Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 1:1 - 1:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN
————
THE PROLOGUE (1:1-18)
The Prologue to the Gospel is in the form of a hymn,1 whose theme is the Christian doctrine of the Logos, explanatory comments being added at various points. Speculations about the Logos of God were current among Greek thinkers, and Jn. does not stay to explain the term, which was in common use at the time. But he sets out, simply and without argument, what he believes the true doctrine to be; and he finds its origin in the Jewish teaching about the Word of God rather than in the theosophy of Greek Gnosticism. Its final justification is the Life and Person of Jesus Christ.
Paul had declared that “a man in Christ is a new creation” (κιὴκίι, 2Co_5:17). This thought is connected by Jn. with the Jewish doctrine of the creative Word, and accordingly he begins by stating his doctrine of the Logos in phrases which recall the first chapter of Genesis.
The Divine Pre-Existent Word (Vv. 1, 2)
1:1. ἐ ἀχ ἦ ὁλγς The book of Genesis opens with ἐ ἀχ ἐοηε ὁθὸ τνορννκὶτνγν But Jn. begins his hymn on the creative Logos even farther back. Before anything is said by him about creation, he proclaims that the Logos was in being originally—ἐ ἀχ ἦ, not ἐ ἀχ ἐέεο(see for the distinction on 8:58). This doctrine is also found in the Apocalypse. In that book, Christ is also called the Word of God (19:13), and He is represented (22:13) as claiming pre-existence: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Paul, who does not apply the title “Logos” to Christ, yet has the same doctrine of His pre-existence: “He is before all things” (Col_1:17). With this cf. the words ascribed to Jesus in 17:5.
Philo does not teach the pre-existence of the Logos (see Introd., p. cxl); but a close parallel to Jn.’s doctrine is the claim of Wisdom (σφα in Pro_8:23, κρο …πὸτῦαῶο ἐεείσ μ ἐ ἀχ, πὸτῦτνγνπισι Jn. never employs the word σφα(or σφς while he uses λγςof the Personal Christ only here and at v. 14; but it is the Hebrew doctrine of the Divine Word going forth (λγςποοιό) rather than the Greek doctrine of immanent Divine Reason (λγςἐδάεο) which governs his thought of the relation of the Son to the Father.
λγςis apparently used of the Personal Christ at Heb_4:12 (this difficulty need not be examined here); as we hold it to be in 1Jn_1:1, ὃἦ ἀʼἀχςὃἀηόμν…πρ τῦλγυτςζῆ (see for ἀʼἀχςon 15:27 below, and cf. Introd., p. lxi).
κὶὁλγςἦ πὸ τνθό. ενιπό τν is not a classical constr., and the meaning of πό here is not quite certain. It is generally rendered apud, as at Mar_6:3, Mar_9:19, Mar_14:49, Luk_9:41; but Abbott (Diat. 2366) urges that πὸ τνθό carries the sense of “having regard to God,” “looking toward God” (cf. 5:19). This sense of direction may be implied in 1Jn_2:1 πρκηο ἔοε πὸ τνπτρ, but less probably in 1Jn_1:2, τνζὴ τναώινἥι ἦ πὸ τνπτρ, which provides a close parallel to the present passage. In Pro_8:30, Wisdom says of her relation to God, ἤη πρ ατ: and in like manner at Joh_17:5, Jesus speaks of His pre-incarnate glory as being πρ σί It is improbable that Jn. meant to distinguish the meanings of πρ σίat 17:5 and of πὸ τνθό at 1:1. We cannot get a better rendering here than “the Word was with God.”
The imperfect ἦ is used in all three clauses of this verse, and is expressive in each case of continuous timeless existence.
κὶθὸ ἦ ὁλγς “the Word was God” (the constr. being similar to πεμ ὁθό of 4:24). θό is the predicate, and is anarthrous, as at Rom_9:5, ὁὢ ἐὶπνω θό. L reads ὁθό, but this would identify the Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the preceding clause.
This, the third clause of the majestic proclamation with which the Gospel opens, asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated; cf. 10:30, 20:28; and Php_2:6
2. This verse reiterates, after a fashion which we shall find Jn. to favour, what has been said already in v. 1, laying stress, however, upon the fact that the relationship with Deity implied in πὸ τνθό was eternal; it, too, was “in the beginning.” That is to say, v. 2 is a summary statement of the three propositions laid down in v. 1, all of which were true ἐ ἀχ.
For the emphatic use of οτς cf. 1:15, 6:46, 7:18, 15:5.
The Creative Word (V. 3)
3. πνα(all things severally, as distinct from ὁκσο, the totality of the universe, v. 10) δʼατῦἐέεο “all things came into being (for creation is a becoming, as contrasted with the essential being of the Word) through Him.”
In the Hebrew story of creation, each successive stage is introduced by “And God said” (Gen_1:3). The Psalmist personifies in poetical fashion this creative word: “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made” (Psa_33:6; cf. Psa_147:15, Isa_55:11). In later Judaism, this doctrine was consolidated into prose; cf., e.g., “Thou saidst, Let heaven and earth be made, and Thy Word perfected the work” (2 Esd. 6:38; cf. Wisd. 9:1). This was a Jewish belief which Philo developed in his own way and with much variety of application, sometimes inclining to the view that the λγςwas a mere passive instrument employed by God, at other times, under Greek influence, regarding it as the cosmic principle, the formative thought of God.1
3, 4. κὶχρςατῦἐέεοοδ ἕ. This expresses negatively what has been said positively in the previous line, a common construction in Hebrew poetry (cf. Psa_18:36, Psa_18:37, Psa_18:39:9, etc). Jn. uses this device several times (e.g. 1:20, 3:16, 6:50, 1Jn_1:5, 1Jn_2:4). “Apart from Him nothing came into being.” The sentence excludes two false beliefs, both of which had currency, especially in Gnostic circles: (a) that matter is eternal, and (b) that angels or aeons had a share in the work of creation.
The interpretation of this passage during the first four centuries implies a period or full-stop at ἕ, whereas since Chrysostom the sentence has been generally taken as ending with ὃγγνν “apart from Him nothing came into being that did come into being.” ὃγγνν if we adopt the later view of the constr., is redundant and adds nothing to the sense But this kind of emphatic explicitness is quite in accordance with the style of Jn. It is also the case that Jn. favours ἐ with a dative at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 13:35, 15:8, 16:26, 1Jn_2:4, 1Jn_2:3:10, 1Jn_2:16, 1Jn_2:19, 1Jn_2:4:2, so that to begin with ἐ ατ in v. 4 would be in his manner.
The early uncials, for the most part, have no punctuation, while the later manuscripts generally put the point after γγνν But the evidence of MSS. as to punctuation depends upon the interpretations of the text with which scribes were familiar, and has no independent authority. In the present passage the Old Syriac,1 Latin, and Sahidic versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate, decidedly favour the placing of the point after ἕ, the O.L. b putting this beyond doubt by inserting autem in the next clause: “quod autem factum est, in eo uita est.” The interpretation which places the point after ἕ was adopted by Catholics and Gnostics alike in the early centuries; cf. Irenæ (Hæ II. ii. 4, III. viii. 3), Hippolytus (c. Noetum, 12), Origen (in Ioann. 36, etc.), Clem. Alex. (Pæ i. II, Strom. vi. II), and, apparently, Tertullian (adv. Prax. 21). It is difficult to resist their witness to the construction of the Greek, provided that the next sentence as read by them yields an intelligible meaning.
Harris2 defends the construction “without Him was not anything made that was made,” by citing a passage from the Stoic Chrysippus which is alike redundant in form: Fate is “the λγςaccording to which all things that have been made have been made, and all things that are being made are being made, and all things that are to be made will be made.”
The Word Issuing in Life and Light (Vv. 4, 5)
4. ὃγγννἐ ατ ζὴἦ, “That which has come into being was, in Him, Life,” i.e. the life which was eternally in the Word, when it goes forth, issues in created life, and this is true both of (a) the physical and (b) the spiritual world. (a) Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word, is the Life (11:25, 14:6), the Living One (ὁζν Rev_1:17); and it is through this Life of His that all created things hold together and cohere (τ πναἐ ατ σνσηε, Col_1:17). (b) In the spiritual order, this is also true. The Son having life in Himself (5:26) gives life to whomsoever he wishes (οςθλιζοοε, 5:21). Cf. 1Jn_5:11, and see on 17:24. The children of God are those who are quickened by a spiritual begetting (see on v. 13). See also on 6:33.
If ἐ ατ is the true reading at 3:15 (where see note), we have another instance there of ἐ ατ being awkwardly placed in the sentence.
Presumably because of this awkward position of ἐ ατ, some Western authorities א many Old Latin texts, and the Old Syriac, replace ἦ by ἐτν interpreting, as it seems, the sentence to mean “that which has come into being in Him is life.” But this reading and rendering may safely be set aside as due to misapprehension of the meaning.
κὶἡζὴἦ τ φςτνἀθώω. The first movement of the Divine Word at the beginning was the creation of Light (Gen_1:3). This was the first manifestation of Life in the κσο, and the Psalmist speaks of the Divine Life and the Divine Light in the same breath: “With Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light” (Psa_36:9). God is Light (1Jn_1:5) as well as Life, if indeed there is any ultimate difference between these two forms of energy (see on 8:12).
In this verse, Jn. does not dwell on the thought of the Word’s Life as the Light of the κσο, but passes at once to the spiritual creation; the Life of the Word was, at the beginning, the Light of men. Cf. 12:46, 9:5, and see especially on 8:12 for the Hebrew origins and development of this thought, which reaches its fullest expression in the majestic claim ἐώεμ τ φςτῦκσο (8:12).
Philo speaks of the sun as a πρδῖμ of the Divine Word (de somn. i. 15); but he does not, so far as I have noticed, connect life and light explicitly.
5. τ φςἐ τ σοί φίε. The guiding thought is still the story of the creation of light, which dissipated the darkness of chaos. But this is a story which ever repeats itself in the spiritual world; Jn. does not say “the Light shone, ” but “the Light shines.” In 1Jn_2:8 he applies the thought directly to the passing of spiritual darkness because of the shining of Christ, the true light (ἡσοί πργτικὶτ φςτ άηιὸ ἤηφίε).
κὶἡσοί ατ ο κτλβν κτλμάενgenerally means to “seize” or “apprehend,” whether physically (Num_21:32, Mar_9:18, [Jn.] 8:4), or intellectually (Act_10:34, Act_25:25, Eph_3:18, etc.). Thus we may translate “the darkness apprehended it not,” i.e. did not understand or appreciate it; and so the vulg. has tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, the note of tragedy being struck at once, which appears again, vv. 10, 11 (where, however, the verb is πρλμάεν see on 3:19.
But κτλμάενoften means also to “overtake” (Gen_31:23, Exo_15:9, Ecclus. 11:10, 1Th_5:4); Moulton-Milligan illustrate from the papyri this use of the verb, viz. of evil “overtaking” one. This is its meaning in the only other place where it occurs in in., viz. 12:35, ἵαμ σοί ὑᾶ κτλβ, “lest darkness overtake you.”1 Origen (with other Greek interpreters) takes κτλβνin this sense here, explaining that the thought is of darkness perpetually pursuing light, and never overtaking it.2 The meaning “overtake in pursuit” readily passes into “overcome”; e.g. 2 Macc. 8:18, where it is said that God is able “to overcome those who come upon us” (τὺ ἐχμνυ ἐʼἡᾶ …κτλβῖ). A classical parallel is cited by Field from Herod. i. 87, ὡ ὥαπναμνἄδασεννατ πρ δνμνυ δ οκτ κτλβῖ, i.e. “when he saw …that they were unable to overcome the fire.” That this is the meaning of the verb in the present verse is supported by the fact that the thought of Christ’s rejection does not appear, and could not fitly appear, until after the statement of His historical “coming into the world” (vv. 9, 10). We have not yet come to this, and it is the spiritual interpretation of the Creation narrative that is still in view. Thus in the Hymn of Wisdom (Wis. 7:29) we have: “Night succeeds the Light, but evil does not overcome wisdom” (σφα δ οκἀτσύικκα The darkness did not overcome the light at the beginning, and the light still shines. This is not the note of tragedy, but the note of triumph. Good always conquers evil. “The darkness did not overcome the light” (so R.V. marg.).
Philo’s commentary on Gen_1:3 is in agreement with this interpretation. He says that τ νηὸ φςis the image of θῖςλγς which is the image of God. This may be called πνύεα “universal brightness” (cf. 8:12). On the first day of creation this light dispelled the darkness: ἐεδ δ φςμνἐέεο σόο δ ὑεέτ κὶὑεώηε,3 i.e. “darkness yielded to it and retreated.” Jn. applies this thought to Christ as the Light of the world. There is never an eclipse of this Sun.
C. J. Ball suggested4 that behind κσλβνlies a confusion of two Aramaic verbs, קבי, “take, receive,” and אקּל “darken.” He holds that, both here and at 12:35, the original Aramaic (which he finds behind the Greek) was ל אבי, “obscured it not,” and that this was misread ל קלה “received it not.”1 This is ingenious, but, as we have seen, κτλβνis good Greek for “overcome,” so that there is no need to suppose any corruption of the original text.
Explanatory Comment: John the Baptist Was Not the Light (Vv. 6-9)
A feature of the style of Jn. is his habit of pausing to comment on words which he has recorded (cf. Introd., p. xxiv). Here we have a parenthetical note to explain that the Light of which the Logos hymn sings is not John the Baptist. It has been suggested that this was inserted as necessary to combat the pretensions of some Christians who exalted the Baptist unduly (cf. Act_18:25, Act_19:3f.); but see on v. 20 below.
For Jn., as for Mk., the “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mar_1:1), began with the preaching of the Baptist. Jn. does not stay to record stories of the Birth of Jesus, as Lk. and Mt. do. He opens his Gospel with a mystical hymn about the Logos, which reminds the reader that the true beginnings of the wonderful life are lost in the timeless and eternal Life of God. But in the Gospel Jn. is to describe the historical manifestation of the Word, and this was prepared for, and introduced by, the preaching of the Baptist. Upon this Jn. dwells more fully than any other evangelist, probably because his informant, the aged son of Zebedee, was himself one of the Baptist’s disciples. For the use made by Jn. of Mk., see Introd., pp. xcvi, c; and the correspondences between Mar_1 and Joh_1 in regard to what they tell about the Baptist and his sayings are remarkable.
Mar_1:2 introduces the Baptist by quoting Mal_3:1, “I send my messenger before my face”; Jn. introduces him as a man “sent from God.” Both Mar_1:2 and Joh_1:23 apply to him the prophecy of Isa_40:3.Mar_1:7 gives two utterances of the Baptist about Christ which reappear Joh_1:15, Joh_1:27, Joh_1:30. Mar_1:8 and Joh_1:26 both report the emphasis laid by the Baptist on his baptism being with water. And the allusions to the baptism of Jesus in Joh_1:33, Joh_1:34 are reminiscent of Mar_1:10, Mar_1:11.
6. ἐέεοἄθωο κλ (“There arose a man,” etc.). There is no introductory particle connecting this with v. 5. It is a sentence quite distinct from the verse of the Logos Hymn which goes before.
ἀετλέο πρ θο. The Baptist made this claim for himself (3:28); cf. Mal_3:1. Cf. 9:16, 33 for a similar use of πρ θο, and see on 6:45.
ὅοαατ Ἰάη. For the constr. cf. 3:1 and Rev_6:8, Rev_9:11. Burney urges that this is a Semitic constr.,1 and represents an Aramaic or Hebrew שו but it is also good Greek, e.g. Ἀιτφνὅοαατ (Demosth. contra Zenoth. 11).
The spelling Ἰάη is preferred to Ἰάνςby most modern editors, being almost universally found in B “It belongs to the series of Hellenised names which treat the an of the Hebrew termination (Ioanan) as a variable inflection” (Blass, Gram. 11).2
Jn. is prone to distinguish carefully people who have the same name, e.g. Judas (6:71, 13:2, 14:22), Mary (11:2, 19:25), Joseph (19:38); in this being more scrupulous than the Synoptists. It is, perhaps, worthy of note, therefore, that Jn. never writes “John the Baptist,” but always “John,” as if there were no other John who could be confused with him. On this has been based an argument to prove that John the son of Zebedee is, in some sense, the author (if not the actual scribe) of the Fourth Gospel; for the one person to whom it would not occur to distinguish John the Baptist from John the son of Zebedee would be John the son of Zebedee himself. On the other hand, the Synoptists only occasionally give the full description “John the Baptist,” “John” being quite sufficient in most places where the name occurs. It would not be as necessary for an evangelist writing for Christian readers at the end of the first century to say explicitly “John the Baptist,” when introducing the John who bore witness to Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, as it was for Josephus when writing for Roman readers to distinguish him as “John who is called the Baptist” (Antt. xviii, V. 2).
7. οτςἦθνεςμρυίν This was the characteristic feature of the Baptist’s mission, “to bear witness” to the claims of Him who was to come. The Fourth Gospel is full of the idea of “witness” (see Introd., p. xc), the words μρυί, μρυεν being frequent in Jn., while they occur comparatively seldom in the rest of the N.T. The cognate forms μρύ,
μρύιν are, on the other hand, not found in Jn., although they occur in the Apocalypse.
ἴαμρυήῃ ἴαwith a finite verb, in a telic sense, where in classical Greek we should expect an infinitive, is a common constr. in κιήGreek, and is specially frequent in Joh_1 Burney2 held that this linguistic feature is due to the Aramaic origin of Jn., and that behind ἴαis the particle דְor דִ. But the colloquial character of Jn.’s style provides a sufficient explanation (cf. 11:50 and 18:14).
πρ τῦφτς John Baptist says (v. 33) that it was revealed to him that Jesus was the Coming One.
ἴαπνε πσεσσνδʼατῦ(“that all might believe through him,” i.e. through, or by means of, the testimony of John the Baptist). Ultimately the Baptist’s mission would affect not Israel only, but all men (πνε). As the Divine Law is said to have come δὰΜυές(v. 17), so there is a sense in which Christian faith came δʼἸάο. Abbott (Diat. 2302 f.) inclines to the view that ατῦrefers here to Christ, ατςthroughout the Prologue being used for the Word; but Jn. never uses the expression πσεενδὰἸσῦ(see on 3:15). Jesus, for him, is the end and object of faith, rather than the medium through which it is reached (see on 1:12).
Jn. uses the verb πσεενabout 100 times, that is, with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists, although the noun πσι, common in the Synoptists, never occurs in Jn., except at 1Jn_5:4.1Jn_5:3 See further on v. 12.
Here πσεενis used absolutely, the object of faith being understood without being expressed; cf. 1:50, 4:42, 53, 5:44, 6:64, 11:15
12:39, 14:29, 19:35, 20:8, 25.
8. ἐενςis used substantially, whether as subject or obliquely, with unusual frequency in Jn., the figures for its occurrence is the four Gospels being (according to Burney4) Mat_4, Mar_3, Luk_4, Jn. 51. Jn. uses it often to express emphasis, or to mark out clearly the person who is the main subject of the sentence, as here. It is used of Christ, 1:18, 2:21, 5:11, 1Jn_2:6, 1Jn_2:3:5, 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:16.
οκἦ ἐενςτ φς The Baptist was only ὁλχο, the lamp; cf. 5:35.
ἀλ ἵαμρυήῃπρ τῦφτς This is an elliptical constr. of which somewhat similar examples occur 9:3, 13:18, 15:25, 1Jn_2:19 (Abbott, Diat. 2106 f.). The meaning is, “but he came that he might bear witness, etc. The repetition of the whole phrase ἵαμρυήῃπρ τῦφτςis thoroughly Johannine.
Burney suggests1 that here (as also at 5:7, 6:50, 9:36, 14:16) ἵαis a mistranslation of an Aramaic relative, דְ “who.” The rendering then is simple, “he was not the Light, but one who was to bear witness of the Light”; but the correction is unnecessary.
9. ἦ τ φςκλ The constr. of the sentence has been taken in different ways, and the ambiguity was noticed as far back as the time of Origen.2
(I) The Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions take ἐχμννwith ἄθωο. The Light enlightens every man who comes into the world. But if this were the meaning, (a) we should expect πνὰτνἐχμννrather than πνὰἄθωο ἐχμνν (b) these words are wholly redundant, for they do not add anything to “every man”; (c) the expression “coming into the world” is not used elsewhere by Joh_3 of a man being born (16:21 is no exception). This last consideration excludes also the rendering “every man, as he comes into the world,” apart from the fact that, although Wordsworth suggests it in his Ode, the idea of any special Divine enlightenment of infants is not Scriptural.
(2) It is better to take ἐχμννwith φς(so R.V.). Jn. several times uses the phrase “coming into the world” of the Advent of Christ (6:14, 11:27, 16:28, 18:37); and elsewhere (3:19, 12:46) in the Gospel Christ is spoken of as “light coming into the world.” And if we render “the Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world,” the constr. of ἦ with the present participle as used for the imperfect is one which appears frequently in Jn. (see on 1:28 below). ἦ …ἐχμννmeans “was in the act of coming.”
Westcott, while retaining this meaning, endeavours to combine with it the conception of the Light having a permanent existence (ἦ, the verb used in v. 1). “There was the Light, the true Light which lighteth every man; that Light was, and yet more, that Light was coming into the world.” This seems, however, to attempt to get too much out of the words, and on our view of the whole passage the meaning is simpler.
We are still occupied with Jn.’s comment (vv. 6-9) on what the Logos Hymn has said about the Light (vv. 4, 5). The Baptist was not the perfect Light, but he came to bear witness to it; and this perfect Light was then coming into the world. When Jn. wrote the First Epistle he could say, “The true Light already shineth” (1Jn_2:8), but it was only coming at the time when the Baptist’s mission began. Jesus had come into the world, indeed; but He had not yet manifested Himself as the Light.
ἀηιό. Christ is τφ ἀηιό, not to be interpreted as “the true Light” (although such a rendering is convenient), for that suggests that all other lights are misleading, which is not implied; cf. 5:35. ἀηιό is distinguished from ἀηή as the genuine from the true. The opposite of ἀηιό is not necessarily false, but it is imperfect, shadowy, or unsubstantial. “The ἀηή fulfils the promise of his lips, but the ἀηιό the wider promise of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest, deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be, that he is to the full” (Trench, Synonym’s of N.T.). Thus ἀηιό here is significant. Christ is not “the true and only Light,” but rather “the perfect Light,” in whose radiance all other lights seem dim, the Sun among the stars which catch their light from Him.
There are indeed a few passages where ἀηιὸ cannot be sharply distinguished from ἀηή: thus ἀηιό at 19:35 stands for the veracity of the witness, just as ἀηή does at 21:24. Moreover, the fact that ἀηή and its cognates are not found in the Apocalypse, while ἀηιό occurs in it 10 times, might suggest that the choice of the one adjective rather than the other was only a point of style. In the same way, ψύτςis used 7 times in Jn. for a liar, but the word in the Apocalypse is ψυή.
Nevertheless the distinction between ἀηή and ἀηιό in Jn. is generally well marked. We have τ φςἀηιό here (cf. 1Jn_2:8); ο ἀηιο ποκντί 4:23; ὁἄτςὁἀηιό, 6:32; ὁμνςἀηιὸ θό, 17:3 (cf. 7:28, 1Jn_5:20); ἡἀηιὴκίι, 8:16; ἡἄπλςἡἀηιή 15:1. In all these passages the meaning “genuine” or “ideal” will bear to be pressed, as also in the only place where the word occurs in the Synoptists, for τ ἀηιό of Luk_16:11 is the genuine riches. Even at 4:37, where ἀηιό is applied to a proverb, something more is implied than veraciousness (see note in loc.).
Less clearly, but still with some plausibility, can the distinctive sense of ἀηιό be pressed in the Apocalypse, where it is applied to God’s ways (15:3), His judgments (16:7, 19:2), His words (19:9, 21:5, 22:6), to Himself (6:10), and to Christ (3:7, 14, 19:11). See further on 17:3.
φτζι This verb does not occur again in Jn., but cf. Luk_11:35, Luk_11:36.
ὂφτζιπνὰἄθωο. That the Servant of Yahweh would be a “light to the Gentiles” as well as to the Jews was the forecast of Deutero-Isaiah (42:6, 49:6); but this passage suggests a larger hope, for the Coming Light was to enlighten every man. It was this great conception upon which the early Quakers fixed, urging that to every man sufficient light was offered; and some of them called this passage “the Quaker’s text.” The Alexandrian theologians, e.g. Clement, had much to say about the active operation of the Pre-Incarnate Word upon men’s hearts; and it is interesting to observe that they did not appeal to this text, which is in fact not relevant to their thought, as it speaks only of the universal enlightenment which was shed upon mankind after the Advent of Christ.
εςτνκσο. The term κσο is used of the universe by Plato (Gorg. 508) and Aristotle (de mund. 2), Plutarch (Mor. 886 B) affirming that Pythagoras was the first to use the word thus, the order of the material world suggesting it1 This idea of a totality of the natural order is thoroughly Greek, and is without early Hebrew counterpart, עָֹ not being used in this meaning until the later days of Jewish literature2 In the LXX κσο appears in the sense of “ornament,” and occasionally to describe the ordered host of the heavenly bodies, but it is not used for “universe” until we reach the later Hellenistic books, e.g. Wisd. 11:17. Paul has κσο 46 times, and the Synoptists 14 times; but Jn. has it 100 times. Primarily, in the N.T. it is used of the material universe as distinct from God (cf. 21:25). But man is the chief inhabitant of the world as we know it, and thus κσο usually in Jn. includes the world of moral agents as well as the sum of physical forces. That is, it stands for mankind at large, as well as for the earth which is man’s habitation (6:51, 7:4, 12:19).
When, however, a term which was the product of Greek philosophy began to be used in connexion with the Hebrew doctrine of God and man, it inevitably gathered to itself the associations connected with Hebrew belief as to the Fall. To the Stoic, the κσο was perfect. This could not be held by a Jew. Inasmuch, then, as the Fall introduced disorder into that which in the beginning was “good” (Gen_1:31), the term κσο when used of the visible order frequently carries with it a suggestion of imperfection, of evil, of estrangement from the Divine. The κσο cannot receive the Spirit of Truth (14:17); it hates Christ (7:7); it hates His chosen (15:19, 17:14); they are forbidden to love it (1Jn_2:15). The world which is aloof from God may easily pass into an attitude of hostility to God, and the phrase “this world” (see on 8:23) calls special attention to such enmity.
According to Philo (quod deus imm. 6 and de mund 7), the κσο is the father of time, God being the Father of the κσο; a picturesque expression which brings out his view that the universe was created by God, who brought Cosmos out of Chaos, while its genesis goes back beyond the beginning of time.
A striking parallel to this verse is found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi, c. 14): τ φςτῦνμυτ δθνἐ ὑῖ εςφτσὸ πνο ἀθώο. Charles, indeed (note in loc), holds that Joh_1:9 is based on this passage; but the date of the Greek versions of the Testaments is by no means certain, and there is no sufficient evidence of their existence in their present form before the time of Origen.1
There are unmistakable allusions to the verse in the Christian Apocalypse known as “The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” where Jeremiah addresses God as τ φςτ ἀηιὸ τ φτζνμ (9:3). In the same section the writer calls Christ τ φςτναώω πνω, ὁἄβσο λχο (9:13), and speaks of Him as ἐχμννεςτνκσο ἐὶτ ὄο τνἐαῶ (9:18). See Introd., p. lxxii.
For the citation of the verse by Basilides, as quoted by Hippolytus, see Introd., p. lxxiii.
The Logos Hymn Resumed (Vv. 10, 11)
10. ἐ τ κσῳἦ. ἦ, as in vv. 1-4, stands for continuous existence. The Logos was immanent in the world before the Incarnation, which has not yet been mentioned in the hymn, although suggested in the evangelist’s comment in v. 9.
κὶὁκσο δʼατῦἐέεο repeated from v. 3, “the world came into being through Him,” the creative Logos being personal all through the hymn.
κὶὁκσο ατνοκἔν. The paratactical constr. κὶ…κίis continued, as in vv. 1, 4, 5. At this point κίis used adversatively, “and yet,” the world not recognising the Word although the Word was immanent in it.
This use of κίfor κίο (which Jn. never employs) is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, e.g. 3:11, 5:43, 6:70, 7:28, 30, 8:26, 9:30, 10:25, 16:32. Burney1 claims this as a Semitic usage, but it occurs in classical Greek; e.g. Thucyd. v. 6. 1, Σαερ ποβλε …κὶοκελ, and Eurip. Herakl. 508, ὁᾶʼἔʼὅπρἦ πρβετςβοοςὀοατ πάσν κίμ ἀελθ ἡτχ.
ὁκσο ατνοκἔν. Primarily, the reference is to the world’s ignorance of the Pre-Incarnate Logos, immanent continuously in nature and in man.
Pfleiderer points out the similarity of this language to what Heraclitus says about the eternal Reason: τῦδ λγυτῦʼἐνο αε ἀύεο γννα ἄθωο …γνμννγρπνω κτ τνλγντνεἀεριι ἐίαι i.e.. “men are without understanding of this Logos, although it is eternal, …although everything happens in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be ignorant (of it).”2 Heraclitus was one of those whom Justin accounted a Christian before his time, having lived μτ λγυ and his writings were probably current in the circles where the Fourth Gospel was written. But although Jn. used similar language to Heraclitus when writing of the Word, his thought goes far beyond the impersonal Reason of the Greek sage.
Even here, the meaning of “the world knew Him not” cannot be confined to the Immanent Logos. Jn. several times comes back to the phrase, applying it to the world’s failure to recognise the Incarnate Christ; e.g. ὁκσο …οκἔν ατν(1Jn_3:1); οκἔνσν…ἐέ(16:3). Cf. 14:7, 17:25, 1Co_1:21. And in the next verse (v. 11) the Incarnate Word is clearly in view, for the aorist ἦθνexpresses a definite point of time, although the Incarnation of the Word is not explicitly asserted until v. 14.
A saying about Wisdom very similar to the thought of this verse is in Enoch xlii. 1: “Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; then a dwelling-place was assigned to her in the heavens. Wisdom came to make her dwelling among the children of men and found no dwelling-place; then Wisdom returned to her place and took her seat among the angels.” What the Jewish apocalyptist says of Wisdom, the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel repeats of the Logos.
11. εςτ ἴι ἦθν This (see on 19:27) is literally “He came to His own home.” And the following words, “His own received Him not,” would well describe His rejection by His own kinsfolk and neighbours in Galilee, according to the saying that a prophet has no honour in his own country (Mar_6:4, Mat_13:57, Luk_4:24; cf. Joh_4:44). But the thought of this verse is larger. The world did not know Him, did not recognise Him for what He was (v. 10). But when He came in the flesh, He came (ἦθν to “the holy land” (2 Macc. 1:7, Wisd. 12:3), to the land and the people which peculiarly belonged to Yahweh and were His own (Exo_19:5, Deu_7:6). In coming to Palestine, rather than to Greece, the Word of God came to His own home on earth. Israel were the chosen people; they formed, as it were, an inner circle in the world of men; they were, peculiarly, “His own.” He was “not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mat_15:24). “His own” intimate disciples did indeed receive him (see 13:1, 17:6, 9, 11 for ο ἴιι but the thought here is of His own people, Israel. The Fourth Gospel is the Gospel of the Rejection; and this appears thus early in the Prologue (cf. 3:11, 5:43).
It is not said that Israel did not “know” Him, as is said of the “world” (v. 10); but Israel did not receive Him in welcome (cf. 14:3 for this shade of meaning in πρλμάω Like the Wicked Husbandmen in the parable (Mar_12:1, Mat_21:33, Luk_20:9), Israel knew the Heir and killed Him.
Comment to Avoid Misunderstanding of V. 11 (Vv. 12, 13)
12. “His own received Him not” might suggest that no Jew welcomed Him for what He was. Accordingly (cf. Introd., p. cxlv), the evangelist notes that there were some of whom this could not be said. ὅο δ κλ = but (δ must be given its full adversative force), at the same time, as many as received Him (and this would include Jews as well as Greeks) were endowed with the capacity and privilege of becoming children of God. For λμάενused of “receiving” Christ, cf. 5:43, 13:20.
ὅο δ ἔαο ατν ἔωε ατι κλ This is the first appearance of a constr. which is very frequent in Jn., viz. the reinforcement of a casus pendens by a pronoun. It is a common, if inelegant, form of anacoluthon, more often met with in colloquial than in literary Greek. Jn. employs it 27 times (as against 21 occurrences in all three Synoptists). Burney suggests that this is due to the Aramaic original which he finds behind Jn., the cases pendens being a favourite Semitic idiom.1
The Jews rejected Christ; but His message was addressed to all mankind. He gave to “as many as received Him” the right to become children of God. ἐοσαoccurs again 5:27, 10:18, 17:2, 19:10, 11; it stands for authority rather than power. The privilege and right of those who “receive” Christ, i.e. those who “believe on His Name,” is that they may become τκαθο; but this (Jn. suggests) is not an inherent human capacity.
The conception of the faithful as “children of God” has its roots deep in Jewish thought. Israel conceived of herself as in covenant with Yahweh (see on 3:29), and the prophets speak of her as Yahweh’s wife (Hos_1:2). “Thy sons whom thou hast borne to me” are words ascribed to Yahweh when addressing the nation (Eze_16:20). Thus the Jews were accustomed to think of themselves as peculiarly the children of God (see on 8:41). But the teaching of Jesus did not encourage any such exclusive claim of Judaism. He taught the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as having a more catholic range. To enter the kingdom of God is to become the child of God and the possessor of eternal life (for all these phrases mean the same thing; cf. 3:3f.), and the gate of the kingdom is the gate of faith in Christ. This is the message of the Fourth Gospel (20:30), and it is addressed to all who will hear it. We have here (in vv. 12, 13) a summary of the teaching of c. 3 about the New Birth and Eternal Life.
The phrase τκαθο is not placed either by Synoptists or by Jn. in the mouth of Jesus Himself: He is represented as speaking of υο θο (Mat_5:9); and this is also the title for believers generally used by Paul (Gal_3:26), who employs the notion of adoption, as recognised by Roman law, to bring out the relation of God to the faithful.2 But τκαθο is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 11:52 and 1Jn_3:1, 1Jn_3:2, 1Jn_3:10, 1Jn_3:5:2), and the phrase implies a community of life between God the Father and His children, which is described in v. 13 as due to the fact that they are “begotten” of God (cf. 3:3f.). τκο is from the root τκ,“to beget.”
The “children of God” are all who “believe in the Name” of Christ. The idea of the Fatherhood of God as extending to all mankind alike, heathen or Jewish, prior to belief in Christ, is not explicit in the Gospels (cf. Act_17:28), however close it may be to such a pronouncement as that of the Love of God for the world at large (3:16). But for Jn., the “children” are those who “believe.”
τῖ πσεοσνεςτ ὄοαατῦ The frequency of the verb πσεενin Jn. has been already noted (1:7). Here we have to mark the form πσεενες…The phrase “to believe in Christ,” in Him as distinct from believing His words or being convinced of certain facts about Him, is, with one exception (Mat_18:6), not found in the Synoptists; but in Jn. we find πσεενες…35 times,1 always referring to God or Christ, except εςτνμρυίν(1Jn_5:10). The phrase πσεενεςτ ὄοαατῦoccurs again 2:23, 3:18 (cf. 1Jn_5:13), but not in the speeches of Jesus Himself. In the O.T. the “Name” of Yahweh is often used as equivalent to His Character or Person, as He manifests Himself to men (cf. 2Sa_7:13, Isa_18:7; see on 5:43 below). It is possible that this usage of ὄοαin the N.T. is an Aramaism. We have it several times in the expression βπίενεςτ ὄοάτνς(cf. Mat_28:19).2 But, whether it is Aramaic or no, to believe in “the Name” of Jesus for Jn. is to believe “in Him” as the Son of God and the Christ.
13. For ο …ἐενθσν the O.L. version in b gives qui natus est, the verse being thus a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ. Irenæ (adv. Haer. iii. xvii. 1 and xx. 2), and possibly Justin (Tryph. 61; cf. Apol. i. 32, 63 and ii. 6), bear witness to the existence of this (Western) reading. Tertullian (de carne Christi, 19) adopts it formally, adducing arguments against the common text “who were born,” which he says is an invention of the Valentinians. In recent years the reference of the verse to Christ, and the reading qui natus est, have been approved by Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, iv. 57) and by Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234).3 But the MS. evidence is overwhelming for ἐενθσν which moreover, as we shall see, is in accordance with the characteristic teaching of Jn.
The children of God are “begotten” by Him by spiritual generation, as contrasted with the ordinary process of physical generation.
οκἐ αμτνκλ It was a current doctrine in Greek physiology that the human embryo is made from the seed of the father, and the blood of the mother. Thus Wisd. 7:2, “In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood (πγὶ ἐ αμτ) of the seed of man and pleasure that came with sleep.” Cf. 4 Macc. 13:20 and Philo (de opif. mundi 45). 1
The plural αμτνis unexpected, but Brä quoted the parallel ἄλνταεςἀʼαμτν(Eurip. Ion, 693). Augustine (Serm. cxxi. 4) explains αμτν “mixtis sanguinibus, masculi et feminae, commixtione carnis masculi et feminae,” which may be right; but more probably the plural is used to indicate drops of blood.
οδ ἐ θλμτςσρό, “nor yet of the will of the flesh,” i.e. of sexual desire. θλμ is used once or twice in the LXX in the sense of delectatio, e.g. Isa_62:4 and Ecc_12:1. Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 9) has the phrase ἐ αμτνκὶἐιυίςσριῆ, κθπρκὶο λι&