Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_1:1. ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ . τ . λ . and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn_1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή , and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος , which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ . τ . λ . and ἐφανερώθη , and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος . The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν κ . τ . λ ., with the Greek commentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “ μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί , or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does do Wette’s interpretation: “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn_2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ), but ὅ , cannot, with several commentators (Erdmann, Lücke, Ebrard[24]), be found in this, that John means not only the person in itself, but at the same time its whole history, all that it did and experienced, for ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (synonymous with ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν , Gospel of Joh_1:1) is decisive as to the historical manifestation of Christ. Nor is it, with Düsterdieck, to be found in this, “because only this form (the neuter) is wide and flexible enough to bear at the same time the two conceptions of the one … object, the conception of the premundane existence and that of the historical manifestation,” for then each of the four ὅ’s would have to embrace in itself both these ideas, which, however, is not the case. But neither is it, with Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ed. 2, I. p. 112), this: “because John just wants to describe only the subject of the apostolic proclamation as such;” for this is not the order, that John first describes the subject of the apostolic proclamation only generally, and “then” defines it more particularly, but ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is itself the more particular definition of the subject of the proclamation. Nor, finally, is it, with Weiss, this, that the apostle does not here mean the Son of God Himself, but “that which constituted the eternal being of the Son,” namely life; for, on the one hand, nothing here points to a distinction of the Son and His being, and, on the other hand, it is not the being of the Son which the apostle heard, saw, handled, but the Son Himself. The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh_14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς .[26] By ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς John describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἮΝ , however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception.
ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς ] has frequently in the N. T. its more particular determination along with it, as in Mar_13:19, 2Pe_3:4 : Τῆς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς , or it is easily discovered from the context, as in Act_26:4. In the passage 2Th_2:13, ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς corresponds to the expression used in Eph_1:4 : ΠΡῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ , and is identical with the German “von Ewigkeit her” (from all eternity), for which elsewhere is said: ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ΑἸΏΝΩΝ (Eph_3:9), or similar words. Here it is explained by the following ἭΤΙς ἮΝ ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ . This existence of Christ with the Father precedes not merely His appearance in the flesh, but also the creation of the world, for according to Joh_1:2 the world was made by Him; ἈΡΧΉ is therefore not the moment of the beginning of the world, as it is frequently interpreted, but what preceded it (comp. Meyer on Gospel of Joh_1:1); Christ was before the world was, and is therefore not first from the beginning of the world, as Christ Himself in Joh_17:5 speaks of a δόξα which He had with the Father ΠΡῸ ΤΟῦ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ .[27] The apostle says here ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , because he is looking back from the time when Christ by His incarnation became the object of sensuous perception (similarly Ebrard). It is incorrect either to change the idea of εἶναι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς into that of existence in the predetermined plan,[28] by which the words are strained, or to interpret ἀρχή here of the beginning of the public activity of Christ in the flesh (Semler, Paulus, and others), by which the connection with 1Jn_1:2 is ignored.
ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ . τ . λ .] By the four sentences the apostle expresses the thought that that which was from the beginning was the subject of his own perception; the main purpose of them is not “to put forward that which is to be proclaimed about Christ as absolutely certain and self-experienced” (Ebrard), but to bring out and to establish the identity of that which was from the beginning with that which was manifested in the flesh, while he has at the same time in his view the Docetan heresy afterwards mentioned by him.[29] By the ὅ with which these sentences begin, nothing else, therefore, is meant than by the ὅ of the first sentence, namely Christ Himself (Brückner, Braune); and here the peculiar paradox is to be noticed, which lies in this, that the general ( ἡ ζωή ) is represented by the apostle as something perceived by his senses. It is erroneous to understand by each of these ὅ’s something different; thus by the first (with ἀκηκόαμεν ), perhaps the testimony which was expressed by God Himself (Grotius), or by the law and the prophets (Oecumenius), or by John the Baptist (Nicolas de Lyra), or even the words which Christ uttered (Ebrard); by the second ὅ (with ἑωράκαμεν ), the miracles of Christ (Ebrard); by the third ὅ (with ἐθεασάμεθα ), tot et tauta miracula (Grotius), or even “the divine glory of Christ” (Ebrard); and by the ὅ which is to be supplied with ἐψηλάφησαν , the resurrection-body of Christ (Ebrard), or, still more arbitrarily, the panes multiplicatos, Lazarum, etc. (Grotius); all these supplementary ideas, which have originated in the incorrect assumption that John refers here to “the various sides of Christ’s appearance in the flesh,” and which can easily be confounded with others, are utterly unjustified, since they are in no way hinted, at in the context. John does not mean here to say that he has experienced this or that in Christ, but that he has heard, seen, looked upon, and handled Christ Himself. In the succession of the four verbs there lies an unmistakeable gradation (a Lapide: gradatim crescit oratio); from ἀκηκόαμεν to ἑωράκαμεν a climax occurs, in so far as we are more certainly and immediately convinced of the reality of an appearance of sense by sight than by hearing; the addition of the words τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν is not, as Lorinus already remarks, a περισσολογία or βαττολογία , but there is in them “plainly an aiming at emphasis, as: to see with one’s own eyes” (Winer, p. 535, VII. p. 564). The third verb ἐθεασάμεθα must not here be taken—with Bede and Ebrard—in the sense of spiritual beholding, by which it is removed from the sphere to which the other verbs belong; it is rather of similar signification with ἑωράκαμεν —in this respect, that, equally with the latter, it indicates the seeing with the bodily eyes. The difference does not, however, lie in this, that θεᾶσθαι = μετὰ θαύματος καὶ θάμβους ὁρᾶν (Oecumenius, a Lapide, Hornejus, etc.), or = attente cum gaudio et admiratione conspicere (Blackwell), by which significations are put into the word which are foreign to it in itself, but in this, that it has in it the suggestion of intention.[30] It is to be remarked that ἐθεασάμεθα is closely connected with the following καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ; for ὅ is not repeated here, and both verbs are in the aorist, so that they thus go to form a sort of contrast to the two preceding clauses; whilst ἀκούειν and ὁρᾷν express rather the involuntary perception, θεᾶσθαι and ψηλαφεῖν express acts of voluntary design,—the former the purposed beholding, the latter the purposed touching of the object in order to convince oneself of its reality and of its nature. As both these parts of the clause remind us of the words of the risen Christ: ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε (Luk_24:39), it is not improbable that John had in his mind the beholding and touching of the Risen One, only it must be maintained at the same time that Christ was one and the same to him before and after His resurrection. In this view, the transition from the perfect to the aorist is naturally explained in this way, that the apostle in the last verbs refers to single definite acts.[31] The plural ἀκηκόαμεν κ . τ . λ . is not plur. majestaticus, but is used because John, although he speaks of himself as subject, still at the same time embraces in his consciousness the other apostles as having had the same experience as himself.
περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς ] is not dependent on any of the preceding verbs;[32] it is also inadmissible to explain περί here, with Brückner, in the sense in which it is used in 1Co_16:1; 1Co_16:12, namely, in order to mark the transition to something new; not only the sense, but also the position of περί prohibits this signification; it is an additional clause in apposition to the preceding descriptions of the object, by which it is stated to what ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , ὀ ἀκηκόαμεν refers. The expression ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς may be in itself a description of the Gospel (so it is taken by Grotius, Semler, Frommann, Ewald, de Wette, Brückner, Düsterdieck, etc.), and τῆς ζωῆς either gen. obj. (1Co_1:18; 2Co_5:19), or gen. qualitatis (Php_2:16; Gospel of Joh_6:68); but this acceptation is refuted, first, by the preposition περί , instead of which the simple accusative would have had to be put, for John proclaimed not about the gospel, but the gospel itself ( ἀπαγγέλλομεν , 1Jn_1:3); then by the close connection of this additional clause with the preceding objective clauses; and, finally, by the analogy with the prooemium of the Gospel of John (1Jn_1:1 : ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ; 1Jn_1:4 : ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν ). These reasons, which are opposed to that explanation, are in favour of the explanation of Hornejus: hic non denotatur sermo s. verbum evangelii, sed Christus, which is also that of most commentators. The opinion of Düsterdieck, that “as John (according to 1Jn_1:2) considered the Logos itself as ἡ ζωή , ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος , the λόγος in the composition ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς cannot again be the personal Logos,” is overthrown by this, that τῆς ζωῆς in itself is not the name of a person, but of a thing, just as in Gospel of Joh_1:4, ζωή in the clause ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν , and τὸ φῶς τ . ἀνθρ . in the clause καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τ . ἀνθρ . Even ὁ λόγος is the name of a thing; not, indeed, that we should understand by it, first, “the word, which was preached by the apostles,” and then, because this has Christ as its subject, “Christ Himself,” as Hofmann (Schriftbew. ed. 2, I. p. 109 ff.) thinks, for the subject of a word cannot be called the Word (comp. Meyer on Gospel of Joh_1:1[33]), but ὁ λόγος signifies, in the province of religious thought, κατʼ ἐξοχήν , the Word by which God expressed Himself ἐν ἀρχῇ . Though John of course knows that this Word is the personal Christ, yet in this expression in itself the idea of personality is not yet brought out. This being the case, we will have to understand the compound phrase: ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς , first of all as the name of a thing;[34] so that John in this description, which in itself does not express the idea of personality, does not mean to say that that which was from the beginning, and which he has heard, etc., is the person that bears the name ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς , but only defines more particularly the object, previously stated indefinitely, in so far that it is the Word of life, i.e. the Word which has life in it (whose nature consists in this, that it is life), and is the source of all life (Braune); comp. Joh_6:35; Joh_8:12. In agreement with this, Weiss says (p. 35) that ὁ λόγος is here, as in the prologue of the Gospel, a description of the nature of the Son of God; but the assertion is incorrect, that the genitive τῆς ζωῆς describes the Word as “the Word belonging to life, necessary for life,” in favour of which he appeals incorrectly to the expressions ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (Joh_6:35; Joh_6:48) and ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου (Joh_6:68). This explanation is refuted by this, that with it ἡ ζωή , 1Jn_1:2, must be taken in a different reference from that which τῆς ζωῆς has here.[35]
The personality of this Word, which has already been indicated by Ὃ ἈΚΗΚΌΑΜΕΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., is still more definitely expressed in 1Jn_1:2 by the twofold ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ , in which Ὃ ἙΩΡΆΚΑΜΕΝ ΚΑῚ ἈΚΗΚΌΑΜΕΝ of 1Jn_1:3 finds its explanation. That in the expression Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς Τῆς ΖΩῆς the emphasis lies on Τῆς ΖΩῆς , is clear from this, that in 1Jn_1:2 it is not Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς , but Ἡ ΖΩΉ , that is the subject. The construction with ΠΕΡΊ is thus explained, that the apostle does not thereby mean to speak of the object of his proclamation, which he has already stated in Ὃ ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς Κ . Τ . Λ ., but only desires to add a more particular description of it, for which reason also it is not to be regarded as dependent on ἈΠΑΓΓΈΛΛΟΜΕΝ . Braune incorrectly takes it as “a new dependent clause parallel in its matter to the succession of relative clauses, which along with the latter comes to an end in ἈΠΑΓΓΈΛΛΟΜΕΝ .” Ebrard groundlessly finds in this construction the suggestion, that John considers as the object of his proclamation, not Christ “as an abstract single conception” (!), but “his concrete historical experiences of Christ.”
[24] Lücke gives this explanation of the neuter: that John, “seeking to express briefly the idea of the Gospel, combines in this idea the person of Christ, as the incarnate Logos, with His whole history and work.”—Erdmann first remarks: Forma neutrius generis generalis notio e contextis atque Joannis dicendi ratione facile definienda, ad personam Christi aperte referenda significatur, nec solum vis et amplitudo sententiae apte notatur, sed etiam illo ὅ quater repetito orationis sublimitati concinnitas additur; and then continues: Praeterea meminerimns, non solum Christi personam per se spectatam hic designari, verum etiam omnia, quae per vitam humanam ab eo perfecta et profecta, acta, dicta, etc. λόγον in eo apparuisse comprobant.—With this the opinion of Ebrard agrees, that ὅ shows that the person was not to be proclaimed qua person, not as an abstraction, but in its historical manifestation. Against this, however, it is a valid objection, that John in ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς has plainly in his view the Logos not in, but before its historical manifestation.—When Erdmann appeals, in favour of John’s reference of the neuter to persons, to the passages, Gospel of Joh_3:6; Joh_6:39; Joh_17:2, 1Jn_4:4, it is, on the other hand, to be observed that in all these passages the neuter serves to combine the single individuals into a whole that embraces the entirety of them, which permits of no application to the use of ὅ here.
[25] Ebrard rejects this explanation as quite erroneous, and as being in contradiction with the acceptation of the verse otherwise. The rashness of this judgment is clearly evident from the question which he adds: “Where would there be even the shadow of a grammatical reference of ὅ to ζωῆς ?” for a grammatical reference is not and could not be asserted.—Bertheau’s objection (Lücke, Comment. ed. 3, p. 206 f.), that “we would still have to regard the neuter form as a general comprehensive expression which refers both to that to which the apostle ascribes a primeval existence and to that which he has heard with his ears,” etc., is not tenable, for it rests on the unproved assumption that ὁ λόγος τ . ζ . is not identical with that which the apostle regarded as the object of the ἀκούειν κ . τ . λ .
[26] It is unsuitable to explain the ὅ , with Braune, in this way, that the apostle, “in view of the mysterious sublimity … wrote in a flight and feeling of indefiniteness.”
[27] That the λόγος before the creation of the world was immanent in God, but by the accomplishment of the act of creation hypostatically proceeded from God (see Meyer on Gospel of Joh_1:1), is an idea nowhere hinted at in scripture.
[28] Grotius: eae res, quas apostoli sensibus suis percepere, fuerunt a Deo destinatae jam ab ipso mundi primordio.
[29] Erdmann: Jam etiam clarum fit, cur tam diserte … testem oculatum et auritum se significare studeat, scilicet primum ut veritatem et certitudinem verbi aeterni in Christo manifestati sensibusque humanis percepti adversus contrariam pseudodoctorum doctrinam … confirmet, deinde ut sui praeconii apostolici fidem et auctoritatem in ipsa sensuum expericutia fundatam ab insolentia illorum vindicet.
[30] This force Lücke brings out correctly: “Where the expressions are used as contrasted, ὁρᾷν signifies altogether the objective seeing, but θεᾶσθαι the designed, continued beholding.”
[31] Düsterdieck rightly remarks that the change of the tenses does not here originate in an indefiniteness. His view, however, “that the transition from the perfect to the aorist is to be explained in this way, that the nearer the apostle’s discourse comes to the definite historical force of ἐφανερώθη , the more it takes the historical form,” is untenable, for ἀκούειν and ὁρᾷν stand to ἐφανερώθη in no other relation than θεᾶσθαι and ψηλαφεῖν . Brückner opposes the view indicated above, being of opinion that the perfect emphasizes “the certain effect,” the aorist, on the other hand, “the historical event;” but why would John there emphasize the former and here the latter, if this were not to be explained by the distinction which we have stated?
[32] S. G. Lange construes περί with the first sentence: ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , so that the sense that results to him, explaining ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς = “from the beginning of His ministry,” and εἶναι = “fieri, to happen,” is: “that which happened from the beginning in connection with our Lord, the Word of life!”—Not less extraordinary is the explanation of Paulus: “what in general was thus in regard to the Logos; what we, in regard to Him, heard, saw, etc., that also, in regard to Him, these hands of ours have touched,” namely, “the human body which here contained Him as the Logos come down from above.”
[33] The identification of the ideas: κήρυγμα (= λόγος ) and ὁ κηρυσσόμενος , by which, without enlargement, the former could be put where the latter is meant, is rightly opposed by Luthardt (Das Ev. Joh. p. 284 ff.); and what Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of his Schriftbeweis, brings forward for his defence, does not refute the statements of Luthardt. But even the explanation of Luthardt, that Christ is called the Word because He “is the Word which God has spoken to the world, because He is the final and last word of all earlier words of God to the world,” cannot be justified, because, on the one hand, in the simple expression λόγος nothing is less indicated than that He is the final word, and, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged that Christ, not merely from His incarnation, but from the very beginning, is the Word in which life is, or the Word of Life.
[34] Even Hofmann has rightly recognised this, although only from his inadmissible interpretation of the idea ὁ λόγος : “As ὁ λόγος is the word of the apostolic proclamation, ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is also not meant to be the proper name of a personal being, but the description of a thing, which requires the genitival attributive τῆς ζωῆς in order to be described according to its peculiar essence.”
[35] This incongruity is concealed by Weiss in this way, that he takes ζωή = “knowledge of God;” but it is not thereby removed, for Weiss understands ζωῆς here “our knowledge of God,” but by ἡ ζωή in ver. 2, on the other hand, the knowledge of God which the Logos has.—It is arbitrary for Ewald to explain λόγος by “subject,” and, accordingly, περὶ τοῦ λόγ . τῆς ζωῆς by “in regard to the subject of life.”