Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 1:6 - 1:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The personal Light or Christ in His pre-historical Presence in the World, especially in His Old Testament Advent, testified by the Old Covenant as it is represented by John the Baptist
Joh_1:6-13
CONTENTS
6There was [became, arose] a man sent from God, whose name was John 7 The same came for a [omit a] witness [testimony, åἰò ìáñôõñßáí ], to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe: 8He was not that [the] Light, 9but was sent [came, Lange: he was] to bear witness of that [the] Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man, that cometh into the world. [The true Light which lighteth (lighteneth, Shineth upon) every man, was coming ( ἦí ἐñêüìåíïí ) 10into the world.] He [It] was in the world, and the world was made by him [it], and the world knew him not [Lange: did not recognize it in him]. 11He came unto his own [his own possessions or inheritance, ôὰ ἴäéá ], and his own [his own people, ïἱ ἴäéïé ] received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [children, ôÝêíá ] of God, even to them that 13believe on [in] his name: Which [Who] were born, not of blood [bloods, ἐî áἱìÜôùí ], not of the [natural] will of the flesh, nor of the [moral] will of man, but of God.
[Whose name (was) John, i.e., Jehovah is merciful, from the Hebrew éåֹçָðָï for éְäåֹçָðָï , ἸùÜííçò ; comp. the Greek Èåüäùñïò . This significant name was given to the forerunner of our Saviour by divine direction, Luk_1:13. The evangelist laid stress on his own name, and saw in it a symbol of his relation to Christ as the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” Joh_20:2; Joh_21:20. Comp. Lampe and Hegstenberg.—P. S.].
Joh_1:7. The same came for witness.—Testimony: stronger here than preaching; stronger even than prophecy, as hitherto existing. John appeared first as a preacher, a preacher of repentance. But the preacher showed himself at the same time a prophet, announcing under divine impulse the approach of the Messianic kingdom. And then, in the miraculous manifestation at the baptism of Jesus, through the testimony of God, he became a witness of the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that He is the Messiah; so to speak, an apostle before the apostolate. As a prophet who, by divine commission, pointed to the Messiah, he completed the Old Testament prophecy in testimony. And for this testimony he was come. His mission rose into the office of forerunner. And even his martyrdom in the strict sense is in keeping. He sealed his preparatory preaching of repentance with his death (see Joh_1:33).
That [ ἴíá , the aim of John’s testimony] all men through him might believe.—“Through John, not through the Light (Grotius), or through Christ (Ewald):” Meyer. In the divine purpose John was to lead over the faith of Israel to Christ. This Christ also signifies Joh_5:33 [where he calls John “the burning and shining light,” or candle rather, ëý÷íïò , not öῶò .—P. S.] Through the unbelief of the Jews this gracious design failed; though in the truly devout, first of all in the noblest of John’s own disciples (Joh_1:35 sqq.) it was fulfilled; through them in all believers.
Joh_1:8. He was not the light.—[ ἦí is emphatic and contrasted with ìáñôõñÞóῃ . The article before öῶò is likewise emphatic, the Light of the world, the Light of lights, comp. ὁ ðñïöÞôçò , Joh_1:29; ὁ ἄñôïò , Joh_6:32 ff.—P. S.] This is certainly not said merely with reference to the unbelieving disciples of John. But in the wider sense the nation itself was an unbelieving disciple of John, contenting itself with the brightness of the Baptist, instead of going through him to the true Light itself, Joh_5:35. So far, therefore, as it is implied that many, even the leaders, made the Baptist rather a hindrance than a help to faith, the words are written even against the disciples of John.
But (he was).—De Wette takes the ἀëë ’ ἵíá but in order to, imperatively; Lücke supplies ἦí , was; Meyer, ἠëèåí , came Since the preceding verse strongly pronounces that the whole prophetic existence of John was intended to rise into a testimony for the Messiah, we give Lücke the preference: “He was, that he might bear witness.” [So also Alford and Godet. Baümlein supplies ἐãÝíåôï , ãßíåôáé , “or the like;” which is not so strong. I prefer with Meyer to supply ἦëèå from Joh_1:7, since the phrase, åἶíáé , ἵíá instead of åἷíáé åἰò ôü is quite unusual.—P. S.]
Joh_1:9. The true Light—was coming [ ἦí ôὸ öῶò ôὸ ἀëçèéíüí — ἐñ÷üìåíïí ].—Various interpretations: (1) He (the Logos) or it (the Light) was the true Light; so the older expositors and Luther [E. V., which supplies ôïῦôï before ἦí , that was the true light.—P. S.] But ôὸ öῶò ôὸ ἀëçèéíüí must be subject, not predicate; for in Joh_1:8 John was the subject. [So also Meyer.] (2) Ἐñ÷üìåíïí åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí (coming into the world) is connected with ðÜíôá ἄíèñùðïí (every man), not with ἦí (was); Origen [Syr., Euseb., Chrys., Cyril, Vulg., Aug, [and most of the ancients, Luther, Calvin [E. V.], etc., Hölemann, Meyer. [This would make either ἄíèñùðïí or ἐñ÷äì . superfluous.] Meyer observes that it could not be connected with ἦí ; for the Logos was already in the world when John appeared. But the Evangelist here evidently goes back to the entire relation of Christ to mankind, especially goes back to Joh_1:4. He had before spoken of the witness of the advent of Christ—now he depicts the advent itself. This is divided into two parts: (1) The relation of the coming Logos to man in general; (2) His relation to Israel. Hence we interpret: He was (from the beginning and in conflict with the darkness, Joh_1:5) coming, was on His advent to mankind. Therefore not (a) was come [ ἦí ἐñ÷üìåíïí = ἐëèüí ]: Schöttgen, etc.; (b) just came (when John appeared): De Wette, Lücke [Alford]; (c) future: was on the point of coming [venturum erat]: Tholuck; or (d) was destined to come: Luthardt; desired to come: Ewald; nor (e) was coming then, in the time before His baptism: Hilgenfeld, who even here would mix Valentinian Gnosis into the anti-Gnostic Gospel;—but in a purely historical sense [= ἦëèå , came], instead of the imperfect: Bengel, Bleek, Köstlin [Hengstenberg, with reference to Mal_3:1]; and with the peculiar Johannean significance: He was continually coming, continually on his way. Hence the participial form. The essence of this universal advent is to be recognized in the fact, that the Logos shines in every man in his religious and moral nature and experience, as the ëüãïò óðåñìáôéêüò . That the expression “every man” needed not the addition: that cometh into the world, is evident. And the phrase: “to come into the world,” is not used of the natural birth of an ordinary man, but is reserved for Christ.
[Which lighteth (enlightens, illuminates) every man— ὃöùôßæåéðÜíôáἄíèñùðïí .—There is much force in the singular. Quisquis illuminatur, ab hac luce illuminatur (Bengel). Different interpretations: 1. The light of reason and intelligence (Cyril of Alex.). Better: Both the intellectual and moral light (reason and conscience) given to all men, as distinct from the spiritual light of saving grace given to believers. The former is the basis of the latter. 2. The inward spiritual light given to all (Quakers). 3. The light of grace given to believers only, or to every one to whom Christ was preached (Crosby). 4. Intellectual and spiritual light sufficient for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles, though the majority are so blinded by sin as not to see Him. “Christ enlightens all as far as in Him lies” (Chrysostom, Hom. 8). Christ gives sufficient light to every man to leave him without excuse, but not sufficient to save (Arrowsmith, Ryle).—Comp. Joh_3:19 : “light is come into the world;” Joh_12:46 : “I am come a light into the world;” Joh_6:14 : “that prophet that should come into the world;” Joh_18:37.—P. S.]
The true [veritable, genuine] Light [ ôὸöῶòôὸἀëçèéíüí ].—The real, essential Light in distinction from the outward, cosmical light, which, nevertheless, is His token and symbol. (See Milton’s Paradise Lost: the greeting to the light. Comp. Joh_8:12; Joh_9:5.)
[There is a nice difference between ἀëçèÞò (wahr), true in opposition to false, and ἀëçèéíüò (wahrhaftig), true in opposition to borrowed or imitated. This difference is obliterated in the E. V. The one expresses the harmony between thought and reality, word and fact; the other implies a contrast between the perfect original and a copy more or less imperfect. Ἀëçèéíüò is a favorite term with Plato and John to signify that which is genuine, archetypal, original, true to the idea. It occurs eight times in the Gospel, ten times in the Apocalypse, three times in the first Epistle of John, but elsewhere only five times in the N. T. In this passage it stands in contrast not so much to the cosmical light (Dr. Lange), as to the borrowed intellectual and moral light of the Baptist and other human teachers; comp. Joh_5:35; Mat_5:14, where believers generally as members of Christ are called the light of the world. It is lumen illuminans, as distinct from the lumen illuminatum.—P. S.]
Joh_1:10. It was in the world.—Not pluperfect (Herder [Tholuck, Olsh.]); nor “in the person of Jesus, when John was testifying” (Meyer); but referring to His infinite presence in mankind (Baumgarten-Crusius). The repetitions of the idea of the world ( êüóìïò ) are to be distinguished thus: In the first case the word combines the material and the moral world in one; in the second, it means the material or visible world alone, up to the roots of its moral conduct; in the third, the moral world alone, but considered as resting upon and representing the visible. Meyer well says: (1) The world might have known Him (constitutional affinity); (2) it should have known Him (according to His claim). [Comp. Rom_1:19 ff., where Paul fully proves the guilt of Gentiles and Jews in rejecting the light of nature and the preparatory revelation of the O. T.—P. S.]
Knew him not.—The whole verse strictly reads: “It was in the world, and the world was made by it [or Him, ä é ’ áὐôïῦ ], and the world knew Him ( áὐôüí ) not.” The change of gender is highly significant. In the light of the world, the world should have known the personal founder of the world, the Logos. The gradation in the three clauses is also expressed by the repetition of “and.” The world of heathenism knew not the light, still less Him, the personal character of the light. It took the divine for something impersonal, and sough to heal the wrong by fragmentary personifications, its gods [the altar at Athens “to the unknown God,” Act_17:23.—P. S.]
Joh_1:11. He came unto his own house or inheritance [ ôὰ ἴäéá , comp. Joh_16:32; Joh_19:27].—Here the discourse is no longer of the universal advent of Christ in the world (Corn. a Lapide, Kuinoel, etc.); but of the theocratic advent in Israel (Erasmus, Calvin, etc., Lücke, Meyer); yet of this advent considered as intended for mankind. Israel is God’s own people in the special sense, Exo_19:5; Deu_7:6; Sir_24:7 ff. It is not, however, the historical New Testament coming of Christ in Israel, which is here spoken of. The expression He came, as denoting the historical moving of the Logos in the history of the world, determines us against the more general conception of the “own.” Yet it must be kept well in mind, that in John particularly Israel stands not for itself alone, but as the medium for the entrance of Christ into the whole world. See Joh_10:16.
And his own people [ ïἱἴäéïé , comp. Joh_13:1]—i.e., the Jews. See Isaiah 6; Matthew 13; Joh_12:41; Acts 7; Act_23:25; Romans 9 [The transfer of the relation of Jehovah to Israel as His peculiar people upon Christ, implies that, in the view of John, Christ was the Jehovah of the Old dispensation; comp. Joh_12:41; Joh_8:56.—P. S.]
[Received him not— ïὐðáñÝëáâïí , stronger than ïὐêἔãíù , which is said of the world in general, Joh_1:10. The fact that the Jews were the peculiar inheritance of Jehovah, doubled their guilt in rejecting the Messiah. Comp. the ïὐêἠèåëÞóáôå , Mat_23:37; also Isa_1:3; Rom_10:21; and Joh_12:37. The negative expression here, as Joh_1:10 and Joh_1:5, reveals a holy grief on the part of John. Remember the tears of pity which the Saviour shed over unbelieving Jerusalem.—P. S.]
Joh_1:12. But as many as received him—[ ὅóïé , whosoever, whatsoever persons, denotes the universality of Christ’s benefit without distinction of race, nationality or condition.—P. S.] No contradiction of the preceding words. His own, His people, as a whole, received Him not, but individuals. See Galatians 3, 4. The antithesis: ïὐðáñÝëáâïí and ἔëáâïí should be observed. The Jews should ðáñáëáìâÜíåéí , take Him in addition to the Old Testament, receive Him in pursuance of the true traditions. This they did not. Thus others’ receiving Him became the absolute ëáìâÜíåéí , contrary to the outward, false tradition. ËáìâÜíåéí in John and Paul is a strong word, denoting the moral act of faith, comp. Rom_5:11.*
To them gave he power.—Opposed to the descent from Abraham and the relative sonship with God, of which the Jews boasted, John 8. ’ Ἐ îïõóßá is neither merely [the possibility (De Wette, Tholuck), nor the ability (Brückner, Heng., Godet), nor] the dignity or advantage, (Erasmus, etc.), nor the right, or privilege (Meyer), but the real power, the spiritual faculty (Lücke), and, at the same time, the real title. Sonship with God was growing, in its formation-state, in the Old Testament; there were only incipient sons of God, Gal_4:1, but there were such really, and progressively, according to the advancing inwardness and depth of the Old Testament faith. This sonship with God, too, is connected indeed with a semen arcanum electorum et spiritualium (contrary to Meyer, see Joh_1:9); but this must be understood neither in a Gnostic sense, nor in a Hegelian, but in a Johannean, Joh_3:21. This incipient regeneration is also most certainly ethical, but not merely ethical; it is also substantial, though the antithesis between the eternal ìïíïãåíÞò and the regenerate ôÝêíáèåïῦ by all means remains perfect, even after the advance of the latter to õἱïὶ èåïῦ . The distinctions: ethical theogony in John (according to Hase), legal adoption in Paul; õἱïèåóßá first appearing in the kingdom of the Messiah in the Synoptists (Meyer), are of little use; unless it may be said that John emphasizes the ideal begetting, Paul the historical new creation. The Messianic kingdom begins with the children of God, not they with it. [To become— ãåíÝóèáé .—Christ is the eternal, only begotten Son of God by nature; men become children of God by regeneration or a celestial birth; comp. Joh_3:3; 1Jn_3:9; Gal_3:26; 1Pe_1:23. Alford thinks that ôÝêíá èåïῦ is a more comprehensive expression than õἱïὶ ô . è ., as it involves the whole generation and process of our spiritual life and our likeness to God (1Jn_5:5-7), while the other brings out rather our adoption and hope of inheritance (Rom_8:14 if.)—P. S.]
To them that believe in his name.—[ Ðéóôåýïõóéí , not ðéóôåýóáóéí ; faith being a continued act and habit of the children of God. Mark also the distinction between believing Christ, that He is, and believing in Christ, in His name, His revealed being, in His person, åἰò ôὸ ὄíïìá ;the former is purely intellectual and historical, the latter is moral and implies trust in and appropriation of Christ as our Saviour. The same difference holds with regard to the existence of God, comp. Jam_2:19 : êáὶ ôὰ äáéìüíéá ðéó ôåýïõóéí .—P. S.]—Not “ætiological” [quippe qui credunt, Meyer], but “explicative;” for faith is not the cause of the gift of Christ, but the organ, causa instrumentalis [the subjective condition]. The clause describes ëáìâÜíåéí . Faith in the name of the Logos [ åἰòôὸὄíïìááὐôïῦ ] is faith in Christ, more definitely, in His name (Act_2:36; Act_3:16; Act_4:12); and this definiteness of faith, in the evangelical acknowledgment of the personal truth in Christ, makes it saving, makes it the medium of the saving power of Christ, because the name of Christ denotes the concentrated expression of His nature in His gospel, in which truth and personal fact are one. So the name of God is to be understood: the revelation of God as a personal introduction of Himself to us. So the devout of the old covenant believed in the name of the Logos, in the essential contents and subject of the Messianic promises, Joh_2:23; Joh_3:18, etc.
Joh_1:13. Who were born, not of bloods.—It is confusing to ask whether ïἴ refers to ôÝêíá èåïῦ or ðéóôåýïíôåò . The subject is in both cases the same. It is the ðéóôåýïíôåò in the historical sense who are spoken of. The Evangelist introduces the antithesis of the natural generation and regeneration, yet regarding the natural generation itself as advanced from the purely physical to the religiously consecrated theocratic generation. He first states the antithesis in general: ïὐêἐîáἱìÜôùí ,not of bloods. Augustine explains the plural from the twofold sex of man and woman; Hölemann refers it to the successive begettings of the theocratic genealogy; Meyer finds that the plural is the same as the singular. We find in the plural a premonition of an ethical distinction of áἵìáôá . In ethical matters áἷìá and áἷìá are not one and the same. And this the succeeding climax proceeds to say. According to Augustine [Theophyl., Schott, Olshausen] and others, èÝëçìá óáñêüò denotes woman in distinction from man ( ἀíäñüò ). [This would require rather the disjunctive ïὔôå — ïὔôå , neither—nor, than the adjunctive ïὐäÝ — ïὐäÝ , nor—nor yet; besides flesh is never used synonymously with woman.—P. S.] Mosheim distinguishes native Jews and proselytes; others, natural children and adopted (Starke); Lücke takes ἀíÞñ as no more than ἄíèñùðïò ; Meyer regards the sentence as a rhetorical progress to greater definiteness: the term óáñêüæ referring to the sexual instinct, ἀíäñüò to the procreative will of the man.If this distinction be followed up, we must come involuntarily upon the track of the true interpretation. The common sensual desire knows nothing of procreative will, yet it doubtless has its èÝëçìá . Baumgarten Crusius, therefore, rightly asserts that the progress is from the sensual to the most noble; and we see here a progress from the sensual begettings of the heathen world to the theocratically consecrated begettings, which introduce a sacred theocratic genealogy (see Lange’s Leben Jesu iii. 558, and Posit. Dogm. pp. 514, 532). In this passage is reflected the Scripture doctrine of hereditary blessing. Of course the Evangelist tells us also that the consecrated births may indeed exhibit an approach to regeneration, and be the instrument of it, but that they are not able to effect it, and that regeneration, as a heavenly generation, forms a counterpart to the earthly.
[The difference between áἴìáôá , óÜñî and ἀíÞñ is not very clear, but the conjunction ïὐäÝ — ïὐäÝ (nor—nor yet), as distinct from ïὔôå — ïὔôå (neither—nor, comp. Winer, p. 454 f., 7th ed.), indicates a rising climax from the general ( áἵìáôá ) to the particular, and here again from the lower and physical agency ( äÜñî ) to the higher and moral ( ἀíÞñ ), although èÝëçìá is ascribed to both. In Mat_16:17; 1Co_15:50; Eph_6:12; Gal_1:16, flesh and blood together signify human nature in its weakness. In Joh_3:6 we have the same contrast between the natural birth from the flesh, and the supernatural birth from the Spirit. The threefold denial of all human agency in regeneration gives emphasis to the affirmation of the divine agency, which is expressed by but of God, ἀëë ’ ἐê èåïῦ . This does not exclude mediate instrumentalities, through which, ordinarily, men are regenerated and converted. The affirmation may be analyzed so as to correspond to the three members of the negation: 1) not of blood, but of the seed of God (1Jn_3:9), which is the word of God (1Pe_1:23 : ἀíáãåííçìÝíïé … äéÜ ëüãïõ æῶíôïò èåïῦ ; Jam_1:18 : ἀðåêýçóåí ἡìᾶò ëüãῳ ἀëçèåßáò ; 2) nor of the will of the flesh, but of the Spirit (Joh_3:6 : ãåãåííçìÝíïí ἐê ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò ; 3) nor yet of the will of man, but of the will of God (Jam_1:18 : âïõëçèåὶò ἀðåêýçóåí ἡìᾶò ὁ èåüò ; Eph_1:5 : êáôὰ ôὴí åὐäïêßáí ôïῦ èåëÞìáôïò áὐôïῦ . Bengel analyzes differently: 1) ex cœlesti Patre; 2) ex amore divino; 3) ex Spiritu sancto. Grace does not descend through the channel of nature in any form, but a new creative act of God is necessary in every regeneration. Barnes, in his notes on Joh_1:13, confounds regeneration with conversion. Regeneration is an act of God, and may take place in infancy (think of John the Baptist leaping in the mother’s womb); conversion or change of mind ( ìåôÜíïéá ) is the act of man, by which, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he turns, in conscious repentance and faith, from sin and Satan to God.—P. S.]
2. The same came for witness, John the Baptist, the last, most distinct form of the Old Testament prophecy, and as such the witness of Christ in the history of the world, at the same time in his freedom from jealousy a witness to the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament. The death of John a martyrdom (witness-bearing) to his fidelity as forerunner.
3. Through John His noblest disciples came to believe, through them all succeeding disciples and Christians, (See Schleiermacher, Predigten I., p. 18.)
4. He was not the Light. An antithesis applying not only to the Old and New Testaments, but also to Christ, the fountain of light, and the Apostles and Christians, with the prophets, as receivers and bearers of the light.
5. The true Light was coming. The pre-Christian Advent. (1) Founded (a) in the nature of Christ: “The true Light, which lighteneth every man,” i.e., shines into him from within through the fundamental laws of personal, mental life, from without through nature and history; (b) in the nature of the world: Made by the Logos, standing by His presence. (2) Unfolding itself (a) in a general invisible force: The shining in the darkness, the lighting of every man; Christ’s being in the world [primordial religion]; (b) in historical theocratic form: Education of Israel for His possession, and His coming to His own (the Old Testament religion in its development).
6. Received Him not. The obduracy, a self-estrangement, as well as a hostile bearing towards the admission of the yearning Householder. The obduracy of Israel in its historical development and completion; the great warning to the Christian world; warning, and alas, still more, Mat_24:38.
7. That believe in His name.—Respecting the name, see above in the exegesis of this passage. Appearance of the name of the Logos, in the more definite sense, with the Old Testament revelation (the Angel of the Lord and the Messiah). Faith in the objective Messiah was in the subject, incipient sonship. In the righteousness of faith lay a point of union between the word of God and the heart of man, a quickening germ of personal children of God, therefore the power to become sons. But this could be brought to decision and contemplation only by the historical appearance of Christ and by the redemption accomplished in Him. As the revelation of God strove from the first towards concentration in the Name, the making Himself personally, perfectly known, so true faith strives from the beginning after the concentrated receiving of a distinct personal life. Centripetal faith, living faith; centrifugal faith, dying or dead faith.
8. Who were born not of blood. The truth and the insufficiency of inherited privilege. The Biblical doctrine of covenant grace not yet duly received in the church. Its antagonism to the unchurchly conception of the relation between nature and spirit, and even to the Augustinian overstatement of original sin. Its antagonism to Pelagianism. (See Posit. Dogmatik., p. 514 sqq.)
9. But of God. First the righteousness of faith present; then circumcision as the symbol of regeneration. The idea of real regeneration develops itself with the idea of the personal Messiah. Its development or genesis is reciprocal with that of repentance, faith, the experience of grace, in the saving process as it advances from the outward to the inward.
Starke: Jesus alone had a fore-runner.—Like the aurora before the sun, so John, according to the word of prophecy, must bear himself before Christ.—Hedinger: Teachers and all Christians are indeed lights also, in virtue of their divine calling, fellowship with God, and holy living, yet their main object is to bear witness of the light in Christ, to lead to it by precept and example.—O glorious nobility! to be born of God, His child and heir!—Behold, what manner of love! 1Jn_3:1.—Osiander: What is due to Christ alone, must not be attributed to any man.—The eternal light sends forth rays in the hearts of all men. He who is not enlightened, must ascribe it to himself and the dominion of darkness.—Canstein: Noble family helps not to sonship and salvation, but only the being born anew of God.—Mosheim : Men in the state of nature are not children of God, and therefore have no right to salvation.
Gerlach, after Augustine: Corrupt men are called the world, because they love the world more than its Creator. By love we dwell in a thing with the heart, and we have therefore deserved to bear the name of that wherein we dwell by love.
Heubner: John must prepare the way for the reception of the Light.—The light must came gradually, else it blinds.—The nobility of the children of God is attained only through the Spirit, through birth from God, through a proper spiritual generation.
[Joh_1:6. John the Baptist, the greatest of men before Christ, because he was nearest to Christ, and comprehended all the light of the preparatory revelations of Moses and the prophets.
Joh_1:7. Every minister only a borrowed light to lean men to Christ, the true Light.
Joh_1:8. Christ is the sun of the soul, the source of spiritual light, life and growth.—P. S.]
[Joh_1:9. Arrowsmith: Christ is the true Light; 1. The undeceiving Light, in opposition to all the false lights of the Gentiles ; 2. The real Light, in opposition, to ceremonial types and shadows; 3. The underived Light, in opposition to all borrowed light; 4. The supereminent Light, in opposition to all ordinary light.
Joh_1:10. Hengstenberg: The creature should shout for joy, if its Creator comes to redeem it.
Joh_1:11. It is disgraceful if the creature despises the creature; it is doubly disgraceful if the people of the Covenant despise the Lord of the Covenant.]
[Joh_1:13. The new (celestial, divine) birth constitutes the true nobility of grace, as contrasted with the aristocracy of natural birth, the aristocracy of money, the aristocracy of merit, the aristocracy of fame.—Regeneration: 1. Its origin; 2. Its growth; 3. Its manifestation; 4.Its end (the final resurrection).—The children of God the salt of the earth, the light of the world, the benefactors of the race.—Comp. the admirable description of Christian life in the Epistle to Diognetus, ch. v. and vi., composed soon after the Apostolic age. Christians in the world are there compared to the soul in the body: they are scattered through the world and dwell in the world, yet are not of the world: they are hated by the world, yet love and benefit it; they are imprisoned in the world, yet preserve it from corruption, they are sojourners in the perishing world, looking for an incorruptible dwelling in heaven.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Joh_1:6. [The Greek here is ἐãÝíåôï (became), which differs from ἦí (was), Joh_1:1, as the German ward (or geworden) does from war, but it cannot be well rendered in English. It is the antithesis between temporal or created existence which has a beginning, and implies previous non-existence, and eternal or uncreated existence, which has neither beginning nor end. The same distinction—Joh_8:58 : ðñὶí ̓ Áâñáὰì ãåíÝóèáé , ἐãþ åἰìé .—P. S.]
Joh_1:6. [ ἀðåóôáëìÝíïò does not belong to ἐãÝíåôï = ἀðåóôÜëç (Chrysostom, Hom. 6 p. 42, and Hengstenberg), but to ἄíèñùðïò .—P. S.]
Joh_1:9. [So Lange, Ewald somewhat differently: Ja das wahrhaflige Licht, welches jeden Menschen erleuchtet, kam stets in die welt. Others translate: that was the true Light which, coming into the world, lighteth every man. ἐñ÷üìåíïí may be connected with ἄíèñùðïí Vulg.: hominem venientem, Luth., E. V.), or better, with ἦí (Lange, Ewald). See the Exeg. Notes. In the latter case a comma should be made after ἄíèñùðïí , as is done by Tischendorf, eighth ed.—P. S.]
Joh_1:10. [ äἰ áí ̓ ôïí ͂. Cod. à * read äἰ áí ̓ ôüí , probably an error of the copyist.—P. S.]
Joh_1:11. [The E.V. obliterates the distinction between the neutral ôὰ ἴäéá , das Seine, his own things, possessions, inheritance, and the masculine ïßἴäéïé , die Seinen, his own people, servants, subjects.—P. S.]
Joh_1:13. The difficulty of the passage has occasioned the omission of ïí ̓ äὲ ἐê èåë . óáñê . in Cod. E and others; and of ïí ̓ äὲ ἐê èåë . ἀíèñ . in Cod. B. and others. Others, as Augustine, have transposed the clauses. [See Tischend. Oct. VIII. p. 743.]
[Hengstenberg adopts the construction of Chrysostom, which would have been more naturally expressed by ἀðåóôÜëç , and defends it by referring to Mal_3:1; Mal_3:13 : “Lo, I am sending my messenger,” etc., compared with the words of the Baptist, Joh_3:28 : ἀðåóôáëìÝíïò åἰìὶ ἔìðñïóèåí áí ̓ ôïῦ . I prefer the usual connection of ἀðåóôáëìÝíïò with ἄíèñùðïò .—P. S.]
[The Baptist is mentioned in the Prologue to confirm the reality of the historical appearance of Christ: Brückner; as a brilliant exception from the terrible darkness spoken of Joh_1:5 : Ewald; to explain the rejection of Christ by His own people, Joh_1:10-11 : Meyer; to introduce the historic manifestation of the word: Alford. He is mentioned rather as the personal representative of the whole O. T. revelation in whom the law and the promise, Moses and Isaiah, were united and pointed directly to Christ. See Lange in the text.—P. S.]
[In the fifth edition of Meyer the reference to Ewald is omitted. In his Commentary, Ewald translates äἰ áí ̓ ôïῦ durch ihn without explaining whether ihn is meant of John or of Christ.—P. S.]
[Ryle: “One of those texts which show the immense importance of the ministerial office through which the Holy Spirit is pleased to produce faith in man’s heart.—P. S.]
[Meyer denies the reference to the disciples of John entirely. Godet, on the contrary, defends it, and justly so, in view of Joh_1:20; Joh_3:25; and in view of the Gnostic sect of the Disciples of John in the second century, who held that John the Baptist was the true Messiah. (Clementis Rom. Recognitiones l. I. c. 54 and 60. Comp. the articles of Petermann, Mendüer and Zabier, in Herzog’s Encyclop. Vols. IX. p. 318 and XVIII. p. 341.) Only we must not suppose either that John wrote expressly, or exclusively against this error. See Dr. Lange above.—P. S.]
[In the first ed. Luther translated: “Das war ein wahr-haftig Licht, welches alle Menschen erleuchtet durch seine Zukunft in die Welt,” i.e., “which, coming into the world, lighteneth all men.” In the later editions he followed the Vulgate.—P. S.]
[Meyer, however, lays the emphasis on ἧí aderat, which is put first, and translates: “Vorhanden war das Licht das wahrhaftiqe, welches erleuchtet jeden Menschen, der in die Welt kommt,” the true light was in existence, etc. But there is no good reason why ἧí should be emphasized rather than ἀëçèôíüí , and then ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ ἡí , Joh_1:10, would be a repetition of Joh_1:9. The old usual interpretation is preferable to Meyer’s, but both are to be rejected, because the phrase to come into the world for to be born, though Rabbinical ( áָּòåֹìַíáֹּì áָּàֵé =all men), is not Scriptural, as applied to common men, but is reserved exclusively for the Messiah with the implied sense of præ-existence, Joh_3:19; Joh_3:3; Joh_6:14; Joh_11:27; Joh_12:46; Joh_18:37. Bengel: “Apud Hebræos frequens est periphrasis hominis, äáִà áִòåìí veniens in mundum, sed in N. T. et. præcipue in in hoc libro id at solo Christo dicitur, sublimi significatu. Erat enim, ante etiam, quam veniret.”—P. S.]
[In his Commentary Ewald explains somewhat differently. He connects Joh_1:9 with Joh_1:4 : es kam damals immer in die Welt, it was at that time always coming into the world, so that every mortal, if he would, might have been guided by the light.—P. S.]
[Keim: “er war in stetem Kommen in die Welt.” Similarly Ewald, see preceding foot-note. ἦí ἐñ÷üìåíïí is stronger than ἦí , and implies a continued action, like the English, was coming, as distinct from came. Comp. ἦí âáðôßæùí , Joh_1:28. Hengstenberg accounts for this circumlocution of the simpler imperf. by the emphasis laid on ἐñ÷üìåíïò as a term of the Messiah; comp. Mat_3:11 : ὁ ὀðßóù ìïí ἐñ÷üìåíïò ; Joh_11:3; Joh_1:15; Joh_1:27; Joh_1:30.—P. S.]
[Comp. the lines of Göthe:
“War nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,
Wie könnten wir das Licht erblicken?
Lebt’ nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft,
Wie könnt’ uns Göttliches entzücken?”—P. S.]
[There is no Scripture proof that ἴäéá (viz., äþìáôá , ïἰêÞìáôá ) means the world, and ἴäéïé mankind in general; both expressions refer to Israel as the peculiar people of God, ἴäéá to the nation as a whole, ἴäéïé to the individuals. George Campbell (on the Gospels). Alford and Barnes would understand ôá ἴäéá of Palestine or Judea, and ïß ἴäéïé of its inhabitants.—P. S.]
[Something of this feeling of sadness, in view of the ingratitude of the world to Christ, pervades the hymn of the noble Novalis:
Wenn alle untreu werden,
So bleib ich Der dock treu,”
especially the second stanza:
I could weep night and morning
That Thou hast died, and yet
So few will heed Thy warning,
So many Thee forget.
O loving and true-hearted,
How much for us didst Thou!
Yet is Thy fame departed,
And none regards it now.—P. S.]
[Godet translates: “elle (la Parole) les a mis en position de devenir enfants de Dieu” and explains ἐîïíóὶá to mean essentially the same with the Pauline íἱïèåóὶá , the filial relation to which man is restored by faith, yet not identical with regeneration, but a condition to it. “Car Dieu ne peut communiquer sa propre vie par le ðíåí ͂ ìá qu' ὰ un homme avec qui il est reconcilié.… Mais une f ï ie que l' adoption a eu lieu, la reg énération doit suivre… et c ést la le second privilège, resultant, du premier, que saint Jean exprime dans ces mots: ‘Devenir enfants de Dieu.’” But the second is rather explanatory of the first ( ἐîïíóὶá ).—P. S.]
[In the fifth ed. Meyer explains: er ermätchtigte sie, he empowered them. Comp. Joh_5:27; Joh_17:2.—P. S.]
[Arrowsmith, quoted by Ryle: “The word ‘name’ in the Scripture is often put for person. The receivers of Christ are said to believe on His name, because the direct object of their faith is the person of Christ. It is not the believing that Christ died for all, or for me, or for the