis and a fulness of meaning before unknown,
"Godis a Spirit," etc. This declarationoverwhelms us with its simplicity,
purity, and grandeur.
III. THE GOODNESSOF GOD.
1. The prominent idea of the god of nature is power. But the idea of bare
powerwould create dismay rather than trust. God is mighty, but I have
offended Him. Will He forgive? Nature cannot say?
2. The main excellenceofthe god of philosophy is wisdom; but such a godcan
make no appealto the heart of humanity.

3. Christ declares that "Godis love:" His love and His essenceare so
interwoven that the cessationof the one would be the destruction of the other.
Being always in His bosom, the Lord Jesus knows perfectlythe contents of
God's heart; and in His life, death, and ministry that heart is unfolded to the
world.
(J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)
God unfolding Himself to man
JosephDawson.
(Children's Sermon): — The ancients tell a story of one who tried to storm the
heavens, but was defeated, and had to bear the heavens as a punishment on
his shoulders. He was calledAtlas, from which we get the name for a
collectionof maps. Our religion rests upon the one greatdoctrine of God. How
are we to know Him? We can't see Him. But seeing the Queen would not
make her known to us; but —
1. If the Queen were to send us a picture painted by herself we should know
her knowledge,skill, and love of beauty.
2. If she were to send a kind letter we should know her better.
3. If she sent a daughter exactlylike herself we should know her best. In these
three ways God has revealedHimself to us.
1. The world is a greatpicture painted by God. Visit a factoryand you see
order everywhere, which shows that the man who built and arrangedsuch a
place had an orderly mind. So there is order; and wisdom, power, beauty and
goodness as well, whichtells us something of God.
2. The Bible is God's letter which tells us of God's heart, which nature does
not; and what He thinks of us and would have us be and do.
3. Jesus Christis God's Son, and if we want to know exactly what God is like
we must study Jesus. If we want to know how He treats sinners and little
children, we must find out how Jesus treatedthem.

(JosephDawson.)
Christ the declarerof the Father
Dr. Guyse.
I. CHRIST'S PERSONALMINISTRY.
1. Its contents —
(1)God's nature, perfections, authority, and government;
(2)The eternalcouncils of His will for the salvationof lost sinners;
(3)The wonders of His love in sending His only-begotten Son into the world.
2. Its manner
(1)Unique and authoritative;
(2)Gentle and tender;
(3)Complete;
(4)Zealous;
(5)Courageous;
(6)Unanswerable;
(7)Commanding.
3. Its credentials —
(1)The fulfilment of types and prophecies;
(2)His life;
(3)The purity of His doctrine;
(4)His miracles.
II. His PROPHETIC OFFICE more extensivelyconsidered —

1. Before the Incarnation.
2. During His earthly life.
3. After His ascension—
(1)By the ministry of inspired man;
(2)By the ministry of uninspired men, pastors, teachers, officers ofthe
Church; calling them, inclining their hearts to the work, giving them
opportunities for engaging in it;
(3)By internal illumination, removing the veil from men's heart, and
quickening their apprehensions by His Spirit.
III. THE USE.
1. To show the excellence andnecessityof Christ's teachings.
2. To warn againstthe dangerof refusing to hear the Divine Teacher.
3. To encourage us to attend to His teachings.
(Dr. Guyse.)
Christ the perfect revelationof God
H. Bushnell, D. D.
— Perfections that are setbefore us in mere epithets have no significance but
that which we give them by thinking them out. But perfections lived,
embodied physically, and actedbefore the senses,under socialconditions,
have quite another grade of meaning. How much, then, does it signify when
God comes out from nature, out of all abstractionand abstractive epithets, to
be acted personallyin just those glorious and Divine passivities that we have
leastdiscernedin Him and scarcelydare impute to Him. By what other
method can He meet us, then, so entirely new and superior to all past
revelations, as to come into our world history in the human form; that organ

most eloquent in its passivity, because it is at once most expressive and closest
to our feeling?
(H. Bushnell, D. D.)
God only to be seenin Christ Jesus
J. Spencer.
A man cannot behold the sun in the eclipse, it so dazzleth his eyes. Whatdoth
he then? He sets down a basin of water, and seeththe image of the sun
shadowedin the water. So, seeing we cannot behold the infinite God, nor
comprehend Him, we must, then, castthe eyes of our faith upon His image,
Christ Jesus. Whenwe look into a clearglass, it castethno shadow to us; but
put steelupon the back, then it castetha reflex, and showeth the face in the
glass. So, whenwe cannot see God Himself, we must put the manhood of our
Lord Jesus Christ as it were a back to His Godhead, and then we shall have a
comfortable reflex of His glory.
(J. Spencer.)
God revealedin Christ
J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D., NapoleonBuonaparte.
We use many words to declare our minds, thereby showing the incoherencyof
our thoughts and the faultiness of the vehicle in which we convey them. The
more powerful the mind, the fewer and clearerthe words it uses to disclose
itself; and the higher and more inspirational the mood, the more condensed
and significantthe language. Everyextraordinary genius reveals itself, not by
the multiplicity of its sentences,but by one or two words struck off the anvil at
the moment of white heat. Every illustrious man is characterisedby one or
two sentences. "Know thyself! " therein you see the whole mind and
philosophy of Socrates.GodrevealedHimself once in Christ the Word.

(J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)Christianity says with simplicity, "No man hath
seenGod, except God.Ó That is a saying of profound meaning.
(NapoleonBuonaparte.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(18) No man hath seenGod at any time.—The full knowledge oftruth is one
with the revelationof God, but no man has everhad this full knowledge.The
primary reference is still to Moses (comp. Exodus 33:20;Exodus 33:23), but
the words hold goodof every attempt to bridge from the human stand-point
the gulf betweenman and God. “The world by wisdomknew not God”
(1Corinthians 1:21), and systems which have resulted from attempts of the
finite to grasp the Infinite are but as the vision of a dream or the wild fancy of
a wandering mind.
The only begottenSon, which is in the bosomof the Father.—The onenessof
essenceand of existence is made prominent by a natural figure, as necessary
in Him who is to reveal the nature of God. The “is in” is probably to be
explained of the return to, and presence with the Father after the Ascension.
Some of the oldestMSS. and other authorities read here, “Only begottenGod,
which is in the bosom of the Father.” It will be convenientto group together
the passagesofthis Gospel, where there are important various readings in one
Note. See Excursus
B. Some Variations in the Text of St. John’s Gospel.
He hath declared him.—“He,” emphatically as distinct from all others, this
being the chief office of the Word; declared, rather than “hath declared;”
“Him” is not found in the originaltext, which means “He was interpreter,”
“He was expositor.” The word was used technicallyof the interpretation of

sacredrites and laws handed down by tradition. Plato, e.g., uses it of the
Delphian Apollo, who is the “national expositor” (Rep. iv. 427). The verse is
connected, by a likeness ofGreek words too striking to be accidental, with the
question of Jesus the son of Sirach askedsome three centuries before, “Who
hath seenHim that he might tell us?” (Ecclesiasticus 43:31). The answerto
every such question, dimly thought or clearlyasked, is that no man hath ever
so known God as to be His interpreter; that the human conceptionof God as
“terrible” and “great” and “marvellous” (Ecclesiasticus 43:29)is not that of
His essentialcharacter;that the true conceptionis that of the loving Fatherin
whose bosomis the only Son, and that this Son is the only true Word uttering
to man the will and characterand being of God.
BensonCommentary
John 1:18. No man hath seenGod at any time — Nor, indeed, can see him as
he is, an incorporeal, and, therefore, an invisible Being: but the only- begotten
Son, &c. — John, having spokenof the incarnation, now calls Christ by this
name, and no more terms him the Word, in all his book;who is in the bosom
of the Father— And ever favoured with the most endearing and intimate
converse with him. The expressiondenotes the highest unity, and the most
perfect knowledge.He hath declaredhim — Hath revealedhim in a much
clearerand fuller manner than he was made known before, and that by such
discoveries ofhis nature, attributes, and will, as have the most powerful
tendency to render us holy and happy. The following particulars are evidently
implied in this passage:1st, That, as the nature of God is spiritual, he is
invisible to our bodily eyes. He is a Being whose essenceno man hath seenor
can see, (1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:16,)though Moses andothers
frequently heard his voice, and saw the bright cloud and external glory, that
was a symbol of his presence. 2d, That the revelation, which God made of
himself under the Old Testamentdispensation, was very inferior to that which
he has made by Christ; and what was seenand knownof him before Christ’s
incarnation was little, in comparisonwith what may now be seenand known;
life and immortality being now brought to light in a far higher degree than
they were then. And, 3d, That neither Moses,nor any of the Old Testament

prophets, were so well qualified to make God and his will knownto mankind,
as our Lord Jesus Christ was. Theynever saw, nor perfectly knew the Divine
Being, and his eternal counsels, andtherefore could not make a full discovery
thereof to men. The only person who ever enjoyed this privilege was the only-
begottenSon of God, the Word, which was in the beginning with him, or, as it
is here expressed, was, andis, in the bosom of the Father: that is, always was,
and is the object of his tenderest, yea, of his infinite affection, complacency,
and delight, and the intimate partner of his counsels. And this circumstance
recommends Christ’s holy religion to us unspeakablybefore any others; that
it was founded by one that had seenGod, or that had clearand perfect
knowledge ofhim, and of his mind and will, which no other person ever had,
or could have.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
1:15-18 As to the order of time and entrance on his work, Christ came after
John, but in every other way he was before him. The expressionclearlyshows
that Jesus had existence before he appearedon earth as man. All fulness
dwells in him, from which alone fallen sinners have, and shall receive, by
faith, all that renders them wise, strong, holy, useful, and happy. Our
receivings by Christ are all summed up in this one word, grace;we have
receivedeven grace, a gift so great, so rich, so invaluable; the goodwill of God
towards us, and the goodwork of God in us. The law of God is holy, just, and
good;and we should make the proper use of it. But we cannot derive from it
pardon, righteousness, orstrength. It teaches us to adorn the doctrine of God
our Saviour, but it cannot supply the place of that doctrine. As no mercy
comes from God to sinners but through Jesus Christ, no man cancome to the
Father but by him; no man can know God, exceptas he is made known in the
only begottenand beloved Son.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
No man hath seenGod at any time - This declarationis probably made to
show the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous
dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus "hadan intimate knowledge of
God," which neither Moses norany of the ancient prophets had possessed.

God is invisible: no human eyes have seenhim; but Christ had a knowledge of
God which might be expressedto our apprehension by saying that he saw
him. He knew him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to
make a fuller manifestation of him. See John 5:37; John 6:46; 1 John 4:12;
Exodus 33:20;John 14:9. This passageis not meant to deny that men had
witnessed"manifestations"ofGod, as when he appearedto Moses and the
prophets (compare Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 6:1-13);but it is meant that no one
has seenthe essenceofGod, or has "fully known God." The prophets
delivered what they "heard" God speak;Jesus whathe knew of God as his
equal, and as understanding fully nature.
The only-begottenSon - See the notes at John 1:14. This verse shows John's
sense ofthe meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and full
knowledge ofGod.
In the bosomof the Father - This expressionis takenfrom the custom among
the Orientals of reclining at their meals. See the notes at Matthew 23:6. It
denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a
knowledge ofGod such as one friend has of another - knowledge ofhis
character, designs, andnature which no other one possesses, andwhich
renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known.
Hath declaredhim - Hath fully revealedhim or made him known. Compare
Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:4. This verse proves that Jesus had a knowledge of
God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest
revelations of his characterare to be expectedin the gospel. By his Word and
Spirit he canenlighten and guide us, and leadus to the true knowledge of
God; and there is no true and full knowledge ofGod which is not obtained
through his Son. Compare John 14:6; 1 John 2:22-23.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
18. No man—"No one," in the widestsense.
hath seenGod—by immediate gaze, or direct intuition.
in the bosomof the Father—A remarkable expression, usedonly here,
presupposing the Son's conscious existencedistinct from the Father, and

expressing His immediate and most endearedaccessto, and absolute
acquaintance with, Him.
he—emphatic; As if he should say, "He and He only hath declaredHim,"
because He only can.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
No man has seenGod at any time; no man hath at any time seenthe essenceof
God with his eyes, John 4:24; nor with the eyes of his mind understood the
whole counseland will of God, Matthew 11:27 Romans 11:34. Moses indeed
saw the image and representationof God, and had a more familiar converse
with God than others; upon which accounthe is saidto have talkedwith God
face to face; Numbers 12:7,8, God saith he would speak unto him mouth to
mouth, even apparently; but he tells us how in the same verse, and the
similitude of the Lord shall he behold; and God, who had spokento the same
sense, Exodus 33:11, saith, John 1:20, Thou canst not see my face;for there
shall no man see me, and live. Now to whom he did not discoverhis face, he
certainly did not discoverall his secretcounsels.
The only begottenSon, which is in the bosomof the Father; but he who is the
only begottenand beloved Son, hath such an intimate communion with him in
his nature, and such a free communication of all his counsels, as it may be
said, he is continually in his bosom.
He hath declared him; hath declaredhim, not only as a prophet declareththe
mind and will of God, but as the heavens declare the glory of God, and the
firmament showethhis handy work, Psalm19:1; being the brightness of his
Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, Hebrews 1:3. So as the
Father canonly be seenin the Son; nor is so full a revelation of the Father’s
will to be expectedfrom any, as from the Son.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

No man hath seenGod at any time,.... That is, God the Father, whose voice
was never heard, nor his shape seenby angels or men; for though Jacob,
Moses,the elders of Israel, Manoah, and his wife, are said to see God, and Job
expectedto see him with his bodily eyes, and the saints will see him as he is, in
which will lie their greathappiness;yet all seems to be understood of the
secondperson, who frequently appeared to the Old Testamentsaints, in an
human form, and will be seenby the saints in heaven, in his real human
nature; or of God in and by him: for the essenceofGod is invisible, and not to
be seenwith the eyes of the body; nor indeed with the eyes of the
understanding, so as to comprehend it; nor immediately, but through, and by
certain means:God is seenin the works of creationand providence, in the
promises, and in his ordinances; but above all, in Christ the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person: this may chiefly intend here, man's
not knowing any thing of God in a spiritual and saving way, but in and by
Christ; since it follows,
the only begotten Son; the word that was with God in the beginning. The
JerusalemTargum on Genesis 3:22 says almostthe same of the word of the
Lord, as here, where it introduces him saying,
"the word of the Lord God said, lo, the man whom I created, the only one in
my world, even as I am, "the only one", (or, as the word is sometimes
rendered, "the only begotten",)in the highest heavens.
And to the same purpose the Targum of Jonathan, and also Jarchi, on the
same place. The Syriac version here renders it, "the only begotten, God which
is in the bosomof the Father";clearly showing, that he is the only begotten, as
he is God: the phrase,
which is in the bosom of the Father, denotes unity of nature, and essence, in
the Fatherand Son; their distinct personality; strong love, and affection
betweenthem; the Son's acquaintance with his Father's secrets;his being at
that time, as the Son of God, in the bosomof his Father, when here on earth,
as the sonof man; and which qualified him to make the declarationof him:
he hath declaredhim. The Persic and Ethiopic versions further add, "to us";
he has clearly and fully declaredhis nature, perfections, purposes, promises,

counsels, covenant, word, and works;his thoughts and schemes of grace;his
love and favour to the sons of men; his mind and will concerning the salvation
of his people: he has made, and delivered a fuller revelationof these things,
than ever was yet; and to which no other revelation in the present state of
things will be added. Somewhatlike this the Jews (n) sayof the Messiah,
"there is none that candeclare the name of his Father, and that knows him;
but this is hid from the eyes of the multitude, until he comes, "andhe shall
declare him".
He is come, and has declaredhim: so Philo speaks ofthe "Logos", orword, as
the interpreter of the mind of God, and a teacherof men (o),
(n) R. Moses Haddarsanin Psal. 85. 11. apud Galatin. de Arcan, Cathol. ver. l.
8. c. 2.((o) De nominum mutat. p. 1047.
Geneva Study Bible
{10} No man hath seenGodat any time; the only begottenSon, which is in the
{e} bosomof the Father, he hath {f} declaredhim.
(10) The true knowledge ofGod proceeds only from Jesus Christ.
(e) Who is nearestto his Father, not only in respectof his love towards him,
but by the bond of nature, and by means of that union or oneness thatis
betweenthem, by which the Father and the Son are one.
(f) Revealedhim and showedhim unto us, whereas before he was hidden
under the shadows ofthe law, so that our minds were not able to perceive
him: for whoeversees him, sees the Father also.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
John 1:18 furnishes an explanation of what had just been said, that ἡ ἀλήθεια
διὰ Ἰ. Χ. ἐγένετο;[107]for that there was required direct knowledge ofGod,
the result of experience, which His only-begottenSon alone possessed.

οὐδείς]no man, not even Moses.“Besidesis no doctor, master, or preacher,
than the only Teacher, Christ, who is in the Godheadinwardly,” Luther;
comp. Matthew 11:27.
ἙΏΡΑΚΕ] has seen, beheld (comp. John 3:11), of the intuition of God’s
essence(Exodus 33:20), to the exclusionof visions, theophanies, and the like.
Comp. 1 John 4:12; also Romans 1:20; Colossians1:15;1 Timothy 1:17.
Agreeably to the context, the reference is to the direct vision of God’s essential
glory, which no man could have (Ex. l.c.), but which Christ possessedin His
pre-human condition as λόγος (comp. John 6:46), and possessesagainever
since His exaltation.
Ὁ ὮΝ ΕἸς ΤῸΝ ΚΟΛΠ. ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς] As ἘΞΉΓΗΣ. refers to the state on
earth of the Only-begotten, ὠν consequently, takenas an imperfect, cannot
refer to the pre-human state (againstLuthardt, Gess, pp. 123, 236, and
others); yet it cannot coincide with ἐξήγη. in respectof time (Beyschlag),
because the ΕἾΝΑΙ ΕἸς ΤῸΝ ΚΟΛ. Τ. Π. was not true of Christ during His
earthly life (comp. especiallyJohn 1:51).[108]The right explanation therefore
is, that John, when he wrote ὁ ὦν εἰς τ. κ. τ π., expressedhimself from his own
present standing-point, and conceivedof Christ as in His state of exaltation, as
having returned to the bosomof the Father, and therefore into the state of the
εἶναι πρὸς τὸν θεόν. So Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 120, II. 23;Weiss, Lehrbegr.
239. Thus also must we explain the statement of direction towards, εἰς τὸν
κόλπ., which would be otherwise without any explanation (Mark 2:1; Mark
13:16;Luke 11:7); so that we recognisein εἰς as the prominent element the
idea of having arrived at (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 537;Jacobs, adAnthol.
XIII. p. 71; Buttm. N. T. Gr. p. 286 [E. T. p. 333]), not the notion of leaning
upon (Godet, after Winer, Lücke, Tholuck, Maier, Gess, andmost others), nor
of moving towards, which is warranted neither by the simple ὦν (in favour of
which such analogies as in aurem dormire are inappropriate) nor by εἰς,
instead of which πρὸς (Hom. Il. vi. 467)or ἐπί with the accusative oughtrather
to bo expected.[109]This forcedinterpretation of εἰς would never have been

attempted, had not ὮΝ been construedas a timeless Present, expressing an
inherent relation, and in this sense applied (Lücke, Tholuck, De Wette, Lange,
Brückner, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and most expositors)also to the earthly
condition of the Son; comp. Beyschlag, pp. 100, 150. So far as the thing itself is
concerned, the εἶναι εἰς τὸν κόλπ. does not differ from the ΕἾΝΑΙ ΠΡῸς
ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ ofJohn 1:1; only it expressesthe fullest fellowship with God, not
before the incarnation, but after the exaltation, and at the same time exhibits
the relationof love under a sensuous form (κόλπον); not derived, however,
from the custom(John 13:23)of reclining at table (thus usually, but not
appropriately in respectof fellowshipwith God), but rather from the analogy
of a father’s embrace (Luke 16:22). In its pragmatic bearing, ὁ ὦν is the
historicalsealof the ἐξηγήσατο;but we must not explain it, with Hilgenfeld,
from the Gnostic idea of the ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ.
ἘΚΕῖΝΟς] strongly emphatic, and pointing heavenwards.[110]
ἐξηγήσατο]namely, the substance ofHis intuition of God; comp. John 8:38.
The word is the usual one for denoting the exposition, interpretation of divine
things, and intuitions. Plato, Pol. iv. p. 427 C; Schneid. Theag. p. 131;Xen.
Cyr. viii. 3. 11; Soph. El. 417;comp. the ἐξηγηταί in Athens: Ruhnken, ad
Tim. p. 109 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 1, 12. It does not occur elsewhere
in John, and hence a specialreference in its selectionhere is all the more to be
presumed, the more strikingly appropriate it is to the context (againstLücke,
Maier, Godet). Comp. LXX. Leviticus 14:57.
[107]Not including any explanation of ἡ χάρις also (Luthardt), because
ἑώρακε and ἐξηγήσατο answeronly to the conceptionof the truth in which the
vision of God is interpreted.

[108]Hence we must not say, with Brückner, comp. Tholuck and
Hengstenberg, that a relation of the μονογενής is portrayed which was neither
interrupted nor modified by the incarnation. The communion of the Incarnate
One with God remained, He in God, and God in Him, but not in the same
manner metaphysically as before His incarnation and after His exaltation. He
while on earth was still in heaven(John 3:13), yet not de facto, but de jure,
because heavenwas His home, His ancestralseat.
[109]Philippi’s objections (Glaubens. IV. 1, p. 409 f.) to my rendering are
quite baseless. Foran explanation of the ὦν εἰς τὸν κόλπ. which occurs to
every unprejudiced expositoras coming directly from the words themselves
cannot be “arbitrary.” And it is not contrary to the connection, as both Godet
and Beyschlag hold, because whatthe words, as usually interpreted, say, is
already containedin the ὁ μονογενής υἱός, whereupon ὁὦν, κ. τ. λ. sets forth
the exaltationof the Only-begotten—justas in ὁ μονογ·υἱός were given the
ground and source ofthe ἐξηγήσατο—asthe infallible confirmation hereof.
This also againstGess, p. 124. My interpretation is quite as compatible with
earnestdealing in regardto the deity of Christ (Hengstenberg)as the usual
one, while both are open to abuse. Besides, we have nothing at all to do here
with the earnestnessreferredto, but simply with the correctnessor
incorrectness ofthe interpretation. Further, I have not through fear of
spiritualism (as Beyschlag imagines)deviatedfrom the usual meaning, which
would quite agree with John 3:13.
[110]As with Homer (see Nitzsch, p. 37, note 1), so in the N. T. John pre-
eminently requires not merely to be read, but to be spoken. His work is the
epic among the Gospels.
Note.

The Prologue, whichwe must not with Reuss restrictto John 1:1-5, is not “A
History of the Logos,”describing Him down to John 1:13 as He was before
His incarnation, and from John 1:14 ff. as incarnate (Olshausen). Againstthis
it is decisive that John 1:6-13 alreadyrefer to the period of His human
existence, and that, in particular, the sonship of believers, John 1:12-13,
cannot be understood in any other than a specificallyChristian sense. Forthis
reason, too, we must not adopt the division of Ewald:(1) The pre-mundane
history of the Logos, John 1:1-3; (2) The history of His first purely spiritual
working up to the time of His incarnation, John 1:4-13; (3) The history of His
human manifestationand ministry, John 1:14-18. John is intent rather on
securing, in grand and condensedoutline, a profound comprehensive view of
the nature and work of the Logos;which latter, the work, was in respectof the
world creative, in respectof mankind illuminative (the Light). As this working
of the Logos was historical, the descriptionmust necessarilyalso bearan
historicalcharacter;not in such a way, however, that a formal history was to
be given, first of the λόγος ἄσαρκος (which could not have been given), and
then of the λόγος ἔνσαρκος (which forms the substance ofthe Gospelitself),
but in such a way that the whole forms a historicalpicture, in which we see, in
the world which came into existence by the creative power of the Logos, His
light shining before, after, and by means of His incarnation. This at the same
time tells againstHilgenfeld, p. 60 ff., according to whom, in the Prologue,
“the Gnosis of the absolute religion, from its immediate foundation to its
highest perfection, runs through the series ofits historical interventions.”
According to Köstlin, p. 102 ff., there is a brief triple description of all
Christianity from the beginning onwards to the present; and this, too, (1)
from the standing-point of God and His relation to the world, John 1:1-8; then
(2) from the relations of the Logos to mankind; John 1:9-13; and lastly, (3) in
the individual, John 1:14-18, by which the end returns to the beginning, John
1:1. But a triple beginning (which Kaeuffer too assumes in the Sächs. Stud.
1844, p. 103 ff.) is neither formally hinted at nor really made: for, in John 1:9,
ὁ λόγος is not the subject ἦν, and this ἦν must, agreeablyto the context, refer
to the time of the Baptist, while Köstlin’s construction and explanation of ἦν

ἐρχόμενονis quite untenable; and because in the lastpart, from John 1:14
onwards, the antithesis betweenreceiving and not receiving, so essentialin the
first two parts, does not at all recur again. The simple explanation, in
harmony with the text, is as follows:The Prologue consists ofthree parts,—
namely, (1) John gives a description (a) of the primeval existence of the Logos,
John 1:1-2, and (b) of His creative work, John 1:3 (with the addition of the
first part of John 1:4, which is the transition to what follows). Next, (2) he
represents Him in whom was life as the Light of mankind, John 1:4 ff., and
this indeed (a) as He once had been, when still without the antithesis of
darkness, John1:4, and (b) as He was in this antithesis, John 1:5. This shining
in the darkness is continuous (hence φαίνει, John 1:5
Expositor's Greek Testament
John 1:18. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν… ἐξηγήσατο. This statement, “Godno one
has ever seen,” is probably suggestedby the words διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. The
reality and the grace ofGod we have seenthrough Jesus Christ, but why not
directly? Because God, the Divine essence, the Godhead, no one has everseen.
No man has had immediate knowledge ofGod: if we have knowledge ofGod it
is through Christ.
A further description is given of the Only Begottenintended to disclose His
qualification for revealing the Fatherin the words ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλποντοῦ
πατρός. Meyersupposes that John is now expressing himself from his own
present standing point, and is conceiving of Christ as in His state of exaltation,
as having returned to the bosomof the Father. But in this case the description
would not be relevant. John adds this designationto ground the revealing
work which Christ accomplishedwhile on earth (ἐξηγήσατο, aorist, referring
to that work), to prove His qualification for it. It must therefore include His
condition previous to incarnation. ὁ ὤν is therefore a timeless presentand εἰς
is used, as in Mark 13:16, Acts 8:40, etc., for ἐν. εἰς τὸν κόλπον, whether taken
from friends reclining at a feastor from a father’s embrace, denotes perfect
intimacy. Thus qualified, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο “He” emphatic, He thus
equipped, “has interpreted” what? See John8:32; or simply, as implied in the

preceding negative clause, “God”.The ScholiastonSoph., Ajax, 320, says,
ἐξήγησις ἐπὶ θείων, ἑρμηνεία ἐπὶ τῶν τυχόντων, Wetstein.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
18. The Evangelistsolemnly sums up the purpose of the Incarnation of the
Logos—to be a visible revelationof the invisible God. It was in this way that
‘the truth came through Jesus Christ,’ for the truth cannot be fully known,
while God is not fully revealed.
No man] Noteven Moses. Until we see ‘face to face’(1 Corinthians 13:12) our
knowledge is only partial. Symbolical visions, such as Exodus 24:10; Exodus
33:23;1 Kings 19:13;Isaiah 6:1, do not transcend the limits of partial
knowledge.
hath seen]With his bodily eyes.
at any time] Better, ever yet; ‘no one hath ever yet seenGod;’ but some shall
see Him hereafter.
the only begotten Son] The question of reading here is very interesting. Most
MSS. and versions have ‘the only-begotten Son’ or ‘only-begotten Son.’ But
the three oldestand best MSS. and two others of greatvalue have ‘only-
begottenGod.’ The testof the value of a MS., or group of MSS., onany
disputed point, is the extent to which it admits false readings on other points
not disputed. Judged by this test the group of MSS. which read ‘only-begotten
God’ is very strong; while the far larger group of MSS. which have ‘Son’ for
‘God’ is comparatively weak, for the same group of MSS. might be quoted in
defence of a multitude of readings which no one would think of adopting.
Again, the revisedSyriac, which is among the minority of versions that
support ‘God,’ is here of specialweight, because it agrees with MSS. from

which it usually differs. We conclude, therefore, that the very unusual
expression‘only-begotten God’ is the true reading, which has been changedto
the usual ‘only-begotten Son,’a change which in an old Greek MS. would
involve the alteration of only a single letter. Both readings can be traced up to
the secondcentury, which againis evidence that the Gospelwas written in the
first century. Such differences take time to spread themselves widely. See on
John 1:13 and John 9:35.
in the bosom] Literally, into the bosom, which may mean that the return to
glory after the Ascensionis meant. Comp. Mark 2:1; Mark 13:16; Luke 9:61.
On the other hand the Greek for ‘which is’ points to a timeless relation.
hath declared]Better, declared, actedas His interpreter. The Greek wordis
used both in the LXX. and in classicalauthors of interpreting the Divine Will.
On the emphatic use of ‘He’ here comp. John 1:33 and see on John 10:1. In
the First Epistle this pronoun (ekeinos)is used speciallyfor Christ; John 2:6,
John 3:3; John 3:5; John 3:7; John 3:16, John 4:17.
In this prologue we notice what may be called a spiral movement. An idea
comes to the front, like the strand of a rope, retires again, and reappears later
on for development and further definition. Meanwhile another idea, like
another strand, comes before us, and retires to reappearin like manner. Thus
the Word is presented to us in John 1:1, is withdrawn, and againpresented to
us in John 1:14. The Creationcomes next in John 1:3, disappears, and returns
againin John 1:10. Then ‘the Light’ is introduced in John 1:5, withdrawn,
and reproduced in John 1:10-11. Next the rejectionof the Word is put before
us in John 1:5, removed, and againput before us in John 1:10-11. Lastly, the
testimony of John is mentioned in John 1:6-7, repeatedin John 1:15, takenup
againin John 1:19, and developed through the next two sections ofthe
chapter.

We now enter upon the first main division of the Gospel, which extends to the
end of chap. 12, the subject being Christ’s Ministry, or, His Revelationof
Himself to the World, and that in three parts; the Testimony (John 1:19 to
John 2:11), the Work (John 2:13 to John 11:57), and the Judgment (12). These
parts will be subdivided as we reachthem. 19–37 The Testimonyof the
Baptist (1) to the deputation from Jerusalem, (2) to the people, (3) to S.
Andrew and S. John: 38–51 The Testimonyof the Disciples:John 2:1-11 The
Testimony of the First Sign.
Bengel's Gnomen
John 1:18. Θεόν, God) Whom grace and truth exhibit as love [in essence].—
οὐδείς, no one) not even Moses, much less those earlierthan the time of
Moses,nor Jacob, nor Isaiah, nor Ezekiel:not even the angels saw Him in
such manner as the Son. See the note on Romans 16:25, etc. [The revelationof
the mystery, which was keptsecretsince the world began].—εὥρακε, hath
seen)no one hath seen:no one hath declared [God]: The Son hath seen, the
Son hath declared, [God] ch. John 3:32 [What He hath seenand heard, that
He testifieth].—ὁ ὤν, who was)Comp. John 5:1, and still more, John 6:62
[What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascendup, where He was before?];1
John 1:2 [That eternal life which was with the Father, and has been
manifested unto us]. So ὤν for was, ch. John 9:25 [whereas I was blind, now I
see;τυφλὸς ὤν]: So Heb. ‫,קנוי‬ who sucked, Song Song of Solomon8:1. εἰς τὸν
κόλπον, in the bosom) ch. John 6:46 [Not that any man hath seenthe Father,
save He which is of God, He hath seenthe Father]. Proverbs 8:30 [Then I was
by Him as one brought up with Him, I was daily His delight, rejoicing always
before Him]. Zechariah 13:7 “My shepherd, and the man that is my fellow,
saith the Lord of Hosts.” The bosom here is divine, paternal, fruitful, mild,
secret, spiritual. Men are said to be in the loins, who are about to be born:
they are in the bosom, who have been born. The Son was in the bosom of the
Father; because He was never not-born. The highest degree ofunity, and the
most intimate knowledge are signified by immediate sight [the seeing Godface
to face].—εκεῖνος [ThatBeing]He) An epithet of excellencyand distance
[implying the vast interval that separatesHim above all others].—ἐξηγήσατο,
hath explained [declared God]) both by His words and by the sight of Himself
[as God manifest in the flesh].

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 18. - No one hath ever yet seenGod. Many visions, theophanies,
appearances,angelic splendours, in the desert, on the mountain, in the temple,
by the river of Chebar, had been grantedto the prophets of the Lord; but they
have all fallen short of the direct intuition of God as God. Abraham, Israel,
Moses,Manoah, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, saw visions, localmanifestations,
anticipations of the Incarnation; but the apostle here takes the Lord's own
word for it (John 5:37), and he elsewhere repeats it(1 John 4:12). These were
but forerunners of the ultimate manifestationof the Logos. "The Glory of the
Lord," "the Angel of the Lord," "the Word of the Lord," were not so
revealedto patriarchs that they saw Godas God. They saw him in the form of
light, or of spiritual agency, or of human ministries; but in the deepestsense
we must still wait for the purity of heart which will reveal to our weakened
faculties the beatific vision. The only begottenSon - or, (God only begotten) -
who is in (or, on) the bosomof the Father, he interpreted (him); became the
satisfying Exposition, the Declarer, drawing forth from the depths of God all
that it is possible that we shall see, know, or realize. This lofty assertionis
augmented by the sublime intensification of the earlier phrase, "with God
(πρὸς τὸν Θεόν)," by (εἰς τὸν κόλπον), "in or on the bosomof the Father;" i.e.
in most intimate and loving fellowshipwith the Fatheras the only begotten.
The relations of fatherhood and sonship within the substance of the Godhead
give new life, warmth, realization, to the vaster, colder, more metaphysical,
metaphenomenal relations of Θεός and Λογός (cf. here Proverbs 8:30). Bengel
here says, "In lumbis esse dicuntur qui nascentur homines, in sinu sunt qui
nati sunt. In sinu Patris erat Filius, quia nunquam non-natus." In view of the
contention of Meyerthat the language here refers to no age long, eternal
indwelling of the Logos with, or of the Son(God only begotten) on the bosom
of, the Father, but to the exaltation of the Christ after his ascension, we can
only refer to the present tense (ὁ ω}ν), which from the standpoint of the
prologue does not transfer itself to the historicalstandpoint of the writer at
the end of the first century. Lange thinks that the whole of this wonderful
utterance is attributed by the evangelistto the Baptist; but the standing of the
Baptist, lofty as it is in John's Gospel, afterthe Baptistcame into brief
fellowship with the One who was before him, certainly falls short of this

insight into his eternal Being. John the beloved disciple could thus speak of
the revelationand interpretation of God which was made in the life, words,
and death of the Only Begotten, from whose fulness he had received"grace
for grace;" but in this verse he is speaking ofthe timeless condition, the
eternal fellowship, of the Only Begottenwith the Father, as justifying the
fulness of the revelation made in his incarnation. The prologue forms a key to
the entire Gospel. It may have been written after the recordof the central
principles involved in the life work of Jesus had been completed. Every
statementin it may be seento be derived from the recordedwords or acts of
the Lord, the revelationof the Father in time, the unveiling of the eternal
heart of him who made all things, and by one competentto speak ofboth
eternities. The writer of the prologue speaks ofhimself as one of a group or
societywho had had ocular evidence of the perfection and glory of the
manifestation. This fellowship of men had found themselves children of God,
and in the possessionofa life, a light, and a hope which were derived entirely
from Jesus Christ, who is undoubtedly in a unique sense declared(though not
formally defined) to be "the Word made flesh." In the subsequent narrative
we find a graduated series ofinstructions on the powers of Christ and the
opposition of the world to his self-manifestation. Thus (ch. 1.) the testimony of
the Baptist(made after his contactwith Christ) to the Personand work of the
Lord attributes to him, on prophetic authority, most stupendous functions -
those of baptizing with the Holy Spirit, and taking awaythe sin of the world.
He does himself reveal the way to the Father. He is hailed as the "Christ," the
"King of Israel," and as the link between heavenand earth, betweenthe
invisible and visible, the Divine and the human (John 1:51). In ch. 2, with all
its other suggestiveness,Christ displays his creative power, and (cf. ch. 6.) his
relation to the world of things, as well as his organic relation to the old
covenant. In ch. 2 his "body" is the "temple" of God, where his Father dwelt,
thus justifying the ἐσκήνωσεν of ver. 14. The pre-existence of Christ as a self-
conscious personalityin the very substance of Deity is assertedby himself in
John 6:62; John 8:58; John 17:5, 24. The fact that he is the Source ofall life
(John 1:3), is involved in the teaching of the Gospelfrom end to end. Eternal
life is ministered through him, to believers (John 3:16, etc., John 3:36). He
claims to have life in himself (John 5:26). He is the "Breadof life" for starving
humanity (John 6:35, 48). The words that he speaks are spirit and life (John

6:63). In John 8:12 the φῶς τῆς ζωῆς links the idea of life and light as they are
shown to cohere in the prologue. In John 14:6 he declares himselfto be "the
Truth and the Life," thus sustaining the greatgeneralization. By raising
Lazarus he is portrayed as the Restorerofforfeited life, as well as the original
Giver of life to men (John 11:25). The ninth chapter records the symbolic
event by which he proved himself to be the Sun of the spiritual universe, "the
Light of the world" (cf. John 1:4 with John 8:12; cf. John 12:36, 46). The
whole history of the conflict with the people whom he came to save, with "his
own," with the world power, and the death doom, is the material which is
generalizedin the solemnstatements of John 1:5-10. The prologue says
nothing in express words of Christ's supernatural conception, of his death, or
of his resurrectionand eternalglory; yet these objective facts are woven
through, and involved in, the entire context, for the incarnation of the Eternal
Word is the historic basis of the apostle's experience ofsuch a life as that
which he proceeds to sketch. The absolute antagonismof the darkness to the
light, and the rejectionof the light and life by the world, never had such
exposition as that which the repudiation and crucifixion of the Son of God
gave to them; while the eternal nature of the central life and being of him
who, when incarnate, was thus resistedby unbelief renders the resurrection
and ultimate and eternalglory a necessityof thought even to these who have
not yet seen, but yet have believed.
Vincent's Word Studies
No man hath seenGod at any time (Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε)
God is first in the Greek order, as emphatic: "Godhath no man everseen."
As to the substance of the statement, compare John 3:11; Exodus 33:20;1
John 4:12. Manifestations ofGod to Old Testamentsaints were only partial
and approximate (Exodus 33:23). The seeing intended here is seeing ofthe
divine essence ratherthan of the divine person, which also is indicated by the
absence ofthe article from Θεὸν, God. In this sense even Christ was not seen
as God. The verb ὁράω, to see, denotes a physical act, but emphasizes the
mental discernment accompanying it, and points to the result rather than to
the actof vision. In 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14, θεάομαι is used,
denoting calm and deliberate contemplation(see on John 1:14). In John 12:45,

we have θεωρέω, to behold (see on Mark 5:15; see on Luke 10:18). Both
θεάομαι and θεωρέω imply deliberate contemplation, but the former is gazing
with a view to satisfy the eye, while the latter is beholding more critically, with
an inward spiritual or mental interest in the thing beheld, and with a view to
acquire knowledge aboutit. "Θεωρεῖνwould be used of a generalofficially
reviewing or inspecting an army; θεᾶσθαι of a lay spectatorlooking atthe
parade" (Thayer).
The only begottenson (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς)
Severalof the principal manuscripts and a greatmass of ancient evidence
support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, "God only begotten."
Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is
omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor Θεὸς. Whether
we read the only begottenSon, or God only begotten, the sense ofthe passage
is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two
attributes of the word already indicated - God (John 1:1), only begotten(John
1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten.
Who is in the bosom (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον)
The expressionὁ ὢν, who is, or the one being, is explained in two ways:1. As a
timeless present, expressing the inherent and eternalrelation of the Son to the
Father. 2. As interpreted by the preposition. εἰς, in, literally, into, and
expressing the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory after His
incarnation: "The Son who has entered into the Father's bosom and is there."
In the former case itis an absolute description of the nature of the Son: in the
latter, the emphasis is on the historic factof the ascension, thoughwith a
reference to his eternal abiding with the Father from thenceforth.
While the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory may have been present
to the writer's mind, and have helped to determine the form of the statement,
to emphasize that factin this connectionwould seemless consistentwith the
course of thought in the Prologue than the other interpretation: since John is
declaring in this sentence the competencyof the incarnate Son to manifest
God to mankind. The ascensionof Christ is indeed bound up with that truth,

but is not, in the light of the previous course of thought, its primary factor.
That is rather the eternal oneness ofthe Word with God; which, though
passing through the phase of incarnation, nevertheless remains unbroken
(John 3:13). Thus Godet, aptly: "The quality attributed to Jesus, of being the
perfect revealerof the divine Being, is founded on His intimate and perfect
relation to God Himself."
The phrase, in the bosomof the Father, depicts this eternal relation as
essentiallya relation of love; the figure being used of the relation of husband
and wife (Deuteronomy13:6); of a father to an infant child (Numbers 11:12),
and of the affectionate protectionand rest afforded to Lazarus in Paradise
(Luke 16:23). The force of the preposition εἰς, into, according to the first
interpretation of who is, is akin to that of "with God" (see on John 1:1);
denoting an everactive relation, an eternalgoing forth and returning to the
Father's bosom by the Sonin His eternal work of love. He ever goes forth
from that element of grace and love and returns to it. That element is His life.
He is there "becauseHe plunges into it by His unceasing action" (Godet).
He (ἐκεῖνος)
Strongly emphatic, and pointing to the eternalSon. This pronoun is used by
John more frequently than by any other writer. It occurs seventy-two times,
and not only as denoting the more distant subject, but as denoting and laying
specialstress onthe personor thing immediately at hand, or possessing pre-
eminently the quality which is immediately in question. Thus Jesus applies it
to Himself as the person for whom the healed blind man is inquiring: "It is He
(ἐκεῖνος) that talkethwith thee" (John 9:37). So here, "the only-begottenSon
who is in the bosomof the Father - He hath declaredHim."
Hath declared(ἐξηγήσατο)
Or, rendering the aorist strictly, He declared. From ἐκ, forth, and ἡγέομαι, to
lead the way. Originally, to lead or govern. Hence, like the Latin praeire
verbis, to go before with words, to prescribe or dictate a form of words. To
draw out in narrative, to recount or rehearse (see Acts 15:14, and on Luke
24:35). To relate in full; to interpret, or translate. Therefore ἐξήγησις,
exegesis, is interpretation or explanation. The word ἐξηγητής was used by the

Greeks ofan expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacredrites. Thus
Croesus, finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sentto the
soothsayers (ἐξηγητὰς)of Telmessus(Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes
to mean a spiritual director. Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (πατρῷος
ἐξηγητής)of religion ("Republic," 427), and says, "Letthe priests be
interpreters for life" ("Laws," 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the
magicians of Pharaoh's court (Genesis 41:8, Genesis41:24), and the kindred
verb of teaching or interpreting concerning leprosy(Leviticus 14:57). John's
meaning is that the Word revealedor manifested and interpreted the Father
to men. The word occurs only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath
told out. These words conclude the Prologue.
The HistoricalNarrative now begins, and falls into two generaldivisions:
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
John 1:18 No one has seenGod at any time; the only begottenGod Who is in
the bosomof the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB: Lockman)
Greek:theon oudeis eoraken(3SRAI) popote;monogenes theos o on
(PAPMSN)eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exegesato(3SAMI)
Amplified: No man has ever seenGod at any time; the only unique Son, or the
only begottenGod, Who is in the bosom[in the intimate presence]of the
Father, He has declared Him [He has revealedHim and brought Him out
where He can be seen;He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].
[Prov. 8:30.]
ESV: No one has ever seenGod; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he
has made him known.
KJV: No man hath seenGod at any time; the only begottenSon, which is in
the bosomof the Father, he hath declaredhim.

NLT: No one has ever seenGod. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near
to the Father's heart; he has told us about him. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: it is true that no one has ever seenGodat any time. Yet the divine
and only Son, who lives in the closestintimacy with the Father, has made him
known.
Wuest: Absolute deity in its essence no one has ever yet seen. Goduniquely-
begotten, He who is in the bosom of the Father, that One fully explained deity.
(Eerdmans)
Young's Literal:God no one hath ever seen;the only begottenSon, who is on
the bosomof the Father -- he did declare.
TREASURYOF SCRIPTURE KNOWLEDGE
Seen:Jn 6:46 Ex 33:20 Dt 4:12 Mt 11:27 Lk 10:22 Col 1:15 1Ti1:17 1Ti 6:16
1Jn 4:12,20
The only: Jn 1:14 Jn 3:16-18 1Jn4:9
In the bosom: Jn 13:23 Pr 8:30 Isa 40:11 La 2:12 Lk 16:22,23
He has explained Him: Jn 12:41 Jn 14:9 Jn 17:6,26 Ge 16:13 Ge 18:33 Ge
32:28-30 Ge 48:15,16 Ex3:4-6 Ex 23:21 Ex 33:18-23 Ex 34:5-7 Nu 12:8 Jos
5:13-15 6:1,2 Jdg 6:12-26 Jdg 13:20-23 Isa 6:1-3 Eze 1:26-28 Ho 12:3-5 Mt
11:27 Lk 10:22 1Jn 5:20
No one has seenGod at any time; the only begottenGod Who is in the bosom
of the Father(Seen: Jn 6:46 Ex 33:20 Dt 4:12 Mt 11:27 Lk 10:22 Col1:15 1Ti
1:17 1Ti 6:16 1Jn 4:12,20)
JESUS EXEGETES
THE INVISIBLE GOD
No one has seenGod at any time - No one is absolute negation= "absolutely
no one." The point is that no one has ever seenGod, in His full and complete
way (cf. Jn 6:46), but some people did see partial revelations of God in the
OT. However, most commentators feel that the One Who was seenin the OT

was Christ, presenting Himself in a so-calledpre-incarnate Theophany (or
"Christophany") (See study of Angel of the LORD, almost certainly a
Christophany). Later, John records under the inspiration of the Holy Sprit
that the prophet Isaiah "saw His (Jesus')glory, and he spoke of Him." (Jn
12:41, cp Isa 6:1-5 = Isaiah declared"my eyes have seenthe King, the LORD
of hosts.")
Even Moses did not see Godbut only His glory (Ex 33:20).
Numerous passagesemphasize that no one has seenthe Father...
1John4:12 No one has seenGod at any time; if we love one another, God
abides in us, and His love is perfectedin us.
John 5:37 "And the Fatherwho sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You
have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seenHis form.
John 6:46 “Notthat anyone has seenthe Father, except the One who is from
God; He has seenthe Father.
John 8:19 And so they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus
answered, "Youknow neither Me, nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would
know My Fatheralso."
John 14:9 Jesus saidto him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have
not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seenMe has seenthe Father; how
do you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the
Father, and the Fatheris in Me? The words that I sayto you I do not speak on
My own initiative, but the Fatherabiding in Me does His works.
John 15:24 "If I had not done among them the works whichno one else did,
they would not have sin; but now they have both seenand hated Me and My
Father as well.
One reasonno one had seenthe essenceofGod was that to do so would have
brought instant death (Ex. 33:20; cf. Ge. 32:30;Dt. 5:26; Jdg. 13:22)
Paul writes that the essenceofGod is invisible = "Now to the King eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory foreverand ever.

Amen." (1Tim 1:17), "Who Alone possessesimmortality and dwells in
unapproachable light, Whom no man has seenor can see. To Him be honor
and eternaldominion! Amen." (1Ti6:16) What Paul is saying is that no man
has ever seenthe very essenceofGod, or God in His essentialnature. John is
saying that the only way to see the inner nature of God is to see Jesus. Jesus
Himself was askedby Philip “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for
us.” (John 14:8) Jesus responded"Have I been so long with you, and yet you
have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seenMe has seenthe Father;
how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9) Let us fix our eyes on
Jesus (Heb 12:2)!
Utley - Some say that this (No one has seenGodat any time) contradicts Ex.
33:20–23.However, the Hebrew term in the Exodus passage refers to
“afterglow,”notphysical sight of God Himself. The thrust of this passage is
that only Jesus fully reveals God (cf. Jn 14:8ff). This verse emphasizes the
unique revelationof God in Jesus ofNazareth. He is the full and only divine
self-disclosure. To know Jesus is to know God. Jesus is the Father’s ultimate
revelation of Himself. There is no clearunderstanding of deity apart from
Him (cf. Col. 1:15–19;Heb. 1:2–3). (John 1 Commentary)
Boice - No one in the ancient world would have disagreedwith the first part of
that statement—“Noone has ever seenGod”—for, as William Barclaynotes
in his commentary, “In the ancient world men were fascinatedand depressed
and frustrated by what they regardedas the infinite distance and the utter
unknowability of God. … Xenophanes had said, ‘Guesswork is over all.’ Plato
had said, ‘Never man and God canmeet.’ Celsus had laughed at the way that
the Christians called God ‘Father,’because ‘Godis away beyond everything.’
At the best, Apuleius said, men could catch a glimpse of God as a lightning
flash lights up a dark night—one split secondofillumination, and then the
dark.” Even the Jews wouldhave thought this way, for they knew that God
had spokento Moses inthe Old Testament, saying, “You cannotsee my face,
for no one may see me and live” (Exod. 33:20). There would have been no
disagreementat all when John the Baptist declaredthat no one could see God.
(The Gospelof John : An expositional commentary)

The only begottenGod ("Godthe One and Only" NIV) - Some versions read
"only begottenSon." (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RSV, HCSB, NLT, NAB, NJB) - The
NET Note says "The textual problem "the only God" versus "the only son" is
a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the
readings in the manuscripts." (For more detailed discussionsee full NET Note
on John 1:18)
Steven Cole sums the arguments up by noting that "The earliestand best
manuscripts favor the reading “only begottenGod.” Since it is a unique
phrase and is more difficult to explain than “only begottenSon,” a scribe
probably changedthe original to “only begotten Son” to correspondto John
3:16 & 18. Thus translated literally, the verse in the original probably read,
“the unique Son, God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained
Him.” As Jesus will later say (6:46), “Notthat anyone has seenthe Father,
exceptthe One who is from God; He has seenthe Father.” And (14:9), “He
who has seenMe has seenthe Father.”
In the bosomof the Father - StevenCole explains that "in the bosom of the
Father” corresponds to “the Word was with God” (1:1) and points to the close
and unbroken fellowship that Jesus enjoyedwith the Father, as seenin His
prayer in chapter 17. It also shows us the horror of the cross for Jesus, when
as He bore our sins He cried out (Mt. 27:46), “My God, My God, why have
You forsakenMe?” This shows that as horrible as Jesus being the Bearerof
all mankind's sins was, evenworse was the momentary separationfrom His
Father (a mystery no man can explain, certainly not this writer!). It is
interesting that Paul in his description of the judgment of unbelievers does not
emphasize the fiery torment but the separationfrom God (2Th 1:6-10 =
"These willpay the penalty of eternaldestruction, awayfrom the presence of
the Lord and from the glory of His power.").
D A Carson- A similar expressionis found elsewhere:Lazarus is in
Abraham’s bosom(Lk. 16:22–23), and John rests on Jesus’bosomat the last
supper (Jn 13:23). It apparently conveys an aura of intimacy, mutual love and
knowledge. (The Gospelaccording to John).

Vincent - The phrase, in the bosomof the Father, depicts this eternalrelation
as essentiallya relation of love; the figure being used of the relation of
husband and wife (Deut. 13:6); of a father to an infant child (Num. 11:12), and
of the affectionate protectionand rest afforded to Lazarus in Paradise (Luke
16:23). (John 1 - Vincent's Word Studies)
He - "He is strongly emphatic, and pointing to the eternal Son. This pronoun
is used by John more frequently than by any other writer. It occurs seventy-
two times, and not only as denoting the more distant subject, but as denoting
and laying specialstress on the person or thing immediately at hand, or
possessing pre-eminently the quality which is immediately in question. Thus
Jesus applies it to Himself as the person for whom the healed blind man is
inquiring: “It is He that talkethwith thee” (John 9:37). So here, “the only-be-
gottenSon who is in the bosom of the Father — He hath declaredHim.” (John
1 - Vincent's Word Studies)
Has explained Him (God) - "From His eternal, infinite, spiritual self–
existence, He came out into the open for humans to see with their physical
eyes. He came in human flesh, a bodily representationof the fullness of the
Godhead." (Zodhiates)
Jesus alone could "exegeteGod" for only Jesus "is the image of the invisible
God." (Col 1:15) Only Jesus "is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representationof His nature." (Heb 1:3)
MacArthur - Jesus is the only one qualified to exegete orinterpret God to
man, since “no one knows the Son exceptthe Father; nor does anyone know
the Fatherexcept the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him”
(Matt. 11:27).
Explained (1834)(exegeomaifrom ek = out or as an intensifier + hegeomai=
tell, lead means literally to lead out, then to unfold, declare by making plain,
or tell the meaning of something, especiallyto tell it fully. To make knownor
thoroughly explain. Figuratively the idea is to "bring out" the meaning. To
"draw out" in narrative form and so to relate (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12,
14; 21:19). In English relate means to give an accountof.

In Jn 1:18, John says that the life of Jesus provides detailed information in a
systematic manner regarding the characterofGod. In a sense, Jesus is the
"exegesis"ofGod! He "narrates" or"relates"the full story about God! He is
the Word of God and the Word about God! "‘As Jesus gives life and is life,
raises the dead and is the resurrection, gives bread and is bread, speaks truth
and is the truth, so as he speaks the word he is the Word." (D A Carson
quoting C H Dodd).
Exegeomaiis used of a man relating his dream (Jdg 7:13), of describing a
miracle (2 Ki. 8:5), and of declaring the Lord’s glory among the nations
(1Chr. 16:24). The closelyrelatednoun exegetes (also in Ge 41:8) is used in Pr
29:18 (see commentary) which says "Where there is no vision (no expounder,
on one who leads on, no interpreter), the people are unrestrained, But happy
is he who keeps the law." The clearapplication to pastors is to "Preach(every
verb in red is aoristimperative = command to do so even with a sense of
urgency) the word; be ready in seasonandout of season;reprove, rebuke,
exhort, with greatpatience and instruction." (2Ti 4:2-note) How few pastors
are exegetesandthus their sheep are not fed.
Explain (Webster's definitions - Ponder Jesus'incarnation as you readthese
definitions! Interesting!) - To make knownor clearby providing more detail,
to make plain or understandable, to give the reasonfor or cause of, to show
the logicaldevelopmentor relationships of, to explain implies a making plain
or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known; to make
(something) comprehensible, esp. by giving a clearand detailed accountof the
relevant structure, operation, surrounding circumstances, etc;Synonyms =
clarify, clearup, define, demonstrate, describe, disclose, elucidate, explicate
(formal), expound, illustrate, interpret, make clearor plain, resolve, solve,
teach, unfold. Webster's 1828 = To make plain, manifest or intelligible; to
clearof obscurity; to expound; to illustrate by discourse, or by notes. The first
business of a preacher is to explain his text. Notes and comments are intended
to explain the scriptures.
Relate (Webster) - to give an accountof; To tell; to recite; to narrate the
particulars of an event; to tell or narrate (a story, information, etc.). To tell
orally or in writing the details or circumstances ofa situation

Vincent - Originally meant to lead or govern. Hence, like the Latin praeire
verbis, to go before with words, to prescribe or dictate a form of words. To
draw out in narrative, to recount or rehearse (see Acts 15:14, and on Luke
24:35). To relate in full; to interpret, or translate. Therefore, exegesis,is
interpretation or explanation. The word exegeteswas usedby the Greeks of
an expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacredrites. Thus Croesus,
finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sent to the soothsayers
(exegetas)ofTelmessus (Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes to mean a
spiritual director. Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (patroos exegetes)of
religion (“Republic,” 427), and says, “Let the priests be interpreters for life”
(“Laws,” 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the magicians of
Pharaoh's court (Ges 41:8, 41:24), and the kindred verb of teaching or
interpreting concerning leprosy (Lev 14:57). John's meaning is that the Word
revealedor manifested and interpreted the Father to men. The word occurs
only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath told out.
These words conclude the Prologue.
The HistoricalNarrative now begins, and falls into two generaldivisions:
I. The Self-Revelationof Christ to the World (Jn 1:19-12:50)
II. The Self-RevelationofChrist to the Disciples (Jn 13:1-21:23)
In secularuse exegeomaiwas usedto describe the disclosure or description of
a document, statement, or incident. In Josephus exegeomaiis a “technical
term for the interpretation of the law as practicedby the rabbinate.
TDNT - Exegeomai"is a technicalone for the expositionof poetry, law,
oracles, etc."
The English derivative is exegesis whichrefers to the unfolding. explanation
or critical interpretation of a text. "Exegesisis when a person interprets a text
basedsolely on what it says. That is, he extracts out of the text what is there as
opposedto reading into it what is not there (eisegesis). There are rules to
proper exegesis:read the immediate context, related themes, word definitions,
etc., that all play a part in properly understanding what something says and
does not say." (Exegesis -CARM TheologicalDictionary)(See a very long

article on "Bible Exegesis in the 1901 JewishEncyclopedia)Some interpreters
feel that exegesis is a term interchangeable with hermeneutics (Bible,
Hermeneutics - Holman Bible Dictionary).
Bryant - Exegeomaiseems to have been more of a Hellenistic than a biblical
term. The word meant (1) to recount facts or relate a narrative. This was the
main Greek use of the term. The word also meant (2) to make knownor
explain divine secrets. This latter is its meaning here, and has to do with
Hellenistic notions of revelationas wellas biblical. It seems important that the
prologue closes withsuch a term. To Jew and Hellenist, Jesus is the revelation
of God’s glory, grace, and truth. (College PressNIV commentary).
Exegesis- It usually refers more specificallyto a verse-by-verse or phrase-by-
phrase explanation. The goalin exegesis is to analyze passagescarefully so
that the words and intent of the passageare as clearas possible. Speculationis
not prized, but attention to word meaning, form, structure, context(historical
and biblical) and theologyis usually addressed. Exegesistends to be
descriptive more than prescriptive; however, many readers engage in exegesis
of the Bible for the ultimate purpose of finding guidance on spiritual matters,
and thus relevance becomespart of the task of interpreting a passage. (Pocket
dictionary of biblical studies).
Exegeomai- 6x in 6v - NAS Usage:explained(2), relate(2), related(1),
relating(1).
Luke 24:35 They beganto relate their experiences onthe road and how He
was recognizedby them in the breaking of the bread.
Comment: The disciples who met the risen Christ on the road to Emmaus
exegetedthe events to the other disciples. A T Robertson"Their story was
now confirmatory, not revolutionary. The womenwere right then after all."
John 1:18 No one has seenGod at any time; the only begottenGod who is in
the bosomof the Father, He has explained Him.

Jesus was the revealer of god

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Jesus was the revealer of god

Similar to Jesus was the revealer of god (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was the revealer of god