The Gospel of St. John

A Newly Discovered Commentary

J. B. Lightfoot, Ben Witherington III, Todd D. Still, Jeanette M. Hagen

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780830829453
• eBook ISBN: 9780830898985
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

Preaching's Survey of Bibles and Bible Reference award

InterVarsity Press is proud to present The Lightfoot Legacy, a three-volume set of previously unpublished material from J. B. Lightfoot, one of the great biblical scholars of the modern era. In the spring of 2013, Ben Witherington III discovered hundreds of pages of biblical commentary by Lightfoot in the Durham Cathedral Library. While incomplete, these commentaries represent a goldmine for historians and biblical scholars, as well as for the many people who have found Lightfoot's work both informative and edifying, deeply learned and pastorally sensitive.

In addition to the material on the Acts of the Apostles, published in volume one, there were detailed notes on the Fourth Gospel, a text that Lightfoot loved and lectured on frequently. These pages contain his commentary notes for John 1-12. Lightfoot had long wanted to write a commentary on the Gospel of John, but he was unable to do so due to more pressing demands on his time, as well as his respect for his colleague B. F. Westcott. As a result, though he continued to compile notes on the text, they never saw the light of day until now. Included alongside the commentary are Lightfoot's long out-of-print essays on the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel.

Now on display for all to see, these commentary volumes reveal a scholar well ahead of his time, one of the great minds of his or any generation.

The Prologue and the Preparation; the Word and the Witness (John 1)

John 1:1-19 may be called the Preface about the Word, the link between God and Man, and covers the following matters: 1) the Word’s eternal relations, his divinity; 2) his work in Creation and the sustaining of the physical world; 3) his work in the heart and conscience of men; 4) his special revelation of himself to the chosen people; and 5) his Incarnation and humanity, the new dispensation. These truths are set forth through a contrast between the Word and the Witness.

As a general rule Lightfoot does not give headings and titles in his notebooks, so I have created some in these volumes to make finding the divisions in the manuscripts easier. (BW3)

Vs. 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ There is doubtless here a reference to Gen 1:1. In a sense the Gospel is to Genesis as the book of Revelation is to Malachi. It is the work of the Old Testament to provide the revelation of the absolute, sole supremacy of God, and of the New to provide the revelation of the connecting link between God and Man. The leading doctrine of the Old Testament is monotheism, of the New theanthropism. As the Old advanced in time, new words were prepared for the New, but monotheism necessarily preceded. This fundamental truth of the unity and independence of God must first be established before the supplemental truth of the communion of God and man could be promulgated. The Incarnation was the historical manifestation, the culminating act of the communion. The contrast between the Old and the New is again brought out as a contrast of Law (the absolute fact of a supreme ruler) and grace (the condescending love of fatherly goodness).

Ἐν ἀρχῇ So Col 1:15; Heb 1:10. Compare the language used of Wisdom in Prov 8:22 (however ἔκτισέν would not be applicable here). See Sirach 24:9 which is taken from Proverbs. See especially Rev 3:18. Ἐν ἀρχῇ in itself does not necessarily imply past eternity, but it does so in its present relation.

ὁ Λόγος the ‘Word’ however no adequate translation of Λόγος is possible. It implies both ‘reason’ and ‘language’ i.e. it represents both the counsels proceeding from God and the manifestation to man. The oldest Latin translation represented it by sermo (adv. Hermos 20), but Tertullian pleaded for ratio (adv. Prax. 5). Ultimately verbum was chosen and it appears in all the existing manuscripts.1 Yet sermo is a more adequate representation than verbum which is primarily a way to render ῥῆμα.

ὁ Λόγος is applied to our Lord elsewhere in Rev 19:13 and in the Epistle of St. John 1:1—περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The Christology of the Gospel and Revelation is the same. In Col 1:25 the expression τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs of the revelation, not of the person revealed. See Heb 4:12, 13. It is never used in the Bible as an equivalent for the Scriptures, the written word. The common restriction of the word is calculated to mislead. The ‘Word of God’ includes the γραφή and much more.

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν—not ἐν τῷ Θεῷ because of the distinction of person, not σύν τῷ Θεῷ lest it should seem to divide the Godhead. Comp. 1:18; 17:5 (and see the references to πρός in Lücke, p. 297). In Prov 8:30 it is παρ᾿ αὐτῷ in Sir 1:1 it is μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ but perhaps a different preposition is purposely chosen here.

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Θεὸς is undoubtedly the predicate here, because of the analogy of the order of the usage of the article, and the confusion of sense that would otherwise be introduced. See John 4:24; 1 John 4:8, 16. The gradations of possible meaning are: 1) the eternal pre-existence; 2) the divinity; 3) the deity of the Word. These nuances of the Greek cannot be reproduced in English. Here it is Θεός not ὁ Θεός. The latter would be the absolute God, the Father (see Origen on this). In terms of word order, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος makes the word Θεός emphatic. The restatement of the relationship of the Word to God is given in vs. 2, introducing the idea of the instrumentality of the Word in the work of creation.

Vs. 2 Going from πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in vs. 2 to δι’ αὐτοῦ in vs. 3 transitions us from his relationship to God to his relative relationship to the work of creation.

Vs. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ The English ‘by’ is ambiguous as a translation here. The same preposition as here (διά) is used 1) in the Old Testament and Apocrypha of Wisdom (Prov 8:22sq.; Wis Sol 9:1, 2); 2) in Philo of the Word (de cherub. 34, p. 162; Leg. All. iii.31, p. 106); 3) of the Lord in other parts of the New Testament (Heb 1:2; Col 1:16). Contrast this with ὑπό or ἀπό used of the Father.

χωρὶς αὐτοῦ A strengthening of the preceding proposition by the negating of its opposite.

ὃ γέγονεν Should this be attached to the foregoing sentence or the following sentence? In favor of the latter is all of antiquity. Perhaps this unanimity is due to the influence of the first commentator, Heracleon.

1. The Fathers—Directly: Western—Valentinius cited in Irenaeus; Eastern—Valentinius in Exe. Uxod.; in Clement and Origen; Ambrosiaster in Hipp. v.8 (p. 1075) and Hipp. v.16, where the added explanation is decisive. Indirectly: By ending the quotation with the words οὐδὲ ἕν—Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Ptolemais, Clement, Tertullian, etc. So large an array of witnesses for an interpretation or reading is rare.
2. The Versions—Old Latin, Egyptian, Curetonian Syriac. The Peshitto however is doubtful.
3. The Oldest Manuscripts—Either decisive as א, A, C, D or doubtful as B, Δ.

There seems to be no ante-Nicene or immediately post-Nicene witness for the comma punctuation. We only have the printed texts of one or two passages in Eusebius (see Tregelles) and Cyprian (adv. Jud. II.3, p. 251). There is nothing in the context which requires it. In Eusebius Praep. Ev. xi.17, p. 540d it is quite clear from the interpretation that the words should be connected with what follows. The other reference in Tregelles is wrong, it should be p. 321d, and there is nothing in the context there to decide the punctuation.

Vs. 4 On the other hand, in favor of the common punctuation, all things have not only been created in Him but also sustained in Him. He is not only the origin but the sustainer of life, not only the Creator but the Preserver. The sense is that that which has been made was life in Him. We do not want a past tense here, but some however read ἐστί. Of this, more hereafter. We have to take ζωή in the first place of the things endowed with life. This is no difficulty in itself. But in the following clause, ἡ ζωή is the principle of life. And the translation is in the highest degree awkward.

The real issue is the usage of St. John (see passage quoted in Alford). The manifest sense of the text must take precedent over early tradition, and therefore we should acquiesce with the now common punctuation which attaches ὃ γέγονεν with what goes before (cf. 11:25; 14:12; 1 John 5:11). To what is the change in punctuation to be attributed? The more modern (and I think more correct) punctuation seems to have been introduced to cut the ground from under the Manichaeans. They maintained that the Holy Spirit was created because St. John perhaps said πάντα etc. It is to be noted that St. Basil, in reply to this view is still unacquainted with the modern punctuation (see ad Eunom. p. 278a, 303d, 308a; the text does not seem to be quoted in the de Spiritus sancti). Gregory of Nyssa still quotes the text with the older punctuation (Cant. I, p. 495a). In another passage it may seem to suggest he adopted the new punctuation (Eunam.? II.T.II, p. 461) but this is not necessarily required by the language there, and is otherwise improbable. Chry­sostom on the other hand has adopted the correct modern punctuation.

ἦν v.l. ἐστί So the authorities in Tregelles (I.IV, p. 7) and add א.

A reading of the second century. If we take the punctuation ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ then ἐστί seems to be required. And perhaps it was adopted as a necessary consequence of the faulty punctuation (if indeed it was faulty).

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν Life was in Him, was sustained in and through Him. The manner of the ‘Logos’ and his action is described by διά, his sustaining of things by ἐν. Comp. Col 1:17, 18.

ζωή life, the life physical but as leading to and merged with the life moral and spiritual. The expression starts from the idea of the natural life, and loses itself in the idea of the spiritual life. See Ignatius, Rom. 7. βίος would be out of place here. The ‘Logos’ is the sustainer of life natural as well as life spiritual. The ζωή prepares the way for the φῶς. In the next clause it is no longer ζωή but rather ἡ ζωή.

Vs. 5 φαίνει ‘shines’ but we should have expected ‘shone,’ but the Apostle would speak of its eternal, absolute, unchangeable character, hence the present tense. This is substituted for by an aorist in the next clause (κατέλαβεν) where an historical fact is stated.

οὐ κατέλαβεν See Sir 15:1—ὁ ἐγκρατὴς τοῦ νόμου καταλήψεται αὐτήν (i.e. Wisdom). The sense of over-powered has been suggested and would have a parallel in [John] 12:35 μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ. In itself the meaning ‘over-powered’ makes excellent sense here, but it does not seem to be wanted here, see especially vss. 10, 11.

Vs. 6 The introduction of the Witness is a fit prelude to the Incarnation of the Word. Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης· The preposition παρά denotes the source of his commission. Note it is not ἀπό here.

Vss. 7-8 It was necessary to the theological purpose of St. John that he distinguish between the office of Jesus and of John. At the same time, he may have been determined by historical reasons to lay stress on the distinction. See vs. 8 and the emphatic language there, and vss. 15 and 20—καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο. See 1 John 5:6-8 and compare the whole narrative in John 1:19-23; 3:22-36; 4:1; 5:33-36; 10:40-42. On the disciples of John in Asia Minor see Acts 19:2-4. Here we may have an indication of where the Gospel was written.2 See also Orac. Sybll. iv.160; Clem. Hom. ii.23; Hegesippus in Eusebius Hist. Eccles. iv.22; Ephraem, Haer. 17. The importance of John as a teacher was recognized by Josephus, Ant. xviii.5.2.

Vs. 7 δι’ αὐτοῦ i.e. through John.

Vs. 8 comp. 5:35: ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ.

ἀλλ’ ἵνα see 9:3; 13:18; 15:25; 1 John 2:19 (a reference from Meyer). We must not therefore understand ἦλθεν (vs. 7) definitely.

Vs. 9 Two ways of taking the passage: 1) ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ‘was coming into the world’ i.e. was on the point of manifesting itself to the world; 2) πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον. The latter is to be preferred for reasons given hereafter, but observe: 1) ἦν must be ‘there was’ not ‘it’ or ‘he was’; 2) ἐρχόμενον is not ‘who comes’ but ‘when he comes.’

There existed already the true light.

ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον i.e. the capacity of truth and holiness, the light of conscience, which is innate in man. This interpretation is to be preferred to the other for three reasons: 1) There is a contradiction in terms between Ἦν . . . ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν (vs. 10) [if they refer to the same thing]. Is there anything in the form of the sentence to show that the latter is intended as a corrective of the former? 2) Ἦν . . . ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον are too far separated. Mark 2:18 is no parallel. In itself, indeed, John would hardly have said ‘the light was coming at the world,’ inasmuch as the whole theme of this prologue was to show that the light was there from the beginning.

τὸ ἀληθινόν ‘the true’ i.e. the essential, the original light, the source and fountain of light. It does not imply that all other lights are false, in the sense of being no light at all, but that they are only faint, imperfect, fragmentary, reflections or emanations of the true light. See 1 John 2:8; comp. John 6:32; 15:1. This word ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Quotations Regarding J. B. Lightfoot and His Work
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Foreword
• Editors’ Introduction
• External and Internal Evidences of the Authenticity and Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel
• The Commentary on John
• Excursus: The Logos Doctrine
• The Prologue and the Preparation; the Word and the Witness (John 1)
• The Beginning of the Signs of the Messianic Times (John 2)
• Nicodemus and the New Birth (John 3)
• The Samaritan Woman and the Courtier’s Child (John 4)
• A Sabbath Healing and the Aftermath (John 5)
• Bread on Earth, Bread from Heaven (John 6)
• Jesus the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7)
• Jesus the Light and Abraham the Forefather (John 8)
• Jesus and the Man Born Blind (John 9)
• The Good Shepherd and His Lost Sheep (John 10)
• The Raising of Lazarus and the Plotting of the Foes (John 11)
• An Annoying Anointing (John 12)
• Appendix A: External Evidence for the Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel
• Appendix B: More Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John’s Gospel
• Appendix C: Lightfoot and German Scholarship on John’s Gospel
• Author Index
• Scripture Index
• Notes
• Praise for The Gospel of St. John
• About the Author
• The Lightfoot Legacy Set
• More Titles from InterVarsity Press
• Copyright