Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_1:1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ] John makes the beginning of his Gospel parallel with that of Genesis;[61] but he rises above the historical conception of áÌÀøÅàùÑÄéú , which (Gen_1:1) includes the beginning of time itself, to the absolute conception of anteriority to time: the creation is something subsequent, Joh_1:3. Pro_8:23, ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ ΠΡῸ ΤΟῦ ΤῊΝ ΓῆΝ ΠΟΙῆΣΑΙ , is parallel; likewise, ΠΡῸ ΤΟῦ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΜΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ , Joh_17:5; ΠΡῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ , Eph_1:4. Comp. Nezach Israel, f. 48, 1 : Messias erat îôðé çåäå (ante Tohu). The same idea we find already in the book of Enoch 48:3 f., 48:6 f., 62:7,—a book which (against Hilgenfeld and others) dates back into the second century B.C. (Dilm., Ewald, and others). The notion, in itself negative, of anteriority to time ( ἄχρονος ἦν , ἀκίχητος , ἐν ἀῤῥήτῳ λόγος ἀρχῇ , Nonnus), is in a popular way affirmatively designated by the ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ as “primeval;” the more exact dogmatic definition of the ἀρχή as “eternity” (Theodor. Mopsuest., Euthym. Zig.; comp. Theophylact) is a correct development of John’s meaning, but not strictly what he himself says. Comp. 1Jn_1:1; Rev_3:14. The Valentinian notion, that ἀρχή was a divine Hypostasis distinct from the Father and the ΛΌΓΟς (Iren. Haer. i. 8. 5), and the Patristic view, that it was the divine σοφία
[61] See Hoelemann, de evangelii Joh. introitu introitus Geneseos augustiore effigie, Leipsic 1855, p. 26 ff.
(Origen) or the everlasting Father (Cyril. Al.), rest upon speculations altogether unjustified by correct exegesis.[62]
ἦν ] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής ) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς ] the Word; for the reference to the history of the creation leaves room for no other meaning (therefore not Reason). John assumes that his readers understand the term, and, notwithstanding its great importance, regards every additional explanation of it as superfluous. Hence those interpretations fall of themselves to the ground, which are unhistorical, and imply anything of a quid pro quo, such as (1) that ὁ λόγος is the same as Ὁ ΛΕΓΌΜΕΝΟς , “the promised one” (Valla, Beza, Ernesti, Tittm., etc.); (2) that it stands for ὁ λέγων , “the speaker” (Storr, Eckerm., Justi, and others). Not less incorrect (3) is Hofmann’s interpretation (Schriftbeweis, I. 1, p. 109 f.): “ ὁ λόγος is the word of God, the Gospel, the personal subject of which however, namely Christ, is here meant:” against which view it is decisive, first, that neither in Rev_19:13, nor elsewhere in the N. T., is Christ called ὁ λόγος merely as the subject—matter of the word; secondly, that in John, ὁ λόγος , without some additional definition, never once occurs as the designation of the Gospel, though it is often so used by Mark (Joh_2:2, Joh_4:14, al.), Luke (Joh_1:2; Act_11:19, al.), and Paul (Gal_6:6; 1Th_1:6); thirdly, that in the context, neither here (see especially Joh_1:14) nor in 1Jn_1:1 (see especially ὃ ἑωράκαμεν … καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ) does it seem allowable to depart in Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς from the immediate designation of the personal subject,[63] while this immediate designation, i.e. of the creative Word, is in our passage, from the obvious parallelism with the history of the creation, as clear and definite as it was appropriate it should be at the very commencement of the work. These reasons also tell substantially against the turn which Luthardt has given to Hofmann’s explanation: “ ὁ λόγος is the word of God, which in Christ, Heb_1:1, has gone forth into the world, and the theme of which was His own person.” See, on the other hand, Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 206 ff.; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit. p. 215; Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 116; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 466. The investigation of the Logos idea can only lead to a true result when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,[64] and most directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psa_33:6; Psa_107:20; Psa_147:15; Isa_55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psa_34:4; Isa_40:8; Psa_119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy. A way was thus paved for the hypostatizing of the λόγος as a further step in the knowledge of the relations in the divine essence; but this advance took place gradually, and only after the captivity, so that probably the oriental doctrine of emanations, and subsequently the Pythagorean-platonic philosophy, were not without influence upon what was already given in germ in Genesis 1. Another form of the conception, however, appears,—not the original one of the Word, but one which was connected with the advanced development of ethical and teleological reflection and the needs of the Theodicy,—that of wisdom ( çÈáÀîÈä ), of which the creative word was an expression, and which in the book of Job (Job_28:12 ff.) and Proverbs (Proverbs 8, 9), in Sir_1:1-10; Sir_24:8, and Bar_3:37 to Bar_4:4, is still set forth and depicted under the form of a personification, yet to such a degree that the portrayal more closely approaches that of the Hypostasis, and all the more closely the less it is able to preserve the elevation and boldness characteristic of the ancient poetry. The actual transition of the ΣΟΦΊΑ into the Hypostasis occurs in the book of Wis_7:7-11, where wisdom (manifestly under the influence of the idea of the Platonic soul of the world, perhaps also of the Stoic conception of an all-pervading world-spirit) appears as a being of light proceeding essentially from God,—the true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne,—a real and independent principle revealing God in the world (especially in Israel), and mediating between it and Him, after it has, as His organ, created the world, in association with a spirit among whose many predicates ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΈς [65] also is named, Joh_7:22. The divine λόγος also appears again in the book of Wis_9:1, comp. Wis_9:2, but only in the O. T. sense of a poetically personified declaration of God’s will, either in blessing (Joh_16:12, comp. Psa_107:20) or in punishing (Joh_18:15). See especially Grimm, in locc.; Bruch, Weisheitslehre d. Hebr, p. 347 ff. Comp. also Sir_43:33. While, then, in the Apocrypha the Logos representation retires before the development of the idea of wisdom,[66] it makes itself the more distinctly prominent in the Chaldee Paraphrasts, especially Onkelos: see Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. I. 1, p. 301 ff.; Winer, De Onkel. p. 44 f.; Anger, De Onkel. II. 1846. The Targums, the peculiarities of which rest on older traditions, exhibit the Word of God, îÅéîÀøÈà or ãÌÄáÌåÌøÈà , as the divinely revealing Hypostasis, identical with the ùÑÀáÄéðÈä which was to be revealed in the Messiah. Comp. Schoettg. Hor. II. p. 5; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 121. Thus there runs through the whole of Judaism, and represented under various forms (comp. especially the îÇìÀàÇêÀ éÀäÉåÈä in the O. T. from Genesis 16, Exodus 23 downwards, frequently named, especially in Hosea, Zechariah, and Malachi, as the representative of the self-revealing God), the idea that God never reveals Himself directly, but mediately, that is, does not reveal His hidden invisible essence, but only a manifestation of Himself (comp. especially Exo_33:12-23); and this idea, modified however by Greek and particularly Platonic and Stoic speculation, became a main feature in the Judaeo-Alexandrine philosophy, as this is set forth in PHILO, one of the older contemporaries of Jesus. See especially Gfrörer, I. 243 ff.; Dähne, Jüdisch-Alex. Religionsphil. I. 114 ff.; Grossmann, Quaestion. Philon., Lpz. 1829; Scheffer, Quaest. Phil. Marb. 1829, 1831; Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von dem göttl. Mittelwesen, Lpz. 1846; Ritter, Gesch. d. Philos. IV. 418 ff.; Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, III. 2; Lutterb. neut. Lehrbegr. I. 418 ff.; Müller in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. 484; Ewald, apost. Zeit. 257; Delitzsch in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1863, ii. 219; Riehm, Hebr. Brief, p. 249; Keim, Gesch. J.I. 212. Comp. also Langen, d. Judenth. z. Zeit Christi, 1867; Röhricht as formerly quoted. According to the intellectual development, so rich in its results, which Philo gave to the received Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, the Logos is the comprehension or sum-total of all the divine energies, so far as these are either hidden in the Godhead itself, or have come forth and been disseminated in the world ( λόγος σπερματικός ). As immanent in God, containing within itself the archetypal world, which is conceived as the real world—ideal ( ΝΟΗΤῸς ΚΌΣΜΟς ), it is, while not yet outwardly existing, like the immanent reason in men, the ΛΌΓΟς ἘΝΔΙΆΘΕΤΟς ; but when in creating the world it has issued forth from God, it answers to the ΛΌΓΟς ΠΡΟΦΟΡΙΚΌς , just as among men the word when spoken is the manifestation of thought. Now the ΛΌΓΟς ΠΡΟΦΟΡΙΚΌς is the comprehension or sum-total of God’s active relations to the world; so that creation, providence, the communication of all physical and moral power and gifts, of all life, light, and wisdom from God, are its work, not being essentially different in its attributes and workings from ΣΟΦΊΑ and the Divine Spirit itself. Hence it is the image of the Godhead, the eldest and first-begotten ( ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΑΤΟς , ΠΡΩΤΌΓΟΝΟς ) Son of God, the possessor of the entire divine fulness, the Mediator between 21 ΛΌΓΟς ΤΟΜΕΎς , ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΌς , ἈΡΧΙΕΡΕΎς , ἹΚΈΤΗς , ΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΤΉς , the ἈΡΧΆΓΓΕΛΟς , the ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟς ΘΕΌς , the substratum of all Theophanies, also the Messiah, though ideally apprehended only as a Theophany, not as a concrete humanized personality; for an incarnation of the Logos is foreign to Philo’s system (see Ewald, p. 284 ff.; Dorner, Entwickelungsgesch. I. 50). There is no doubt that Philo has often designated and described the Logos as a Person, although, where he views it rather as immanent in God, he applies himself more to describe a power, and to present it as an attribute. There is, however, no real ground for inferring, with some (Keferst., Zeller), from this variation in his representation, that Philo’s opinion wavered between personality and impersonality; rather, as regards the question of subsistence in its bearing upon Philo’s Logos (see especially Dorner, Entwickelungsgesch. I. 21; Niedner, de subsistentia τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ apud Philon. tribute, in the Zeitsch. f. histor. Theol. 1849, p. 337 ff.; and Hölemann, de evang. Joh. introitu, etc., p. 39 ff.), must we attribute to him no separation between the subsistence of God and the Logos, as if there came forth a Person distinct from God, whenever the Logos is described as a Person; but, “ea duo, in quibus cernitur ΤΟῦ ὌΝΤΟς ΚΑῚ ΖῶΝΤΟς ΘΕΟῦ essentia s. deitas plenum esse per suam ipsius essentiam et implere cuncta hac sua essentia, primo diserte uni substantiae tribuuntur, deinde distribuuntur, sed tantum inter essentiam et hujus actionem, quemadmodum nomina ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ et ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ hujus ipsius dei” (Niedner). Accordingly, Philo’s conception of the Logos resolves itself into the sum-total and full exercise of the divine energies; so that God, so far as He reveals Himself, is called Logos, while the Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God. That John owed his doctrine of the Logos—in which he represents the divine Messianic being as pre-existent, and entering into humanity in a human form—solely to the Alexandrine philosophy, is an assertion utterly arbitrary, especially considering the difference between Philo’s doctrine and that of John, not only in general (comp. also Godet, I. 233), but also in respect to the subsistence of the Logos in particular.[67] The form which John gave to his doctrine is understood much more naturally and historically thus, without by any means excluding the influence of the Alexandrine Gnosis upon the apostle;—that while the ancient popular wisdom of the Word of God, which (as we have above shown) carries us back to Gen_1:1, is acknowledged to be that through which the idea of the Logos, as manifested in human form in Christ, was immediately suggested to him, and to which he appended and unfolded his own peculiar development of this idea with all clearness and spiritual depth, according to the measure of those personal testimonies of his Lord which his memory vividly retained, he at the same time allowed the widespread Alexandrine speculations, so similar in their origin and theme, to have due influence upon him, and used[68] them in an independent manner to assist his exposition of the nature and working of the divine in Christ, fully conscious of their points of difference (among which must be reckoned the cosmological dualism of Philo, which excluded any real incarnation, and made God to have created the world out of the ὕλη ). Whether he adopted these speculations for the first time while dwelling in Asia Minor, need not be determined, although it is in itself very conceivable that the longer he lived in Asia, the more deeply did he penetrate into the Alexandrine theologoumenon which prevailed there, without any intermediate agency on the part of Apollos being required for that end (Tobler). The doctrine is not, however, on account of this connection with speculations beyond the pale of Christendom, by any means to be traced back to a mere fancy of the day. The main truth in it (the idea of the Son of God and His incarnation) had, long before he gave it its peculiar form, been in John’s mind the sole foundation of his faith, and the highest object of his knowledge; and this was no less the case with Paul and all the other apostles, though they did not formally adopt the Logos doctrine, because their idiosyncrasies and the conditions of their after development were different. That main truth in it is to be referred simply to Christ Himself, whose communications to His disciples, and direct influence upon them (Joh_1:14), as well as His further revelations and leadings by means of the Spirit of truth, furnished them with the material which was afterwards made use of in their various modes of representation. This procedure is specially apparent also in John, whose doctrine of the divine and pre-existent nature of Christ, far removed from the influences of later Gnosticism, breaks away in essential points from the Alexandrine type of doctrine, and moulds itself in a different shape, especially rejecting, in the most decided manner, all dualistic and docetic elements, and in general treating the form once chosen with the independence of an apostle. That idea of a revelation by God of His own essence, which took its rise from Genesis 1, which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a peculiar fashion by the Alexandrine philosophy, was adopted by John for the purpose of setting forth the abstract divinity of the Son,—thus bringing to light the reality which lies at the foundation of the Logos idea. Hence, according to John,[69] by ὁ λόγος , which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to Joh_1:18)[70] under the conception of a personal[71] subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Col_1:15 ff.), but for the accomplishment of the act of creation proceeding hypostatically from Him, and ever after operating even in the spiritual world as a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle, equal to God Himself in nature and glory (comp. Paul, Php_2:6); which divine self-revelation appeared bodily in the man Jesus, and accomplished, the work of the redemption of the world. John fashions and determines his Gospel from beginning to end with this highest christological idea in his eye; this it is which constitutes the distinctive character of its doctrine. Comp. Weizsäcker, üb. d. evang. Gesch. pp. 241 ff., 297; also his Abh. über d. Joh. Logoslehre, in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, pp. 619 ff., 701 f. The Synoptics contain the fragments and materials, the organic combination and ideal formation of which into one complete whole is the pre-eminent excellence of this last and highest Gospel. Paul has the Logos, only not in name.
The second and third ἦν is the copula; but καὶ ὁ λόγος , as the repetition of the great subject, has a solemnity about it.
πρὸς τὸν θεον ] not simply equivalent to ΠΑΡᾺ Τῷ ΘΕῷ , Joh_7:5, but expressing, as in 1Jn_1:2, the existence of the Logos in God in respect of intercourse (Bernhardy, p. 265). So also in all other passages where it appears to mean simply with, Mar_6:3; Mar_9:19; Mat_13:56; Mat_26:55; 1Co_16:6-7; Gal_1:18; Gal_4:18; and in the texts cited in Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 202.[72] Upon the thing itself, comp. concerning Wisdom, Pro_8:30, Wis_9:4. The moral essence of this essential fellowship is love (Joh_17:24; Col_1:13), with which, at the same time, any merely modalistic conception is excluded.
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ] and the Logos was God. This θεός can only be the predicate, not the subject (as Röhricht takes it), which would contradict the preceding ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν , because the conception of the ΛΌΓΟς would be only a periphrasis for God. The predicate is placed before the subject emphatically (comp. Joh_4:24), because the progress of the thought, “He was with God, and (not at all a Person of an inferior nature, but) possessed of a divine nature,” makes this latter—the new element to be introduced—the naturally and logically emphasized member of the new clause, on account of its relation to πρὸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ .[73] The omission of the article was necessary, because ὁ θεός after the preceding ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ would have assigned to the Logos identity of Person (as, in fact, Beyschlag, p. 162, construes θεός without the art.). But so long as the question of God’s self-mediation objectively remains out of consideration, Ὁ ΘΕΌς would have been out of place here, where ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ had laid down the distinction of Person; whereas θεός without the article makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of Person.[74] As, therefore, by θεός without the article, John neither desires to indicate, on the, one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that which God Himself possesses: so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo, which predicates ΘΕΌς without the article of the Logos in the sense of subordination in nature, nay, as he himself says, ἘΝ ΚΑΤΑΧΡΉΣΕΙ (I. 655, ed. Mang.); see Hoelemann, I. 1, p. 34. Moreover, the name Ὁ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟς ΘΕΌς , which Philo gives to the Logos, must, according to II. 625 (Euseb. praep. ev. vii. 13), expressly designate an intermediate nature between God and man, after whose image God created man. This subordinationism, according to which the Logos is indeed μεθόριός τις θεοῦ φύσις , but ΤΟῦ ΜῈΝ ἘΛΆΤΤΩΝ , ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ ΔῈ ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝ (I. 683), is not that of the N. T., which rather assumes (comp. Php_2:6, Col_1:15-16) the eternal unity of being of the Father and the Son, and places the subordination of the latter in His dependence on the Father, as it does the subordination of the Spirit in His dependence on the Father and the Son. ΘΕΌς , therefore, is not to be explained by help of Philo, nor is it to be converted into a general qualitative idea—“divine,” “God-like” (B. Crusius),—which deprives the expression of the precision which, especially considering the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular Joh_17:3), it must possess, owing to the conception of the personal Logos as a divine being. Comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. 370. On Sam. Crell’s conjecture (Artemonii initium ev. Joh. ex antiquitate eccl. restitut. 1726) that θεοῦ is a mere anti-trinitarian invention, see Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 214 ff.
[62] Quite opposed to correct exegesis, although in a totally different direction, is the rendering of the Socinians (see Catech. Racov. p. 135, ed. Oeder), that ἐν ἀρχῇ signifies in initio evangelii.
[63] See, with reference to 1Jn_1:1 (in opposition to Beyschlag’s impersonal interpretation), besides Düsterdieck and Huther, Johansson, de aeterna Christi praeexist. sec. ev. Joh., Lundae 1866, p. 29 f.
[64] See Röhricht in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 299 ff.
[65] Comp. Joh_7:25, where it is said of wisdom, ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής . Μονογενές should not have been rendered single (Bauerm., Lücke, Bruch, after the early writers), which it neither is nor is required to be by the merely formal contrast to πολυμερές . This idea single, as answering to the following πολυμερές , would have been expressed by μονομερές (Luc. Calumn. 6). Even Grimm (exeget. Handb. p. 152) has now rightly abandoned this interpretation.
[66] Wisdom as appearing in Christ is mentioned in N. T. also, in Luk_11:49, comp. Mat_11:19.
[67] It tells also against it, that in John the name λόγος is undoubtedly derived from the divine speaking (Word); in Philo, on the other hand, from the divine thinking (Reason). See Hoelemann as before, p. 43 ff.
[68] Comp. Delitzsch, l.c., and Psychol, p. 178 [E. T. pp. 210, 211]; Beyschlag, Christol d. N. T. p. 156; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 112 ff. If some attempt to deny the influence of the Judaeo-Alexandrine Gnosis on the Logos doctrine of John (Hoelemann, Weiss, J. Köstlin, Hengstenberg), they at the same time sever, though in the interests of apostolic dignity, its historical credibility from its connection with the circumstances of the time, as well as the necessary presumption of its intelligibility on the part of the readers of the Gospel. But it is exactly the noble simplicity and clearness of the Prologue which shows with what truly apostolic certainty John had experienced the influence of the speculations of his day, and was master of them, modifying, correcting, and utilizing them according to his own ideas. This is also in answer to Luthardt, p. 200, and Röhricht, l.c.
[69] In the Apocalypse also, chap. Joh_19:13, Christ is called the λόγος , but (not so in the Gospel) ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ . The writer of the Apocalypse speaks of the whole Person of the God-man in a different way from the evangelist,—in fact, as in His state of exaltation. (See Düsterdieck, z. Apok. Einl. p. 75 ff.) But the passage is important against all interpretations which depart from the metaphysical view of the Logos above referred to. Comp. Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 115 ff.
[70] Comp. Wörner, d. Verhältn. d. Geistes zum Sohne Gottes, 1862, p. 24; also Baur, neutest. Theol. 352; Godet, I.c.
[71] That is, the subsistence as a conscious intelligent Ego, endued with volition. Against the denial of this personal transcendency in John (De Wette, Beyschlag, and others), see in particular Köstlin, Lehrbegr. 90; Brückn. 7 f.; Liebner, Christol. 155 f.; Weiss, Lehrbegr. 242 f. When Dorner (Gesch. d. prot. Theol. 875 ff.) claims for the Son, indeed, a special divine mode of existence as His eternal characteristic, but at the same time denies Him any direct participation in the absolute divine personality, his limitation is exegetically opposed to the view of John and of the Apostle Paul.
[72] The expressions, in the language of the common people, in many districts are quite analogous: “he was with me,” “he stays with you” (bei mich, bei dioh), and the like. Comp. for the Greek, Krüger, § 68. 39. 4.—As against all impersonal conceptions of the Logos, observe it is never said ἐν τῷ θεῷ . Röhricht (p. 312), however, arrives at the meaning ἐν τῷ θεῷ , and by unwarrantably comparing the very different usage of πρός , takes exception to our explanation of πρὸς τὸν θεόν .
[73] There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of ver. 1, is unfolded with increasing fulness.
[74] “The last clause, the Word was God, is against Arius; the other, the Word was with God, against Sabellius.”—LUTHER. See also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. 83 ff.