Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 1:5 - 1:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_1:5. Relation of the light to the darkness.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ] and the light shineth;[78] not “and thus, as the light, the Logos shineth” (Lücke). The discourse steadily progresses link by link, so that the preceding predicate becomes the subject.
φαίνει ] Present, i.e. uninterruptedly from the beginning until now; it embraces, therefore, the illuminating activity of the λόγος ἄσαρκος [79] and ἔνσαρκος . As it is arbitrary to supply the idea of “still present” (Weiss), so also is its limitation to the revelations by the prophets of the O. T., which would make φαίνει merely the descriptive praesens historicum (De Wette). For the assumption of this, however, in connection with pure preterites there is no warrant; comp. rather φωτίζωι , Joh_1:9. According to Ewald, Jahrb. V. 194 (see his Johann. Schr. I. 121), φαίνει represents as present the time in which the Light, which since the creation had enlightened men only from afar, had now suddenly come down into the world, which without it is darkness, and was shining in the midst of this darkness. An antithetic relation is thus assumed (“only from afar,—but now suddenly in the midst”) which has no support in the present tense alone, without some more distinct intimation in the text. The stress, moreover, is not on φαίνει , but the (tragic) emphasis is laid on the ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ , which with this object precedes it. It is the continuation of the discourse, Joh_1:7 ff., which first leads specially to the action of the Incarnate One (this also against Hengstenb.).
The σκοτία is the negation and opposite of the φῶς , the condition and order of things in which man does not possess the divine ἀλήθεια , but has become the prey of folly, falsehood, and sin, as a godless ruling power, with all its misery. Here the abstract term “darkness,” as the element in which the light shines, denotes not the individual subject of darkness (Eph_5:8), but, as the context requires, that same totality which had been previously described by τῶν ἀνθρώπων , consequently mankind in general, in so far as in and for themselves they have since the fall been destitute of divine truth, and have become corrupt in understanding and will. Melancthon well says, “genus humanum oppressum peccato vocat tenebras.” Frommann is altogether mistaken in holding that σκοτία differs in the two clauses, and means (1) humanity so far as it yet lay beyond the influence of the light, and (2) humanity so far as it was opposed thereto. But Hilgenfeld is likewise in error, when, out of a different circle of ideas, he imports the notion that “light and darkness are primeval opposites, which did not first originate with the fall;” see on Joh_8:44.
οὐ κατέλαβεν ] apprehended it not, look not possession of it; it was not appropriated by the darkness, so that thereby the latter might have become light, but remained aloof and alien to it. Comp. Php_3:12-13, 1Co_9:24, and especially Rom_9:30; also expressions like καταλαμβ . σοφίαν , Sir_15:1; Sir_15:7. The explanation apprehended, i.e. ἔγνω , Joh_1:10 (Eph_3:18; Act_10:34; Act_4:13; Plato, Phaedr. p. 250 D; Phil. p. 16 D; Polyb. viii. 4. 6), is on one side arbitrarily narrowing, on another anticipatory, since it foists in the individual subjects of the σκοτία , which is conceived of as a realm. It is erroneous to interpret, as Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Bos., Schulthess, Hoelemann, p. 60, also Lange: “The darkness did not hem it in, oppress it; it was invincible before it.” Linguistically this is allowable (see Schweighaüser, Lex. Herod. II. p. 18), but it nowhere so occurs in the N. T., and is here opposed to the parallels, Joh_1:10-11.
Observe that οὐ κατέλαβεν , which presupposes no Gnostic absolutism, but freedom of moral self-determination (comp. Joh_1:11-12), reflects the phenomenon as a whole, and indeed as it presented itself to John in history and experience; hence the aorist. Comp. Joh_3:19.
[78] φαίνει , lucet, not interchangeable with φαίνεται , which means apparet. See on Php_2:15. Godet’s criticism of the distinction is erroneous.
[79] Godet thinks that the law written in the heart, the light of conscience, is meant (Rom_2:14), which the Logos makes use of; and this His relation to all mankind is essential and permanent. But this would be utterly inadequate to the fulness of meaning expressed by φῶς , especially in its antithesis to σκοτία . The φῶς shines as divine light before Christ (by revelation and prophecy), and after Him. It is supernatural, heavenly. Comp. 1Jn_2:8. There is no mention here of the λόγος σπερματικός .