Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 1:9 - 1:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_1:9. For the correct apprehension of this verse, we must observe, (1) that ἦν has the main emphasis, and therefore is placed at the beginning: (2) that τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθ . cannot be the predicate, but must be the subject, because in Joh_1:8 another was the subject; consequently without a τοῦτο , or some such word, there are no grounds for supposing a subject not expressed: (3) that ἐρχόμ . εἰς τὸν κόσμον (with Origen, Syr., Copt., Euseb., Chrys., Cyril., Epiph., Nonnus, Theophyl., Euth. Zig., It., Vulg., Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Aret., and most of the early expositors[81]) can only be connected with πάντα ἄνθρωπον , not with ἦν ; because when John was bearing witness the Logos was already in the world (Joh_1:26), not simply then came into the world, or was about to come, or had to come. We should thus be obliged arbitrarily to restrict ἐρχ . εἰς τ . κόσμ . to His entrance upon His public ministry, as Grotius already did (from whom Calovius differs), and because the order of the words does not suggest the connecting of ἦν with ἐρχόμ .; rather would the prominence given to ἦν , and its wide separation from ἐρχόμ ., be without any reason. Hence the connection by the early church of ἐρχόμ . with π . ἄνθρ . is by no means to be regarded, with Hilgenfeld, as obsolete, but is to be retained,—to be explained, however, thus: “The true Light was existing, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world”. This, together with the following ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν onwards to ἐγένετο , serves, by preparing the way, to strengthen the portentous and melancholy antithesis, καὶ ὁ κόσμ . αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω . The usual objection that ἐρχόμ . εἰς τ . κ ., when referred to πάντα ἄνθρ ., is a superfluous by-clause, is inept. There is such a thing as a solemn redundance, and that we have here, an epic fulness of words. Hence we must reject (1) the usual interpretation by the older writers (before Grotius), with whom even Kaeuffer sides: “He (or even that, namely to τὸ φῶς ) was the true Light which lighteth all men who come into this world” (Luther), against which we have already remarked under (1) and (2) above; again, (2) the construction which connects ἐρχόμ . with φῶς as an accompanying definition (so probably Theod. Mopsu.; some in Augustine, de pecc. mer. et rem. i. 25; Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius; Schott, Opusc. I. p. 14; Maier): “He was the true Light, which was at that time to come into the world;”[82] also, (3) the connecting of ἦν with ἐρχόμενον , so as to interpret it either in a purely historical sense (Bleek, Köstlin, B. Crusius, Lange, Hengstenberg: “He came”, with reference to Mal_3:1; and so already Bengel); or relatively, as De Wette, Lücke: “when John had appeared to bear witness of Him, even then came the true Light into the world,” comp. Hauff in the Stud. u. Krit. 1846, p. 575; or as future, of Him who was soon to appear: venturum erat (Rinck, Tholuck), according to Luthardt (comp. Baeuml.): “it had been determined of God that He should come;” or more exactly, of an unfulfilled state of things, still present at that present time: “It was coming” (Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 51[83]); and according to Ewald, who attaches it to Joh_1:4-5 : “It was at that time always coming into the world, so that every human being, if he had so wished, might have let himself be guided by Him;” comp. Keim: “He was continually coming into the world.” As to details, we have further to remark: ἦν ] aderat, as in Joh_7:39 and often; its more minute definition follows in Joh_1:10 : ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν . The Light was already there (in Jesus) when John bore witness of Him, Joh_1:26. The reference of Joh_1:9-13 to the working of the Logos before His incarnation (Tholuck, Olshausen, Baur, also Lange, Leben J. III. p. 1806 ff.) entirely breaks down before Joh_1:11-13, as well as before the comparison of the Baptist with the Logos, which presupposes the personal manifestation of the latter (comp. also Joh_1:15); and therefore Baur erroneously denies that there is any distinction made in the Prologue between the working of the Logos before Christ and in Christ. Comp. Bleek in the Stud u. Krit. 1833, p. 414 ff.
τὸ ἀληθινόν ] Because it was neither John nor any other, but the true, genuine, archetypal Light, which corresponds to the idea—the idea of the light realized.[84] Comp. Joh_4:23; Joh_4:37, Joh_6:32, Joh_7:28, Joh_15:1. See, generally, Schott, Opusc. I. p. 7 ff.; Frommann, Lehrbegr. p. 130 ff.; Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 333 ff.; also Hoelemann, l.c., p. 63, who, however, supposes an antithesis, which is without any support from the connection, to the cosmic light (Genesis 1).
ὁ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρ .] a characteristic of the true light; it illumines every one. This remains true, even though, as a matter of fact, the illumination is not received by many (see on Rom_2:4), so that every one does not really become what he could become, a child of light, φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ , Eph_5:8. The relation, as a matter of experience, resolves itself into this: “quisquis illuminatur, ab hac luce illuminatur,” Bengel; comp. Luthardt. It is not this, however, that is expressed, but the essential relation as it exists on the part of the Logos.[85] Bengel well says: “numerus singularis magnam hic vim habet.” Comp. Col_1:15; Rom_3:4.
ἐρχόμενον εἰς τ . κόσμον ] every man coming into the world; rightly without the article; comp. 2Jn_1:7. The addition of the predicative clause gives emphatic prominence to the conception of πάντα . There is no need to compare it with the Rabbinic áÌåÉà áÀòåÉìÈí (see Lightfoot and Schoettgen). Comp. Joh_16:21, and see on Joh_18:37.
[81] So of late Paulus also, and Klee, Kaeuffer in the Sächs. Stud. 1844, p. 116, Hoelemann, and Godet.
[82] The interpretation of Schoettgen, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller, as if instead of ἐρχόμ . we had ἦλθεν , is quite erroneous. Luther’s explanation down to 1527 was better: “through His advent into this world.”
[83] That is, during the time before His baptism; the man Jesus (according to the Valentinian Gnosis) did not become the organ of the Logos until His baptism, and accordingly through that rite the Logos first came into the world. The birth of Jesus was only introductory to that coming. Brückner, while rejecting this importation of Gnosticism, agrees in other respects with Hilgenfeld.—Philippi (der Eingang d. Joh. Ev. p. 89): “He was to come, according to the promises of the O. T.;” and ver. 10 : “These promises had now received their fulfilment.”
[84] In the classics, see Plato, Pol. i. p. 347 D ( τῷ ὄντι ἀληθινός ), vi. p. 499 C; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 17; Oec. x. 3; Dem. 113. 27, 1248. 22; Theocrit. 16 (Anthol.); Pindar, Ol. ii. 201; Polyb. i. 6. 6, et al. Rück., Abendm. p. 266, erroneously says, “the word seldom occurs in the classics.” It is especially common in Plato, and among later writers in Polybius.
[85] Luther: “Of what avail is it that the clear sun shines and lightens, if I shut my eyes and will not see his light, or creep away from it beneath the earth?” Comp. also Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 348 [E. T. p. 410].